.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
If You'Re Listening To Music Now... Whats Playing? 4
.thumb.jpg.2e7182ea6c595e457e700fe3a3766fa3.jpg)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
101
Longest Sentences Yet for Rioters Involved in Racist Mob Violence Across England
I've noticed a new variant of Godwin's law, where any internet conversation inevitably results in comparisons to the Nazis Mike Goodwin talking years later about his Law https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/03/godwins-law-mike-godwin-hitler-nazi-comparisons.html But actually Godwin's Law predates before even MIke Goodwin was born. It was the East Germans who came up with it in the 50s, when they took umbrage at broadcasts from "Radio in the American Sector", which was obviously broadcasting news about the free world into the GDR. The best the GDR could come up with was to literally call the American broadcasters a bunch of Nazis. Now it seems there are elements of society, for reasons only known to themselves. to substitute Communist/Socialist for Nazi. This isn't the same as Reds-under-the-Bed. Like people who threw around the word Nazi into every conversation, this mob of thickos don't really have any idea of what Communist or Socialist (or Marxist, Trotskyite, Leninist etc) actually means.. Its just some word they heard their grandad used when they were a kid, and now they are using, in same way as "Nazi" to try and shut down discussion, which is very Communist of them. I expect Yellow Peril to see some revival in some quarters (this quite an old term of abuse, reaching back to the 19th century); the Kaiser used the term die Gelbe Gefahr, and used that as the excuse for war with China, which is reality was all about setting the stage for WW1, and ultimately who would hold hegemony over the Globe (the Kaiser thought it should be him). -
113
Several neighbouring countries compete with Thailand for foreign retirees
A new version of Airbnb. I could never live in Thailand all year round, I’d be bored silly. Same as I don’t live all year round in my home town , I go away often . -
17
Thailand likely detects a new, more dangerous mpox variant
South Devon is where the English Riviera is located. 😁 I suggest you visit this website for suggestions on how to visit the picturesque South Devon region. https://www.visitsouthdevon.co.uk/ I doubt they have machete waving thugs running about like they do in London and the north west. The only machetes I see now are in Thailand are at the market. They know how to slice their melons with gusto. If you miss the SRT, visit the Babbacombe Cliff Railway. 🙂 -
114
British family struggles with father’s funeral costs in Thailand
Would you go back for your mother's or father s funeral if they were still alive ? -
15
-
66
Pattaya review by stickman Aug 18, 2024
Yeah, John Galt. I just read one of his screeds, made it sound like Stickman burned down an orphanage or some such. I think I saw it on a mongering board. -
0
New Raid on Andrew Tate’s Residence Allegations Involving Minors
Romanian police have conducted another raid on the residence of Andrew Tate, a controversial social media influencer, who is currently facing serious charges, including human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. The raid took place on Wednesday morning at the home Tate shares with his brother, Tristan Tate, in Romania. Both brothers have been under intense scrutiny as they await trial for these allegations. A dozen masked officers descended upon the property, marking another significant moment in the ongoing investigation led by Romania’s anti-organized crime agency, DIICOT. The agency confirmed that four homes in the counties of Bucharest and Ilfov were being searched in connection with a broad investigation that includes allegations of human trafficking, trafficking of minors, sexual intercourse with a minor, influencing statements, and money laundering. The presence of police and forensic teams at the Tate residence underscores the seriousness with which Romanian authorities are pursuing these charges. Mateea Petrescu, a spokesperson for Andrew Tate, responded to the raids by acknowledging that the charges listed in the search warrant were not fully clarified at the time but included suspicions of human trafficking and money laundering. Petrescu emphasized that the legal team representing the Tates was present during the raids, although notably, there was no direct addressal of the allegations involving minors. As the investigation continues, the Romanian authorities have reiterated the importance of the legal process and the rights of those under investigation. DIICOT stated, “During the entire criminal process, the investigated persons benefit from the procedural rights and guarantees provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the presumption of innocence.” This statement highlights that, despite the severity of the allegations, the legal system in Romania ensures that the accused are afforded their legal rights and protections. Andrew Tate, 37, and his brother Tristan, 36, are both former kickboxers and hold dual British-U.S. citizenship. They have gained massive followings on social media, amassing millions of followers worldwide. However, their online presence has been marred by controversy, particularly Andrew Tate’s expression of misogynistic views. The brothers were arrested in 2022 near Bucharest, alongside two Romanian women, and were formally indicted by Romanian prosecutors last year. They have consistently denied all allegations. The legal process has been lengthy, with the Bucharest Tribunal ruling in April that the prosecutors’ case file against the Tates met the necessary legal criteria, thereby allowing a trial to proceed. However, the court did not set a specific date for the trial to begin. The delay was partly due to the preliminary chamber stages, where defendants have the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the case file presented by the prosecutors. Following their arrest in 2022, the Tate brothers were initially held in police detention for three months before being placed under house arrest. Their movements were further restricted to the Bucharest and Ilfov counties, and later to all of Romania. Last month, a court decision that had allowed the Tates to leave Romania was overturned. Previously, on July 5, the court had ruled that the brothers could travel within the 27-member European Union as long as they remained within its borders. However, the more recent ruling is final, and they must stay in Romania as they await trial. Andrew Tate has consistently maintained his innocence, claiming that there is no evidence against him and alleging that the charges are part of a broader political conspiracy aimed at silencing him. Despite his legal troubles, Tate continues to wield significant influence online, with 9.9 million followers on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter). His notoriety online is linked to his outspoken and often controversial views, which have previously led to bans from various social media platforms due to his misogynistic remarks and hate speech. In addition to the ongoing Romanian case, the Tate brothers are also facing legal challenges in the United Kingdom. In March, they appeared at the Bucharest Court of Appeal following British authorities’ issuance of arrest warrants related to allegations of sexual aggression in a U.K. case dating back to 2012-2015. The appeals court in Romania granted the British request to extradite the Tates, but stipulated that the extradition would only occur after the legal proceedings in Romania have been concluded. Credit: The Independent 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Rising Tempers & Clashing Vessels: The Philippines Faces New Dangers in the South China Sea
Tensions are rising in the volatile South China Sea, where fresh confrontations between China and the Philippines have escalated the risks closer to the shores of a key U.S. ally. In the early hours of Monday morning, a series of collisions occurred between coast guard ships from the two nations, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing disputes over territorial claims in the region. The incidents unfolded in the dark of night, between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. local time, when at least three collisions were reported near Sabina Shoal, an uninhabited reef located just 75 nautical miles from the Philippines’ west coast. According to the Philippine authorities, the first collision caused a significant hole, 3.6 feet in diameter, on the starboard side of a Philippine coast guard vessel. Only 16 minutes later, another Chinese coast guard ship rammed a different Philippine coast guard vessel twice, creating a gap 2.5 feet long and 3 feet wide on the port side. The Philippine government has squarely blamed China for these incidents, accusing the Chinese coast guard of aggressive and dangerous maneuvers. "We can fairly say that this is the biggest structural damage we have incurred as a result of the dangerous maneuvers carried out by the Chinese coast guard," said Jay Tarriela, a spokesman for the Philippine coast guard. China, however, has a different version of events, accusing the Philippine coast guard of deliberately causing the collisions. These latest confrontations are particularly significant because they occurred near Sabina Shoal, a location that has recently become a new flashpoint in the ongoing territorial disputes between the two nations. While previous confrontations have centered around Second Thomas Shoal, located about 30 nautical miles west of Sabina Shoal and roughly 100 nautical miles off the Philippines' west coast, Monday’s incidents mark a worrying shift in the focus of these disputes. Second Thomas Shoal, unlike Sabina Shoal, is a military outpost manned by a small detachment of Filipino marines. The area has been a source of tension for over a year, with China repeatedly trying to disrupt the Philippines’ resupply missions to the outpost. Despite an agreement reached in July between the two nations to ease tensions, disagreements have persisted, and Monday’s collision raises new questions about the durability of that deal. As the Philippines has adopted a more assertive stance against China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, it has faced increased pressure from Beijing. This pressure has been exerted both diplomatically and through forceful actions at sea. Chinese vessels have employed various aggressive tactics around Second Thomas Shoal, including spraying water cannons, ramming Philippine ships, and even threatening Filipino military personnel with axes and knives. The Chinese coast guard is often accompanied by maritime militia boats, further outnumbering the Philippines in these encounters. While Sabina Shoal was not initially considered a major flashpoint like Second Thomas Shoal, tensions have been brewing there for months. China claims both sites, which lie within the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, as part of its broader claim to much of the South China Sea. However, a 2016 ruling by an international arbitral tribunal found that China’s claims have no legal basis—a ruling that Beijing has steadfastly rejected. In response to what it perceives as increased Chinese activity at Sabina Shoal, the Philippines has taken steps to assert its presence in the area. In mid-April, the Philippines deployed a large coast guard ship, the BRP Teresa Magbanua, for an extended stay at Sabina Shoal. This move was prompted by China’s increased deployment of maritime militia boats and research vessels to the area. In a briefing to journalists in May, the Philippine coast guard reported that Chinese research vessels had been observed at Sabina Shoal, sending divers to take measurements and make assessments of the area. The Philippines’ response included deploying small inflatable boats to monitor Chinese activities more closely. On at least one occasion, these boats were blocked by Chinese coast guard ships. The Philippine coast guard also reported the presence of Chinese navy vessels and helicopters, as well as a significant number of maritime militia boats at the site. Philippine divers tasked with studying the area also made a disturbing discovery: what appeared to be dead and crushed corals dumped underwater at various locations around Sabina Shoal. The Philippine coast guard warned that this could be a precursor to possible land reclamation by China—a tactic that Beijing has used before in the South China Sea, where it has constructed artificial islands that now serve as military bases. "If we don’t monitor and guard this, maybe in the following months, we’ll be shocked again that in Sabina Shoal, they’ve expanded the island," Tarriela warned during the May briefing. In response, China’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the Philippine assertions as "sheer rumor" and accused Manila of spreading "irresponsible claims designed to vilify China and mislead the international community." Over the months following these accusations, China has continued to pressure the Philippines, urging Manila to withdraw its vessels from Sabina Shoal. The situation came to a head on Monday when the two Philippine coast guard ships involved in the collisions were en route to resupply a different Philippine site in the South China Sea. The ships were passing near Sabina Shoal when they encountered the Chinese coast guard. Despite sustaining significant damage, the Philippine ships continued their mission, according to statements from the Philippine government. These incidents underscore the increasingly dangerous situation in the South China Sea, where the risk of escalation into a broader conflict looms large. The proximity of these confrontations to the Philippines, a key U.S. ally, raises the stakes for all parties involved, particularly given the potential for U.S. involvement under its mutual defense treaty with Manila. The South China Sea has long been a flashpoint for geopolitical tensions, with multiple nations laying claim to various parts of the sea. However, the recent encounters between China and the Philippines, particularly near Sabina Shoal, have brought the dangers closer to home for the Philippines. As China continues to assert its claims in the region, the potential for further confrontations—and the risk of these incidents spiraling into a larger conflict—remains high. The Philippines, for its part, is likely to continue its efforts to resist China’s advances in the South China Sea, bolstered by its alliance with the United States. However, as the events of Monday demonstrate, the path ahead is fraught with peril, and the situation remains volatile. The collisions at Sabina Shoal are a stark reminder of the fragility of peace in the South China Sea and the ever-present risks that come with contested territorial claims in one of the world’s most strategically important regions. Credit: WSJ 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
John Fetterman’s Defiant Stand No Show at DNC: Navigating the Rift in the Democratic Party
John Fetterman, the towering and unconventional senator from Pennsylvania, is no stranger to controversy or the complexities of his own party. Once hailed as a beacon of Rust Belt revitalization and a progressive champion, Fetterman has recently found himself increasingly at odds with the Democratic Party. His steadfast support for Israel, particularly in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, has drawn both public protests and internal criticism. Despite the mounting pressure, Fetterman remains unyielding in his stance, emphasizing his commitment to what he perceives as the morally correct path, even if it means alienating himself from the very base that once celebrated him. Fetterman’s decision to skip the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this year has raised eyebrows and fueled speculation about his standing within the party. However, the senator is quick to dismiss any notion that his absence has anything to do with the growing discord over his pro-Israel stance. "I’ve got three young kids, and they’re out of school," Fetterman explained, emphasizing his desire to spend time with his family over the four-day event. He also clarified that the decision to miss the convention was made "well before that debate," referring to the June 27 confrontation between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, which ultimately led to Biden stepping aside and Kamala Harris securing the Democratic nomination. The contrast between Fetterman and Harris could not be starker. Fetterman, a six-foot-eight figure clad in hoodies and shorts, resides in Braddock, a struggling ex-steel town just outside Pittsburgh that has lost 90 percent of its population. Harris, on the other hand, owns a home in the affluent Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles and is often seen donning double-stranded pearls and pantsuits. While Fetterman’s politics are fueled by what seems to be an earnest and almost reckless sense of righteousness, Harris’s beliefs remain less clear, leaving some to question what she truly stands for. On the day of the Hamas attacks, Harris tweeted a message that was as inoffensive as it was unobjectionable: "Doug’s and my prayers are with the victims of the heinous terrorist attacks in Israel. @POTUS and my support for Israel’s security is unwavering." Meanwhile, Fetterman’s response was far more forceful: "I forcefully condemn these cowardly, horrifying, unprovoked attacks on Israel by Hamas. Attacking innocent civilians is particularly despicable and reflects the craven behavior of this terrorist group. I unequivocally stand with the people of Israel now, and always." This disparity in responses highlights the growing chasm within the Democratic Party, particularly when it comes to Israel. While Harris’s statement was designed to offend as few people as possible, Fetterman’s declaration left no room for ambiguity. It is perhaps this stark clarity in his position that has led to his increasing isolation within the party. When asked if he ever feels lonely in his own party, Fetterman responded with uneasy laughter, "Well, I mean, it’s, it’s… I keep saying, just like the convention, it’s not about me." Despite his reassurances, it’s difficult to ignore the shift that has taken place within the Democratic Party—a shift that has left Fetterman, once a symbol of Rust Belt cool and progressive values, out in the cold. In 2022, Fetterman was the darling of the left. He was bald, hulking, and adorned with a goatee and tattoos, projecting a surly demeanor that resonated with voters who felt the Democratic Party had drifted too far from its working-class roots. His support for LGBTQIA+ rights and pro-choice stance further endeared him to the party’s progressive wing. Celebrities like Kerry Washington, Padma Lakshmi, John Legend, and even Oprah Winfrey—who had previously helped launch the television career of Fetterman’s Trump-backed Republican opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz—lined up to endorse him. But the love affair with Fetterman didn’t last. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most prominent voices of the progressive left, suggested in May that Fetterman is a bully. Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan lamented on Twitter that "a lot of folks don’t recognize John Fetterman these days." The Patriot-News, based in Harrisburg, published an op-ed titled "I wish I had never voted for you," addressing Fetterman directly. The turning point for Fetterman’s relationship with the progressive wing of the party appears to have been his shift away from identifying as a progressive. In December, the senator tweeted, "I’m not a progressive, I’m just a regular Democrat," signaling a departure from his earlier self-identification as a "progressive champion" during his unsuccessful Senate run in 2016. This shift, coupled with his unwavering support for Israel, has left many progressives feeling betrayed. Since the October 7 attacks, Fetterman has found an unexpected, albeit cautious, warmth from Republicans. "How is it possible that John Fetterman in the last few months has seemingly become more based than half of the Senate GOP???" Donald Trump Jr. tweeted in January. A Republican strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, confessed, "No clue what this cat is up to." Fetterman’s embrace of border security may have contributed to this newfound, albeit tenuous, appreciation from the right, but his real transgression in the eyes of progressives has been his unflinching support for Israel. The backlash has been swift and unrelenting. In November, protesters outside the Capitol booed him. In January, anti-Israel protesters descended on Fetterman’s home in Braddock, where he defiantly took to the roof, waving an Israeli flag. Online, activists derisively dubbed him "Genocide John." Every Friday for months, protesters have demonstrated outside his Philadelphia office, chanting slogans like "Let Gaza live" and "Cease-fire now." These protests, known as "Fridays at Fetterman’s," have become a regular occurrence. The opposition to Fetterman’s stance isn’t limited to external activists. Even within his own office, there are staff members who disagree with him on Israel and Gaza. "I don’t agree with him," admitted Carrie Adams, Fetterman’s communications director, in a candid phone conversation. Adams suggested that Fetterman’s views are shaped by a less nuanced understanding of the region, influenced by the "might makes right" mentality prevalent during his formative years. In contrast, she noted that her generation and younger ones—who are often the ones protesting—tend to have a more nuanced view of the region. This level of internal dissent is rare in Washington, especially when it comes to criticizing "the principal," as Fetterman is known within his team. It underscores the generational and ideological divide that has opened up within the Democratic Party, particularly on issues related to Israel and Palestine. A January poll revealed that 65 percent of college students held a favorable opinion of the pro-Hamas encampments that took over many university campuses in the spring. This generational divide is not confined to college campuses; it has infiltrated the party’s ranks, threatening to erupt during the convention, where as many as 100,000 protesters are expected. Fetterman is keenly aware of the divide but remains steadfast in his convictions. "I’ve been frustrated by some of my members and how they’ve chosen to handle that situation," Fetterman said, referring to Israel’s war against Hamas. While he did not name specific Democratic members, it is likely he was alluding to the Squad and other members of the Progressive Caucus who have been vocal in their criticism of Israel. "I don’t agree with a lot of their views, but whatever kinds of political choices or any kind of political costs that I’ve incurred throughout all that, I don’t care." He added with conviction, "I haven’t once even regretted any of that." Fetterman’s unconventional style and progressive policies made him a darling of the left, but his recent shift on Israel has caused a rift with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. His decision to distance himself from the progressive label and his unwavering support for Israel have led to accusations of betrayal from some of his former supporters. Despite the criticism, Fetterman remains unapologetic. He argues that his support for Israel is rooted in a commitment to justice and the protection of innocent lives. "There’s a moral imperative to support Israel in its fight against terrorism," Fetterman has said. "Hamas is a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of innocent people. To equate their actions with those of a democratic state like Israel is not only wrong but dangerous." Fetterman’s stance has earned him praise from some quarters, including Republicans who see him as a rare Democratic voice willing to stand up for Israel. However, it has also alienated him from many of his former allies on the left. The protests outside his home and office, as well as the criticism from within his own team, are indicative of the deep divisions that have opened up within the Democratic Party on this issue. He is driven by a deep sense of moral duty, one that often puts him at odds with the very people who once supported him. In the end, Fetterman’s journey from progressive hero to polarizing figure within his own party underscores the complexities of modern American politics. It is a reminder that even in a time of deep political polarization, there are still those who are willing to stand firm in their beliefs, no matter the cost. Whether Fetterman’s stance will ultimately prove to be politically wise or whether it will cost him the support of his party remains an open question. For now, he seems content to weather the storm, confident in the righteousness of his cause and unafraid of the consequences. Credit: TFP 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Tensions Erupt as Anti-Israel Protesters Clash with Police Outside Chicago Consulate DNC
On a tense night in Chicago, as anti-Israel protesters clashed with police officers outside the Israeli consulate, which is located just a couple of miles from the United Center, where the Democratic National Convention was taking place. The demonstrators, who were chanting "Free, free Palestine" and waving Palestinian flags, attempted to break through a police line formed by officers in riot gear outside the building housing the consulate. Videos captured the chaotic scene as police officers were seen shoving demonstrators, with some being tackled to the ground before being taken into custody. The night saw at least eight arrests. Adding to the tension, some protesters set fire to an American flag in the middle of the street, an act that further inflamed the situation. As dusk fell, the protesters shifted their chants to, "CPD, go home or we will bring the war home!" indicating their readiness for a continued standoff with law enforcement. One speaker, amplifying the urgency and anger of the crowd, shouted into a microphone, "Make them feel what Gaza feels! Make the DNC feel what Gaza feels! This f–king empire needs to burn to the ground!" The intensity of the emotions and rhetoric highlighted the depth of the protesters' grievances, particularly regarding the situation in Gaza. The Chicago Police Department issued an order to disperse the crowd around 8:30 p.m. local time. However, the protests had already made their mark, both in the physical scuffles with police and the symbolic acts, such as the flag burning. Among the protesters was Mike Lehman, a 50-year-old Chicago resident, who held a sign that read, "make Israel pay all its war-murder costs now." Lehman expressed his desire for the Democratic Party to take a stronger stance against Israel, reflecting the sentiments of many who had gathered that evening. The protests coincided with the second night of the Democratic National Convention, during which several prominent Democrats, including Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders, as well as former President Barack Obama, were slated to speak. The proximity of the protests to such a significant political event underscored the broader national and international implications of the unrest. The Israeli consulate in Chicago has been a focal point for demonstrations since the outbreak of war in Gaza on October 7. The consulate is located in a building connected to the Ogilvie Transportation Center, a key hub for commuters. On Tuesday, law enforcement had closed most of the entrances to the consulate, leaving only one entrance open to travelers, where armed officers were stationed. The Associated Press reported that many of the shops within the building were also closed in anticipation of potential unrest. Earlier in the day, a group of Israel supporters, including family members of hostages kidnapped by Hamas, gathered near the consulate at an art installation. They called for continued U.S. military support for Israel and urged action to free those still held captive by the militants. This gathering provided a stark contrast to the later clashes, illustrating the deep divisions within the community regarding the conflict. While pro-Palestinian protesters have been given an array of accommodations by the city, the Jewish protesters are only able to gather due to the donation of a private lot by an owner for their use. Even as pro-Palestinian protesters veered off approved routes and tore down security fencing, it will be the Jewish protesters who will reportedly remain confined to this private lot under the watchful eye of the Chicago Police Department. Josh Weiner, co-founder of Chicago Jewish Alliance, confirmed that the group was not granted permits, so all they could do is walk around such approved protests to “make our presence felt.” He added that “pro-Palestine protesters have gotten multiple permits, including a march, which seems to be a little bit weighted on one side.” For Chicagoans like myself, the treatment of the pro-Israel protesters at the DNC could not be more ironic or disturbing. As the Democratic National Convention continued, the protests served as a stark reminder of the ongoing and passionate debate surrounding U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The clashes in Chicago highlighted the deep divisions and the powerful emotions that the issue evokes on both sides. As the convention progressed, the city remained on high alert, with the potential for further demonstrations and unrest looming large. Credit: NYP 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Trump's Abortion Pill Stance Refuses to Ban Mail Delivery of Abortion Drugs
Former President Donald Trump recently clarified his stance on the federal regulation of abortion pills, and his position has ignited significant controversy among conservatives and anti-abortion activists. In an interview with CBS News, Trump declared that if re-elected, he would not use the 150-year-old Comstock Act to ban the mail delivery of abortion drugs, stating, “The federal government should have nothing to do with this issue.” This statement has been met with strong disapproval from many on the right, who view it as a betrayal of pro-life values. Prominent conservatives have labeled Trump's remarks as "nonsensical" and "cowardly," expressing concerns that his position could weaken support and enthusiasm among right-leaning voters in the upcoming election. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was particularly vocal, stating, “It is not a pro-life position, it’s not an acceptable position, and it does not provide the contrast on this issue to the degree that we have had in the past between him and Kamala Harris. What President Trump is doing is suppressing his own support.” Trump's relationship with anti-abortion advocates has been complex, despite his role in appointing Supreme Court justices who played a pivotal part in overturning Roe v. Wade. This latest clash over his refusal to endorse a national abortion ban, along with his efforts to soften certain aspects of the GOP platform, has sparked further outrage from conservatives, including his former vice president, Mike Pence. The Trump campaign has yet to respond to the backlash. Meanwhile, abortion opponents have been exploring various legislative and legal strategies to restrict access to abortion pills, with many focusing on the Comstock Act as a potential tool. This law, originating from the 1870s and named after an official who opposed various forms of vice, prohibits the mailing of any "lewd or lascivious material," which includes any substance or instrument that could be used for an abortion. Some conservatives view the Comstock Act as a means of curtailing the distribution of abortion pills without the need for congressional approval. In 2023, Trump's running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance, joined other members of Congress in urging the Justice Department to utilize the Comstock Act to prosecute those involved in the "reckless distribution of abortion drugs by mail." However, Trump's recent rejection of the Comstock approach has been perceived as hypocritical by many anti-abortion activists. They argue that his stance effectively endorses the actions of doctors and advocacy groups who mail abortion pills into states where they are banned, further complicating the legal landscape. Kristi Hamrick, chief policy strategist with Students for Life of America, criticized Trump's position, stating, “President Trump keeps saying that he wants to be out of the federal business of abortion. So, number one, stop funding it. And, two, end the federal prejudice in favor of this distribution.” Hamrick also warned that Trump's Comstock stance could undermine the GOP's reputation as the party of law and order, emphasizing, “We can’t ignore the rule of law and pick and choose the laws that we want to enforce.” Although the Comstock Act remains on the books, its scope has been significantly narrowed over the years. Lawmakers and judges have limited its application, and in 2022, the Biden administration issued a legal memo arguing that the law does not prohibit the mail delivery of abortion medication unless the sender intends for it to be used illegally. Despite efforts by Democrats in Congress to repeal the law, it continues to be a point of contention in the ongoing debate over abortion access. This is not the first time Trump has clashed with anti-abortion groups since leaving office. He has previously rejected calls for federal restrictions on abortion, blamed anti-abortion activists for electoral losses in 2022 and 2023, and led efforts to modify certain anti-abortion elements of the GOP platform. His recent comments have only deepened the rift between Trump and the anti-abortion movement. Conservatives were also frustrated by Trump's characterization of a recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion pills. The Court declined to roll back access to the pills but did not address the merits of the case, instead sending it back to lower courts for further consideration. Trump’s assertion that abortion pills are "going to be available" and that the Supreme Court had effectively endorsed this status quo further alienated his pro-life base. Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, expressed her disappointment with Trump's stance, saying, “Unfortunately, it seems like Trump doesn’t care about the pro-life base anymore. He came out recently and said that he supported access to these deadly abortion drugs, and that is horrific.” While many abortion opponents remain pessimistic about their chances of changing Trump’s mind, some activists are continuing to apply pressure. Students for Life has sent open letters to Trump and is engaging in "a lot of backdoor conversations" with his team. Rose, meanwhile, is lobbying Trump and other candidates to take a stronger pro-life stance, warning that failure to do so could cost them the election. “When Trump is publicly compromising, it’s deeply discouraging to pro-life and pro-family voters, and I think that he’s putting his own election in jeopardy,” Rose said. “Quite frankly, this is a losing strategy.” As the debate over abortion continues to evolve, Trump's latest remarks have only intensified the divisions within the conservative movement. The coming months will reveal whether these internal conflicts will have a lasting impact on the GOP’s electoral prospects and the broader fight over abortion rights in the United States. Credit: Politico 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Biden's New Nuclear Strategy: A Shift Toward China
President Joe Biden has approved revisions to a classified nuclear strategy document that significantly alters Washington's approach to nuclear deterrence. For the first time, the strategy now prioritizes addressing China's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal, signaling a major shift in U.S. defense policy. The document, titled "Nuclear Employment Guidance," was updated in March, marking a crucial development in the ongoing redefinition of global nuclear threats. The updates to this strategic document are highly classified, with only a few hard copies distributed to select national security and Pentagon officials. The New York Times reported on these changes, noting that the document is revised approximately every four years. No electronic versions exist, underscoring the sensitive nature of the information contained within. Hints of this strategic pivot were recently evident in public comments by senior Biden administration officials. In June, Pranay Vaddi, the National Security Council's senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation, emphasized the need for a strategy that could simultaneously deter Russia, China, and North Korea. Speaking at the annual Arms Control Association meeting, Vaddi underscored the necessity of a multifaceted approach to nuclear deterrence in light of evolving global threats. Earlier this month, Vipin Narang, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for space policy, spoke of the recent updates to nuclear weapons employment guidance. Narang highlighted that the revisions were specifically designed to address the growing challenge posed by multiple nuclear-armed adversaries, with a particular focus on China's significantly expanding nuclear capabilities. Although the White House has not officially announced any changes to its nuclear deterrence strategy, the reports come at a time of heightened concern over potential nuclear threats from global adversaries such as China and Russia. The Pentagon's latest assessments indicate that Beijing now possesses over 500 operational nuclear warheads. This number is expected to surpass 1,000 by 2030, reflecting a rapid and concerning expansion of China's nuclear arsenal. The growing military collaboration between Russia, China, and North Korea, particularly in the context of Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine, has further exacerbated security concerns for the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific region. As these relationships deepen, the strategic environment becomes increasingly complex, requiring the U.S. to adapt its nuclear deterrence strategies accordingly. During his presidential campaign, former President Donald Trump repeatedly warned of an impending nuclear conflict, arguing that the U.S. could be heading toward a major nuclear confrontation. In an interview with Elon Musk, streamed live on X (formerly known as Twitter), Trump suggested that China might soon "catch up, maybe even surpass" the U.S. in terms of nuclear weapons capabilities. China's response to these claims was swift. Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, addressed the issue at a press conference, stating that the "nuclear arsenal of the U.S. is way bigger than China's." Lin reiterated China's "no-first-use" policy, which commits the nation to not using nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction as a first strike in warfare. This policy stands in stark contrast to the aggressive nuclear posturing that has characterized recent global discourse. The Pentagon's report from the previous fall provided a sobering assessment of the U.S.'s own nuclear capabilities. It revealed that the United States has about 3,700 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, with approximately 1,419 strategic nuclear weapons currently deployed. These figures illustrate the scale of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal, which, despite China's rapid expansion, remains significantly larger. As the Biden administration continues to navigate this increasingly volatile global landscape, the recent updates to the "Nuclear Employment Guidance" reflect a broader recognition of the shifting balance of power. The focus on China underscores the growing challenge that Beijing's military advancements pose to U.S. national security and global stability. In this context, the revisions to Washington's nuclear strategy represent not just a response to immediate threats, but a long-term adjustment to the changing dynamics of international security. The coming years will likely see further developments in this area as the U.S. seeks to maintain its strategic edge in an increasingly multipolar world. As tensions with nuclear-armed adversaries continue to rise, the importance of a robust and adaptable deterrence strategy cannot be overstated. Credit: Newsweek 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
David Lammy Faces Criticism for Apparent Shift on China's Human Rights Violations
David Lammy, the UK's Foreign Secretary, is under scrutiny for what many see as a broken promise to officially accuse China of genocide in Xinjiang. Last year, Lammy had committed to declaring the actions of Xi Jinping’s regime against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang as genocide. This commitment followed Labour’s earlier support in the Commons in 2021 for such a declaration. However, recent developments suggest a shift in the government's stance, leading to widespread criticism. The situation in Xinjiang, where approximately one million Uighur Muslims have been forced into internment camps, has been widely condemned. Reports from the region describe severe abuses and political indoctrination, which many international observers and human rights organizations have labeled as crimes against humanity. The international community has been pressing for stronger action, and Lammy's initial promise was seen as a significant step in holding China accountable. When asked by The Telegraph whether the UK would officially accuse China of genocide, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) refrained from using the term "genocide" and instead referred to the "repression" of Uighurs. An FCDO spokesman stated, "We are playing a leading role in pressing China to improve its human rights record and cease the repression of the Uighur people in Xinjiang. This includes raising our concerns at the highest levels of the Chinese government and coordinating efforts in international fora to hold China to account for human rights violations." This statement has fueled concerns that the UK government is stepping back from its previous commitments. The reluctance to use the term "genocide" is seen by critics as a significant shift in policy. This controversy comes on the heels of Labour's decision not to declare China a "threat," a promise that had been made in the Conservative manifesto by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. A week after his election, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer had pledged to be "robust" with China and challenge it on human rights and security issues. However, recent actions by his government have raised doubts about the fulfillment of these promises. Adding to the criticism is the recent delay by Starmer's government in implementing a new law to monitor lobbyists from Russia and China. This delay has sparked fears that the scheme could be diluted or even scrapped, further weakening the UK's stance on foreign influence and human rights abuses. The backlash against Lammy and the Labour government has been swift and severe. A report published by global experts in 2021 accused the Chinese government of violating every provision of the United Nations genocide convention in its actions in Xinjiang. Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative leader, expressed his concern, stating, "This is madness, and it is another backslide. This is very dangerous. They knew what the risks from China were when they were in opposition, and they made sure that the Conservative government, which hadn’t been brilliant on it, got the message. But now they are in government, they are in the hands of the Foreign Office. Those of us who are sanctioned by the Chinese government are now very worried that Labour is now starting to backslide on its previous commitments." Alicia Kearns, a shadow foreign minister and Tory MP, also voiced her disapproval, accusing Lammy of reneging on pre-election commitments. "David Lammy promised a Labour Government would formally recognize the atrocities faced by the Uyghurs as genocide, pursue justice for their plight through international courts, and fundamentally reassess the UK’s relationship with China within 100 days of taking office," Kearns said. "Instead, within 100 days, Labour has reneged on these promises. We were promised a tougher stance on China by Labour – now, even Conservative measures introduced with cross-party support are being dropped. Protecting ourselves from CCP influence is a generational challenge, not just one of many pre-election pledges to be reneged on once in office." China, for its part, has consistently denied allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, claiming that its policies are necessary to combat religious extremism and terrorism. Despite these denials, the international community has remained largely unconvinced, with many calling for stronger actions to hold China accountable for its treatment of the Uighur population. As the controversy unfolds, Lammy and the Labour government face increasing pressure to clarify their position on China and to follow through on their promises. The debate over whether to label China's actions as genocide is not just a matter of semantics but a critical issue that could define the UK's foreign policy approach in the years to come. With criticism mounting from both political opponents and human rights advocates, the government’s handling of this issue will be closely watched, both domestically and internationally. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information. -
0
Trump Considers Elon Musk for Potential Cabinet Role if Elected
In a recent interview, former President Donald Trump revealed that he would consider offering Tesla CEO Elon Musk a position in his Cabinet if he wins the upcoming November election. The suggestion, which came during a conversation with Reuters, highlights Trump's admiration for Musk's intellect and capabilities. "He's a very smart guy. I certainly would, if he would do it, I certainly would. He's a brilliant guy," Trump stated, underscoring the high regard in which he holds Musk. This potential collaboration between the former president and the tech mogul is a reflection of Trump's strategic thinking, as he appears to be drawing on Musk's vast expertise in technology and business. During the same interview, Trump also hinted at a possible reversal of the $7,500 tax credit currently available to Americans who purchase electric vehicles. This tax credit has been a central component of the Biden administration's efforts to promote the adoption of electric vehicles as part of a broader strategy to combat climate change. Trump's openness to reconsidering this policy suggests a shift in the approach to environmental and energy issues that have been a focal point of the current administration. Musk, who has been a prominent figure in both the technology and automotive industries, also owns the social media platform X. His involvement in the political sphere has been evident, as he endorsed Trump in the presidential race and threw his support behind a super PAC that is backing the former president's bid for office. This endorsement aligns with Musk's growing influence in various sectors, and his potential role in a future Trump administration could further extend his reach. The connection between Trump and Musk was further solidified last week when the two engaged in a two-hour conversation on X. During this discussion, Musk indicated his willingness to contribute to a government commission focused on studying the national debt and exploring ways in which Congress could reassess federal spending. The possibility of Musk taking on a Cabinet position was not mentioned during this exchange, but his interest in addressing governmental efficiency was clear. "I think it would be great to just have a government efficiency commission that looks at these things to make sure taxpayer money is spent in a good way," Musk told Trump during their conversation. "I'd be happy to help out on such a commission." Musk's statement reflects his pragmatic approach to governance and fiscal responsibility, areas where his expertise could be particularly valuable. Trump's consideration of Musk for a Cabinet role, along with the latter's openness to contributing to government initiatives, signals a potential collaboration that could bring significant changes to how the federal government operates. As both figures are known for their unconventional approaches and willingness to challenge the status quo, their partnership could lead to innovative solutions to some of the most pressing issues facing the nation. While the idea of Musk serving in a Trump Cabinet remains speculative, the mere suggestion of such a partnership has generated considerable interest. Both Trump and Musk have made headlines for their bold decisions and influential roles in their respective fields, and a collaboration between the two could potentially reshape aspects of American governance, particularly in areas related to technology, energy, and fiscal policy. As the election approaches, it remains to be seen whether Musk will indeed be offered a Cabinet position or if he will choose to serve on a government commission as he has expressed interest in doing. However, the dialogue between Trump and Musk highlights the former president's strategic considerations in assembling a team that could address the nation's challenges in innovative ways. With Musk's track record of success in multiple industries, his involvement in a future Trump administration could have far-reaching implications for the country's direction. Credit: Hill 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Keir Starmer’s Pragmatic Approach to Defeating the Far Right: Filling Potholes
In a political landscape where the far right is gaining ground in various parts of the world, Britain’s newly elected Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has chosen a seemingly unconventional approach to counter this threat. While many leaders opt for stringent immigration policies or aggressive rhetoric, Starmer’s strategy is rooted in pragmatism and a desire to restore the public’s faith in government. His allies believe that addressing tangible, everyday issues like potholes in the roads and reducing hospital waiting times could be the key to defeating the far right in Britain. Starmer’s recent visit to Belfast underscored his commitment to tackling the aftermath of a series of anti-immigration riots that had erupted across Britain. These riots, a rare occurrence of violent lawlessness, demanded an urgent and robust response from the government. The initial reaction was to focus on law and order, a strategy that aligned with Starmer’s background as a former prosecutor. The government swiftly deployed extra police officers, held additional court hearings, and the U.K. Home Office called for volunteers to assist in handling the situation. By the end of the week, over 1,000 people had been arrested, and more than 600 charges had been issued in connection with the riots, as reported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. However, the more significant challenge for Starmer lies in addressing the deep-rooted socio-economic issues that have created the conditions for such violence. Starmer’s team believes that the answer to these problems lies in demonstrating that politics can solve real-world issues, thereby rebuilding Britain’s battered faith in its political system. A Labour MP close to Starmer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, emphasized the need to be pragmatic and clear about why politics is still relevant. "There is a deep sense that nobody is listening and that politics doesn’t make any difference. We have to be very pragmatic and clear about why that is not true," the MP stated. Starmer’s crackdown on rioters has resonated with the public, fitting neatly with his law-and-order credentials. Polling data shows that the majority of the electorate viewed the violent unrest as unacceptable, with two-thirds of voters characterizing the participants as “thugs,” according to research by YouGov. However, while only a small minority supported the violence, 16 percent of respondents believed that the rioters had legitimate concerns, with many pointing to immigration policy as a contributing factor. Luke Tryl, director of the polling firm More in Common, highlighted a widespread disillusionment with politics among the British public. "Politics isn’t working and it can’t deliver," Tryl noted, emphasizing that this sentiment extends beyond immigration issues to include everyday concerns such as access to healthcare, long waiting lists, and the rising cost of living. "That is something that politicians need to grasp because it is not sustainable to have a functioning democracy with such high levels of disillusionment," he added. Starmer and his team have long been considering how to address this deep-seated alienation. Their strategy is focused on delivering tangible results over the course of their parliamentary term. The same Labour MP close to Starmer mentioned earlier explained, "The central idea was focusing on a thing that we know we can do, and then doing it over the course of the parliament." This approach might involve something as seemingly simple as "mending every single pothole in Britain," a task that could serve as a symbol of political relevance in areas affected by the riots. The idea of focusing on practical, everyday issues has been influenced by the experience of local Labour politicians who successfully took on the British National Party (BNP) in the early 2000s. The BNP had made significant gains in Barking and Dagenham, a traditionally white, working-class area in East London. Margaret Hodge, a former Labour MP for Barking, drew parallels between the rise of the BNP and the current situation. Hodge recalled that at the time, people felt that the government was not listening to them or understanding their day-to-day problems. The response, she said, was not about "rocket science," but about addressing local concerns such as littering, graffiti, and parking shortages. One of the architects of this local strategy was Morgan McSweeney, who is now Starmer’s right-hand man in Downing Street. McSweeney played a crucial role in formulating Labour’s successful strategy during the 2024 election campaign and is now focused on ensuring that the government delivers on its promises. A senior Labour politician close to No. 10 mentioned that McSweeney is deeply engaged in the process of understanding the various factors contributing to the rise of the far right and devising strategies to counter it. "How to get these people arrested and banged up. And then more deeply about the politics and about the different strands behind it and what the government has to do to counter it," the politician stated. Despite the clear focus on addressing practical issues, some observers believe that Starmer needs to go beyond a purely pragmatic response. Parth Patel, a senior research fellow at the left-leaning think tank IPPR, suggested that there might be a reluctance on the part of Downing Street to engage in conversations about migration. "But if the government doesn’t articulate its views on identity and immigration in modern Britain, basically the most contentious issue of the 21st century, those debates will continually be dragged to the far right," Patel warned. Hodge agreed with the need for a more comprehensive approach. "Now we’re in government, we have a very powerful voice that can start developing a different discourse about integration," she said. The importance of addressing immigration and community identity cannot be overstated, especially as these issues have surged to the top of the list of public concerns, alongside law and order. Successfully articulating a new position for Labour on these issues may prove as challenging as reducing NHS waiting times, but Starmer has one significant advantage at this point in his premiership. As Tryl observed, "People might have low expectations of this government, but they definitely want him to give it a shot, and they want him to succeed." Credit: Politico 2024-08-22 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe
-
Recommended Posts