World Freedom

Blogger Comment: The rampent and vast Euthanasia systems in western nations have now become the latest killing field for the Globalist’s depopulation agenda 2030…so watch out and where now where they have started killing children through this system…how evil than that can that get…

.

The Netherlands has carried out its first known euthanasia of a young child under controversial regulations that allow doctors to actively end the lives of patients between the ages of one and 12 via lethal injection.

The case marks a historic and deeply contentious milestone for the country’s euthanasia regime, which was expanded in 2024 to include young children suffering from conditions deemed unbearable and untreatable.

Dutch authorities have released virtually no details about the child involved.

The child’s age, sex, medical condition, and circumstances surrounding the death remain undisclosed.

It is believed the child was euthanized in December, but the “assisted suicide” case was only made public on June 23.

The case has now been referred to prosecutors after undergoing review by a special government commission responsible for evaluating euthanasia procedures.

According to Dutch Health Minister Sophie Hermans, the commission examined the documentation surrounding the case and interviewed the physician involved before forwarding its findings to prosecutors, who will ultimately determine whether the procedure complied with Dutch law.

Netherlands Expands Euthanasia to Young Children

The Netherlands broadened its euthanasia rules two years ago, extending eligibility beyond newborns and children over the age of 12.

Under the current framework, doctors can actively end the lives of children between one and 12 years old if they conclude the child is suffering unbearably, no treatment options remain, and death is expected in the foreseeable future.

Parental consent is also required.

Conditions cited by Dutch authorities as potentially qualifying include severe congenital abnormalities affecting the brain, lungs, or heart, along with serious metabolic disorders and other life-threatening illnesses.

The expansion sparked fierce debate when it was announced, with critics warning that children are incapable of fully understanding or consenting to such decisions and that society was crossing a dangerous ethical boundary.

Euthanasia Now Accounts for 6 Percent of Dutch Deaths

The latest development comes as euthanasia continues to expand across Dutch society.

According to government figures, euthanasia now accounts for approximately 6 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands.

Critics argue that what began as a narrowly defined option for exceptional end-of-life cases has steadily evolved into a normalized part of the healthcare system.

Some medical professionals have also expressed concerns about the legal framework governing child euthanasia.

Doctors involved in the debate have noted that while a review commission initially examines each case, prosecutors ultimately decide whether criminal charges are warranted, creating uncertainty about legal accountability and oversight.

Canada Faces Growing Pressure to Expand Assisted Suicide

The Dutch case is likely to intensify concerns in Canada, where activists, lawmakers, and some medical organizations continue pushing to expand the country’s controversial Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program.

Canada already records tens of thousands of assisted deaths annually under the program, which was originally presented to the public as a limited option for terminally ill adults.

However, the system has undergone repeated expansions in recent years.

The next major expansion is expected to allow euthanasia for individuals suffering solely from mental illness, a move that has drawn widespread criticism from opponents who argue the program is drifting far beyond its original purpose.

Critics Warn of Growing Push to Include Children

Concerns have also mounted over discussions regarding extending assisted-suicide eligibility to minors.

Policy discussions and advocacy campaigns have increasingly referenced euthanasia practices in countries such as the Netherlands as potential models for future expansion.

Some proposals have focused on children suffering from severe disabilities, rare syndromes, or conditions with poor survival prospects.

Others have explored scenarios involving older minors, with some advocates reportedly raising questions about whether parental consent should always be required.

For critics, the first euthanasia of a young child in the Netherlands serves as a stark warning about where assisted-death policies can lead once eligibility criteria begin expanding.

Opponents argue that systems initially introduced as compassionate end-of-life measures are increasingly evolving into broader state-sanctioned death programs that continue to push ethical boundaries once considered untouchable.

With the Netherlands now carrying out euthanasia on children under 12 and Canada preparing further expansions of its MAiD program, critics say the debate is no longer about where the line should be drawn but whether any meaningful line remains at all.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/dutch-government-euthanizes-young-child-chilling-first/

And,

READ MORE – Young Woman Dies After Doctors Let AI Decide Whether She Deserves Treatment

Blogger Comment: Carney is lying as always and this take over of Europe started in earnest in 1971, when his Globalist network the WEF was created and he knows that…but once a liar, always a liar as we know in common, just like former UK PM Bliar…

,

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is once again drawing scrutiny after openly promoting what he calls “the new world order,” while deepening ties with global institutions and advancing policies that threaten national sovereignty and individual freedoms.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the G7 summit, Carney suggested that nations can no longer rely on traditional alliances or independent institutions in what he described as a rapidly changing global landscape.

“What one can’t do at this point in a rapidly shifting world order is to rely on one set of institutions, one grouping, one country to provide the answers,” Carney said while traveling through County Mayo, Ireland, on June 14.

The remarks came just one day after Carney delivered an even more striking message in Dublin, declaring that a “new world order” would be built through closer integration with Europe.

Carney Says New World Order Begins with Europe

Speaking in Ireland before the summit, Carney argued that the balance of global power is shifting and suggested the future would be shaped through new international alliances.

“The new world order will be built starting with Europe,” Carney declared.

“Canada is the most European of non-European countries.

“We are transforming our cooperation with Europe.”

Carney also claimed that the Group of Seven nations no longer dominate world affairs.

“It’s a recognition that the G7, if it ever did run the world, no longer runs the world or pretends to,” he said.

The comments have intensified concerns among critics who view Carney as one of the most prominent globalist figures to hold Canada’s highest office.

Longstanding Globalist Connections

Carney has long been associated with international organizations and elite global institutions.

Conservative critics have frequently highlighted his close ties to the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre previously referred to Carney as the WEF’s “golden boy.”

Carney has also publicly described himself as both an “elitist” and a “globalist.”

His recent comments are far from isolated.

Earlier this year, during a trip to Communist China, Carney praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

He also suggested that Canada would help China shape the “new world order.”

He also told delegates at the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos that the previous international order led by the United States “is not coming back.”

Critics Warn of Growing Threats to Freedom

Carney’s vision for Canada comes as his government continues advancing legislation critics say would expand government control over speech, privacy, and online activity.

Among the most controversial measures is Bill C-22, which technology giants have warned could create a sweeping surveillance framework requiring the retention of user data for potential government review.

Google and Apple have both warned that the legislation risks creating what they described as a “surveillance infrastructure.”

Meanwhile, Bill C-9 recently cleared Parliament after being amended in the Senate.

The legislation removes longstanding religious protections and will effectively criminalize quoting certain passages of the Bible under Canada’s expanding “hate speech” laws.

The legislation now moves toward becoming national law.

Questions Grow Over Foreign Influence

The controversy comes amid ongoing scrutiny over reports alleging that both Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have been influenced by an elite international network that includes figures connected to Communist China and the World Economic Forum.

While Carney has more recently described China as a security concern, critics note that he previously praised the Chinese Communist regime.

In 2016, Carney argued that China’s “perspective” was “one of its many strengths.”

His latest comments about building a “new world order” are likely to further fuel concerns among Canadians who fear that national sovereignty, free speech, and democratic accountability are increasingly being subordinated to a globalist agenda driven by international elites rather than voters.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/canadian-leader-new-world-order-built-starting-europe/

And,

READ MORE – Canadian Government Officially Passes ‘Bible Ban’

Blogger Comment: The PRO-LIFE religion Christianity is being slowly destroyed by the Globalists as it is a massive threat to them…so that should really be telling you something…shouldn’t it….

.

Canada will now officially outlaw portions of the Bible after Parliament approved a controversial “hate speech” bill that will criminalize Christians, churches, and people of faith who quote unapproved verses from religious scripture.

The final effort to stop Bill C-9 was defeated this week, clearing the way for the legislation to receive Royal Assent and become law.

The bill has sparked fierce opposition from religious leaders, conservative lawmakers, free speech advocates, constitutional experts, and pro-life organizations who argue that it dismantles longstanding protections for Canadians expressing religious beliefs rooted in Scripture.

Final Conservative Effort Defeated

On Wednesday, lawmakers voted down a motion introduced by Conservative MP Andrew Lawton that sought to withdraw Bill C-9 before it became law.

“The Liberals and Bloc Québécois voted down my motion to withdraw the divisive and toxic Bill C-9 to stand up for freedom of expression and freedom of religion,” Lawton wrote on X.

The Liberals and Bloc Québécois voted down my motion to withdraw the divisive and toxic Bill C-9 to stand up for freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

I’m grateful for the support from my Green and NDP colleagues. The opposition to this bill has come from the political… pic.twitter.com/249FRRHtgy

— Andrew Lawton (@AndrewLawton) June 17, 2026

Lawton noted that opposition to the legislation extended well beyond conservative circles.

“Opposition to this bill has come from the political left and right, from civil liberties groups and a range of faith organizations,” he said.

The legislation had already passed through the Senate but was returned to the House of Commons after senators added an amendment classifying the noose as a hate symbol.

With that amendment approved, the bill is now expected to receive Royal Assent and formally become law.

Bill Removes Religious Freedom Protection

At the center of the controversy is Bill C-9’s removal of Section 319(3)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code.

That provision currently protects the good-faith expression of religious beliefs based on sacred texts, including the Holy Bible.

Critics argue that eliminating this protection opens the door for prosecutors to target Canadians who quote or publicly defend traditional religious teachings that activists or government officials deem offensive or hateful.

Constitutional experts and civil liberties advocates have warned that the legislation dramatically expands the government’s ability to police speech while weakening protections for religious expression.

The legislation was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser and is presented as an effort to combat hate propaganda and hate crimes.

Opponents, however, argue that the vague language creates significant risks for free speech and religious liberty.

Christian Leaders Sound Alarm

The bill has generated strong backlash from Christian organizations across Canada.

Conservative MP Brad Redekopp described the measure as a direct attack on religious freedom.

“Today is a dark day in Canadian history,” Redekopp wrote on X.

“The House has passed Bill C-9—an assault on religious freedom that removes longstanding protections for Canadians expressing sincerely held beliefs.

“Conservatives fought this bill every step of the way—and we will keep fighting until religious freedom is restored.”

Today is a dark day in Canadian history.

The House has passed Bill C-9—an assault on religious freedom that removes longstanding protections for Canadians expressing sincerely held beliefs.

Conservatives fought this bill every step of the way—and we will keep fighting until… pic.twitter.com/ofTpp9fePT

— Brad Redekopp (@BradRedekopp) June 17, 2026

Campaign Life Coalition, one of Canada’s leading pro-life organizations, also condemned the bill’s passage.

“This is a dark day for religious freedom and free speech in Canada,” said Campaign Life Coalition National President Jeff Gunnarson.

The organization warned that the legislation grants government authorities new tools that could be used to investigate, prosecute, or silence Canadians for expressing faith-based viewpoints.

Catholic Cardinal Warned the Senate

Prominent Catholic leaders also urged lawmakers to reconsider the legislation before its passage.

Cardinal Frank Leo, Metropolitan Archbishop of Toronto, wrote to senators, warning that while combating genuine hatred is important, the bill required substantial changes to protect fundamental freedoms.

The cardinal stressed that efforts to address hate crimes must not come at the expense of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

His concerns echoed those raised by legal experts who warned that vague definitions could allow authorities to punish speech based largely on subjective claims of offense.

Growing Concerns Over Free Speech in Canada

The passage of Bill C-9 comes amid broader concerns about the direction of free speech and religious freedom in Canada.

Critics argue that the country’s increasingly expansive hate speech framework is creating a chilling effect on public debate, particularly regarding faith, morality, gender ideology, and other controversial topics.

Many opponents fear the law could eventually be used to criminalize the public expression of traditional Christian teachings that have been accepted for centuries.

Supporters of the legislation insist it is necessary to combat extremism and protect vulnerable communities.

But opponents warn that once governments acquire new powers to police speech, those powers rarely remain limited to their original purpose.

For many religious Canadians, the passage of Bill C-9 represents a watershed moment in the country’s ongoing battle over free expression, freedom of religion, and the role of faith in public life.

With Royal Assent now expected in the near future, critics say Canada is entering dangerous territory where biblical beliefs could increasingly find themselves under legal scrutiny.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/canadian-government-officially-passes-bible-ban/

And,

READ MORE – California Bishop Declares Bible ‘Problematic,’ Demands ‘Third Testament’

Blogger Comment: **”CONTROL“** – The Most Powerful Word in the World and What Corporate Leaders and the Political Elite Crave For, as it makes them unbelievably Rich to the Extent of Being Psychopathic in ‘Their’ Thinking and Actions Against the People – https://world-freedom.co.uk/2025/10/05/control-the-most-powerful-word-in-the-world-and-what-corporate-leaders-and-the-political-elite-crave-for-to-the-extent-of-being-psychopathic-in-their-thinking-and-actions-against-the-people/

.

Telegram founder Pavel Durov has issued a stark warning that Western societies are sleepwalking into authoritarianism, comparing the erosion of personal freedoms to passengers remaining aboard the Titanic after it had already struck the iceberg.

Speaking at the Freedom Forum in Oslo, Durov warned that governments across the West are steadily dismantling privacy, free speech, and anonymous communication while citizens remain largely unaware of the scale of the threat.

His warning comes as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government pushes ahead with plans that will pave the way for mandatory digital identification, online censorship, and unprecedented government surveillance of citizens’ online activity.

Durov Warns the Ship Has Already Hit the Iceberg

Drawing on his experiences battling government pressure in Russia, the European Union, and France, Durov argued that many people still wrongly assume their freedoms are secure.

“Our ship has already hit the iceberg,” Durov warned.

“We have already started to sink without even realizing it.

“And I’m talking about the ship of our personal freedoms.”

He compared today’s complacency to the passengers aboard the Titanic.

“Passengers of the Titanic actually didn’t want to leave the ship for almost two hours after it hit the iceberg,” he said.

“People thought the Titanic was unsinkable.

“Lifeboats left half empty.

“Only in the last half an hour, people started to panic, but by that time it was already too late.

“Not enough lifeboats, nowhere to hide, nowhere to run.”

UK Government Expands Online Control Powers

Durov’s warning comes as the British government expands the reach of the Online Safety Act, legislation that critics have repeatedly warned could be used far beyond its stated purpose of protecting children online.

Under new proposals, social media platforms would be required to verify users’ ages through facial scans, government-issued identification, passport checks, or other verification systems.

Supporters claim the measures are necessary to protect minors from harmful content.

Critics argue the system effectively creates a digital identification framework that could eventually be applied to all Internet users.

The concern is that once identity verification becomes embedded across major online platforms, anonymous speech could become virtually impossible.

Child Protection Used to Justify Expanding Surveillance

Durov argued that governments frequently invoke child safety to bypass public scrutiny and push through measures that would otherwise face significant resistance.

“Once somebody says child protection, all of a sudden it triggers very ancient, very deep parts of our brain,” Durov said.

“Who would be against protecting children?

“It completely bypasses logic.

“It bypasses debate,” he warned.

“It bypasses rationality.

“All of a sudden, people are ready to give up everything.

“And authoritarian regimes were able to smuggle all kinds of repressive legislation under the guise of protecting children.”

WATCH:

His remarks echo concerns increasingly raised by civil liberties groups that emergency powers, safety regulations, and child-protection initiatives are being used to justify broader restrictions on privacy and speech.

Concerns Grow Over Device-Level Monitoring

Privacy advocates have also raised alarms over plans involving device-level monitoring technology and content scanning systems.

Critics argue that requiring smartphones and computers to inspect content before it is encrypted would fundamentally undermine private communications.

Encrypted messaging platforms such as Signal have repeatedly warned they would rather leave certain markets than weaken end-to-end encryption or implement systems that monitor users’ private messages.

Signal leadership has publicly stated that privacy protections cannot coexist with mandatory content scanning requirements.

Echoes of Previous Warnings About Government Control

Durov’s comments come amid growing international concern over the expansion of government powers to regulate online speech, monitor communications, and require digital identity verification.

Critics argue that once the technological infrastructure exists, future governments can expand its use far beyond its original purpose.

The concern is not simply about today’s regulations, but about what tomorrow’s governments may choose to do with systems that are already in place.

For Durov, the danger is that many citizens will only recognize the threat once it becomes impossible to reverse.

His message from Oslo was blunt: the erosion of freedom rarely happens all at once.

Instead, it arrives gradually, hidden behind good intentions, bureaucratic language, and promises of public safety, until one day people discover the freedoms they assumed were permanent have already disappeared.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/telegram-founder-warns-uk-digital-id-destroy-free-internet-globally-guise-protecting-children/

And,

READ MORE – German Citizens Fined a Month’s Salary for Mocking Chancellor Merz on Social Media

Blogger Comment: This is a Gates push as he is now running tthe WHO with his tens of billions and Tedros is his puppet according to WHO insiders, for this highly criminal sub-section of the United Nations is run by a former US classified terrorist and many people wonder how Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ever got the job as he is no medical doctor and the only applicant for this powerful job over our health and what jabs we get…how could this be…but it did happen, although he was Davos Globalist globalist as Bill Gates knew well as his personal puppet who knew about his crimes against humanity…read up if you don’t believe me…and do your own independent research…

The Ethiopian Terrorist in Charge of the World Health Organization — Dr. Tedros Adhanom… Note that this is a wayback machine search article, as the powers that be for the Narrative have blocked it from view, as they don’t want you to know…wise up for a change….if you can… https://web.archive.org/web/20251113202949/https://frankreport.com/2020/04/14/the-ethiopian-terrorist-in-charge-of-the-world-health-organization-dr-tedros-adhanom/

.

The globalist World Health Organization (WHO) is demanding that governments around the world join forces to impose a sweeping online lockdown that would restrict access to social media through digital ID age checks.

The plan is being sold as a child safety measure.

In reality, it would force ordinary Internet users into identity checkpoints before they can access major online platforms.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus published a statement calling for mandatory age checks, legally mandated platform redesigns, and “safety-by-design” rules across the democratic world.

The statement was written in collaboration with French President Emmanuel Macron, who called on other world leaders to join him.

The joint statement recasts social media, gaming, and generative AI as forces acting directly on the bodies and minds of children.

That framing gives governments the opening they need to regulate who is allowed online.

“These measures reflect a growing global consensus that digital environments require effective governance, age-appropriate design, and stronger safeguards to protect child health,” Tedros and Macron wrote.

The language sounds harmless.

The mechanism is not.

Mandatory Age Checks Mean Identity Checks

Age verification requires identity verification

To confirm that a user is old enough to access a platform, a company must first determine who that user is.

That means matching a claimed birthday against a face scan, a credit record, a government ID, or another identity-linked database.

An ordinary social media login becomes an identity checkpoint.

A system marketed as a way to keep children off certain platforms becomes a system that catalogs adults who remain on them.

No platform can verify the age of teenagers without also checking the age of every other user.

That is the central danger behind the WHO-backed plan.

The proposal would push every social media user toward linking a digital identity to an online account in order to unlock access.

Those who refuse risk being excluded from the platforms that now function as public squares, news distribution systems, business tools, and political communication networks.

The Internet would no longer be open by default.

It would require permission from global authorities.

Global Leaders Frame Surveillance as Protection

Tedros and Macron frame the plan as protection, not surveillance.

They describe digital spaces as determinants of health, placing them alongside issues such as clean water and safe housing.

They warn that infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, gaming systems, and generative AI are engineered to keep young users hooked.

“Solutions are needed because digital environments are not neutral,” they wrote.

That claim is the gateway to control.

Once digital spaces are treated as health environments, governments can claim sweeping power to regulate access, design, speech, identity, and participation.

The two leaders even identify the danger of data collection in their own statement.

“The collection and use of personal data, particularly for profiling and targeted marketing, raise concerns about privacy, manipulation, and well-being,” the statement reads.

Their solution is to create age-assurance regimes that require platforms to gather more identifying data from more people.

That would hand corporations and governments a new justification to know exactly who is behind every account.

The contradiction is glaring.

They warn that personal data can be abused while demanding a system that expands the collection of personal data.

Governments Are Already Building the Gates

The WHO-backed push is not theoretical.

Governments are already building the infrastructure for online access control.

Australia now bars anyone under 16 from holding a social media account, making it the first national ban of its kind.

France is pushing legislation to lock out users under 15.

Indonesia has banned access for children under 16.

Spain has announced plans to follow.

Ireland is working with European Union partners on age-assurance systems aimed at under-16s.

The United Kingdom intends to block platforms from serving under-16s while adding limits on livestreaming and contact from strangers.

Canada has introduced legislation to restrict access for children under 16 and impose stronger safety-by-design duties on platforms.

The same blueprint is spreading across the West.

Each country presents its version as a child protection measure.

Together, they form the architecture of a global digital ID regime for online life.

Generative AI Used to Expand Control

Generative AI is being pulled into the same framework.

Tedros and Macron argue that AI multiplies the risks facing young people.

They warn that its long-term effects on empathy, self-regulation, and children’s expectations of real relationships remain unclear.

“…a precautionary approach is not anti-innovation. It is pro-child,” they wrote.

But precaution becomes surveillance when the enforcement tool is mandatory identity verification.

A government does not need to ban everyone from a platform if it can force every user to prove their identity before entering.

The control point moves from the content itself to the person trying to access it.

That is why the child safety justification is so powerful.

It allows governments to build systems that begin with minors and then expand to everyone.

Once the identity gate exists, it can be used for far more than age checks.

It can be used to restrict speech, track political activity, block anonymous accounts, punish dissent, and enforce future speech rules that have nothing to do with children.

Digital ID at the Door

Tedros and Macron insist they are defending children’s dignity.

“Our children and young people are not experimental subjects, a captive market, or a commodity,” they wrote.

That principle should also apply to every citizen being pushed into a digital ID system.

An Internet that demands legal identity at the door treats every user as a suspect.

It also gives the screening power to the same governments and platforms that claim to be protecting the public from manipulation.

The danger is not that children should be protected from harmful online content.

The danger is that global bureaucrats are using children as the moral shield for a system of universal online identification.

Once that system is in place, anonymous speech becomes a privilege granted by the state.

Access to the digital public square becomes conditional.

And every user must prove who they are before they can participate.

The WHO and its political allies are not merely calling for safer platforms.

They are laying the groundwork for a controlled Internet where digital identity becomes the price of entry.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/who-demands-global-online-lockdown-digital-id-checks/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-newsletter

And,

READ MORE – Finnish Lawmaker Blocked from Entering UK for Quoting Bible

Blogger Comment: All you need to know about the politican looking after the people in the above image is that he supports the world in a different way than their supporters think and who do not believe in the people, but a much higher power…for just see where he uis in the above image…the the global controlling and minds of the Davos WEF Globalists, who have no care for humanity and even less as they bring into being their robot world where billions of humanity will perish in their master plan to reduce the human population down to around 400 millionbrom 8,300 million today because we are the ones destroying the world according to their evil mindset…sounds insane, well it is, but they have stated this fact since 1971…and where in true reality, these people are intrinsically the pure insane these people…

.

Democrat Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has launched a sweeping new Internet regulation agenda that would push Americans toward mandatory digital ID checks before they can use social media or other online platforms.

Markey rolled out a series of bills as part of what he calls an “AI Accountability Agenda.”

The package includes close to a dozen bills under the slogan “Taking Power Back from Big Tech.”

Markey says the goal is to “take back unchecked power from Big Tech and put it into the hands of the American people.”

However, Markey’s bills would move the Internet in the opposite direction.

Instead of taking power away from tech giants, the proposals could force ordinary Americans to prove their name, address, and age before reading, posting, or speaking online.

The result would be a major step toward an Internet controlled through digital identification.

COPPA 2.0 Raises Red Flags

The clearest threat comes from the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, which Markey has branded COPPA 2.0.

The bill would raise the age of a protected user from under 13 to under 17.

It would also rewrite the legal standard that determines when an online service is liable for dealing with a minor.

Current law applies when a service has actual knowledge that it is dealing with a child.

Markey’s bill replaces that standard with “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.”

The bill defines that as “whether a reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances would have known that the user is a child or teen.”

That change could have massive consequences for ordinary websites, social media platforms, forums, comment sections, video services, and other online spaces.

A general-audience service would have to decide whether a hypothetical “reasonable and prudent person” should have known that a user was under 17.

If the platform guesses wrong, the Federal Trade Commission could come after it.

For many companies, the cheapest and safest answer would be to stop guessing and start checking everyone.

That means age gates.

And age gates mean digital ID.

Digital ID Becomes the Default

Supporters of the bill can argue that it does not explicitly order companies to build age verification systems.

That is technically true.

But the liability structure pushes platforms in that direction.

If a website faces punishment for failing to know whether a user is under 17, it has a strong incentive to demand proof from every user before allowing access.

That proof does not come from nowhere.

It means uploading a driver’s license, passport, government document, facial scan, or other identifying information.

A third-party verification vendor then processes that data.

In many cases, a copy or record is stored somewhere.

Every stored ID becomes a target.

Every database becomes a breach waiting to happen.

Every age verification system becomes a phishing lure with a government seal on it.

The bigger issue is speech.

Age gates do not merely “protect children.”

They stand between Americans and the public square.

They turn reading, posting, commenting, and debating into activities that require identity verification.

That changes the nature of the Internet.

Instead of anonymous or casual participation, users are pushed into a system where speech is tied to identity documents.

That is not freedom from Big Tech.

That is a digital checkpoint.

Youth AI Bill Repeats the Same Problem

A second bill in Markey’s agenda, the Youth AI Privacy Act, contains the same contradiction.

The bill says nothing in it requires an operator to “implement an age gating or age verification functionality.”

It also says platforms are not required to “affirmatively collect any personal information with respect to the age of a child or teen that an operator is not already collecting in the normal course of business.”

But the same bill imports the same “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” standard used in COPPA 2.0.

That creates the same incentive.

The disclaimer says platforms do not need to verify age.

The liability standard tells them they had better find a way to know.

That means the age gate comes back through the side door.

The bill governs chatbots and also regulates what the software is allowed to do.

It targets “addictive design features,” a broad category that includes “high-frequency push notifications” and “typing bubble indicators.”

Under Markey’s proposal, the small animated dots showing that someone is typing could be treated by federal law as a design threat to children.

The bill would also require a chatbot to announce that it is not human at the start of a session and every 30 minutes after that.

Regulators Gain More Power

Markey’s slogan says he is taking power from Big Tech and giving it to the American people.

The mechanics of the bills tell a different story.

Adults who want to read, comment, or participate online may first have to identify themselves to a database.

Many users will simply choose not to engage.

That means self-censorship before a complaint is ever filed.

The proposal also gives regulators broad power after the fact.

The key question would be whether a “reasonable and prudent person” should have known a user’s age.

That decision would be made by regulators later, with the benefit of hindsight.

For platforms, the safest move would be more data collection, more user verification, and more aggressive policing of access.

For Americans, the result would be less privacy and less speech.

Platforms would not be the only ones under pressure.

Users would be forced to prove who they are before they can participate in online life.

Internet Freedom at Risk

Markey has framed his agenda as a fight against Big Tech.

On some issues, such as data centers and workplace rules, he may be positioning himself against the industry.

But on digital ID and age-verification mandates, ordinary users would bear the cost.

Big platforms can absorb compliance burdens.

Smaller websites and independent publishers often cannot.

The largest tech companies can build verification systems, hire lawyers, and manage federal enforcement risk.

Small forums, independent media outlets, comment sections, and alternative platforms may be forced to lock down, remove features, or shut users out.

That would consolidate more power in the hands of the same tech giants Markey claims to be fighting.

The warning is clear.

A bill sold as child protection can become a digital ID regime.

A bill sold as privacy can force Americans to surrender more personal information.

A bill sold as accountability can give regulators more power over who gets to speak online.

Markey says he wants to take power back from Big Tech.

But his plan risks creating a new Internet where Americans must show their papers before they are allowed to speak.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/democrat-senator-pushes-digital-id-mandate-social-media-users/

And,

READ MORE – Canadians Face Being Sued by Their Own Government for Sharing ‘Misinformation’ Online

Blogger Comment: Insanely, but true, people are now in vast numbers being killed just for their organs and even when the doctors say that they are dead…but they are not…so read on in this article for what is happening, this can only get far, far more deadly for western people, as that’s the only place where thuis genocide is happening in the numbers taht it is…

.

A group of leading medical professionals has provoked widespread concerns after proposing that doctors should be allowed to kill their patients in order to harvest their body parts through a process they call “death by organ donation.”

The bone-chilling call was made in a new article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The article, titled “Contextualizing the Dead Donor Rule in an Era of Voluntary Euthanasia,” was written by Harvard University’s Dr. Robert Truog and colleagues.

The authors argue that the medical system has already redefined death to support modern organ harvesting practices.

They now say “death by organ donation” should be viewed as the next step.

At the center of the debate is the Dead Donor Rule.

The rule is supposed to be one of the basic ethical limits protecting patients.

It says patients must be dead before their organs are removed and that doctors must not cause death by procuring organs.

That rule is meant to preserve public trust in the transplant system.

But Truog and his colleagues argue that the rule has already become flexible.

“Though the DDR is considered the ‘ethical linchpin’ of transplantation, it has thus functioned less as a moral absolute than as a moral anchor, whose application requires ongoing interpretation and adaptation,” the authors wrote.

The argument is stunning.

A rule that was supposed to stop doctors from killing patients for organs is now being described as something that can be adapted, reinterpreted, and moved.

Authors Point to ‘Brain Death’ Definition

The article points to “brain death” as an example of how medical authorities have already changed the definition of death.

The authors do not treat “brain death” as the same thing as total biological death.

Instead, they describe it as a legal and medical definition that was adopted despite ongoing philosophical and biological uncertainty.

“Despite philosophical and biologic uncertainty, brain death was adopted into law and medical practice with the 1981 enactment of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which defined death as the irreversible cessation of all brain functions,” the authors wrote.

They continued by noting that later cases exposed problems with the concept.

“Accumulating clinical experience, however, exposed inconsistencies in this integrative concept of brain death. [Dr. Allan] Shewmon reported many cases of prolonged biologic survival after the determination of brain death,” the authors wrote.

“These patients were able to grow, assimilate nutrition and eliminate waste, recover from infections and wounds, even gestate a fetus.”

That admission cuts directly against what many organ donors assume when they sign up.

Most people believe organ donation happens after they are unmistakably dead.

They imagine a corpse.

They imagine a body that is cold, gray, and stiff.

That is not how vital organ donation works.

Organs quickly become unsuitable for transplantation without circulation.

A conventional corpse cannot provide many viable organs for transplant.

That is why patients in deep comas with beating hearts were redefined as “brain dead.”

In practice, the system declared them dead enough for organ procurement.

The article states the shift plainly.

“Amid uncertainty, organ donation continued, revealing a deeper conceptual pivot,” the authors wrote.

“The DDR shifted the determination of death away from strictly biologic criteria toward adherence to diagnostic criteria that were enumerated and endorsed by a definitional authority.”

That means death was moved away from pure biological reality and toward a definition approved by authorities.

The authors added: “The Death Requirement and trust in the organ-donation system were not violated if the new concept of death was accepted in social and legal standards.

“Such contextualization rendered the DDR a flexible moral safeguard, upholding the commitment not to take organs from living people even as the meaning of ‘death’ itself was revised.”

The key phrase is devastating.

The meaning of “death” itself was revised.

Donation After Circulatory Death Raises More Questions

The article also discusses Donation after Circulatory Death, known as DCD.

That practice involves organ donation after the heart stops.

But the authors acknowledge that debate continues over whether DCD actually satisfies the Dead Donor Rule.

The problem is the distinction between “permanent” and “irreversible.”

Under U.S. law, death requires irreversible loss of circulatory and respiratory function.

But in DCD cases, circulation is not always impossible to restart.

It is simply not restarted.

“Debate persists over whether DCD practices truly uphold the DDR, particularly in that permanence is not necessarily equivalent to irreversibility,” the authors wrote.

“In DCD, death occurs not because resuscitation is impossible, but because it is intentionally withheld, in accordance with patient values, placing patients on a trajectory toward death, which is considered ‘irreversible’ because it will not be reversed.”

That is a major admission.

The patient is considered dead, not because revival is impossible.

The patient is considered dead because revival will not be attempted.

The authors described that shift as moving from a biological understanding of death to a procedural one.

“This shift from a biologic to a procedural conception of death again contextualized the DDR, aligning it with general social and ethical understandings rather than empirical finality,” they wrote.

“Again, the DDR persists not as an immutable boundary but as a moral framework whose ethical force is maintained by contextualization.”

For ordinary organ donors, that raises an obvious question.

Were they told this when they signed the donor card?

Were they told their death could be treated not as a final biological fact, but as a procedural status?

Were they told the system could decide they were dead enough for organ removal because resuscitation would not be attempted?

Most people were not told any of that.

Most people were asked to make a noble decision without being given the full moral and medical reality behind it.

‘Death by Organ Donation’

The article then moves to its most alarming conclusion.

The authors argue that if patients are choosing euthanasia and organ donation, the exact moment of death should not matter as much as consent and safeguards.

“In death by organ donation, the patient’s authorization, experience, and outcome are not altered by whether death occurs moments before or during organ retrieval,” the authors wrote.

“Ethical focus should therefore shift away from identifying a precise moment of biologic death and toward respecting patients’ autonomous decisions, ensuring that safeguards against coercion and exploitation are robust, and advocating for a transparent and publicly accountable process.”

That is the core of the proposal.

Doctors would no longer need to focus on whether a patient is biologically dead before organ retrieval.

Instead, the emphasis would shift to consent, safeguards, and process.

But the current system already provides very little transparency to donors about how death is determined.

Most organ donors are not told about the contested definitions behind “brain death.”

They are not told about the difference between permanent and irreversible circulatory death.

They are not told that the line between life and death has already been stretched by medical and legal authorities to support organ procurement.

And now, the proposed solution is to stretch the line even further.

The authors openly argue that “death by organ donation” should be understood as part of the same pattern.

“Although death by organ donation may be viewed as a departure from the DDR … we interpret it as consistent with a historical pattern of recontextualization,” they wrote.

That is the slippery slope in academic language.

First, redefine death.

Then defend the redefinition.

Then cite the previous redefinition as justification for the next one.

A Dangerous Medical Line

The article presents a chilling vision of where euthanasia and transplantation ethics are heading.

Instead of defending the principle that doctors must never kill patients for organs, the authors suggest that the system should accept direct death by organ donation in certain cases.

That would mark a profound change.

It would turn organ procurement from something that happens after death into something that can cause death.

It would also further erode the public’s ability to trust what doctors mean when they say a patient is dead.

The medical establishment should be moving in the opposite direction.

Rather than inventing new ways to redefine death for the sake of organ harvesting, medicine should return to death as a biological reality.

Patients deserve clear standards.

Families deserve honest information.

Organ donors deserve informed consent.

And people with organ failure deserve ethical solutions that do not require turning vulnerable patients into sources of spare parts before they are truly dead.

The warning from the article is clear.

The old boundary was that doctors must not kill for organs.

Now, some medical ethicists are arguing that the boundary should move again.

Once the meaning of death can be revised by authorities, the protection it offers patients becomes dangerously fragile.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/doctors-call-patients-killed-organs/

And,

READ MORE – WHO Issues Chilling Warning: Cancer Cases Are Exploding Globally

Blogger Comment: This highly criminal sub-section of the United Nations is run by a former US classified terrorist and many people wonder how Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ever got the job as he had was no medical doctor and the only applicant…how could this be…but it did happen, although he was Davos Globalist globalist as Bill Gates knew well as his personal puppet who knew about his crimes against humanity…read up if you don’t believe me…and do your own independent research…

The TEDROS FILES… https://rumble.com/v52z0tk-the-tedros-file-will-the-head-of-the-who-become-the-most-powerful-man-in-th.html

.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a chilling warning that cancer cases are exploding around the world, with the disease expected to soon affect more than 90 percent of the global population.

The WHO said cancer remains the world’s second-leading cause of death after cardiovascular disease.

The disease is already killing more than 26,000 people every day.

According to the agency, the world is now seeing nearly 10 million cancer deaths and 20.6 million new cases every year.

Without urgent action, the WHO warns that the number of new cancer cases will soar to 35 million annually by 2050.

That means new cancer cases are projected to nearly double worldwide in less than three decades.

The WHO estimates that one in five people will develop cancer during their lifetime.

Lung cancer remains the deadliest form of the disease.

Cancer Set to Touch Almost Every Family

The WHO’s warning goes beyond individual diagnoses.

The agency estimates that, if current trends continue, cancer will affect 92 percent of people worldwide by 2050, either through their own diagnosis or through the diagnosis of a close relative.

That projection places cancer on course to become a disease that directly touches almost every family on Earth.

The scale of the crisis is staggering.

The world is already seeing millions of deaths each year despite major advances in detection, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted treatments.

The WHO’s latest figures suggest those advances are not enough to stop the surge.

The agency is urging governments, international organizations, and the private sector to adopt what it calls a “people-centered” approach.

That includes integrating cancer services from prevention to diagnosis and treatment into universal health coverage, expanding support for patients and caregivers, and ensuring that research and innovation reach more people.

Survival Depends on Wealth and Location

The WHO warned that survival increasingly depends on where a patient lives and how much money they have.

In high-income countries, five-year survival rates for breast cancer and childhood cancers exceed 85 percent.

In low-income nations, those survival rates fall below 45 percent.

The divide is even more severe when access to treatment is considered.

Twenty-three countries still lack radiotherapy facilities.

Two-thirds of countries do not include cancer care in universal health coverage.

In some regions, treatment costs force up to 90 percent of patients to abandon care.

Overall, at least 45 percent of cancer patients face financial hardship because of the disease.

That makes cancer one of the leading causes of medical bankruptcy worldwide.

The result is a brutal global divide.

In wealthy countries, many cancers are increasingly treatable.

In poorer countries, the same diagnosis can still be a death sentence.

Cancer Vaccines Enter New Phase

The WHO’s warning comes as countries around the world race to develop new cancer vaccines.

Dozens of nations are working on different approaches, including personalized vaccines designed to train the immune system to target a patient’s specific tumor.

Russia has been actively developing personalized cancer vaccines tailored to individual tumors.

Two experimental therapies, Neooncovac for melanoma and Oncopept for colorectal cancer, were cleared for clinical use in March.

More than 40 patients have since enrolled.

The first recipients are already showing a strong immune response.

The vaccines are expected to be provided free under Russia’s national health insurance system once their clinical effectiveness is confirmed.

Other countries are also pursuing cancer vaccine programs.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Cuba, and China are all developing cancer vaccines through approved treatments, clinical trials, or personalized platforms.

No Proof Vaccines Can Stop the Surge

The promise of cancer vaccines is significant.

However, there is still no evidence that these treatments will be able to counter the global cancer surge projected by the WHO.

The scale of the coming crisis is far larger than any single treatment platform.

Cancer is not one disease.

It is a broad group of diseases driven by genetics, environment, aging, lifestyle, immune dysfunction, and exposure to cancer-causing substances.

That makes the WHO’s warning more alarming.

Even as medicine advances, the burden of cancer is accelerating.

The agency’s projection suggests the world is heading toward a future where cancer is no longer an illness that strikes some families.

It becomes a crisis that reaches almost everyone.

The warning now facing governments is blunt.

Cancer cases are rising fast.

Treatment access remains deeply unequal.

Millions are already dying every year.

And by 2050, the disease is expected to affect nearly the entire global population either directly or through someone close to them.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/who-issues-chilling-warning-cancer-cases-exploding-globally/

And,

READ MORE – WHO Demands Global Online Lockdown with Digital ID Checks

Blogger Comment: Canada’s euthanasia regime was sold as compassionate, but it is nothing like compassionate after 10 years of introducing mass killing by the nation state and our politicians have allowed the very loosely drafted legislation to be totally manipulated…the new killing field and legal….for it’snot about the terminally ill now who are in the decendency in true suicide numbers, and the other side of the story that no-one is ever allowed to be tell the people…wake up people, as this is genocide and there is no other word to describe what’s happened…where several thousand are dying from euthansia every year now in Canada alone and the 3rd highest reason why Canadians die and where it was zero in 2016…it’s not me telling you these figures, but official Statistics from Canada and the death rate numbers are going up on average by 13% a year…why are our politicians not telling us this and where this is the case in every western nation…and why only western nations….

.

A bombshell new report has exposed thousands of “errors” involving Canadian doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers in cases of people being euthanized by the government in British Columbia.

The findings were uncovered through a freedom of information request by Canadian Catholic News, an arm of the Catholic Register.

The request obtained British Columbia’s “Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) Oversight 2024 Year-End Report.”

The report shows that more than half of all “assisted suicide” cases in the province in 2024 involved mistakes that required review by government officials.

The scale of the problem is staggering.

In 2024, 4,169 people in British Columbia were marked for euthanasia.

That was a 10 percent increase from 2023.

Of the roughly 4,190 cases reviewed that year, the province’s MAiD Oversight Unit found 2,807 errors in 51.9 percent of total “case outcomes.”

More Than Half of Cases Had Errors

The report states that cases requiring “follow-up” had missing information.

In 353 cases, or 12.5 percent, officials found compliance concerns.

Those cases “required education” of healthcare personnel “to ensure they understand legal requirements and the professional standards associated with MAiD.”

That means hundreds of euthanasia cases raised concerns serious enough that government officials had to step in and educate medical personnel about legal and professional requirements.

The errors did not stop the system from continuing.

According to the report, 72 percent of the MAiD cases resulted in people being killed by state-sanctioned lethal injection.

Another 23 percent died of other causes.

Four percent were found not eligible for the deadly procedure under current Canadian law.

Only 1.4 percent of people asked to withdraw their assisted suicide cases.

The numbers paint a chilling picture of a system that is expanding quickly while producing a shocking number of mistakes.

Euthanasia Watchdog Sounds Alarm

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said the findings expose a major crisis inside British Columbia’s assisted suicide regime.

“It’s all very shocking that you have such a large amount and percentage of errors in British Columbia,” Schadenberg said, according to the Catholic Register report.

Schadenberg said it is “clear” that there are serious “problems” with euthanasia in the province.

The province’s own numbers support that warning.

In 2024, 6.5 percent of all deaths in British Columbia were caused by MAiD.

That number is continuing to rise.

Health officials in the province have not yet responded to the report’s findings.

Their silence leaves Canadians facing an urgent question.

How many people are being approved for death inside a system where more than half of the cases are being flagged for errors?

Canada’s Euthanasia Regime Keeps Expanding

Euthanasia has been legal in Canada since 2016.

In less than a decade, the practice has moved from a supposedly limited medical exception to a rapidly expanding death-on-demand system.

Canada’s Catholic bishops recently marked the “sobering” 10th anniversary of euthanasia legalization by calling for renewed respect for life.

They warned against “complacency with the status quo on euthanasia in Canada” and said the deadly practice can “never” be morally acceptable.

The warning comes as assisted suicide has become increasingly normalized across Canada.

The system has grown so casual that one doctor even approved a euthanasia procedure in a coffee shop parking lot.

That is the reality now confronting Canadians.

A practice once sold as rare and tightly controlled is now responsible for a significant share of deaths in provinces such as British Columbia.

And the government’s own oversight documents show thousands of mistakes inside that system.

Mental Illness Expansion Looms

The danger is set to grow even further.

Canada is still scheduled to expand euthanasia to people suffering solely from mental illness in 2027 because of Bill C-7.

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre recently praised news that a parliamentary committee recommended that euthanasia not be expanded to those with mental illness.

However, unless the current Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney stops the expansion, it is still set to become law.

That outcome appears unlikely given Carney’s record on life issues.

The prospect of euthanasia for mental illness has triggered alarm among critics who warn that vulnerable Canadians could be pushed toward death instead of treatment, support, and care.

British Columbia’s new report makes that warning even 2more urgent.

2If the existing euthanasia system is already producing errors in more than half of reviewed cases, expanding the regime to include mental illness would deepen the crisis.

A System Built for Death

The British Columbia report exposes the brutal reality behind Canada’s assisted suicide regime.

Thousands of people are asking to die.

Hundreds of cases are raising compliance concerns.

More than half of the case outcomes are being flagged for errors.

And thousands are still dying by euthanasia.

The government calls it “Medical Assistance in Dying.”

Critics call it state-sanctioned killing.

Whatever name officials use, the numbers now show a system expanding faster than it can safely control.

Canada’s euthanasia regime was sold as compassionate.

The latest report shows something far darker: a bureaucracy of death where mistakes are common, oversight comes after the fact, and vulnerable people are being moved through a system that ends with a lethal injection.

The question is no longer whether Canada’s euthanasia regime is dangerous.

The question is how many warnings officials will ignore before they finally stop expanding it.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/report-exposes-thousands-errors-data-canadians-euthanized-government/

And,

READ MORE – Dutch Government Euthanizes a Young Child in Chilling First

Blogger Comment: These tech giants and CEO’s don’t give one iota for the people and especially the American people who have made them what they are today…no they don’t and don’t give a fuck about you and where this isjust a little of what they have in store for your unemployment in the future (as this is jsut a drop in the ocean for what’s on the horizon for humanity in real time) , as they are creating it (with all the other tech giants) and where they just simply do not care that you cannot put food on the table eventually or have a reasonable life in the future as yoiu will niot with people like thuis around, as all they care about is vast wealth for themselves and the few, where they have a goodTeacher in Bil Gates who still has the last word in anything that they do at MS, so you know who the horse’s mouth is behind the scenes telling MS what to do….don’t you…and who is behind it all making the American people unemployed and people throughout the western world and once that happens there will not be the jobs anything like there is today…absolute Sociopaths and one or two Psychopath thrown in the mix here at MS, so we know where all this kiling of jobs is comming from…don’t we…

.

Microsoft is slashing thousands of jobs across its Xbox division and broader company while also receiving approval for thousands of employer-sponsored H-1B visas this year.

The Xbox unit plans to eliminate approximately 3,200 positions through the end of fiscal year 2027.

About 1,600 of those role eliminations are taking effect immediately.

The cuts are part of a broader restructuring that includes an additional 4,800 company-wide job eliminations.

Xbox CEO Asha Sharma outlined the move in a memo to employees, calling it the most significant restructuring in the division’s history.

“We are beginning the most significant restructure in XBOX history,” Sharma said.

“After careful consideration, I’ve made the difficult decision to reduce our team by approximately 3,200 throughout FY27.

“This will include approximately 1,600 role eliminations today, and in addition, four studios will leave XBOX to new management.”

Sharma said the Xbox business “today is not healthy.”

She said the division is “operating at margins that are 3–10x lower than comparable platform and publishing businesses.”

The executive described the restructuring as a “reset” intended to return the business to sustainable growth by 2027.

Xbox Studios Shift to New Ownership

The restructuring includes major changes for several Xbox studios.

Compulsion Games and Double Fine Productions are transitioning to independent status with their intellectual property.

Ninja Theory and Undead Labs are moving to new ownership to complete ongoing projects.

Those projects include sequels to “Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II” and “State of Decay 3.”

The studio changes come as Xbox attempts to reverse weak margins and reshape its gaming business after years of major acquisitions, shifting strategy, and pressure from the broader tech market.

The company’s layoffs add to a growing wave of job cuts across the technology sector.

Major tech companies have repeatedly reduced U.S. workforces while continuing to rely on foreign worker visa programs.

That combination has fueled criticism from lawmakers who argue Big Tech is using immigration programs to replace American workers.

Microsoft Defends H-1B Approvals

Federal data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services shows Microsoft received approval this year for 2,273 employer-sponsored H-1B visas for nonimmigrant workers in specialty occupations.

The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for roles requiring specialized knowledge when qualified American workers are not available.

The timing of Microsoft’s layoffs and visa approvals has drawn scrutiny.

A Microsoft spokesperson defended the company’s actions when asked about the cuts and H-1B approvals.

“These decisions are based on business need, not visa status,” the spokesperson said.

“H-1B employees were also impacted by job eliminations in the U.S.”

The company’s position is that the layoffs were not based on visa status and that foreign visa workers were also affected.

Critics argue the broader pattern still raises serious questions about whether American workers are being displaced while corporations continue seeking foreign labor.

Republican Lawmaker Blasts ‘H-1B Scam’

Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV) sharply criticized the situation, arguing that major tech companies are abusing legal immigration programs.

“This is INSANE,” Moore said.

“LEGAL immigration is a major problem.

“These companies, especially big tech, are abusing these immigration programs to replace American workers with foreign workers.

“No more. It’s long past time to end the H-1B scam.”

The criticism reflects growing Republican opposition to the way large corporations use the H-1B system.

Supporters of the program argue it helps companies fill highly specialized roles.

Opponents say it has become a pipeline for cheaper foreign labor that undercuts American professionals, especially in technology.

Microsoft’s layoffs are likely to intensify that debate.

The company is eliminating thousands of positions while federal data shows it received thousands of H-1B approvals in the same year.

Trump Administration Targets H-1B Program

President Donald Trump has taken steps to tighten the H-1B system during his second term.

In September 2025, Trump signed executive orders that included a $100,000 fee for certain H-1B visas.

He also introduced the “Trump Gold Card” visa program, offering a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship for a $1 million investment.

A federal judge later blocked the H-1B fee increase.

The administration has indicated that it plans to appeal.

The broader fight over H-1B visas has become a central issue in the debate over American jobs, corporate power, and immigration policy.

Microsoft’s restructuring now places the company at the center of that fight.

Thousands of workers are being cut.

Thousands of foreign worker visas have been approved.

And lawmakers are asking why major technology companies continue turning to foreign labor while American employees are losing their jobs.

Follow the link for the source… https://slaynews.com/microsoft-under-fire-replacing-thousands-americans-workers-foreign-visa-holders/

And.

READ MORE – Meta AI Data Center Caught Pumping Deadly Bacteria into Town Water Supply