Here’s the part of the Iryna Zarutska murder video they didn’t show. She didn’t die quickly. She was fully aware, desperately terrified, and suffering to the end. It is beyond heartbreaking. pic.twitter.com/M8hlqmu8ht
🚨 BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi has FEDERALLY charged the kiIIer of Iryna Zarutska with committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system
This will take it out of the hands of rogue local judges
#1
I forced myself to watch the uncensored version. The (non) reaction of all those (black) passengers is agonizing. Notice the black woman in the red jacket next to the victim. She clearly sees the attack, and simply ignores it. White life didn't matter to her.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/10/2025 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
^ That was the single vilest episode I've seen in my life. Off the charts.
Posted by: Matt ||
09/10/2025 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/10/2025 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In fairness to the other passengers, they're not equipped or trained to deal with a big, violent mad man. Now, if another one of those passengers had a gun...
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/10/2025 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In that video, nobody looked after the stabbed girl. Nobody.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/10/2025 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I would like to reverse the color of the people in the video and change the words to "I got that black girl".
Posted by: Old Salty ||
09/10/2025 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#7
@#5
Not sure where I saw it, but there was a video still of a black male trying to help the poor women after the attack.
People are understandably reluctant to get involved in an actual attack and risk being injured or killed. And if they successfully stop the attacker that results in the attacker being hurt or killed, they could face criminal charges and civil suits. See Daniel Penny
[FoxNews] 'The reality is that the gross majority of violent crime is committed by a very small group of people and we should be throwing them in prison,' JD Vance asserted
It’s a well-known fact, though whether it’s 80/20 or 90/10 I can’t remember. I recall being shocked to read here that in many communities the police know exactly who and where those perpetrators are.
Business tycoon Elon Musk agreed with Vice President JD Vance's assertion that the bulk of violent crime is perpetrated by a small pool of people who should be locked up.
"The big lie the Democrats told about violent crime is that it's ‘systemic’ and therefore no one's really responsible. If the ‘system’ is to blame then you fund a bunch of nonprofits that don't do anything besides give jobs to underqualified radicals," Vance noted in a post on X. "The reality is that the gross majority of violent crime is committed by a very small group of people and we should be throwing them in prison."
Musk agreed, saying that people who have greater sympathy for those likely to perpetrate murder than for those at risk of becoming murder victims are "disgusting."
Yes," he commented when sharing Vance's post. "What it comes down to is this: Do you have more sympathy for those highly likely to commit murder or more for those at risk of being murdered? If the former, you are a disgusting human being and yet so many on the radical left choose this!"
[FoxNews] The prioritization of racial narratives over pragmatic solutions continues to play out in the city of Chicago
Over Labor Day weekend in 2025, Chicago endured yet another wave of gun violence that left at least nine people dead and 52 wounded. The victims spanned a wide range of ages, from 18-year-old Morgan Alaniz, shot in the Little Village neighborhood, to a 63-year-old man pulled lifeless from DuSable Harbor. The majority of these shootings occurred in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods, yet public response to this carnage has been markedly subdued.
Activists and organizers, including Black Lives Matter, who mobilized nationwide protests in 2020 following George Floyd's death – demanding justice and systemic change in the name of Black lives – have remained silent. They have not expressed a shred of empathy or solidarity for the victims of violence.
Instead, these same activists — the self-proclaimed conscience of America — have rallied in the streets of Chicago to protest President Donald Trump’s proposal to deploy the National Guard to halt the violence.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson rallied these protesters against the idea, framing it as an infringement on local sovereignty and invoking historical grievances. He shouted: "Are you prepared to defend this land that was built by slaves, a land that was built by Indigenous people?"
As filmmaker Eli Steele observed in his post on X: "After the Labor Day carnage in Chicago, @ChicagoMayor chooses racial politics as his power. This is the problem: the power of race rewards only its exploiter and fails to solve real-world problems. We have lived with this systemic failure since the 1960s. How many deaths have resulted?"
Steele's critique points to a deeper issue: the prioritization of racial narratives over pragmatic solutions. This selective outrage is not new. In the summer of 2020, Floyd's death by a White police officer sparked widespread activism, with millions marching under the banner that proclaimed "Black Lives Matter." Yet when violence claims Black lives at the hands of other Blacks, the silence is deafening.
Data from the Chicago Police Department consistently show that over 80% of homicide victims and offenders in the city are Black. The difference in reaction, as Steele implies, stems from the racial dynamics at play: one scenario fits a narrative of systemic oppression by White authority, while the other does not.
One of the reasons I launched my Walk Across America was to fight this troubling alliance of Black elites and White liberals who have done nothing but leverage racial identities for political power. We have been doing this since the civil rights era of the 1960s.
[Townhall] Woe to the British, particularly the British who are actually British and are today being forced by their ruling class to be unwilling cattle subject to the unrestrained exploitation, looting, and raping of the Third World barbarians their betters imported. There’s a lot of raping going on, and the real problem seems to be that normal British people don’t want their daughters raped. But their rulers do; it’s reasonable to assume that you want the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Recently, when one girl pulled a knife on some scumbag who was trying to molest her, someone got arrested. You’re not going to be surprised to find that it was the girl who was defending herself and her sister. Britain is now a classic anarchy-tyranny, where the catspaws of the ruling class are free to pillage and abuse while the full weight of the once legitimate government comes down on those who would protest or resist. Raise the flag of your own country? That’s a hate crime but fly high the pride and Palestinian banners.
Don’t get your hopes up about the British people casting off their chains anytime soon, because I’m sorry to say it’s not going to happen. And there are a lot of reasons for it, reasons we should understand here in America to avoid the UK’s sorry fate of tumbling down the slippery slope into nanny state fascism with sensible shoes, crushing its subjects’ faces forever.
But of course, as my novel explains, securing freedom from a dictatorship is not as simple as just going to your gun safe(s) and choosing one of your many, many freedom sticks. Having guns is just the threshold qualification for proactively securing your freedom. You also need leaders. And that’s where we get to the class dynamics of Britain. The lower classes, the workers, the very Brits the British ruling class holds in such contempt, have never led themselves. They were always led by some rich toff who went to Oxford. This noblesse oblige vibe meant that the ruling class, while holding the dirty peasants in condescending contempt, also attempted to take care of them. And the posh boys stood with them when things got stabby; the Zulus at Isandlwana cut down highfalutin’ officers and rank-and-file alike, and nobody ran.
But now the ruling class has decided to let its contempt flag fly. It hates its own people, and that’s a uniparty party thing. Labor, Conservative, it doesn’t matter. Those are just labels. There’s one party, the uniparty, and they all agree on everything from the climate hoax to the need to import endless foreigners to the need to suppress the voices of the peasants. They went to the same schools, eat at the same clubs, and engage in the same bizarre kinks.
The peasants should be revolting, but there’s no one to lead them. If a nail rises up, it gets pounded down. Open your mouth and the English Gestapo is there. Giant rape gang that molests hundreds of girls for years? Now, that’s not interesting. But there’s a guy in Brighton who said that maybe we should turn off the tap of Third World invaders. Better get the bobbies rolling; it’s not going to be a problem getting a conviction when all the judges all agree on the desperate need to suppress any alternative viewpoints as subversive. The dual-track justice system, where normal Brits are punished mercilessly while foreign barbarians are free to indulge in their barbarity, will help keep those in power in power.
America could go this way, but there are challenges our ruling class faces that the inbred twits of Old Blighty don’t. Yes, we have guns. Yes, we have the mindset that we’re citizens and that we don’t default to somebody simply because he’s a pale hemophiliac with a decaying castle and a legacy of 30 generations of Cambridge graduates who styles himself Dimsdale Poofknocker-Ween VII, Arch-Baron of Bumtouch-on-the-Grumpy.
Now, with Britain becoming something new and much, much worse, we Americans need to ask ourselves whether we want to maintain our special relationship. It worked out very well in the past when the UK had a real military and could actually contribute something to the defense of the West. But now, we need to ask ourselves a question. What’s in it for us? Why is the UK 2.0 worthy of a special relationship with us if its own people can’t speak or live freely, if its ruling class is destroying the country, and if no child is safe? I don’t want to be in a special relationship with the nation-state equivalent of the Lincoln Project.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Olesya Orlenko
[REGNUM] Having developed the French budget for 2026, Prime Minister François Bayrou decided to organize a vote of confidence in the National Assembly at the beginning of the discussions on this document. However, instead of the expected support of deputies, the head of government saw how all representatives of the opposition spoke out against his policy. What are the possible developments after this?
As soon as Bayrou voiced the idea of organizing a parliamentary vote of confidence in the government during a press conference on August 25, experts and the press began to ask why he needed it?
The answer to this question should be sought in his political past.
François Bayrou has run in presidential elections many times since the 1990s, and in 2007 he came in third place behind Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal. He did not make it to the second round, but he received 18.57% of the vote, well ahead of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who received 10.44%.
It was during this election campaign that Bayrou made the fight to reduce the country's public debt one of the key points of his program and was deeply concerned that society and political circles were paying so little attention to this problem.
When Bayrou urged Emmanuel Macron to give him the post of prime minister last December, he argued, among other things, that he had long been thinking about the issue of public debt and foresaw the detrimental consequences of its growth for the French economy. He was confident that he would be able to find a balance between the necessary reduction in spending and the preservation of areas of activity vital to the country.
Indeed, the budget drawn up by his predecessor Michel Barnier, rejected by the National Assembly, envisaged a reduction in public spending of 60 billion euros. François Bayrou managed to reduce this amount to 44 billion euros.
However, opposition parties also considered this document to be harmful.
Communist leader Fabien Roussel called it "poison for France" and said he would propose concrete measures to the prime minister to improve it. The National Rally also said it disagreed with the proposed draft, saying it would defend its approach to economic recovery no matter what.
But Bayrou did not use any of these recommendations. Just as he rejected the advice of the Socialists, expressed personally by former President François Hollande.
Seeing that the upcoming budget debate would be difficult and would possibly lead to a vote of no confidence in the government, François Bayrou decided to forestall the events and organize his own vote, which would, on the contrary, symbolize confidence in his policies. This, according to many analysts, was a mistake from the start, since asking for support from an opposition that is obviously hostile is absurd.
As expected, immediately after the news of the upcoming vote on September 8, Bayrou's political opponents announced their intention to cast "no" votes.
Yesterday the prime minister made a final attempt to persuade the dissenters, urging them to accept a "historic decision".
" They tell us that we can wait, that the ship is still afloat. But if we want to save the ship that we and our children are on, we must act without delay... France will be in total chaos. And the risk of that is very high. You can overthrow the government, but you cannot change reality," Bayrou said in his speech.
Persuasion didn't work.
He was supported by only 194 deputies against 364. At the end of the vote, the need for Bayrou's resignation became obvious. The media reports that he has already written a letter of resignation and will hand it over to the president this afternoon.
Now all of France is waiting to see what Macron will do, having “taken note” of the results of yesterday’s vote.
Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal reports that the president does not want to dissolve parliament again and will look for a candidate who suits both him and the current composition of the National Assembly. However, everyone remembers how long it took the head of state to make his choice last year.
All that remains is to look for a candidate for the new prime minister among the opposition.
The Socialists have returned to last year's calls to choose a candidate from their ranks. Party leader Olivier Faure has expressed his willingness to lead the government, sacrificing a split in the ranks of the already ununited left.
But there are also those who, in view of the collapse of the left-wing coalition, are calling for the National Rally to be considered the largest parliamentary faction and for a member of this party to be appointed head of government. This idea was voiced, for example, by former European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton.
However, not everyone believes that the new appointment will save France from another political crisis.
Former President Nicolas Sarkozy, in an interview with Figaro, made fun of Macron's desire to " put his left shoe on his right foot," saying that a new dissolution of parliament is the only way out of the situation, giving a chance for one party to finally form an absolute parliamentary majority.
The leader of the National Rally parliamentary faction, Marine Le Pen, wants the same thing. For her, new elections are not an option, but an obligation for the president. According to some reports, deputies from her party are going to put forward a vote of no confidence in any candidate not from their ranks that Macron appoints.
What is happening is complicated by the fact that clouds are gathering over Macron himself.
The extremely low level of trust of the French in the president (15%, according to the latest data) is noted even outside France, predicting his possible premature departure from the post of head of state. And the leader of "France Insoumise" Jean-Luc Mélenchon directly says that Macron's further stay in the post of leader of the Republic will only worsen the situation.
But Macron has repeatedly stated that he intends to stay until the end of his presidential term.
In addition, the resignation of the head of state in France is possible, but a very long and difficult matter. The proposal must be studied by a special commission, then voted on in the lower house of parliament, and then the entire procedure must be carried out in the upper house. And only after that must the Supreme Court make a decision, and by at least two-thirds of the votes. So, most likely, the discussion of this possibility will cause a big media resonance, but will not yield quick political results.
Meanwhile, 82% of French people currently describe yesterday's events as depressing.
Macron tends, as always, to underestimate the problem and call what is happening a parliamentary crisis. While most people understand that there are all the signs of another political collapse, which could be aggravated by new social protests. The nearest ones are already preparing for September 10.
Perhaps the situation could be resolved more easily if Macron devoted as much attention, effort and resources to solving domestic problems as he spends on maintaining the war in Ukraine.
[FoxNews] FCC hasn't revoked a company's broadcast license since 1971, but Brendan Carr says he'd have no hesitation
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr said in an interview published Monday that he is willing to penalize major media companies if he and President Donald Trump believe they are "out of line."
The Wall Street Journal described Carr as a maverick, saying he has embraced Trump’s "showman instincts" to hold broadcasters accountable. While previous FCC chairs were often reluctant to rein in major companies, Carr said he would pull broadcast licenses from any outlet he believes has engaged in misconduct against the "public interest."
"Broadcast licenses are not sacred cows," Carr told the outlet.
Carr, who has been with the FCC since 2017, said the agency is "fully aligned with the agenda that President Trump is running."
He said Trump has set the tone for the government’s approach to media companies, stating, "President Trump ran directly at the legacy mainstream media, and he smashed a facade that they’re the gatekeepers of truth."
Following Trump’s accusations that Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, shows bias toward Democrats, Carr launched two probes into the company.
The FCC has been investigating Comcast’s diversity policies. In April, Carr said the NBC News and MSNBC parent was "misleading the American public" with its coverage of a high-profile deportation, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Carr said in July that the FCC would examine Comcast's relationship with NBC stations and affiliates and whether its programming decisions "best reflect the needs and interests of their communities."
As the Journal noted, Carr has justified these actions by citing a 1934 law stating that "because a given broadcast network is granted airwaves to use exclusively as its own, it needs to operate in ‘public interest, convenience and necessity.’"
The report noted the only time the FCC revoked a company’s broadcast license was in 1971, when a Mississippi station defended segregation. Carr has signaled he would have no issue doing the same today.
While previous FCC chairs tried to appear independent of the president’s agenda, Carr said he is leaning in.
"We are fully aligned with the agenda that President Trump is running," he told the paper.
Critics argue Carr is politicizing the FCC’s work.
"This appears to be part of a political campaign against what the chairman perceives to be enemies of the president," said Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), arguing to the Wall Street Journal that it violates the agency’s responsibility to protect free speech..
Just a quick thought experiment: since CBS News seems to be incapable of honest reporting, let the FCC shut down the news division until an investigation can be completed.
No CBS Evening News, no 60 Minutes, no CBS Mornings. The rest of the network can go on as normal...and after about 60 days the revenue loss will get their attention. (I know it's about too undergo a major change in management, but this would keep people focused.)
Haaretz has been ideologically captured and is now printing blood libels. Haaretz is exactly the same now as it was in 1960. Nobody captured them. This is who they always were — the New York Times of Israel — and they’re proud of it.
There’s nothing like killing children for bringing together hearts and minds. For the past 18 weeks, Israelis have been fighting each other, unable to find anything to bring us closer together. Then came the killing of the children in the Gaza Strip and proved that we’re brothers, after all.
This lie has been claimed since 1948. It was not true then and it remains untrue now, but vicious idiots, including those at Ha’aretz, are eager to believe it because it justifies the hate that they felt before being told anything.
Top comment:
I understand you are angry..justifiably angry.
But PLEASE do not paint ALL Israelis with a single brush. These murders are the result of out of control stupid right wing politicians that are destroying not just Palestinian children, but also the very culture and fabric of Hatikvah. Did the world blame all Americans when the ultra Stupid hawks in the Bush Administration murdered thousands of Iraqi children. NO. Except for a large majority of the U.S. population who felt powerless to stop them. I really hope and believe the majority of Israelis if given a real choice, would say " stop the madness"
IIRC the world DID blame Americans because we DID support the invasion. If you know where to find 2003 web material it's all over the place. It's tough now because all the blogs back then long ago went offline.
We re-elected George W. Bush.
Indeed. You go into the election with the candidates you have. The Democrats put up Senator John F. Kerry — George W., though definitely imperfect, was a nearly infinitely better choice, and I have no regrets having pulled the lever for him then. As for the top comment, it is typical of the few readers Ha’aretz has left, who are as smugly and ignorantly stupid as the New York Times’ readers. Ha’aretz would have folded years ago were it not for the payments they get from the New York Times, et al when they reference, quote, or share a Ha’aretz article in their own reportage about events in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
As for not tarring all Israelis with the same brush: The top commenter fails to understand that those who blame Israelis for the dead children don’t care that any individual Israeli might object to whatever the IDF is doing, even though any dead children is the fault of Hamas, which started the war, continues the war, and forces Gazan civilians, including children precisely into those areas the IDF ordered them to leave because they were about to become fighting zones. Those who blame Israelis care only that they are Israeli — which to the blamers means Jewish — and hate them for daring to exist, not for anything they might have done or might support. So explaining that they agree with the haters is not going to make them even a scintilla less hated. The kibbutzniks and those at the Nova festival that Hamas tortured, killed, and captured sympathized with the Gazans, which did not protect them even slightly from Palestinian wrath on 10/7 and thereafter.
[ArmstrongEconomics] Vietnam has erased and/or frozen 86 million unverified bank accounts as the nation surrenders to the globalist Great Reset. Anyone wishing to function in society must surrender their biometric data to maintain a bank account. The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) claims that the measure was a system cleanup aimed at preventing fraud. In actuality, the measure is one step closer toward a national ID system that enables the government to control its citizens’ every move. Then they can vote!
“This is a data-cleansing revolution,” said Pham Anh Tuan, Director of the Payment Department. “While the total number of bank accounts remains 200 million, by September 2025, once the legal framework is complete, all accounts without biometric data will be closed to prevent scams and fraud. After seven years of promoting non-cash payments, we are moving toward real efficiency.”
Vietnam recently implemented a nationwide digital ID (e-ID) system called VNeID that requires both citizens and foreign residents to surrender to the matrix and permit the government to store their personal information in a centralized database. Fingerprints, facial biometric data, photographs, passports, nationality, criminal records, and even medical records will be stored in the government database. Participation is not optional.
Digital ID 2
Project 06 launched in January 2022, hailed as a technological revolution to digitize the country. Project 06’s full name is the “Project on Developing Data Applications on Population, Identification, and Electronic Authentication to Serve National Digital Transformation in the 2022-2025 Period (Vision 2030),” which aligns entirely with the World Economic Forum’s plans for the Great Reset. The concept has been sold to the people as a convenience measure, but in truth, the aim is centralized, unrestrained control over the entire population.
Everything from banking to renting an apartment is linked to the digital ID. One wrong move and the government can completely erase someone from the system. One glitch in the power grid and the nation will come to a standstill. The Vietnamese government has the power to halt a person’s life instantaneously.
High-level Vietnamese officials met in Davos in January 2025, and shortly after, began voicing concern for bank accounts that were unverified through biometric data. Vietnam has been actively seeking OECD membership and signed a Memorandum of Understanding, citing that Project 06 will enable the nation to meet the OECD’s guidelines for regulatory reforms. Vietnam was one of the last nations disconnected from the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) that requires members to share banking information under the pretense of preventing tax evasion.
[LeftVoice] On September 8, 1978, a day that came to be known as "Black Friday," the Shah of Iran unleashed a massacre against demonstrators demanding the fall of the regime. In many ways, the events of that day were considered to be the trigger for the revolution that dethroned the Shah. That revolution, initially led by students, workers, and peasants, some of which were able to organize democratic bodies of self-organization called shoras, rattled other regimes across the Middle East, dramatically changing the geopolitical and social situation of the region.
Before the revolution, the Shah had imposed a regime of police control like never seen before. All of the money coming in from oil exports went directly toward enriching the army and the intelligence services. This strengthening of the repressive apparatus was strongly questioned by the intelligentsia, artists, and students who claimed Iran’s cultural identity. They repudiated the repressive methods of the world’s most savage intelligence police, the U.S.-backed and trained SAVAK, against the regime’s opposition which included many leftists.
On September 8, 1978 thousands flocked to Jaleh Square in Tehran. Soon after, the police opened fire on the peaceful demonstration. On that day, according to the chronicles, between 900 and 3,000 demonstrators were gunned down, going down in history as Black Friday.
That massacre broke any possibility of dialogue, and a general strike was immediately launched among the main sectors of the industrial working class in response. Above all, oil workers in Tehran and the petrochemical complex of Bandar Shapur initiated the strikes and inspired workers in Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz and Abadan to join them. These strikes quickly spread to state factories, transport sectors, and also telecommunications. In a few days oil production fell by 30%, having an impact on the world market. The demands for wages and for improvements in living conditions quickly took on a political character, with demands for the fall of the Shah.
During those months the shoras sprang up. These bodies were a form of self-organization similar to the Russian soviets, and were a space where leftist parties and activists (weakened by years of SAVAK persecution and exile) were able to exert some influence.
These sites make for amazing entertainment when you watch them cry about losing over and over and over again. The revolution did end up succeeding, but not in the way they intended.
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.
[FoxNews] FCC hasn't revoked a company's broadcast license since 1971, but Brendan Carr says he'd have no hesitation
