PollyKracker

Napper .
Encourage skepticism.
Hold the Line .
Justice .
RT = interesting...

[PollyKracker @BullisPenelope]

The Living Land: How Regenerative Farming Is Healing Our Farms and Rewriting Climate Science https://t.co/HqG5WHvUU6

[Peter Clack @PeterDClack]

Chinese geologists have discovered more than a million tonnes of Thorium, enough to power the world for thousands of years. It's safer, more powerful
& sustainable than any other energy: nuclear, coal, gas or oil & 500 times more reserves than uranium 235.
https://t.co/kUNJYQ8Vzd

[Jonny Bell @Jonnywsbell]

Interviewer: "What is Women spelled with an X ?"...

Man: "It's an effort to stop Men being part of the phrase"...🤔...

Peak insanity...🥴...

[Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 @TRobinsonNewEra]

Listen to Rupert Lowe read out just 5 minutes of survivors testimony from the rape gang inquiry.

What sounds like a horror movie, was actually perpetrated against British children by predominantly Pakistani Muslim men.

Legacy media refuse to cover it.

[Las Cloacas del Sistema @LCDS_2]

⚠️ATENCIÓN⚠️

CASO BAR ESPAÑA Y CRIMEN DE ALCÀSSER:

La madre de Miriam García, Matilde Iborra, murió de pena al saber todo lo que les habían hecho los pederastas y asesinos de menores a su hija y a sus amigas.

MERECEN JUSTICIA.

[Las Cloacas del Sistema @LCDS_2]

⚠️ATENCIÓN⚠️

CASO BAR ESPAÑA:

Huesos y ropa de niños encontrados en el patio trasero del bar España de Benicarló, dónde estos malnacidos degenerados enterraban a algunos menores que eran asesinados en las orgías que realizaban.

Todo se denunció legalmente pero desde los Juzgados de Vinaròs y Castellón se manipularon y silenciaron las denuncias para que no se investigara nada, cómo hacían con las demás denuncias de las víctimas.
(HILO)👇

[Las Cloacas del Sistema @LCDS_2]

Me amenazan con más de 30 años de prisión por parte de la justicia española por compartir información documentada sobre el «Caso Bar España», una red masiva de abusos sexuales a menores que involucra a jueces, políticos, policías y empresarios de la provincia de Castellón (Comunidad Valenciana), con claras conexiones con redes europeas similares.

Desde los juzgados de Castellón, se ha abierto un proceso judicial sumamente manipulado contra mí y otras seis personas.

Me han imputado múltiples cargos de «delitos contra la moral», difamación continuada y daños públicos contra autoridades públicas y particulares.

La Fiscalía solicita décadas de prisión efectiva, una indemnización civil de 1,3 millones de euros y la eliminación total de todas mis cuentas y contenidos de internet en «Las Cloacas del Sistema».

Se están violando sistemáticamente derechos fundamentales: el derecho a la defensa, el derecho a un juicio justo e imparcial, el derecho a la libertad de expresión e información y el derecho a la presunción de inocencia.

Se nos ha negado la posibilidad de defendernos adecuadamente mientras las autoridades se apresuran a silenciarnos para siempre.

El único objetivo de este proceso es clarísimo: borrar todas mis cuentas de internet y silenciarme permanentemente para que la verdad sobre el caso "Bar España" y sus ramificaciones internacionales jamás salga a la luz.

Esto es exactamente lo que ocurrió en el caso Dutroux en Bélgica: el mismo patrón de encubrimiento, persecución de quienes denuncian la red y el uso del sistema judicial como arma para proteger a los poderosos.

Necesitamos urgentemente ayuda internacional.

Necesitamos que el mundo sepa lo que está haciendo ahora mismo el sistema judicial español: criminalizando a las víctimas y a quienes denuncian, mientras protege una red de pedofilia que ha operado con impunidad durante décadas.

Si crees en la justicia, la libertad de información y la protección de la infancia, por favor, comparte este mensaje.

Ayúdanos a visibilizar este caso antes de que me encarcelen y borren todo.

Creo que es mi deber seguir compartiendo esta información y desobedecer lo que considero un intento de censura y una injusticia.

Este enlace contiene los documentos censurados del caso Bar España que la justicia española está silenciando: https://t.co/jTu7IdUoBu

La verdad no puede ser encarcelada.

[Maila Maria Rosa @MailaMariaRosa]

The things that I’ve read in the Rape Gang Report from the United Kingdom are some of the most horrendous things I’ve ever read in my life… and they’re reality.

How is it possible that the entire British system allowed the systematic rape of 250,000 girls they were meant to protect?

I will never understand how a “first world” country allowed this… and even covered it up.

True evil walks among us.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

The Rape Gang Inquiry - what happens next.

I intend to use my parliamentary privilege to name perpetrators and their enablers in the chamber.

This will be done incredibly carefully with our legal team involved every step of the way to ensure that no future prosecutions are jeopardised.

We are cooperating with the authorities in order to help cases be opened and reopened, but my faith in the system to independently deliver justice is not high...

That is why we are pursuing private prosecutions and civil litigation.

A target list has been identified, and it continues to grow.

This all has to be handled very carefully, for obvious reasons, but I am determined to act. We have had enough talk, now we need to act.

Our aim is straightforward.

Put people in prison. Deliver justice. Finally.

We will act. Not talk.

[Right Angle News Network @Rightanglenews]

A clip of a UK refugee council using girls as young as 12 years old to encourage migrant men to come to the United Kingdom is resurfacing amid the release of the grooming gang inquiry report.

Jail isn’t enough.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Those who knew must go to prison for a long time

[JonnyUtd @Fx1Jonny]

This is the last time I’m gonna post this.

The JFK BK JFK Jnr assassinations - covered

9/11 - covered

Ive provided evidence for my claims, so if YOU choose to be ignorant, that’s on you!

[Theebans @_theebans]

It makes you wonder what it would take for the majority to recognise the reality of the situation.

[Theebans @_theebans]

If you want to understand how the modern world really runs behind the scenes, this clip is a good start.

[Theebans @_theebans]

They violently enslave your mind—then convince you that voting will set you free.

[Whiplash347 @Whiplash437]

Oh Shizzles… 👀

There’s Real Hope for California: SCOTUS could potentially END “Election Month” Once and For All!

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to rule in a major case called Watson v. Republican National Committee.

What the case is about:
Federal law has long set a clear Election Day for president, Senate, and House races—the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But some states, including Mississippi (and California), allow mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to still be counted if they arrive several days later.

Mississippi gives a five-business-day “grace period.”

Challengers argue this violates federal law that says ballots must actually be received by Election Day.

What it implies for California and the country:

The Supreme Court heard arguments in March, and most justices appeared READY TO SIDE WITH THE CHALLENGERS. If they rule that way (expected this month), it would strike down those post-Election Day counting windows in roughly 15 states plus D.C.—including California’s rules—for all federal elections.

That means no more “ballots keep trickling in” for days or weeks after polls close.

How impactful could this be?

Absolutely Huge. It means Faster, clearer results on Election Night instead of weeks later.

[Do No Harm @donoharm]

Momentum is building for the Supreme Court to take up our recent petition in Khatibi & Do No Harm v. Hawkins.

Across the country, others have joined Do No Harm in raising the same concern: California’s sweeping efforts to control speech and mandate specified "implicit bias" training in private medical education crosses a constitutional line. 

Our case has received a number of amicus briefs filed in support, including a brief joined by 14 states and Arizona legislative leaders.

We hope this important First Amendment issue and the endorsements received draw the Court’s attention!

[Rose @901Lulu]

CONCORD, N.H. — A new ruling from the Hampshire Supreme Court has reshaped the legal case against Adam Montgomery, the father convicted in the death of his 5-year-old daughter, Harmony.

In a decision issued on Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed his second-degree murder conviction and sent the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

According to a new filing, the Supreme Court determined that the jury should not have been allowed to convict Montgomery of second-degree murder under the legal theory presented, based on how the case was argued, and the evidence tied to that charge.

Prosecutors charged Montgomery with second-degree murder, which requires proving a specific level of intent or recklessness tied directly to causing death, but the Supreme Court ruled there was a problem with how that charge was applied — either in the jury instructions, legal standard, or connection between the evidence and the charge.

Because of that legal flaw, the murder conviction could not stand, even though the underlying facts were extremely serious, according to the new filing. The court did not say Montgomery is innocent in Harmony’s death.

Montgomery had been found guilty by a jury on all charges following a trial that revealed disturbing details about Harmony’s abuse in 2019. Prosecutors said the child suffered repeated beatings, including punches to the head, before her death. Evidence showed Montgomery later concealed her body for months and disposed of it, while misleading others about her whereabouts.

Montgomery first appealed the murder convictionto the Supreme Court in October 2025.

Despite overturning the murder conviction, the Supreme Court made clear that multiple serious convictions remain in place, including second-degree assault, falsifying physical evidence, witness tampering, and abuse of a corpse, meaning Montgomery continues to face significant prison time.
#justiceforharmonymontgomery

[Owen Gregorian @OwenGregorian]

The quiet push to shield pesticide makers from lawsuits | Grist Creative, Grist

In April 2026, California farmer Terri McCall stood on the steps of the Supreme Court at a rally protesting pesticide use, telling the story of how her husband and dog both died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a disease she believes was caused by pesticides. Her husband, Jack, had used Roundup for more than three decades on their 20-acre ranch before dying of cancer in 2016.

Over 57,000 pesticide products are currently registered for use in the United States, ranging from powerful chemicals used in conventional agriculture, to common insect repellents approved for use on children. Scientific evidence is accumulating that some of them are linked to illnesses ranging from cancer to Parkinson’s disease.

But beginning in 2024, a powerful coalition of chemical manufacturers and industry groups launched a coordinated national effort to pass “immunity laws,” bills designed to shield companies from potential legal claims tied to harms from their pesticide products. Over the past three years alone, industry lobbyists attempted to pass pesticide immunity legislation in 15 different states.

The battle over ‘failure to warn’

At the center of the industry’s lobbying effort is a key legal question: What responsibility do pesticide companies have to warn users and consumers about potential health risks from their products? In many states, individuals can currently bring “failure to warn” claims if they believe a company withheld information about harms associated with a pesticide.

The chemical makers advocating for pesticide immunity laws argue that companies should be protected from those lawsuits as long as they use labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But opponents say that standard is dangerously inadequate.

There are longstanding concerns about the EPA’s pesticide review process. For example, the official EPA labels for glyphosate still do not carry a cancer warning, despite mounting evidence that it may cause cancer and other groups like the World Health Organization calling it “probably carcinogenic.”

“The science is pretty clear,” said Daniel Hinkle, the senior counsel for policy and state affairs at the American Association for Justice. “The evidence continues to accumulate, and the pesticide makers continue to lose in the courtroom.”

Meanwhile, a growing body of research links a broad range of health harms to commonly used pesticides, including neurodevelopmental impacts, respiratory problems and reduced IQ in children, health problems like liver and metabolic diseases, and cancer.

The pesticide lobbyist’s playbook

Several landmark court cases have found chemical makers responsible for illnesses like cancers and neurological diseases, resulting in billions of dollars in payments from pesticide makers. Bayer alone has paid over $11 billion in cancer settlements linked to its products. In response, the chemical industry has poured millions of dollars into lobbying for pesticide immunity laws at the state and federal levels, and in the courts. “It’s very clear that this is a coordinated campaign by the industry to absolve themselves of legal liability for health harms from these chemicals,” said Hinkle.

In the last three years, advocates fought against proposed immunity bills in 15 different states. While defeated in a dozen states, the bills passed in Georgia, North Dakota and Kentucky. “The states where these bills are passing have some of the highest cancer rates in the nation,” said Joy Reeves, the director of policy and strategic development at the Rachel Carson Council. “The reality now is, if you’re a farmer and get sick, you have fewer options to hold the pesticide companies accountable.”

Environmental and legal advocates say the campaign behind the pesticide immunity laws is both sophisticated and well-funded. Hinkle says a central driver of the effort is the Modern Ag Alliance (MAA), a lobbying and public relations group founded by Bayer, the maker of Roundup, in 2024.

While many states do not make lobbying expenditures easy to track, those that do show huge sums are being spent on pesticide immunity legislation. According to public filings, MAA spent roughly $1.6M lobbying in Tennessee in 2025. Reporting by the Idaho Sun found that MAA was the top outside spender in Idaho politics that same year.

What pesticide immunity could mean for families

As industry groups push for legal protections around pesticide injury, there are growing concerns about what these bills could mean for public health, accountability, and local input.

In 2012, on a warm July afternoon in Iowa, organic farmer Rob Faux was working in his poultry yard. He heard an airplane roar overhead, and then droplets began raining over him and his chickens and turkeys. A crop duster kept the sprayer on as it passed over Faux’s farm twice, covering them with fungicides and insecticides.

Subsequently, Faux was diagnosed with cancer. Recent data shows that Iowa, which has one of the highest rates of pesticide use in the country — in 2025, 53 million pounds of pesticides were used in the state — also has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

Faux is now the communications manager and resident farm expert for the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN). He says that many products that people use every day, from ant bait to mosquito repellent, will similarly fall under the scope of the new immunity laws.

“If these laws pass, and someone sells a mosquito repellent for children that makes them sick, for example, these pesticide immunity bills will eliminate pathways for families to hold the makers accountable,” he said.

He also points to the loss of local control as a key concern. “If I live in a town where the drinking water comes from a local lake, but pesticide applicators are using chemicals that are getting into the water, the community should be able to protect people,” he said. Many of the proposed immunity bills would prevent that, because local or state governments wouldn’t be allowed to set pesticide rules that are stricter than federal standards.

A pivotal moment in the pesticide immunity fight

These concerns brought together a broad coalition spanning left-leaning environmental advocates and members of the Make America Healthy Again network. Protestors gathered outside the Supreme Court for a rally the last week of April as the justices inside heard opening arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell. The closely-watched case could reshape the future of pesticide litigation nationwide.

The case centers on whether federal pesticide labeling laws and EPA labels override state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits. A ruling in Monsanto’s favor could dramatically weaken legal pathways for people alleging harm from pesticide exposure. “This is a case that is largely about states’ rights,” said Reeves. “It will affect states’ ability to regulate pesticides.”

Just a few days later, federal lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected an effort to insert pesticide immunity language into the Farm Bill. Seventy-three Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the pesticide immunity provision.

“It was a pretty astounding defeat,” said Max Sano, a senior policy and coalitions associate with Beyond Pesticides who helps organize a national coalition of farmers, farmworkers, scientists, and advocacy groups. “But these bills are still popping up everywhere [on a state level], so we can’t afford to slow down.” His organization is currently monitoring newly proposed pesticide immunity legislation in 10 states.

The rise of a new pesticide reform movement

As momentum grows against pesticide immunity laws, Reeves described the current moment as “today’s Silent Spring movement,” referencing Rachel Carson’s landmark 1962 book that helped ignite the modern environmental movement. “Today, the pesticide reform movement is diverse,” Reeves said. “It’s cross-partisan. It’s far-reaching.”

Advocates like Reeves, Sano, and Hinkle are taking a multi-pronged approach to fighting pesticide immunity laws: organizing national coalition calls, educating lawmakers, tracking bills across states, mobilizing grassroots campaigns, and coordinating legal and public awareness efforts.

And individuals can have a deep impact on the fight, too, Hinkle said. “It is incredibly important to be in communication with your lawmaker,” he said. “Every single call or email matters. Concerned constituents and grassroots organizing have really been the decisive forces in holding off this onslaught.”

Reeves echoes him, saying, “If you care about your family and your community, you should engage on this issue. It affects us all.”

The Rachel Carson Council (RCC), founded in 1965, is the national environmental organization envisioned by Rachel Carson to carry on her work after her death. We promote Carson’s ecological ethic that combines scientific concern for the environment and human health with a sense of wonder and reverence for all forms of life in order to build a more sustainable, just, and peaceful future. The Rachel Carson Council is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

https://t.co/t0baF1PX18

[The HighWire @HighWireTalk]

The Trump administration filed a brief at the Supreme Court arguing it is perfectly legal to fire a healthcare worker for their religious beliefs while granting a medical exemption to the person standing next to them.

That's what happened in New York during COVID. The state told healthcare workers that medical exemptions to the vaccine mandate would be honored, but religious exemptions would not. Workers who refused the vaccine on religious grounds were fired.

That policy directly violates Title 7 of federal civil rights law, which prohibits exactly this kind of disparity between secular and religious accommodations. The New York appellate court upheld it anyway, and the fired workers appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration had a choice. It could have stayed out of it entirely, or it could have filed a brief stating correctly that allowing a medical exemption while denying a religious one violates Title 7.

Instead, the Department of Justice filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not to take the case, which would leave the Second Circuit's decision standing as good law and effectively ratify the mass firing of healthcare workers for exercising their religious beliefs.

@AaronSiriSG said that this is a betrayal of religious liberty by the Trump administration. The people who were injured by these vaccines, fired for their beliefs, (or both!) are paying close attention to what this administration does on these issues, and what they are seeing isn't what was promised to them.

The White House should take notice....