[Jonathan Turley] Below is my column in The Hill on an important case currently before the Supreme Court on the free press and the ability to protect confidential sources. The underlying facts may seem like something out of The Onion: an accused Chinese operative and PLA Colonel who was viewed as a national security risk is successfully using the Privacy Act to get a respected journalist to reveal her confidential sources. However, it is very serious and, unless the Court reviews the case, investigative journalism in the United States could suffer a debilitating blow with little more than a shrug from the courts.
Here is the column:
This month, journalist Catherine Herridge is in the fight of her life — and the stakes for the country could not be higher. The former Fox and CBS reporter has long been one of the most prominent investigative journalists in the U.S., particularly on national security stories. She is now on her last appeal to the Supreme Court, attempting to protect the most vital prerequisite of the free press: confidentiality of sources.
At issue is a 2017 story that aired on Fox News concerning a Virginia-based training firm patronized by Pentagon officials. Herridge exposed ties of the University of Management and Technology to the Chinese military. It was the kind of difficult, complex story that made Herridge such a respected figure in her profession. The subject of the story, University of Management and Technology founder Yanping Chen, sued, claiming that the exposure had led to her loss of employment.
Such lawsuits are usually brought against journalists by disgruntled subjects under defamation or other grounds that are quickly dismissed by courts. But Chen brought a novel claim against various officials under the Privacy Act. She alleges that they disclosed to Herridge protected information about an FBI investigation. Rather than sue Herridge directly, Chen subpoenaed her to disclose the names of her sources. Herridge sat for a deposition but refused to breach confidentiality.
This is not Herridge’s first rodeo in fighting for journalistic values. Years ago, CBS News forced her out and seized her files containing confidential source information. Despite considerable costs, Herridge eventually stared down the network and forced it to return the files.
Notably, much of the Fox News story about Chen was available in the public domain. For example, a whistleblower and FBI informant had said publicly that Chen had admitted to him that she had been a colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army. He also alleged that she told him to lie about that fact when called to testify before a federal grand jury.
Because Herridge refuses to disclose her sources, we do not know how much she actually relied on non-public information. This puts her in an impossible position: She would have to reveal sources in order to show that Chen’s claims are meritless.
In making her Privacy Act claim, Chen cited the disclosure of many facts already available publicly, including contradictions of her denials on being part of the Chinese military. The only information that had not already appeared in the public domain appears to be photographic, including a picture of Chen in a Chinese colonel’s uniform.
In this case, Herridge had the misfortune of seeking relief in Washington, D.C., where judges have been relatively permissive in allowing such disputes to go to trial. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, tossed aside protections that other circuit courts recognize under the First Amendment. He ordered Herridge to identify her confidential sources, then held her in contempt when she refused, imposing a crippling $800-a-day fine. Even that was not enough for Chen, who tried to have the penalties increased to $5,000 a day.
Before the fines were paused in August pending appeal, Herridge had to write a check every day from her two children’s college funds. "These fines are designed to break you emotionally and professionally," she told me. "I would walk every day to the mailbox with our oldest son for emotional and moral support."
[Chronicles Magazine] "Your universe has no meaning to them. They will not try to understand. They will be tired, they will be cold, they will make a fire with your beautiful oak door.
—Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints"
In recent years, the aesthetic of the British high street has undergone a rapid transformation. As a resident of a busy city, I see the influence of mass immigration everywhere. Once-bustling independent businesses—shoe-repair stores and family-owned butcher shops—have been steadily supplanted, signaling an acquiescence to a state-endorsed doctrine of multiculturalism. On just one side of the street, there is now a Turkish restaurant, a halal butcher, a West African weave shop, a Turkish barber, a world-food market, three American-style fried chicken takeaways, and a Vietnamese restaurant.
Multiculturalism and globalization have profoundly altered the community. As such, public trust has measurably declined. Shared identity, traditions, and a common sense of belonging have all eroded. This is happening in a sleepy eastern English city that remains one of the most ethnically white in the country (at 87 percent of the population)—an outlier compared with the rapid demographic changes reshaping the capital and towns and cities across the Midlands and Northern England.
It’s not just the sights. It is the sounds. Visiting the local market, I heard Pashto, Urdu, Albanian, and that foul simulacrum of English, "Multicultural London English." The traditional sounds of my city’s historic, thousand-year-old market, which once echoed with the distinctive calls of local traders selling their wares, are conspicuously absent.
The cultural transformation brings with it a steady collapse in material conditions—a visible sign of civic breakdown. A recent walk into the city center reveals signs that its new inhabitants don’t share a sense of the common good. Pavements are littered with trash and bus shelters are vandalized, their windows smashed and daubed with graffiti. In shops, basic staples are security tagged or chained to walls, while expensive goods sit locked behind thick Perspex cabinets.
Because of the continued vandalism, buses no longer stop at damaged shelters, forcing elderly and frail citizens to walk farther into the city center. Rampant shoplifting leaves retailers with no choice but to offset their losses and security costs by raising prices for law-abiding customers. In the worst cases, stores close entirely, leaving residents with no option but a longer, more costly trip to an out-of-town shopping center. Just last week, I witnessed a shoplifter in the act and alerted a store employee, who simply watched him walk out with bottles of whisky under his jacket. He didn’t bother to call the police; they never show up anyway.
For decades, the presence of police officers on British streets gave the public a sense of safety and confidence. But last year, more than 2 million crimes went unsolved in England and Wales; a mere six percent of police investigations resulted in criminal charges. Yet, when officers do arrive, law enforcement is now filtered through racialized ideology. First launched in 2022 and updated in 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Race Action Plan embeds racial equity into UK police operational priorities, instructing officers to treat individuals differently based on race to engineer "equitable" outcomes. The official guidance states that racial equity "does not mean treating everyone ’the same’ or being colour blind."
It was this ideological capture that led to the tragic death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak. After being fatally stabbed five times by Vickrum Singh Digwa, attending officers arrested the dying teenager rather than the killer. Digwa, a Sikh, had falsely claimed Nowak had racially abused him. Responding officers prioritized the alleged crime of hate speech over the stabbing, handcuffing and arresting Nowak as he lay dying.
[AE] Poland has become one of the most outspoken defenders of national control over immigration within the European Union. Polish Member of the European Parliament Dominik Tarczyński recently walked through a Polish city at night, contrasting its peaceful streets with the scenes of destruction coming out of France. "Look how safe we are. Churches are safe. Because we did not let them in. Zero means zero. ’Be like Poland’ means be brave." His message was aimed directly at Brussels, which has spent years attempting to impose a common migration system upon countries that do not necessarily agree on whom they should admit. Poland has insisted that decisions involving its borders, national security, and the composition of its population cannot simply be handed over to European institutions.
The Polish people have good reason to understand the importance of sovereignty. Their country was partitioned by foreign powers in the eighteenth century, disappeared from the map of Europe for more than a century, endured Nazi occupation, and subsequently fell under Soviet domination. Poland did not regain its full political independence from communist rule until 1989. That experience helps explain why arguments about surrendering national authority to Brussels provoke such strong reactions. The country spent generations struggling to govern itself, and immigration policy has become another arena in which the boundaries of European integration are being contested.
Poland’s confrontation with the EU began during the 2015 migration crisis when Brussels attempted to distribute asylum seekers among member states through mandatory relocation quotas. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic refused to comply, and the European Court of Justice ruled against them in 2020. The legal defeat did not settle the political disagreement. Polish governments continued arguing that immigration and asylum decisions must account for national security, public consent, and the ability of local communities to absorb newcomers. Brussels viewed the relocation mechanism as a matter of shared responsibility, while Poland challenged the idea that solidarity could be imposed through compulsory admissions.
Poland has demonstrated that border security involves more than political speeches. Along its frontier with Belarus, Warsaw constructed physical barriers and expanded surveillance and military deployments after accusing the Belarusian government of facilitating migrant crossings as a form of political pressure. The European Union itself has increasingly acknowledged the problem of migration being used as an instrument of hybrid warfare. Poland’s position has been that an external border cannot remain credible if authorities are unable to control unauthorized entry. At the same time, border enforcement must operate within applicable asylum and human-rights obligations, a continuing source of legal controversy.
Poland’s position has become more significant in 2026 because the country’s border policy is no longer confined to speeches from opposition politicians. On September 18, the Polish government extended restrictions on asylum applications at the Belarusian border for another 60 days, the eighth extension since the measures were introduced in March 2025. Warsaw argues that Belarus has deliberately facilitated migrant crossings to destabilize Poland and the European Union. The measures remain controversial because of concerns about access to asylum, but they demonstrate how seriously Poland regards the border as a matter of national security.
Even more revealing was Poland’s intervention at the September 26 migration summit in Munich. Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński told representatives from 18 European countries that the EU Migration Pact did not go far enough to address the challenges confronting Europe’s external borders. Poland was no longer simply resisting policies developed in Brussels. Its government was actively promoting stronger enforcement measures for the rest of Europe to consider. That is a remarkable development given the years of confrontation between Warsaw and European institutions over immigration.
There is also a financial dimension that Brussels cannot ignore. Poland has accommodated approximately 1.5 million Ukrainian nationals, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum. The European Commission itself recognized the cumulative migration pressures facing Poland, allowing it to seek relief from contributions under the 2026 solidarity mechanism. This complicates the familiar accusation that Poland refuses to share responsibility for migration. Warsaw’s argument is that it has already absorbed substantial humanitarian and financial obligations and should retain discretion over additional commitments. As for other nations? Poland is not disillusioned to believe that every culture can live in harmony together. "We know what jihadists are capable of. We do not know what second or third generation of so-called refugees will do. Well, actually we do know... we can see what is happening in France," Tarczyński noted.
The disagreement over migration ultimately reaches far beyond border fences and asylum quotas. Poland’s experience illustrates the unresolved question at the center of European integration: how much authority should national governments retain when Brussels adopts common policies that conflict with domestic priorities? The EU argues that shared external borders require cooperation and mutual responsibility. Poland insists that cooperation cannot eliminate national accountability for security, immigration, and public order. As economic pressures and political tensions increase across Europe, that dispute is unlikely to disappear. Poland has made clear that it intends to remain an active participant in determining Europe’s future rather than simply accepting every decision made in Brussels.
#1
Poland is an island trapped between the EU surrender to Islam and Russia. We need to move all our military to Poland in their defense and turn a blind eye to the rest. Just like the EU did to Yugoslavia. Remember they only went in after it was nearly over.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
10/20/2026 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Guess one could also say NATO went into Yugoslavia, a non-NATO member.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Gregor Spitzen
[Regnum] Last week, the main winners of the recent state parliamentary elections in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt – the Alternative for Germany (AfD), which received 43.8% of the vote, and the leftist BSW, which managed to overcome the five percent barrier – joined forces to pass a symbolic resolution in Magdeburg
…capitol of Saxony-Anhalt…
calling for an end to Berlin's military support for Ukraine.
According to the opposition, the more than €100 billion spent by Germany on the Ukraine project during the economic recession could have brought much greater benefits within Germany.
Aiding Ukraine in a conflict Kyiv is clearly losing only prolongs the war and leads to increased casualties on both sides. And lifting anti-Russian sanctions, as the AfD and BSW rightly believe, would significantly contribute to lowering global fuel prices. This is especially relevant for Germany, where diesel prices this year reached an exorbitant €2.45 per liter.
It is also symbolic that the resolution was adopted on the day of the opening of the trial in Hamburg of a former Ukrainian military officer accused of blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which supplied Russian gas to Germany.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that the AfD and BSW's sentiments are shared by a significant portion of German society, the adopted resolution has no practical significance, since the state parliaments play no role in Germany's foreign policy.
Joint statement by AfD and BSW politicians against continued military aid
However, this initiative played another important symbolic role, demonstrating that the parties in the Magdeburg Landtag, which the political mainstream considers to be at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, are quite capable of reaching agreements, voting together, and, in the future, even forming a government coalition.
The AfD leader in Saxony-Anhalt, Ulrich Siegmund, has stated that he intends to achieve formal parliamentary approval as minister-president of the state by the end of the year, although most other parties in parliament have ruled out joining a coalition as part of the so-called "firewall" policy aimed at isolating the AfD.
For Sigmund, the joint resolution is "the first genuine peace initiative," which should finally bring down fuel prices. For his main supporter, BSW faction leader Claudia Wittig, the proposal is a necessary recognition that "a nuclear power cannot be defeated on the battlefield."
The BSW party does not want to enter into an official coalition with the AfD, but does not rule out possible cooperation with the political force, which shares a desire to restore economic ties with Russia and curb uncontrolled migration.
"The 'firewall' policy has failed," said party founder Sahra Wagenknecht." We will shape policy by changing the majority and promote as many BSW positions as possible."
"What has happened over the past few months and years in this war, along with uncontrolled migration, is one of the most serious problems of our time," Sigmund said in a debate that the political centre parties called a "farce."
The CDU, the Greens, and the Left condemned the AfD and BSW proposal as "street theater" and a "sham of politics." "Those who demand a unilateral ceasefire are not demanding peace, but rather capitulation," CDU representatives declared.
SPD foreign policy expert and former party leader Rolf Mützenich criticized the AfD and BSW proposal, calling it "shameless" and warning of a "catastrophe" if Germany follows it and lifts sanctions against Russia. The SPD politician calls the hope that fuel prices will become cheaper for a long time "nonsense."
"They are misleading people by claiming that there are simple answers to a complex question," he stressed.
This position by Rolf Mützenich—along with that of Ralf Stegner, one of the leaders of the left wing of the SPD and co-author of last year's "Manifesto for Securing Peace in Europe," which expressed quite sound ideas about the need to build a constructive dialogue with Russia—was frankly surprising.
However, a complete reversal of political position to suit the political situation is quite typical of contemporary German politics in general and the SPD in particular. Mützenich merely joined the ranks of Social Democratic figures such as Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Minister-President of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Manuela Schwesig.
These are politicians who were once considered among Russia's closest friends in Germany, but who, since February 2022, have dramatically changed their political colors.
According to critics, with their proposal, the AfD and BSW parties want to follow the sentiments of their supporters and voters, who share the view that sanctions are damaging the national economy, and military aid to Ukraine is ineffective and only delays the inevitable.
In addition, the opposition wants to take advantage of the opportunity to embarrass the still-in-office Minister-President of Saxony-Anhalt from the CDU, Sven Schulze.
At the next meeting of the Bundesrat, according to regulations, he will be forced to ask his colleagues from the governments of other states to convey these “pro-Russian” demands to the federal government.
Finally, as already noted, the joint declaration could serve as the beginning of coalition cooperation and increase the chances that the BSW will give its five votes in the Landtag to Ulrich Siegmund if he runs for Minister-President in December.
The fact is that the CDU is terrified that one of its members will secretly vote for Sigmund in the election. Such suspicions are not unfounded: many Christian Democrats in Saxony-Anhalt lean toward the AfD. Ulrich Sigmund himself was a member of the CDU until 2015.
Therefore, the leadership of the faction in the Landtag and the federal party leadership decided to deprive potential defectors of room to maneuver and decided not to participate in the elections for Minister-President.
The news that the first trip of the newly formed European Affairs Committee of the Magdeburg Landtag will take place… to Russia added a special piquancy to the adoption of the joint declaration by the AfD and BSW.
(JNS) President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for re-election broke precedent. Or at least, it did in one sense.
Never before had an American president so explicitly and openly stated his preference among candidates for office in the Jewish state. But for all of the huffing and puffing this is provoking among Netanyahu’s political opponents, as well as those Americans in the Democratic Party and the foreign-policy establishment who despise the prime minister, Trump’s statement is far from the first time that an American president has tried to intervene in Israeli politics.
His recent predecessors in the White House did as much, if not more, to try to influence elections in Israel as Trump has now done. Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were all very clear about their desire to defeat Netanyahu in past elections. Going back to the distant past before Netanyahu led the Likud Party, President George H.W. Bush also worked hard to defeat then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1992. He succeeded, and the election of Yitzhak Rabin and the Labor-led coalition that year resulted in Israel traveling down the disastrous path to the Oslo Accords.
The Palestinian Arabs also have a vote
It remains to be seen whether Trump’s gesture will have the intended effect on the Israeli electorate. But whether or not the boost among voters grateful to Trump for his pro-Israel policies helps Netanyahu win, it’s important to acknowledge that a foreign entity other than the United States has played a far greater role in determining the outcome of Israeli elections. The Palestinian Arabs and their leaders, along with the Islamist regime in Iran and others elsewhere that encourage their intransigence and terrorism, have done more to influence Israeli voters than any American administration, whether it is as friendly as Trump’s or as hostile as that of the elder Bush or Obama.
It’s as simple as this. Had the Palestinian Arabs treated the Oslo peace process as an opportunity to create their own state next to Israel, rather than a chance to intensify their efforts to erase the Jewish state, the shift in Israeli politics that enabled Netanyahu’s record run as prime minister is unimaginable.
Posted by: Grom the Reflective ||
10/20/2026 02:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[29 views]
Top|| File under:
[FOX] If you haven’t seen the video, Tesla did a demonstration of their forthcoming Roadster vehicle, slated for 2028 production. The car swooped up a half-loop ramp reminiscent of Matchbox car stunts. At the top of the ramp, the car, which was upside down at the top, flipped over in midair. Then, thrusters seemed to suspend the car in midair, before helping guide it gently back down to land on the ground.
For just a few moments, that car flew, and it was truly awe-inspiring.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
