TV News LIES

Ten-year-old Rateb Abu Qleiq sat in a rusted chair in front of his tent in Deir al-Balah. As he spoke, he unconsciously swung his right leg, which was amputated just below the knee, back and forth—the stub tracing a short arc in the air. On his lap he cradled a makeshift prosthetic, nothing more than a piece of plastic sewage pipe outfitted with an orange covering secured by a piece of string.

“My leg is gone,” Rateb told Drop Site. “This pipe doesn’t make up for my leg.”
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/gaza-child-amputees-makeshift-prosthetics-limbs-israeli-restrictions-hamad-hospital
Rateb was severely wounded in an Israeli airstrike in Khan Younis earlier this year that killed his mother and brother. His right leg was crushed and had to be amputated. He has undergone five surgeries in his abdomen since the attack.

“I felt sad that I’m no longer like the other kids because my leg was amputated. I don’t know how to play with them. I wish I had a leg so I could play with my friends,” he said.

Desperate to move again, Rateb and his cousin fashioned the prosthetic leg out of a plastic sewage pipe he found in the street. “I don’t want to give up, and my determination is strong. I dream of having a real prosthetic limb,” Rateb said. “If my leg hadn’t been cut off, the first place I’d go is the field to play football. I want to return to our home and have my mom, my dad, and my leg with me.”

“When he first wore it, he was so happy, as if it were his real leg, he would walk on it. But poor thing, because it was made of plastic, it started to hurt his leg. No matter what, it’s still just a sewage pipe,” Rateb’s uncle, Mohammed Abu Qleiq, told Drop Site. “It doesn’t replace a real prosthetic limb, and it doesn’t make up for his leg. But this was the simplest thing we had.”

More...

In March 2006, the Harvard Kennedy School published a working paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by influential political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The paper, which ran in the London Review of Books and became the basis for a book published the following year, was an unflinching analysis of the impact of pro-Israel advocacy and lobbying groups on the U.S. political system, and the role of organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in shaping U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East.

Mearsheimer and Walt described a loose coalition of philanthropists, think tanks, advocacy groups, and Christian Zionist organizations that routinely pulled U.S. policy toward the Middle East away from America’s national interest, as the U.S. was being drawn into a military quagmire in Iraq. “Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored,” Walt and Mearsheimer wrote, “but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.”

Even before the Kennedy School posted the paper online, the project had already spooked editors at The Atlantic, who originally commissioned the essay in the early 2000s. In an interview with Tucker Carlson earlier this year, Mearsheimer revealed that the editor of The Atlantic offered them a “$10,000 kill fee” if the publication didn’t print the article. Mearsheimer said, “That’s the fastest $10,000 we ever made.”

The paper was written by two highly esteemed scholars of international relations; Walt had been serving since 2002 as Academic Dean at Harvard’s Kennedy School, as prestigious an appointment as exists in the field, and Mearsheimer taught at the University of Chicago. But the backlash against it was swift, intense, and unusually public in the world of academia. A wave of news articles described the authors as antisemites, while the Anti-Defamation League weighed in to denounce what they called an “anti-Jewish screed.” The pressure became so intense that the Kennedy School removed its logo from the paper and added a disclaimer distancing the institution from its arguments.

More...

In October, President Trump proposed a compact for higher education, a federal takeover of state and private institutions thinly disguised as an offer of preferential funding consideration. Most of the initially targeted universities rightfully have rejected Trump’s unlawful and unconstitutional compact, but some schools, including the University of Virginia and Cornell, have since signed separate agreements with the federal government.

Initial media coverage largely portrayed the deals as compromises that allowed the universities to preserve institutional autonomy and resolve outstanding federal investigations. But subsequent revelations about the coercive ouster of UVA’s former president underscore how, in fact, “deals” like these represent a dangerous new front in the Trump administration’s war on higher education.

UVA’s settlement, announced on 22 October, appeared to focus narrowly on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, to safeguard academic freedom, and to avoid external monitoring or monetary penalties. Cornell paid $60m and made various promises related to admissions, DEI, antisemitism and foreign financial ties in exchange for a restoration of federal funding. UVA’s leaders hailed “a constructive outcome” that “uphold[s] the university’s principles and independence”, while Cornell’s declared that federal funding would be restored without sacrificing academic freedom. But the reality is very different.

UVA’s deal is not a deal at all. It provides that if UVA makes unspecified changes on “DEI” to the federal government’s satisfaction and provides it with data through 2028, the administration will close currently open investigations into the university. The federal government can open new inquiries at any time.

What the agreement does do is contractually bind UVA to the Trump administration’s definition of discrimination. That definition outstrips anything the law requires and, in fact, may force UVA to violate statutory and constitutional law. Far from extricating the university from government oversight, the agreement subjects UVA to federal monitoring and the risk of draconian financial penalties if the federal government decides, at its sole discretion, that the university has not complied.

More...

Don’t give up the day job. On Tuesday, Donald Trump came to the annual Thanksgiving turkey pardoning ceremony at the White House ready to serve up some political satire. It went about as well as you would expect.

Like a startled turkey flapping in zigzags, the US president’s speech ricocheted bafflingly from topic to topic. He told jokes in the worst possible taste and watched them arc through the Rose Garden sky before landing with a thud. And on a day intended for charity and good cheer, he described a state governor as “a big, fat slob”.

Trump has never met a presidential tradition he did not want to trash. For nearly eight decades, the turkey presentation has been a silly but reassuring ritual in which presidents offer a few bad puns and uplifting words about the state of the nation. They are not meant to make news.

But this year, of course, things were different. Normally, two turkeys are in attendance following a public vote on which should be pardoned. On Tuesday, however, Gobble was present but Waddle was “missing in action”, as Trump put it – evidently a bird of the same feather as Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The Rose Garden was transformed, its grass paved over with Mar-a-Lago-style slabs, while nearby was the presidential walk of fame, featuring tacky gold and framed portraits of Trump’s predecessors save for Joe Biden, replaced by an autopen. Behind the president was a framed mirror in which a yellow crane could be seen at the site of the former East Wing.

More...

The Trump administration is framing its boat strikes against drug cartels in the Caribbean in part as a collective self-defense effort on behalf of US allies in the region, according to three people directly familiar with the administration’s internal legal argument.

The legal analysis rests on a premise – for which there is no immediate public evidence – that the cartels are waging armed violence against the security forces of allies like Mexico, and that the violence is financed by cocaine shipments.

As a result, according to the legal analysis, the strikes are targeting the cocaine, and the deaths of anyone on board should be treated as an enemy casualty or collateral damage if any civilians are killed, rather than murder.

That line of reasoning, which forms the backbone of a classified justice department office of legal counsel (OLC) opinion, provides the clearest explanation to date how the US satisfied the conditions to use lethal force.

But it marks a sharp departure from Donald Trump’s narrative to the public every time he has discussed the 21 strikes that have killed more than 80 people, which he has portrayed as an effort to stop overdose deaths.

A White House official responded that Trump has not been making a legal argument. Still, Trump’s remarks remain the only public reason for why the US is firing missiles – when the legal justification is in fact very different.

And it would also be the first time the US has claimed – dubiously, and contrary to the widely held understanding – that the cartels are using cocaine proceeds to wage wars, rather than to make money.

In a statement, a justice department spokesperson said: “These operations were ordered consistent with the law of armed conflict.” The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

More...

An exodus of Justice Department employees has left behind a trail of emotional farewell notes warning that agency values are eroding.

The big picture: The writers, who are among the thousands who have departed the DOJ under Trump 2.0, did not mince words about "potentially irreversible damage," a retreat from ethics, a "toxic work environment" and potential harm to vulnerable groups.

Context: The Justice Connection, a network of DOJ and FBI alumni, has collected dozens of farewells, many overflowing with gratitude for the agency's mission while also warning about the consequences of damaging the institution.

Executive Director Stacey Young said in a recent statement that the department's workforce is "being asked to put loyalty to the President over the Constitution, the rule of law, and their professional ethical obligations."

What they're saying: The "current incarnation" of the DOJ "defines 'justice' in a way that I do not recognize," former trial attorney Carrie A. Syme wrote in a March farewell, adding, "please remember that the vast majority of DOJ attorneys are people of good will who are trying to maintain a true sense of justice."

Devon Flanagan, who served as a trial attorney in the Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, warned that damage will accelerate as more employees "find these stressful and demeaning conditions untenable."

Zoom in: Three assistant U.S. attorneys who resisted dismissing New York Mayor Eric Adams' case addressed their April resignation notice to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, saying that the DOJ has "decided that obedience supersedes all else."

More...

President Trump’s heated rhetorical attacks on Democratic lawmakers, whom he called out as “traitors” who deserve to be jailed, have left his Republican allies in Washington dumbfounded and skeptical about any bipartisan dealmaking at the end of 2025.

Republican lawmakers and strategists fear Trump is undermining his own credibility and ability to get anything done before the midterm election.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that Trump labeling his political opponents as traitors was “reckless” and “irresponsible.”

“If you take it at face value, the idea that calling your opponents ‘traitors’ — and then specifically saying that it warrants the death penalty — is reckless, inappropriate, irresponsible,” Paul told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Other GOP lawmakers were quick to distance themselves from the president.

More...

The Trump administration has ordered a review of all refugees already cleared to enter the U.S. during the Biden era and may require them to undergo a re-interview, according to a memo from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services obtained by USA TODAY.

All refugees admitted between Jan. 20, 2021, the day before former President Joe Biden took office, and Feb. 20, 2025 will have their applications re-reviewed even if they were already admitted entry to the U.S., according to the memo, which is dated Nov. 21. Refugees admitted outside that time frame could also be re-reviewed, the memo states.

Refugees who were already admitted also may need to submit to another interview to prove they face "past persecution or a well-founded fear," according to the memo. Refugees whose applications are rejected will have no pathway to appeal the decision, it reads.

Almost 197,000 refugees were admitted to the U.S. from 2021 to 2024, an increase from the 118,000 admitted during Trump's first term, but still less than under any other president for the previous half-century, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

More...