.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
8
Tariff pause - Trump IS an idiot !!
The folks around Trump ALREADY have millions, if not billions. They don't need to play silly games like shorting the market. What is happening is what was predicted long ago- the tariffs are a negotiating tool, nothing more. And it is clear who the ultimate target is in all this- China. It is a way for the rest of the civilized world to line up in a pseudo free trade zone, opposed to China and it's hideous protectionist policies. People like Marco Rubio and Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick are hardly idiots. They are very smart men and have a clear vision of what is necessary, and also of who the real enemy of freedom is. -
126
Gaza Paramedics Shot ‘With Intent to Kill,’ Red Crescent Demands International Probe
And not just believe them, spread their words as the gospel. -
0
Man Accused of Plotting Trump Assassination Tried to Buy Rocket Launcher from Ukraine
Man Accused of Plotting Trump Assassination Allegedly Tried to Buy Rocket Launcher from Ukraine Ryan Wesley Routh, the 58-year-old man accused of attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump, reportedly sought to purchase a rocket launcher from Ukraine just weeks before his arrest, according to new court documents filed by federal prosecutors on Monday. Authorities say Routh engaged in a series of encrypted messages with someone he believed to be a Ukrainian contact who had access to military-grade weapons. In these exchanges, Routh allegedly made direct requests for powerful armaments, including a rocket-propelled grenade or a Stinger missile, expressing clear intent to use them against Trump. “Send me an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or Stinger and I will see what we can do… [Trump] is not good for Ukraine,” he wrote in one of the messages, according to the filings. Routh reportedly continued the conversation by asking about logistics and cost, inquiring whether the weapon could be shipped to him. “I need equipment so that Trump cannot get elected,” he stated. The filings indicate a premeditated effort to interfere with Trump’s political prospects using violent means. In what prosecutors argue demonstrates both motive and intent, Routh acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining such weapons within the United States, saying, “Going to the local store for such an item is impossible – however you are at war so those items lost and destroyed daily – one missing would not be noticed.” The court documents claim Routh also sent an image of Trump’s private plane to his contact, noting, “he gets on and off daily,” in what appears to be reconnaissance related to a planned attack. Prosecutors are using these messages as critical evidence that Routh had been actively planning to kill Trump. The alleged plot was disrupted on September 15 at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where a Secret Service agent noticed the muzzle of a rifle emerging from shrubbery near the property. Routh reportedly dropped his SKS semiautomatic rifle and fled the scene in an SUV, leaving behind two backpacks, the firearm, and a GoPro camera. Authorities captured him approximately 40 minutes later on Interstate 95 in Martin County, Florida. A subsequent search of Routh’s vehicle revealed handwritten notes about joining the war effort in Ukraine, further linking his political motivations with the ongoing conflict overseas, according to court documents. Routh’s defense attorneys are currently attempting to have several pieces of evidence—including an eyewitness account—excluded from his upcoming trial, which is expected to draw significant national attention. This case, steeped in international intrigue, political motivation, and allegations of attempted presidential assassination, continues to unfold as prosecutors and defense attorneys battle over what evidence will be admissible in court. Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-10 -
0
Prince Harry Claims Unfair Treatment Over Security in UK Court Battle
Prince Harry Claims Unfair Treatment Over Security in UK Court Battle Prince Harry has appeared in court to argue that he was unfairly treated when his automatic taxpayer-funded police protection was withdrawn following his decision to step back from royal duties. The Duke of Sussex, now 40, is suing the UK home secretary over a decision made by the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec), which removed his entitlement to publicly funded security while visiting the country. Arriving at the Court of Appeal in London on Tuesday, flanked by two bodyguards, Harry claimed he had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” compared to others in similar positions. His legal team insists he is not demanding a reinstatement of the same protection he received as a working royal but is instead asking to be treated like any other individual considered for security under Ravec’s guidelines. “His case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary,” said his barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC. Fatima argued that Ravec failed to apply its usual risk assessment procedures to Harry’s case, opting instead for a “bespoke process” that wasn’t used for anyone else. “Harry does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” she told the court. She also stated that the risk management board, which provides independent expert advice to Ravec, was not consulted in Harry’s case, meaning the committee made its decision without vital analysis. In a written statement submitted to the court, Harry’s team said that he and Meghan, 43, felt forced to step back from being full-time working royals in 2020 because “they were not being protected by the institution”. However, they had hoped to continue supporting the late Queen Elizabeth as privately funded members of the royal family. The prince, who was seen taking notes in a cream-coloured notebook with a black pen, has returned to the UK for the first time since attending the WellChild awards in September. It is understood that despite being in the country, King Charles did not meet with Harry before departing for Italy on Monday. During the hearing, the court was told that following the Ravec decision, an al-Qaeda-linked group had issued a threat calling for Harry “to be murdered”, claiming his death “would please the Muslim community.” Additionally, his legal team cited the “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023, which they say demonstrated a “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”. The court has also heard that Harry offered to pay for his own security during a key family meeting at Sandringham in January 2020. In his memoir Spare, Harry described the terms of that departure as a “fix”. Fatima told the court, “It was deemed that Harry and his wife ceased to be full-time working members of the royal family on March 31, 2020, even though it had been agreed at the Sandringham meeting that ‘this agreement will be reviewed in one year’s time to determine suitability for all parties’.” Representing the home secretary, Sir James Eadie KC argued that Harry’s changed status meant his entitlement to security could no longer be automatic. “The decision was that, his position having materially changed, protective security would not be authorised on the same basis as before. Instead, [Harry’s] security would be considered depending on the circumstances,” he explained. Eadie added that Harry would still be eligible for protection “in particular circumstances” when visiting the UK. Harry previously faced a legal setback when a High Court judge dismissed one of his claims, leaving him with a legal bill that could reach £1 million. The Home Office disclosed that its own legal expenses had already reached £407,000 before the earlier trial began. If Harry is successful in this case, the additional legal costs, which are expected to be substantial, could be covered by taxpayers. Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, announced that the court would hear two and a half hours of confidential evidence behind closed doors on Wednesday. The hearing is ongoing. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-10 -
0
Supreme Court to Lower Judges: Stay in Your Lane — Trump Scores Three Judicial Victories
Supreme Court to Lower Judges: Stay in Your Lane — Trump Scores Three Judicial Victories In a series of key rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered what amounts to a triple win for former President Donald Trump, while issuing a firm reminder to lower courts: respect judicial boundaries and procedures. These decisions, handed down over the course of a week, do not decide the underlying legal merits of the cases but emphasize the importance of proper legal channels and standing. On Monday, a narrow 5-4 majority gave the Trump administration a partial victory regarding the deportation of Venezuelan nationals suspected of being involved with the Tren de Aragua gang. The Court allowed the administration to proceed under the Alien Enemies Act, but clarified that challenges to such deportations must be filed through habeas corpus petitions in the districts where the individuals are detained, rather than as broad class actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court also insisted that deportees be given notice and an opportunity to contest their deportations. This means that although deportations may continue, the administration cannot summarily deport these individuals without due process, and the use of the Alien Enemies Act remains subject to legal scrutiny. In essence, deportees retain the right to challenge the law’s application in court. The liberal Justices, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, dissented, preferring to keep a lower court’s order blocking deportations in place. However, critics argued this would have rewarded plaintiffs for forum-shopping after they initially filed and then withdrew habeas petitions to pursue a more favorable venue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh supported the majority’s position, writing in a concurrence that “the use of habeas for transfer claims is not novel. In the extradition context and with respect to transfers of Guantanamo and other wartime detainees, habeas corpus proceedings have long been the appropriate vehicle.” The ruling essentially opens the door for multiple district courts to weigh the legal viability of using the Alien Enemies Act for gang-related deportations, preventing one judge from halting the process nationwide. On Tuesday, the Court again checked judicial overreach by lifting an order that had required the Trump administration to reinstate 16,000 fired federal employees. The Justices did not rule on the merits but found that the environmental groups and labor unions behind the lawsuit lacked legal standing. To bring a case in federal court, plaintiffs must show they are likely to suffer a direct and concrete harm—a principle rooted in Article III of the Constitution. The plaintiffs’ claim that public service reductions might result from the firings was deemed speculative. Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the ruling. The majority pointed out that the fired employees still had recourse to challenge their dismissals through the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court issued its third ruling on Friday, again emphasizing procedural discipline. In a 5-4 decision, the Court permitted the Department of Education to withhold $65 million in grants intended for teacher training. A lower court had ordered the funds to be disbursed, but the Supreme Court ruled that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to enforcing contractual obligations to pay money. Those seeking such payments must pursue claims in federal claims court instead. This echoed an earlier dissent from Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, which Justice Barrett joined this time—though Chief Justice John Roberts did not. Justice Elena Kagan dissented sharply, accusing the conservative majority of “making new law on our emergency docket,” and arguing, “we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.” However, the majority countered that it was doing precisely that—ensuring cases proceed through regular judicial processes. The consistent thread through all three decisions is a reassertion of the Supreme Court’s expectation that lower courts stick to their jurisdictional responsibilities and uphold procedural integrity. Whether or not the cases ultimately favor the Trump administration, the High Court’s message is clear: judicial order must be preserved. Based on a report by WSJ 2025-04-10 -
0
Trump Administration Pulls Nearly $4 Million in Climate Research Funding from Princeton
Title: Trump Administration Pulls Nearly $4 Million in Climate Research Funding from Princeton The Trump administration has withdrawn close to $4 million in federal funding from Princeton University, according to a Tuesday announcement by the U.S. Department of Commerce. This move marks the latest in a series of funding halts and reviews impacting major Ivy League institutions, following similar actions taken against Columbia and Harvard in recent weeks. The funding cuts specifically target research projects related to climate change, including one focused on how global warming affects water availability. These projects were previously supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a subagency of the Department of Commerce. The administration justified the decision by stating that the programs “are no longer aligned with the program objectives of NOAA” and “are no longer in keeping with the Trump Administration's priorities.” The Commerce Department elaborated on the decision, saying, “Using federal funds to perpetuate these narratives does not align with the priorities of this Administration and such time and resources can be better utilized elsewhere.” The department emphasized that this latest move followed “a detailed, careful, and thorough review” of its financial assistance programs to NOAA. The administration stated that ending these projects would help to “streamline and reduce the cost and size of the Federal Government, consistent with President Trump’s promise for his Administration.” The implication is that climate research, particularly research pointing to global warming risks, is not considered a federal funding priority under the current administration. This decision is part of a broader pattern of reduced support for environmental and climate science under President Trump, who has frequently expressed skepticism toward climate change. Critics argue that pulling funding from leading research institutions hampers scientific progress and undermines efforts to understand and address climate risks. Representatives for Princeton University, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Based on a report by AXIOS 2025-04-10
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now