Live Show: Commie Kamala To Include Food Price Controls In 2024 Platform
“The American Journal” is live every weekday from 8-11 am CST.
Follow The American Journal on Telegram:
EXCLUSIVE: Black Doctor on African Fact-Finding Mission Discovers Cashless Society in Full Rollout + Microchipping of Children
Dr. Stella Immanuel joined Alex Jones on Wednesday in-studio to reveal how to prepare for the next plandemic.
Don’t miss:
All Evidence Points to Massive Trump Landslide — Don’t Let the Globalist Media Gaslight you with Fake Polls
On the Wednesday show Alex Jones covered how Donald Trump is way far ahead of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.
Don’t miss:
EU Backtracks After Commissioner Threatened Musk Over Trump Interview
It took less than a day for the European Commission to completely backtrack on its attempt to intimidate X owner Elon Musk into censoring his interview with President Trump. Officials distanced themselves from the commissioner who sent the threatening letter and claimed that he acted alone, with no prior authorization from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
As we reported, Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton—the EU’s self-styled “digital enforcer” responsible for creating and overseeing the bloc’s infamous social media censorship tool, the Digital Services Act (DSA)—wrote a letter to Musk ahead of the billionaire’s two-hour-long live interview with the Republican presidential candidate, “reminding” him that failing to moderate any content on X that “may incite violence, hate, or racism … including in the context of elections” will face legal repercussions and the “full use of [the EU’s] toolbox.”
The threat turned out to be counterproductive as conservative politicians on both sides of the Atlantic rushed to call out Brussels’ attempt to violate the principles of freedom of expression as well as to interfere in the democratic electoral process of an outside country, the United States.
European Union is attempting to meddle in the US Election …they can go to hell https://t.co/d9ullhN0N2
— Chris LaCivita (@LaCivitaC) August 12, 2024
Facing the growing backlash, the Commission simply chose to throw Breton under the bus, completely washing its hands of what it described as the unfortunate action of an official gone rogue. “The timing and the wording of the letter were neither coordinated nor agreed with the president nor with the [other commissioners],” a Commission spokesman said on Tuesday, August 13th.
Several anonymous Eurocrats also came forward to snub Breton and further distance themselves from him. “Thierry has his own mind and way of working and thinking,” one of them told the FT; while another source seemed to regret the fact that Breton’s stunt may hinder future digital regulations. He told Politico that “DSA implementation is too important to be misused by an attention-seeking politician in search of his next big job.”
It may be true that the commissioner’s decision to send the letter was made without wider consent within the Commission, but the argument still seems like a weak excuse given that as Internal Market Chief, Breton is fully empowered to oversee enforcement of the DSA and can communicate with companies who fall subject to the new rules independently.
Furthermore, as much of a PR disaster as it turned out to be, Breton’s letter did not exist in a vacuum. Critics of the DSA have long warned that certain parts of the flagship legislation package can be easily misused to censor political opposition—primarily right-wing views—on social media, as it allows Brussels to unilaterally decide what it deems “harmful content” that must be purged from online discussions.
What’s more, the Commission spokesman also confirmed what Breton said in the letter, namely that the ongoing investigation against X into whether it violates the DSA by allowing too much free speech will take into account the restitution of Donald Trump’s account (suspended after the January 6th riots in DC), regardless of the fact that he’s running an election campaign.
Last month, Elon Musk also revealed that the European Commission offered him a “secret backroom deal” to increase censorship on X to avoid being slapped with massive fines under the DSA without having to compromise his image as a “free speech absolutist,” but the billionaire promptly refused. That discussion may have led Breton to write the first draft of the letter, which he admitted to keeping on the shelf for some time now while waiting for an appropriate time to publish.
In short, the DSA gives Brussels’ leftist bureaucrats every opportunity to abuse it by silencing political opposition, and Breton only did what was the logical next step of what has been in the works for years. His only mistake was to do it openly. Nonetheless, it would be naïve to think the Commission would not resort to the “full use of its toolbox” either way; it is just angry Breton drew attention to what has been going on from the beginning.
New EU Regulation on Healthcare Data Threatens Privacy and Security
In a bid to revolutionise healthcare accessibility and efficiency across European borders, a recent piece of legislation seeks to establish a centralised database for critical medical data. While the proposal is well-intentioned, there is cause for concern over its potential ramifications for data security and privacy. Despite these apprehensions, European policymakers have pushed forward with the legislation, seemingly overlooking the significant privacy risks it entails.
In the evolving landscape of European healthcare, the recent adoption of legislation on the European Health Data Space (EHDS) and regulations for substances of human origin (SoHO) by the European Parliament marks a significant step towards a more integrated approach to healthcare in the EU. On April 24th, with an overwhelming majority of 445 in favour, 142 against, and just 39 abstentions, the European Parliament endorsed the establishment of the EHDS, underscoring its potential to empower patients and healthcare professionals alike.
The EHDS aims to revolutionise healthcare delivery by centralising and standardising medical data across member states, thereby facilitating access to patient records and enabling seamless cross-border healthcare. This, coupled with the SoHO regulations aimed at ensuring the safety and quality of substances used in medical procedures, could, in theory, herald a new era of healthcare efficiency and safety within the European Union.
Undoubtedly, the intentions behind these regulations are noble, aiming to enhance healthcare outcomes, foster medical research, and guarantee the safety of medical procedures. However, it is crucial to critically examine the extent of data collection and the potential implications for data privacy and individual freedoms. The balance between the pursuit of public health benefits and the protection of citizens’ rights to privacy must be meticulously calibrated to prevent potential overreach by authorities and safeguard fundamental freedoms.
In the broader spectrum of European data governance, the EHDS intersects with regulations like the Data Governance Act (DGA), the Data Act (DA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While the DGA focuses on horizontal rules for data availability in the public sector without mandatory sharing, the EHDS mandates centralised medical data sharing across member states. The DA emphasises commercial data sharing and emergency data access, a gap filled by the EHDS’s legal basis provision for data disclosure. Similarly, the GDPR provides targeted data subject rights and safeguards for health data, aligning with the EHDS’s aim of enabling research through secondary data use.
The new regulation promises a future where patients have immediate and easy access to their digital health data across borders. It envisions a scenario where healthcare professionals can seamlessly access patient records from different EU countries, facilitating evidence-based decision-making and ensuring continuity of care.
However, amid the optimism, concerns loom large regarding data privacy and potential surveillance. As health data becomes increasingly digitised and centralised, questions arise regarding the security of sensitive medical information and the risk of unauthorised access or breaches. Recent high-profile cyberattacks on institutions like LastPass and the British Library underscore the pervasive threat posed by malicious actors seeking to exploit vulnerabilities in digital infrastructure. The EHDS, with its vast repository of sensitive health data from across the EU, presents an attractive target for hackers seeking to steal valuable information or disrupt healthcare services.
The possibility of large-scale data aggregation also raises legitimate concerns about government surveillance. Government agencies could find it easier to access comprehensive health profiles of individuals, potentially leading to privacy violations and infringements on civil liberties. The centralised nature of the EHDS also raises concerns about the potential for data misuse, whether for political, discriminatory, or commercial purposes. Without robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms in place, there is a real risk that the EHDS could erode individual privacy rights and undermine trust in healthcare systems.
The scope of government access to health data must be limited to protect patient privacy and basic civil liberties. Any such access must be strictly justified and subject to independent oversight. Clear guidelines should be established regarding the permissible purposes for which government agencies can access health data, with robust safeguards in place to prevent abuse or unauthorised use.
Mechanisms for transparency and public accountability should be strengthened, allowing citizens to scrutinise the actions of government entities and hold them accountable for any breaches of privacy or misuse of data. Furthermore, enhancing data security measures, such as encryption, access controls, and regular audits, is essential to mitigate the risk of data breaches and unauthorised access.
Ultimately, the success of the EHDS and SoHO regulations hinges on transparency, accountability, and a steadfast commitment to upholding individual rights. Achieving this delicate balance between facilitating data access for healthcare purposes and safeguarding personal privacy demands ongoing vigilance and rigorous oversight. On the crucial issue of patient privacy and civil liberties, we must not take our eye off the ball. To instil trust and confidence in the regulatory framework, it is imperative to establish transparent governance mechanisms and enforce strict accountability measures.
Citizens must be empowered with the knowledge and tools to understand how their medical data is being used, whether for direct patient care, research, or public health initiatives, and to exercise control over its dissemination. Likewise, healthcare providers and policymakers must remain vigilant about protecting patient privacy and upholding the highest ethical standards in medical practice.
POWERFUL VIDEO: Black Man Lays Out the Real History of the Republican & Democrat Parties
During the Wednesday show Alex Jones analyzed a video of a black man explaining the racist history of the Democrat party.