WATCH: Mexican Border Guards Struggle with Dozens of Migrants aboard Train at US Border
Mexican guards struggled to displace dozens of migrants from a freight train popularly known as “the Beast” as it reached the Mexican border near Eagle Pass.
The footage, posted on Twitter, shows Mexican border guards trying to get migrants to leave a freight train as it nears the US-Mexico border.
At one point a female officer draws a cane and begins beating the migrants.
Agentes del Instituto Mexicano de inmigración tratan de bajar a decenas de migrantes a la fuerza, del tren que llaman “La Bestia”. En el video se aprecian a una uniformada dándole bastonazos a un migrante. El Tren está parado cerca de Piedras Negras frontera con Eagle Pass, TX. pic.twitter.com/UGs7Cpjt5N
— Pedro Ultreras (@pedroultreras) May 3, 2024
“The Beast” or “El Bestia” begins its route in Chiapas in southern Mexico, near the Guatemalan border, and travels north to the outskirts of Mexico City. From there it connects with a network of other trains that then head to the US border.
Every year it’s estimated that between 400,000 and 500,000 migrants ride freight trains to the US border with Mexico. Passengers have been banned on the trains since 2014. The Beast has earned the grim nickname “the Train of Death” because of the number of migrants who are injured or killed riding it.
Support groups such as Las Patronas and Grupos Beta follow alongside the train tracks and distribute aid to migrants riding the Beast and other trains.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Throwing Kids’ Health Under The Bus? FCC Wants to Put Wi-Fi on School Buses
Parents, politicians and safe technology advocates are pushing back against a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiative to put Wi-Fi on school buses.
Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International in an April 29 Substack post accused the federal regulatory agency for telecommunications of being “the bully boarding the bus.”
Burke cited evidence of eye damage from excessive screen time and the risk of exposing kids to increased cyberbullying and addictive social media apps via unsupervised internet access while riding to and from school.
“It is time to stop throwing children’s health, including eyesight and mental well-being, under the bus,” Burke said.
Last October the FCC announced it would allow money from its E-Rate program to fund the installation of Wi-Fi on school buses starting in fiscal year 2024.
The E-Rate program is funded through taxes on consumers’ phone bills, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The program is designed to make “telecommunications and information services more affordable for schools and libraries.” But the FCC argued that expanding it to include internet services on school buses was warranted to “ensure that the millions of students caught in the Homework Gapcan more fully engage in their learning.”
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the program’s expansion would especially help kids who live in rural areas, where broadband connections are sparse, and who ride long distances on the bus.
Soon after the FCC’s announcement, parents Maurine and Matthew Molak challenged the FCC’s initiative in court.
The Molaks, whose 16-year-old son died as a result of cyberbullying, are co-founders of David’s Legacy Foundation, a nonprofit working to stop cyberbullying of children and teens “through education, legislation and legal action.”
On Dec. 20, 2023, they filed a petition for review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, arguing the FCC’s ruling to allow E-Rate funding for school bus Wi-Fi “exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority” and is undermining their nonprofit’s mission to eradicate cyberbullying by “enabling unsupervised social-media access by children and teenagers.”
“When it came to my attention,” Maurine Molak told The Defender, “that our own federal government had decided to fund kids’ unsupervised access to the internet on school buses, I felt I needed to take action.”
She said the FCC’s decision would exacerbate cyberbullying and kids’ exposure to harmful and addictive social media.
“I ask myself, why is the FCC creating new opportunities for online bullying, for girls to develop eating disorders, and for increased emotional distress? That’s why I’m fighting to get it [the FCC’s ruling] overturned,” she added.
Senators support lawsuit against FCC
The FCC on Feb. 6 moved to dismiss the Molaks’ lawsuit.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other senators on April 9 filed an amicus brief in support of the Molaks’ case.
An amicus brief is filed by non-parties to litigation to provide information that has a bearing on the issues and assist the court in reaching the correct decision.
“Addictive and distracting social media apps are wreaking havoc on our kids,” Cruz said in an April 11statement. “The FCC’s decision to fund children’s unsupervised access to social media on bus rides to and from school is both dangerous and unlawful.”
Joining Cruz in filing the amicus brief were Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.).
The senators claimed the FCC’s move to expand E-Rate funding to cover Wi-Fi on school buses is illegal because federal law confines the use of such funding to “classrooms and libraries.”
According to a press release, by expanding E-Rate subsidies to school buses, “the agency is attempting to extend a separate, temporary COVID-era program — the Emergency Connectivity Fund … which the FCC cannot do without specific congressional direction.”
The Emergency Connectivity Fund previously helped schools obtain wireless internet infrastructure to support remote during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ostensibly, schools were able to use the funds to get Wi-Fi on school buses.
The amicus brief stated:
“Whether the FCC should fund Internet access beyond the school classroom or library — such as making Wi-Fi available to unsupervised children on school buses — and with what safeguards is a fiercely debated legislative question.
“While Congress decided to expand such access with appropriated funds during the COVID-19 pandemic, that program sunsets on June 30, 2024. Once limitations are set by Congress, they must be followed — not thwarted — by the federal regulators charged with their enforcement.”
Additionally, Cruz, Budd and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) in October 2023 introduced legislation that would limit school children’s use of social media apps by prohibiting schools or school districts from receiving E-Rate or Emergency Connectivity Fund subsidies unless they prohibit access to social media on subsidized networks and devices.
The proposed legislation, called the “Eyes on the Board Act of 2023,” would “promote parental limitsand transparency on screen time” by requiring schools receiving E-Rate subsidies to adopt a screen time policy as a condition of receiving federal funding.
The bill also would require the FCC to create a database of schools’ internet safety policies.
School bus Wi-Fi poses health risks to kids
Meanwhile, other critics of putting Wi-Fi on school buses said it could jeopardize kids’ health in ways beyond social media addiction and cyberbullying.
Burke pointed out that neuropsychiatrist Dr. Ooha Susmita told Business Insider that reading in a moving vehicle can cause motion sickness because it creates a “sensory mismatch.”
The passenger’s inner ear perceives the motion of the moving car, while their eyes are tracking the stationary book or screen.
“This sensory conflict, leading to a disruption in the body’s normal sense of balance,” Susmita said, “can result in symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, sweating, and sometimes, vomiting.”
Excessive use of a smartphone may be linked to myopia — or nearsightedness — according to a 2021 peer-reviewed systematic review published in The Lancet Digital Health.
As The Defender reported, the authors of a February 2023 review of the latest science on pediatric health and electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation concluded that children are “uniquely vulnerable” to the EMR/RF radiation emitted by wireless devices, such as tablets and smartphones.
The authors, including lead author Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., were “distinguished experts in medicine, epidemiology, toxicology, physics, biochemical engineering and public health who collectively have published more than 1,000 papers.”
In their review, Davis and her co-authors referenced more than 200 studies that associate wireless EMF/RF radiation with negative biological effects including oxidative stress and DNA damage,cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, memory damage and neurological effects.
Children’s unique physiology, including smaller heads and more fluid in their brains, results in proportionately greater absorption of RF radiation than adults, they said.
For instance, children can absorb up to 30 times more the amount of RF radiation in their hippocampus and 10 times more in the bone marrow of their skull.
Davis said, “The science indicates that wireless radiation acts like a classic endocrine disruptor” and can impair memory, behavior, fertility and brain development, as well as lead to cancer and neurological illness.
The FCC did not immediately respond to The Defender’s request for comment about its E-Rate program funding.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Australia’s Digital ID Push is Undermined by Data Leak Disaster
The Australian government’s decision to institute a pilot program testing an online age verification system digital ID system was overshadowed by a privacy scandal concerning a legal requirement for bars and clubs in the region.
The wrinkle juxtaposed these two narratives in a glaring light and shows how the push for digital ID raises privacy concerns that transcend the initial point-of-sale or point-of-access and becomes an ongoing data-invasive system that makes surveillance much easier.
In New South Wales (NSW), clubs must legally collate personal information from patrons upon entry under the state’s registered clubs legislation, a mandate echoing the proposed age verification and digital ID requirement for websites. The data gathered, meant to be safeguarded under federal privacy laws, has become the heart of recent concerns on privacy and data risks surrounding age verification as it has ended up getting leaked.
However, following hard on the heels of the government’s announcement of an online age verification system, the privacy of club-goers and bar attendees was threatened in a substantial data privacy issue.
There are now suspicions of a considerable data violation, involving personal data collected under law by these venues. An unauthorized platform has purportedly made accessible the personal data of over a million customers from at least 16 licensed NSW clubs, forcing cybercrime detectives into action.
The alleged data spill includes records and personal data of high-level government officials. Outabox, an IT service provider, stated it had been notified about the potential data breach involving a sign-in system used by its clients by an “unrestricted” third party.
Government representatives, in the face of this serious data breach, attempted to understate the magnitude of the incident. The Gaming Minister David Harris, in response to the crisis, clarified the incident wasn’t a hack as it stemmed from a data breach of a third-party vendor.
“We know that this is an alleged data breach of a third-party vendor, so it wasn’t a hack,” he said.
“There was a high-level meeting yesterday and the authorities, cybersecurity and police organizations are currently investigating that and when we get authorization we can give more information.”
But such an incident underscores precisely the apprehensions articulated about online age verification and digital ID mandates. It’s also underscored by the fact that the government wants to backdoor encrypted messaging, ending privacy for all. But as with all of this data surveillance, you can’t control who ultimately gets their hands on that data.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Pro-Life Hospice Group Launches ‘Do Not Euthanize’ Registry to Protect Canadians Patients
(LifeSiteNews) –– One of Canada’s only fully pro-life hospices, the Delta Hospice Society (DHS), has launched a new Do Not Euthanize (DNE) National Registry that it says will help “defend” vulnerable citizens’ lives from “premature death by euthanasia.”
Angelina Ireland, executive director of the DHS, told LifeSiteNews that the new DNE National Registry is live as of May 1, 2024, with the goal being to have everyone who has already signed, or will sign, a DNE, added to the registry.
“Over the last couple of years, we have given out thousands of our Do Not Euthanize Advance Directives across Canada. We are making the wishes of our people known and putting them into legally binding, provincially specific advance directives,” Ireland said to LifeSiteNews.
“Our DNEs put into writing that our people have no interest in being executed by the state via ‘MAiD,’ we want healthcare – we will not be euthanized!”
Ireland told LifeSiteNews that starting May 1, 2024, the option to join the National Registry and obtain a wallet-sized card will be available to order on the DHS’s website, www.deltahospicesociety.org.
“People just need to advise us that they have a signed DNE, and we will send them a customized, wallet-size card with their name and their National Registry number. If they don’t have a DNE yet, they can order both at once,” said Ireland.
“During a medical emergency, if people are not able to communicate their wishes, their DNE card will speak for their lives.”
Ireland said healthcare professionals can call the DHS at their main number, which is listed on the card, “and we will tell them, Do not Euthanize, our people require healthcare!”
“We will keep this precious, unique DNE Registry of people who stand to defend their lives from premature death by euthanasia, safely within our secure national database,” said Ireland.
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), as it has been coined by the Liberal federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, became legal in 2016. In February, after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups, as well as most of Canada’s provinces, the federal government under Trudeau delayed its planned expansion of MAiD to those suffering solely from mental illness to 2027.
The number of Canadians killed by lethal injection since 2016 stands at close to around 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone, and many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher.
Indeed, a recent Statistics Canada update admitted to excluding euthanasia from its death totals despite it being the sixth-highest cause of mortality in the nation.
To combat both the rise in MAiD as well as the state seeming to push it on the vulnerable, Ireland noted how its new National Registry offers “another layer of protection for the vulnerable provided by the Delta Hospice Society to safeguard against this national disgrace called ‘MAiD,” which she said is “a predatory regime against the Canadian people.”
The DHS’s DNE was officially launched in the summer of 2022. Ireland said at the time that it was a “proactive response to those who think that our people have no right to medical treatment or to life itself.” The DHS also has a Do Not Euthanize’ Advance Directive (DNE) program, which is a legal document protecting people against attempts to have their lives “terminated unnaturally” through lethal injection.
To combat the vulnerable falling victim to MAiD against their will, the DHS last year launched a national “Guardian Angels” initiative. This program aims to help ill and vulnerable Canadians stuck in the healthcare system have a personal advocate on their side to champion the “sanctity of life” over euthanasia.
Send an urgent message to Canadian legislators urging them to stop expanding assisted suicide
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Transmania: How ‘Woman’ Became a Transgressive Word
The publication of this pink-and-blue book was like a bombshell in France: two women, Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern, who come from militant leftist feminism, chose to cross the Rubicon and tackle the evils of transgender ideology in all its forms. It was a daring and more than courageous gamble. Courageous, because today, the ideology of transgenderism—for it is indeed one, as the authors set out to demonstrate with conviction—exerts a terror on the mind worthy of Stalinism in its heyday, minus the physical killings. But in the age of social networking and e-reputation, there are symbolic killings that can be extremely violent.
This essay is the fruit of a long road to Damascus for two women who were never predestined to cross over to the ‘dark side’ of the force. Marguerite Stern is a former FEMEN activist, and not so long ago, she was showing off her bare breasts in Notre Dame de Paris. Dora Moutot is the former deputy editor-in-chief of Konbini, a trendy online medium concentrating on what a politically correct way of life should be.
Both convinced and committed feminists, they took the road of conversion when they realised that, in the name of transsexual rights, they were no longer allowed to defend this sympathetic and disappearing population: women. Singled out and stigmatised as TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), like J.K. Rowling and so many others, because they refused to accept that a man force-fed hormones and surgery could become a woman, they set out to trace the thread of this Soviet-style madness that would have us see black where we see white (or vice versa).
The result of this fascinating investigation is almost 400 pages long.
The book is not a pamphlet or an easy, vindictive rant, but an in-depth study—with all due respect to those who attack it, and who generally haven’t bothered to open it. As an academic, I was even pleased to find a respectable number of footnotes, without which no book could claim to be ‘serious.’
As a red thread running through their demonstration, Moutot and Stern invite us to follow, with a certain amount of humour, the tragicomic journey of Robert, who chose one day to become Catherine—a fictional figure who gives a concrete face to the delusions of transgenderism. This humorous counterpoint is useful for adding a little levity to a gripping read about a terrifying reality.
Methodically, they go into successive depths on the mechanisms of transgender ideology.
The first part looks at the process of transition or ‘sexual reassignment’ and its logic. With rare patience and pedagogy, Stern and Moutot explain what can lead a married man with a family to believe that he is a woman: the byways he takes, through addictions and personal cracks; the time spent on social media and the messages of enrolment they deliver; the underlying psychiatric problems—for there are many of them.
We can sometimes get lost in the subtleties of the matter: is a transfeminine man, i.e., a man who has become a woman, who loves men but is trying to become a woman, still a homosexual? But can a transfeminine man, i.e., a man who has become a woman, who loves women but is trying to become a woman, be considered a lesbian? I’m sure you had never suspected the existence of such dilemmas.
Confucius maintained that “we must correct our denominations.” “The perversion of the city begins with the fraud of words,” added Plato. We will be grateful to Stern and Moutot for their constant efforts to combat the fraud of language. It is this passion for reality, against all odds, that has led to them being targeted by trans activists—who, in the pursuit of their vindictiveness, are definitely proving the truth of what the authors say: the existence of a new thought police force tracking down gender crimes. No, a man who tries to become a woman never becomes a woman. Stern and Moutot defend the expressions ‘transfeminine man’ or ‘transmasculine woman’, which have the merit of knowing who or what they are talking about.
The accusation of ‘transphobia’ is thrown in their faces all day long. They are greeted with leaflets and tags hammering out ready-made slogans like ‘transphobia kills’. But the touching pages in which the authors recount their encounters with trans people who have been wounded by life are full of a deep compassion that prevents them from being seen as hateful people.
The reader learns a great many fascinating things in this dense essay, which challenges the preconceived ideas that are peddled by conventional wisdom. We discover, for example, that far more women make the transition than the other way around. They reject and despise their female bodies, proof of the terrible malaise of our supposedly liberated society with regard to true femininity. We learn that puberty blockers don’t block anything at all, but rather destroy an in-growth body, because biologically, hormones control much more than just the sexual organs in the human body.
After reading these dense, hard-hitting chapters, you’ll want to compile a little vademecum of irrefutable arguments to be brandished at dinner parties—and there are plenty of them.
Taking hormones will never turn a male-born athlete into a woman: independently of our hormones, more than 3,000 genes contribute to the difference in musculature between the sexes.
‘Gender dysphoria’ is not just a matter of hormone treatment. 75% of children who undergo a sexual transition suffer serious psychological problems.
In France, the cost of a transition for a man trying to become a woman is almost €120,000, entirely covered by the public purse under the heading of ‘long-term illnesses’. But describing transgenderism as an illness can lead you to the court. And so on.
The second part sets out to describe what the authors call the transgender ‘crusade’: an all-out assault on education, medicine, marketing, and laws. There is almost nothing to stop it. The obsession with the danger of transphobia, brandished like a banner, would almost make racism seem an authorised opinion today. ‘Transmania’ is an international enterprise with powerful relays, and a major role is played by the United States in this great game of perversion of reality. The good souls can cry conspiracy: nothing that Stern and Moutot put forward is not justified; everything is sourced and supported.
The third part—and you’ll appreciate how the stakes have been progressively raised—asks the fundamental question, the answer to which cannot yet be definitive: why? Why has transgender ideology become so pervasive in our societies that it exerts a form of mental terror on individuals, who feel obliged to acquiesce to a powerfully altered version of reality?
The answer is manifold. It has to do with a demiurgic philosophy that predates transgender madness by many years—the eternal temptation of the creature wishing to replace the creator and shape life to its own liking. Powerful commercial, pharmaceutical, and political lobbies obviously have an interest in this. They alone can’t explain the movement. The authors of this book draw up a convincing outline of the horizon of transgenderism, i.e., transhumanism. It responds to the same temptation to recreate reality in order to free it from material vicissitudes—to the point of imagining beings who could become pure spirits and will use computers to put an end to their necessarily limited corporeal existence. In the end, we’re not far from a form of technological Catharism whose ultimate fulfilment will come when man and woman, creatures of God and his infinite love, cease to exist. The religious argument is absent from the reflection—it was not the purpose of the essay—but the doors are opened by the authors with sufficient finesse to allow it to slip through.
The revelations contained in the book may not be entirely unfamiliar to readers of The European Conservative, which has been tackling the subject of transitions and detransitions for many months now in its columns, following the scandal at the Tavistock clinic, and drawing up an updated inventory of policies on puberty blockers in Europe. But they have the merit of being brought together in one place, in a way that is both precise, detailed, and accessible to the average person. It is particularly recommended reading for parents so that they can detect, before it’s too late, the signs of recruitment to which their children may be subjected via social media such as TikTok or Discord, which recruit new young victims relentlessly.
Since its release, a manner of censorship has been unleashed in France to make the book inaccessible. Booksellers hide it, try to place it at the top of the shelves, or simply refuse to order it. The mayor of Paris banned posters promoting it from the streets. But there are days when Amazon, fortunately, or—even better—ordering directly from the publisher, can get around the pitfalls. As a result, the book is rocketing to the top of the sales charts, despite more or less discrete attempts at social auto-da-fé.
All that’s missing now is an English-language publisher to bring the fruit of Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern’s salutary work to a wider audience.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Liberals Three Times More Biased about Their Opponents than Conservatives, New Study Claims
Liberals are three times more biased when evaluating their opponents than conservatives are, according to a new study in the Journal of Social Psychology. This runs totally counter to the widespread belief that conservatives are less open-minded and more prejudiced than liberals.
The researchers behind the study wanted to test the popular hypothesis that conservatives are more prone to prejudice and have a greater inclination to authoritarianism than liberals.
“It has become clear that the ideological divide in the United States is growing and that people are becoming more polarized in their beliefs,” explains study author Robert D. Ridge, an associate professor of psychology at Brigham Young University.
“Ideological asymmetry is the notion that conservatives are more prejudicial than liberals, but the worldview conflict hypothesis suggests that conservatives and liberals can be equally prejudiced toward those with different worldviews and values.”
“I wanted to pit these two theories against each other to see who would be more likely to aggress indirectly against a person who held an ideology different than theirs. I wanted to see if simply posting support on social media for a conservative or liberal position would be sufficient to elicit indirect aggression from a person with a different ideology in a domain that is completely unrelated to politics.”
The researchers created an experiment where participants were asked to evaluate political memes shared on social media. They were told the memes had been shared by candidates looking for a job. Participants did not know that they were being evaluated for their own political biases.
In particular, the researchers wanted to see how the content of the memes affected the perception of the person who shared them. That included the extent to which the perceiver felt aggressive feelings towards the person who shared the memes based on their implied political beliefs.
As expected, conservatives and liberals both assessed content that aligned with their own beliefs favourably, and content that didn’t, negatively.
However, the different in assessments was much greater among liberals, who assessed conservatives three times as harshly as conservatives assessed liberals.
“I was very surprised that the level of liberal bias against conservatives was nearly three times greater than was conservative bias toward liberals,” Ridge Added.
“This is directly the opposite of what ideological asymmetry would predict. I was also surprised that given this result, liberal participants claimed that conservatives were much more prejudiced than liberals, whereas conservatives did not attribute any more prejudice to liberals than to conservatives. This is contrary to much popular opinion about liberals and conservatives in popular media and in the empirical literature.”
The researchers have already conducted further research on the subject, which will be published soon. They’ve discovered that liberals are more likely to view subtle clues to conservative affiliation in job resumés as an excuse to “torpedo” an individual’s chances of getting a job.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List