French Territory's Peace Proposal Stumbles at 1st Hurdle
It wasn't until the early 20th century that local movements arose seeking greater autonomy, with some indigenous Kanak groups advocating for complete independence. The 1980s and 90s were periods of widespread violence and saw the assassination of Pierre Declercq, a leader of the UC and the formation of the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), which proclaimed a provisional government, leading to clashes with French authorities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
The left is trying to use international ‘lawfare' to shut down Musk and X
Elon Musk had three recent posts on X that are worth noting if you are opposed to censorship and cancellation. The first was two cartoon panels with the question, 'How do you tell who's telling the Truth?' The next panel offered the answer: 'The ones trying to silence other people are the ones lying.' Just prior to that, Musk had reposted a post that reads, 'President Trump's State Department has announced it is coming to the defense of Elon Musk's X after France labeled it an organized crime group and opened a criminal investigation. The State Department's DLR [the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor] stated, 'As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X's proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an 'organized crime group.' Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.'' And just prior to that, Musk reposted a post from the conservative activist Mark Kern: 'There is a full on attack on the Internet by the UK and EU, disguised as 'for the children.' The ID requirement is affecting even Discord users and X users. It is full on dystopian as they ramp up police to arrest people for speech.' Below that is a link to a Telegraph article with the headline 'Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media.' Multiple people I have spoken with in the U.S., the U.K. and the EU believe that Musk and his X platform represent the greatest single threat to the far left and its goal of pushing its narratives unchallenged across the globe. One way the left now seems intent on stopping Musk and X is by mimicking the various 'lawfare' schemes rolled out against then-candidate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election, which many Trump supporters saw as an unethical attempt to force him out of the race. While that 'lawfare' tactic failed — thanks in large part to Trump taking it head-on, day after day, while exposing it for what it was — activists in Europe and elsewhere believe the strategy can be refined and hardened for use against Musk and X in an attempt to intimidate, censor or silence them. Lest we forget, back in 2023, the European Union opened a probe into X for alleged 'failure to counter illegal content and disinformation.' Ah. The catch-all accusation frequently used by the intelligentsia on the left: 'disinformation.' Recall the draconian COVID-19 dictates from the left enacted to combat 'disinformation'? Here is a January headline from ABC News: 'EU politicians warn against Elon Musk's incursions into European politics.' Of course, Musk might rightfully retort that his 'disinformation' and 'incursions' were not only protected free speech, but simply ways to point out severe double-standards and harmful policies that were having an adverse effect upon the majority of the citizens of those nations. I wrote a piece for this site a year ago titled ' Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?' I highlighted calls for Musk to be arrested for stating his opinions while anticipating that the personal animus directed against him, X and the internet by certain individuals and groups in Europe advocating for censorship and cancellation could grow. It now seems that I was correct. All of which raises an obvious question:Why do so many on the left want to prevent people around the world from gathering as much information as possible on their own, then coming to their own conclusions based on their own research? Do they fear people thinking for themselves? Do they fear their own constituents, customers and neighbors? Open minds open doors. I have always believed it imperative to listen to those I may disagree with. What if I am wrong and they are correct? What if they show me a truth I refused to believe out of ignorance, intolerance or indoctrination? Aren't I the one getting a gift — one I could not receive if their voices were censored or canceled? Alarmingly, many on the left in Europe — as well as in the U.S. — don't seem to share my belief that we need to listen to those we disagree with. Note this April headline from The New York Times: 'E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk's X.' The opening paragraph of the article spells it out: 'European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against Elon Musk's social media platform, X, for breaking a landmark law to combat illicit content and disinformation, said four people with knowledge of the plans.' Once again, the left rolls out 'illicit content and disinformation' against Musk, X and the internet. Of course, millions around the world who are against censorship and cancellation and strongly in favor of free speech might say this is a transparent attempt by some on the left to intimidate and censor a site and voices that expose their continual failures to billions of people around the world. One person's 'disinformation' is another's 'irrefutable truth.' Don't hide behind censorship. Let the people think for themselves.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump demurs on pardoning disgraced former Rep. George Santos: ‘He lied like hell'
President Trump demurred on whether he'll pardon disgraced former Long Island Rep. George Santos, who kicked off a seven-year prison sentence for fraud last week. Despite Santos' claims he had been privately lobbying for a pardon, Trump indicated the push to give the fabulist some sort of clemency was news to him. 'He lied like hell, I have to tell you. And I didn't know him, but he was 100% for Trump. I might have met him, maybe, maybe not, I don't know,' Trump told Newsmax host Rob Finnerty on Friday. 'Nobody has talked to me about it,' Trump said of a Santos pardon, before taking note of the former Congressman's prison sentence. 'It's a long time.' Advertisement Santos, 37, pleaded guilty in August 2024 to aggravated identity theft charges and wire fraud for swindling donors to bankroll his campaign for Congress. 3 George Santos is serving out a seven-year sentence for wire fraud and identity theft. Bloomberg via Getty Images 3 President Trump was amused by George Santos' lies but didn't rule out a pardon. Advertisement Prosecutors accused Santos of falsely claiming he had $250,000 in donations to qualify for the National Republican Congressional Committee's 'Young Guns' program. Santos also preyed upon elderly donors and charged credit cards without authorization for frivolous expenses, authorities said. Some of the charges billed to donors include Botox treatments, OnlyFans purchases, jaunts to Atlantic City casinos, French fashion attire, and more, prosecutors said. Santos denied some of the accusations made by prosecutors and blamed others on his former treasurer Nancy Marks, who cooperated with authorities. 'But he was a congressman and his vote was solid; it sounds like a lot. You know, you could blame the other side for not checking him out,' Trump added. Advertisement 'You could say the media misses. Everybody missed it. They found out about it after the election was won.' Trump was referencing the series of scandals against Santos after he was caught lying about vast swaths of his personal backstory, including falsely claiming he was a star volleyball player at New York University even though he never attended the school; that he worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and that his Jewish grandparents fled prosecution in Europe. In reality, his grandparents were born in Brazil, and he has since described himself as 'Jew-ish.' Santos, who was ousted in a late 2023 bipartisan vote, was the sixth House lawmaker to be expelled from the lower chamber. Advertisement 3 George Santos had to report to prison after turning 37. Dennis A. Clark Since then, he's launched a podcast, titled 'Pants on Fire,' and revealed he had been pressing behind the scenes for some form of clemency from Trump, though in May, Santos said he dropped that pursuit. 'Even though I initially considered the prospect of petitioning the president with a pardon application I have seized that approach as I will not spend the last 61 days I have of life scrambling on how to get past a bunch of guard dogs,' he said. In his remaining weeks before reporting to prison, Santos made several media appearances including on the 'Tucker Carlson Show,' in which he admitted to being terrified of winding up behind bars. 'I'm not suicidal. I'm not depressed. I have no intentions of harming myself, and I will not willingly engage in any sexual activity while I'm in there,' Santos wrote on X earlier this month. Trump also acknowledged that Sean 'Diddy' Combs' allies have pushed for a pardon, but was noncommittal about pardoning him or Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ivy League universities paid hundreds of millions to settle with Trump. Is UCLA next?
University of California leaders face a difficult choice after the U.S. Department of Justice said this week that UCLA had violated the civil rights of Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests and federal agencies on Wednesday suspended more than $300 million in research grants to the school. Do they agree to a costly settlement, potentially incurring the anger of taxpayers, politicians and campus communities in a deep-blue state that's largely opposed to President Trump and his battle to remake higher education? Or do they go to court, entering a protracted legal fight and possibly inviting further debilitating federal actions against the nation's premier public university system, which has until now carefully avoided head-on conflicts with the White House? Leaders of the University of California, including its systemwide president, James B. Milliken; UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and UC's 24-member Board of Regents — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is an ex-officio member — have just days to decide. In findings issued Tuesday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and the Justice Department said UCLA would pay a 'heavy price' for acting with 'deliberate indifference' to the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students who complained of antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, 2023. That's when Hamas attacked Israel, which led to Israel's war in Gaza and the pro-Palestinian student encampment on Royce Quad. The Justice Department gave UC — which oversees federal legal matters for UCLA and nine other campuses — a week to respond to the allegations of antisemitism. It wrote that 'unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement' to 'ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence,' the department would sue by Sept. 2. A day after the Justice Department disclosed its findings, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and other federal agencies said they were suspending hundreds of grants to UCLA researchers. A letter from the NSF cited the university's alleged 'discrimination' in admissions and failure to 'promote a research environment free of antisemitism.' A Department of Energy letter cutting off grants on clean energy and nuclear power plants made similar accusations, adding that 'UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women's sports and private women-only spaces.' Initial data shared with The Times on Thursday night showed the cuts to be at least $200 million. On Friday, additional information shared by UC and federal officials pointed to the number being greater than $300 million — more than a quarter of UCLA's $1.1 billion in annual federal funding and contracts. UCLA has not released a total number. In a campuswide message Thursday, Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, called the government's moves 'deeply disappointing.' 'This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,' Frenk said. In a statement to The Times Friday, an official from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, said it would 'not fund institutions that promote antisemitism. We will use every tool we have to ensure institutions follow the law.' An NSF spokesperson also confirmed the UCLA cuts, saying Friday that the university is no longer in 'alignment with current NSF priorities.' A Department of Energy spokesperson also verified the cuts but did not elaborate outside of pointing to the department's letter to UCLA. The Times spoke to more than a dozen current and former senior UC leaders in addition to higher education experts about the rapid deliberations taking place this week, which for the first time have drawn a major public university system into the orbit of a White House that has largely focused its ire on Ivy League schools. Trump has accused universities of being too liberal, illegally recruiting for diversity in ways that hurt white and Asian American students and faculty, and being overly tolerant of pro-Palestinian students who he labels as antisemites aligned with Hamas. Universities, including UCLA, have largely denied the accusations, although school officials have admitted that they under-delivered in responding to Jewish student concerns. In the last two years, encampments took over small portions of campuses, and, as a result, were blamed for denying campus access to pro-Israel Jews. In a major payout announced Tuesday — before the Justice Department's findings — UCLA said it would dole out $6.45 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor who alleged the university violated their civil rights and enabled antisemitism during the pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight groups that work with Jewish communities, including the Anti-Defamation League, Chabad and Hillel. Another $320,000 will be directed to a UCLA initiative to combat antisemitism, and the rest of the funds will go toward legal fees. Through spokespersons, Frenk and Milliken declined interviews on what next steps UCLA might take. Friday was Milliken's first day on the job after the long-planned departure of former UC President Michael V. Drake, who will return to teaching and research. But in public remarks this week, Newsom said he was 'reviewing' the Justice Department's findings and that UC would be 'responsive.' The governor, who spoke during an event at the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County on Thursday, said he had a meeting with Drake scheduled that day to discuss the Trump administration's charges. Newsom did not respond specifically to a question from The Times about whether UC would settle with Trump. 'We're reviewing the details of the DOJ's latest and then that deadline on Tuesday,' the governor said. 'So we'll be responsive.' In a statement Friday, Newsom said, 'Freezing critical research funding for UCLA — dollars that were going to study invasive diseases, cure cancer, and build new defense technologies — makes our country less safe. It is a cruel manipulation to use Jewish students' real concerns about antisemitism on campus as an excuse to cut millions of dollars in grants that were being used to make all Americans safer and healthier.' Senior UCLA and UC leaders, who spoke on background because they were not authorized to discuss legal decisions, said the university has been bracing for this moment for months. The university and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, and civil rights complaints from Jewish students. At the same time, leaders said, they were hoping the multimillion-dollar settlement with Jewish students would buy them time. 'It backfired,' said one senior administrator at UCLA, reflecting the sense of whiplash felt among many who were interviewed. 'Within hours of announcing our settlement, the DOJ was on our back.' Other senior UC officials said the system was considering suing Trump. It has already sued various federal agencies or filed briefs in support of lawsuits over widespread grant cuts affecting all major U.S. universities. UC itself, however, has not directly challenged the president's platform of aggressively punishing elite schools for alleged discrimination. It's unclear if a suit or settlement could wipe out all remaining investigations. Mark Yudof, a former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, said he felt the Trump administration was targeting a public university as a way to 'make a statement' about the president's higher education aims going beyond Ivy League institutions. 'But this is not Columbia,' Yudof said, referring to the $221-million settlement the New York campus recently reached with the White House to resolve investigations over alleged antisemitism amid its response to pro-Palestinian protests. On Wednesday, Brown University also came to a $50-million agreement with the White House. The Brown payment will go toward Rhode Island workforce development programs. Harvard is also negotiating a deal with the government over similar accusations regarding antisemitism. 'The University of California is much more complex,' said Yudof, who lives in Florida and also led the University of Texas and University of Minnesota. 'For one, an issue that may affect UCLA is not going to affect UC Merced or UC Riverside. But do you come to an agreement on all campuses? If there is a settlement payment, does it affect all campuses, depending on the cost?' George Blumenthal, a former chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, said he 'just can't see UC making the kind of deal that Columbia did or that Harvard contemplates. Committing public funds to Washington to the tune of tens or hundreds of million dollars strikes me as politically untenable in California.' Pro-Palestinian UCLA groups said they don't agree with the premise of negotiations. They point out that many protesters in last year's encampment were Jewish and argue that the protest — the focus of federal complaints — was not antisemitic. 'We reject this cynical weaponization of antisemitism, and the misinformation campaign spinning calls for Palestinian freedom as antisemitic. We must name this for what it is: a thinly-veiled attempt to punish supporters of Palestinian freedom, and to advance the long-standing conservative goal of dismantling higher education,' said a statement from Graeme Blair, a UCLA associate professor of political science, on behalf of UCLA Faculty for Justice in Palestine. Higher education experts say UC's decision would set a national precedent. The university's finances include more than $50 billion in operating revenues, $180 billion in investments — including endowment, retirement, and working capital portfolios — and smaller campus-level endowments. The funds support facilities across the state, including multiple academic health centers, investment properties and campuses, as well as tens of thousands of former employees enrolled in retirement plans. Dozens of public campuses across the U.S. are under investigation or pressure from the White House to atone for alleged wrongdoing to Jewish students or to change admissions, scholarship programs and protest rules and more. But UC has long been a standard-bearer, including in academic and protest freedoms. 'If you are Trump, your target of Harvard or Brown is much easier — a snooty elite — than a public, even a UCLA or Berkeley,' said Rick Hess, an education expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Kenneth Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department during Trump's first term, said there would be benefits for UCLA and the UC system to enter into a 'systemwide agreement that would enable everybody to put this behind themselves.' The Justice Department's Tuesday letter said it was investigating all campuses but only issuing findings of violations so far at UCLA. Marcus, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said a systemwide agreement would 'provide the federal government with assurances that the regents are making changes across the board.' Staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.
