Social Media

Google is reportedly scrapping its diversity hiring targets and reevaluating various diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, making it the latest major company to scale back such programs. In its latest annual filing with the SEC, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, noticeably omitted a statement that had been included in previous years, which said the company was “committed to making diversity, equity and inclusion part of everything we do and to growing a workforce that is representative of the users we serve.” This commitment had been present in reports from 2021 to 2023 but was absent in the most recent filing. According to an internal email obtained by *The Wall Street Journal*, Google informed employees that it would no longer set specific diversity hiring goals. Additionally, the tech giant is reviewing recent legal rulings and executive orders, including those from former President Donald Trump, that have sought to limit DEI programs within government agencies and federal contractors. A Google spokesperson addressed the changes in a statement to *The Post*, saying, “We’re committed to creating a workplace where all our employees can succeed and have equal opportunities, and over the last year we’ve been reviewing our programs designed to help us get there.” Google's move follows similar decisions from other major corporations. Earlier this month, Meta, Facebook’s parent company, announced in an internal memo that it would be ending certain DEI initiatives related to hiring, training, and supplier selection. Meanwhile, Amazon also informed employees that it was “winding down outdated programs and materials” related to diversity and inclusion, according to *Reuters*. The retreat from DEI initiatives comes as conservative groups, emboldened by a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action in college admissions, have ramped up criticism of corporate diversity programs. Some groups have even threatened legal action against companies maintaining such initiatives. Elon Musk, a frequent critic of DEI programs, recently suggested that such initiatives hindered the response to the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles. Additionally, an email cited by *The Wall Street Journal* revealed that Google plans to continue investing in various regions across the United States and globally but stated that “in the future we will no longer have aspirational goals.” Despite these shifts, Google confirmed that it will continue to support employee resource groups designed to assist underrepresented workers. This trend extends beyond the tech industry. Major brands such as Walmart, McDonald’s, and Target have also scaled back their DEI programs in response to pressure from conservative activists, marking a broader corporate shift away from such initiatives. Based on a report by NYP 2025-02-07

Fox News is set to further solidify its connection to the Trump family with the launch of a new weekend program hosted by Lara Trump, the daughter-in-law of former President Donald Trump. The network will officially announce the move on Wednesday, marking an unprecedented moment in cable news history. *My View with Lara Trump* is scheduled to debut on February 22 and will air every Saturday night at 9 p.m. ET. The show is described by Fox News as a mix of political analysis and interviews with key political figures, with a focus on “the return of common sense to all corners of American life,” a theme often emphasized by the Trump administration. The addition of Lara Trump to Fox News marks another chapter in the long-standing relationship between the conservative network and the Trump family. Nearly 20 former Fox News employees took positions within Donald Trump’s administration, further intertwining the media outlet with his political sphere. While political figures have transitioned to cable news roles before, having a close relative of a former president as a host is a notable first. The introduction of *My View with Lara Trump* comes with a scheduling shift. Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade, who previously occupied the Saturday night slot, will move his weekend program to Sundays at 10 p.m. Lara Trump, who is married to Eric Trump, has been no stranger to political ambitions. In December, she was considered a potential contender for Florida’s Senate seat following reports that Marco Rubio might vacate the position to take a role in a potential Trump administration. She later dismissed the idea, stating that she had “a big announcement” coming in January, which is now confirmed as her return to Fox News. This is not her first time working for the network. Following former President Joe Biden’s victory, she joined Fox News as an on-air contributor in March 2021, remaining with the channel until the end of 2022—coinciding with Donald Trump’s decision to launch his next presidential campaign. At the time, Trump lamented her departure, saying, “Fox News is a much different place now than it was just a short time ago, but the audience loved Lara, her insight and vision—and so does the Trump Family!” Following her time at Fox News, Lara Trump explored other ventures, including hosting a right-wing podcast and briefly pursuing a singing career. More recently, she was encouraged by her father-in-law to run for a leadership role at the Republican National Committee, eventually serving as co-chair before stepping down after the presidential election. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed enthusiasm about Trump’s return to the network, saying, “Lara was a total professional and a natural when she was with us years ago. She is very talented and is a strong, effective communicator with great potential as a host.” With this new role, Lara Trump becomes one of the most prominent Trump family members in media, continuing the legacy of Fox News’ close relationship with the former president and his allies. Based on a report by The Independent 2025-02-07

For decades, the Gaza Strip has functioned less as a place for Palestinians to build a future and more as a perpetual battlefield where they are trapped in a never-ending conflict with Israel. President Donald Trump shocked many with his suggestion to permanently resettle Gazans in nearby countries, not because the idea was inhumane, but because it challenged a long-standing status quo. Few critics dispute that it would improve the lives of displaced Palestinians, allowing them to escape Gaza’s devastation and find peace. The real controversy lies in the idea of prioritizing Palestinian well-being over the political goals that have historically demanded their sacrifice. On October 19, 2023, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal openly acknowledged that millions of Palestinians might have to die to achieve the ultimate goal of Israel’s destruction and the establishment of an Arab Palestine from the river to the sea. This prospect did not seem to trouble him. Decades earlier, Palestinian leaders such as Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israeli offers of statehood—an unprecedented move for a national liberation movement. Their refusal was not unique. From the 1920s through the 1940s, Amin al-Husseini, a Palestinian leader and ally of Hitler, similarly rejected coexistence with a Jewish state, even before Israel’s establishment. Each of these leaders has followed the same strategy: rather than accepting a negotiated peace, they have chosen to prolong the suffering of their people in pursuit of an unattainable goal. This kind of nationalism, rooted in elimination rather than coexistence, has brought nothing but misery. Arab states have long played along, using the Palestinian cause as a tool while avoiding the responsibility of resettling refugees or engaging in direct military conflicts with Israel. Instead, they have allowed Palestinians to bear the burden, suffering in refugee camps and fighting wars they could never win. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which serves Palestinian refugees, operates unlike any other refugee agency. Rather than resettling those in its care, UNRWA has ensured that Palestinians remain in a state of permanent displacement, extending refugee status through multiple generations. As a result, Gaza has remained overcrowded, impoverished, and primed for conflict. Palestinians in Gaza have been radicalized in UNRWA-run schools and sustained by international aid rather than encouraged to develop self-sustaining institutions. The very existence of the Gaza Strip, long before Hamas’s reign of terror, has served as a means to keep Palestinians locked in this cycle. Originally carved out by Egypt in 1949, it was never meant to be a viable homeland but rather a way to keep Palestinians at a distance, making them Israel’s problem. With UNRWA providing essential services and preventing long-term development, Gaza has effectively been a prison for its residents, ensuring they remain tools of war rather than individuals with a chance at a better life. Hamas has only entrenched this reality further, turning homes, schools, and hospitals into battle zones. The real scandal is not the suggestion that Palestinians should have the opportunity to leave Gaza voluntarily, but the fact that they have been forcibly kept there for generations. UNRWA, Egypt, and the broader international community have contributed to this imprisonment, ensuring that Palestinians remain shields for Hamas during conflicts and victims of the destruction that follows. As *The Wall Street Journal*’s editorial board pointed out in March, the liberal position seems to be that only when it harms Israel should Palestinians be kept trapped in war zones. Even as Arab nations accused Israel of indiscriminate killing, they kept Gaza’s borders shut, ensuring that Palestinians had no escape. Egypt, with international backing, forcibly prevented Gazans from fleeing—a decision that prolonged the war and made it bloodier. President Joe Biden’s support for Egypt’s blockade was one of his administration’s biggest mistakes, exacerbating the suffering rather than alleviating it. When Donald Trump suggested resettling Palestinians in safe, stable communities where they could build new lives, he was met with accusations of inhumanity. Yet, the alternative—forcing another generation to live in a war zone as permanent refugees—has somehow become the accepted, “humane” approach. Gaza offers no future for its people, only endless suffering and destruction. What many find intolerable about Trump’s idea is not that it would harm Palestinians—it would undeniably help them—but that it challenges the entrenched narrative of Palestinian victimhood. For decades, their suffering has been wielded as a weapon in a larger ideological battle. The war in Gaza, and the terror attacks of October 7, 2023, have only reinforced this grim reality. Trump’s proposal forces the world to confront a difficult question: should Palestinians be condemned to permanent refugee status and endless war, or should they be given the chance to rebuild their lives in peace? For those invested in the “lost cause” of Palestine as an instrument of conflict, the answer is clear. But for those who truly care about Palestinian lives, the time has come to consider a different path. Based on a report by WSJ 2025-02-07

Argentina has announced its decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing “profound differences” with the U.N. health agency. The move, confirmed by a presidential spokesperson on Wednesday, aligns with President Javier Milei’s broader stance against international oversight and echoes a similar decision by his ally, U.S. President Donald Trump. The announcement signals another significant shift in Argentina’s foreign policy under Milei’s leadership. While Argentina’s financial contribution to WHO’s $6.9 billion 2024-2025 budget was a modest $8 million, its departure adds to concerns about global health cooperation. Spokesperson Manuel Adorni emphasized that the decision was driven by disagreements over health management policies, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. “WHO guidelines at the time led to the largest shutdown in the history of mankind,” Adorni stated in a news conference in Buenos Aires, referencing the lockdowns that Milei has long criticized. Adorni made it clear that Argentina will not permit an international body to interfere with its sovereignty, “and much less in our health.” WHO, however, does not have the power to enforce policies on member states. Its recommendations, including those made during health crises like COVID-19, are advisory and are often implemented at the discretion of individual governments. The organization responded to Argentina’s announcement by stating that it was reviewing the decision. Milei’s skepticism of WHO aligns with his broader distrust of multilateral institutions. He has repeatedly criticized the pandemic-era lockdown imposed by former President Alberto Fernández, arguing that it severely damaged Argentina’s economy and was used as a tool of government repression. His stance is similar to that of Trump, who, on his first day back in office on January 21, signed an executive order to begin the U.S. withdrawal from WHO. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Milei reaffirmed his anti-establishment position, declaring, "LONG LIVE FREEDOM," while condemning the U.N. agency. Adorni further suggested that WHO’s independence is compromised by political influence from certain countries, though he did not specify which ones. Despite Argentina’s departure, Adorni insisted that the decision would not affect the country’s healthcare system. “On the contrary, it gives greater flexibility to implement policies adapted to the context and interests that Argentina requires,” he said. Since Argentina does not receive WHO funding for health programs, the withdrawal is largely symbolic in terms of immediate financial impact. The timing of the announcement comes just ahead of Milei’s upcoming trip to the United States, where he will attend the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, a summit of right-wing leaders. The move reinforces his alignment with global nationalist and libertarian figures who oppose international governance. While Argentina’s exit from WHO may not drastically impact its domestic health policies, the decision marks a significant step in Milei’s broader effort to distance Argentina from U.N.-backed organizations and assert greater autonomy on the global stage. Based on a report by The Independent 2025-02-07

A damning review has exposed a series of fundamental failures in the Prevent counterterrorism programme, revealing that authorities missed multiple opportunities to intervene in the case of Southport attacker Axel Rudakubana. The Home Office report concluded that officers dismissed the threat he posed on three separate occasions between December 2019 and April 2021, largely due to basic errors, including spelling mistakes. Despite being flagged for carrying a knife and conducting internet searches on school shootings, the 2005 London bombings, the IRA, the Manchester Arena attack, and the Israel-Palestine conflict, his case was prematurely closed each time. As a schoolboy, Rudakubana displayed concerning behavior from Year 8 onwards. During one art lesson, he questioned why he could draw images of guns but was not allowed to search for them online. He then asked, “Can we have a picture of a severed head then?” He made disturbing remarks about “getting teachers murdered,” described the Manchester Arena bombing as a “good thing,” and admitted to police that he had wanted to “finish off” another pupil he had attacked with a hockey stick. The report found that each of his three referrals contained “sufficient risk” to warrant action through the Prevent programme. However, his final referral was closed more than three years before he carried out the knife attack in Southport last summer, which resulted in the deaths of three girls. The review uncovered significant evidence that Rudakubana had expressed intentions to kill since the age of 13 and had been known to police since he was 12, when he admitted to carrying a knife. Authorities were first alerted to him in April 2019, eight months earlier than previously disclosed. At that time, he had called the National Crime Agency (NCA), admitting to bringing a knife to school and reporting that he had been bullied. The NCA informed local police, who subsequently visited his home. A newly published 55-page Home Office report detailed a catalogue of errors, including the misspelling of Rudakubana’s name in his second and third Prevent referrals in February and April 2021. The report suggested that these spelling errors may have led to his case being closed prematurely, as Prevent supervisors were unable to access his previous referrals in the system. Furthermore, critical information about his behavior was never recorded due to a system flaw that prevented file uploads. Screenshots of his concerning social media posts, shared between two schools and the police, were therefore excluded from his file. The report also criticized Prevent’s confusing guidance, which discourages police from visiting individuals at home after their first referral. Officers reportedly had to go through excessive bureaucratic hurdles to arrange a home visit for Rudakubana, despite acknowledging that “so little was known” about him. In December 2019, at the age of 13, he was arrested after attacking a fellow pupil with a hockey stick, breaking the victim’s wrist. When police searched him, they found a knife. He then told Merseyside officers that he wanted to “finish [the pupil] off with the knife and was not bothered by prison.” A relative later informed authorities that Rudakubana, who had claimed to be a victim of bullying, allegedly had a “hit list” of three targets. The Home Office report highlights how these failures allowed Rudakubana’s violent tendencies to escalate unchecked, ultimately leading to a tragic attack that might have been prevented with more diligent oversight. Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-07

Tens of thousands of U.S. government employees have reportedly accepted a resignation offer from the Trump administration, which allows them to continue receiving pay until September 30. The voluntary resignation program, introduced last week, was offered to approximately two million federal workers as part of an ongoing effort to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy and cut government spending. Reports indicate that over 1% of the federal workforce—between 20,000 and 40,000 employees—has opted into the program ahead of the Thursday deadline. The White House, which initially projected that as many as 200,000 workers might participate, told media outlets that they expect a surge in resignations within the final 24 hours. The initiative was announced through a late-night email and has faced strong opposition from unions representing government workers. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has taken legal action in an attempt to block the plan. “We won’t stand by and let our members become the victims of this con,” AFGE president Everett Kelley said in a statement on Tuesday afternoon. On the same day, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) became the first national security agency to extend the resignation offer to its staff, allowing employees to quit while still receiving around eight months of pay and benefits. However, the exact eligibility criteria remain unclear, and CNN reported that some areas of expertise within the agency may be restricted from participating. A source familiar with the matter stated that newly appointed CIA Director John Ratcliffe personally pushed for the agency’s involvement in the resignation program. Additionally, the CIA has imposed a hiring freeze on candidates who had already received conditional offers. According to the *Wall Street Journal*, an aide to Ratcliffe suggested that some of these offers might be revoked if the applicants do not align with the administration’s priorities, including policies related to tariffs and efforts to undermine China. The Trump administration’s push to scale back the federal government, with significant input from tech billionaire Elon Musk, has been widely praised by leading Republicans. House Speaker Mike Johnson, speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, commended the initiative. “The stewardship of precious American taxpayer dollars is being well-handled,” he stated, calling the program “a long overdue, much welcome development.” Based on a report by BBC 2025-02-07

A report from a House of Lords committee has raised concerns that the government's approach to meeting housebuilding targets through development on so-called grey belt land is "rushed" and "not properly thought through." The committee found it unclear whether crucial factors such as environmental impact and access to essential infrastructure like public transport, schools, and parks were adequately considered. The House of Lords cross-party Built Environment Committee concluded that the grey belt policy is unlikely to lead to a significant increase in the number of new homes being built. The government has proposed developing on areas described as the grey belt, which includes unattractive sections of the green belt, disused car parks, and former petrol stations, as a means to reach its target of constructing 1.5 million homes by the end of the current parliamentary term in 2029. This strategy was seen as a method to ease construction restrictions in the green belt, a designated buffer zone of natural and agricultural land that separates urban areas. By identifying certain locations within the green belt as suitable for development, the government hoped to balance the need for new housing with environmental preservation. However, the Lords committee expressed concerns that the government "appears to lack a sufficient understanding of the implications of introducing multiple intersecting planning policies at the same time." This lack of coherence, the report warned, undermines the government’s ability to successfully implement any of its housing policies. Furthermore, the committee criticized the absence of a clear framework to assess the policy’s impact. "The government also does not seem to have any plan to measure progress or determine the success of this policy," said Lord Daniel Moylan, chair of the Built Environment Committee. "Effective policy must be evidence-based and be able to demonstrate its efficacy. Sadly, this is not the case here." As housebuilding is a central pillar of the government’s strategy to drive economic growth, the grey belt initiative was expected to play a key role. However, Lord Moylan described its implementation as "somewhat rushed and incoherent," adding to broader concerns about whether the policy will effectively address the UK’s housing crisis. Based on a report by Sky News 2025-02-07

Angela Rayner’s plan to establish a “council on Islamophobia” to define anti-Muslim discrimination is being criticized as a de facto blasphemy law. This proposal, detractors argue, could criminalize individuals across all backgrounds—white, black, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, and atheist—who express concerns about a parallel society developing under Sharia law, with attitudes often in opposition to liberal democratic values. Objecting to special treatment for a segment of the population with minimal integration—where women and girls frequently face second-class status—is not a phobia, but a rational reaction to what many see as religious separatism and political favoritism. Instead of launching a national inquiry into the widespread grooming gang scandal, largely linked to individuals of Pakistani origin, Labour appears more focused on pushing legislation that could criminalize public discussion of the issue. This shift raises concerns about free speech and the ability of the majority white population to object to what some perceive as its own societal and cultural decline. The authoritarian nature of this approach is reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s *Alice in Wonderland*: “Sentence first, verdict afterwards!” It is a sentiment that aligns with what critics describe as the chillingly authoritarian tendencies of Starmer’s Labour government. Among the many policy shifts since Labour came to power, perhaps the most surreal is its approach to tackling illegal migration. The government’s solution, according to its new Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill, is to legalize those who would otherwise be classified as illegal migrants. This move dismantles large portions of the previous Conservative government’s Illegal Migration Act (2023), which had stipulated that those entering the country illegally would be permanently barred from obtaining British citizenship. By removing this deterrent, the government is accused of enabling human smuggling operations and eroding border security. The previous legislation also allowed authorities to treat asylum seekers as over 18 if they refused to undergo scientific age assessments. Now, foster carers are once again expected to believe the impossible—that the asylum seeker placed in their home is a “child,” despite having a full beard and wearing size 11 shoes. Smuggling gangs actively coach migrants to claim they are minors, as this significantly increases their chances of gaining refugee status. In just the first half of last year alone, 1,300 individuals attempted to pass as children. British youngsters in desperate need of foster care placements have been displaced by fraudulent claims, reinforcing concerns about the government's priorities. Further complicating matters, young males from violent, war-torn countries are placed in secondary schools alongside much younger female students, raising alarms about safety and security. However, Labour appears untroubled by these risks, insisting instead that its new approach will “reduce the number” of illegal migrants—while, in reality, maintaining the status quo. After just seven months of Labour governance, public frustration with these policies is growing. Many see them as a nonsensical charade, demanding belief in the impossible, at the expense of national security, cultural cohesion, and common sense. Based on a report by Daily telegraph 2025-02-07

Major UK retailers are urging the government to take decisive action and close a tax loophole that allows Chinese e-commerce giants like Shein and Temu to avoid paying customs duties on small orders. The call follows a similar move by Donald Trump in the United States, where he pledged to eliminate the exemption that allows overseas businesses to ship small packages without incurring duties. Leading figures in British retail, including those behind Ryman, Robert Dyas, Superdry, and Gieves & Hawkes, have criticized the current system for creating an unfair competitive advantage for foreign companies. Theo Paphitis, the owner of Boux Avenue, Robert Dyas, and Ryman, warned that allowing overseas businesses to continue benefiting from this loophole would be catastrophic for UK industry. “If you’re not paying import duties, not paying VAT and not paying national insurance to employees here then you’ve got an unfair advantage over everybody else,” he said. “It is not a level playing field.” Julian Dunkerton, co-founder of Superdry, voiced his strong support for the UK government following Trump's approach. “Their trade with the UK should be treated as a single transaction and taxed accordingly,” he stated. The current UK policy, known as the de minimis rule, exempts shipments valued under £135 from customs duties, while packages exceeding this threshold can incur duties of up to 25 percent. In contrast, Trump has vowed to remove the same exemption in the U.S. for shipments valued under $800 from China, Canada, and Mexico. Retail industry leaders have been advocating for stricter regulations on low-value imports for years, arguing that overseas retailers use the exemption to flood the market with cheap products, undercutting domestic businesses. Touker Suleyman, owner of Gieves & Hawkes, Ghost, and Finery, expressed frustration over the UK government’s inaction. “The UK government has not been listening to retail and they haven’t got the guts to take a decision. With all due respect to President Trump, he’s got the guts to say, ‘this is how it’s going to be’.” Harold Tillman, former chairman of the British Fashion Council and former head of Jaeger and Aquascutum, agreed with the U.S. president’s stance. “I do agree with the American president,” he said, adding that such a move would create a fairer marketplace and potentially curb the excessive production of low-cost fashion items. The decision by Trump could have significant consequences for Shein, particularly as the company is considering a £50 billion listing on the London Stock Exchange. The U.S. remains Shein’s most profitable market, and any policy shift could impact its revenue streams. While a London float could bring substantial investment to the UK economy, Paphitis believes the government must weigh the benefits of this listing against the ongoing loss of tax revenue and the negative impact on British high streets. “The government needs to think about the value of the float to the British economy compared to the billions the Treasury is losing out [in unpaid tax] and the demise of our own high streets,” he argued. As pressure mounts, British retailers are calling for immediate action to ensure a fair and competitive market, preventing further damage to local businesses struggling to compete against tax-exempt overseas rivals. Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-07

President Donald Trump has once again proposed building a grand $100 million ballroom at the White House, insisting he would personally fund the project. Trump, who has long criticized the use of temporary tents for hosting state dinners, reiterated his desire to create a permanent, luxurious space similar to those at his properties, including Mar-a-Lago. Speaking at a signing ceremony in the White House’s East Room, the largest indoor space currently available for events, Trump highlighted the need for a grander venue. “This room is packed,” he said, noting that there were “people outside that can’t even get in.” He recalled having made the offer before, stating, “It was going to cost $100 million dollars… I offered to do it to the Biden administration.” However, former officials from the Obama administration claim Trump originally made the proposal to them after attending a state dinner for the Indian prime minister, which was held in a tent on the White House lawn. Trump joked that he would now attempt to approve the idea himself. “I’m going to try and make the offer to myself,” he said, drawing laughter. “We’ll see if Trump will approve it.” David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Obama, confirmed that Trump had initially proposed the idea in 2010. In his memoir Believer, Axelrod recalled Trump’s disapproval of temporary event spaces. “I see you have these state dinners on the lawn there in these shit little tents,” Trump had remarked. “I build ballrooms. Beautiful ballrooms. You can go to Tampa and check one of them out for yourself.” Trump remained critical of the practice, later telling radio host Rush Limbaugh in 2011 that the use of tents for welcoming foreign dignitaries was disgraceful. “When a dignitary comes in from India, from anywhere, they open up a tent,” he said. “A tent! … An old, rotten tent that frankly they probably rented, pay a guy millions of dollars for it even though it’s worth about $2, okay?” During his 2016 campaign, Trump emphasized the safety risks of hosting state dinners under canvas and pointed to Mar-a-Lago’s ballroom as an example of what could be achieved. “What many consider to be the single greatest ballroom in the world,” he boasted. At the time, New York Post columnist Cindy Adams predicted Trump would address the issue swiftly once in office. “The White House lacks a big party space,” she wrote. “Galas scatter through separate rooms.” Despite this, no ballroom was built during Trump’s first term. The most notable architectural addition to the White House grounds during his presidency was a tennis pavilion designed under the direction of then-First Lady Melania Trump. Trump revived the ballroom proposal while speaking about his broader vision for renovations, including his recent suggestion to clear out and redevelop the Gaza Strip. Turning to Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, he mused, “We could use a bigger room, right, Marsha? It would actually be a beautiful addition.” Still focused on his longstanding issue with temporary structures, he added, “Somehow I think we’ve outgrown the tent stuff. Don’t you think?” Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-07

@Will B Good a personal attack has been removed. Any more of those and you will be next.

Another trolling post removed making repetative misleading claims @Chomper Higgot

A couple of baiting troll posts removed.

@tony2times be aware that having already removed a number of your posts (you know why) that any more removals will also lead to another posting suspension.

Sir Salman Rushdie is set to take the stand in the trial of the man accused of attempting to kill him by stabbing him 33 times during a speaking event in upstate New York in August 2022. The trial, beginning on Tuesday, will see the prosecution recount the harrowing attack on one of the most renowned writers of modern times. Jason Schmidt, the district attorney leading the case, is an experienced prosecutor known for his sharp courtroom presence. However, no matter how compelling his opening statement may be, it is unlikely to match the account Rushdie himself has already provided in Knife, his bestselling memoir detailing the attack and his subsequent recovery. Rushdie, who was 75 at the time, was preparing to discuss the importance of safe spaces for writers with Henry Reese, the founder of a Pittsburgh-based organization that offers refuge to persecuted authors, when the assailant struck. “I can still see the moment in slow motion,” Rushdie wrote. “In the corner of my right eye — the last thing my right eye would ever see — I saw the man in black running toward me down the right-hand side of the seating area. Black clothes, black face mask. He was coming in hard and low: a squat missile.” The accused, Hadi Matar, 27, from New Jersey, has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder. His attorney, Nathaniel Barone, admitted the difficulty of mounting a defense, given the public nature of the attack. “Almost to a person they are saying, ‘What is this guy’s defense? Everyone saw him do it!’” he told The New Yorker in 2023. According to witnesses, including Rushdie himself, the attack was halted by Reese, who rushed to intervene, and by audience members who subdued Matar until law enforcement arrived. That evening, Matar was detained in the county jail across from the courthouse, while investigators searched his New Jersey residence, where he had lived with his mother and twin sisters. His parents, who emigrated from Lebanon in the 1990s, had divorced in 2004, and his mother, Silvana Fardos, described how Matar had changed after a trip to Lebanon in 2018. “He locked himself in the basement,” she told The Daily Mail days after the attack. He became reclusive, cooking his own meals and living a nocturnal lifestyle. “As I said to the FBI, I’m not going to bother talking to him again. He’s responsible for his actions … All we can do is try to move on from this, without him.” Days after the attack, Matar spoke from jail in an interview with the New York Post. When asked if he had acted on Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie, he replied, “I respect the Ayatollah, I think he’s a great person. That’s as far as I will say about that.” As for The Satanic Verses, he admitted, “I read a couple of pages. I didn’t read the whole thing cover to cover.” Instead, much of his knowledge of Rushdie came from YouTube. “I don’t think he’s a very good person, I don’t like him,” he said. “I don’t like people who are disingenuous like that.” He added that he attended the event in Chautauqua, New York, after seeing Rushdie’s name listed as a speaker on Twitter. “When I heard he survived, I was surprised, I guess.” In addition to the state charges, Matar was later indicted in federal court for attempting to serve Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, by committing an act of terrorism. He pleaded not guilty. Schmidt, the district attorney, has stated that motive will not be a primary focus in the trial, given the overwhelming evidence and eyewitness accounts. The presentation of testimony and forensic evidence is expected to take about a week, during which both Rushdie and Reese are expected to testify. Rushdie has contemplated what it means to face his attacker. In Knife, he reflected on Samuel Beckett’s experience of confronting his own assailant in court after a near-fatal stabbing in 1938. Beckett had asked his attacker why he had done it, to which the man simply replied, “I don’t know, sir, I’m sorry.” Inspired by this encounter, Rushdie initially believed he, too, would want to look his assailant in the face. However, with time, therapy, and the act of writing his memoir, that urge faded. In the book, he imagines a confrontation in which he dismisses his attacker entirely. “You are revealed here as a would-be assassin and an incompetent one at that,” he envisions himself saying. “Perhaps in the incarcerated decades that stretch out before you, you will learn introspection and come to understand that you did something wrong. But you know what? I don’t care. This, I think, is what I have come to this courtroom to say to you. I don’t care about you, or the ideology that you claim to represent, and which you represent so poorly. I have my life and my work and there are people who love me. I care about those things.” In the coming weeks, Rushdie may have the opportunity to say these words in court, or perhaps, after everything he has endured, he may decide that silence is the most powerful statement of all. Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-06

The LGB Alliance has claimed that corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies have been hijacked by "misogynistic" and "homophobic" trans extremists, leading to the suppression of gender-critical viewpoints in the workplace. The organisation, which represents the interests of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, has called for companies to restore protections for freedom of speech and conscience, arguing that current DEI initiatives are being weaponised to silence dissent. Among their chief concerns is the replacement of women's restrooms with gender-neutral facilities, enforced pronoun usage, and the alleged bullying of employees who express a belief in biological sex. Simon White, a representative of the LGB Alliance, stated that DEI policies have been "corrupted by powerful lobby groups that present the law as they’d like it to be rather than how it actually is" and that these changes have turned "workplaces into battlegrounds in the culture war." He added that internal staff networks, originally intended to support LGB employees, have been "co-opted by extremists focused on advancing a narrow, misogynistic, and homophobic interpretation of ‘trans rights’." Several high-profile incidents have drawn attention to the growing tension surrounding DEI policies. In one case, Fran Itkoff, a 90-year-old volunteer from California, was dismissed from a multiple sclerosis charity after questioning why she needed to add "she/her" pronouns to her email signature. The National MS Society stated at the time that she had been asked to leave due to statements "not aligning with our policy of inclusion." However, the backlash was so intense that the charity later apologised, calling its decision a "mistake." The LGB Alliance itself has faced significant opposition. At its annual conference last year, trans rights activists disrupted proceedings by releasing hundreds of live crickets into the auditorium. Despite such attacks, the organisation is moving forward with efforts to challenge what it sees as the overreach of DEI policies. It is launching a new business forum aimed at helping companies "re-establish fair workplace policies," encouraging executives to work with HR departments to reassess their approach. The group has also criticised major corporations such as HSBC and Linklaters for celebrating their high rankings on an equality leaderboard run by Stonewall, arguing that the charity's influence over corporate HR policies has led to problematic changes. Stonewall has faced scrutiny for advising organisations to replace the term "mother" with "parent who has given birth" to improve their ranking on its equality index. The Welsh government, which appeared high on Stonewall’s list in 2020, had already removed "mother" from its maternity policy a year earlier. This growing backlash against DEI policies is not limited to the UK. In the United States,President Donald Trump has taken a firm stance against DEI initiatives, issuing an executive order to end what he called "radical and wasteful government DEI programmes." In the financial sector, City of London banks and investment firms have been pressuring the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to relax planned diversity regulations, citing concerns that stringent DEI requirements could slow economic growth. A recent poll conducted by JLP among 500 City executives found that one in three business leaders now believe DEI policies have gone too far. Meanwhile, the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) recently abandoned plans to introduce its own strict diversity rules following internal pushback from members. The debate over DEI policies continues to intensify, with advocates arguing they are necessary for workplace inclusivity, while critics claim they have been misused to enforce ideological conformity. As corporations navigate this evolving landscape, the push to balance inclusivity with free expression is likely to remain a contentious issue. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-02-06

Bianca Censori reportedly had serious reservations about wearing a sheer dress to the Grammy Awards on Sunday night, but her husband, Kanye West—who now goes by Ye—pushed for the bold fashion statement. According to a source close to West, Censori initially tried to withdraw from the stunt. The insider, speaking with the *New York Post*, claimed, "She would have much rather worn a pretty dress. She would have enjoyed the evening a lot more." The source further revealed that Censori was nervous leading up to the event and attempted multiple times to back out. However, Ye was adamant about moving forward with the look. "When Ye gets something in his head, there’s no talking him out of it," they explained. "Make no mistake, this was totally him and not her." Censori, an Australian architect, made her grand entrance on the red carpet in a fur coat before revealing a tight, sheer dress underneath. While she has become known for wearing revealing outfits since her relationship with West became public nearly three years ago, this particular look stunned many, including the *Post*'s insider. "This is literally what people have nightmares about," they said. "And she did it on purpose. But she wouldn’t have done it without Ye," the source added, emphasizing West’s role in the decision. The insider also suggested that West orchestrated the stunt with the intention of making headlines. "And a splash it made! It took a lot of courage on her part, but ultimately, they’re both happy that she did it. It’s all anyone is talking about," they said. Following the event, West shared a now-deleted Instagram post featuring Censori’s dress. He captioned the photo, "Custom Couture Grammy dress for the most beautiful woman ever. My love, my best friend. My wife." While West was nominated for Best Rap Song at the Grammys, the award ultimately went to Kendrick Lamar for "Not Like Us." Rumors circulated that West and Censori were escorted out of the event due to the controversial outfit, but Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. denied the claims, clarifying to *Entertainment Tonight* that West had only intended to walk the red carpet. Based on a report by Daily Beast 2025-02-06

The U.S. Department of Education, under the direction of President Donald Trump, has launched an investigation into five universities, including Columbia University, over claims of widespread antisemitic harassment. This follows months of escalating campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Columbia University, Northwestern University, Portland State University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities are now facing federal scrutiny after student demonstrations calling for divestment from Israel sometimes led to clashes with pro-Israel groups. Columbia became the epicenter of these protests in April 2024 when its Students for Justice in Palestine chapter organized a 24/7 encampment, sparking a nationwide movement. Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, criticized universities for failing to address antisemitic incidents. “Too many universities have tolerated widespread antisemitic harassment and the illegal encampments that paralyzed campus life last year, driving Jewish life and religious expression underground. The Biden Administration’s toothless resolution agreements did shamefully little to hold those institutions accountable,” Trainor stated. He further emphasized the administration’s firm stance, saying, “Today, the Department is putting universities, colleges, and K-12 schools on notice: this administration will not tolerate continued institutional indifference to the wellbeing of Jewish students on American campuses, nor will it stand by idly if universities fail to combat Jew hatred and the unlawful harassment and violence it animates.” The investigations are being conducted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin and shared ancestry. This move aligns with Trump’s recent executive order instructing federal agencies to identify all available civil and criminal actions to counter antisemitism, including exploring the deportation of foreign students involved in such activities. Columbia’s protests, which lasted for weeks, saw students chanting slogans like “NYPD, KKK, IDF, you’re all the same” and calling for an “intifada revolution.” The situation escalated when demonstrators broke into Hamilton Hall, prompting the university to call in law enforcement. While several protesters were arrested, no students were expelled, and those initially suspended were eventually reinstated. Jewish students and alumni have repeatedly criticized Columbia’s leadership for what they perceive as a failure to curb antisemitism on campus. Ari Shrage, a member of the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association, expressed his frustration: “Despite our pleas, the University’s administration and Trustees continue issuing empty statements and ignoring antisemitism on campus.” The backlash against Columbia’s handling of the protests has been significant. The university experienced a 29% drop in donations, equating to approximately $21.4 million in lost funding. In response to the DOE’s latest move, Columbia officials stated that they are reviewing the new communication from Trump’s administration. Based on a report by NYP 2025-02-06

The U.S. State Department is swiftly working to evacuate all USAID employees stationed abroad, sources with knowledge of the situation told ABC News. This effort includes recalling both staff members and their families back to the United States, with a deadline set for Saturday, multiple sources confirmed. According to an insider, Pete Marocco, the newly appointed deputy administrator of USAID, informed State Department officials on Tuesday that if the evacuation was not completed as planned, the military would be deployed to handle the situation. A federal worker described the decision as a sudden and disruptive recall, impacting thousands of foreign service officers and their families. The abrupt move is forcing employees to leave their posts with very little notice, causing significant upheaval—spouses resigning from jobs, children being pulled from schools, and even pets requiring relocation. "To uproot them and call them back to Washington like criminals while dealing with families and logistics is cruel. These people have kids in school," a former USAID employee expressed to ABC News. The recall has raised concerns among employees and former officials, as it places immense stress on families who have built their lives overseas. With such a short timeline, many are struggling to arrange travel, find accommodations back in the U.S., and transition abruptly out of their roles. While the exact reasoning behind the mass evacuation remains unclear, the urgency of the recall suggests a significant shift in policy or response to an emerging crisis. For now, USAID staff across the globe are scrambling to comply with the order, despite the personal and professional turmoil it brings. Based on a report by ABC News 2025-02-06

Under the dim glow of security lights at Wandsworth Prison in South-West London, the faint whir of a drone pierces the night. Hovering close to the roof, it carries a black plastic bag that sways in the air as the device moves purposefully toward a cell window. A prisoner extends a makeshift hook, carefully snagging the contraband before retreating into the shadows. Another delivery complete, another success for organized crime. This scene, captured on a brief but revealing video, exemplifies a growing crisis that some officials have labeled a threat to national security. At Wandsworth and across the UK’s prison system, drones are being used to smuggle in a staggering array of contraband—drugs, weapons, mobile phones, and even takeaway meals. HMP Manchester, also known as Strangeways, has recorded at least 220 drone-related incidents in the past year alone, more than any other prison in England and Wales. Security measures designed to counteract the problem are proving ineffective. At Long Lartin, a high-security prison in Worcestershire, contraband is sometimes disguised as bags of human waste—tossed from cell windows under the cover of night and later retrieved by prisoner cleaners. At HMP Manchester, four in ten prisoners test positive for drugs, while at Long Lartin, more than half of inmates say it’s “easy” to obtain them. Windows smashed to aid in smuggling were replaced with £5,000 Perspex panes, only for inmates to discover they could burn through them. Charlie Taylor, Chief Inspector of Prisons, has issued stark warnings about the escalating crisis. He argues that the UK’s most secure prisons have effectively “ceded the airspace to organized crime gangs.” In an interview, he raised an even more chilling possibility—drones delivering firearms or explosives, potentially enabling violent escapes or endangering the public. “If zombie knives can go over, then what else?” he questioned. “Heaven forbid, something like explosives.” Despite years of warnings, the problem continues to spiral. Between August and December 2020, a single criminal network conducted over 20 drone flights into HMP Risley, delivering contraband worth an estimated £1.7 million. At HMP Highpoint in Suffolk, a crashed drone provided investigators with a breakthrough, linking it to 62 illicit flights across multiple prisons. In another case, a husband-and-wife duo carried out more than 100 drone drops across 11 facilities, laundering nearly £50,000 in payments from prison gangs. One of the most high-profile cases involved Lucy Adcock, a 47-year-old mother of five, who played a central role in coordinating over £1 million worth of drug drops into UK prisons. Caught with a drone in her car near HMP Parc in Wales, Adcock’s activities were traced to 22 separate smuggling operations. She wept in court as she was sentenced to six years in prison. Historically, weapons have rarely been used in UK prison escapes, but the last major incident—at HMP Whitemoor in 1994—saw IRA prisoners smuggle in firearms and Semtex explosives. Security experts fear a modern version of such an event could be facilitated by drones. Ian Acheson, a former prison governor, has called the situation a “scandalous security lapse,” warning that if criminals can routinely drop drugs and phones into high-security facilities, what’s stopping them from delivering something far more dangerous? For now, the night skies above Britain’s prisons remain contested territory. As criminals exploit ever-advancing technology, authorities are scrambling to keep up, knowing that the next drone drop might bring more than just drugs—it could bring disaster. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-02-06

Often referred to as a "godfather of AI," has voiced his concerns about the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, warning that the technology could one day surpass human control and take over the world. The esteemed computer scientist has dedicated much of his career to AI research, but now he fears that society may be unprepared for the consequences of creating systems that outthink and outmaneuver human intelligence. "I'm kept awake at night by the fear that humans may build systems smarter than us that we don't know how to control," His statement reflects growing anxieties among AI experts and researchers who worry that as artificial intelligence continues to evolve, it could reach a point where it no longer answers to human commands. Geoffrey Hinton's prediction echoes the concerns of other leading figures in AI, including Elon Musk and Yoshua Bengio, who have previously warned about the existential risks posed by uncontrolled AI development. As machine learning models grow increasingly sophisticated, some fear that AI could eventually make autonomous decisions that conflict with human interests, leading to unpredictable consequences. The possibility of artificial intelligence surpassing human intelligence has long been a topic of speculation in science fiction, but with the rapid progress in AI capabilities, the idea is becoming more tangible. While AI systems are currently designed to assist humans in various industries, Bengio warns that if left unchecked, they could one day dictate the direction of global affairs. The debate over AI regulation and ethical development is intensifying, with calls for stricter policies to ensure that AI remains a beneficial tool rather than a threat. As AI continues to shape the world, the question remains: will humans maintain control, or are we on the path to a future where artificial intelligence reigns supreme? Until then, Thai companies like Thaiger AI will continue to offer local businesses simple AI and Automation solutions to their business to help optimise marketing and business processes. Based on a report by LBC 2025-02-06

The legal battle over Prince Harry’s US visa records has returned to court following Donald Trump’s re-election, with a conservative think tank pushing for the release of documents they claim could prove the duke lied about his past drug use. The Heritage Foundation has revived its lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, arguing that transparency is necessary to determine whether Prince Harry was truthful in his visa application. In his 2023 memoir, *Spare*, Prince Harry openly admitted to using cocaine, cannabis, and psychedelic substances. If he disclosed this on his visa application before moving to California with his wife, Meghan Markle, in 2020, it could have impacted his eligibility. The case had previously been dismissed in September by a judge in Washington, but Trump’s return to office has led the think tank to pursue the matter once again, believing the new political climate could work in their favor. Judge Carl Nichols has agreed to reopen the case, summoning lawyers from all parties to a hearing at 2 p.m. on Wednesday. The hearing marks a significant moment in determining whether the Biden administration’s refusal to release the duke’s records will continue under Trump’s leadership. As president, Trump has the authority to direct federal agencies to disclose documents, and the think tank is urging him to intervene. Nile Gardiner, who heads the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, described Trump’s victory as a “game-changing” moment, claiming that Prince Harry is no longer “shielded” from scrutiny. He insists that the visa records could either expose false statements made by the duke or confirm that he received special treatment. Trump has not shied away from expressing his opinions on the matter. In February last year, he made his stance clear: “I wouldn’t protect him. He betrayed the Queen. That’s unforgivable. He would be on his own if it was down to me.” Trump has also previously suggested that if Harry had lied on his visa application, officials would “have to take appropriate action,” raising the possibility of deportation. The outcome of the case remains uncertain, but with the shifting political landscape, Prince Harry’s immigration status is once again under intense scrutiny. Based on a report by The Times 2025-02-06

President Donald Trump is poised to sign an executive order Wednesday that will bar transgender girls and women from participating in female sports at schools and colleges across the United States. The move, fulfilling a campaign promise, is expected to have sweeping implications for educational institutions receiving federal funding. The order, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” will be signed in the afternoon, according to sources familiar with the matter, including a White House official and a congressional representative. Rep. Nancy Mace (R., S.C.), who plans to attend the signing, defended the decision in a press release, stating, “This executive order restores fairness, upholds Title IX’s original intent, and defends the rights of female athletes who have worked their whole lives to compete at the highest levels.” The timing of the order coincides with the 39th annual National Girls and Women in Sports Day. Although the exact details of the order remain unclear, it is expected that Trump will direct the Department of Education to interpret Title IX regulations as prohibiting transgender girls and women from competing in female sports categories. If implemented, the interpretation could lead to policy changes and regulatory guidance affecting almost every K-12 school and college in the nation. Title IX, a provision in the Education Amendments Act of 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination in educational activities, but its application to transgender students has been the subject of fierce debate for years. With over 1,100 member schools, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has already signaled that it will move quickly to adjust its policies in response to the executive order. “We’re a national governing body and we follow federal law,” NCAA President Charlie Baker said during a contentious hearing with Republican senators in December. The order could significantly impact the 27 states that already have restrictions on transgender athletes in school sports, while also challenging the policies of 14 states that currently mandate their inclusion. Legal battles over the rights of transgender athletes have already played out in courts across the country. In several cases, judges have ruled in favor of transgender female plaintiffs, arguing that categorical bans on their participation violate Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. However, some courts have indicated a willingness to uphold restrictions, suggesting that limiting eligibility for women’s sports may be legally consistent with Title IX’s intent. As Trump’s executive order takes effect, the legal and political fight over transgender inclusion in sports is expected to escalate, with schools, advocacy groups, and lawmakers bracing for its far-reaching impact. Based on a report by WSJ 2025-02-06

@OneMoreFarang one of your posts removed for personal attacks, you've also had others removed for trolling the topic with unattributed claims. Carry on and it will be more than posts of yours removed. An addtional off topic troll post removed by another member

A couple of off topic posts about Jews removed along with an inappropriate image.