News

“Whatever demands you have, we will fulfill and bring back peace to the nation,” says army chief. “The military will not fire at anyone, the police will not fire at anyone, I have given orders.”

The prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, resigned and fled the country Monday after weeks of deadly anti-government protests rocked the South Asian nation.

Army chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman announced Hasina’s resignation and said an interim government would be formed to run the country.

“Whatever demands you have, we will fulfill and bring back peace to the nation, please help us in this, stay away from violence,” said Zaman in a Monday address. “The military will not fire at anyone, the police will not fire at anyone, I have given orders.”

Hasina ended her 15-year reign immediately after being asked to resign by the army, according to reports.

The weeks of deadly demonstrations reached tipping point Sunday after a staggering 91 people were killed and hundreds injured in clashes stemming from what student protestors are calling discriminatory civil service job quotas from Hasina’s regime.

Viral footage has emerged from the region of rioters storming the PM’s palace and parliament:

India has reportedly offered safe passage for Hasina.

She just landed in India’s northeastern city of Agartala, according to broadcaster CNN-News18

This story is developing…

BOMBSHELL PROOF: Acting Secret Service Director Caught In Massive Perjury

---

Planned economic plunge could trigger mass unrest the elite need to complete Big Brother spy state

Stock markets across the globe opened the week suffering massive losses, with Japan and Taiwan being hit the hardest.

Japan’s Nikkei Stock Average closed Monday down 12.4%, which was the largest single-day percentage drop for the nation since the infamous 1987 “Black Monday” Wall Street crash.

*JAPAN’S NIKKEI CLOSES DOWN 12%, LARGEST POINT DROP IN HISTORY EXCEEDING BLACK MONDAY 1987

Holy. Shit. pic.twitter.com/mZl6bvKlUM

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) August 5, 2024

The Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWII) went down 8.4% on Monday, a record one-day plunge for the country’s market.

BREAKING: ??Taiwan’s stock market crashes to worst day in 57 years – Bloomberg pic.twitter.com/y6cmyzY7Su

• Power up with Nitric Boost that’s now 40% OFF! This potent formula gives you the massive edge in strength and superior circulation for that unparalleled performance you’ve been looking for!

— Radar? (@RadarHits) August 5, 2024

Both nations blamed poor outlooks for the U.S. economy and jobs data for the losses.

So far on Monday, the U.S. stock market has reportedly lost nearly 2 trillion dollars.

JUST IN: ?? Over $1.93 trillion wiped out from the US stock market so far today. pic.twitter.com/LVnknYv2eB

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) August 5, 2024

A Fox News reporter said Nasdaq had its record one-day fall at over 1,000 points.

?#BREAKING: Over $1.93 trillion has been wiped out from the US stock market so far today as the Nasdaq has dropped over 1,000 points. Officials say the Nasdaq has never been this low, not even intraday. pic.twitter.com/gCODgVGri9

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) August 5, 2024

With a recession possible, some experts are calling on the Federal Reserve to issue an emergency rate cut of 0.75%.

Besides the U.S. economy suffering under the corrupt and incompetent Biden regime, the threat of WWIII, civil unrest and fear of another four years under Democrat rule are also sending stock markets on a downward spiral.

Of course, Infowars and others have been warning for years about the planned economic collapse globalists at the World Economic Forum, World Bank, and other groups have been orchestrating for decades.

As part of the Great Reset agenda, WEF founder Klaus Schwab has written about a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

A global recession or depression would provide the opportunity for the globalist’s scheme to be introduced as a replacement system following a major economic disaster.

While stocks suffer globally, England appears ready to fall into civil war any day, Russia and Ukraine continue fighting, and the Israel-Iran conflict may drag the entire world into an all-out brawl.

Welcome to Klaus Schwab’s angrier world!

“We have to prepare for an angrier World”

~ Klaus Schwab

We are all being provoked into civil strife/war. Any misbehavior will be used against us – plastered all over legacy media.

Most people are clueless, most have never heard of WEF.

Remember: You’re audience is the… pic.twitter.com/Srm1RFnn4Y

— Anti WEF (@ANTlWEF) August 4, 2024

---

Quiet Skies and the TSA keeps America safe from former elected representatives and infant babies, because terrorism comes in all shapes and forms these days.

Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers have allegedly reported that former U.S. Representative and 2020 Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is on a terrorist watchlist and is thus under surveillance by the Quiet Skies program ran by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), UncoverDC revealed Sunday.

“…several Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers have come forward with information showing that former U.S. Representative and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is currently enrolled in the Quiet Skies program,” Wendi Strauch Mahoney wrote for UncoverDC.

The program, aimed at countering terrorism within the U.S., has also been targeted at the January 6 defendants. It operates by surveilling airline passengers deemed to be suspicious.

Allegedly in Gabbard’s case, this includes her unknowingly being monitored by two explosive detection canine teams, one transportation security specialist who’s an expert in explosives, a plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals on every flight she takes, just in case the former government official decides to commit a terrorist act while in the air.

Due to the alleged specific talent and skillset of those deployed against the 2020 Presidential hopeful, it appears as though the goal is to be able to neutralize Gabbard if she begins to engage in the suicide bombing of an aircraft, instead of having to solely rely on her fellow passengers and flight attendants to deal with the ‘threat’ the former Hawaiian Congresswoman supposedly poses.

The alleged and supposed ‘threat’ Gabbard may pose would sound completely preposterous to those who are following news of the wide open Southern border.

Whistleblowers attained this image of Gabbard from within the watchlist database.

https://uncoverdc.com/2024/08/04/fams-whistleblowers-report-tulsi-gabbard-on-quiet-skies-list?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

“The whistleblowers first shared the information with Sonya LaBosco, the Executive Director of the Air Marshal National Council (AMNC), a national advocacy group for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). According to LaBosco, at least one of the whistleblowers is ready to go on the record with pertinent documentation,” UncoverDC said.

Former government officials aren’t the only suspected terrorists Quiet Skies keeps America safe from.

Infants who allegedly pose a high risk of being terrorists are also flagged and surveilled in order to protect the nation from those who know nothing but how to suckle their mother’s milk, because terrorism comes in all shapes and forms these days.

“The enhanced screening is time-consuming and extensive because it involves swabbing every zipper, pocket, and hem of the targeted individual’s belongings. Targeted individuals are strip-searched and required to open and power up every device they possess. The process can take hours to complete,” UncoverDC said.

It should also be noted that the TSA can perform anal and vaginal cavity searches on anyone it chooses.

Infowars previously reported on the Orwellian airport of the future.

While biometric surveillance, cavity searches and police state goons may be billed as the guardian angles of American air travel post-9/11, some believe that the big brother intrusion against Gabbard may be politically motivated, due to her ‘dangerous’ opinions and ‘improper’ thoughts challenging the system.

“Air Marshals were first assigned to Gabbard on Jul. 23, a day after she criticized Kamala Harris, Biden, and the National Security State in an interview with Laura Ingraham. FAMs were mobilized on Jul. 24 and assigned to their first flight with her on Jul. 25. Gabbard posted the interview on Twitter, as shared below,” UncoverDC said.

Gabbard may have fallen out of favor with the ruling Democrat Party after her switch to being an Independent in 2022, something which may have resulted in a similar punishment as those thought to be considering bombing a commercial airliner.

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) receives a copy of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), the U.S. Government’s consolidated database maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), to facilitate DHS mission-related functions, such as counterterrorism, law enforcement, border security, and inspection activities,” a DHS document regarding the terrorist watchlist said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

Some believe Gabbard to not only be a potential terrorist, but a Russian asset too. This has sparked Gabbard initiating a defamation case against Hillary Clinton.

Regardless of if Gabbard is indeed suspected of planning a bombing of an airliner or just disagreeing with the ruling party in the U.S. may not make much of a difference in the treatment she now receives by being on the wrong end of the administrative deep state.

---

BREAKING: World Imploding Into Globalist Orchestrated Crisis, Buffet Dumps 55% Of Apple Stock As Israeli/Iranian War Goes Into Gear And Civil War Strikes England

---

Welcome to Klaus Schwab’s ‘angrier world’

“The American Journal” is live every weekday from 8-11 am CST.

Follow The American Journal on Telegram:

---

Plaintiffs in religious exemption lawsuits in Philadelphia and Connecticut this week received favorable rulings. Since May, at least 10 appellate courts have issued decisions in favor of employees who sued their employers over COVID-19 religious or moral exemptions or policies.

An appeals court on Monday ruled in favor of a former Philadelphia assistant district attorney who said she was wrongfully denied a religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently fired when she didn’t get vaccinated.

On Tuesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court sent a case challenging Connecticut’s school vaccine religious exemption policy back to the Superior Court.

In addition to these two decisions, since May at least 10 appellate courts have issued decisions in favor of employees who sued their employers over COVID-19 religious or moral exemptions actions or policies.

‘Religious rights to refuse unwanted vaccination must be respected’

In April 2022, Rachel Spivack sued the City of Philadelphia and her former boss, District Attorney Larry Krasner, alleging he violated her First Amendment rights and the Commonwealth’s Religious Freedom Protection Act when he denied her COVID-19 vaccine religious exemption while allowing other types of exemptions.

The lower court sided with Krasner’s office and dismissed the case. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit this week reversed the lower court’s decision and sent the case back to the lower court for trial.

“We are grateful that the Appeals Court recognized that these important issues deserve a jury’s consideration,” attorney Lea Patterson, who argued Spivack’s case before the court, said in a press release. “No American should lose her job for living according to her sincerely held religious beliefs.”

During the pandemic, as an independently elected official Krasner could implement a series of policies governing COVID-19 mitigation measures in his office that were more restrictive than those instituted by the city.

Krasner’s office issued a vaccine mandate for all eligible employees in August 2021, about a month before Spivack, a non-unionized employee, began working there.

Spivack sought a religious exemption based on her Orthodox Jewish beliefs, submitting a letter from her rabbi and providing a detailed explanation of her religious beliefs, as per office policy.

Krasner said his office changed its policy between August 2021 and January 2022, deciding to categorically deny all religious exemptions without individual assessment.

He argued the law allowed him to deny exemptions based on religious beliefs if they created an undue burden on the office. However, whether he conducted individual assessments is one of the facts disputed in the case.

Krasner’s policy did allow a medical exemption for one employee and exemptions for unionized employees whose terms of employment are governed by their union contracts with the city rather than with his office.

However, Spivack was informed in March 2022 that she was denied accommodation in a form letter indicating she did not present a credible claim that her opposition to the vaccine is based on religious beliefs.

Spivack attempted to work with the office to find ways to keep her job without getting vaccinated, offering to mask and test weekly, but the office refused and terminated her employment on April 8, 2022.

Spivack sued Krasner and the city later that month. The District Court that first heard the case granted Krasner’s motion for summary judgment — or a ruling in their favor without a trial — saying there was no evidence his decision was based on religious intolerance.

In its decision issued Monday, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with the lower court, saying there were disputed facts that a jury should resolve.

A reasonable jury could find that Krasner’s comments “evince hostility toward religion that undermines” the neutrality of his office’s policies, or it could also reach the opposite conclusion, the ruling said. Therefore “neither party is entitled to summary judgment on neutrality” and the case should be heard by a jury.

Attorney Ray Flores, who was not involved in the case, told The Defender the decision to send the case back to a jury trial was significant. “When future mandates are being contemplated, universities, the government, the private sector and the military are all on notice that religious rights to refuse unwanted vaccination must be respected.”

‘A victory for religious freedom in Connecticut’

The Connecticut Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a case challenging Connecticut’s school vaccine religious exemption policy back to the Superior Court for further review.

Connecticut law, which requires students to receive certain immunizations before attending school, allows some medical exemptions and, until 2021, also allowed religious exemptions.

However, in 2021 state officials repealed the longstanding religious exemptions from childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and daycare facilities.

At the time lawmakers passed the appeal, Connecticut’s statewide school vaccination rate was among the highest in the nation and well above the 95% rate recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lawmakers said they ended the exemption arguing the percentage of vaccinated kindergarten students was decreasing and the percentage of religious exemptions was growing.

The new rule allowed existing students who already had vaccine exemptions to keep them, but the repeal otherwise applied to all students in the state.

Two Connecticut parents, Keira Spillane and Anna Kehle, in 2021 sued the governor, the heads of the state’s Departments of Education and Public Health, and a local school and board of education, alleging the new policy violated their and their children’s rights to freely exercise religion, to equal protection of the laws and to free public education.

They asked the judge to find the law unconstitutional and to grant a permanent injunction against it.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing with the plaintiffs that their claims regarding their state and constitutionally protected rights were valid.

The defendants appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which reversed part of the lower court’s decision, dismissing five of six counts against the plaintiffs and allowing the school vaccination mandate to remain in place.

However, it sent the case back to the Superior Court to review the plaintiffs’ claims related to Connecticut’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

“It puts under the magnifying glass the need of strict scrutiny. It’s not over yet,” according to Brian Marks, professor of law and public health at the University of New Haven School of Health Sciences, News8 reported.

“Our case has always centered around Connecticut’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and our firm belief that the removal of the religious exemption is in clear violation thereof,” the plaintiffs’ attorney said.

“This decision is a victory for our plaintiffs and a victory for religious freedom in Connecticut and we look forward to pressing ahead with our injunction motion so that we can get these disenfranchised children back to school while we await our trial.”

Attorney General William Tong said in a statement:

“This merely dismisses most aspects of the challenge while allowing plaintiffs to continue to press one remaining part of their case in state court, where we will aggressively defend the state’s necessary and lawful actions to protect public health.”

‘Just huge’: 10 favorable decisions by 7 circuit courts of appeals in last 3 months

Since May, at least 10 appellate courts have issued decisions in favor of employees who sued their employers over COVID-19 religious or moral exemptions, actions or policies.

Attorney Warner Mendenhall, who wrote about the trend on his Substack, told The Defender, “I’ve been watching the law for a long time, and I’ve never seen something like this.”

“Ten decisions out of seven circuit courts of appeals in the last three months, that’s just huge,” he said.

The 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have all issued such decisions in the last few months.

The turning tide has major significance for possible future mandates, Mendenhall said.

“They have created a really good foundation for us to build on going forward.” He added that the cases were setting a precedent for exemptions based on reasons of conscience, not only for religious claims.

The series of successes are partially tied to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Groff v. DeJoy, Mendenhall said.

In that case, a Christian postal worker sued the United States Postal Service for compelling him to work on Sundays to deliver Amazon packages, despite his sincere religious belief that Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest.

The Supreme Court ruled that if employers seek to claim they cannot provide an accommodation because it would impose undue hardship on the business — as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — they must show that the burden “is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”

“Prior to Groff, the employers only had to show minimal hardship to deny an accommodation for a religious exemption request,” Mendenhall said. The decision shifted the burden onto the employer to show that accommodating someone’s religious or medical exemption requests would cause substantial hardship.

After that decision, he said, people started winning their cases and the value of their settlement claims went up. “It strengthened thousands of cases,” he said.

Each of the cases that appellate courts refused to dismiss and sent back to the lower courts to be heard “has something to say that’s important,” Mendenhall said.

For example, in Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, students who were denied religious exemptions sought an injunction against the university’s vaccine mandate while their case against the university proceeded in court.

A lower court denied their injunction but the 10th Circuit in May found they are likely to win their case and granted the injunction. In that case, Mendenhall said, they are arguing an employer cannot disqualify a claim by finding inconsistencies in a person’s belief.

“The only issue,” he said, “is whether they are sincere.”

In another example, a lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate will proceed after the 9th Circuit in June ruled the school district misapplied the precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling because unlike “traditional” vaccines, the COVID-19 shots don’t prevent infection and transmission.

And this week, in the case of Passarella v. Aspirus the 7th Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a case against an employer who denied an employee’s religious claims, arguing the claims were based more on safety concerns than on religious beliefs.

The appellate court ruled that religious claims can be linked to secular reasoning and kicked the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Mendenhall named several recently finalized exemption cases with the plaintiff victories.

For example, an Alabama court ordered Hank’s Furniture Inc. to pay $110,000 to settle a case where an employee’s request for a religious vaccine exemption was denied and the validity of her beliefs disputed. The company will also have to adopt a new policy that will interpret religious accommodations broadly.

In another example, The U.S. Navy settled a long-standing lawsuit over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, marking a partial victory for thousands of sailors, including Navy SEALs, who refused the vaccine on religious grounds.

Several other major cases continue to move through courts, including several military class action suits. Thousands of individual employment claims have been settled, Mendenhall wrote.

---

BREAKING: World Imploding Into Globalist Orchestrated Crisis, Buffet Dumps 55% Of Apple Stock As Israeli/Iranian War Goes Into Gear And Civil War Strikes England

---

Brazilian skateboarder uses sign language to bypass rules and quote bible.

Olympic athletes are facing a ban on Christian symbols at the Olympics despite the opening ceremony featuring an obvious parody of a Christian symbol, Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper. 

On Wednesday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) forced the Brazilian surfer João Chianca to remove an image of Christ the Redeemer from his surfboard. 

“The painting is not authorized in the Olympic Games because Christ is a religious figure,” the athlete posted on social media, though the post was removed shortly afterward. “The Games have strict rules and focus on total neutrality.” 

Article 50 of the Olympic Charter states that “no type of political, religious or racial demonstration or propaganda is permitted in any Olympic venue.”

Although the surfer did not keep the post up for long, it elicited indignant responses from his many followers in a short time. 

Another Brazilian athlete, Rayssa Leal, used sign language to quote a Bible verse and avoid being called out for breaking Article 50 when she won bronze in the ladies street skateboarding event last Sunday. She made history in the 2021 games in Tokyo when she became the youngest Olympic medalist at age 13. She took bronze in the same event at this year’s games.  

Shortly before her performance she turned to the television cameras and said, in sign language, a verse from the Gospel of Saint John: “Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.”

No one knew what to make of her hand movements at first, until someone published on social media a translation and the post went viral. 

“When I was very young, I dreamed of becoming an athlete skateboarder,” Leal told reporters on Sunday after taking bronze. “And here I am, with a second Olympic medal from the Games. Once again, thank God I won a medal. I am very happy to be here.” 

---

BREAKING: World Imploding Into Globalist Orchestrated Crisis, Buffet Dumps 55% Of Apple Stock As Israeli/Iranian War Goes Into Gear And Civil War Strikes England

---