Connect with us

Politics

Cornyn, Paxton head to runoff in Texas Senate GOP race

Published

on

Cornyn, Paxton head to runoff in Texas Senate GOP race

Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton advanced to a runoff in the Senate GOP primary, extending an already-bruising fight into late May that some Republicans worry could hurt their chances of holding onto the seat — and the Senate.

Tuesday night’s result showed some surprising strength for Cornyn, who had trailed Paxton in most public polls and whose allies were worried might finish far behind the MAGA firebrand. And it indicates the four-term senator still has a real chance to retain his seat in late May.

National Republicans widely expected the runoff when Rep. Wesley Hunt, who finished third, jumped into the race last fall. But while Cornyn is still in the battle, saving him will continue to be an expensive endeavor — and one that risks further damaging Paxton, who could still be their nominee.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Troops Being Told To Prepare for ‘Armageddon’ In Iran

Published

on

Smoke rises up after a strike in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 1.

For some US military commanders, the emerging war in Iran is part of a biblical plan to bring about the end of the world as we know it, according to complaints filed by over 100 service members.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has received a litany of complaints about religious ideology seeping into military orders since the US and Israel began bombing Iran, independent journalist Jon Larsen first reported.

Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of MRFF, a nonprofit group established 21 years ago that focuses on ensuring constitutional protections for service members, spoke with HuffPost by phone and illuminated some details of the complaints, which have come from more than three dozen military units situated in at least 30 different military installations.

“We started getting calls in the wee hours of Saturday morning from people saying their commanders were just jubilant about this and trying to tell people, ‘Don’t worry, it’s all part of God’s plan,’” Weinstein said.

Advertisement

Weinstein said the “metric promised” in the Bible’s Book of Revelation is horrifying and should worry everyone.

“They are promised a 200-mile-long river that is four-and-a-half feet deep filled with nothing but the blood that their weaponised version of Jesus will spill at the Battle of Armageddon,” Weinstein said. “That’s a lot of blood.”

Part of what makes the accounts so disturbing, Weinstein said, is that service members aren’t able to push back when they’re given orders that blur the line regarding the separation of church and state.

“This is all about time, place and manner,” he said. “If you’re being proselytised to by your superior, you can’t say, ‘Get out of my face.’ Under the military’s criminal code of justice, insubordination is considered a felony.”

Advertisement

One of the complaints MRFF received over the weekend came from a non-commissioned officer currently stationed outside of Iran but awaiting deployment at a moment’s notice. That officer filed the complaint on behalf of himself and 15 other troops, all of whom are of different religious backgrounds. (For their protection, MRFF is keeping the identity of these service members anonymous.)

Smoke rises up after a strike in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 1.
Smoke rises up after a strike in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 1.

The non-commissioned officer, who is Christian, reported to MRFF that a commander told them to tell fellow troops that the war in Iran was “all part of God’s divine plan.” The commander allegedly cited the Book of Revelation and the section specifically referring to Armageddon and the “imminent” return of Jesus Christ.

The non-commissioned officer said the messaging from higher-ups is not only “destroy[ing] morale and unit cohesion” among troops, but they also believe the commanders are flagrantly violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion.

According to the complaint first reported by Larsen, the commander said President Donald Trump “has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”

The commander “had a big grin on his face when he said all of this which made his message seem even more crazy,” the complaint said.

Advertisement

“I and my fellow troops know that it is completely wrong to have to suffer through what our commander said today. It’s not just the separation of church and state … It’s the fact that our commander feels as though he is fully supported and justified by the entire (combat unit’s name withheld) chain of command to inflict his Armageddon views of our attack on Iran on those of us beneath him in the chain of command,” the officer wrote in his complaint to MRFF.

Weinstein said some service members called him on Sunday to report that they were being invited to Bible studies at their commanders’ personal homes to “discuss how this was all part of the plan and it’s all being lived out in the Book of Revelation and Christian eschatology.”

Commanders were “in a hurry” to get subordinates on board, according to the complaints received by MRFF.

Once a service member makes a complaint to MRFF, finding a solution can be difficult. Service members have a few different options, Weinstein said: If troops are told they lack courage, intelligence or bravery because of their religious tradition or lack thereof, they can file an inspector general complaint or an ethics complaint within the military.

Advertisement

“But then you completely out yourself,” Weinstein said. “And when you do that in the military, you become what we call a ‘tarantula on a wedding cake.’ How long do you think that cake lasts at that wedding?”

Troops can complain to military judge advocates, lawyers or chaplains, but the latter can be especially tricky. The majority of the US military’s chaplains are Christian and many are evangelical.

“By itself, that’s fine,” Weinstein said. “But if you are a Christian Nationalist, you don’t pay any attention to the time, place or manner … with any sort of religious extremism, we end up not with little streams, or creeks or brooks, but with oceans and oceans of blood.”

Weinstein said none of this should necessarily be shocking. The evangelical leanings of the Trump administration — and in particular the Department of Defense — have not been a secret. At a prayer breakfast last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed the US was a “Christian nation,” and there are prayer meetings at the Pentagon each month.

Advertisement

But putting religion into politics is inflicting “generational damage” onto the US and its military, Weinstein said.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

Harrison Mann, a 13-year veteran of the US Army who served under President Barack Obama, during Trump’s first term and under President Joe Biden, told HuffPost that for soldiers, there “isn’t much of a difference” inside the military — at least “culturally speaking” — even when presidents are “doing some really crazy stuff” publicly, he said.

Because of that, he argues it may be too soon to say whether Hegseth can actually inflict permanent damage to the military. Mann is, however, deeply worried about what happens to the public perception of the troops in the meantime.

Advertisement

“There’s danger in commanders telling soldiers they only vouch for Christians, whites or MAGA supporters. When the public starts to view the military that way too, then you get to a much more dangerous place where they no longer have trust in them,” he said.

Today, Mann is the associate director of campaigns for Win Without War, a grassroots progressive foreign policy advocacy organization based in Washington, DC that formed in 2003 in response to the US invasion of Iraq. Mann left his role as assistant to the head of the Middle East Centre at the Defence Intelligence Agency, or DIA, in 2024, for moral reasons.

After the attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, Mann said his mission as a soldier primarily became about supporting Israel and sharing intel with Israeli military officials. But once he saw what the war in Gaza was becoming — “a genocide,” he said — he resigned.

Mann knows from personal experience how frightening it can be for a soldier to speak out. The Trump administration’s politicisation of the military, as the MRFF complaints clearly show, makes it harder. Mann worries it is fast creating a situation where subordinate leaders may believe the messaging from on high grants them “tacit approval to start imposing their own religious beliefs on others.”

Advertisement

“I can tell you I’m very worried,” he said. “I think most people who join the military, they want to do something they feel is noble and they want to do the right thing. But the potential consequences for refusing an unlawful order or standing up for what you think is right is very high … So it goes back to the question: What can everyone else do to help them?”

To start, Mann said the public can broadcast support for service members who speak up or disobey unlawful orders or unconstitutional directives. That validation is in short supply inside the military, so it must come from the outside, he said.

“It’s very frightening to imagine that you would be on your own if you tried to defy an unlawful order,” Mann said. “We need to see increasing efforts by members of Congress to impeach Secretary Hegseth and everyone can put pressure on their lawmakers to support that effort.

“You can support a lot of the organizations like About Face and Win Without War that are trying to create a welcoming, safe space for service members who are experiencing this kind of unfair treatment,” he said.

Advertisement

Mann said he isn’t hopeless about the future even though there is much to despair over right now.

“It’s way too soon to give up. There’s just so much that we have not tried… there are so many pressure tactics that haven’t culminated yet. There’s so much people power that has not yet been mobilized. As terrifying as what is happening is, there’s a critical opportunity for growth and pushback against Trump’s agenda,” he said.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated with Harrison Mann’s correct title.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

11 Steps Under-65s Can Take To Lower Bowel Cancer Risk

Published

on

11 Steps Under-65s Can Take To Lower Bowel Cancer Risk

Medical advice provided by Dr Asiya Maula, private GP at The Health Suite, and Dr Donald Grant, GP and Senior Clinical Advisor at The Independent Pharmacy.

New research has found that almost half of bowel cancer cases (sometimes called colorectal cancer) occur in under-65s.

It was not always this way. The paper, published in the American Cancer Society, said that bowel cancer rates have been declining among over-65s since the ’80s, but rising among those under 50.

Here, we asked GPs Dr Asiya Maula and Dr Donald Grant why this could be happening and what we can do to lower our risk.

Advertisement

Why are younger people getting bowel cancer?

Both doctors said there likely isn’t a single cause.

It “likely reflects cumulative lifestyle and environmental changes,” Dr Maula said.

“We are seeing higher levels of chronic inflammation in younger populations, often linked to ultra-processed diets, sedentary behaviour, stress, and disrupted sleep.”

Advertisement

She also thinks exposure to microplastics, a less diverse gut biome, and air pollution may play a role.

“No single exposure directly causes bowel cancer, but cumulative toxic load over time may influence gut health and inflammatory pathways.”

For his part, Dr Grant said, “While [bowel cancer] remains common in older age groups, factors such as rising obesity levels, diets low in fibre and high in processed foods and an increase in sedentary lifestyles and alcohol intake are all thought to be contributing to this shift.”

How can under-65s lower their risk of bowel cancer?

Advertisement

Not every case of bowel cancer is preventable. But, Dr Grant said, “There are also plenty of ways people can minimise their risk of bowel cancer.”

Dr Maula added, “Small, consistent changes over time can make a meaningful difference.”

Their prevention tips are:

  1. Maintaining a well-balanced diet,
  2. staying physically active,
  3. keeping to a healthy weight,
  4. limiting alcohol intake,
  5. avoiding smoking,
  6. attending screening when invited,
  7. supporting gut health by “prioritising fibre-rich whole foods” (we’re meant to eat 30g of fibre a day, but 90% of us don’t),
  8. reducing the consumption of ultra-processed products,
  9. supporting regular bowel movements,
  10. trying to reduce stress,
  11. getting enough sleep,
  12. adequate hydration, and
  13. reducing environmental toxic exposures wherever possible.

Speak to your GP if you notice possible signs of bowel cancer, like rectal bleeding, blood in your stool, changes in your bowel habits (like going more often, unusual constipation, or diarrhoea), feeling you still need to “go” after pooping, losing weight without meaning to, fatigue, and/or abdominal or rectal pain.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Katie Lam: We can make Keir Starmer U-turn yet again, but we need your help

Published

on

Katie Lam: We can make Keir Starmer U-turn yet again, but we need your help

Katie Lam is a shadow Home Office minister and MP for Weald of Kent.

Time and again during this Parliament, we’ve seen that change from opposition is genuinely possible.

This Government’s majority may be large, but they are incredibly weak – and with enough pressure, they can be made to change course.

In their 2024 manifesto, Labour promised to introduce ‘day one workers’ rights’, which would have allowed a worker hired in the morning to take their employer to a tribunal in the afternoon. It would have been a disaster for businesses across the country. Yet after months of Conservative campaigning, and pressure from our group in the House of Lords, they scrapped the plans.

Advertisement

In September last year, they walked back plans to introduce a mandatory definition of Islamophobia, which would have effectively protected Islam from criticism. Having initially announced a closed consultation, they were forced to open it up to the public, by the hard work of Conservative colleagues like Nick Timothy and Claire Coutinho.

And in just the past week, we’ve seen the disastrous Chagos giveaway put on ice, and Starmer flip-flop on whether or not to allow American strikes on Iran to take place from British military bases.

This is what happens when a party comes into power with no plan for what it wants to do, or how it wants to do it. The British people deserve so much better than this rudderless government – but while they’re still in power, there’s plenty that we can do to force them to listen.

Perhaps the most brazen U-turn of all was on the grooming gangs. In January last year, the Prime Minister described the issue as a “far-right bandwagon”. Lucy Powell, then Deputy Prime Minister, called it a “dog whistle”. Ministers like Yvette Cooper and Jess Phillips denied the need for a proper inquiry until they were blue in the face, insisting that the issue had already been properly investigated.

Advertisement

Then they commissioned Baroness Casey to conduct a rapid review of what we already know about these horrific crimes. Her findings were conclusive – thousands of children, across multiple decades, were groomed, raped, and trafficked by gangs of men, most of whom were Pakistani Muslims. Institutions like the police, local councils, and care homes were complicit in covering up those crimes, often because they feared being branded as racist.

And so, reluctantly, the Government agreed to hold a full national inquiry. There was hope that, finally, we would uncover the full truth about the grooming gangs, and that victims would at last get justice.

Yet despite the shocking findings of Baroness Casey’s review, the Government still doesn’t seem willing to conduct this inquiry in good faith. After the inquiry was announced, they dragged their feet for months, refusing to release any details about how it would be conducted. When they finally did provide us with the details, they made for sorry reading.

Any public inquiry must conduct itself according to its ‘terms of reference’. This document sets out what the inquiry can and can’t investigate, and what it should be looking to achieve. Unfortunately, the draft terms of reference produced by the Government for the grooming gangs inquiry are fatally flawed.

Advertisement

They give the inquiry no scope to review the role that race and religion played in motivating these crimes. They provide no powers to prosecute the officials who were responsible for the cover-up. They won’t investigate every local authority with a history of grooming gang cases, and nor will they consider cases before 2000, despite the fact that we know that these gangs have been operating for decades. The list of failures go on and on.

If victims are ever going to get the justice that they deserve, we must force the Government to change course again. The terms of reference must be changed, to make sure that the inquiry can confront the full truth about the grooming gangs. The public has been kept in the dark for too long – the cover-up must end.

Fortunately, there’s still time to make that happen. These flawed terms of reference are subject to a consultation, which closes on Friday 6th March. At groominggangjustice.uk, we’ve compiled a full list of the problems with these terms of reference. If you agree that the inquiry needs to be able to uncover the whole truth, then you can put in your details – name, email, post code – and we’ll automatically fill in the consultation for you.

It only takes a moment, but if enough people put pressure on the Government to change direction, we can force them to conduct a proper national inquiry that confronts the full scale of the grooming gangs.

Advertisement

These are the worst crimes to have taken place in this country in living memory. The very least that we can do is force the Government to expose the whole truth.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Faces MAGA Backlash Over Iran War

Published

on

Trump Faces MAGA Backlash Over Iran War

Prominent conservatives and MAGA influencers normally allied with President Donald Trump are publicly questioning his war on Iran, prompting aggressive pushback from the president and his administration.

Right-wing luminaries including Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh, Megyn Kelly and former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene have criticised the war or noted the president’s shifting justifications. Elected Republicans have taken notice.

“The president did a masterful job of creating an eclectic coalition, but I can see where this is a wedge for some of them,” Republican Senator Thom Tillis told HuffPost.

The Iran war is an obvious betrayal of Trump’s campaign pledge for “no new wars.”

Advertisement

Carlson called the war “absolutely disgusting and evil” and said Trump could lose support from his most loyal voters.

Sean Davis, CEO of the Trump-friendly news website The Federalist, said it wasn’t clear if the goal was to “free the Iranian people or degrade their nuclear capability or degrade the conventional weapons capability or eliminate their regional hegemony or to cut off their oil supply to China or to help Israel.”

“The lack of any coherent message seems to suggest the lack of any coherent objective,” Davis said on X.

Podcaster Matt Walsh also noted some contradictions in the administration’s messaging.

Advertisement

“So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear programme, we had to do this because of their nuclear program,” Walsh wrote. “And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might have been, depending on who you ask.”

Some Republican lawmakers acknowledged these criticisms are reasonable, even if they ultimately disagree.

“They don’t want another Iraq. Nor do I. I don’t think that’s where we’re headed,” Republican Senator John Kennedy told HuffPost.

“But I see their point of view, and it’s a valid point of view. But I just don’t believe this is a repeat of the mistakes, if any, that we made in Iraq.”

Advertisement

Asked by HuffPost if Trump had adequately explained the reasons for the war, Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, went silent.

Most Republicans, however, didn’t hesitate to recite some of the justifications the White House has offered for the new war in the Middle East.

“It’s been explained for 47 years, hasn’t it? No regime has killed more Americans than the regime that we’ve now wiped out,” Senator Bernie Moreno told HuffPost.

“The predicate for action has been pretty clear: They can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

Advertisement

Even before the war, the MAGA coalition had splintered somewhat, most notably with Greene’s resignation from Congress after Trump turned against her for supporting the release of the Epstein files. The early reviews of the Iran war suggest an even more dramatic break is possible.

The White House has responded somewhat aggressively to its MAGA war sceptics.

Asked about Clarkson and Kelly in particular, Trump said the pair don’t define the Make America Great Again movement. “I think that MAGA is Trump,” the president told independent journalist Rachel Bade.

In response to Walsh’s criticisms on X, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded that the goal was to end the nuclear programme and generally destroy the Iranian regime’s military capabilities.

Advertisement

“Their brutal attacks and threats will finally end under President Trump,” Leavitt said in her own post. “America will win – the terrorists will be defeated.”

Walsh was not swayed, calling it “gaslighting” to argue, as Leavitt and other pro-war conservatives have done, that Iran has been “waging war” on the US for 47 years.

“You and I both know that almost every conservative influencer in the business was opposed to war with Iran until just now,” Walsh said.

A handful of Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, are also sceptical of the war.

Advertisement

Senator Rand Paul labelled it “yet another preemptive war” in the Middle East, and Representative Thomas Massie indicated he’d vote for a War Powers resolution to stop the conflict.

More surprisingly, Representative Warren Davidson, who is less prone to bucking the party than Massie or Paul, suggested President Trump had wrongly dragged the US into war without congressional authorisation.

“Congress declares war. America is at war. Congress did not declare war,” Davidson wrote. He did not signal that he would vote for a resolution ending the war.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour’s attack on jury trials is an attack on democracy

Published

on

Labour’s attack on jury trials is an attack on democracy

A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to attend In Defence of Trial by Jury, a panel event co-organised by spiked and the Free Speech Union. The event was a response to UK justice secretary David Lammy’s absurd plans to reduce the number of Crown Court cases that go before juries.

The panel members questioned Lammy’s assumption that jury trials were to blame for the Crown Court’s current backlog of almost 78,000 cases (rather than, say, a lack of funding or the number of spurious claims that now make it to court). And they emphasised the centrality of jury trials to our liberal institutions and to the common law, which has long been a bulwark of liberty in Britain, as in other English-speaking countries.

Yet one thing that struck me about the panellists’ excellent contributions is that they all centred on what philosopher Isaiah Berlin called ‘negative’ liberties – our freedom from coercion by the state – rather than on ‘positive’ liberties – our freedom to participate in decision-making with our fellow citizens. In other words, the contributions had more to say about liberalism than about democracy.

Advertisement

The threat to civil liberties posed by Lammy’s jury-trial plans is not to be underestimated. Especially at a time when Brits can be charged with ‘inciting racial hatred’ for expressing concern about illegal immigration on social media, as was the position of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael last year. Michael, as it happened, was cleared by a jury of his peers after only 17 minutes. It is understandable to wonder what might have happened had a judge from our current legal elite decided the verdict.

But if we are to understand the full extent of the trouble Lammy’s reforms would cause, we need to also start talking about how anti-democratic they are.

Jury trials were a central feature of the first recorded democracy in history, classical Athens. Like us, the ancient Athenians selected jurors randomly from the citizenry (though they excluded women, immigrants and slaves from the draw). These juries were massive, usually involving hundreds of people, and undoubtedly far more powerful than ours today. Their remit included not just determining guilt or innocence, but also sentencing.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Advertisement

Please wait…

Advertisement

Of course, Athenian juries didn’t always get it right – Socrates infamously found himself condemned to death for impiety by a jury in 399 BC. But the Athenians rightly saw juries as the primary means of implementing the law that the people had voted on. They were part and parcel of a democratic system that randomly allotted citizens to other powerful bodies, such as the Council of 500, which handled daily governance. The idea was to ensure that ordinary people (or at least ordinary men) were active participants in the state’s most consequential decisions.

Modern English juries don’t descend directly from the mass juries of ancient Greece. Our system is largely a Norman import, though earlier Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian customs may have helped lay the ground. English juries were initially selected by a sheriff, who would put together a group of local men who might know something about the case on trial. Over time, however, the expectation shifted toward jurors who were strangers to the facts and capable of impartial judgment.

Advertisement

Selection procedures gradually became more regulated in the 18th and 19th centuries, and were eventually standardised under modern statute. This makes our juries one of the few surviving institutions that still entrust ordinary citizens with direct participation in the administration of justice – a principle ancient democracies prized, but which many modern systems have limited.

After all, most modern democracies outside the Anglosphere don’t make use of juries often, if at all. So why stick with them? One answer might be that they provide a crucial channel for more public involvement in our increasingly out-of-touch, elitist politics. This is a principle that senior figures in Keir Starmer’s Labour Party claim to support. Indeed, in 2024, Starmer’s former chief of staff, Sue Gray, came out in favour of citizens’ assemblies: randomly selected groups convened to deliberate on public policy. Curiously, Lammy himself even expressed an interest in the idea in a select committee hearing in 2020.

Advertisement

But if randomly selected assemblies are a good thing, then why not randomly selected juries? If Labour truly believes ordinary people should have a say, why is it itching to remove one of the only institutions that guarantees they do?

Supporters of Lammy’s cuts to jury trials claim that the changes will be minor, with more than 20 per cent of Crown Court cases going before a jury as opposed to around 30 per cent now. But if we really care about democracy, surely we should be increasing the number of ways ordinary people can get involved in decision-making, not stripping them back.

It seems the only conclusion to be drawn here is a simple one: Labour doesn’t care very much about democracy at all.

Advertisement

James Kierstead is a former lecturer in Classics and an adjunct fellow at The New Zealand Initiative think-tank.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Rep. Dan Crenshaw ousted by primary challenger to his right

Published

on

Rep. Dan Crenshaw ousted by primary challenger to his right

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) was ousted by a primary challenger who successfully cast the four-term incumbent as anti-Trump and capitalized on a redrawn district.

State Rep. Steve Toth — who had the backing of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — beat Crenshaw on Tuesday night, all but assuring his seat in Congress given the district’s safe-red bend.

Crenshaw was the only incumbent GOP representative in Texas without President Donald Trump’s support and had at times split with the president, including in his criticism of Trump’s refusal to accept his 2020 election loss.

And Toth, with Cruz’s help, focused his campaign on casting Crenshaw as insufficiently conservative for the district, which was redrawn in the GOP’s recent Texas redistricting push.

Advertisement

“You deserve an unwavering fighter, a Republican who walks the walk,” Cruz said in a recent ad for Toth.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep. Chip Roy headed to runoff in Texas AG race

Published

on

Rep. Chip Roy headed to runoff in Texas AG race

Rep. Chip Roy will advance to a runoff in the race to replace Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

He will face state Sen. Mayes Middleton in late May.

The competitive primary turned into a fealty test to President Donald Trump. Former DOJ attorney Aaron Reitz and Middleton slammed Roy for breaking with Trump in the past and calling for Attorney General Ken Paxton to resign after he faced charges of bribery and abuse, while brandishing their own MAGA bona fides.

Trump made no endorsement in the race.

Advertisement

Roy — the House Freedom Caucus policy chair who has represented Texas’ 21st congressional district since 2019 — earned a reputation in Congress as a true conservative ideologue. He has led in polling and fundraising, and has been endorsed by well-known conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and fellow Freedom Caucus representatives.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

NHS Humber Health Partnership moved into special measures

Published

on

NHS Humber Health Partnership moved into special measures

NHS Humber Health Partnership (HHP) is being moved into special measures due to repeated and worsening failures. The partnership is now in Segment 5 of the National Oversight Framework (NOF), the lowest grade, indicating significant performance or governance challenges.

The partnership is responsible for five East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire hospitals, including those in Hull, Cottingham, Goole, Grimsby and Scunthorpe. Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust (NLG) and Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (HUTH) also fall under the HHP’s watch.

Unions representing the hospital workers have voiced severe criticisms of HHP leadership. Peta Clark, Royal College of Nursing head of operations, stated that within the partnership’s hospitals:

Staff morale is extremely low. Many feel undervalued, unheard, and under relentless pressure, despite working tirelessly to keep services running.

Likewise, Brendan Cafferty — Unison regional organiser — said:

Advertisement

Frontline NHS staff want to deliver the best patient care possible to the people of Hull and beyond. They’re proud to work for the organisation.

But they deserve a senior leadership team that supports them to do that.

NHS — ‘Very challenging financial climate’

HHP revealed that 13 serious, preventable accidents — ‘Never Events’ — had happened to patients in its care between June 2024 and August 2025. For context, only 19 Never Events have occurred in total since August 2023 — the creation of the partnership. As such, last year’s accidents mark a serious escalation of safety worries.

The partnership stated that:

Patient safety  is an absolute priority for our partnership and must be central to every service and way of working.

We have launched a new Learning Improvement and Safety Academy to address safety issues, learn from incidents and educate and train our workforce better to prevent incidents from happening again.

Advertisement

On the subject of HHP’s relegation to Segment 5, the partnership said:

This reflects the scale of challenges which the organisation has been managing for some time. These issues are not new and include long-term challenges around access to care, including A&E and waits for surgery.

All NHS organisations and other public sector organisations, including ours, are working to deliver services in a very challenging financial climate.

That ‘challenging financial climate’ is, in part, a consequence of the government underfunding our NHS. In January 2026, the Canary reported that:

according to the British Medical Association (BMA), there has been a real terms cumulative underspend of £425bn in public health spending since 2009/10.

Following that, Labour has pledged a 2.2% increase in health spending until 2028/29. But that’s completely undermined by the governing party mandating 4% ‘efficiency savings’. That actually represents a 1.8% cut, putting staff working long hours under increased pressure.

Advertisement

Improvement team

However, the money that is going into the NHS isn’t necessarily being put to best use either.

Back in July 2025, Lyn Simpson was appointed as interim chief executive of the partnership – for an annual salary of almost £280,000. In August, HHP also brought in five other senior staff and an external contractor to form an ‘improvement team’.

The improvement team costs an average of £78,000 a month to run. However, the hospitals under HHP’s aegis haven’t yet shown consistent improvement.

For example, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust climbed from 125th to 115th in the NHS league tables. Meanwhile, HUTH dropped seven places — from 123rd to 130th — between September and December.

Advertisement

These league tables measure access to services, patient safety and financial management. There are just 134 positions within the rankings.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Israel’s bombing of Iran means more restrictions and tighter control for Palestinians

Published

on

Israel's bombing of Iran means more restrictions and tighter control for Palestinians

The Israeli occupation consistently uses the pretext of ‘security’ needs to implement policies designed for permanent control, domination, and de facto annexation of the Palestinian territory. And very soon after it initiated its first attacks on Iran, on 28 February, the military acted swiftly to tighten its grip on Palestinians in the West Bank even further.

Israeli occupation using its attacks on Iran to increase its control over Palestinians in West Bank

A Palestinian resident of Birzeit told the Canary that these flyers, from the Israeli occupation forces (IOF), have been scattered everywhere on the roads around Birzeit, and also in other areas of the West Bank.

Translated, it reads as follows:

Statement to the people of Judea and Samaria:

During this escalating security situation the IDF [ Israeli ‘Defense’ Forces] has made the whole area of Judea and Samaria [West Bank] into a security area, to maintain the security and stability of the region.

Advertisement

It is prohibited completely to move between places, from the moment of this publication until further updates.

Terrorism and terrorists bring death and destruction

The IDF is working with large enhanced forces to maintain security, stability, and public order.

You must follow these instructions.

Advertisement

Anyone who tries to harm the Israelis, or the IDF will be shot or jailed.

The closure of al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan — under pretext of security concerns — is also an attempt to tighten control over Palestinian population

The Israeli occupation also lost no time in  preventing Palestinians from entering and praying at al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, during this holy month of Ramadan. On the morning of 2 March, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) forced worshippers from the mosque and its compound, in occupied East Jerusalem. They have been unable to access or pray at the site for four consecutive days now, and it remains closed until further notice.

On the morning of 28 February, just hours after ‘Israel’ and the US first launched their strikes against Iran, the occupation’s authorities forced Palestinians to leave the mosque, citing ‘a state of emergency’. This has happened during the Muslims’ holiest month, Ramadan.

2014 was the first year since 1967 that the Israeli occupation had closed al-Aqsa. But since then, restrictions have tightened significantly for Palestinians. Traditionally, hundreds of thousands of Muslim worshippers gather at al-Aqsa to pray. But in recent years the Israeli occupation has been clamping down on Palestinians’ religious freedom, preventing many from accessing Islam’s third holiest site.

Advertisement

This year, at the beginning of Ramadan, the occupation had already decided to limit the number of Palestinian worshippers at al-Aqsa’s Friday prayers to 10,000. These Palestinians need to obtain a daily permit for each prayer, but only men over 55, women over 50, and children under 12 are eligible. But now, the Israeli occupation is further exploiting ’emergency’ pretexts to advance its control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Palestinians that live there. And this is why Israel completely shuts al-Aqsa mosque and its compound in the face of Muslims.

Judaisation of Jerusalem, while ‘Israel’ aims to make Palestinians invisible — there is also an imposed media blackout

‘Israel’ has also banned thousands of Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem from visiting al-Aqsa, for reasons unknown to them, and issued at least 12 arbitrary ban orders, during and before this Ramadan, against Palestinian journalists. This is to prevent them from reaching al-Aqsa, and censor their coverage of Zionist crimes there. The IOF claim, without any evidence, that they “pose threats to public order”. The occupation has also recently outlawed five digital news sites that cover Jerusalem, in its attempt to control the information flow from the media. Arrests have increased, and authorities have also banned Palestinian residents of Jerusalem from putting up decorations and festive lights for Ramadan. The Zionist regime wants to consolidate control over holy sites in the occupied territory such as al-Aqsa and the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron. It also aims to make Palestinians invisible, hide their culture, heritage and identity, and Judaise Jerusalem. These measures come as the occupation’s police have for the first time, extended the hours of Jewish worshippers at al-Aqsa.

Throughout the occupied West Bank, ‘Israel’ is imposing policies to further its control over the Palestinian population. Its ultimate aim is the same, irrespective of the place. To make life as difficult and uncomfortable as possible for Palestinians, so they give up and leave their land.

Most recently, the Knesset approved new land registration rules that make it easier to steal Palestinian land, and expand illegal settlements. The occupation has also conducted large-scale military raids in the Northern occupied West Bank refugee camps, forcibly displacing all their residents — more than 40,000 people. Violent raids by the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) also take place in Palestinian homes throughout the West Bank, on a daily basis, for no reason except to control and intimidate the population.

Advertisement

Israeli occupation continuing to add more roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank

After October 2023, the IOF tightened its restrictions on freedom of movement even further in the West Bank. There are now more than 1180 military checkpoints, metal detector gates, earth mounds, and cement blocks which can be used at any time to close a road. Many are permanent. These not only block Palestinian access to villages and towns, sealing off these areas, but also prevent access to services and land. Now, with the Israeli occupation’s attacks on Iran, new checkpoints are being set up throughout the occupied West Bank under the guise of security, while others remain closed, restricting movement even further.

The Israeli occupation frames many of these measures as temporary responses to specific security threats. And it claims that checkpoints, permit systems, and expanded military authority are necessary to prevent attacks and protect civilians. But these ‘temporary’ measures have become entrenched. Restrictions on movement and land access have reshaped daily life for Palestinians. They go way beyond security needs, systematically undermining Palestinian life — limiting movement, access to land, and economic opportunity — while expanding Israeli occupation control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

What is called “security” is increasingly a pretext for occupation. Checkpoints, roadblocks, and permit systems fragment communities, make everyday life unpredictable, and entrench the Zionist regime’s control over territory Palestinians claim for a future state.

These measures are not a form of protection, but are tools to tighten control and make the possibility of Palestinian self-determination more remote than ever.

Advertisement

Featured image via TRT

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Iran Targets US Consulate In Dubai

Published

on

Iran Targets US Consulate In Dubai

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”3d94303f-5aed-4916-a235-e67952103a55″}).render(“69a75d80e4b0085f232a56d0”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025