Forum Topics

Trump to rebrand "Pentagon" as "Penthouse"

No, not really.But:-"Trump faces criticism over to order to rebrand Pentagon as ‘Department of War’Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of US politics where opponents have criticised Donald Trump’s expected move to rebrand the Department of Defense as the “department of war”.The president is expected to sign an executive order on Friday authorizing the rebrand, the White House said, as part of an attempt to formalize the name change without an act of Congress.The order will designate “department of war” as a “secondary title”, an administration official said, as a way to get around the need for congressional approval to formally rename a federal agency.But the order will instruct the rest of the executive branch to use the “department of war” name in internal and external communications, and allows the defense secretary Pete Hegseth and other officials to use “secretary of war” as official titles.Trump and Hegseth have been publicly pushing for the rebrand for weeks, claiming the change would present the US military as more aggressive to the world by reverting to the name that was used when the US was victorious in the first and second world wars.“Everybody likes that we had an unbelievable history of victory when it was the Department of War,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last week. “Then we changed it to Department of Defense.”The move could cost tens of millions of dollars, with letterheads and signs on buildings in the US and at bases worldwide possibly needing to be changed.But there has been criticism over the move. Democratic senator Tammy Duckworth – a war veteran who lost both her legs serving in Afghanistan and who is now a member of the armed services committee – said:'Why not put this money toward supporting military families or toward employing diplomats that help prevent conflicts from starting in the first place?Because Trump would rather use our military to score political points than to strengthen our national security and support our brave service members and their families - that’s why'"Strange. What does Trump think that the "D" stands for in IDF?

David Ainsworth ● 423d3 Comments ● 423d

That's why you shouldn't ask the victims

"Inquiry finds British committed genocide on Indigenous Australians""British colonists committed genocide against Australia's Indigenous population in Victoria, a landmark Aboriginal-led inquiry has found.The Yoorrook Justice Commission found violence and disease reduced the local Indigenous population by three quarters in the 20 years after the state was colonised, in the early 1830s.Its report included 100 recommendations to "redress" harm caused by "invasion and occupation" - though several of the authors disagreed with unspecified "key findings".The Commission was set up in 2021 as Australia's first formal "truth-telling" inquiry, and tasked with examining past and ongoing "systemic injustices" suffered by the Indigenous people in the state.It is part of a wider national push for Australia to engage in a reconciliation process with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which community leaders say should include inquiries into the nation's history, treaty-making, and granting First Nations people greater political say.Held over four years, The Yoorrook Justice Commission gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the opportunity to formally share their stories and experiences.The commission's brief covered a wide gamut of issues including land and water rights, cultural violations, killing and genocide, health, education and housing.The inquiry found Victoria's Indigenous population dropped dramatically after colonisationThe report found that from 1834, "mass killings, disease, sexual violence, exclusion, linguicide, cultural erasure, environmental degradation, child removal" as well as assimilation contributed to the "near-complete physical destruction" of Victoria's Indigenous community.The population dropped from 60,000 to 15,000 by 1851."This was genocide," the report said.The report, which drew from more than two months of public hearings and over 1,300 submissions, called for "redress" to acknowledge a range of human rights violations, which could include reparations.Among its other recommendations were a significant overhaul of the education system to include greater input from Indigenous people, and a government apology for Aboriginal soldiers who served during the world wars and were excluded from a scheme gifting diggers land when they returned from the battlefields.On the state's health system, the report found that racism was "endemic" and called for more funding for Indigenous health services and policies to get more Aboriginal staff in the system.Three of the five commissioners - Sue-Anne Hunter, Maggie Walter and Anthony North - "did not approve of the inclusion of the key findings in the final report", however no further detail was provided.In response to the report, Victoria's Labor government said it would "carefully consider" the findings, with Premier Jacinta Allan saying they "shine a light on hard truths".Jill Gallagher, head of Victoria's peak body for Aboriginal health and wellbeing, said the genocide finding was "indisputable". "We don't blame anyone alive today for these atrocities," she told the ABC, "but it is the responsibility of those of us alive today to accept that truth - and all Victorians today must accept, recognise and reconcile with these factual findings."The commission's report is the first of its kind in Australia, though similar inquiries are happening in other states and territories with varying degrees of progress, depending on which party is in government.For example, in Queensland, a truth-telling inquiry was cancelled after the Labor government was replaced by a new Liberal-National government.[What a surprise!]In recent years, the national dialogue on how to recognise the traditional owners of Australia at all levels of governments has prompted heated debate.Australians voted against a historic referendum in October 2023, rejecting a change to the constitution that would have created an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, a national body for Indigenous people to give advice on laws."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn413zlld4mo

David Ainsworth ● 423d1 Comments ● 423d

Farage the Failed Distraction from Trump’s All-Out Assault on Free Speech

Washington, D.C. (September 3, 2025)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered opening remarks at the full committee hearing examining how Republicans are obsessing about a so-called free speech crisis in Europe to distract from President Trump’s unprecedented assault on the First Amendment rights of all Americans.Hearing on “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation”September 3, 2025"I imagine that in a hearing about threats to freedom of speech abroad we might hear from a Russian dissident about Putin’s massive violations of political freedom. Or the death of Alexei Navalny in prison. Or perhaps from a Chinese pro-democracy activist about President Xi’s attacks on free speech in Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang or the persecution and trial of Jimmy Lai. Or maybe from a journalist about the Saudi Crown Prince’s brutal assassination of Jamal Kashoggi, the Washington Post writer who demanded freedom from the reign of religious repression and persecution in Saudi Arabia. But no, the dictators of the world have nothing to fear from this hearing. The Republicans called it to attack our democratic allies in Europe. The star witness is not a human rights leader like Navalny, but a far-right, pro-Putin politician who leads the UK Reform Party, a party that is 4 members out of 650 members in the Parliament. He calls England an “authoritarian regime” while saying that Vladimir Putin is the world leader he admires the most. Well, this hearing mimics Vice President JD Vance, who went to the Munich Security Conference in February and in the first two minutes of his speech, whitewashed the world’s leading autocratic regimes proclaiming that the threat that worries him is “Not Russia, it’s not China,” but rather it’s our European allies. Amazing. Republicans are promoting far-right and neo-fascist parties in Europe like Alternative für Deutschland, Reform UK and Rassemblement National Français, and ignoring massive repression in Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and among all the autocrats of the world. The Republicans are vilifying robust European liberal democracies simply for engaging in the kind of line-drawing exercises that we engage in under our First Amendment with respect to the epidemic of child pornography, protecting children from other harmful content, defamatory speech, online scams and false advertising, and speech inciting riots and imminent lawless action—all forms of speech that the First Amendment does not protect and whose tricky contours must still be drawn by law.We could have a meaningful hearing on this complicated subject, but this hearing is just a drive-by hit against a strong democratic ally to benefit a Donald Trump sycophant and wannabe.But it’s even worse than this. Not only are our Republican colleagues ignoring intensifying repression in the world’s dictatorships, but they are also trying to distract the world from the attack on freedom taking place right here in America every day.Americans are not worried about the European Union or the Online Safety Act in the UK. We’re not worried about white nationalists and not having enough license to incite lynch mobs to set immigrants on fire in their bedrooms.Americans are worried that Donald Trump is working to rewrite and whitewash our history in our museums, our textbooks and our national parks, to destroy PBS, NPR, and public broadcasting, to ban books in our libraries, and to censor news stories critical of him by installing political henchmen in private broadcast rooms.We fear that academic freedom at colleges and universities is in danger when the Administration cancels and withholds billions of dollars in scientific and medical research funding from American universities, even for urgent and life-saving studies about breast cancer or heart attacks, as a way to force schools to impose a government orthodoxy on curriculum, hiring, admissions, and any student and faculty speech that MAGA considers politically incorrect.Americans see Trump trying to harass, intimidate, control or shut down the press, like ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and PBS. The Republican-controlled FCC essentially blackmailed media companies Skydance and Paramount into agreeing to install a spy, a monitor, a “minder,” I think the Brits might say, to police CBS news programs—to make sure they are being sufficiently “Trumpy” in giving us the news—in order to get approval of a merger from FCC. Meanwhile, Trump sued 60 Minutes and CBS personally for $20 billion for the frivolous cause of action that he thought an interview with Kamala Harris was edited—in Trump’s view—too favorably, and walked away with a cool $16 million in a shakedown settlement for his library, all part of now a familiar pattern. When Trump doesn’t like the news, he sues the broadcaster and unleashes the FCC on them until they pay up and agree to a government spy stationed in their office. Free speech is so much in danger in the U.S. that if the government tries to violate our rights, we might not even be able to find a lawyer to defend ourselves because Trump is systematically exacting retribution against law firms that represent anyone on the other side of the case against him. Our country loves free speech—we fight for free speech, we fought for free speech—and we know it’s in danger when students who are lawfully in the United States are taken off the street and arrested without warrants by masked federal agents in unmarked cars for writing an article or attending a rally that Stephen Miller doesn’t like. Free speech is in danger when visitors to our country have their social media accounts screened at the border for criticism of Donald Trump. Free speech is in danger when To Kill a Mockingbird, The Handmaid’s Tale, 1984 and The Kite Runner are banned from our schools and libraries across the country, and even families defending our freedom abroad have to fight for their kids’ right to read freely in public schools run by the Department of Defense.Freedom is in danger when the administration tramples the Civil Service rights of hundreds of thousands of nonpartisan, expert civil servants. Civil servants who have been protected from political discrimination for more than a century to maintain the excellence and independence of our federal workforce, but are now being fired simply for doing their jobs, like prosecuting violent criminals and insurrectionists who tried to overthrow our government and attack our police officers, or because they honestly gave honest economic information and labor statistics to the public. These honorable civil servants are being fired because they won’t be the political hacks Trump demands them to be.When private comments made by federal employees are scrutinized for “anti-Trump bias,” and they can lose their jobs because of it, then we have entered the realm not just of Vladimir Putin but of Joseph Stalin.Mr. Trump and Mr. Farage both claim they are protectors of free speech, but they only want to protect speech they agree with. In the UK, Mr. Farage is promoting the abolition of the Human Rights Act of 1998, to be replaced with a “British Bill of Rights” that limits the right of free speech to British citizens and legally sanctioned residents. He complains that racist threats against immigrants are not protected free speech, while he proposes to strip migrants, tourists and perhaps even visiting American Congresspeople of any free-speech rights at all. I had my own close encounter with that when Mr. Farage and his team presented for more than an hour in a conversation we had about free speech, and after three minutes of talking, he cut me off and terminated the meeting because he didn’t like what I was saying. That’s the kind of free speech he’s committed to.There is a free speech crisis in America, but there is no free speech crisis in Britain. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has not shut down GB News, where Mr. Farage has his own show, just because Mr. Farage has used his airtime to call for banning peaceful protests he disagrees with. No one has stopped him from going on Russian TV 17 times and saying also and repeating that the one world political leader he most admired was Vladimir Putin, even though Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and a dictator who has regularly interfered in other countries’ democratic elections.No one has stopped Mr. Farage from parroting Putin’s absurd talking points, like when Farage claimed that NATO, the United States and Britain “provoked this war” in Ukraine.For a man who fashions himself as some kind of free speech martyr, Mr. Farage seems most at home with all the autocrats and dictators of the world who are crushing freedom on earth.Mr. Farage wants to get rid of the Online Safety Act in his country, a law shepherded by the Conservative Party and implemented by the Labour Party, which bans child pornography online, protects children from harmful content, forbids nonconsensual pornography and other unlawful content. He should go and advance that position in Parliament, which is meeting today, if he’s serious about it. To the people of UK who think this Putin-loving free speech impostor and Trump sycophant will protect freedom in your country, come on over to America and see what Trump and MAGA are doing to destroy our freedom, kidnap college students off the street, ban books from our libraries, militarize our police and unleash them against our communities, take over our universities, wreck our professional civil service and turn the government into a money-making machine for Trump and his family. You might think twice before you let Mr. Farage “Make Britain Great Again.”" https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-s-opening-statement-at-hearing-on-republicans-failed-distraction-from-trump-s-all-out-assault-on-free-speech

David Ainsworth ● 424d7 Comments ● 423d

Very deserving refugees - but not thought so then, when it mattered

"Repelling refugees, 2020 / 1938"by Becky Taylor"This seems a good moment to remember Britain’s well-established tradition of repelling refugees from its shores.As the persecution of Jews and dissidents in Nazi-controlled Germany and Austria intensified in the summer of 1938, and as the liberal democracies which surrounded its territories imposed more and tougher visa restrictions and hardened their borders against refugees, those seeking refuge started to look for other means to enter safe countries. Those who had reached France, but feared that the country might soon be in line for invasion, or who already had relatives in Britain, started to enter the country illegally.By definition, we have no means of knowing how many people did so successfully. If there are traces of these movements, they will lie in family memory, diaries and personal accounts and not public record. What we do have are accounts from newspapers, which over the summer and autumn of 1938 frequently carried stories of desperate attempts by refugees without the correct documentation to enter or remain in Britain. Reporters covered deportations of refugees landing at Croydon airport or Harwich port only to be turned back by immigration officers. They also wrote of refugees paying to cross the Channel in motor boats, landing at night or swimming ashore to circumvent immigration restrictions. They penned lurid reports of prosecutions for bigamous marriages, where German Jewish women were alleged to have offered money and other inducements to British men in exchange for marriage and the prospect of British nationality it offered. Alongside these stories, the newspapers devoted growing numbers of column inches to prosecutions of aliens who had successfully entered the country without the consent of an immigration official but had subsequently been caught. The aim here was to emphasise that the British state remained in control of the situation, even where its borders had been breached. Considering the case of an illegal Polish immigrant, the presiding magistrate at Old Street Police, Herbert Metcalfe, declared that immigration law, which at that time made distinction between refugees and other immigrants, ‘should be sternly enforced, and it ought to go forth as a general warning that people who disobeyed the aliens’ law and disregarded the whole thing generally would have “a rough time”’. Two months later, Metcalfe sentenced three aliens who had entered Britain without the permission of an immigration officer, stating: ‘it was becoming an outrage the way in which stateless Jews were pouring in from every port of this country. As far as he was concerned, he intended to enforce the law to the fullest extent’. Although the occasional newspaper report suggested that some magistrates dealt with illegal immigration with a degree of leniency in the months following Germany’s annexation of Austria, overall the tone of reported judgements suggests that deportation was the default option for anyone seen to be contravening immigration law.The penalties could be significant. Those landing illegally faced deportation. In July 1938 two foreign seamen were sentenced to three months in prison with hard labour for helping a German Jewish refugee to land illegally in Britain. Reporting on this case on 2nd August, the Daily Mail was keen both to make the most of the Home Office’s alarm at the increase in illegal landings and to stress the government’s proficiency in tracking down offenders:Never before has it been more difficult for an alien to land unlawfully and remain out of police hands for more than a few hours. The favourite method is to come ashore in a rowing boat with the appearance of having been out for a short sea-trip. Despite coastal watch it is possible for an alien to escape notice in this way, but his inevitable struggle for existence is almost certain to lead him before long into police hands.Warming to its theme, the article went on to discuss other means by which aliens were attempting to enter the country, before reassuring readers that ‘Immigration authorities now have a secret and scientific method’ for detecting the ploys of illegal aliens, so that ‘the offender soon finds himself trapped’. A week later, the Mail was again reporting on the Home Office’s ‘new drive to keep aliens out’, this time flagging up the ‘Eire dodge’, in which refugees were landing ‘from a fishing or small trading vessel at out-of-the-way places on the coast of Eire’, from whence they came to Britain: ‘Our ports are so keenly watched by Scotland Yard and immigration officers, that it is not worth any foreigner’s while trying to “gate-crash” into this country’.Clandestine entry, desperation, prosecution, deportation, a hysterical press: it is hard not to draw parallels with the present, even as these facts sit uncomfortably with Britain’s persistent sense of itself as having a ‘tradition of welcome’ towards vulnerable strangers. Seeing how refugees from Nazism – now held up as the emblematic refugees of the twentieth century – were treated when they attempted to reach Britain’s shores pushes us to acknowledge how history can be distorted for the purposes of the present. Alongside the welcome given to the Kindertransportees, we need to set the histories of those kept out and turned back from Britain’s shores. Both are part of Britain’s long and ambivalent relationship with refugees.Revisiting this history also reminds us that the agency of desperate people also has a history, and one that highlights how, if one can both be a ‘real refugee’ and enter a country illegally, then the problem lies not with the people landing but with the law."     https://refugeehistory.org/blog/2020/8/12/repelling-refugees-2020-1938London, UK. 30th Mar, 1939. Oskar Goldberg, a refugee from German-occupied Czechoslovakia, being forcibly deported from Croydon airport:-https://ehri-visualisations.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/original/78c401dd98aaf123e2fa4aca4d985802.jpgHe was lucky, and so was his group. His attempts to stop the deportation succeeded.

David Ainsworth ● 427d6 Comments ● 426d