Just when longtime North Korea watchers thought they had seen it all, Pyongyang managed to surprise them. The world has seemingly become inured to North Korea’s steadily escalating nuclear and missile threats and extensive human rights atrocities. Launches of new, more deadly ICBMs no longer merit coverage in U.S. media. But Pyongyang has come up with a new way to gain attention and show its scorn for South Korea—sending trash and manure via balloons. In other words, flying feces. On May 29, some South Koreans were awakened to emergency text messages of “air raid preliminary warning” over unidentified objects traveling over the demilitarized zone. The South Korean military subsequently said it detected 260 North Korean balloons that fell across the country, including in Seoul and the southeasternmost province. The balloons carried plastic bottles, batteries, shoe parts … and excrement. Pyongyang’s latest antics are even more petulant and disdainful than usual, as underscored by the brazen statement by Kim Yo Jong—the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister—that South Koreans should regard the filth-laden balloons as “sincere presents to the goblins of liberal democracy.” However, beyond the mirthful tongue-in-cheek media commentary, North Korea’s action raises several serious issues. South Korea citizens may worry that the balloons transiting into South Korea exposes vulnerability to North Korean attacks had the balloons been equipped with biological or chemical warfare agents, which the regime has extensive stocks of. As Kim’s belligerent statement makes clear, Pyongyang launched its balloons to get Seoul to stop South Korean human rights activists who use balloons to send propaganda leaflets, money, Bibles, and computer thumb drives into the North. Pyongyang perceives any outside information seeping into the hermetically sealed Hermit Kingdom as a direct threat to regime stability and national security. Kim chastised the “scum-like clans” of South Korea for criticizing the regime’s “freedom of expression of the North Korean people” as a violation of international law when Seoul had allowed “despicable article-scattering” balloons to fly north. Having equated the two Koreas’ respective balloon launches, Kim Yo Jong now called on South Korea to prevent future northward balloons, otherwise Pyongyang would reciprocate by scattering “rubbish dozens of times more than those being scattered to us.” In 2020, Kim demanded that then-President Moon Jae-in stop South Korean groups from sending balloons northward. At that time, Moon quickly acquiesced, declaring the South Korean propaganda leaflets as “harmful to national security,” directing police to prevent further balloon flights, and his political party passed legislation to “crack down” on the leaflet flights. Last year, the South Korean Constitutional Court ruled the law was an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech?. Pyongyang previously vowed “crushing physical blows of higher intensity” if balloons continued to be sent to the North and warned that its artillery units would shell the areas where balloons are launched. In 2014, North Korea fired at balloons flying toward its territory, triggering an exchange of fire with a South Korean military unit after some rounds landed south of the border. In 2022, Kim Yo Jong declared that North Korea would wipe out the South Korean authorities if “rubbish” continued to be flown from South Korea. Last week, North Korea Vice Minister of Defense Kim Kang Il warned that South Korea’s “scattering leaflets by use of balloons is a dangerous provocation.” The same year, North Korean drones penetrated South Korean airspace, including near the presidential residence. The South Korean military was heavily criticized for its failure to intercept the drones. In response, the administration of Yoon Suk Yeol, the president of South Korea, vowed to boost the country’s drone-related capabilities and readiness and established a joint drone command in 2024. Pyongyang’s abrogation last year of an inter-Korean risk-reduction agreement and continued refusal to respond to hotline communications reduce opportunities for preventing inadvertent miscalculation or military clashes. Yoon is now faced with the dilemma of capitulating to regime demands or responding forcefully. He repeatedly criticized his predecessor’s conciliatory approach to North Korea and vowed to respond resolutely to any North Korean provocation. But defying Pyongyang’s demands or shooting at the balloons risks escalation. Originally published at NationalInterest.org The post North Korea’s Bizarre Balloon Stratagem: Sending Trash, Feces to South Korea appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Anyone with even some cursory knowledge of how user interface/experience (UX) but also user behavior works will tell you that “default (settings) is king.” That is why the ability to “opt-out” (that is, remove yourself from a feature baked in as default) although it seems fair enough at first glance, is actually often a deliberate choice to harm users’ interests, by banking on their inertia. But then when even that option is degraded to what some refer as “nearly impossible to opt out” – things start looking really bad. They get even worse when you learn that this concerns your personal data being used to train AI models. And by none other than that paragon of habitual disrespect for user privacy and security, Meta. This is what Instagram and Facebook users in the EU (and the UK) are being told about the whole “operation”: “We’re getting ready to expand our AI at Meta experiences to your region.” Screenshot from Meta But “your region” – i.e., the UK and the 27-member bloc, have some fairly strict legislation in place, at least formally, to protect privacy and security of online data. And so the Meta message sent to them continued: “To help bring these experiences to you, we’ll now rely on the legal basis called legitimate interests for using your information to develop and improve AI at Meta. This means that you have the right to object to how your information is used for these purposes. If your objection is honored, it will be applied from then on.” “If your objection is honored” – might just be the most bizarre example of corporations trying to get “opt-out” to mean squat. Outrageous as this looks, that’s by no means the end or the worst of the story: if you’re not in the UK or the EU – you won’t even get the “courtesy” of this notification that’s wrong to begin with, in so many ways. Screenshot from Meta That’s because the EU has legislation supposed to strongly protect privacy, GDPR, and the UK, after leaving the bloc, enacted much the same rules. In other words, elsewhere in the world, you don’t even know what new ways Meta has found to, eventually and effectively, monetize your data without your knowledge. And now for the real point of the story: how will the EU (and the UK) react to all this? Always quick to turn the screw on Meta in a bid to make it expand its censorship – will these governments even react to the giant making a mockery of their data protection laws by adding a gazillion hurdles to the “opt out” process? If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Meta Begins Training AI on Users’ Data, Makes It Difficult To Opt Out appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Public attention has turned to the controversial conviction of President Donald Trump after he was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an alleged scheme to “influence the 2016 presidential election” through payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. But where people go to check in with major news gives a revealing insight into the state of the current mainstream media and its growing independent alternatives. In the online space, about President Trump’s response to the verdict, Rumble has surged ahead of its censored competitor YouTube over the weekend, as streamers on the platform easily secured all top five spots for live streams in the US during a press conference held by President Trump about his guilty verdict. YouTube was nowhere to be seen in the top 5 streams. This milestone was celebrated by Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, who shared the news on X. Pavlovski proudly announced, “Earlier today Rumble dethroned YouTube from being in the top 5 livestreams. We wiped the floor clean and took all 5 spots ourselves. Best part, we’re only getting started.” Supporting this claim, data from Streams Charts revealed that the leading streams were dominated by online voices. Dan Bongino led with 204,000 live viewers, followed by Trump’s official channel, Right Side Broadcasting Network, Bannon’s War Room hosted by former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, and conservative commentator Steven Crowder. As the landscape of online media continues to evolve, many individuals have turned to Rumble to hear from figures like President Trump, particularly due to the increasing censorship on platforms like YouTube. YouTube, known for its stringent content moderation policies, has often flagged, restricted, or removed content that includes certain political statements, especially those deemed controversial or against community guidelines. This environment has made it challenging for many voices and political figures like Trump to communicate freely with their audiences as the content can be pulled at any time. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Rumble Surges as Trump’s Guilty Verdict Shakes Up Media Landscape appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. You’d think a person earning their bread and butter by holding a title as ridiculously worded as, “the European Commission’s Vice President for Values and Transparency” – would show a little humility, if not common sense, to balance out the PR act. After all, this is not a role held at a non-profit or an NGO – this is a highly paid job financed by EU taxpayers. And really – really? – does the European Commission need nothing short of a full commissioner, not to mention a VP, to supposedly work every day, on something so nebulous and ever-changing as, “EU’s values and transparency”? Either way, as taxpayers who earn their money through real work are compelled to finance this sort of thing, they might expect that the unelected Brussels-based elites would at least pretend to show some respect toward them. For example, toward their democracy-given right to free speech? Apparently not by Vera Jourova, the EU’s values and transparency pony: she recently took a trip to the US – no doubt considered timely by both the EU and the current White House, bearing in mind the elections looming over them. And the key point she made over and over was against free speech and in favor of even more online censorship. Jourova’s “values and transparency” work this May in the US was to hold meetings with Big Tech CEOs, legacy media, California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, and – deliver a speech at Stanford. Wherever she opened her mouth, she was big on pushing for “fact-checking,” and “protecting the children” – and there was a decent amount of Donald Trump bashing, too. “Disinformation” was a keyword, as the perfect – or so the EU believes – guise to hide demands for even plain censorship. Jourova’s message was not simply to perpetuate the already present censorship on social platforms, but to make sure more is happening: one of her encounters was with X CEO Linda Yaccarino. The “problem” with X is that its level of submission to governments these days has dropped significantly, compared to what the platform did when it was called Twitter. But even Google, according to Jourova, can “do more” – the company’s CEO was told to “improve online information space (… engage in ) intensive cooperation with the expert community and media.” Screenshot That would be, legacy media. Speaking of, is the EU market-driven – or a controlled socialist economy, like those 50-some years ago? Hard to tell. Here’s Jourova’s take: “Independent media are more important than ever for democracy, to help counter disinformation and deep fakes. But their financial sustainability is also challenged by online platforms and AI.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Official Demands “Disinformation” Censorship, Meets with Big Tech, Legacy Media, California Governor Gavin Newsom appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Hamas' Leader Believes He Is Winning the War With Israel (He Could Be Right)

Stephanopoulos Lands with a Thud While Interviewing Trump's Lawyer

As many in the mockingbird media are celebrating the conviction of Donald Trump in the Manhattan trial, CNN's senior legal analyst has tossed cold water on their jubilation with a devastating analysis of how the prosecutors captured their political prey. Honig's analysis appeared on Friday in New York Magazine which was reprinted from the CAFE Brief newsletter. The title alone expresses Honig's highly critical view of the prosecution: "Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Contorted the Law." First Honig notes the absurd lengths the prosecution went to win by any means necessary: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess. Sure, victory is the great deodorant, but a guilty verdict doesn’t make it all pure and right. Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place. “But they won” is no defense to a strained, convoluted reach unless the goal is to “win,” now, by any means necessary and worry about the credibility of the case and the fallout later. And now he lays down the Honig hammer on the more than obvious malfeasance in the case. The following are all undeniable facts. The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not. District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.) Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did. When you charge a former President and current likely presidential nominee with a crime you would want the case to be rock solid. However, as Honig points out, the case was based on an outside the statute of limitations misdemeanors federal case which was converted to a felony state case in which the underlying crimes were not even mentioned: But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge. Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017. So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.) In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else. Honig also pointed out the absurdity of the prosecution declining to reveal the supposed underlining crimes in this case to a very uncomfortable CNN Panel. NEW: Alvin Bragg's former colleague and current CNN legal analyst is calling out the rigged Trump case, even accusing Judge Juan Merchan of violating the law. Elie Honig says the trial "blew his mind" as he called it an "unjustified mess." "The judge donated money - a… pic.twitter.com/nCUhMRutxe — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 1, 2024

Ana Navarro claims to still be a Republican despite actively campaigning for President Biden’s reelection effort and repeatedly defending allegedly corrupt Democrats such as New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. And on Monday’s show, in the wake of former President Trump’s felony convictions under questionable circumstances, she raged at Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio for defending Trump by comparing him to a “dog.” In the midst of The View’s whining about Republican politicians speaking out in support of the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Navarro bloviated about how, “You know, some people have emotional support dogs. Donald Trump has emotional support senators.” She suggested they were fighting among “themselves as to who kisses his ass more” to become his vice president. “But worse amongst them is the senator from my state of Florida, Marco Rubio,” she declared. After playing a soundbite of Rubio comparing the Trump trial to the show trials of communist Cuba after the revolution, Navarro exploded: NAVARRO: How dare you, Marco?! How dare you?! GOLDBERG: Oh, God! NAVARRO: 5,600 Cubans, at least, were shot in front of firing squads! Another1,200 were shot and died because of extrajudicial hearings! How dare you use their name in vain so you can suck up to this man! I know you want to be his vice president, but don't you dare use the name of these people who died protecting freedom and compare our U.S. judicial system to what happens in Cuba, what happens in Nicaragua, what happens in Venezuela!     Moderator Whoopi Goldberg built off of Navarro and lectured Cuban-Americans about supporting Trump; insinuating that they were either hypocrites or stupid for doing so: Let me ask, because I don't understand. All my life I have heard the Cuban people say, “we never want to see that. We're going to make sure it never happens here.” How can -- how can they not recognize when the man says, ‘I'm going to be this guy?’ What's -- what are we missing? “And the reason I was so curious about Marco Rubio saying something like that is because you heard all these stories. Who do you think they were talking about? A dictatorship that ate the country. I don't understand how you think it's going to be different,” Goldberg bloviated. Navarro was still fuming: “He knows better. He knows exactly what he's doing. He just thinks that the person that says the most outrageous thing will be rewarded by being Donald Trump's vice president.” The hypocrisy of their outrage was on full display as pretend-independent co-host Sara Haines opined about how Trump and “the people around him have to stop sowing mistrust in our systems.” “The percentage of trust in our institutions right now is down so low, only 27 percent of Americans have confidence in the Supreme Court,” she decried. “And I do mention the Supreme Court because it's also important to remember, you're not going to agree with everything everyone does…So, we have got to stop teaching people that when it doesn't go your way, something's wrong with the system.” But just last week alone, The View ran multiple segments where they actively tore at the fabric of American institutions by attacking the legitimacy of the court. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View June 3, 2024 11:05:36 a.m. Eastern (…) ANA NAVARRO: You know, some people have emotional support dogs. Donald Trump has emotional support senators, and they have been outdoing themselves as to who kisses his ass more. Who can kiss the ring? Who can – [Applause] And I get it. They're trying to audition to be vice president, and that is a big part of being his vice president is who can suck up to me. But worse amongst them is the senator from my state of Florida, Marco Rubio. I would like us to take a look at what he said. [Cuts to video] SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): This is the quintessential show trial. This is what you see in communist countries. This is what I grew up having people in this community tell me about that happened in the days after the Castro Revolutions. Now obviously, those led to executions. This on the other hand, is an effort to interfere in an election. [Cuts back to live] NAVARRO: How dare you, Marco?! How dare you?! GOLDBERG: Oh, God! NAVARRO: 5,600 Cubans, at least, were shot in front of firing squads! Another1,200 were shot and died because of extrajudicial hearings! How dare you use their name in vain so you can suck up to this man! I know you want to be his vice president, but don't you dare use the name of these people who died protecting freedom and compare our U.S. judicial system to what happens in Cuba, what happens in Nicaragua, what happens in Venezuela! [In Spanish: tells Rubio he should be ashamed of himself] [Applause] GOLDBERG: Let me ask, because I don't understand. All my life I have heard the Cuban people say, “we never want to see that. We're going to make sure it never happens here.” How can -- how can they not recognize when the man says, ‘I'm going to be this guy?’ What's -- what are we missing? (…) 11:09:50 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: I think Trump and the people around him -- Trump won't stop, but the people around him have to stop sowing mistrust in our systems. Sometimes you lose, and the other person didn't cheat and the system's not always rigged. The percentage of trust in our institutions right now is down so low, only 27 percent of Americans have confidence in the Supreme Court, eight percent in congress, less than 20 percent in the media. And I do mention the Supreme Court because it's also important to remember, you're not going to agree with everything everyone does, and our systems are not perfect. They have a dirty history of not being perfect, but they are perfect by comparison to a lot of other places in this world, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. So, we have got to stop teaching people that when it doesn't go your way, something's wrong with the system. GOLDBERG: Everybody doesn't always win. HAINES: Yeah. GOLDBERG: Isn't that what we have been talking about for years? But I just hope that people recognize history. This is why history's so important to know because if you don't know what happened, you don't know what can happen. And I just -- And the reason I was so curious about Marco Rubio saying something like that is because you heard all these stories. Who do you think they were talking about? A dictatorship that ate the country. I don't understand how you think it's going to be different. HOSTIN: There's a lack of world – ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He knows better. NAVARRO: He knows better. He knows exactly what he's doing. He just thinks that the person that says the most outrageous thing will be rewarded by being Donald Trump's vice president. (…)

The National Association of Broadcasters rescinded an award for actor Robert De Niro in the wake of his comments last week against former President Donald Trump outside a New York City courthouse where Trump's Stormy Daniels' trial was taking place, The Hill reported.De Niro ripped into Trump at a press conference — held on behalf of President Joe Biden's campaign — and said Trump "wants to destroy not only the city, but the country, and eventually he could destroy the world."'Mr. De Niro will no longer be attending the event.'The left-wing actor also said, "If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted. And elections? Forget about it. That’s over, that’s done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave. He will never leave. You know that. He will never leave."After Trump was convicted Thursday on all 34 felony counts, De Niro said “justice was served," Deadline reported.The NAB was to give De Niro its Service to America Award on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., The Hill said.“This event is proudly bipartisan, uniting those from across the political spectrum to celebrate the impactful work of local broadcasters and our partners,” an NAB spokesperson said in a statement to the outlet. “While we strongly support the right of every American to exercise free speech and participate in civic engagement, it is clear that Mr. De Niro’s recent high-profile activities will create a distraction from the philanthropic work that we were hoping to recognize. To maintain the focus on service of the award winners, Mr. De Niro will no longer be attending the event.”Following the NAB's announcement, De Niro told The Hill, "I support the work of the NAB Leadership Foundation and would like to express my appreciation and gratitude for what the Foundation has done and will continue to do for the good of us all, and I wish them well for their continued good work."What else?De Niro had to contend with numerous Trump supporters who mercilessly heckled the actor from before the press conference until well after it was over. Amid the verbal fisticuffs, De Niro's onscreen tough-guy persona emerged as well.In fact, De Niro got into a heated verbal altercation on the way back to his vehicle after the press conference, as detractors crowded around him and the group of men apparently protecting the actor.Pro-Trump folks yelled out "wannabe!" and "sell-out!" and "nobody!" and "movies suck!" and "little punk!" NBC News reported."You're not going to intimidate!" De Niro yelled back, pointing his index finger. "That's what Trump does, to try to intimidate! ... We are going to fight back! We're trying to be gentlemen in this world, the Democrats! You are gangsters! You are gangsters!""You're washed up!" another person hollered at the actor, who clearly had enough by that point and fired off a nifty, "F*** you!" at his adversary.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Biden administration is pulling out all the stops to make sure Americans will “own nothing and be happy.” Its latest tactic is encouraging more consumer debt spending through second mortgages, which seems to be less about helping Americans and more about buying votes before the election. Carol Roth, author of “You Will Own Nothing,” believes Americans need to be warned. “It’s the arsonists who are burning down your house, and then, they bring a water bottle and say, ‘Hey, I’m going to help put out the fire and rebuild it. It is frustrating,” Roth tells Glenn Beck before explaining what the government is doing now. “Freddy Mac had this great idea because people have so much equity in their homes. Let us go ahead and offer second mortgages,” Roth says. “But second mortgages don’t get you into housing. Those are consumer loans. Those are people taking money out of their homes and using them whatever it is. And that equity is perceived equity.” Meanwhile, the homeowners haven’t cashed out the house or sold the house, so it’s not guaranteed. Roth believes the second mortgage will be “people taking their wealth, their ownership, and going and blowing it on things.” “That’s what will happen,” Glenn agrees, noting that people will use it to pay down a credit card with a 25% rate in order to use the 9% mortgage rate instead. “Obviously, we would rather use other money if we can to pay down 25% and taking down your ownership,” Roth says. “I think we have to ask ourselves a few questions here. One, why is it that the taxpayers should all of a sudden back consumer loans? Why is it that we want to encourage more consumer debt spending, particularly during a time of inflation?” “And why do we want people to reduce the ownership, the equity in their homes?” she adds. Glenn and Roth both believe this has a lot to do with the 2024 election. “All these things make him look like the economy is doing better,” Roth explains, but if these programs are implemented as Biden is planning, the economy will be even farther from actually doing better. “Inflation next year is going to be insane,” Glenn says, and Roth agrees, noting that programs like this are what “started the whole ball rolling with the Great Recession/financial crisis.” “I’m super excited for taxpayers to back consumer loans,” she continues. “You’re not even backing first mortgages, you’re now backing consumer loans. Way to go, really glad that the government wants to get into that.” Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.