News

“We don’t do that here,” the plenary’s liberal chair reprimanded Jorge Buxadé.

The European Parliament has once again made it clear whether it stands on the side of globalist powers or the European people. 

MEP Jorge Buxadé Villalba, head of the Spanish VOX delegation and co-chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, was silenced during Wednesday’s plenary session in Strasbourg for criticizing, in a creative way, the EU’s green transition and the UN’s “Agenda 2030,” the global action plan involving 17 “sustainable development goals” to be implemented by the end of the decade.

The plenary debate in question was titled “The attack on climate and nature: far-right and conservative attempts to destroy the Green Deal and prevent investment in our future”—a “meme” in itself, as Buxadé remarked after taking the floor.

The MEP promised that VOX and the other conservative parties will work toward repealing the EU’s Green Deal as well as fighting against the “diabolical Agenda 2030,” which is nothing but “a plan of mass layoffs against workers, the middle classes, and European companies.” 

Then he produced two sheets of paper depicting the logos of the Green Deal and the Agenda 2030, before screwing up both documents. 

It was then when the chair of the session, the German MEP Jan-Cristoph Oetjen from the liberal Renew group arbitrarily decided to cut Buxadé’s microphone despite there being no apparent reason for it in the parliamentary protocol. 

“This is not the way we proceed here,” Oetjen said, asking Buxadé to leave the stand.

Nonetheless, the conservative MEP could still be heard as he finished the speech: “… we’ll make precious recycled paper from the Green Pact and the Agenda 2030.”

---

BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

---

Liberal admits that illegal alien hoards are the new Democrat voter block.

During his Sunday show, Alex Jones covered a video of a global-government liberal who admitted the illegal aliens are pouring in and will be used as a political tactic for electing Democrats.

“The illegals, uhh yeah they’re coming here, they’re going to vote Democrat and we’re going to win,” the leftist said.

The illegal-alien promoter said ‘who cares’ that the border is wide open.

“I believe that…nah uh no, no borders, one world government,” he said.

Don’t miss:

BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

---

“They are no longer conservatives, dear friends. They are leftists who call themselves conservatives. They are the ones sacrificing our traditional values for the health of international cooperation and globalism. Shame on them.”

Austrian MEP Harald Vilimsky, while speaking at CPAC Hungary, said that conservatives were fighting to ensure their homelands remain European and do not become “a second Arabia or Africa.”

“I have the honor to speak before an audience of political friends from all over Europe and the United States. And our common goal is to protect our countries, to protect the Western world from illegal migration and organized abuse of asylum so that Europe does not become a second Arabia or Africa,” said Vilimsky. “We do not want the name Mohammed to become the most popular name for male newborns in our great countries, as is the case in Brussels, where the EU parliament is located.”

During his speech, he praised Hungary and Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán, which he said was working to fight against mass immigration.

“In Hungary, this problem does not exist, because Hungary has a prime minister who truly cares about the Hungarian people,” said MEP Vilimsky, who belongs to the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), known for its anti-immigration stance and which currently sits at the top of the polls in the run-up to national elections. 

Vilimsky used his speech to mock the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), which is ruling the country in a coalition with the Green party, as well as RINOs in the United States.

“Many parts of the political world have gone nuts. In my homeland, for example, where conservatives rule, you can choose — and Austria is run by a conservative chancellor (Karl Nehammer) — you can choose from six genders in Austria. Not only male and female, but also ‘diverse,’ inter, open and not specified. This is Austria, ruled by a so-called ‘conservative’ chancellor. They are no longer conservatives, dear friends. 

And our friends in the United States have a good and clear term for them, RINOs, Republicans in name only. These new leftists call themselves conservatives, but they are not. They are the destroyers of our cultural heritage. They are the ones sacrificing our traditional values for the health of international cooperation and globalism, shame on them.”

FPÖ has relentlessly attacked the ruling OVP in the past over the party’s inability to control the border crisis, with the FPÖ promoting “Fortress Europe” as a solution to the ongoing immigration crisis.

Vilimsky said that the one thing that should be uniting all patriotic and conservative parties in Europe is to save the homelands, cities, and peoples that call Europe home.

“What defines us patriotic and conservative parties in Europe, as far as I understand it, is to maintain and preserve the diversity of our continent. Budapest, Vienna, Paris, Prague, Athens, Madrid, Lisbon, and all the other wonderful citizen-created cultures of our continent. These must be preserved and maintained,” said the Austrian politician.

He then provided figures detailing the massive immigration crisis facing Europe, noting that the EU has processed over 7.8 million asylum applications since 2014. Only a quarter of these applications met the criteria of the Geneva Convention, while others were allowed for humanitarian reasons. 

“But the majority of the applications are instantly rejected. With these millions of people from Africa and Arabia, terrorism also came to Europe. Let us remember what happened in France, the attack on Charlie Hebdo, the assault at the Bataclan theater, the many beheadings and life attacks we had in France. We saw at the Brussels Airport where over 30 victims lost their lives. We had the rifle attack in Strasbourg at the Christmas market. We had a lot of problems also in my home country, Austria, and especially in Vienna.

And our freedom is taken under the pretext of combating terrorism. And how evil is that? First you let terrorists into Europe, and then you take away the freedoms of citizens and create mass surveillance just to protect yourself from terrorists? No, our goals are clear. We want Hungary to remain Hungary, Austria to remain Austria, Italy to remain Italy, Spain to remain Spain — every country in Europe to retain its wonderful character. Our fight is against illegal migration and misuse of asylum rights. And our commitment is to Europe’s Christian Western heritage.”

During his speech, he also described the assembled conservative and right-wing parties at CPAC as “an alliance of peace.”

“We do not want the war between the Russians and Ukraine to continue. We want an end to the dying. We actively advocate for a ceasefire and peace talks. We want cooperation in Europe that focuses on the original goals of peace, freedom and prosperity,” said Vilimsky.

---

BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

---

The ban comes in the name of crime prevention, but critics say it will harm ordinary citizens.

The European Parliament has approved a directive that will severely limit the use of cash. 

Under the directive, ostensibly aimed at curbing money laundering and the funding of terrorism, anonymous cash payments over €3,000 will be banned in commercial transactions. In business transactions, cash payments over €10,000 will be completely banned. Anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies will also be completely banned. 

“Under the guise of combating money laundering, you are actually waging a war against cash which has protected our financial privacy since time immemorial,” said German Pirate Party MEP Partick Breyer—one of the few opponents of the measure—during the plenary session. 

“You want to force our finances into traceable and increasingly shaky banking systems that can block our cards and accounts at any time and introduce negative interest rates. We will live to regret it. I tell you: Anyone who tampers with cash is tampering with our financial freedom. And to us Pirates there is no doubt that the finances of honest citizens is none of your business! Hands off our cash, our digital currencies! We say no to this to this creeping financial disenfranchisement.” 

The regulation has been debated since 2016, going through the usual long process of EU lawmaking. Parliament gave its final approval on April 25. It still needs to be approved by the European Council before becoming law. 

According to its opponents, the rule is highly unpopular and will be ineffective in achieving its goal of preventing crime.

Breyer points out that cryptocurrency is already traceable when necessary as it operates through a blockchain peer-to-peer computer network. He adds that law enforcement has already effectively traced and caught criminals committing financial crimes or laundering money from illegal activities through cryptocurrencies. He also notes that during the public consultation period on the directive, it proved highly unpopular among citizens in EU member states, with 90% of respondents weighing in against the measure, citing the use of cash as an essential personal freedom.

Experts have also warned that it will do little to prevent crime while harming ordinary citizens, particularly the most vulnerable.

“On the other hand, [cash payment limitations] may bring about higher transaction costs, undermined privacy, weakened trust to institutions, basic rights violations, bank-runs and bail-in regulations that place citizens’ savings at risk of devastating losses,” Nikos Passas, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, stated in a blog post. 

“Expatriates’ options for developmentally vital remittances would be constrained, and fund flows to needy and fragile communities potentially disrupted or diverted to less monitorable channels. 

“In addition, there may be monetary policy dysfunctions, losses for savers (negative interest rates), and harm to legitimate cash industry interests. Moreover, these challenges will affect the most vulnerable parts of the population (elderly, migrants, unbanked, remittance recipients etc.).“

---

BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

---

Stern joked with Weinstein that he could get actresses to perform sexual favours in exchange for movie roles

In audio that resurfaced on Twitter last week, radio shock-jock Howard Stern asks Harvey Weinstein whether he had ever used his power to act like a “mogul” and procure sexual favours from actresses in exchange for movie roles.

“I’ve got to figure at every starlet in Hollywood wanted to blow you,” Stern says to disgraced movieman Weinstein.

“Did you ever get to experience the, I’m going to say, mogul aspect? I mean, do a little coke—you know, hang out with, I don’t know, Julia Roberts, give you a hand job, something? You never got any of that?”

“Howard,” Weinstein responds, laughing. “As you know only too well, it doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t… I’ll tell you who it works that way for. It works that way for the actors.”

But Stern is having none of it.

“C’mon, every girls knows that if she’s a competent actress, she could get on your good side. You could make her a star over-f***ing-night. Don’t tell me it doesn’t work.”

“Howard, I wish… The movies are too expensive, the risks are too great. It doesn’t happen that way.”

“You can’t walk into the room, pull your pants off and say, ‘Okay, honey, let’s talk business?’”

In an appearance on Stern’s show last week, President Biden agreed to debate Trump.

“I am somewhere,” Biden responded when Stern asked if he will debate Trump. “I don’t know when. I’m happy to debate him.”

“Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on Friday.

Trump then quipped that Biden should debate him at his rally in Michigan next week or even in New York City, where they both are Friday.

Stern has previously said, on his show, that he doesn’t hate Donald Trump, but he “hates you for voting for him.”

“I don’t want you here. I want to build a wall and throw you the f**k out.”

He went on to suggest holding a large rally for Trump supporters so they can all get COVID-19 and “drop dead.”

---

EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War

---

Restoring net neutrality rules under Title II reshapes the broadband industry, placing FCC oversight at the center of internet regulation.

Presented as a way to secure the rights and welfare of internet consumers over the interests of broadband companies, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has taken a decisive step. Once more, the reins of the broadband industry’s activities are in the hands of the FCC, a power takeover sanctioned by a recent 3-2 voting decision in favor of restoring net neutrality rules.

This safeguard, which had been shelved during the Trump administration’s deregulatory romp, is back to ensure “fast, open, and fair” broadband access for all, according to FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel.

This reinstatement does not merely resurrect old rules; it changes the broadband services landscape. Broadband is now being recategorized as “common carriers” as per Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Sharing the same scrutiny level as telephone networks and cable TV, broadband service providers are now prevented from arbitrarily blocking legal content or promoting their chosen online services through fast delivery speeds.

However, the struggle for net neutrality, Lauren Rosenworcel suggests, is not purely about thwarting predatory practices from infamous broadband providers. Rather, it gives FCC investigators the power to peel back the industry’s façade and examine how companies react, or don’t, to widespread network ailments such as outages.

Interestingly, the notion of “net neutrality” was originally conceived not as a set of stringent rules, but as a foundational principle used by regulators to strike a balance between internet service providers’ monetary goals and consumer rights and welfare. It primarily highlights the importance that all internet content, regardless of origin, must receive equal treatment.

The fluctuating battle between net neutrality and deregulatory actions has seen periods of rapid switches in power. It was under the Obama administration, following an influential lawsuit from Verizon in 2011, that the broadband industry was reclassified as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This set the stage for the 2015 Open Internet Order, a comprehensive set of new rules shaped by the net neutrality principle.

“Title I” and” Title II” refer to classifications within the United States Communications Act that affect how the FCC regulates telecommunications and information services.

Title I: This classification is for “information services,” which are subject to relatively light regulation. The FCC has limited authority over these services, focusing primarily on promoting competition and innovation. Under Title I, companies have greater flexibility to develop and provide new services without extensive government oversight.

Title II: This classification is for “telecommunications services,” subject to stricter regulations akin to those for public utilities. Title II allows the FCC to impose more comprehensive rules regarding rates, practices, and service terms to ensure fair treatment and access. The aim is to maintain a level playing field and protect consumer interests, but it can also mean more government control and oversight.

The win of the Obama administration, however, was short-lived. The then FCC chair and former Verizon lawyer, Ajit Pai, under the backing of the Trump administration, deemed them unnecessary. Pai made no bones about his views on the renewed efforts from the FCC, calling them a “complete waste of time.”

But it’s not just the accusation of being a waste of time that is a criticism against the legislation.

Criticisms of Net Neutrality:

Political Pressure: The decision to classify broadband internet as a Title II service in 2015 came under significant political pressure, especially from the White House during the Obama administration. This move was seen as an unprecedented power grab that ignored the longstanding bipartisan consensus against heavy regulation of the internet. Net neutrality rules often involve regulatory frameworks that give government agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to oversee and enforce compliance. Critics claim this level of control represents a government intrusion into private business operations, potentially leading to over-regulation.

Potential for Future Regulations: Once government agencies gain regulatory control over a sector, there’s a concern that it might lead to additional, more intrusive regulations. This could eventually extend into areas such as content management, pricing, and business models, which could stifle industry innovation and competition.

Centralized Decision-Making: The power to define and enforce net neutrality is concentrated in regulatory bodies, leading some to view it as centralizing control over the internet in the hands of a few regulators. This centralization is perceived as contrary to the decentralized nature of the internet.

Lack of Congressional Authority: The argument is that Congress never explicitly granted the FCC authority to classify broadband as a Title II service. The shift from a Title I information service to a Title II telecommunications service was influenced by external pressure rather than legislative approval.

Chevron Doctrine and Administrative Overreach: The Chevron doctrine, which allows administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes, has been cited as a reason for the FCC’s overreach. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is highlighted as a significant check on this overreach, requiring agencies to have explicit congressional authorization for significant regulatory changes.

Economic and Investment Impact: The classification of broadband as a Title II service could have a chilling effect on investment and innovation in broadband infrastructure. The uncertainty surrounding new regulations, potential taxes, and other regulatory aspects could deter investment in broadband networks.

Impact on Market Competition: The statement suggests that the reclassification could ultimately strengthen the market power of big tech companies at the expense of smaller ISPs. This could reduce competition and innovation in the market.

---

BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

---