.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Appeals court confirms Trump's sexual abuse verdict.
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Zelensky’s Actions That Provoked Trump: Tensions Rise Over Ukraine War Negotiations
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has reportedly frustrated Donald Trump so much during ongoing peace negotiations with Russia that the former U.S. president nearly withdrew American military support for Ukraine, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. The friction between Trump and Zelensky escalated into a heated exchange that alarmed European allies, who fear the consequences of emboldening Russian President Vladimir Putin. “President Trump is obviously very frustrated right now with President Zelensky,” National Security Advisor Mike Waltz stated during a White House press briefing. The relationship between the two leaders has been uneasy since Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, which stemmed from his efforts to condition U.S. military aid on Zelensky’s willingness to investigate Joe Biden’s son and his connections to a Ukrainian gas company. Now, as Trump attempts to implement his promise of a swift resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war, he is finding it more difficult than expected. According to six administration officials, Zelensky made five key missteps over the past nine days that irritated Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Waltz. One official remarked that Zelensky “showed how not to do the ‘Art of the Deal’” when seeking Trump’s support. On February 12, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with Zelensky in Kyiv to offer a proposal granting the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral rights in exchange for de facto American protection. Trump later described Zelensky as “rude” for delaying the meeting because he had slept in. Two days later, at the Munich Security Conference, Vance and Rubio pressed Zelensky to approve the deal, only for him to respond that he lacked the authority to do so unilaterally without parliamentary approval. Then, on February 15, Zelensky publicly rejected the proposal at the conference, calling it “not in the interests of a sovereign Ukraine,” a stark contrast to his more optimistic remarks on social media the day before. The situation worsened on February 18 when Zelensky criticized peace talks held in Saudi Arabia between U.S. officials and Russian negotiators, saying Ukraine had been excluded. In response, an enraged Trump held a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, where he falsely claimed Zelensky had started the war with Russia and had an approval rating of only four percent. The conflict escalated further on February 19 when Zelensky retaliated, accusing Trump of living in a “disinformation space.” Trump then fired back on Truth Social, mocking Zelensky as a “modestly successful comedian” turned “dictator without elections,” a pointed remark given Trump’s refusal to label Putin a dictator. Vance later expressed his frustration with Zelensky’s actions. “He’s attacking the only reason [Ukraine] exists, publicly, right now. And it’s disgraceful. And it’s not something that is going to move the president of the United States. In fact, it’s going to have the opposite effect,” he told *The National Pulse.* Three administration sources suggested that Vance’s comments were a veiled threat that Trump could withdraw support from Ukraine altogether. From the White House’s perspective, Zelensky had grown too accustomed to the unconditional backing of former President Biden, NATO allies, and positive media coverage. “Zelensky is an actor who committed a common mistake of theater kids: He started to think he’s the character he plays on TV,” said one White House official involved in the negotiations. “Yes, he has been brave and stood up to Russia. But he would be six feet under if it wasn’t for the millions we spent, and he needs to exit stage right with all the drama.” Another official remarked, “We created a monster with Zelensky. And these Trump-deranged Europeans who won’t send troops are giving him terrible advice.” A third added, “In the course of a week, Zelensky rebuffed President Trump’s treasury secretary, his secretary of state, and his vice president, all before moving on to personally insulting President Trump in the press. What did Zelensky think was going to happen?” Despite the animosity, Trump’s team is still negotiating with Zelensky, and a revised mineral-rights deal remains on the table as part of a potential peace agreement. However, the deal itself could prove highly controversial. Based on public and private statements, Trump’s administration appears poised to pressure Zelensky into conceding Crimea, parts of eastern Ukraine, and the Azov Coast in exchange for an end to hostilities. Critics have likened the U.S. insistence on claiming a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to a “mafia shakedown,” arguing that Ukraine would be forced to surrender land and resources while gaining little in return. “It’s a sh*t sandwich,” admitted one Trump administration official. “But Ukraine is going to have to eat it because [Trump] has made clear this is no longer our problem.” Based on a report by AXIOS 2025-02-22 -
0
George Clooney Criticizes Media for Failing to Cover Biden’s Declining Abilities
Actor George Clooney acknowledged in an interview Thursday that the media failed in its coverage of former President Joe Biden’s fitness to serve. Speaking with The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, Clooney stated that Biden was irresponsible in concealing his "incapacities" and placed some of the blame on the press, saying, "the media, in many ways, dropped the ball." Reflecting on a moment in June when former President Barack Obama guided Biden offstage at a Los Angeles fundraiser, Clooney recalled seeing a noticeable decline. "I saw him for hours a year earlier at the Kennedy Center, and I saw someone much less sharp," he said. Dowd noted that the encounter left Clooney "gobsmacked." Despite his concerns, Clooney emphasized, "I’ve always liked Joe Biden, and I like him still." Clooney also addressed why former President Donald Trump won the election, attributing it in part to Biden’s messaging struggles. "The Biden administration was terrible at explaining that we’re a world economy, where we were actually doing better than all the other G7 countries. They were bad at telling the story because their messenger was not working at his best, to say the least," he said. Biden’s team has not responded to requests for comment from Fox News Digital. The longtime liberal actor has previously called for Biden to step aside, particularly after the president’s difficult debate performance against Trump. In a July guest essay for The New York Times, Clooney wrote, "It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fundraiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate." Clooney specifically referenced the June 2024 fundraiser in Los Angeles and noted that his decision to speak out was independent. "People thought Obama was behind it, but Clooney said he did it despite being urged not to," Dowd explained. During the interview, Clooney also criticized Trump, expressing his concerns about the political landscape. "I believe that whole idea of the arc of history bending toward justice, and I know it doesn’t feel that way right now," he told Dowd. "I think there are always these pendulum swings. The first Trump election was, I believe, a result of eight years of a Black president." He continued with a sharp critique of Trump’s leadership, stating, "No rules count anymore. It’s like letting an infant walk across the 405 freeway in the middle of the afternoon." Based on a report by NYP 2025-02-22 -
0
Hamas Sinks to New Lows with Hostage Body Swap
It is almost beyond comprehension that anyone could conceive of swapping the body of a murdered mother with that of an unknown Palestinian. Yet, on Thursday, the world watched in horror as Hamas handed over four coffins containing the remains of 85-year-old Oded Lifshitz, four-year-old Ariel Bibas, his infant brother Kfir, and their mother, Shiri. What should have been a moment of solemnity was instead turned into a grotesque spectacle, with throngs of Gazans celebrating as the tiny coffins of Ariel and Kfir came into view. As I witnessed these horrifying scenes, I thought that surely this must be a new low, even for Hamas. But history has shown that the terrorist group is always capable of descending further into depravity. By Thursday evening, the full extent of their cruelty became clear. The coffin meant to contain the remains of Shiri Bibas instead held the body of an unknown Gazan. Even in death, even as the family endured unfathomable grief, Hamas found a way to inflict more suffering—not just on the Bibas family, but on the entire Israeli nation, which has shared in their sorrow since October 7, 2023. The evil of Hamas is evident to anyone willing to see it. The atrocities of that day—when 1,200 Israelis were raped, tortured, and slaughtered, and 250 hostages were taken—made their barbarity indisputable. On Friday, the Israeli National Institute of Forensic Medicine confirmed the unimaginable: Ariel and Kfir Bibas had been “brutally murdered” in captivity in November 2023. What kind of mind could murder a toddler and a baby, and then use their corpses as bargaining chips? The level of malice required to not only commit these acts but to conceive of swapping a hostage’s body with that of a stranger is beyond belief. Yet, for Hamas, this was just another move in their campaign of psychological warfare. And yet, as these horrifying events unfolded, the so-called Free Palestine movement remained silent. The same groups that have taken to the streets in the name of “justice” failed to utter a single word of condemnation for the grotesque display of hate orchestrated by Hamas. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and their ideological allies had nothing to say about the revelry surrounding the bodies of murdered children. Their silence is not surprising, because hatred drives their worldview. When others see brutality, they see heroism. When others recoil in horror, they see a cause to champion. To any decent person, the sight of a crowd cheering at the sight of two tiny coffins is abhorrent. But to these extremists, it is a triumph. And when the world learned that the body of Shiri Bibas had been swapped, they likely admired the ingenuity of the deception rather than the agony it caused. For these people, hatred is their guiding force—specifically, hatred of Jews. There is no need to sugarcoat it with euphemisms. The protests are, and have always been, driven by antisemitism. The thousands who march under the banner of “Free Palestine” are, in reality, rallying for the deaths of Jews. Never forget that the PSC first sought permission to march at 2:50 p.m. on October 7, while the massacre was still unfolding. Never forget that their first protest took place on October 14, before a single Israeli soldier had entered Gaza. Their motivation has never been justice or peace—it has always been hate. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-02-22 -
0
Medical Watchdog Erases Past Sanctions for Gender-Transitioning Doctors
The General Medical Council (GMC) has confirmed that doctors who transition gender are issued new registrations, effectively wiping their past disciplinary records from public access. This revelation has sparked widespread concerns over transparency and accountability in the medical profession. The case of Sandie Peggie, a nurse currently in a legal battle with NHS Fife, has further intensified these concerns. Peggie alleges she was harassed after raising objections to sharing a women’s changing room with Dr. Beth Upton, a transgender doctor who was born male. She argues that NHS Fife prioritized Dr. Upton’s rights over her own right to single-sex facilities. While this case continues, the GMC’s approach to handling gender transitions among doctors has drawn sharp criticism. A GMC spokesperson confirmed that when a doctor transitions, their previous public-facing record is not linked to their new registration. “If a doctor had received a historical sanction [i.e. a suspension that is no longer in place] prior to transitioning, this information would not be available on their new public-facing record on the medical register,” the spokesperson stated. Dr. Upton is among 62 doctors who have been issued new GMC numbers post-transition, making it impossible for patients to trace their previous identities and any related disciplinary actions. A retired anaesthetist who contacted The Telegraph voiced concerns about this practice, emphasizing the importance of maintaining trust in medical professionals. “Because the GMC has an even more important role than it did a couple of decades ago—recording and marking the careers of doctors—people need to be confident about the identities of doctors,” the whistleblower said. A GMC number serves as a unique identifier throughout a doctor’s career, appearing on official documents such as training records, appraisals, and prescriptions. However, in cases where doctors transition, not only is their GMC number changed, but their prior record remains unlinked to their new identity in the publicly accessible database. Adding to the controversy, the GMC’s own guidelines do not require doctors to provide evidence of gender transition. This means that female patients who specifically request a female doctor have no means of verifying whether their doctor was biologically male. Furthermore, any past disciplinary measures, such as suspensions or formal warnings, do not carry over to the new public record, leading to concerns that a doctor with a history of professional misconduct could evade public scrutiny simply by transitioning. “There are extremely serious implications for the GMC issuing new numbers—essentially new identities—to 62 doctors,” said Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, a gender-critical human rights organization. The GMC maintains that internally, all records remain linked, ensuring that no doctor struck off the register can reapply under a new gender identity. However, critics argue that an upheld suspension, which would normally be visible for years, is effectively hidden from public view post-transition. The GMC has refused to disclose whether any of the 62 doctors who received new registrations had previously been subject to disciplinary action. “Owing to the complexities around information relating to doctors who have transitioned, we would need to carry out a Freedom of Information access request for details of any doctors who had ‘fitness to practise’ sanctions recorded on their pre-transition public-facing medical register entry,” a GMC spokesperson stated. Legal experts have also condemned the GMC’s policy. Sarah Vine, a KC at Doughty Street Chambers, argues that this approach is legally unsound. “There is a strong public interest in knowing a doctor’s disciplinary history. It’s very hard to argue that a doctor’s privacy is something that can override that legitimate purpose. It looks like a wholesale misreading of the application of human rights, domestic equality law and the Gender Recognition Act,” she said. Vine further asserts that under data protection law, publicly available disciplinary records cannot be erased simply because a doctor changes their gender identity. “What the GMC either fail to understand or are ignoring is that under data protection law, if a doctor’s suspensions are publicly available because there is a legitimate reason to provide that information to the public—which there clearly is in this context—that cannot be displaced simply because a doctor has asserted a particular gender identity and does not want to be known under the identity that aligns with their sex,” she explained. The case of Dr. Upton further highlights the wider issue. In Peggie’s ongoing tribunal, she claims she was harassed by being required to share a changing room with Dr. Upton, a claim disputed by both the doctor and the health board. Despite the ongoing tribunal, NHS Fife has now launched a misconduct hearing against Peggie for allegedly misgendering Dr. Upton. GMC records can sometimes be updated—for instance, to reflect a name change after marriage or divorce—but a doctor’s GMC number traditionally remains the same throughout their career. The practice of issuing entirely new numbers to doctors who transition is what critics say undermines accountability. Dr. Louise Irvine, co-chair of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG), argues that the GMC is failing in its duty to ensure transparency. “When you look up ‘Dr Beth Upton’ and you don’t see any reference to the doctor’s professional life or records before the change of identity and GMC number, including previous name, then you have a problem with accountability and transparency. That should be the public purpose of the GMC. They shouldn’t be obscuring past information,” she said. Indeed, Dr. Upton’s previous registration was “relinquished” in April 2023, but there is no mention of this on the current record. Dr. Irvine emphasizes that the GMC’s stance forces patients to rely on healthcare providers for accurate information about their doctor’s biological sex—an unreliable solution, as demonstrated by the ongoing tribunal in Fife. “Gender is irrelevant in this context; for many women, it’s sex that matters when it comes to healthcare provision, especially for intimate care. Patients need to be able to find this information when they want it,” she stated. The retired anaesthetist who contacted The Telegraph warned of the long-term implications of the GMC’s policy. “The GMC oversees the accumulation of data and information over the course of your career, so it feels wrong that that data should be missing or appearing under a different name and number,” she said. “I worry about that aspect of it.” Based on a report by The Daily Telegraph 2025-02-22 -
0
UK Parole Board Defies Justice Secretary in Controversial Release of Terrorist
The Parole Board has overruled opposition from the Justice Secretary and re-released Shah Rahman, a convicted terrorist who plotted to bomb the London Stock Exchange. Rahman, who was one of four British extremists inspired by al Qaeda, had pleaded guilty to preparing acts of terrorism in 2012. At the time of his arrest, a handwritten target list was discovered at the home of one of the conspirators. The list contained the names and addresses of then-London mayor Boris Johnson, two rabbis, the US embassy, and the stock exchange. The planned attacks were thwarted before specific dates could be set, thanks to undercover anti-terror police. Rahman was subsequently sentenced to 12 years in prison with an additional five years on extended licence. He was first released in 2017 under the automatic release provisions of his sentence. However, he was recalled to prison in March 2022 after authorities discovered he had a secret bank account, breaching the conditions of his release. This led to a further eight-month prison term. Since his recall, the Parole Board has conducted two reviews of his case. The first, in February 2023, concluded that he should remain incarcerated. However, following a hearing on January 24 this year, the board decided that Rahman’s continued imprisonment was “no longer necessary for the protection of the public.” In its summary of the decision, the Parole Board stated: “The panel determined that there were no heightened concerns of an extremist risk and that Mr Rahman met the legal test for release.” The board cited his participation in psychological sessions designed to address his breach of licence and to help him gain a better understanding of his faith. The report further noted that Rahman had claimed he was radicalized by events in Iraq and Afghanistan, admitting that he lacked a proper understanding of Islam and had been influenced by extremists. Although there were initial concerns about the people he associated with upon his return to prison, the board noted that he had not been subject to security attention and that no concerns had been recorded since October 2024. Despite opposition from a representative of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, the board concluded that Rahman could be managed in the community under a strict supervision plan. This includes around 30 licence conditions, extensive monitoring, and measures deemed “robust enough” to mitigate any potential risk. Under the conditions of his release, Rahman must reside at a designated address, submit to enhanced supervision including curfews and GPS tagging, and comply with police searches under measures designed to manage extremist offenders. However, the decision to free him has raised questions about the balance between public safety and rehabilitation, as well as the effectiveness of the parole system in handling high-risk individuals. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-02-22 -
0
Germany’s Hidden Defence Crisis: Politicians Dodge Tough Truths Before Election
As Germany heads toward a crucial general election, political leaders are avoiding difficult conversations about defence spending, the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine, and the future of European security. Instead, they have shifted the focus to the struggling economy and migration, a move that has bolstered support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland while keeping voters in the dark about the country’s looming financial and security challenges. Friedrich Merz, the leader of the conservative CDU/CSU, has sidestepped the issue of massive borrowing for defence, as many of his supporters oppose increasing national debt. Meanwhile, Social Democratic (SPD) Chancellor Olaf Scholz has avoided discussing the possibility of sending German troops to Ukraine as part of a European security force, should a ceasefire be reached. With segments of his political base being anti-militarist or sympathetic to Russia, Scholz has been reluctant to address the topic. Following an emergency European summit on Ukraine in Paris, Scholz dismissed speculation about deploying troops as “highly inappropriate.” Neither of these key contenders for leadership is willing to confront voters with the stark reality of Germany’s security vulnerabilities, especially as Donald Trump pushes for a rapid deal with Vladimir Putin—one that seems to favour Moscow’s interests. A deal of this nature could lead to a significant reduction in the U.S. military presence in Europe, leaving Germany dangerously exposed. “Nobody wants to get caught speaking the truth before the election,” says Jan Techau, a former defence ministry speechwriter and director of Europe at the Eurasia Group. “In the worst-case scenario, if Trump pulls off this deal with Putin and carves up Europe into spheres of influence, Germany is very exposed.” Unlike France and the UK, Germany lacks its own nuclear deterrent. Its military has been significantly weakened over the past three decades due to underfunding, making it difficult even to equip a brigade of 5,000 troops for NATO’s deterrence force in Lithuania. Scholz initially responded to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by announcing a Zeitenwende, or turning point, and creating a €100 billion fund for defence. However, he has not effectively convinced the German public that the country must abandon its postwar reluctance toward military engagement. Military and intelligence officials warn that Russia could be ready to attack a NATO country by 2030. However, at the current pace of military rebuilding, experts predict it could take decades for Germany to restore its armed forces to a capable state. Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of the German Council on Foreign Relations observes, “Even the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine has not created a sense of urgency in Germany – a sense that time to rebuild the military is not infinite.” The Kiel Institute for the World Economy has estimated that, at the current rate of procurement, it would take nearly a century to restore the army’s artillery howitzer numbers to their 2004 levels. Once the €100 billion special fund is depleted at the end of 2027, Germany will face an annual €30 billion shortfall just to maintain NATO’s current target of 2% of GDP for defence spending. Achieving the likely new target of 3% or more—expected to be set by allied leaders in June—would require almost double that amount. If Trump withdraws U.S. forces from Europe, the financial burden will rise even further. Merz has pledged that if elected, he will begin by cutting inefficient welfare spending and implementing tax cuts to stimulate economic growth before considering additional borrowing. He has hinted at the possibility of reforming Germany’s strict constitutional “debt brake” to allow for greater fiscal flexibility, including potential joint borrowing with European partners for defence investments. He has also criticized Scholz’s lack of leadership in the EU and committed to mending strained relations with France and Poland, collaborating more closely with the UK, and taking a stronger role in supporting Ukraine. Unlike Scholz, he has backed supplying Ukraine with Taurus medium-range missiles capable of striking targets inside Russia, provided there is consensus among European allies. A close parliamentary colleague describes Merz as a committed pro-European and Atlanticist who understands that Germany will need to act swiftly to bolster its defences. However, significant hurdles remain. It is uncertain whether he will have the political capital to secure the extensive borrowing required for defence investment while also addressing Germany’s crumbling infrastructure. Reforming the debt brake would require a parliamentary super-majority, and his potential SPD coalition partners may resist aggressive cuts to welfare spending in favor of military investment. By failing to prepare the public for the difficult financial choices ahead, Merz risks setting himself up for major political struggles in the near future. When the time comes to make tough decisions on public spending and borrowing, he may find that the real battle has only just begun. Based on a report by The Guardian 2025-02-22
-
-
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