The Canadian government on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), Canada’s preferred euphemism for euthanasia, to be conducted on people who have lost the mental capacity to give informed consent for the procedure.
The post Canada Considers Bill to Euthanize People Who Cannot Make Rational Decisions appeared first on Breitbart.
Two community health workers trying to spread awareness of Ebola in the eastern Congo were attacked by a machete-wielding mob on Friday, further demonstrating the difficulty of controlling the deadly disease among hostile and suspicious rural residents as the total number of cases surpassed 10,000.
The post Ebola Workers in Congo Attacked by Machete Mob as Cases Pass 10,000 appeared first on Breitbart.
The European Union (E.U.) is dropping the move to make Canada an associate member of the 27-nation bloc, multiple sources reported Wednesday.
The post Reports: E.U. Dropping Associate Membership Offer to Canada (for Now) appeared first on Breitbart.
Brazilian Sen. Flavio Bolsonaro and his family landed in Florida on Wednesday morning, hours after Argentina confirmed that they legally entered the country and boarded a flight toward Ecuador.
The post Reports: Flavio Bolsonaro Lands in U.S. After Fleeing Brazil Through Argentina appeared first on Breitbart.
At least 64 people were killed and dozens more injured after two high-speed trains collided in central Spain on Wednesday morning.
The post Central Spain: 64 Killed, Dozens More Injured in High-Speed Train Crash appeared first on Breitbart.
Jordan conducted airstrikes against alleged Islamic State targets in Syria on Tuesday, as “retaliation” for a brutal terrorist attack on a Greek Orthodox church in southern Jordan on Friday.
The post Jordan Bombs Islamic State Bases in Syria After Church Attack appeared first on Breitbart.
"Diplomats" representing the brutal Cuban communist regime, among them Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, organized a mob to shout down U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz on Tuesday as the American presented an exposé on the corruption of the ruling Castro family.
The post Cuban ‘Diplomats’ Form Mob Scene at U.N. as Ambassador Mike Waltz Exposes Castro Family Riches appeared first on Breitbart.
From a long opinion yesterday by Judge Eumi Lee (N.D. Cal.) in Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. v. U.S. Dep't of Defense:
On February 13, 2026, the United States Department of Defense ("Department") publicly designated Alibaba Group Holding Limited as a "Chinese military company" ("CMC"). On June 30, 2026, 10 U.S.C. § 4663 went into effect, barring the Department from contracting with any company who retained the same lobbyist as a CMC. Alibaba asserts that Section 4663 has caused lobbyists to withdraw from representing Alibaba for fear of losing other clients.
The court issued a preliminary injunction, concluding § 4663 likely violates the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause:
Alibaba is an e-commerce and cloud-computing company that provides products, technology, infrastructure, and services to consumers and businesses for civilian and commercial use. Alibaba provides U.S. companies and businesses with a platform to sell their products to consumers in China. Additionally, it provides commercial cloud services to companies, including U.S. companies, operating in China and other countries. Alibaba has developed open-source AI models, including Qwen, with a focus on "commercial applications that make it more efficient and secure for businesses to sell goods to consumers in China." Alibaba is publicly listed on both the New York Stock Exchange and Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
"Prior to being designated [a CMC], Alibaba had retained over two dozen lobbyists and multiple lobbying firms to represent its interests before Congress and the Executive Branch" [including] … "… the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Communication Commission [("FCC")], the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Department of the Treasury, and [other entities]" …. "They presented Alibaba's views on legislation, rules, regulations, executive orders, and other government policies of commercial interest to the company. Specifically, they advocated regarding export expansion, small business export promotion, technology policy, access to U.S. capital markets, e-commerce-related issues, consumer-protection laws, and intellectual property." …
The Court finds that First Amendment scrutiny applies because Section 4663 regulates speech. By restricting Alibaba's ability to retain lobbyists, Section 4663 functionally restricts its political speech. "Discussion of public issues" is "pure speech" that is at "the core of the protection afforded by the First Amendment[.]" The First Amendment also protects "[t]he right to petition," that is, "the right of the people to inform their representatives in government of their desires with respect to the passage or enforcement of laws[.]"Lobbying government officials is therefore an activity fully protected by the First Amendment. FTC v. Super. Ct. Trial Laws. Ass'n (1990) ("It is, of course, clear that the association's efforts to … lobby District officials to enact favorable legislation … were activities that were fully protected by the First Amendment.")….
Here, Section 4663 appears to be directed at defense contractors, but its consequences are on Alibaba's speech. "[A] government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly" by "coerc[ing] a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf." NRA v. Vullo (2024)…. Section 4663's impact falls on the relationship between Alibaba and the third parties crucial to its speech rights. Thus, the Court finds that Section 4663 burdens Alibaba's speech….
Defendants observe that Alibaba is not completely banned from appearing before the federal government—it could hire more in-house lobbyists or find a firm that is willing to forgo defense contractor clients…. [But] Alibaba is unlikely to find a lobbyist willing to forgo any clients who might want to contract with the Department. {The statute applies to defense contractors who contract with "entities"—in other words, lobbying firms—who also contract with CMCs. Defense contractors would not risk their ability to enter into a contract with the federal government when there are plenty of capable lobbying firms available. The lobbying firm then must choose. One or more of its lobbyists can choose to represent Alibaba, but then the entire lobbying firm must forgo representing defense contractors. The only rational choice for a lobbying firm is to stop representing Alibaba.}
[Alibaba also] represents that it cannot hire the number of experienced in-house lobbyists needed to address the federal government for all its interests…. The reduction to Alibaba's speech is sufficient to demonstrate a colorable First Amendment claim….
The court then concluded that the law was subject to strict scrutiny:
"Content-based regulations are subject to the most exacting scrutiny because 'the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'" In examining a statute, courts must also examine "restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others." "Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content." Thus, identity-based regulations may "demand strict scrutiny when they reflect the Government's preference for the substance of what the favored speakers have to say (or aversion to what the disfavored speakers have to say)." …
{Section 4663 is not a content-based restriction…. Section 4663 operates based solely on whether a CMC is involved. What the CMC (or non-CMC) plans to say does not affect whether Section 4663 applies.} [But] Section 4663 is a speaker-based restriction on speech—it is only applicable if a CMC seeks to retain a lobbyist. As a speaker-based restriction on political speech, Section 4663 is subject to strict scrutiny.
Defendants assert that Section 4663 should be considered under intermediate scrutiny, because Alibaba's "differential treatment" is justified by its "special characteristic[ ]," namely the potential involvement of a foreign adversary. Defendants again rely on TikTok, where the Supreme Court applied intermediate scrutiny despite finding that the divestiture statute was a speaker-based restriction, because the differential treatment was due to a content-neutral reason, namely TikTok's susceptibility to foreign control.
While Section 4663 also involves a foreign adversary, TikTok is distinguishable because political speech was not at issue. Id. ("emphasiz[ing] the inherent narrowness" of its holding and observing that "[a] law targeting any other speaker would by necessity entail a distinct inquiry and separate considerations"). Here, Defendants provide no authority to suggest that differential treatment with respect to political speech may be considered under intermediate scrutiny. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) states the opposite: "Laws that burden political speech are 'subject to strict scrutiny,'" and "the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity." The Court thus applies strict scrutiny in determining whether Section 4663 violates the First Amendment.
{The Court recognizes that this is a close question. But for the context of political speech—specifically the ability and right to petition the government—Defendants' argument that intermediate scrutiny should apply would likely prevail, because Section 4663 is otherwise a content-neutral statute. As in TikTok, Section 4663 singles out a particular group of speakers, but not because of the content of their speech. Instead, the treatment is based on a particular characteristic of the speaker, i.e., their status as a CMC.} …
And the court held that the law failed strict scrutiny, because it was not narrowly tailored to the government interests in "(1) … prevent[ing] CMCs 'from accessing sensitive military information through their relationships with lobbyists,' and (2) … ensur[ing] that CMCs 'cannot subtly influence any of [the Department's] decisions related to national security by influencing a lobbyist'":
[T]he government cannot impose a restriction on speech based solely on "mere conjecture." Rather, it must "point to record evidence or legislative findings demonstrating the need to address a special problem."
Here, Defendants fail to meet their burden. Defendants provide only one exhibit in support of their opposition: the joint explanatory statement submitted as part of the legislative record for the Act. The statement provides an overview of Section 4663 and then "direct[s] the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than one year after the enactment of this Act, on the national security risks posed by consulting firms who simultaneously contract with the Department of Defense and the Chinese government or its proxies or affiliates."
Of note, the Comptroller General is directed to study consulting firms, not lobbyists. The statement does not express any findings by the Comptroller General or Congress about the risks posed by lobbyists retained by CMCs. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants were unable to confirm whether a report by the Comptroller General had been submitted to Congress by December 23, 2025, one year after the Act's enactment; nor did Defendants provide a copy of the report. Other than the statement, Defendants do not provide any evidence of the national security risks or other compelling government interests….
[Moreover, d]efendants do not offer any evidence demonstrating that alternative [and less speech-restrictive] means were contemplated, much less rejected for being insufficient…. Meanwhile, Alibaba submits evidence that less alternative restrictions may exist. With respect to CMCs, Nebraska has required lobbyists representing entities on the 1260H List to file an acknowledgment that they are representing a foreign adversary. The Supreme Court "has upheld registration and disclosure requirements on lobbyists" as a "less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech." Defendants present no reason why a disclosure requirement, like Nebraska's, would be inadequate for the federal government.
Instead, Defendants summarily conclude that Alibaba's proposed disclosure requirement would not suffice because "there would still be access and the potential for influence." This speculation is insufficient to support a restriction on the First Amendment….
Carter G. Phillips, Christopher A. Eiswerth, Jennifer J. Clark, and Sheila Anil Gogate Armbrust (Sidley Austin LLP) represent Alibaba.
The post Alibaba and the Forty Lobbyists, and the First Amendment appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The Egyptian Parliament on Monday voted to give President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi the authority to deploy troops to Saudi Arabia, where they would help the kingdom repel attacks from the Iran-backed Houthi insurgents of Yemen.
The post Egyptian Parliament Authorizes Troops to Defend Saudi Arabia appeared first on Breitbart.
Brazilian news outlets claimed that Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro fled the country after authorities attempted to confiscate his passport.
The post Rumors Claim Flávio Bolsonaro Refused to Hand Over Passports and Fled Brazil appeared first on Breitbart.
Two violent attacks by armed individuals — one on October 20 and another on October 24 — left 60 Christians dead and 20 homes burned to the ground in Ethiopia.
The post Homes Burned and 60 Christians Killed by Armed Attackers in Ethiopia appeared first on Breitbart.
A little more than a year ago, President Donald Trump publicly demanded that Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, find a crime to pin on former FBI Director James Comey. Trump's underlings have repeatedly tried to do that, first charging Comey with lying to Congress and then accusing him of threatening to assassinate the president. But the first indictment was dismissed because Trump had illegally appointed the prosecutor who obtained it, and the second was doomed right out of the gate because it aimed to punish constitutionally protected political speech.
The Justice Department's latest attempt to follow Trump's marching orders was revealed on Monday, when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden unsealed a "criminal information" that claims Comey illegally shared classified information with The New York Times on October 5, 2016. In an attempt to meet the statutory deadline for that charge, prosecutors filed it exactly 10 years after the alleged disclosure. But Comey's lawyers argue that federal law required the government to obtain a grand jury indictment within 10 years of the alleged offense, which it failed to do.
Whatever you make of that dispute, the president has made it clear that he wants to imprison Comey, a longtime nemesis because of his role in the "Russiagate hoax" during Trump's first term, and does not much care about exactly how that happens. Justice Department officials, meanwhile, are keen to pursue Trump's personal vendetta by using their prosecutorial powers as an instrument of his revenge.
The new case "would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice," Comey said in an online video on Monday. "I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary."
In the New York Times story at the center of the case, Charlie Savage and Nicole Perloth reported that Yahoo had adapted "a system intended to scan emails for child pornography" to comply with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order seeking "messages containing a computer 'signature' tied to the communications of a state-sponsored terrorist organization." Savage and Perloth cited "two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
Dustin Farahnak, a special U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, says that story included "first-time disclosures of classified information not intended for the public domain." According to Farahnak, the government has evidence that Comey "directed staff" to discuss "specific accuracy concerns" about a prior Reuters report on the same subject with Savage. In the process of doing that, Farahnak says, those FBI officials "illegally transferred classified information."
Comey's attempt to set the record straight, according to Trump's henchmen, was a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison under 18 USC 793(d), an Espionage Act provision that applies to an official who "willfully" shares "information relating to the national defense" with an unauthorized recipient when he "has reason to believe" it "could be used to the injury of the United States." Comey also faces a charge of conspiring to violate Section 793, which likewise carries a maximum 10-year sentence.
If Comey's alleged disclosure was such a grave crime, you might wonder, why did it take a decade to charge him? Because two prior investigations of the same incident concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.
Beginning in March 2017, John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, looked into the genesis of the Times article. The investigation found that James Baker, then the FBI's general counsel, was one of the anonymous sources. Baker said he had acted under instructions from FBI Chief of Staff James Rybacki, whom he understood to be conveying Comey's wishes. Durham's investigation included interviews, emails, phone records, and consideration of the relevant statutes. In December 2018, Comey's lawyers note, Durham "wrote a classified memorandum outlining the investigation and recommending 'NO prosecution for Baker or anyone else.'"
The following month, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia "opened an investigation into the same subject matter," Comey's lawyers say. That investigation "was closed without any charges in February 2020" after the office "declined to prosecute."
Given the outcomes of those two investigations, the decision to charge Comey now stinks of desperation to slake Trump's thirst for revenge. According to Comey's lawyers, the tardiness of the charges also fatally undermines the case.
Federal law generally requires that prosecutors file charges within five years of the alleged crime. But the Internal Security Act of 1950 made an exception for Section 793, saying "an indictment for any violation" of that provision "may be found at any time within ten years next after such violation shall have been committed."
The charges against Comey "should be dismissed as time barred," his lawyers argue: "Section 19 of the Internal Security Act gives the government an extended ten-year limitations period in which to charge Section 793 offenses. But as Section 19 unambiguously states, the government may invoke that extended period only by obtaining a grand jury indictment. A criminal information—which the government can issue unilaterally without grand jury involvement—does not suffice. Because the default five-year statute of limitations for federal felonies has long since elapsed on the alleged offenses, and the government's information does not meet the express statutory requirement for an extended ten-year limitations period, the information is untimely and must be dismissed."
Whichever side prevails on that issue, no one should have any illusions that the Justice Department is pursuing the mission suggested by its name. "It remains unclear what [McFadden] will do with the matter and whether DOJ will even be able to secure an indictment—as required by the Constitution," Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox says in an emailed press release. "Should the matter proceed, it is unequivocally clear that this case is a vindictive prosecution—a classic case of lawfare by a weaponized Justice Department."
The post The Justice Department's 3rd Attempt To Imprison James Comey Stinks of Trump's Desperation for Revenge appeared first on Reason Magazine.
On Tuesday, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service announced that two men have been charged with national security offenses following an incident involving Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford last month.
RELATED:
The U.S. Withdraws Its Bombers from UK’s RAF Fairford Airbase
Mohmed Abdulkarim, 24, and Nouman Essghir, 24, were both charged under National Security Act 2023 following a counter-terrorism policing investigation, according to the public prosecution authority.
Abdulkarim was charged with one offense of assisting a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities, and Essghir was charged with one offense of entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK.
On Sept. 27, British police evacuated homes near RAF Fairford while army bomb-disposal experts were called in to examine several vehicles nearby. Seven people have since been arrested on suspicion of explosives offenses and preparing an act of terror.
The alleged "Iranian attack" on the RAF base in Fairford is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) October 2, 2026
It seems the "Iranian commandos" forgot their bombs, their guns? But decided to call the Police on themselves?
They were so dangerous, they were let walk out of custody hours later. pic.twitter.com/zGZzEqM9TB
On the day of the incident, after a farmer raised the alarm about a group of men acting suspiciously, police arrived at the scene and initially detained five men.
“Two military sources believed the men were stealing fuel, as barrels and equipment for storing it were found in their vehicles near a diesel supply point. The following day, the five men were released on police bail after being questioned,” noted British journalist Brit Matters.
RAF Fairford is a British military airbase used by the U.S. Air Force. The Pentagon confirmed earlier this month that all U.S. bombers deployed to RAF Fairford had returned to their home stations in the United States.
Britain said that it was “highly likely” that Iran was involved in the RAF Fairford incident, but the accusation was rejected by Iran, who called it a “sordid plot to advance the anti-Iran campaign.”
teleSUR/ JF
Source: Xinhua
A series of messages published on social media Tuesday morning call for a wave of violent riots across Spain "inspired" by the recent chaotic events in France for Saturday, October 31, local outlets warned.
The post Reports: France-Inspired Violent Riots Are Being Urged in Spain for Halloween appeared first on Breitbart.
Europe's top NATO members are ready to take greater responsibility for the continent's security while standing with the U.S. as an "indispensable ally," the organization affirmed Tuesday.
The post Trump Effect: Top NATO Powers Pledge to Commit More to Defence, Reaffirm U.S. Alliance appeared first on Breitbart.
Login