Sovereign Order Journal Established in 1356
In the Global Perspectives column of the Sovereign Order Journal, Agenor D. Medeiros provides in-depth analyses of political, social, and religious issues. With a unique perspective, he connects readers to the realities of the contemporary world, offering insights that foster understanding, solidarity, and collective progress.
Official Representative and Observer at the United Nations (UN) with Special Status
• Undertakes diplomatic mediation, humanitarian advocacy, and promotes intercultural dialogue, participating in high-level debates and conferences under the auspices of the UN (ECOSOC).
Journalist
• Holds formal registration with the National Federation of Journalists (FENAJ), Brazil’s principal regulatory body for journalism, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), possessing an International Journalist Identification.
Honourable Kentucky Colonel (USA)
• Holds the title “The Honourable Colonel,” conferred by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which includes appointment as a Goodwill Ambassador for promoting the values and culture of Kentucky.
Titles in European Chivalric Orders
• Grand Commander (GCOMC) in The Sacred Military Order Templar Knights of the Lord Lamont (London).
• Knight (KN) in the Sovereign Order of The Knights of the Lord Lamont (Scotland).
This Month’s Spotlight Report
Colonel Agenor Duque Baracho de Medeiros at the United.
Nations to Petition for Holocaust Remembrance Day Commemorations




2025 News
Explore the latest insights from 2025, covering key political shifts, groundbreaking technological advancements, and the evolving debates shaping our world today.
POPE FRANCIS CALLS FOR A FIXED DATE FOR EASTER: A CALL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY OR A RELIGIOUS MISHMASH?

בס״ד
Pope Francis stated last Saturday (25) that the Catholic Church is ready to establish a fixed date for Easter, the most important Christian festival, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The proposal aims to unify the celebration among different Christian denominations, especially Catholics and Orthodox, who follow different calendars. However, for many Evangelical Christians, the initiative could represent a step towards ecumenism, sparking concern among those who believe that true faith should be based solely on the Scriptures.
Easter currently falls on a movable date, calculated as the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox in the Northern Hemisphere. However, the Catholic Church uses the Gregorian calendar, introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, while the Orthodox Church follows the Julian calendar, which is no longer widely used in most countries. This difference means that the celebrations often fall on different dates, sometimes several weeks apart.
In 2025, however, all Christian denominations will celebrate Easter on the same day, 20 April. This coincidence occurs due to the alignment of calculations in the Gregorian and Julian calendars. In light of this rare convergence, Pope Francis has seized the occasion to reiterate his desire to establish a fixed date for Easter as a significant step towards Christian unity.
The Proposal for a Fixed Sunday
During the Mass that concluded the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, held at the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, Francis emphasised that the Catholic Church is willing to accept a fixed date agreed upon by all Christians.
“I renew my call for this coincidence to serve as a reminder to all Christians to take a decisive step towards unity, centred on a common date for Easter. The Catholic Church is ready to accept the date that everyone desires – a date of unity,” the Pontiff declared.
Nevertheless, many Evangelicals view this proposal with caution, arguing that unity among denominations should be based on the truth of the Gospel alone and not through institutional agreements. These groups believe that the ecumenism promoted by the Vatican may blur fundamental theological differences and dilute the core message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
History and Calendar Differences
The calculation of Easter has its roots in Jewish tradition. In the early centuries of Christianity, the date was determined by the Jewish Passover, which occurs in the month of Nisan, according to the Hebrew calendar. However, at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, it was decided that the Christian Easter should be observed on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring.
The divergence between the Gregorian and Julian calendars, which emerged from the 16th century onwards, caused Western and Eastern churches to celebrate Easter on different dates. Currently, the Orthodox Church, which uses the Julian calendar, may celebrate Easter up to five weeks after the date observed by Catholics and Protestants.
Christian Unity or Compromising the Faith?
Pope Francis’s wish to set a common date for Easter reflects his commitment to ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. The Pontiff has stressed the importance of unity among Christians, highlighting that historical and liturgical differences should not be obstacles to communion.
However, many Evangelicals maintain that true Christian unity is not achieved through agreements between denominations, but rather through faithfulness to Scripture. For these groups, salvation and the worship of God must follow biblical teachings alone, without concessions to human or institutional traditions.
The joint celebration of Easter in 2025, which also marks the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, could be a key milestone in moving in this direction. “It is a profession of faith shared by all, going beyond the divisions that have wounded the Body of Christ over the centuries,” Francis highlighted.
Whilst the Vatican and other Christian leaders pursue this rapprochement, many Evangelicals continue to oppose any move they perceive as institutional ecumenism, warning of the risk of compromising the doctrinal purity of the Gospel.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 6 February 2025
THE SILENT DICTATORSHIP AND THE PRICE OF OPPOSITION:
FREEDOM AT RISK IN BRAZIL – HOW POLITICAL CONTROL ADVANCES UNDER THE GUISE OF LAW

בס״ד
The recent decision by Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes, requiring former President Jair Bolsonaro to present a formal invitation to Donald Trump’s inauguration in the United States, is yet another chapter in a troubling sequence of events that raises serious concerns about the health of Brazil’s democratic institutions. With his passport confiscated since February 2024, Bolsonaro once again finds himself barred from exercising a fundamental right: freedom of international movement. This measure, which should be reserved for extreme and exceptional cases, is increasingly being wielded as a tool of political control, suggesting an authoritarian escalation cloaked in the guise of upholding the rule of law.
The confiscation of Bolsonaro’s passport was ordered under Operation Tempus Veritatis, which investigates his alleged involvement in a purported coup plot. However, no concrete evidence has yet been presented to the public to substantiate these accusations unequivocally. Every attempt by Bolsonaro to recover his passport has met the same response: denial. This not only deprives the former president of his basic rights but also sets a dangerous precedent that could be used against any citizen in the future.
In his latest formal request to the STF, Bolsonaro sought the release of his passport to attend Trump’s inauguration ceremony on 20 January. According to his defence team, the invitation signifies international recognition of his diplomatic efforts and the strengthening of bilateral ties. Despite this, Justice Moraes’s response was unequivocal: without an official, detailed document, the request would not be considered.
This is not the first time Bolsonaro has sought the release of his passport for international engagements. In March 2024, a similar request was submitted, citing an invitation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The outcome was identical: a refusal by the STF. In October of the same year, the STF’s First Panel unanimously upheld the confiscation, reinforcing the narrative that any attempt by Bolsonaro to leave the country would be interpreted as an attempt to flee.
The criteria cited to justify Moraes’s decision also warrant scrutiny. According to the justice, the invitation sent to Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, originated from an “unidentified” email address, which justified the demand for more robust proof. It is worth noting, however, that diplomatic and political events of this nature are rarely disclosed with full details well in advance. This request for additional documentation seems more like a bureaucratic hurdle designed to delay or block the trip.
Meanwhile, Bolsonaro has stated on social media that he is honoured by the invitation to Trump’s inauguration and has indicated that, if denied permission to travel, his wife, Michelle Bolsonaro, will attend the event on his behalf. This declaration highlights his determination to remain actively engaged in the international political scene, recognising the importance of maintaining strong relationships with nations that share similar values.
This situation transcends personal disputes, revealing a dangerous power game in which institutional boundaries are continually pushed. The use of precautionary measures to restrict the political activities of a former president fosters a climate of legal instability, undermining the impartiality of judicial decisions.
In this context, the Brazilian public must remain vigilant. History demonstrates that authoritarian regimes do not emerge overnight; they are established gradually, through incremental actions that collectively erode rights and freedoms. This is not merely a case of a former president being barred from travelling; it is a society faced with the choice of silently accepting the march of authoritarianism or actively defending its freedoms.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon every citizen to reflect on the current moment and understand that when the law is weaponised for political purposes, the path to a silent dictatorship is paved, with freedom being the first casualty.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 14 January 2025
SOLAR STORMS, SCIENCE, PROPHECIES, AND OUR REALITY: ARE WE READY TO LIVE THROUGH THE END TIMES?

בס״ד
In the early hours of 2025, a startling event put the world on high alert. An extreme G5-class solar storm struck Earth, causing significant disruptions to the planet’s magnetic field. Data indicated that the Kp index exceeded 9.3—a rare and alarming peak—marking the start of a year of intense solar activity. This storm resulted from coronal mass ejections (CMEs) detected on 29 and 30 December 2024, as confirmed by NASA and NOAA models. The impact began on the night of 31 December and intensified on 1 January.
The immediate consequences were stark. Power grids experienced fluctuations, satellites reported anomalies, and temporary failures were observed in communication and navigation systems. Scientists also noted an increase in electrical currents in Earth’s crust—a phenomenon that, according to studies, can trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Indeed, on 2 January, a magnitude 6.1 earthquake struck Chile, and on 7 January, a 7.1-magnitude quake hit Tibet, leaving 126 dead and nearly 200 injured. These events have reignited debates about the connection between solar storms and seismic activity.
In 1859, British astronomer Richard Carrington observed sunspots when he witnessed what would become known as the largest geomagnetic storm in modern history. The Carrington Event, as it is called, left an indelible mark. Auroras lit up the skies as far south as Cuba and Jamaica. Their brilliance allowed people in Missouri to read books outdoors at midnight. But the impact extended beyond natural beauty: telegraph lines were overloaded with electrical surges, causing fires and shocking operators. Messages were sent without batteries due to the induced energy in the cables. This historic event serves as a warning about the dangers solar storms pose to modern technology, a challenge compounded by today’s reliance on digital systems.
Solar storms result from eruptions in the Sun’s corona, releasing magnetic energy in the form of radiation and plasma. When directed at Earth, these explosions interact with the planet’s magnetic field, creating geomagnetic storms. These events can affect satellites, GPS systems, power grids, and global communications. A notable example is the 1989 blackout in Canada, which left millions without power for nine hours.
Recent research, such as studies led by Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi, an assistant professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of California, warns that an extreme solar storm could trigger an “internet apocalypse.” Undersea cables, essential to global connectivity, are among the most vulnerable components. Studies also suggest that solar storms may pose significant health risks, such as increasing the likelihood of strokes, due to the interaction of atmospheric electrical currents with the human body.
Solar cycles, lasting 11 years, have peaks of activity known as solar maxima, characterised by an increase in sunspots. These cycles influence not only Earth but also the entire solar system. The current cycle, which began in 2019, is expected to peak in 2025. Scientists remain vigilant, working to predict and mitigate the impacts. NASA and NOAA lead these efforts, monitoring sunspots and developing early warning systems.
In his 1973 book, The Vision, pastor and prophet David Wilkerson described revelations that, in light of recent events, appear as clear prophetic warnings. He foretold natural disasters, including “fire in the sky” and earthquakes, as signs of the end times. Wilkerson viewed these phenomena as a divine call for repentance and spiritual preparation. He also predicted major global economic crises, particularly originating in Europe, along with moral decline and religious persecution. Despite the grim outlook, his words encouraged people to urgently seek a deeper connection with God.
The Scriptures warn us in Isaiah 24:20, “The Earth will reel like a drunkard…” Addressing his disciples about the signs of the coming of the Son of Man, Jesus said, “There will be great earthquakes, famines, and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven” (Luke 21:11). Consequently, signs in the Sun can be seen as one of the harbingers of Christ’s second coming.
Recent events, combined with scientific warnings and biblical prophecies, indicate we are living in unprecedented times. Jesus also said, “There will be signs in the Sun, Moon, and stars. On Earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea” (Luke 21:25). As David Wilkerson urged decades ago, Christians must seek divine guidance, and the current moment demands even greater vigilance. With faith and trust in God’s sovereignty, each individual is called to reflect on these signs and prepare spiritually and emotionally for what lies ahead.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 13 January 2025
LATIN AMERICA HAS ‘SECRET TRIBUNALS’ CENSORING PLATFORMS, SAYS ZUCKERBERG

בס״ד
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has shaken the digital landscape by announcing on Tuesday (7th) a series of new content moderation policies for the company’s platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, and Threads. Among the key measures is the termination of partnerships with fact-checking organisations and the deactivation of proprietary tools that combat allegedly false content.
In a statement shared on his Instagram profile, Zuckerberg pointed directly to Latin America as a region of concern regarding freedom of expression and democracy. According to him, certain Latin American countries have “secret tribunals” empowered to quietly order companies to remove content. While he did not specify which tribunals or countries he was referring to, his remarks raise significant questions about transparency and governmental interference in social media operations.
Zuckerberg contrasted this with the global situation, highlighting that the United States has “the strongest constitutional protections for freedom of speech in the world.” Conversely, he criticised Europe for enacting “an increasing number of laws instituting censorship,” which, he argued, hampers innovation. This juxtaposition underscores the executive’s broader concern about governmental restrictions on the free flow of information on digital platforms.
Another key development was the leadership change in Meta’s global policy team, with the appointment of a new executive aligned with Donald Trump. Previously criticised by the former president during his first term, Zuckerberg now expresses a willingness to collaborate with Trump against “foreign governments aiming to censor American companies.”
On a practical level, Meta is also implementing measures inspired by the X platform (formerly Twitter), particularly its Community Notes feature. This tool allows users to add context or flag inaccuracies in posts. According to Zuckerberg, the goal is to “return to the roots of free speech” and minimise moderation errors. He noted that “governments and traditional media have increasingly pressured for more censorship.”
Additionally, Meta has committed to simplifying its content policies and easing restrictions on controversial topics, such as gender and immigration. Automated systems will remain in place but will focus solely on tackling severe issues like child sexual abuse, terrorism, and cybercrime.
The Community Notes feature will initially launch in the United States, with plans for a broader rollout in the future. In a bid to reduce ideological bias in content moderation, Zuckerberg also announced the relocation of Meta’s security and moderation teams from California to Texas, a state known for its conservative stance. According to him, the move aims to “promote freedom of expression” more broadly and equitably.
Another noteworthy decision involves the return of political content in the form of recommended posts on Meta’s platforms, reversing a change made last year. This move reflects an effort to foster a more open space for political discussions and ideas, a cornerstone of modern democracy.
“It will take time to get this right, and these are complex systems, so they will never be perfect. But this is an important step forward, and I’m excited for this next chapter,” Zuckerberg concluded, reaffirming his commitment to freedom of expression and the creation of a more open and less externally controlled digital environment.
Meta’s stance marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the boundaries of free speech and the role of major technology companies in upholding this fundamental right. The world will now watch closely to see how these policies are implemented and their tangible impact on the global digital ecosystem.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 12 January 2025
TRUMP’S INVITATION TO BOLSONARO:
DIPLOMACY AT STAKE AND THE DECISION IN THE HANDS OF THE SUPREME COURT

בס״ד
The invitation from the United States’ President-elect, Donald Trump, to former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to attend his inauguration ceremony in Washington has reignited political debates and tensions concerning the role of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF). Bolsonaro, whose passport has been retained by court order since February 2024, faces legal hurdles that could prevent his attendance at the event, scheduled for 20 January. In light of the invitation, Bolsonaro’s legal team is preparing a new request to Minister Alexandre de Moraes, who has previously denied similar appeals.
The decision by Moraes to retain Bolsonaro’s passport was made as part of Operation Tempus Veritatis, tied to the controversial investigation into an alleged coup plot. Throughout 2024, Bolsonaro’s legal team sought to reverse the ruling through STF appeals, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Now, with Trump’s invitation in hand, the political scenario has taken on an international dimension, as Bolsonaro’s attendance at the inauguration could be interpreted as a signal of support for a strategic alliance between the two nations.
Behind the scenes, Bolsonaro’s allies have warned that a potential refusal by the STF to release the passport could trigger an unprecedented diplomatic crisis between Brazil and the United States. Trump, who has consistently maintained a firm stance against external interference, is expected to prioritise relations with Brazil during his new administration, particularly given the ideological ties between the two leaders. Bolsonaro and Trump enjoyed a close relationship during their respective terms, with partnerships spanning trade and diplomacy.
The invitation, sent via email, was signed by the executive director of the inauguration committee, Richard Walters, and delivered to Bolsonaro through his son, federal deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro. In the message, Walters referred to Bolsonaro as “President” and emphasised the significance of his presence at the ceremony. Eduardo Bolsonaro, who closely followed the recent US presidential election, has been a key facilitator of the relationship between the two leaders.
Adding complexity to the situation is the recent inclusion of billionaire Elon Musk in the STF’s investigation into digital militias. Musk, the owner of the X platform, has been named by Trump as the future head of the Department of Government Efficiency, further complicating matters. The STF’s decision has drawn sharp criticism from international conservatives, who view it as an attempt at censorship and intimidation.
Bolsonaro’s initial attempt to recover his passport was unanimously rejected by the STF’s First Panel, comprising Ministers Flávio Dino, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, and Luiz Fux. In October, Moraes reiterated his decision to keep the document withheld, citing the absence of any new developments to warrant its return. Bolsonaro’s defence, now bolstered by Trump’s invitation, is expected to encounter similar resistance.
Bolsonaro, who gained recognition in the United States as the “Tropical Trump,” received public support from the then-former US president during Brazil’s 2022 presidential election. Trump recorded a video urging voters to support Bolsonaro’s re-election bid, highlighting the political and ideological alignment between the two leaders. This alignment has since become a defining feature of their international reputations.
As Trump’s inauguration approaches, this unfolding situation is being closely monitored by international observers. A refusal by the STF to release Bolsonaro’s passport could reinforce narratives suggesting that the former Brazilian president is a victim of political persecution. Conversely, authorising his attendance at Trump’s inauguration could be viewed as a pragmatic gesture to avoid a diplomatic confrontation that serves no one’s interests.
Trump’s inauguration in Washington, beyond its political symbolism, presents an opportunity for renewed rapprochement between Brazil and the United States, particularly amidst global tensions and economic challenges. Should Bolsonaro secure permission to travel, his presence could mark a significant milestone in strengthening bilateral relations. The coming days will be critical in determining the outcome of this saga, which may have lasting repercussions on the international political stage.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 11 January 2025
CHINA IS NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH: ADVANCES ON TAIWAN AND ATTEMPTS TO MANIPULATE PARAGUAY THROUGH COERCION AND ESPIONAGE

בס״ד
The struggle for sovereignty between Taiwan and China, intensified by Paraguay’s unwavering loyalty to Taipei, has spanned decades, laying bare the challenges of a world divided between freedom and oppression. Since the end of the Second World War, Taiwan has withstood attempts at domination by Communist China, which refuses to recognise the island’s sovereignty. While Beijing insists on the principle of “One China,” Taiwan has developed its own identity as a democratic nation, rejecting the authoritarianism that defines the Chinese regime. Amid this confrontation, Paraguay has emerged as a historic ally of Taiwan, maintaining diplomatic ties since 1957 despite economic and diplomatic pressure from Beijing.
Over the decades, Paraguay and Taiwan have built a mutually beneficial relationship, formalising agreements spanning agriculture, technology, and trade. This partnership has not only bolstered Paraguay’s economy but also symbolised a commitment to sovereignty and freedom. However, Paraguay’s steadfast support for Taiwan has not gone unnoticed by China, which spares no effort to isolate the democratically governed island. China’s actions exemplify a clear agenda: to consolidate its global power through a combination of economic pressure, diplomatic threats, and political manipulation.
In late 2024, Chinese diplomat Xu Wei visited Paraguay, ostensibly to attend a UNESCO meeting. However, his true motives soon became apparent. In a brazen attempt to pressure the Paraguayan government into severing ties with Taiwan, Xu Wei met with local parliamentarians and declared: “It is either China or Taiwan. China’s door will always remain open, but the principle of ‘One China’ is non-negotiable.” This statement not only crossed the bounds of diplomacy but also revealed China’s willingness to interfere directly in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. In response to Xu Wei’s inappropriate conduct and parallel agenda during his visit, the Paraguayan government revoked his visa and expelled him, reaffirming its firm stance against foreign meddling in the country’s internal matters.
While Xu Wei openly conveyed China’s diplomatic pressure, the nation’s activities in Paraguay extend far beyond such statements. In October 2024, a vehicle registered to Huawei, the tech giant with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), was spotted outside the residence of the Taiwanese ambassador in Asunción. Inside the car, a Chinese agent was allegedly using a device to intercept data. The incident, which sparked allegations of espionage, was just one among numerous reports of cyber operations conducted by China against Paraguay. Hackers linked to the Flax Typhoon group also breached the country’s diplomatic systems, underscoring China’s willingness to employ any means to weaken the relationship between Asunción and Taipei.
It is no secret that other countries in Latin America have already succumbed to Chinese pressure, abandoning Taiwan in pursuit of short-term economic gains. Honduras, Panama, and El Salvador have aligned themselves with Beijing, sacrificing democratic principles in exchange for promises of investment. Brazil, under the leadership of the current (mis)government of Lula and its alignment with BRICS, prioritises trade relations with China, ignoring the threats to national sovereignty such partnerships may entail. Meanwhile, Paraguay, led by Santiago Peña, remains steadfast in its democratic values, resisting Beijing’s attempts to compromise its political independence.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not merely a threat to global democracies; it is a machine of oppression. With its dictatorship, vast military power, and ambition for global control, the CCP employs strategies of persuasion, espionage, and coercion to expand its influence. China’s plans extend far beyond Taiwan or Paraguay; they represent a project of domination designed to reshape the world order to serve its interests, disregarding sovereignty, silencing opposition, and subjugating populations. The international community must awaken to the imminent danger of allowing the CCP’s unchecked expansion, for history teaches that freedom, once lost, is rarely regained without a significant cost.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 10 January 2025
Federal Justice Orders Investigation into Israeli Soldier on Holiday in Brazil for Alleged War Crimes in Gaza

בס״ד
Brazil’s Federal Justice has ordered the Federal Police (PF) to investigate an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier, identified as Yuval Vagdani, for alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip. The order was issued on 30 December 2024 by Judge Raquel Soares Charelli of the Federal District Judiciary Section, following a complaint lodged by the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), an organisation advocating for Palestinian rights. Raquel is recognised as a left-wing advocate in Brazil and Latin America, as well as a supporter of the Palestinian cause.
The soldier, who was visiting Brazil as a tourist, is accused of direct involvement in the demolition of a residential block in Gaza in November 2024. According to the complaint, the location was being used as a shelter by displaced Palestinian civilians. The HRF claims to have gathered documentary evidence, including geolocation records, videos, and images, allegedly showing Vagdani actively participating in military operations in the area.
The complaint was based on the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows any state to prosecute individuals suspected of serious crimes, such as genocide and war crimes, regardless of where the crimes were committed. As a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), Brazil is obligated to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
HRF lawyers Maira Pinheiro and Caio de Almeida have requested the preventive detention of Yuval Vagdani, citing a risk of flight and potential evidence tampering. “This case is emblematic and represents a practical application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The preventive detention of the suspect is essential to ensure the proper progress of the investigation,” argued Maira Pinheiro.
In response, the Israeli Embassy in Brazil issued an official statement defending the legality of Israeli military operations in Gaza and criticising the complaint filed by HRF. According to the embassy, the IDF’s actions in Gaza are conducted in full compliance with international law and aim to protect the nation from attacks by Hamas, an organisation recognised as terrorist by several countries, though not by Brazil – “to our shame,” as the statement noted.
An Israeli congressman, incensed by the Brazilian court’s decision to investigate the soldier, expressed strong disapproval in a post on the social network X:
“Brazil has become a state subservient to terrorists. Instead of pursuing terrorists, it persecutes a soldier of the Israel Defence Forces – a Jew who survived a brutal massacre and defends his people. An unforgivable disgrace. Israel will not stand idly by in the face of the persecution of its soldiers, and if Brazil does not correct its course, it will pay a price.”
The Israeli Embassy further stated:
“Israel exercises its legitimate right to self-defence after the brutal massacre of 7 October 2023, perpetrated by Hamas. The true war crimes are committed by terrorist groups that use civilians as human shields and install military infrastructure in densely populated areas, deliberately endangering the population.”
The embassy also accused HRF of conducting an international smear campaign against Israel:
“This organisation seeks to exploit Brazil’s legal system to promote an anti-Israel narrative. The arrest request is based on unfounded accusations aimed at delegitimising Israel’s right to self-defence.”
The embassy highlighted Israel’s humanitarian efforts in Gaza, ensuring the transfer of essential supplies through its borders despite the ongoing conflict.
The Gaza war intensified following the attacks of October 2023, when Hamas launched a series of assaults against Israel, resulting in hundreds of deaths and triggering a military escalation in the region. Since then, Israel has stepped up its military operations to neutralise threats from terrorist groups, facing international criticism for the impact on Palestinian civilians, despite issuing advance warnings to allow civilians to evacuate.
According to HRF, the Federal Court’s decision to investigate the case sets an unprecedented precedent in Brazil. “This is a milestone in the global struggle for justice. It demonstrates that no perpetrator of war crimes is above the law and that international treaties are not merely symbolic but tools to protect humanity,” declared Abou Jahjah, president of the foundation.
However, legal experts pointed to the complexities of any potential arrest and extradition of the soldier. With the Israeli government already defending its serviceman, a diplomatic crisis between the two nations could ensue. Moreover, while Brazil is a signatory to international treaties providing for legal cooperation in such cases, decisions of this nature often encounter political and diplomatic obstacles.
Alerted by family members, the soldier, who is among the survivors of the 7 October 2023 attack, managed to leave Brazil on Sunday (5 January), before being detained by the PF. Meanwhile, the case adds another chapter to the often contentious relationship between Brazil and Israel, exacerbated by the perceived blunders and pro-terrorist declarations of Brazil’s current administration.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 8 January 2025
DREX ENTERS THE SCENE IN BRAZIL: FIRST TRANSACTION CONDUCTED BETWEEN CAIXA AND BANCO DO BRASIL

בס״ד
Brazil has reached a historic milestone in modernising its financial system with the execution of the first transaction using Drex, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank. This pioneering operation, carried out between Caixa Econômica Federal and Banco Inter, marks the country’s entry into a new era of faster, more secure, and more inclusive transactions.
Since its announcement in August 2020, Drex has been designed as a natural evolution from physical money to a digital model. Regulated and issued by the Central Bank, the digital currency holds the same value and acceptance as the traditional real, but offers enhanced traceability and reduced operational costs.
Unlike decentralised cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, Drex is centralised and controlled by the Central Bank, ensuring greater stability and security. Based on blockchain technology, Drex facilitates more transparent transactions, reduces fraud, and optimises financial processes. Moreover, it complements well-established methods like Pix, while adding new functionalities such as asset tokenisation and smart contracts.
The Brazilian digital currency also has practical applications in sectors like real estate. With tokenisation, for instance, property financing can be carried out much more quickly and transparently, democratising access to investments and simplifying bureaucratic procedures.
The inaugural operation with Drex took place in a supervised test environment overseen by the Central Bank. In this experiment, funds were transferred between Caixa Econômica Federal and Banco Inter’s digital wallets. Although a relatively simple transaction, it symbolises a significant step forward in the digitalisation of money in Brazil, highlighting the leading role of public institutions in this process.
Further operations are also underway. In one example, Banco Inter conducted an initial interbank transfer of a symbolic R$77.77, underscoring the system’s efficiency and potential to transform the financial market.
During the testing phase, adjustments and improvements are being made to ensure the system is secure, efficient, and widely accessible. As a result, Drex is expected to complement existing payment methods, offering new functionalities and broadening access to financial services, particularly for unbanked populations.
Despite these advances, Drex faces significant resistance and challenges. Some on the political right criticise the digital currency, warning that it could become a tool for state surveillance and social control. Federal Deputy Júlia Zanatta (PL-SC), for example, has proposed a bill to prevent the phasing out of physical cash, arguing that Drex could restrict individual freedoms.
Beyond political concerns, technical and educational challenges must also be addressed. Implementing the currency requires investment in infrastructure, professional training, and public awareness campaigns to ensure users understand how to use it safely and effectively.
Brazil now joins a select group of countries advancing the creation of central bank-issued digital currencies. Similar initiatives are underway in China, with the digital yuan, and in several European and North American nations. However, Drex stands out for its emphasis on financial inclusion and the modernisation of the banking system in one of the world’s largest emerging markets.
Amid increasing digitalisation—and despite the risks of state control over the population—Drexpromises to revolutionise Brazil’s financial system, making it faster, more accessible, and more connected. The digital currency is also expected to open new opportunities in areas such as e-commerce and asset management, positioning Brazil as a leader in financial innovation across Latin America.
According to the Central Bank, financial services will be processed directly on the Real Digitalplatform, developed by the monetary authority itself. In this model, Drex will function as a centralised digital asset managed by the Central Bank and participating banks within this network.
Access to the Drex platform will require an authorised financial intermediary, such as a bank, responsible for converting funds from users’ current accounts into their digital wallets.
The first Drex transfer is not just a technological milestone but also a clear indication that the future of money in Brazil will be digital, integrated, and accessible to all. The challenge now is to ensure this transformation is inclusive, transparent, and secure—especially for those wary of such modernisation, given that a centralised digital currency under the control of the Central Bank not only can but almost certainly will be used by the state as a tool for societal control.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 6 January 2025
X PAYMENTS BY MUSK EMERGES AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION AGAINST STATE SURVEILLANCE IN FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS

בס״ד
X PAYMENTS BY MUSK EMERGES AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION AGAINST STATE SURVEILLANCE IN FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS
X Payments, a new platform promising to revolutionise the global financial market, has been conceived by Elon Musk with the aim of transforming how financial transactions are conducted. Inspired by models such as China’s WeChat, Musk envisions creating a “super app” that not only enables users to interact socially but also to shop, invest, trade cryptocurrencies, and even transfer funds—all within a digital ecosystem. However, the key differentiator of X Payments compared to other platforms and digital currencies lies in its commitment to decentralisation and financial freedom. Unlike systems such as Drex (the Brazilian digital currency), designed to enhance state control, X Payments proposes a method of financial transactions that places power back into the hands of individuals.
Bitcoin, one of the most well-known cryptocurrencies, was the first step on this path towards financial decentralisation. Created as an alternative to traditional financial systems, it allows for fast, secure, and, crucially, government- and bank-free transactions, representing economic freedom and granting individuals control over their own money. Bitcoin is a direct response to the controlled global financial system, which imposes high fees, bureaucracy, and constant surveillance over citizens.
Meanwhile, Drex emerges as yet another example of the growing trend of state control. Created by Brazil’s Central Bank, this centralised digital currency aims to replace the real but implies that the government will have access to all our financial transactions. This is not merely a change in the form of payment but a subtle and disguised form of social control. Every transaction made with Drex will be monitored, and the financial privacy of every citizen will be compromised—something entirely at odds with the principles championed by those who seek greater autonomy and financial freedom.
In light of this, X Payments emerges not only as a more efficient alternative but also as one more aligned with the principles of individual freedom and autonomy. By enabling decentralised transactions without the need for identification, exorbitant fees, or control by intermediaries such as banks or governments, X Payments represents hope for a fairer and freer economy for all. With the potential for integration with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and stablecoins, the platform further expands options for users without subjecting them to government surveillance and control. Imagine a future where you can send money, purchase products, or invest—all without the chains of a centralised currency or a state-monitored financial system. This is the future Elon Musk is striving to build.
If financial freedom is a fundamental right, why should we accept a system that strips us of control over our own money? The truth is that state control over financial transactions is a veiled form of modern slavery, where, under the pretext of security or convenience, our freedom is being gradually eroded. Digital currencies designed to keep citizens under constant surveillance, such as Drex, are an ideal tool for authoritarian governments seeking even greater control over their populations. Conversely, X Payments offers a payment system that respects individual freedom, allowing every person to take control of their finances without the need for an intermediary.
It is evident that Elon Musk’s X Payments is, at present, the best option for those who defend financial freedom, privacy, and autonomy—far superior to state-created digital currencies. However, what cannot be ignored is the fact that we are witnessing the fulfilment of biblical prophecies with each step taken towards global control. The rise of centralised payment systems like Drex, which involve surveillance and control across all aspects of our financial lives, reflects an increasingly centralised power. We are being forced to conform to digital currencies, with imposed conditions and requirements escalating as governments attempt to manipulate economies and individual freedoms. A world increasingly dominated by a New World Order is unfolding before our eyes, where financial freedom will no longer be considered a universal right.
Even though X Payments presents itself as an alternative path to freedom, it is essential to understand that we are in the midst of a much larger spiritual and political war. Global financial control is merely one facet of this attack on human freedom. Therefore, as Christians, we must be prepared for the battle ahead, both spiritually and physically, because what is at stake is not just our financial freedom but our freedom as human beings. We must arm ourselves with the knowledge of Scripture and prepare for the challenging times to come, maintaining our faith and commitment to the truth of the Gospel, ready to face the forces that seek to enslave us under a global regime that respects neither freedom nor human dignity.
By Agenor D. Medeiros
Published 3 January 2025
2024 News
Explore the latest updates from 2024, featuring significant political developments, pioneering technological strides, and ongoing debates that continue to shape our society.
TRUMP’S DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY PROPOSES CUTTING FUNDING TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND OTHER GROUPS MISALIGNED WITH CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES

Published 10 December 2024
בס״ד
The Department of Government Efficiency under the Trump administration is set to recommend a complete cut of federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion-related services in the United States. This measure, in line with former President Donald Trump’s campaign promises, reflects an effort to limit public spending on practices that conflict with the conservative principles of the Republican Party.
The proposal is seen as a significant step towards restricting access to abortion, a topic that has polarised political and social debates in the country for decades. According to sources close to the drafting of the report, the department’s core argument is that public money should not fund activities of organisations that perform pregnancy terminations, even though federal funds are primarily used for other services such as family planning, women’s health screenings, and contraceptive access.
Planned Parenthood and the Impact of Cuts
With over 600 clinics operating across the United States, Planned Parenthood serves millions of people each year, offering services ranging from cancer screenings to sexual education and access to contraceptive methods. Although only 3% of its services are related to abortion, the organisation is frequently targeted by anti-abortion groups, who argue that any support for the institution amounts to a moral endorsement of the practice.
Federal funding, including disbursements through Medicaid and other public health programmes, constitutes a significant portion of Planned Parenthood’s budget. Losing this support could severely limit the provision of preventive healthcare services for low-income communities, particularly women in rural areas, where the organisation is often the only accessible healthcare provider.
Planned Parenthood has firmly opposed the recommendation, asserting that the cuts would harm millions of patients who rely on its essential care. In an official statement, Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, declared:
“Efforts to divert resources from our organisation are not just an attack on the right to abortion, but they also jeopardise life-saving services such as cancer screenings and access to contraception. This is a political agenda that punishes the most vulnerable.”
Political and Social Conflict
The proposal from the Department of Government Efficiency reignites the clash between pro-choice and pro-life forces in the United States. Republicans and conservative religious groups have welcomed the news, viewing it as a victory in the fight against abortion. Meanwhile, Democrats and women’s rights activists have condemned the move, labelling it an assault on reproductive rights.
Historically, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade established that the right to abortion is protected by the Constitution. However, recent actions by the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress sought to incrementally restrict this right. The defunding of Planned Parenthood is seen as part of a broader strategy to hinder abortion access.
Experts warn that cutting funds could trigger a domino effect, undermining basic healthcare for millions of Americans. Studies indicate that in states where Planned Parenthood clinics have closed or experienced funding cuts, there has been an increase in unplanned pregnancies and a decline in access to preventive health screenings.
Prospects and Resistance
The recommendation from the Department of Government Efficiency must pass through Congress before implementation. Given the increasing polarisation between Democrats and Republicans, the proposal’s future remains uncertain. While conservatives push for its approval, Democrats promise to resist, arguing that the funding cut would infringe on women’s rights and undermine public health progress.
Public opinion is similarly divided. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans support some level of public funding for family planning services, though views on abortion vary widely. This reflects a fundamental dilemma: how to balance religious and ethical beliefs with the demands of public health.
Regardless of the outcome, the proposal represents another chapter in the ideological battle over reproductive rights in the United States, with consequences that may extend beyond Trump’s presidency. Whatever the final decision, the debate over Planned Parenthood’s funding continues to highlight the deep divisions shaping American society.
THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT AGAINST LULA BY INTERNATIONAL LEADER EXPOSES BRAZIL’S DAMAGED IMAGE

Published 9 December 2024
בס״ד
A recent statement by Portuguese MP André Ventura, leader of the right-wing Chega party, has reignited debates about Brazil’s international reputation and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Known for his provocative rhetoric, Ventura declared that if he becomes Portugal’s prime minister, he will have Lula imprisoned. This statement was made in a post on X (formerly Twitter), accompanied by a photo of Portugal’s current prime minister, Luís Montenegro, greeting Lula during the G20 summit held in Rio de Janeiro.
“If I become prime minister, this moment will never happen. And, if necessary, I will bring the handcuffs to send the thief to prison,” wrote Ventura in a confrontational tone. The post received mixed reactions but brought to the forefront a recurring issue: the polarisation surrounding Lula and Brazil’s perception on the international stage.
Ventura’s party, Chega, has seen significant growth in Portuguese politics. In the most recent elections, the party increased its parliamentary representation from 12 to 46 seats, establishing itself as a formidable opposition force. This rise reflects a global trend of strengthening right-wing parties, which frequently use international figures like Lula to support their domestic agendas.
Simultaneously, the Workers’ Party (PT) suffered defeats in the 2024 municipal elections, while Donald Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris — who was backed by Lula — underscored the left’s decline in various political contexts. These developments have intensified criticism of the Brazilian government and raised doubts about the legitimacy of the PT’s political strategies.
Ventura’s stance is but one example of Brazil’s deteriorating image abroad. Since Lula’s election in 2022, accusations of corruption and issues related to governance have been persistent. While many celebrate Lula as a symbol of political resilience, others see his controversial past as a burden on Brazil’s international relations, including his recent history of multiple convictions.
Adding fuel to the debate, a recently published book titled O Homem Mais Desonesto do Brasil – A verdadeira face de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (The Most Dishonest Man in Brazil – The True Face of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva) has further polarised opinions about Lula. The book claims to expose Lula’s communication tactics and political strategies over the decades. It has been enthusiastically received by his critics and fiercely condemned by his supporters. According to the authors, the book details alleged scandals and manoeuvres attributed to Lula, which they argue were overlooked by the media and the judiciary.
With his popularity waning and facing challenges among his support base, Lula’s third term has been a delicate one. Critics claim his administration is in a state of disarray, grappling with both domestic and international crises. Ventura’s accusation, though largely symbolic, mirrors a growing perception that Lula’s government is under intense pressure from all sides.
The statements by Ventura and the reaction to works like O Homem Mais Desonesto do Brasil highlight an inconvenient truth: Brazil remains deeply polarised, and this division is evident to the international community. For some, Lula is a symbol of struggle and progress; for others, he represents an era of scandals and mistrust.
Ultimately, Ventura’s remarks are less about Brazil itself and more about a broader global political game, in which Lula is cast as either villain or hero, depending on the narrator. As the saying goes: For those who have eyes to see, let them see.
CHINA PURCHASES BRAZIL’S LARGEST URANIUM RESERVE FOR $340 MILLION, SPARKING DEBATE ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Published 6 December 2024
בס״ד
The Chinese state-owned company China Nonferrous Trade (CNT) has acquired Brazil’s largest uranium reserve, located in Pitinga, Amazonas. The transaction, valued at $340 million (approximately R$ 2 billion), was officially announced on Tuesday, 26th, by the mining company Taboca to the Government of Amazonas.
Taboca has operated the Pitinga mine in Presidente Figueiredo, near the Balbina hydroelectric plant, since 1969. Situated just 107 km from Manaus, this reserve is considered one of the country’s most promising due to its significant uranium deposits and other strategic minerals.
In a statement, the mining company declared it had transferred 100% of its shares to CNT. “This new chapter is strategic and presents a growth opportunity for Mineração Taboca,” the company said. The announcement also noted that the negotiation was facilitated by Minsur S.A., a Peruvian company that controls Taboca.
Reactions and Concerns
The sale has sparked questions within Brazil’s political arena. Senator Plínio Valério (PSDB-AM) criticised the restrictions faced by domestic companies in exploring natural resources in the Amazon, while foreign conglomerates like CNT gain access to strategic reserves.
“We are surrendering national sovereignty to those who might use these resources to bolster their own military and nuclear industries,” the senator stated. He emphasised that, besides uranium, the Pitinga mine contains niobium, tantalum, tin, and thorium — minerals essential for advanced technologies, including turbines, rockets, and batteries.
Niobium, for instance, is highly valued in the aerospace sector for its use in super-resistant alloys. Meanwhile, thorium and uranium are critical for operating nuclear reactors, highlighting China’s strategic interest in the acquisition.
Brazil-China Trade Context
The purchase of the Pitinga mine comes amid strengthened commercial relations between Brazil and China. On 20th November, just days before the transaction, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Palácio da Alvorada to discuss bilateral partnerships.
The visit resulted in the signing of 37 trade agreements covering sectors such as agriculture, education, technology, energy, and mining. However, Brazil opted not to fully join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a multi-trillion-dollar investment programme, instead limiting its participation to protocols for cooperation.
Although China is Brazil’s largest trading partner, expanding partnerships with totalitarian regimes like China carries significant risks. Brazilian diplomacy has shown caution, mindful of the country’s tradition of neutrality in major geopolitical agreements.
Sovereignty in Question
The acquisition of the mine reignites the debate over national sovereignty and the management of strategic resources in Brazil. Many argue that the sale raises concerns about foreign dependency in sectors critical to technological and energy development.
Conversely, proponents of the deal claim that foreign investment could stimulate the local economy and modernise extraction infrastructure in the region. Nevertheless, the lack of stricter regulations to prevent the concentration of resources in foreign hands remains a contentious issue.
Amid both criticism and anticipation, the case of the Pitinga mine underscores the challenge Brazil faces in balancing economic interests with geopolitical considerations in an increasingly competitive global landscape.
CASINOS AND BINGO HALLS:
THE CONTROVERSIAL REGULATION OF GAMBLING IN BRAZIL

Published 4 December 2024
בס״ד
The National Congress is currently reviewing a proposal that could transform the landscape of gambling in Brazil. The Federal Senate is set to deliberate this Wednesday (4th) on a Bill seeking to legalise various forms of gambling in the country. It is crucial to consider the ethical, social, and economic impacts that regulating casinos and bingo halls could bring, weighing both the opportunities and the potential risks.
If approved, the proposal will allow casinos to operate exclusively within large entertainment complexes or on vessels, such as cruise ships. Requirements include a minimum share capital of R$100 million and licences valid for 30 years. Permanent bingo halls would be permitted in designated venues or stadiums with a capacity of over 15,000 people, with licences valid for 25 years.
The proposal sets forth significant taxation: profits exceeding R$10,000 will be subject to a 20% income tax, and betting establishments will be required to pay quarterly fees ranging between R$20,000 and R$600,000. The Ministry of Finance would oversee licensing and operational supervision.
Supporters of the measure highlight potential economic benefits, such as increased tax revenues, job creation, and a boost to tourism. However, it is essential to consider the associated risks, particularly for families and society as a whole, where the possibility of harm is both real and significant.
Gambling can lead to severe issues, such as addiction – known as pathological gambling – which can result in debt, loss of assets, and family breakdown. Legalising these establishments may exacerbate these problems, creating a cycle of distress for many individuals.
From an ethical perspective, questions arise regarding the morality of financially exploiting the human desire to win and the illusion that gambling offers a solution to economic problems. In a country with profound social inequalities, opening up this market could negatively impact the most vulnerable, who may see gambling as a false opportunity for a better life.
Another key concern is the exposure of young people to gambling. Regulation could increase youth engagement, especially in venues like sports stadiums where bingo halls could be set up. This might normalise gambling behaviours and hinder the development of solid values.
Moreover, the potential impact on families cannot be overlooked. Gambling can destabilise households and compromise the core values that uphold society, jeopardising the well-being of many communities.
While increased tax revenues are often cited as justification, it is worth questioning who will truly benefit from this measure. The high financial requirements, such as the minimum share capital and quarterly fees, imply that only major investors will be able to enter the market. This could favour international economic groups, while the social costs fall upon the local population.
The historical use of public resources in Brazil also warrants consideration. There is a risk that the revenues generated by gambling may not be used effectively to benefit society, such as for the construction, expansion, and modernisation of public health and education facilities. Instead, these funds could be mismanaged or diverted to satisfy private interests through corruption.
Regulating gambling in Brazil requires a thorough analysis. While the economic arguments are appealing (and often unrealistic for the general population), the social, ethical, and cultural risks are substantial and cannot be ignored. It is essential to protect families, discourage harmful behaviours, and ensure that future generations are not adversely affected by this decision. Senator Magno Malta, among others, has long opposed the legalisation of gambling and continues to fight against any initiatives that promote it.
This is not merely a financial issue, but a choice about the type of society we wish to build. A broad and careful debate is necessary to ensure that the interests of the population are prioritised over short-term economic gains.
BIDEN GRANTS FULL PARDON TO HUNTER AND SPARKS CONTROVERSY:
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OR PATERNAL PROTECTION?

Published 2 December 2024
בס״ד
On the evening of Sunday, 1 December, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, announced a “full and unconditional” pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, relieving him of federal convictions related to the illegal purchase of firearms and tax evasion amounting to $1.4 million. The decision spares Hunter from imprisonment but has triggered intense political and legal debate regarding the limits of presidential power.
Hunter Biden’s case has been one of the most polarising issues in recent American politics. In June, he was convicted of lying on a federal form during the purchase of a firearm in 2018, when he concealed his drug addiction. Additionally, Hunter faced charges of misdemeanour and felony tax violations in California for failing to pay taxes while living a lavish lifestyle.
Joe Biden’s decision marks a significant reversal from the President’s initial stance. Following the convictions, he had reiterated that he would not use the powers of the presidency to interfere with his son’s legal processes. In 2020, when Hunter disclosed that he was under federal investigation, Biden stated that he would respect the justice system and would not grant pardons or commutations to family members.
However, in announcing the pardon, Biden declared that his son had been the target of a “politically motivated prosecution” and described the legal proceedings as a “miscarriage of justice.” “Raw politics infected this case. Hunter was treated differently from others in similar situations simply because he is my son,” he stated.
The pardon covers any federal crime committed by Hunter between 2014 and 2024, including his controversial tenure on the board of the Ukrainian company Burisma, often cited as an example of potential conflicts of interest.
The pardon comes at a delicate time, just weeks after Donald Trump’s re-election, which will see him return to the White House in January. During his campaign, Trump frequently used Hunter’s legal troubles as ammunition against Biden, amplifying criticism of the Democratic President and his family.
Republicans immediately condemned the pardon as an abuse of power. “This is a blatant display of political favouritism,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “No ordinary citizen would receive such privilege.”
On the other hand, Biden’s supporters argue that he acted as a father protecting his son from a judicial system which, they claim, was weaponised for political attacks. “He fought against the idea of intervening but recognised that Hunter was being treated unfairly and cruelly,” said a White House official, speaking anonymously.
This is not the first time an American president has used the power of pardon in cases involving family members. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for cocaine use charges, and Donald Trump granted clemency to his son-in-law’s father, Jared Kushner, for tax crimes. However, both cases occurred after the sentences had been served, distinguishing Biden’s decision, which prevents Hunter from facing a sentence altogether.
In a statement, Hunter Biden expressed gratitude for his father’s clemency. “I will never underestimate the relief that has been granted to me. I dedicate my life to helping those who still struggle with pain and suffering,” he said. Hunter also acknowledged his mistakes during the most difficult years of his addiction, describing them as “sources of public humiliation exploited for political gain.”
Biden’s gesture has rekindled debates on ethics and governance. While critics accuse the President of using his office to protect personal interests, others highlight the difficulty of balancing the role of leader with that of a father amidst a political storm.
In the coming days, the judges overseeing Hunter’s cases are expected to dismiss the charges and cancel scheduled hearings. Nevertheless, Biden’s pardon will not be forgotten anytime soon. For some, it will be remembered as an act of compassion; for others, a dangerous precedent for American democracy.
Visas for Hamas Supporters Will Be Revoked, Says Senator Chosen by Trump for Secretary of State

Published 22 November 2024
בס״ד
On 13 November, Donald Trump announced his selection of Senator Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, a decision widely celebrated among conservatives. The Florida senator, known for his resolute rhetoric and staunch anti-communist stance, is regarded as the ideal choice to lead American diplomacy.
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who fled Fidel Castro’s communist regime, grew up in Miami and built a career marked by his opposition to dictatorships and oppressive regimes. Since joining the Senate in 2011, he has become one of the most prominent voices against the spread of authoritarian governments in Latin America and across the globe. He has consistently criticised and condemned the regimes of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and the Castro government in Cuba, standing firmly against socialism, which he asserts oppresses millions worldwide. Former President Jair Bolsonaro is among the leaders who have expressed their support for Rubio, congratulating him and recognising him as an ally in the fight against global communism.
Rubio’s commitment to the security of the United States and its allies has been evident in his statements following the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023. Since its establishment in 1987, Hamas has carried out acts of terror and violence against Israel, including suicide bombings, missile launches, and kidnappings. The attack on 7 October 2023 will be etched in Israel’s history, with more than 1,400 Israelis killed, including women, children, and the elderly. Terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, funded by Iran, not only pose a threat to stability in the Middle East but also propagate ideologies of hatred worldwide, with a level of violence and cruelty that is unparalleled.
In the days following the attacks, Rubio demanded stringent measures against those supporting Hamas within the United States. He proposed revoking visas for sympathisers of the group, declaring that the United States must not be a safe haven for individuals who endorse acts of barbarism. With his appointment as Secretary of State, it is anticipated that Rubio will implement this policy decisively and effectively, reinforcing Trump’s commitment to protecting American sovereignty and combating both communism and terrorism.
Illegal immigration was a central issue in Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, which saw him achieve a significant victory over the Democratic Party. Trump emphasised the dangers associated with open borders, including the potential infiltration of individuals linked to terrorist groups. The new Trump administration, with Senator Rubio heading the State Department, promises a zero-tolerance approach towards supporters of terrorist organisations. This will include reviewing residency permits and deporting individuals whose values and actions are incompatible with the democratic and humanitarian principles of the United States.
In October 2023, Marco Rubio warned that many illegal immigrants in the United States had openly demonstrated support for Hamas and Hezbollah while enjoying the freedoms of the country. On the occasion, Rubio stated: “These individuals, whether here on student visas, teaching visas, or otherwise, need to leave. They should never have been allowed to enter, and we probably weren’t aware of them. No one says, ‘I’m a Hamas supporter’ when entering, but as soon as we find out that you are, our laws make it clear: you should not hold a visa and must be expelled.”
The senator also highlighted the direct connection between Hamas and Iran, which provides funding and weaponry to the group. Since the October massacre, it has emerged that many Hamas supporters in the United States have utilised digital platforms to disseminate propaganda and raise funds, sparking outrage among Americans. Rubio’s leadership at the State Department will be crucial in coordinating efforts with allies such as Israel to dismantle these networks and ensure that terror financiers are held accountable.
With Rubio as Secretary of State, Trump reaffirms his pledge to prioritise America’s interests, safeguarding its borders and citizens from internal and external threats. Rubio’s unwavering stance against illegal immigration, tireless opposition to socialism and terrorism, and robust defence of freedom will be vital assets to the Trump administration as it seeks to restore what was once a great nation, nearly dismantled by the left.
Indifference and Neglect: The Lula Government’s Lack of Commitment to Refugees in Guarulhos

Published 11 November 2024
בס״ד
In September this year, the plight of 70 immigrants stranded at Guarulhos Airport highlighted the utter neglect and abandonment faced by those who, fleeing danger in their home countries, sought a fresh start in Brazil. Among the group are individuals from nations such as Nepal, Vietnam, and various African and Asian countries where violence, persecution, and extreme poverty continuously threaten their lives. Federal judges Fernando Mariath Rechia and Roberto Lima Campelo ruled against their deportation, acknowledging that returning these individuals to their home countries could endanger them. Despite this ruling, the conditions at the airport are dire: families and individuals are left in cramped, unhygienic spaces for prolonged periods, while Lula is reportedly enjoying luxury travel on government planes.
To date, ministers and government officials have been conspicuously silent. Since the departure of former Minister of Human Rights Silvio Almeida—who was often embroiled in controversies in Brasília—there have been hopes that current minister Macaé Evaristo might take meaningful action. Yet nothing has changed. Her inaugural speech invoking the “right to life and dignity” now rings hollow, given the reality faced by these immigrants. Stuck in the airport terminal, they lack access to adequate sanitation, sufficient food, or even basic rest areas. Evaristo’s references to “ubuntu”—the African concept of universal humanity she praised for Lula—seem to have been conveniently forgotten.
The judiciary, in halting the deportations, has upheld the immigrants’ right to seek safety. However, while the State has blocked their forced return, it has also refused to take steps to provide even the bare minimum in terms of shelter and support. This inaction is inhumane. The individuals who arrived seeking asylum are now victims of a government whose priorities seem far removed from humanitarian assistance. In the meantime, Guarulhos Airport has become an improvised camp, with people living in dire conditions, unseen by those meant to represent and protect them.
What stands out is the hypocrisy in the government’s rhetoric and priorities. The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF), which is investigating the case, has noted an absolute lack of action from authorities ostensibly committed to human rights. Statistics from October indicate a rise in asylum applications in Brazil, yet rather than formulating a serious, effective public policy, the government continues to allocate funds to unnecessary expenditures. For a government that spends millions on supporting artists via the Rouanet Law and on luxury travel for the president and his entourage, it’s unsurprising that resources to ensure a basic level of dignity for refugees are lacking.
Recently, a young man tragically passed away in the same airport terminal where the immigrants are stranded, without access to adequate medical care. How can the absence of Macaé Evaristo from such a critical situation be explained?
While the MPF strives to remedy this neglect, the government’s response has been evasive at best. In fact, as the Public Prosecutor’s Office pushes for solutions, the Executive Branch appears indifferent to the crisis at the airport. Much is said about “humanitarian assistance,” but in reality, these individuals are met only with disregard. This insensitivity toward their suffering reveals a government lost in contradictions and lacking any genuine commitment to those in need of concrete action. Treating these refugees as mere logistical obstacles exemplifies a government willing to expand bureaucracy but seemingly incapable of fulfilling its fundamental responsibilities.
Trump’s Decisive Victory Over Kamala Harris Leaves the Left Reeling and Pushes the Dollar to Record Highs in Brazil

Published 10 November 2024
בס״ד
After a closely contested election and a heated campaign, Donald Trump returns to the White House as the 47th President of the United States, defeating the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in a resounding victory. This win delivers a significant blow to both American and international left-wing movements. Following a period fraught with tension, including two assassination attempts on Trump and repeated efforts to discredit conservatism, his triumph emerges as a testament to the endurance of conservative values, offering a sense of relief to those worldwide who feel constrained by progressive agendas.
Since Trump’s defeat to Joe Biden in 2020 in a controversial election, the United States has experienced four years of inflationary pressures, energy crises, and a perceived weakening of its global standing. Biden, alongside his vice president, Kamala Harris, led with policies that promoted progressive agendas widely criticised by conservative commentators. With Harris at the helm of the Democratic Party and a campaign marked by increasingly radical policies, conservatives grew more apprehensive about the nation’s future.
Trump’s path to victory lay in his successful appeal to swing states and even traditionally Democratic strongholds. In key battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Trump won decisively, reversing prior Democratic gains. To many, this achievement represents not just a political victory but a cultural and ideological struggle against the influence of the global left. Comparisons have been drawn to other conservative leaders, like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, who endured an assassination attempt in 2018 and faced relentless opposition, and Javier Milei in Argentina, also a target of intense progressive resistance.
Trump’s victory reverberates far beyond American borders, providing a significant boost to the global right. Elon Musk, a vocal supporter of Trump’s free-speech policies, celebrated the win, underscoring the importance of American leadership at this juncture. Across the world, conservative leaders reacted positively; Bolsonaro, Brazil’s most prominent right-wing figure, expressed enthusiasm, highlighting the ideological and personal bond he shares with Trump. Both leaders not only share political views but also a personal friendship, and they see the triumph of conservatism as a countermeasure against global left-wing agendas.
In Brazil, Trump’s victory prompted an outraged response from left-wing factions. Progressive media outlets, like the disparagingly nicknamed “Globolixo,” reacted with open disdain, as left-leaning journalists sought to undermine Trump’s new term. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro and his right-wing allies continue to nurture hopes of a political resurgence, eager to pursue a conservative agenda aligned with Trump’s vision—one that prioritises national interests and upholds Christian and family values.
Conservative leaders such as Javier Milei in Argentina, Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, Yoon Suk Yeol in South Korea, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine, and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel also celebrated Trump’s victory. This coalition of conservative leaders sees Trump as a champion of Christian values and freedom, countering what they perceive as the threats posed by globalist agendas. However, in Brazil, concerns remain. The country’s current left-wing government, criticised for uncontrolled spending and restrictive economic policies, continues to exert influence over institutions, with the Supreme Federal Court (referred to by some as a “PT stronghold”) exerting considerable power over policy direction.
For Brazil, Trump’s return to the White House represents a significant challenge to the plans of Lula’s left-leaning government, which has faced criticism over economic mismanagement. The financial markets, unsettled by the perceived lack of fiscal discipline under Lula, saw the dollar soar to an unprecedented rate of R$6.10 following Trump’s victory, surpassing the highs recorded during the pandemic. Trump’s election has thus sent shockwaves through the Brazilian market, where the dollar had already been climbing in response to the government’s unchecked spending and lack of a cohesive austerity strategy.
As president, Trump has pledged to reverse the policies that weakened America’s economic power and to restore national sovereignty. Bolsonaro’s alignment with Trump reinforces this perspective, and many Brazilians look forward to a day when Bolsonaro could once again don the presidential sash with Trump’s support, bringing a government committed to strong principles and national sovereignty back to power. Observing the positive impact of Trump’s victory, the Brazilian right clings to the hope that Bolsonaro’s potential return will restore the values he championed during his tenure, reaffirming the principles that shaped his presidency.
Bolsonaro Challenges STF Restrictions in Bid to Attend Trump’s Inauguration and Strengthen International Conservative Alliance

Published 9 November 2024
בס״ד
Jair Bolsonaro seeks to attend Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration in January 2025. However, he faces a significant hurdle: his passport remains confiscated by order of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) as a consequence of ongoing investigations. These include inquiries into the 8 January 2023 attacks in Brasília, alongside other cases where the former president is accused of document falsification and attempted coup conspiracies, allegations he denies. Recently, Minister Alexandre de Moraes and the STF’s First Panel rejected requests for the return of Bolsonaro’s passport, thereby preventing him from leaving Brazil.
Bolsonaro’s legal team has twice attempted to secure the release of his passport, but both requests were denied. In a ruling issued in October, the STF highlighted that the risks justifying the initial passport seizure remain. Moraes noted that the ongoing investigations continue to point to a potential risk of flight, which, at present, does not warrant any change in the imposed conditions.
Bolsonaro, however, has consistently criticised these investigations, characterising them as a “political persecution” intended to weaken the right-wing movement in Brazil. In a recent interview, he voiced his frustration, arguing that the STF has been attempting to implicate him for years without presenting conclusive evidence. He also advocated for amnesty for the demonstrators detained over the 8 January incidents.
Maintaining a close alliance with Trump since their respective terms in office, Bolsonaro considers Trump’s victory to be a reinforcement of the global conservative movement, which, he believes, will bolster right-wing forces in Brazil. Bolsonaro congratulated Trump, likening him to a “resilient warrior” who has overcome what he described as “unjust judicial persecution.”
For Bolsonaro, attending Trump’s inauguration would carry symbolic significance: it would underscore his alignment with the American right-wing and strengthen his narrative of being a target of political persecution. He has provocatively claimed he might be Trump’s sole official invitee from Brazil, owing to their personal connection.
Yet Bolsonaro faces a challenging legal landscape. While he insists on his innocence, pointing to what he views as discrepancies in the legal treatment between himself and Lula—who was convicted on several counts but later saw those convictions overturned—Bolsonaro risks severe consequences if convicted in the current investigations. These could include potential prison sentences of up to 23 years and an extension of his ineligibility beyond 2030. The passport seizure was a preventive measure enacted in early 2023 under “Operation Tempus Veritatis,” investigating Bolsonaro’s involvement in actions that could threaten Brazil’s democratic institutions.
To reclaim his passport and attend Trump’s inauguration, Bolsonaro’s legal team has indicated they will await a formal invitation before filing a new petition with the STF. Ultimately, the decision to permit his international travel rests with the Supreme Court, which will assess the evolving investigations and risks of flight.
Bolsonaro sees Trump’s support as an asset, one that could fortify his position amidst the accusations he currently faces. He perceives Trump’s potential return to power as an opportunity to revitalise the Brazilian right, providing conservatives with a model of resistance to the “judicial persecution” he claims to be experiencing. Bolsonaro believes that, if allowed to attend the ceremony, he would be reinforcing the global conservative bloc in defence of traditional values and liberties.
This association with Trump reveals Bolsonaro’s strategy to maintain political relevance and to cement his role as a leading figure on Brazil’s right. Although barred from running until 2030, he views his friendship with Trump as a means to bolster his political capital, suggesting that this alliance could energise his supporters and sway public opinion in his favour.
Should he receive permission to travel, Bolsonaro believes his presence alongside Trump would amplify awareness of the “injustice and persecution” he claims to endure, potentially reigniting his base’s mobilisation. For his supporters, a Bolsonaro-Trump alliance symbolises the unity of conservative forces against adversity and keeps alive the hope of Bolsonaro’s eventual return to the political arena.
TRAGEDY IN UGANDA: PASTORAL FAMILY BURNED ALIVE FOR SPREADING THE GOSPEL TO MUSLIM YOUTH

Published 30 October 2024
בס״ד
In countries governed by totalitarian or extremist regimes, where religious freedom remains denied to millions and Christians constitute the most widely persecuted group, professing the Christian faith can mean risking one’s life. This reality is evident across the globe, even in countries where religious freedom is legally recognised but often disregarded. The perception of Christianity as a cultural and religious threat has led to attacks, torture, and even executions.
One of the most tragic cases occurred recently in Uganda, on 13 October. A local Christian community was devastated by the brutal murder of a pastoral family. Pastor Weere Mukisa, aged 30, and his wife Annet Namugaya, aged 25, known for their commitment to missionary work and teaching the Gospel, were killed in their home along with their daughters, aged 7 and 4. Extremist Muslims, angered by the conversion of young Muslims to Christianity, sealed the family’s residence and set it alight, using petrol-filled bottles to intensify the blaze. Trapped inside, the pastor, his wife, and young daughters perished in a horrific scene that underscores the relentless persecution faced by those who share the Gospel. Unfortunately, this incident was not isolated. In 2020, another pastor and a church member were tortured and drowned in Uganda, indicating that hostility towards Christians continues unabated, despite the country’s laws purportedly “protecting” religious freedom and conversion rights.
The tragedy of this pastoral family highlights the harsh reality faced by thousands of Christians, not only in Uganda but in many parts of the world. Children, youths, and adults who convert to Christianity often become targets of threats and violence. The courage of these new converts in professing their faith serves as an inspiration to others, yet it also places them on the frontline of a cultural and spiritual battle, often with brutal and irreversible consequences.
Such hatred towards Christians is deeply rooted and systematically fuelled in countries where governments or societies are dominated by rigid religious traditions. Organisations like Open Doors (OD) closely monitor conditions in these regions. In 2024, countries with the highest levels of persecution include North Korea, Somalia, Libya, Eritrea, and Yemen, where converting to Christianity can lead to isolation, torture, and even death. Other countries with high persecution rates include Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, and India, where Christians face daily threats. Extremist groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and others in the Middle East propagate religious hatred, rendering entire regions perilous for Christians and missionaries.
In Latin America, Nicaragua exemplifies this tragic situation. Under the dictatorship of Daniel Ortega, religious leaders and Christian communities (both Catholic and evangelical) face increasing hostility, with arrests, expulsions, and acts of intimidation targeting those who oppose the government or openly profess Christianity. The situation worsens each year, with data indicating that Nicaragua has risen from 50th to 30th place in only one year among the Americas’ worst countries for religious freedom.
Numerous missions work in high-risk areas to spread the Gospel of Christ. Open Doors (OD) is one of the most active and resilient organisations in this field, providing material and spiritual support to Christians in regions of persecution. The World Mission Board (WMB) also develops essential projects to enable missionaries and volunteers to reach impoverished and marginalised communities, sowing the Word of God in places where it is heavily repressed. Such initiatives are vital within the “10/40 window,” a geographical band encompassing countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, where the Christian presence is sparse, and hostility is extreme. In these countries, pastors, missionaries, workers, and believers face heightened risks of torture, death, and persecution, often paying for their faith with their lives in nations with Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or communist majorities, where Christianity is still viewed as a threat to be eradicated. Our prayers, financial support, and efforts to raise awareness of the persecuted church are ways to strengthen those on the frontline, who face immense challenges to bring the light of the Gospel to all nations.
Sarcasm and Disrespect: Kamala Harris Responds to Shouts of ‘Jesus is Lord’ and Causes Tension with Christian Supporters at Rally

Published 25 October 2024
בס״ד
Last week, United States Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris found herself in controversy during a rally in Wisconsin. The event, held on Thursday (17th), was marked by a tense moment when two Christian students interrupted Harris’s speech by shouting “Jesus is Lord.” In response, Kamala used a sarcastic tone, stating they were “at the wrong rally” and suggested that the group should be at a smaller event for former President Donald Trump, who is also contesting the 2024 presidential race.
The incident gained widespread attention after the video was released, especially among the Christian audience, who had already shown resistance to Kamala Harris’s candidacy. This episode took place shortly after the Vice President declined to participate in the traditional Al Smith Memorial Dinner, a charity event organised by the Catholic community that features prominent US political leaders.
In her rally speech, Kamala spoke of her commitment to expanding access to abortion in the country. Advocating for women’s freedom to make choices about their bodies, Harris highlighted: “We will keep moving forward because ours is a fight for the future, and it’s a fight for freedom. The fundamental freedom of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government telling her what to do,” ignoring that abortion concerns the baby’s body (which would be torn apart, without mercy) more than that of the pregnant woman herself.
Harris’s controversial comment towards the Christian students was met with applause and laughter from her supporters, intensifying the controversy. This type of response may further strain Kamala’s relationship with the Christian electorate, a significant and influential voting bloc in the United States. The candidate’s stance on Christian values and her advocacy for progressive causes such as abortion rights are sensitive and divisive issues in American political debate.
The two Christian students involved in the incident, Grant Beth and Luke Polaske, gave an interview to Fox News, where they shared their motivations and recounted what transpired during the rally. Grant Beth, a freshman at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, stated that he and his friend attended the event with the purpose of “doing God’s work,” fully aware that they would face a hostile audience.
Beth described the hostile atmosphere they encountered throughout the event: “I was pushed by an elderly woman. We were harassed, cursed, ridiculed. That’s the most important thing to me. Reflecting on it, Jesus was ridiculed. His disciples were ridiculed, and that’s fine. We were truly doing God’s work and were there for the right reasons.”
Luke Polaske, Beth’s friend and a junior at the same university, reported being about 20 to 30 metres from Kamala Harris when the incident occurred. Polaske said that at one point, he removed the crucifix he was wearing around his neck and waved it towards Kamala. “She looked directly into my eyes and sort of gave me an evil smile,” said the student, describing the scene.
Beth further urged voters to consider this episode when casting their ballots. He emphasised that Harris’s behaviour reflects a disrespect for Christian values and exemplifies how she might alienate a substantial portion of the American populace. “It’s imperative that young Americans and first-time voters understand that this is what you will get with a Kamala Harris presidency,” he stressed.
The incident with the Christian students and Kamala Harris’s refusal to attend the Al Smith Memorial Dinner could have significant implications for her campaign, especially among Christian and conservative voters. Harris’s absence from the charity dinner, though consistent with her anti-Christian stance, is seen as a disregard for American political tradition, as since 1984, with Walter Mondale, no presidential candidate has missed the event.
The dinner, which brings together Catholic leaders and prominent politicians, is an opportunity to strengthen relations with the religious community, something Kamala Harris appeared to overlook, potentially deepening the perception that she is disconnected from predominant Christian values in the country.
The episode in Wisconsin serves as a reminder of the profound divisions that pervade American politics. Kamala Harris, by taking a firm stance on progressive issues such as expanding access to abortion, risks further distancing herself from Christian and conservative voters who may view Donald Trump as a more aligned advocate of their values.
Elon Musk Buys AirTags to Track Servers but Overlooks a Crucial Limitation

Published 24 October 2024
בס״ד
Elon Musk, known for his ability to surprise and his forward-thinking vision, has added yet another unusual episode to his story. According to the biography written by Walter Isaacson, the magnate purchased the entire stock of AirTags from an Apple Store in an attempt to monitor his servers. However, this bold decision came with an unexpected twist: Musk appears to have forgotten a technical detail that limits the number of AirTags that can be connected to a single Apple account.
The Functionality of AirTags
AirTags are compact and effective devices launched by Apple to help users locate lost items. Through the “Find My” app on iPhones, AirTags enable precise tracking of any item, from keys to backpacks. Due to this functionality, AirTags have even been used in criminal investigations, helping uncover major thefts, report kidnappings, and even in attempts to send packages to remote locations such as North Korea.
The ease of use is one of the major attractions of AirTags. Simply add a battery, bring it close to an iPhone, and a pop-up window appears to guide the setup process. After this, the user selects the type of object to which they want to attach the AirTag, and that’s it: it’s registered in the “Find My” app and can be located at any time. Due to this functionality and the need to monitor valuable items, it is common for AirTags to be used on key rings, backpacks, travel luggage, vehicles, and even pets. But, as Elon Musk quickly discovered, there is a limitation on this usage.
Although AirTags are quite versatile, Apple has set a limit on the number of devices that can be connected to a single Apple account. The maximum number of AirTags that can be registered on an iPhone is 16. This means that even if you have dozens of items you’d like to track, you can’t use more than 16 AirTags with the same Apple ID.
In Musk’s case, he attempted to use hundreds of AirTags to monitor his servers during an interstate transfer, and this limit became a barrier. According to reports, he bought all the AirTags available in the store expecting to be able to track them continuously throughout the journey, but when he tried to register all the devices in the app, he was met with the limitation.
When a user attempts to configure more than 16 AirTags on their account, an error message appears in the “Find My” app, indicating that more devices cannot be added. To configure a new AirTag, one would need to remove an already registered one. For Musk, removing any registered AirTag would mean leaving a server untracked, which would defeat his goal of comprehensive monitoring.
Sharing AirTags
In addition to the limitation on the number of AirTags per account, there is another important restriction. Apple allows AirTags to be shared with up to six people. This is especially useful for families or colleagues who share items such as a car or luggage. However, this sharing is also subject to security requirements, such as two-factor authentication and valid Apple accounts among the members who wish to access the AirTag.
While this sharing system is useful for family use or smaller groups, it wouldn’t suffice for Musk’s ambitions, as he would likely need a much larger number of collaborators to ensure the effective tracking of all his servers.
Musk’s Move: Not Everything Went as Expected
Elon Musk’s attempt to monitor his servers with a large quantity of AirTags reveals that even the boldest visionaries can be caught off guard by technical details. The idea of using Apple’s devices for a large-scale security project seemed promising but was thwarted by the 16-AirTag-per-account limit and the complexity of sharing with multiple people.
Though the mass purchase of AirTags was a creative and well-intentioned initiative, Musk found himself needing to seek other solutions to ensure the security of his servers. As this situation demonstrates, even with nearly unlimited resources, technical knowledge and the limits imposed by current technologies still need to be respected.
This story shows that although AirTags are excellent tools for tracking personal items, there are restrictions that prevent them from being used in large-scale monitoring scenarios. And, even for someone with Elon Musk’s agile mind, it’s not always possible to circumvent these barriers.
Israel Uncovers Hezbollah Base and Plans Lethal Strike on Iran: Retaliation Could Redefine Conflict Ahead of US Elections

Published 16 October 2024
בס״ד
Tensions between Israel and Iran continue to rise, particularly after the October 1st attack, when Iran launched around 200 missiles against Israel in response to Israel’s military escalation in Lebanon. In light of this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has informed the US government that he is prepared to carry out a limited strike on Iranian military targets before the November US elections, as reported by The Washington Post.
American officials explained that the planned strike would be carefully measured to avoid triggering a full-scale war between Israel and Iran. This approach has been welcomed by the Biden administration, which has been striving to support Israel without inflaming a broader conflict, especially given the risk of other world powers becoming involved. Initial discussions of strikes against Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities were discouraged by the US, due to the high risk of sparking a large-scale war.
At the same time, Israel faces threats in Lebanon, where the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have discovered, for the first time, an underground complex of approximately 800 metres in southern Lebanon, belonging to the Radwan Force, an elite Hezbollah unit. With this discovery, Israel has thwarted terrorist plans, as the complex, equipped to house militants for months, was intended as a base for operations to invade northern Israel, capture the Galilee, massacre civilians, and take hostages, reminiscent of the October 2023 Hamas attack.
Israel’s ground operations in Lebanon are therefore focused on neutralising these threats and preventing a similar invasion to the devastating Hamas assault on October 7th. Although the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL, was responsible for preventing such infrastructure and ensuring the absence of armed terrorists north of the Litani River, the discovery of this complex has exposed significant failures in the mission, with Hezbollah posts located near UN positions, highlighting the presence of terrorist groups in the region.
Despite its caution in avoiding a total conflict with Iran, the Israeli government has made it clear that it will not stand by in the face of Iranian aggression. Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has declared that the retaliation will be “lethal, precise, and surprising,” reiterating that Israel is prepared to inflict serious damage on its adversaries. According to Israeli officials, the response will occur before the US elections to avoid any perception of weakness by Iran.
For the United States, the situation is delicate. President Joe Biden has faced criticism from both international allies and members of his own party for failing to contain the violence between Israel and the Iranian-backed armed groups. Vice President Kamala Harris, who has participated in discussions between Biden and Netanyahu, has been challenged to defend the administration’s stance during the election campaign. In key states like Michigan, Arab-American voters have begun to support independent candidates, which could harm the Democrats’ performance in a critical election.
Thus, the escalation in the Middle East affects not only regional relations but also has the potential to shape the US electoral landscape. Israel, meanwhile, continues to monitor developments in Lebanon and Iran as it carefully plans its next steps, seeking to avoid full-scale war, but making it clear that it will not tolerate provocations without a response. The world watches with apprehension, as the coming weeks will be decisive in shaping the future of this long-standing conflict.
Between Weapons, Drones, and Hatred: Russia and Iran Join Forces Against Israel

Published 14 October 2024
בס״ד
For decades, Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, has faced persistent threats from the Iranian regime, which makes no secret of its objective: the complete destruction of Israel. Iran’s enmity towards Israel is long-standing, driven by a radical ideology that blends religion with politics, and finds support in terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, directly funded by Tehran. These groups target not only Jews and Christians, but anyone who refuses to submit to their extremist ideology.
Recently, Iran’s actions have escalated, with direct attacks on Israeli territory. Missiles launched from positions controlled by Iran-backed terrorist groups have breached nearly 90% of Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defence system. This event exposed a vulnerability in Israel’s defences and highlighted that the hypersonic warheads developed by Iran pose a significant threat not only to Israel but also to American defences in the region. The Iranian regime continues to test the limits, and now, with Russian assistance, its destructive capacity is growing exponentially.
The alliance between Russia and Iran has recently strengthened, with a military cooperation pact that has alarmed the Western world. The meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masud Pezeshkian laid bare this dangerous partnership. Both nations share a similar worldview: they are adversaries of Western countries and seek to destabilise the international order and expand their influence through conflict. For Russia, supporting Iran represents a mutually beneficial exchange; while Moscow receives Iranian drones to support its military campaigns, particularly in Ukraine, Iran, in return, receives technical and material support for its nuclear programme, a growing threat to the entire Middle East.
This alliance enhances Iran’s destructive power and poses a direct threat to Israel. It is a perilous trade: while Iranian drones enter the Russian battlefield, Moscow provides the expertise and nuclear resources that boost Iran’s capabilities. The Iranian regime is constantly seeking to expand its arsenal, with the openly declared intention of eliminating Israel. Russian aid makes this possibility even more real.
Historically, Iran has spared no effort in arming and financing its regional allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. These groups, sharing Iran’s hatred towards Israel, act as Tehran’s pawns, attacking innocent civilians and spreading terror among the Israeli people.
Russia’s involvement in this conflict, by offering support and technology for nuclear weapons development, introduces a new level of threat. For Russia, backing Iran is a means of challenging the West and expanding its influence in the Middle East, while for Iran, it is an opportunity to increase its military capabilities with advanced Russian technology and pursue the annihilation of Israel.
It is no coincidence that, as Russia supports Iran’s nuclear programme, we see Tehran more brazenly defying international sanctions and UN warnings regarding nuclear weapons proliferation. Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities are a cause for concern, and now, with Russian backing, the consequences are unpredictable.
For decades, the Jewish people have been targeted from all sides, not only by Iranian-funded terrorist groups but by the Iranian regime itself. Therefore, those who criticise Israel for defending itself clearly ignore the reality of the situation. It is crucial to remember that Israel, despite being under constant attack, seeks only to defend its existence and protect its people. Terrorism, anti-Semitism, and the malevolent alliances aimed at its destruction are the true culprits behind the deaths and destruction in the region. A country’s right to defend itself against totalitarian regimes and bloodthirsty terrorist groups should be unquestionable.
Memory and Promise: Israel Remembers Victims as Netanyahu Reaffirms Pledge to Rescue Hostages

Published 8 October 2024
בס״ד
On a day marked by sorrow and remembrance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his commitment on Monday (7 October) to bring back all Israeli hostages held by the Hamas group in Gaza. The statement was made during vigils and ceremonies held across the country, exactly one year after the devastating attacks by the terrorist group against Israel.
Netanyahu urged the population to remember both the lives lost and those still in captivity, emphasising the collective suffering of the nation. “On this day, in this place, and in many places across our country, we remember our dead, our hostages, whom we are duty-bound to bring back, and our heroes who fell in defence of the homeland and the nation. We endured a terrible massacre one year ago,” the Prime Minister declared.
Netanyahu’s statement came shortly after the Hostages and Missing Families Forum announced the death of Idan Shtivi, aged 28, one of the hostages captured by Hamas during the Supernova music festival a year ago. His body remains in the group’s possession. It is estimated that around 97 individuals are still detained in Gaza, including 34 who have died during captivity.
Netanyahu’s refusal to accept a ceasefire agreement continues to face criticism, particularly over allegations that the government seeks to maintain Israel’s military control over the Philadelphi corridor, which separates Gaza from Egypt, and the Netzarim corridor in central Gaza. This Israeli military presence has raised concerns in Egypt, which fears for the stability of its peace treaty with Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, demands the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza as a condition for broader negotiations.
The conflict began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas terrorists launched an assault during a rave party, resulting in one of the deadliest attacks in Israel’s history. On the first day, 251 Israeli citizens were taken hostage, and more than 1,200 people lost their lives, including 46 Americans and several Brazilians. US President Joe Biden issued a statement on Monday (7 October), referring to the attack as “the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust.”
Biden mourned the loss of life and condemned the brutal acts committed by Hamas terrorists, including sexual violence. He praised the resilience of the survivors, who continue to bear both physical and emotional scars from the attack. “One year on, the survivors carry wounds, both visible and invisible, that will never heal. And a year of devastating war,” the American President stated. He also reaffirmed that the United States would continue to seek a ceasefire agreement in Gaza to enable the hostages to return home. Meanwhile, Brazil maintains a stance opposing Israel and defending what some see as indefensible.
The violence shows no signs of abating. On Monday, the extremist groups Hamas and Hezbollah intensified their attacks against Israel. Tel Aviv, Israel’s capital, was hit by missiles launched by Hamas, while Haifa, the country’s third-largest city, was targeted by rockets fired by Hezbollah. In response, Israeli military forces reported destroying the launcher responsible for the projectiles.
Netanyahu’s promise to recover the hostages in Gaza, combined with the desire for a peaceful and dignified solution for both Israelis and Palestinians, casts uncertainty over the future. As violence persists, the mourning of lost lives and the pain of war continue to haunt both Israelis and Palestinians, in a conflict that seems far from a definitive resolution. The resounding call remains: Freedom for the hostages taken by Hamas terrorists. Free the innocent.
STF Prioritises Gender Ideology and Ignores the Constitution by Replacing “Father” and “Mother” with Generic Terms in an Attempt to Undermine the Traditional Family

Published 23 September, 2024
בס״ד
The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is currently debating an issue that threatens the foundations of the Brazilian family and, consequently, the values that uphold the nation. Under the direct influence of leftist, globalist, and anti-Christian ideologies, the Workers’ Party (PT)—which has long sought to impose a communist agenda in Brazil—is pushing through a radical change in the country’s official documents. Through the Action for Breach of a Fundamental Precept (ADPF 787), the PT is demanding that the terms “father” and “mother” be removed from the Live Birth Declaration (DNV) issued by the SUS, and replaced with generic terms like “birthing parent” and “legal guardian.” The justification is to “end discrimination” against a minuscule minority of trans people. But is the true intent not the opposite? That is, defending a minority in order to discriminate against the overwhelming Christian and conservative majority of this country.
For many years, this malignant agenda has been debated in the corridors of power, as if it were right to rewrite the language, culture, tradition, and customs of an entire nation to cater to the whims of a “snowflake” minority. On 18th September 2024, the STF resumed this discussion and, instead of protecting the values enshrined in the Constitution, it seems to be prioritising progressive and globalist agendas that blatantly aim to destroy the traditional and conservative family. What is at stake here is not merely a bureaucratic issue of terminology in public documents, but a direct attack on the family model instituted by God, which has been defended for centuries. How can the nation’s highest court waste its time and resources on a debate that only interests a small militant elite, while ignoring the real problems that plague the majority of the population, such as corruption and public insecurity?
The decision to replace the terms “father” and “mother” with cold, impersonal words like “birthing parent” and “legal guardian” is an insult to millions of Brazilians who honour their roles as mothers and fathers. It is a perverse way of forcing the acceptance of an ideology that goes against everything our society has always defended. The late professor and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho always taught that we should not allow those responsible for upholding the Constitution to reverse their roles and act as agents of a communist cultural revolution. Unfortunately, we failed to heed the teachings of this great Brazilian thinker, and now we face a noisy minority, driven by the left, attempting to impose its will by force. The STF, which should protect the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the majority, instead chooses to bow to the PT’s ideological agenda.
Instead of defending the Constitution, the STF has become a battleground for the promotion of harmful ideologies. The speed at which Brazil is drifting away from its Christian roots is alarming. We are on the brink of disaster, and all of this is in the name of a false inclusion that is nothing more than a smokescreen for advancing an authoritarian and anti-Christian project.
The ministers’ statements clearly show their alignment with these globalist and anti-Christian agendas. Gilmar Mendes, who initially seemed in favour of dismissing the case, backtracked. Edson Fachin, one of the most ardent supporters of progressive ideologies, openly stated that using the term “birthing parent” would be an inclusive solution, arguing that it would cover both cisgender women and trans men. How can anyone defend such absurdity? The Constitution itself refers to “father” and “mother” in clear and objective terms. Including these neutral terms is a direct attack on our Charter. André Mendonça and Nunes Marques, who should be firmly against all of this, are proposing weak compromises such as including both “mother” and “birthing parent” alongside “father” and “legal guardian,” cowardly choosing a middle ground that serves the progressive agenda.
The Word of God is clear on the importance of parents and the family. In Ephesians 6:2-3, we read: “Honour your father and mother—which is the first commandment with a promise—so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” The attempt to erase these essential figures from our society is a direct affront to God’s commandments. God instituted the family as the basic cell of society, and from it flows all blessings. What will be the fate of a nation that turns its back on this fundamental principle?
The Bible also warns of the judgement awaiting those who try to pervert the truth. In Romans 1:25, it states: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator.” This is exactly what is happening in Brazil. The STF, in trying to rewrite the truth about what it means to be a father and mother, is effectively rejecting the divine order. All those behind this globalist agenda, aimed at destroying the traditional family, will be held accountable to the Almighty God. Human justice may fail, but divine justice is relentless and infallible. The end of these malign ideologies will be eternal condemnation.
Privacy or Surveillance? STF to Decide Future of Online Search Data Confidentiality

Published 20 September, 2024
בס״ד
The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is set to rule, from this Wednesday (18th), on a case brought by Google aimed at preventing the breach of users’ search data confidentiality. The key issue before the justices is whether it is possible to authorise the breach of privacy for a non-identified group of individuals without specific conduct or justifications being singled out. Google argues that if such a practice is authorised, it could lead to excessive state surveillance over citizens, thereby compromising the right to privacy.
This debate is central to Extraordinary Appeal 1301250, which is linked to the investigation into the 2018 assassination of Rio de Janeiro councillor Marielle Franco. Despite its specific nature, the STF’s ruling will have broad implications, as it will serve as a precedent for lower courts in similar cases.
The Rio de Janeiro Public Prosecutor’s Office requested a list from Google of users who searched for terms related to Marielle Franco in the week leading up to her death on 14th March 2018. Google, however, appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts, including the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), ordered the release of this information. Google argues that such a breach of confidentiality constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to privacy and could set a dangerous precedent for mass surveillance.
Previous court rulings have argued that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be curtailed in exceptional cases, such as criminal investigations. However, Google and legal analysts warn of the risks that such a measure could be used to enable undue surveillance of citizens—a scenario that would not be unprecedented in Brazil. Google emphasises that the Public Prosecutor’s request could transform online searches into a tool for mass monitoring, threatening fundamental rights.
Legal experts have raised concerns that the STF’s ruling could pose a significant threat to citizens’ privacy if the court finds Google’s appeal invalid. A decision allowing the breach of confidentiality without individualised justification could set a precedent for the judiciary to invade individuals’ privacy in the name of criminal investigations, creating an environment of constant surveillance. For Vera Chemim, a constitutional law expert, this possibility represents a “dictatorial imposition” on companies and citizens, whose data could be exposed without clear justification.
André Marsiglia, a lawyer specialising in freedom of expression, stresses the need to individualise the justifications for breaching confidentiality, noting that criminal law requires concrete evidence of illicit conduct. In his view, allowing a breach of privacy without individualisation opens the door to abuse, enabling authorities to monitor anyone without a legitimate reason, which could include political critics or dissidents.
The Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences (IBCCRIM), acting as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case, has also opposed the measure, arguing that it violates the fundamental right to data protection and creates a scenario of permanent surveillance, disproportionate to investigative needs.
Jurists and privacy advocates are closely watching the trial, as the STF’s decision in Google’s case will impact other digital platforms and social networks. Renato Stanziola Vieira, president of IBCCRIM, warns that the ruling could lead to a “hyper-surveillance” environment, where countless individuals could be monitored without any prior indication of involvement in criminal activity.
The trial was postponed after Minister Alexandre de Moraes requested a review of the case in September 2023, following former Minister Rosa Weber’s ruling in favour of Google. Weber argued that court orders for data breaches must be individualised and specific, based on the Internet Civil Framework (Law 12.965/2014). However, analysts suggest that Minister Moraes may take a position contrary to the former relator, potentially expanding the scope for data breaches in the name of criminal investigations—a stance that would not be unexpected from Moraes.
The STF’s decision has the potential to set a significant precedent in the balance between privacy and criminal investigations in Brazil. Should the court allow broad data breaches without individualisation, it could result in increased state surveillance over citizens’ online activities. The outcome of this trial could redefine the boundaries of the right to privacy in the context of digital investigations, with far-reaching implications for society and the technology sector.
Lifetime Plan with Only 21 Days in Office: The Lavish Perks of Senators and Former Senators at the Taxpayer’s Expense

Published 12 September, 2024
בס״ד
The lifetime health plan of the Federal Senate has sparked controversy due to its extensive coverage and the lack of strict criteria for eligibility, as highlighted by the case of Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Flávio Dino. With only 21 days in the role of senator, Dino secured the right to this lifetime benefit, despite spending most of his time on leave to serve as Minister of Justice in Lula’s government. The same privilege extends to 245 former senators and 308 of their dependents, including influential politicians and, shockingly, even senators who have been impeached.
According to the Senate, the right to the health plan is acquired from the moment a senator takes office and continues after their term ends, without the need for a minimum period of service. The Senate’s Directive 9/1995, which regulates the plan, does not impose any restrictions regarding the length of tenure for a current or former parliamentarian to be eligible. This is the case for Flávio Dino, who, despite his brief time in the Senate, continues to enjoy the benefit.
Besides Flávio Dino, other ministers in Lula’s government are also on leave from their Senate positions and are already listed as beneficiaries of the plan. Among them are Renan Filho (Transport), Carlos Fávaro (Agriculture), and Camilo Santana (Education). The list of former senators benefiting from the plan includes figures such as Aloízio Mercadante, president of BNDES; Vital do Rêgo and Antônio Anastasia, ministers of the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU); and Eduardo Suplicy, currently a city councillor in São Paulo. Another notable name is Delcídio do Amaral, who was impeached in 2016 following his involvement in the Lava Jato (Car Wash) Operation. Delcídio was caught attempting to obstruct the operation’s investigations, but even after losing his mandate, he and his wife continue to benefit from the Senate’s health plan.
The plan’s perks include medical care abroad, air ambulance services, and reimbursement of medical expenses at institutions of free choice, such as the prestigious Sírio Libanês and Albert Einstein hospitals. While senators and former senators enjoy these luxurious benefits, the general population, which funds this extravagance, endures long waits in the public health system (SUS), queuing for specialist consultations and struggling to schedule tests even when appointments are secured. Contributions from senators, former senators, and their dependents are significantly lower than those of conventional health plans. For instance, a holder and spouse over 60 years old pay R$673, while the majority of costs are covered by public funds.
In 2022, the health plan incurred expenses of R$31.7 million, with beneficiaries’ contributions covering only 17% of total costs. From 2015 to 2021, the deficit amounted to R$102 million, funded by taxpayer money. Expenses have risen sharply in recent years, reaching R$35 million in 2021, driven by factors such as the general increase in healthcare costs and the Covid-19 pandemic.
Despite the financial shortfall, the health plan remains a “black box.” Information about the amounts paid by each beneficiary and their dependents is scarce, obtainable only through the Freedom of Information Act. There are no details about the relationship of dependents or the specific costs for each beneficiary.
Eligibility for the plan is granted immediately upon taking office and does not require a minimum period of service, as explained by the Federal Senate. However, for senators’ substitutes, there is a requirement of 180 consecutive days of service and participation in at least one deliberative session in the Senate’s plenary or committees to secure the benefit for life.
With this structure, the Senate’s health plan remains one of the most generous and costly in the country, primarily funded by taxpayers. This situation raises questions about the need for reform and greater transparency in its eligibility rules, especially in a context of economic crisis and debates over public spending cuts.
o deliver the justice that Indigenous peoples so desperately seek.
Published 12 September, 2024
Indigenous Leader Confronts Lula Over Inaction in Defending Indigenous Peoples and Calls for Concrete Actions

Published 12 September, 2024
בס״ד
On Thursday (12th), during the ceremony marking the return of the Tupinambá Sacred Cloak to Brazil, the elder from the Tupinambá de Olivença community, Maria Yakuy Tupinambá, made a direct appeal to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT). She criticised the lack of transparency in the negotiations to bring the artefact back to the country and demanded that Indigenous peoples be heard in discussions about land demarcation, particularly in light of the controversial time frame thesis. The firm stance of the Tupinambá leader exposed a significant gap between the president’s rhetoric and the concrete actions of his government.
Upon hearing the demands, Lula sidestepped the issue, arguing that “things are easier said than done.” This justification, however, has been repeated by the president on several occasions, highlighting that, despite his campaign promises, there is little political will to confront powerful sectors such as agribusiness, which wields significant influence in Congress. “Just like you, I am also against the time frame thesis,” Lula said, trying to soften the criticism, but quickly added that, despite his veto, Congress overturned the decision.
The time frame thesis, supported by large landowners and the agribusiness sector, stipulates that new Indigenous lands can only be demarcated if they were occupied by Indigenous peoples on the date of the promulgation of the Constitution in 1988. The thesis has been widely criticised by Indigenous leaders like Maria Yakuy, who point out its unconstitutionality and the risk of denying Indigenous peoples’ rights to territories that were historically usurped. While Lula reaffirmed his opposition to the time frame thesis, his justification that Congress acted within the law by overturning his veto reinforces a perception of inaction, as he appears unwilling to directly challenge political forces opposed to Indigenous interests.
During the event in Rio de Janeiro, Lula attempted to highlight his government’s achievements for Indigenous peoples, such as the creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples and the appointment of Indigenous leaders to positions within the National Foundation for Indigenous Peoples (Funai). However, for leaders like Maria Yakuy, these actions are merely symbolic and do not address the urgent issues of land demarcation and protection against the encroachment of agribusiness on traditional territories. Indigenous communities continue to face violence, persecution, and invasions of their lands, with the federal government failing to take decisive action to prevent these abuses.
The Tupinambá leader was clear in her criticism, revealing that, even with the return of a symbol as significant as the Sacred Cloak, Indigenous peoples remain marginalised in government decisions. Lula, in response, reacted defensively, stating that if he had the power Maria Yakuy believed he possessed, he would be celebrating “the lives of millions of Indigenous people who died in this country enslaved by European colonisers.” The president’s words, however, seemed more like an attempt to divert attention from the criticism than a concrete response to the urgent demands raised by the Indigenous leader.
Lula acknowledged that, to pass measures in Congress, he needs to negotiate with forces that do not share his ideals. However, this only reveals a stance of submission to agribusiness interests, which contradicts his rhetoric of supporting Indigenous peoples. The political reality presented by Lula demonstrates that, despite his public statements, his government has been unable to guarantee the basic rights of Indigenous peoples, yielding to the interests of large landowners and the agricultural sector.
The time frame thesis itself, which the president claims to oppose, continues to be debated in both Congress and the Supreme Federal Court (STF). In September 2023, the STF rejected the thesis, but Congress, supported by the ruralist bloc, passed a bill that reintroduces the idea. Although Lula partially vetoed the text, his veto was overturned in December of the same year. This series of events highlights the government’s weakness in effectively defending Indigenous rights, which continue to be violated while the president maintains a stance of apparent political impotence.
The criticisms of Maria Yakuy and other Indigenous leaders during the ceremony reveal the growing dissatisfaction among Indigenous communities with the Lula government. While the president tries to position himself as a defender of Indigenous rights, the reality of public policies adopted thus far presents a scenario of inaction and slow implementation of concrete measures. The frustration of Indigenous peoples is justified by the lack of progress in land demarcations and the increasing influence of agribusiness within the government and Congress, which puts ancestral territories and the very survival of various ethnic groups at risk.
The future of Indigenous lands in Brazil remains uncertain, and the pressure on the Lula government to take more decisive action is only increasing. While the time frame thesis continues to be debated, Indigenous communities persist in their fight for their rights, demanding transparency and, above all, action. The president’s words, without actions to back them, have proven insufficient to deliver the justice that Indigenous peoples so desperately seek.
Lula’s Keffiyeh Controversy: A Gesture of Support for Palestine Stirring Global Diplomacy

Published 6 September, 2024
בס״ד
The recent appearance of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wearing a keffiyeh inscribed with Arabic phrases has sparked a wave of reactions both in Brazil and on the international stage. The keffiyeh, a traditional Arab scarf closely associated with the Palestinian cause, bore the phrases “Jerusalem is ours” and “We are coming.” The official BRICS profile on X (formerly Twitter) shared the president’s image with the scarf, quickly igniting controversy due to the political and religious symbolism involved.
The inscriptions on the scarf hold significant weight within the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Jerusalem is ours” references the historic dispute over the city, which is sacred to both Jews and Muslims. Since 1967, after the Six-Day War, Israel has controlled the city, including East Jerusalem, which was previously administered by Jordan. However, for Palestinians, East Jerusalem is seen as the capital of a future Palestinian state. The phrase “We are coming” has been interpreted by many as a combative message, often used by extremist groups to signal their intent to reclaim the city, thus highlighting Lula’s increasing support for the Palestinian cause at the expense of Israeli sovereignty.
Lula’s decision to wear the keffiyeh with such inscriptions comes at a delicate time. The Middle East remains a region marked by intense conflict, and the issue of Jerusalem lies at the heart of these disputes. The president’s action can be seen as a political gesture of support for Palestine, with potential diplomatic consequences.
Critics of Lula’s stance warn that this could strain Brazil’s already fragile relationship with Israel, particularly at a time when the international community is deeply divided over issues relating to the Israeli state and the Palestinian people.
Although Lula maintained diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine during his previous terms, his current presidency has seen a series of missteps. His remarks, deemed prejudiced towards Jews, his refusal to label Hamas a terrorist organisation, and his alignment with authoritarian leaders have raised eyebrows internationally.
Domestically, the image of the president with the keffiyeh has provoked division. While supporters of the Palestinian cause and left-leaning groups praised Lula’s action, conservative factions and pro-Israel groups voiced concerns. Brazil’s relationship with Israel is one of many variables in the country’s complex foreign relations, and the use of the keffiyeh, particularly with such provocative phrases, adds a layer of uncertainty to the country’s foreign policy.
Internationally, the image of Lula wearing the scarf has been met with caution. In Israel, the words printed on the keffiyeh were seen as an endorsement of conflict and violence, with the phrase “Jerusalem is ours” often associated with movements advocating the expulsion of Jews from the city. For Israelis, this rhetoric poses a threat to the integrity of the State of Israel and disregards the historic Jewish connection to Jerusalem.
On the other hand, Palestinian groups assert that the phrase expresses a legitimate desire to return to their homeland and reclaim a city they regard as their historic capital. They argue that the expression is not a call for violence but rather a plea for justice and the end of what they see as illegal and oppressive occupation.
As of now, the Brazilian government has not made an official statement regarding the incident. However, silence may not be sustainable for long, as diplomatic pressure mounts from both allies and critics. Given Brazil’s delicate relations with the Middle East, the country’s ability to manage this image crisis will be crucial.
Lula has previously received support from Palestinian groups, and his government often aligns with progressive global movements. However, the use of symbols loaded with political meaning, such as the keffiyeh, at a time when tensions in the Middle East are particularly high, raises questions about Brazil’s ability to maintain a stance of neutrality and balanced diplomacy.
This incident exposes the inherent tensions of political symbolism and diplomacy, while also highlighting the challenges of balancing ideological commitments with the pragmatic demands of international relations. By choosing to engage with symbols associated with such polarising causes, Lula has inevitably drawn attention and sparked deep debate about Brazil’s role in global conflicts and his government’s ability to navigate these complex issues.
PT releases guide teaching candidates how to engage with Evangelicals and speak about God with restraint

Published 2 September, 2024
בס״ד
The no-holds-barred approach of the electoral campaign to capture Christian voters
The Perseu Abramo Foundation, an arm of the Workers’ Party (PT), recently published a nine-page guide aimed at instructing its candidates on how to approach the Evangelical electorate, a significant portion of the Brazilian voting population. Written in the first-person plural and filled with biblical references, the document advises careful communication on religious matters, urging candidates to avoid excess when speaking about God. However, the initiative has sparked criticism, particularly among conservative Christians, who view the measure as an attempt to win the trust of Evangelicals for political purposes, without a genuine commitment to Judeo-Christian values and principles. The guide forms part of the PT’s broader strategy for the upcoming election, instructing candidates to engage with Evangelicals without straying from the party’s agenda.
The goal is to reconnect with this segment of the population, which has distanced itself from the PT in recent years, largely due to its alignment with conservative causes and alliances with right-wing parties. Nevertheless, for many conservative Christians, the guide appears as a rhetorical tool designed to manipulate the religious beliefs of voters for electoral gains, rather than reflecting a sincere alignment with their values and convictions.
The text highlights the Evangelical community’s involvement in “various key moments in the country’s history, including the foundation of the party”, and goes on to note the presence of Evangelicals in various PT groups across “most Brazilian states”. It also references actions taken in favour of Christians, such as the establishment of the National Day of the March for Jesus. Known for its progressive positions on issues such as human rights, diversity, and equality, the PT advises its candidates to present these topics in ways that align with Christian values.
The guide suggests that candidates position themselves as advocates of social justice and love for one’s neighbour, values that resonate with many Christian principles. However, conservative Christians argue that these proposals often conflict with biblical teachings on issues such as abortion, traditional family structures, and religious freedom.
The recommendation that candidates refrain from opportunistic use of faith is met with scepticism by conservative Evangelical leaders. In their view, the PT’s real concern is not to engage in a sincere dialogue with Evangelicals, but to craft a narrative that wins the trust of this key electorate, crucial for any party with aspirations of power in Brazil.
From this perspective, the PT is more interested in consolidating its grip on the country’s power structures than in upholding or promoting Christian values and principles. A key aspect of the guide is the advice for candidates to attend religious events and engage with Evangelical leaders and congregants. The intention is to build a bridge of dialogue that allows the PT to better understand the concerns and needs of this group. Yet, conservative Christians caution that these interactions could prove to be superficial, serving more as a political strategy than a genuine opening for dialogue.
In addressing issues such as the secular nature of the state, the PT guide reaffirms the party’s commitment to the separation of religion and politics, a principle that, for many conservatives, fails to acknowledge the role faith should play in public life. These critics see the PT’s stance as an attempt to diminish the influence of religion in politics, rather than recognising and valuing the contribution that Christian principles can make to society.
In conclusion, the guide released by the PT raises numerous concerns, with many perceiving it as an attempt to manipulate the Evangelical electorate for political purposes, without a genuine commitment to the values and principles they uphold. For these critics, the true objective of the PT is not dialogue or rapprochement, but the pursuit of power, using religious rhetoric as a strategic tool to achieve this aim.
Bodies of 6 Israeli hostages recovered in Gaza: A symbol of Israel’s ongoing fight for survival

Published 30 August, 2024
בס״ד
The war between Israel and Hamas, which began on 7 October 2023, has been marked by a series of atrocities that shocked the world. The abduction of 251 Israelis by the terrorist group Hamas was one such tragedy. Recently, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) recovered the bodies of six Israeli hostages in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip. These six individuals, whose remains were recovered, were not just victims of a brutal war, but symbols of Israel’s ongoing struggle for its survival and the protection of its citizens.
The hostages, including Alex Dancyg (75), Yagev Buchshtav (35), Chaim Peri (79), Yoram Metzger (80), Nadav Popplewell (51), and Avraham Munder (78), represent different generations and personal histories, united by the tragic fate they met at the hands of a group that systematically uses terror as a political weapon. Hamas’ brutality, in kidnapping innocent civilians, exposes its true nature as a group that not only denies Israel’s right to exist but also shows complete disregard for human life. Each of these victims personifies the complex reality Israel faces daily, and their deaths serve as a stark reminder of the heavy price the nation has paid over decades for its survival.
Who were these hostages?
Alex Dancyg, 75 years old – A Holocaust survivor and historic activist who dedicated his life to preserving the memory of the Jewish genocide. He represented a generation that had already endured the cruelty of genocidal regimes, only to witness the resurgence of antisemitism in the form of terrorism. In many ways, Dancyg was the voice of Israel’s historical memory and its ongoing need for security.
Yagev Buchshtav, 35 years old – A young father, Buchshtav symbolised the new Israeli generation, which grew up with the hope of a peaceful future, but found itself, like its predecessors, caught in a continuous cycle of conflict. His death is a personal tragedy, reflecting the devastating impact of war on Israeli families.
Chaim Peri, 79 years old – A respected educator, Peri dedicated his life to shaping the minds of young Israelis. His death is a loss not only to his family but to Israeli society as a whole. He embodied the unshakable commitment to Israel’s future, believing that education was key to building a stronger society.
Yoram Metzger, 80 years old – A veteran of past wars, Metzger belonged to the generation that helped build and protect Israel since its founding in 1948. His capture and subsequent death reflect the cruel cycle of violence that Israel faces, where even the elderly and vulnerable are targets.
Nadav Popplewell, 51 years old – A successful professional, Popplewell was a bridge between the Jewish diaspora and the State of Israel. His life represented the effort of Jews worldwide to connect with their ancestral homeland, helping to build a stronger nation. His death marks the end of a life full of potential, cut short by the senseless violence of Hamas.
Avraham Munder, 78 years old – Munder was still believed to be alive until this final operation. He symbolised the hope of many Israeli families who continue to await the return of their kidnapped loved ones. His death is a devastating blow not only to his family but to the morale of a nation that keeps hope alive.
The tragedy of the hostages
The abduction and murder of civilian hostages by Hamas is a blatant violation of international law and a demonstration of the group’s barbaric nature. By recovering the bodies of these six hostages, Israel reaffirms its commitment never to abandon any of its citizens, whether alive or dead. The IDF’s operation in Khan Younis serves as a stark reminder of Israel’s determination to protect its population, while also highlighting the harsh reality of dealing with an enemy that uses civilians as bargaining chips in its war against the Jewish state.
Israel’s struggle
For Israel and its supporters, the recovery of these bodies is not just a military success; it is an act of defiance against terrorism, which threatens not only Israel but the very fabric of civilisation. Hamas, designated as a terrorist organisation by numerous Western countries (shamefully, Brazil is not among them), operates under an ideology bent on Israel’s destruction, regardless of the human cost. For Israel’s defenders, this operation is a bitter reminder of the ongoing war against Islamic terrorism – a struggle that transcends Israel’s borders and is central to the future of freedom and peace in the Middle East.
The loss of these six Israelis is undeniably tragic. However, their lives and deaths symbolise the resilience of a people who, throughout history, have faced persecution but continue to fight for their right to exist. Israel will persist in its battle against terrorism and will strive to rescue all remaining hostages held by Hamas, as promised by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Amid a seemingly endless war, the memory of these lost hostages will be preserved as a testament to Israel’s fight for survival and peace.
Zuckerberg and Biden: Complicit in the Censorship of Covid-19 Content

Published 23 August, 2024
בס״ד
In 2021, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), publicly stated in an interview on Lex Fridman’s podcast that he had removed 18 million posts on Facebook regarding Covid-19 and vaccines, claiming they contained “misinformation.” Three years later, in a desperate attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for the human toll caused by censoring critical and alternative voices during the pandemic, Zuckerberg claimed this week in an open letter addressed to US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan that the Biden administration “forced” him to censor Covid-related content, asserting that his actions were merely in “compliance” with government demands. However, his attempt to portray himself as a victim of the system, when in fact he was an active accomplice during the pandemic, is a classic display of dishonesty, deception, and lack of humanity—traits often associated with progressives and globalists.
Zuckerberg admits that in removing posts, he was attempting to “combat” alleged “misinformation” about Covid-19, but now recognises that these decisions were a “mistake.” Yet how can someone who helped silence doctors, scientists, journalists, conservative politicians, religious leaders, and even ordinary citizens now present himself as a mere executor of orders and evade responsibility for the lives lost due to the censorship imposed on HIS global communication platform? During the peak of the pandemic, censorship not only suppressed potential treatments and legitimate vaccine critiques but also fostered a climate of fear and oppression that resulted in thousands of preventable deaths. Equally culpable, the Biden administration, with its inhumane stance and alliance with Big Tech, imposed a singular narrative and crushed any attempt at debate or critical analysis concerning Covid-19 and vaccines.
While Joe Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, the current Democratic candidate for US president, played the role of puppets, globalists and the progressive elite orchestrated their strategy to suppress free speech through them. There is no doubt that Biden and Harris have the blood of many innocents on their hands. The Democratic administration not only implemented policies (replicated in most countries around the world) that failed to protect public health but also had Zuckerberg’s support in creating a narrative that painted truth-tellers as criminals, liars, and spreaders of fake news, while those promoting censorship were lauded as defenders of truth, health, and life.
While Mark Zuckerberg has consistently shown his servile obedience to malign global powers, readily sacrificing both truth and human lives, and now seeks to evade responsibility with false remorse, Elon Musk has stood up to the system to maintain an open space for debate and information on his social network X (formerly Twitter), regardless of ideological bias or the threats faced. But why did Zuckerberg and Biden join forces in an attempt to erase the truth and stifle any opposing opinion? The answer is clear: to ensure that globalist ideologies and policies continue unchecked. However, the impact of their actions has been devastating. Doctors, scientists, and researchers who shared information about potential treatments and alternative vaccines were censored, labelled “conspiracy theorists,” fake news spreaders, or deniers. This tactic of turning right into wrong and wrong into right is a common dirty game of the globalist left. With the narrative imposed by Biden and Harris, implemented and disseminated globally by Zuckerberg, censoring all opposing voices, the public was deprived of vital information and left at the mercy of a regime that prioritised power over the enormous and irreparable loss of lives, both to the virus and to the side effects of mandatory experimental vaccines.
The collusion between Big Tech and the Democratic administration demonstrated a total disregard for health, freedom, and life. Both Zuckerberg and Biden are complicit in one of the greatest crimes against humanity in modern times. While Zuckerberg, with his “nice guy” persona, now tries to escape responsibility with his feigned repentance, those in power continue to work tirelessly to consolidate the globalist agenda, aimed at controlling the world—whether through Biden, Kamala, or anyone else willing to carry out their dirty work.
Hello, hello, Federal Senate:
The “king” is naked and in checkmate. It is time to act!

Published 16 August, 2024
בס״ד
Brazil has been going through difficult times under the control of a figure who, instead of upholding justice and the Constitution (the role for which he was appointed), seems to have transformed into the ultimate symbol of a totalitarian State. Alexandre de Moraes, a minister of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), is accused of using his position to persecute political opponents, silence dissenting voices, and impose his will in an authoritarian manner. His actions in the STF and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) reveal a trajectory marked by arbitrary decisions that disregard the fundamental principles of democracy, such as freedom of expression and the right to due process.
Moraes has shown himself to be cruel and unscrupulous towards those who dare to disagree with what he believes is right. The persecution of supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro is just the tip of the iceberg of behaviour that disregards the Federal Constitution and turns the Supreme Court into a tool of repression. The conviction of former deputy Daniel Silveira, for example, is seen as a fabrication of a process full of injustices, where the Law was ignored and replaced by nefarious interests. The appointment of auxiliary judges, such as José Aírton Vieira, who allegedly followed Moraes’ direct orders to shape processes according to his convenience, reinforces the perception of a completely corrupted justice system.
On Tuesday, 13th August, leaked messages between Moraes’ aides further exposed the minister’s “modus operandi.” These dialogues, published in Folha de São Paulo by journalist Glenn Greenwald, revealed that the TSE’s disinformation combat sector, presided over by Moraes during the 2022 elections, was used as a clandestine investigative arm to persecute opponents. In one of the messages, an aide expressed concern about the minister’s irritation over the delay in fulfilling his orders. “Do you want me to do the report myself?” Moraes asked in a threatening tone. This stance is not just questionable; it is illegal and unconstitutional. How can someone who is supposedly the “guardian of the Constitution” manipulate procedures for his own benefit?
The audio recordings also reveal that Moraes commissioned reports on social media posts from journalists and parliamentarians aligned with the conservative right, such as Rodrigo Constantino, Paulo Figueiredo, Allan dos Santos, Daniel Silveira, and Marcos do Val, secretly and informally, to later use them as a basis for his restrictive decisions. “He became obsessed. When he becomes obsessed, it’s a tragedy,” commented Airton Vieira, one of the aides. Such practices show that Moraes was not content to be just a minister; he acted as an investigator, accuser, and judge, accumulating powers that should never be concentrated in a single person in a true democracy. This behaviour, besides being anti-democratic, is the personification of a tyrannical State, where rules are twisted to satisfy the will of one person.
The illegal use of the TSE to investigate journalists and supporters of Jair Bolsonaro is another chapter in this saga that has lasted for years. The revelation that Moraes’ office used the electoral court to supply the STF with unofficial reports reinforces the need and urgency for a firm and decisive response from the Legislative Power. Parliamentarians like Rogério Marinho and Marcel van Hattem have already spoken out against these arbitrarinesses, demanding that the Senate take energetic measures. The impeachment of Alexandre de Moraes, until now a distant dream, is beginning to become a concrete possibility, driven by the indignation of the Brazilian people, tired of living in a judicial dictatorship, without freedom of expression and without true democracy.
Therefore, the role of the Senate at this moment becomes more than necessary. Rodrigo Pacheco, the President of the House, has in his hands the great opportunity to clean up his history of cowardice, restore harmony between the powers, and save the country from the tyranny that was installed by the left with its malign project of power. Accepting the impeachment request of Moraes is not just a matter of justice; it is an urgent need to preserve the true Democratic Rule of Law. Brazil can no longer tolerate the abuse of power and the imposition of a dictatorial regime disguised as jurisprudence. If the Senate remains inert, history will not be indulgent with those who had the chance to act and chose cowardice. Brazilians do not deserve a State where the law is manipulated to serve the interests of a few; they deserve a country where justice is truly blind and impartial, free from the yoke of a dictator disguised as a minister.
Justice for the Victims of 9/11: Lloyd J. Austin Revokes Susan K. Escallier’s Agreement with Terrorists

Published 9 August, 2024
בס״ד
On the morning of 11 September 2001, the American nation faced an unprecedented tragedy. Four commercial aeroplanes were hijacked by 19 terrorists affiliated with Al-Qaeda, initiating coordinated attacks that would forever alter the course of United States history. Two of the planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, a third struck the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and the fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers bravely and heroically attempted to regain control of the aircraft. These attacks resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people.
The destruction of the Twin Towers occurred less than two hours after the impacts, leading to the complete collapse of the buildings and spreading terror throughout New York City. The attack on the Pentagon, the seat of American military power, demonstrated the extent of the terrorists’ hatred and strategic organisation. The downing of the fourth plane in Pennsylvania was the result of the passengers’ courage in confronting the hijackers, preventing an even more devastating attack on a significant target, possibly the Capitol or the White House.
The aftermath of the attacks was devastating. US airspace was closed, government buildings were evacuated, and the nation was placed on high alert. The casualties included passengers and crew members on the planes, workers and first responders in the towers, personnel at the Pentagon, and heroes who sacrificed their lives in attempts to save others. The American economy suffered a significant blow, and security measures were drastically tightened to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring again.
More than two decades have passed, and a highly controversial decision regarding the fate of those responsible for the tragedy has emerged. Retired Brigadier General Susan K. Escallier signed a pre-trial agreement with terrorists Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, in which guilty pleas would be exchanged for life sentences, thereby avoiding the death penalty. This decision was regarded as an insult not only to the victims and their families but also to all Americans who believe in justice. Could it be that those responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents might escape the maximum punishment? If so, where is the justice for those who lost their loved ones in such a brutal manner?
However, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III intervened, nullifying the agreement and assuming direct oversight of the case, thereby reinstating, at least for now, the possibility of the death penalty for these terrorists. This move reaffirmed that the United States would not tolerate acts of terror and that those responsible would pay the ultimate price for such heinous crimes. Austin’s decision brought relief to the victims’ families and signalled that justice may still prevail.
Guantánamo Bay, a US naval base in Cuba, is the chosen site for the detention of terrorism suspects. High-risk detainees, including those accused of the 11 September attacks, are held there, far from civil society, where they can no longer pose a threat. The existence of Guantánamo is crucial in ensuring that these terrorists do not have the opportunity to threaten innocent lives again. Critics may argue against indefinite detention, but national security and justice for the victims must take precedence over any ideological or political perspectives.
The impact of the 11 September attacks extends far beyond the physical and economic damage. The families of the deceased continue to endure unbearable pain to this day. Husbands, wives, children, and parents lost their loved ones in a cruel and sudden manner. Firefighters, police officers, and first responders courageously sacrificed their own lives to save others. The grief and loss these individuals experience are immeasurable, and the need for justice is essential. Those responsible for this atrocity must be punished according to the severity of their crimes.
The left and progressives often underestimate threats to national security and make decisions that jeopardise the safety of citizens. It is therefore hoped that conservative leaders will rise to protect the United States. Lloyd Austin’s intervention is an example of how firmness and resolve can prevail over the complacency and weakness typically associated with progressives and Democrats.
Results of the Presidential Election in Venezuela: Amid Inconsistencies, Oversights, Lack of International Recognition, and Possible Power Perpetuation Tactics

Published 29 July, 2024
בס״ד
The recent elections in Venezuela have been a focal point of intense debates and controversies, especially among groups that do not align with totalitarian governments. The electoral process in the country, which should exemplify democracy, is frequently accused of irregularities and manipulations. Political analysts have commented on the electoral contest, analysing in various ways how complex the Venezuelan electoral system is and the failures that have undermined public trust.
The electoral system in Venezuela is characterised by the use of electronic voting machines and a technological infrastructure that should ensure transparency and accuracy in the results. However, the National Electoral Council (CNE), the body responsible for overseeing the process, has been criticised for its lack of impartiality. The electoral legislation is complex, and the elections include voting for presidential, legislative, and municipal positions, as well as referendums. The voting machines and the voter register are theoretically designed to prevent fraud, but reality paints a different picture.
One of the main flaws pointed out in the Venezuelan electoral process is the lack of transparency. Independent observers have limited access and are often prevented from conducting proper monitoring. Additionally, there are recurring reports of voter coercion, ballot manipulation, and political intimidation. The opposition frequently claims that the government uses public resources to influence the results, further compromising the integrity of the process.
María Corina Machado, one of the opposition leaders, asserts that the opposition won the elections with an impressive 70% of the votes, which was evident in all the tally sheets released from the polling stations and a selfie taken by a Chavista directly from the Informatics Centre, showing indicative graphs of the opposition’s comfortable victory. These tally sheets should have been sent to the CNE, which did not happen in many of the 15,000 voting locations. Machado denounces that the CNE manipulated the results at the end of the process to favour the government, which is corroborated by various inconsistencies in the official figures.
Another controversial point of the recent elections was the result announced by the CNE, which totalled 132.2% of the votes, an arithmetic discrepancy impossible in a fair electoral process. This grotesque error demonstrates the brazenness of dictatorial leaders but also attracted international attention and raised serious doubts about the legitimacy of the process. Such inconsistencies are indicative of deliberate manipulation of the numbers to benefit the current Venezuelan dictator, Nicolás Maduro.
The CNE attempted to justify the discrepancy by claiming an internal team error, which is an insufficient argument that only adds to the reasons listed for the strong suspicion of fraud in the process. An error of this magnitude suggests systemic problems and, more gravely, possible collusion between the CNE and the Maduro government to manipulate the results.
Due to these irregularities, many countries and international organisations have refused to recognise the election results. The European Union, the United States, and several Latin American countries have expressed their concern over the lack of transparency and the violation of democratic principles in Venezuela. The lack of international recognition further isolates the Maduro government, which only had support from similarly tyrannical governments like China, Honduras, Russia, Cuba, and Bolivia, who seize and maintain power by force. This strengthens the position of the opposition, which continues to demand new elections under independent international supervision.
The elections in Venezuela remain a clear example of how an electoral process can be corrupted by systemic failures and, as seems evident, political manipulation. It is thus clear the complexity of the Venezuelan electoral system and the numerous irregularities that have undermined public trust. Allegations of fraud, inconsistencies in the results, and the lack of international recognition highlight the tyrants' desire to remain in power and reinforce the need for a profound reform in the country’s electoral process to ensure free and fair elections.
Biden Out of the Race, Kamala Harris in the Running, The Simpsons “Prophesising” and the New World Order in Progress: What Will Be the Outcome?

Published 22 July, 2024
בס״ד
Recently, an attempt on Donald Trump’s life nearly succeeded in removing him from the presidential race, but fortunately, it was unsuccessful. This attack, orchestrated to pave the way for the Democrats, further revealed the true nature of American politics and the determination of those who support the nefarious globalist agendas. Joe Biden, with his failing health and evident cognitive issues, has finally stepped down from re-election, something unprecedented in the United States for over 50 years. Biden’s decision not only exposed the fragility of Democratic leadership but also created an opportunity for Kamala Harris, his current vice president, who is even more radical in her stance on globalist issues. Harris is known for her aggressive support of New World Order agendas, aiming to dismantle the traditional family and impose extreme secularism. It is clear that the Democrats, contrary to their claims, do not defend democracy but rather pursue a power project aimed at controlling and subjugating Christian and conservative values.
Kamala Harris, being more radical than Biden, poses an even greater threat to individual liberties and Christian principles. She is seen as a puppet of the globalists, including figures like George Soros and Bill Gates, who have readily declared their support for her candidacy. By promoting Harris, the American left makes clear its alliance with meta-capitalists and the proponents of the 2030 Agenda. They are willing to do anything to ensure the advancement of their progressive agendas, from implementing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) to promoting woke agendas that undermine traditional social structures.
Curiously, the animated series "The Simpsons" has made remarkably accurate predictions about global and political events. For years, the show's creators have anticipated occurrences that initially seemed fantastical or even impossible to foresee. From Donald Trump’s election in 2016 to Kamala Harris’s tenure as vice president, The Simpsons’ “prophecies” have been astonishingly precise. They even predicted the 200-reais note in Brazil and many other global events. This phenomenon raises intriguing questions: how can a simple TV show get so many details about the future right? Are we looking at mere coincidences, or is there something deeper at play?
The Simpsons' predictions about Kamala Harris as president and future events related to American politics cannot be ignored. In the episode portraying Harris as president, the details are eerily accurate, from the clothes she would wear to the events that would unfold during her tenure. This fuels speculation that the show might have some insight into the future or that, in some way, it reflects the plans of the globalists.
Pastor Rafael Bittencourt’s analysis provides a Christian perspective on these events. According to him, Biden’s withdrawal is a clear sign of the Democrats’ failure and the danger posed by Kamala Harris. He emphasises the importance of Trump, seen by many as a defender of Christian liberties and an opponent of globalist agendas. Trump, by promising to block the Central Bank Digital Currency, offers vital resistance against the advance of totalitarian agendas. Biden’s departure and Harris’s rise are viewed as part of a larger globalist plan to impose their control and dismantle traditional and conservative values.
Moreover, The Simpsons' “prophecies” become even more unsettling when considered alongside the prophecies of pastors like Esteban Acosta from Colombia and prophet Brandon Biggs from the US. Both have warned about the attack on Trump, the dangers of globalist agendas, and the importance of a Christian view of world events. In the Bible, God used prophets to reveal His plan and warn His people, as He did with Daniel and his visions of world empires. Today, “prophecies” like those from The Simpsons can be seen as warnings, but it is crucial to discern their origin and intention.
Christians must stay vigilant and use the Bible as a filter to interpret these events. God can use any means to alert us, from a mule to a cartoon. However, we must always seek the Holy Spirit’s discernment to understand the true origin of these messages. Even the most detailed coincidences should be carefully examined to determine whether they are of divine origin or traps set by Satan to confuse and distract Christians. This moment requires vigilance and discernment, as the globalist forces are in motion, and it is up to us Christians to defend the truth and the values that uphold our society.
Attempted Assassination of Trump: The Desperate and Last Card of the Left

Published 15 July, 2024
בס״ד
The former president and current candidate for the presidency of the United States, Donald Trump, suffered an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on the afternoon of Saturday, 13 July 2024. The event, which was supposed to be a show of strength and support, was abruptly interrupted by gunfire. Trump was grazed on the right ear, resulting in a smear of blood on his face. However, demonstrating his courage and determination, he raised his fist in a symbolic gesture, indicating that he was not daunted. Thanks to the swift action of Secret Service agents, the shooter was neutralised, and Trump was taken to a medical centre where he received treatment and was subsequently released.
The assassination attempt against Trump cannot be seen as anything other than a desperate act by the American left. Joe Biden, the current president of the United States, and the Democrats are clearly in a panic in the face of growing criticism of his administration, marked by inefficiency and questions about Biden's mental health. This attack on Trump is further evidence of how far the left is willing to go to maintain its power. The investigation into the case is ongoing, but it is already known that the shooter was killed on the spot, and one person in the audience also died.
The tragic scene in Butler brought back memories of the attack on Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, when the then-presidential candidate of Brazil was stabbed during a rally. Adélio Bispo, the attacker, was promptly labelled a "mentally ill" individual, and to this day, it is unknown who the true mastermind of the crime was, protected by a network of famous lawyers. Trump and Bolsonaro share conservative principles and values, defending freedom, family, and patriotism, making them constant targets of the left's ire. Despite this, just as Bolsonaro survived the attack and won the election, Trump has also shown his resilience and determination. The significant difference is that while Adélio Bispo is alive and protected, the man who tried to kill Trump was killed by US security forces.
The coverage by the leftist media has been disgraceful. Instead of calling the incident what it really is – an assassination attempt – many media outlets refer to it as a mere "interruption" of the speech, in a clear attempt to downplay the severity of the attack. This rhetoric is similar to how the left softens the issue of abortion, calling it an "interruption of pregnancy." Meanwhile, the New York Police Department is taking measures to protect all of Trump's properties, trying to prevent further attacks against him, his family, and his employees.
Several conservative figures have expressed their support for Trump after the attack. Former President Jair Bolsonaro declared: "Our solidarity with the greatest world leader of the moment. We hope for your prompt recovery. We will see you at the inauguration." Elon Musk, owner of the social network X, stated: "We fully endorse President Trump and hope for his swift recovery." The Argentine president, Javier Milei, was blunt: "The desperation of the international left is not surprising, as today it sees its harmful ideology expiring and is willing to destabilise democracies and promote violence to achieve power."
The hatred of the left, both American and worldwide, against Trump is palpable. He is the only candidate with enough strength to confront the nefarious system that is sinking the United States. After the attack, Trump thanked the Secret Service for their quick response and extended his condolences to the families of the victims. In his words: "God bless America," it is evident that, just as in 2016, Trump continues to be a figure of resilience and determination, willing to fight for the future of his country against all adversities.
The Crisis in Military Careers: Reflections on the Attrition of Officers

P
ublished 21 June, 2024
בס״ד
In recent years, a phenomenon has garnered attention within the Brazilian Armed Forces: the growing attrition of career officers. This exodus, far from being merely an abandonment of posts, reveals a series of deep and concerning issues that affect not only the military but also the nation as a whole.
The crux of this problem lies in a combination of factors ranging from a lack of career advancement prospects to unsatisfactory salaries and working conditions. The decision to abandon such a noble profession as the military cannot be made emotionally or impulsively but should result from a reflection that rationally and sensibly weighs the pros and cons involved in this career path.
However, one of the most cited reasons by those choosing to leave the Armed Forces is the remuneration, deemed insufficient for the duties performed. After all, how can we expect men and women dedicated to the defence of the nation to support their families with dignity when their salaries fall short of what is deserved? Moreover, how can we ensure the motivation and commitment of these professionals when they feel undervalued and underpaid?
Additionally, the lack of career advancement prospects is another crucial point driving many military personnel to abandon their posts. The feeling of stagnation, of being trapped in a rigid and inflexible hierarchy, undermines motivation and the desire to progress within the institution. How can one aspire to a successful career when growth opportunities are scarce and promotion criteria often appear "nebulous," highlighting possible cases of favouritism within the institution?
We must also acknowledge the criticisms of the management and career progression methods within the Armed Forces, perceived as outdated and unjust by those who decide to leave. The subjectivity in performance evaluations, external interferences in decision-making, and the sense of nepotism or favouritism in certain appointments are aspects that erode the credibility and trust of high-ranking military officers in their roles. Concerning this corrupt military elite, the late professor and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho warned us long ago when he stated on various occasions: “There are thousands of honourable men in the Armed Forces, but what good is that if they are commanded by fraudsters and traitors?”
We, civilians and taxpayers who bear the high costs that also fund this purpose, must question: how can we ensure the security and sovereignty of a nation when those tasked with this mission feel demotivated and disillusioned with their profession? How can we maintain the prestige and effectiveness of the Armed Forces when their best talents choose to “abandon ship” in search of more promising horizons in the private sector or in other areas of public service?
The future of our Armed Forces and the crucial role they play in defending our nation is a subject that must be considered, discussed, and demanded by Brazilian society. We cannot allow the attrition of officers to become an irreversible trend, undermining the operational and moral capacity of our troops. Action is required to reverse this situation, demanding the government provide dignified working conditions, real opportunities for growth, and professional appreciation for the military personnel on the front lines and to eradicate corruption within the corridors of the high command. It is worth remembering that a war can be won without generals, but never without soldiers.
After all, what will become of Brazil without its Armed Forces? What will become of our security and sovereignty without men and women willing to sacrifice their lives for the nation? These are questions that deserve our attention and reflection, for the future of our country depends, in large part, on the commitment and dedication of those who have sworn to defend it at all costs, whether in the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force.
Senators Seek to Legalise Casinos and the ‘Jogo do Bicho’ in Brazil, Facing Criticism from Conservatives
Constitution and Justice Commission Begins Analysis of Controversial Topic This Week

Published 14 June, 2024
בס״ד
This week, the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ) commenced the analysis of Bill 2,234/2022, which aims to amend the Misdemeanour Law and legalise gambling. Debated since the 1990s, the bill was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in 2022 and is now under the Senate’s consideration. In practice, the new legislation proposes the legalisation and regulation of casino games, bingo, video bingo, the ‘jogo do bicho,’ and online gambling, as well as horse racing bets in Brazil. A regulatory agency, linked to the Ministry of Finance, will be established to oversee the compliance with the new law, should it be approved. After passing through the CCJ, the bill must be voted on in the Plenary before being sent to President Lula for sanction.
Rationale: Gambling is Already Practised in the Country
The preliminary version of the text currently debated in the CCJ would allow the establishment of one casino per state and in the Federal District. Exceptions include São Paulo (three casinos), Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Amazonas, and Pará (up to two casinos in each state). According to proponents of the proposal, gambling is “deeply rooted in the country’s culture” and is already practised clandestinely without any regulation. They also argue that legalisation would increase government tax revenues, create jobs, and ensure that gamblers receive their winnings securely.
Opposition from Conservative Parliamentarians
The topic is controversial and opposed by conservative parliamentarians, especially the evangelical bloc. Pastor Silas Malafaia, a well-known conservative voice in Brazil, used his social media platforms to criticise the bill. “It has already been proven that the tax collected from gambling does not compensate for the social damage it causes. There are negative opinions from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and other organisations. Everyone knows that gambling has another terrible aggravating factor: money laundering from drug trafficking and corruption. It is a disgrace,” he asserted.
He urged voters to contact their state senators and “bombard” them with messages expressing opposition. He also promised to denounce senators who support the bill’s approval.
Pause in the Debate
Senator Irajá (PSD-TO), the bill’s rapporteur, gave a favourable vote in the first meeting, allowing the CCJ president to authorise the commencement of the project’s discussion. However, following some senators’ remarks and social media pressure, he announced an agreement to postpone the deliberation. The CCJ president, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP), stated that an agreement with conservative parliamentarians had been reached to grant a collective request for a review, delaying the vote to the next session. Senator Carlos Viana (PODE-MG) has already expressed his intention to exclude casinos and the ‘jogo do bicho’ from the regulation.
The press had deemed the bill’s approval certain, but the majority of senators have refrained from publicly stating their positions following the online criticism. At the end of 2023, President Lula sanctioned, with vetoes, the law regulating sports betting, fixed-odds betting, and online casinos. At the time, the government stated it aimed to increase revenue through regulation and contribute to the zero-deficit target. The legalisation of gambling was supported by Vice President Geraldo Alckmin and Tourism Minister Celso Sabino, who stated that “the majority of the Lula government” he spoke with was in favour.
Lula Removes Brazilian Ambassador to Israel, Triggering New Diplomatic Crisis CONIB Regrets Decision, Stating it “Distances Us from the Brazilian Diplomatic Tradition of Balance and Dialogue”

Published 4 June, 2024
בס״ד
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) has instigated a new diplomatic crisis with Israel. His decision, published in the Official Gazette on Wednesday (29th), leaves Brazil without an ambassador in Tel Aviv.
Frederico Meyer, who held the position, had returned to Israel last Friday (24th) to pack his belongings. He has been transferred to Geneva, Switzerland, where he will assume a permanent mission at the Conference on Disarmament.
Since February, Brazil and Israel have been exchanging barbs in the wake of the conflict between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The fighting began after members of the radical group invaded Israeli territory on 7th October 2023, resulting in over 1,200 deaths and approximately 250 kidnappings.
At the beginning of 2024, the Brazilian ambassador was summoned by the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, to the Holocaust Museum. On this occasion, Israel protested against a statement by Lula, who said: “What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has never happened at any other time in history. Actually, it did. When Hitler decided to kill the Jews.” Consequently, the Brazilian president was declared “persona non grata” in the country until he retracted his statement. According to Katz, the statement was a “serious antisemitic attack.”
The Brazilian government described Katz’s stance as “unacceptable” and recalled Meyer for consultations, signalling the need to hear clarifications from its diplomat regarding an attitude consid