Next up: voting rights, as US supreme court set to tear up more protections | US news | The Guardian

The ideologically driven conservative majority is likely to further weaken key civil rights legislation after a term of radical rulings


This is extremely disturbing for it is a prime example of where politics is the main ruling factor over justice and is breaching Human Rights of non-white people, meaning that the ‘Land of the Free’ is only free for whites.

Politics should have no bearing in the rule of law, for if this is taken to its extreme it could mean the overturning of the abolishing of slavery, however, that would mean having to remove the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, but it appears that the current US Supreme Court has no regards for Human Rights.

This is down to Trump and if he is allowed to run for President in 2024 then America could well become a country which will be a country for whites only, as every other ethnicity will be discriminated against.

The abuse in America will know no bounds and equality will be a concept of the past.


Source: Next up: voting rights, as US supreme court set to tear up more protections | US news | The Guardian

Family of Emmett Till demand arrest of woman in her 80s after discovering unserved 1955 warrant | Daily Mail Online

A warrant for the arrest of Carolyn Bryant Donham, 88, (above, left) was discovered last week by searchers inside a file folder that had been placed in a box in Leflore County


This shows what has been wrong in America and maybe, is still currently, as if this had been in reverse, the warrant would have certainly been served. Is just, further more proof of the inequalities that exist in America, as in many states, even to this day, black Americans are treated with disrespect, so in no way is there the equality which should exist.

In fact, in some states, little has changed since slavery was abolished and, some in the Southern States of America still wish it was re-established.

With the current state of justice in America, including the Supreme Court nothing can be dismissed. As equality rights and human rights are denied or ignored in many instances, as for non-white Americans it is not the land of the free, well not as free as for white Americans.


Source: Family of Emmett Till demand arrest of woman in her 80s after discovering unserved 1955 warrant | Daily Mail Online

Thousands of protesters hit streets across the US and begin to mass outside Clarence Thomas’ home | Daily Mail Online

The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion Friday’s decision by the justice, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex activity, and citizens’ access to birth control.



With the overthrow of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court have made America no longer the ‘Land of the Free’, if it ever was.

You may argue that if women don’t wish to have babies, then they should not undertake actions in which they could become pregnant, but do they really have that choice in respect of RAPE and maybe incest. If men could be able to carry an unborn baby and then give birth, then maybe abortions may not be necessary, but in those instances a rapist would need to be caught in time.

As now women are not free to live their lives as they wish to and while the abolition of abortion rights is bad enough that may not be the last actions against freedoms from this Supreme Court. For now they could move onto birth control, same sex marriage, LGBTQ rights and many more, for religion and politics have no place in dealing with legalities, but Human Rights have.

Not only is it withdrawing human rights, but are, in effect, creating situations where the health of women will be of grave risk and could be a cause of their deaths.

To do so the Supreme Court will, in many respects, be equal to the Taliban and other Islamic zealots, for Christian zealots are just as bad as Islamic zealots, if not more so.

The Supreme Court are, in effect, abusing women by withdrawing their rights, for now there is no equality in America.


Source: Thousands of protesters hit streets across the US and begin to mass outside Clarence Thomas’ home | Daily Mail Online

Look at 3 enduring stories Americans tell about guns to understand the debate over them

The ways Americans talk about firearms is full of contradictions, two communication scholars explain – and that powerfully shapes the country’s approach to gun policy.


Guns in America is a contentious agreement and yes, America does have a right to live how they wish, but that is also said that each American has a right to live their own lives and be conscientious that by doing so do others around them.

True that American history did to a large extent resolve around violence of which the use of guns was a major part. But, in effect the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ were invaders, in 1620, into a country which was already populated, but being a large country there were many parts which were no way overpopulated and so with much negotiation, maybe, all could have lived peacefully together. But Europeans in that day and maybe currently and not only Europeans, had a desire to explore and, in many instances, did not accept the right of the Native American population to live their lives as they had done for many 100s or even 1000s of years. After all the Native Americans there were only protecting property which they viewed to be theirs, just as we all wish to do currently.

But in many instances the invaders believed they had rights over and above the natives who were already there. In some parts of the world considerations to natives was given and some trust was built, but it is easy to break or lose trust and also then not easy to regain and if done keep. As one action, which may not be viewed well, will invariably lead to a trust breakdown, thus resulting in maybe violent actions by one party or more.

Eventually, the Pilgrim Fathers (settlers) and others who came from Europe wished to move further inland and found the vast areas of land, which appeared to be unoccupied, but the Native Americans were there first, and many did not just reside in one place but moved  However they wished to. So many incidents of meeting each other occurred which resulted in many instances pf persons being injured and killed. The Native Americans (natives)generally were only armed with bows and arrows and tomahawks and knives, whereas the settlers were more likely armed with the guns of the day, even though, initially they may have been only single shot rifles or muskets. But the natives were generally experienced fighter and very skilled with the weapons they used, while the settlers may not have been with their weapons. Also usually the natives were in groups where everyone was armed, while the settlers, maybe, at least, initially were not in large numbers and were family units so only a few were armed.

Many massacres occurred on both sides and for the settlers, militaries were formed in 1861 with legislation from the newly formed American Government of 1776. However, the natives were not generally consulted about this process and were forced to move onto them. A substantive few, possibly of the young adults were not content with this and came off them and were then rounded up eventually and returned. But some settlers also didn’t respect the reservations, which they were not legally allowed to enter and certainly not settle in, but many did, showing to the natives, that, again, they were not being respected. So many disputes occurred over many years and the natives were, generally the one to suffer most.

All this is occurring in a country invaded by, initially the Pilgrim Fathers, who were puritanical Christians, but in many instances Christian principles were not extending in contacting with the natives.

The main governing document of America is the American Constitution created by the Founding Fathers written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 and in the main this is still substantially followed to this day.

But times have moved on, but in some respects not the Constitution as this is religiously defended by many in America. It was, however, written by middle aged to older white men of the puritan Christian view of that time. However, America, now is a varied mixture of cultures and religions, which this Constitution may well not take into account. Also, now politics play a hand in many areas of America and while, currently The President Joe Biden is a democrat and Congress and the Senate both have a democrat majority, albeit very small.

But the main legal body the Supreme Court as nine justices of which 5 are deemed to be Republicans with the other 4 being Democrats, so could it be said that this court has political leanings to republican views, in their interpretations of the Constitution, and not the views of human Rights as defined today

This could be said of the recent decision of the Court to abolish Roe v Wade re Human Rights of women regarding abortions and maybe Gun rights although a recent amendment to Gun rights has been passed by The Senate

So we have Human Rights v The Constitution, especially for women,  non-white ethnicities and areas of sexuality, very worrying times for many in America.


Source: Look at 3 enduring stories Americans tell about guns to understand the debate over them

 Chancellor Rishi Sunak defends wife Akshata Murty in row over non-dom status – BBC News

There are many Indians, former residents of India, who have decided to be residents of the UK and wish to stay in the UK, rather than keep open the option to return to India as they decided that the UK is now their home. Also they would not be able to afford to have Non-dom status, as Akshata Murty is reported to be paying £30,000 a year for non-dom status.

While, I believe she has still decided to retain her non-dom status, she will now be also paying UK tax on her Indian income.

Rishi is currently the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a MP so you would expect him to be wishing to retain residency, but his wife appears to be unsure as she expects to return to India, hence her non-dom status. Rushi also kept his American Green Card so expecting him to return to residence in America. Is this what we expect from a MP and  a Chancellor of the Exchequer for is he planning to move to America or India or is it all purely a means to avoid as much UK tax as possible.

He has seen that those least able to afford it pay as much as possible when he could have increased tax free limits, increased benefits, but no he wants the poor and disabled to suffer, while he and his family play tax avoidance. He was claimed to be great for some of his actions during COVID, the Furlough and other measures, but was this some of his playing with the UK population, who knows what’s in his mind.


Source: Chancellor Rishi Sunak defends wife Akshata Murty in row over non-dom status – BBC News

War Crimes

Russian actions in Ukraine is not new, as they did similar in Syria and invading other countries is not new either, as they did so in Georgia, Chechnya, but the West did nothing, so Putin feels he is free to do as he pleases.

In many of the above, Russia was creating ‘War Crimes’, but no actions were taken, as it appears actions are only taken when countries assumed guilty of war crimes are defeated and so far Russia as not been defeated.

Surely, war crimes are war crimes be they done by defeated parties or the so called winners.

Going back in history, by using the situation of destroying civilian targets is assumed to be war crimes was the UK/America not guilty of this in World War II in the bombing of Dresden and also America in Japan with their Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But this form of bombing in WW2 was started by Germany, called ‘The Blitz‘ and the bombing of Germany and then Japan did bring to an end of WW2.

Bombing of civilian targets is not right in any circumstances, but then the bombing of any targets should never be justified, in fact the creation of wars or any conflicts is not right, irrespective of the size.

The UN was created after WW2 to bring, so called peace to the World, but in this, many instances have occurred where the UN did not stop conflicts occurring ‘, but did bring in peace keeping forces, such as Bosnia.

But while broking peace is good should not the stopping of conflicts beginning be even better, but to do so this would require forces which are not available and the interventions of removing war like leaders of countries, but then there would not be many leaders left.

Colombia legalises abortion in move celebrated as ‘historic victory’ by campaigners | Global development | The Guardian

Colombia has decriminalised abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, following rulings in Mexico and Argentina that improve access to abortion


This is great, but it needs to be sustained, for one never knows when it could be taken away, just look at parts of America.

Women need to have control and have rights to do so.

Source: Colombia legalises abortion in move celebrated as ‘historic victory’ by campaigners | Global development | The Guardian

BBC’s Sarah Smith: Gun-toting US is less stressful than Scotland | Scotland | The Times

Sarah Smith, the former BBC Scotland editor, has told how she was relieved to walk away from the “bile, hatred and misogyny” of Scottish politics. Smith, who was


I feel Sarah Smith is not comparing like with like, for in Scotland she would have been commenting on Scottish affairs and there could well have been some Scots who would have disagreed with her views and wished to advise her, rather than respect her opinion.

Now she is in America is she concentrating on Scotland or now commenting on American affairs. If she is commenting on American affairs, then America is much larger than Scotland and not all America will hear her views, unlike in Scotland where many would have heard her views.

The escalation of violence in America would appear to be far greater than Scotland and gun ownership is, so while in Scotland and unpleasant as it was, vocal comments are not as serious as gun comments, as the former are unlikely to kill.

So, I feel she should hold judgement on America.


Source: BBC’s Sarah Smith: Gun-toting US is less stressful than Scotland | Scotland | The Times

Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to Nato is unshakable | Keir Starmer | The Guardian

Our party was foundational in forming the postwar alliance, which – as Ukraine shows – remains essential today, says Labour leader Keir Starmer


That is all well and good, but it goes deeper than that for NATO is not there as an attacking force, as muted by Putin, but at times the American influence does muddy the water. As it should be seen as a defence force and peacekeeper, in some respects as the UN forces, but, unfortunately, the UN is relatively inoperable not only due to the American influence, but also to that of Russia and China, so the UN Security Council is far from it.

But NATO can be misused due to American influence and the puppet attitude of some, at least former UK Governments. Unfortunately, Prime Ministers do not use their power as they should do, as was evident with Blair and his ‘weapons of mass destructions within 45 mins’, for which he didn’t really suffer any punishment for and went on to make more fortune in his life after his premiership. Let’s do hope that Boris does not follow this lead with his ‘No. 10 Parties.

In forming NATO it could have been better created and as the NHS is great, it could or should have been better funded as should Social Care, which should have been and still should be included as an integral part of the NHS.

Politics and world affairs are no way what they should be, so lets do hope that Putin’s actions are not the end of the World and he sees sense and does not invade Ukraine.

Source: Under my leadership, Labour’s commitment to Nato is unshakable | Keir Starmer | The Guardian

Putin accuses U.S. of trying to lure Russia into war | Reuters

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the West on Tuesday of deliberately creating a scenario designed to lure it into war and ignoring Russia’s security concerns over Ukraine.


Any actions have to be accountable, and no one should have a right to enter another country without authorisation, at least when this relates to 2 of the supposed superpowers.

As yet neither Russia or America has recently placed troops in another country, especially Ukraine, but Russia has in the past with the Crimea and some other parts of the Ukraine and are still there. So, with Russian movements of assumed over 125,000 troops alarms have been alerted, especially when Russia has made distinct demands for certain assurances when they are unwilling to offer any such reassurances.

America have moved around 30,000 troops in its response, which could be viewed as a measured response and in reality, is no comparison to those troop numbers of Russia.

Ukraine is an independent country and as such as a right to do as it pleases within its, own boarders and so as Russia. But it is not just troop movements with Russia, for they are wishing to dictate to Ukraine what they can and can’t do, but, if Ukraine wishes to join NATO, then it has a right to do so. If, Russia has no intentions of invading Ukraine, then it has nothing to be afraid of, but Ukraine as a right to defend and plan to defend itself as the history of Russia and certainly Putin shows that neither can be trusted.

NATO is not an aggressor as Russia would lead us to believe but exists to promote democratic values and is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes to ensure the security of Europe.

President Vladimir Putin, on the other hand does engage in behaviours that appear to encourage conflicts detrimental to the peace and security of Europe. Also while saying he is using democratic principles his actions in Russia seem to say the opposite for he has effectively removed any credible opposition by either arresting or killing his opponents.

Putin is guilty of abuse of power, but as he does that all the time what is new.

The Western powers wish for peace, but Russia and also China appear to want the opposite.


Source: Putin accuses U.S. of trying to lure Russia into war | Reuters