Jesus has provided so many ways for us to spread the Word, not only thru word of mouth, but so many ways on social media to spread the good news. After the Information Commissioner ordered the Ministry of Justice to release nationality-linked conviction data from 2018 to 2024, officials have launched an appeal, claiming it risks identifying offenders and costs too much. Campaigners say the real fear is what the numbers will show about open-border policies that have left British streets, transport and communities less safe. Albanians recorded an imprisonment rate of 232.33 per 10,000 people against 14 for British citizens. Kosovars, Vietnamese, Algerians, Jamaicans, Eritreans, Iraqis and Somalis all sat well above the British baseline. Some groups, including Germans, Italians and Indians, sat below it. Foreign nationals made up 79 per cent of theft arrests on British trains in 2025, 40 per cent of drug offence arrests, 37 per cent of sexual offence arrests and 36 per cent of violent crime arrests. Germany's 2025 police crime statistics show foreigners, 15 per cent of the population, responsible for 41 per cent of violent crimes and 38 per cent of murders. Across Spain, France and Germany the same disparities appear, often followed by official efforts to limit public discussion rather than confront the numbers. The legal battle is therefore not about administrative cost. It is about whether British voters are allowed to see the consequences of the migration policies successive governments have pursued. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/what-uk-government-so-afraid Every summer seems to follow the same predictable media script. Wildfires ignite somewhere in North America. Smoke drifts hundreds or even thousands of miles. Air quality alerts are issued. Television stations fill the screen with hazy skylines. Then, before investigators have even determined how the fires started, headlines begin linking the smoke to climate change. This year has been no different. As smoke from Canadian wildfires spread across parts of the Midwest and Northeast, much of the news coverage quickly shifted from reporting on the fires to treating them as evidence of a worsening climate crisis. Yet one crucial fact was often left out: many of the fires responsible for the smoke were ignited by lightning, a natural cause that has existed for as long as forests have. Lightning is not new. Smoke carried by prevailing winds is not new. What is new is the growing tendency to treat every smoky sky as proof of climate change. That illogical leap simply isn't supported by the evidence. Another telling graph comes from fire research published by the Royal Society. Drawing on evidence from more than 800 fire-scar sites across western North America, it shows that large wildfires were substantially more common before 1900 than they are today. Fire activity declined with changes in land management, livestock grazing, settlement patterns, and organized fire suppression. In other words, today's forests are not burning at historically unprecedented levels. Good journalism should provide readers with both immediate news and historical context. Unfortunately, wildfire coverage increasingly follows a predictable formula: smoke appears, climate change is declared the culprit, and the broader evidence rarely enters the discussion. The public deserves far better than reporting by following a script. ...readers deserve to know the full picture, including the parts that don't fit the prevailing narrative. Because good science depends on evidence, good journalism should too. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/smokey-skies-does-not-mean-global-warming A paper published by the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that Canada should take advantage of the bumper crop of corpses produced by its euthanasia policies and begin harvesting them for organs. The organs would be taken from the euthanasia volunteers while they are sedated, but still alive. Canada’s National Post reported on Thursday that the paper has caused a stir in the Canadian bioethics community because the organ-harvesting proposal might turn a horrified public away from Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), the Canadian euthanasia program. But the proposal also follows the logic of euthanasia to its ultimate conclusion, which is if people want to die, and they have healthy organs, why not pass those organs along to people who do not want to die? The paper suggested sedating the patients and removing their organs before death is initiated, to ensure maximum freshness and quality of the organs. This notion runs afoul of Canada’s “dead donor rule” (DDR), a legal requirement that stipulates organ donors must be legally dead before their organs can be taken, so the organ removal process itself cannot be the cause of death. The paper argued it was time to rethink the DDR in the context of MAID because those who agree to euthanasia are “knowingly consenting to death.” This supposedly minimizes the risk of opportunistic doctors killing people just to get their organs. As horrifying as the notion of being sedated and then killed by the methodical removal of vital organs might sound, the paper noted that organs have been removed from people who are not brain-dead for the past 20 years. The quality of the organs removed this way is considerably higher than waiting for brain death to be formally declared. In January 2026, U.S. Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill blasted the “strange new horror” unleashed by Canada’s combination of MAID and organ donations.
What Is The UK Government So Afraid Of?
Smokey Skies Does Not Mean Global Warming:
Canada: Doctors Propose Harvesting Organs from ‘MAID’ Euthanasia Victims While Still Alive