As the UK prepares for Tuesday’s mass release of prisoners in order to free up space for “keyboard warriors,” victims of domestic violence will have to be on the ready since a “high proportion” of them will be domestic abusers, The Times reported.

Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, warned that as many as one-third of victims will be neither aware of their abuser’s release nor supported in any way by the government that decided to let the criminals out of jail before serving their apportioned time.

In an interview with The Times, Jacobs suggested the victims were “paying the price” not of government irresponsibility but of overcrowded prisons. She acknowledged that domestic abuse victims are especially vulnerable to released prisoners because their tormentors know who they are and where they probably live.

About 1,700 prisoners are slated to be released from British jails Tuesday as part of Prime Minister Keir Starmer‘s early release program. That’s about twice as many prisoners being released than normal. The Labour government plan means that criminals are getting released after serving 40 percent of their time, not the usual 50 percent and never 100 percent.

The government made the announcement eight weeks ago, apparently believing that would give the Probation Service sufficient time to prepare for the mass exodus from penitentiaries. However a senior probation officer has told The Times that the government timeline was completely mismanaged because it took weeks to assess what prisoners were eligible for early release and consequently many victims are hearing the unwelcome news literally days before the event.

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood tried to reduce the number of domestic abusers getting out by excluding prisoners serving sentences for crimes such as non-fatal strangulation, coercive control, stalking, harassment or breach of a restraining or non-molestation order. But that didn’t prevent those from serving time for simple assault or criminal damage from being included in the release program.

The Ministry of Justice has flatly admitted that it cannot say how many domestic abusers will be released this week, according to The Times but a senior government official did admit, “A high proportion will be domestic abusers.”

On Saturday The Times revealed that two of the men being released include one who went to jail after breaking his partner’s jaw and a second who bragged about how much he was “enjoying it” as he assaulted his ex-partner.

This Story originally came from humanevents.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

Russian drones entered the airspace of NATO members Romania and Latvia on Sunday and Saturday, prompting demand from some quarters for military response from the 75-year-old US-led alliance. The drones were reportedly aimed at Ukraine but one ended up crashing into Romania and another into Latvia, The Telegraph reported.

Bucharest scrambled F-16 fighter jets to assess the threat and issued a text alert to residents watching their smartphones Latvia’s defense minister confirmed that a Russian drone had landed near the town of Rezekne on Saturday and was believed to have been fired from Belarus, an ally of Russia.

“This situation is a confirmation that we need to continue the work we have started to strengthen Latvia’s eastern border, including the development of air defense capabilities and electronic warfare capabilities to limit the activities of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] of different applications,” said Andrea Spruds, the Latvian defense minister.

Latvian President Edgar Rinkevics took to social media to declare: “We are in close contact with our allies. The number of such incidents is increasing along the eastern flank of NATO, and we must address them collectively.” A statement from the country’s defense ministry said: “Latvian airspace is part of Nato airspace.” Romania said the attack was a “renewed violation” by Russia as a result of its “illegal attacks” on Ukraine.

No one was apparently killed or injured as a result of the drones. Investigators found pieces of one drone outside of the Romanian village of Periprava, which sits across from the Danube river near the Ukrainian port town of Ismail, which is often hit by Russian drone attacks. NATO’s members to the east are increasingly exposed to the war in Ukraine as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to win the war of attrition and NATO becomes more entangled in Ukrainian combat operations.

Russian missiles and drones have hit Poland, killing two people on one occasion, The Telegraph noted. Drones have entered Romanian airspace prior to Sunday’s incident when Russia has been attacking Ukraine’s ports along the Danube. So far, none of this has prompted NATO to invoke Article Five of its founding document that warns an attack on one member nation constitutes an attack on all members.

NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana issued a statement instead, saying on Sunday: “NATO condemns the overnight Russian airspace violation into Romanian airspace. While we have no information indicating an intentional attack by Russia against Allies, these acts are irresponsible and potentially dangerous.”

Ukraine is investigating how a US-supplied F-16 fighter jet was destroyed and the pilot killed. It was on the brink of ceasefire talks with Russia before Ukrainian forces invaded the Kursk region of Russia, scuttling talks.This Story originally came from humanevents.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

The U.S. is grappling with a critical national security threat due to its heavy reliance on foreign uranium. A threat that simultaneously exposes the nation to geopolitical vulnerabilities and threatens the stability of our country’s baseload power supply.

Amidst this backdrop, former President Donald Trump emerges as the solution to this pressing issue. A man who has previously demonstrated an understanding of the strategic importance of domestic uranium production when he established the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group to explore ways to strengthen the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain. A leader with the ability to negotiate complex international deals, Trump could be pivotal in securing favorable terms for the U.S. in the uranium market and revitalizing domestic production.

The U.S. imports nearly all the uranium required for its nuclear reactors, with a significant portion coming from Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan—countries that pose strategic challenges. This situation is exacerbated by the decline of the domestic uranium industry, which struggles to compete against state-owned enterprises that dominate the global market.

This reliance on foreign uranium imports places the U.S. in a precarious position. Nuclear energy, the cornerstone of the nation’s baseload power, providing a stable and reliable source of electricity needs a consistent supply of uranium. However, with nearly half of its uranium imports coming from Russia and its allies, the U.S. is vulnerable to supply disruptions that could have severe implications for its energy security. This dependency also undermines the U.S.’s ability to maintain a competitive edge in nuclear technology and energy independence.

Moreover, the lack of a robust domestic uranium industry means that the U.S. is missing out on significant economic opportunities. The global nuclear reprocessing market, which involves recycling used nuclear fuel to extract valuable materials, is a multi-billion-dollar industry. By investing in domestic reprocessing capabilities, Trump could not only reduce U.S. reliance on foreign uranium but also create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Something he is very good at.

Reprocessing used nuclear fuel is the solution to the challenges posed by foreign uranium dependency. The process itself involves extracting fissile materials from spent fuel, which can then be recycled into new fuel. This not only reduces the volume of nuclear waste but also enhances energy security by closing the nuclear fuel cycle.

However, reprocessing has been benched since 1977, when the U.S. government decided to indefinitely defer commercial reprocessing of nuclear fuel to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and materials. This decision was based on the belief that the U.S. could sustain its nuclear power program without reprocessing and to discourage other nations from expanding their reprocessing activities.

Needless to say, our discouragement was ineffective, leaving France and Russia to take advantage of the opportunity. Today, they dominate the global market for nuclear fuel recycling. A market valued at approximately $3.03 billion in 2023 with projected growth to $4.32 billion by 2029.

Both France and Russia use the PUREX (Plutonium and Uranium Recovery by Extraction) process, which is the most common method for reprocessing nuclear fuel. This technique involves a liquid-liquid extraction process to separate uranium and plutonium from spent fuel. However, PUREX has significant drawbacks, including the production of a pure plutonium stream, which raises proliferation concerns which has further isolated the market opportunity from the United States.

However, in true Donald Trump spirit, American innovation is challenging the status quo. Innovators like Curio have developed a NuCycle process that promises a more economical and secure alternative. NuCycle is designed to be more efficient and less costly than traditional methods, and it addresses the proliferation risks associated with PUREX by not producing a separated plutonium stream. This makes it an attractive option for the U.S. as it seeks to establish a domestic reprocessing industry.

Investing in domestic nuclear reprocessing offers numerous benefits. Economically, it could transform the U.S. into a leader in the global nuclear fuel market, creating thousands of jobs and generating significant revenue. The global nuclear waste management market is projected to surpass $4.9 billion by 2024, with strong growth expected over the next decade. By capitalizing on this opportunity, the U.S. could reduce its trade deficit and enhance its economic resilience.

Strategically, developing a domestic reprocessing industry would bolster national security by reducing reliance on foreign uranium. It would also position the U.S. as a leader in next-generation nuclear technology, enhancing its competitiveness on the global stage. This aligns with broader efforts to restore America’s leadership in nuclear energy and technology, ensuring that the U.S. remains at the forefront of innovation and nonproliferation standards.

Donald Trump is uniquely positioned to address the challenges posed by foreign uranium dependency. His track record of negotiating complex deals and his understanding of the strategic importance of domestic energy production make him a suitable candidate to lead efforts in revitalizing the U.S. nuclear fuel industry. Trump’s previous initiatives, such as the establishment of the U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group, demonstrate his commitment to strengthening national security through energy independence.

By leveraging his unique skill set in negotiation and foreign diplomacy, Trump could secure favorable agreements with uranium-producing countries, facilitate the development of domestic reprocessing capabilities, enhance U.S. energy security, create economic opportunities and reduce environmental waste through advanced recycling technologies.

This Story originally came from humanevents.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

A mother who served as a surrogate to a gay couple, using her own eggs and their sperm, has won a legal battle against the dads who wanted to keep her out of her son’s life and raise the boy in a “motherless” home in the LGBTQ community. The gay couple called the mother “homophobic” for wanting to be in her own son’s life. The child is now 4-years-old. The court determined that the mother would retain legal parentage rights along with parental responsibility.

The London case saw the surrogate mother, who was not only a gestational carrier but the biological mother of the child, having to fight the gay couple just to see her son and be in his life. The couple, writes The Daily Mail in an exclusive, tried to “stop her from seeing her own biological child and erase her from his life.” The gay dads did not have a concern for their son’s bond with his own mother and preferred to exist in the delusion that he had no mother at all.

There has been grave controversy over surrogacy, access to which is seen as a right by many in the LGBTQ community. There is a belief that men who cannot conceive on their own should have access to women’s bodies both for their eggs and for their wombs, both of which are needed to conceive and carry a baby to term.

There is an entire industry around contracting women to carry the egg of another woman, the sperm of the contracting man, and carry a child only to give them up at the end of nine months. Efforts to normalize this have been met, in many cases, with the biological facts of life, namely the bond that forms between mother and child. Others have compared the practice to human trafficking and there have been cases of men who have contracted multiple surrogates to deliver them babies.

The gay dads told the court that the woman’s son would be “confused” if she were present in his life and that they preferred their family to be “motherless,” even after they needed a mother to provide her eggs and carry the child to term. After the child was born, they had no more use for the woman, whom they’d intended to rent and throw away. The woman could not, however, allow herself to be severed fully from her son.

In one instance, when the mother arrived at the couple’s home to see her son, they threatened to call police and prevented her from accessing her own son despite the visit having been pre-arranged. Instead, they fought with her in what was called a “horrendous” argument.

The gay dads also told the court that the woman was “homophobic” for wanting to be in the boy’s life and wanting him to know her as his mother, despite her actually being his biological mother and carrying her DNA. This, the gay dads said, would be an “inappropriate relationship.” They told the court that it was their belief that the child would feel his gay family was incomplete if he were to know his mother.

A child psychologist who gave evidence in the case said the gay dads’ plan to conduct the “erasure of the mother” did not actually reflect reality and that it was not in the child’s best interests to prevent him from seeing his mother or having a relationship with her.

The gay dads, aged 36 and 43, had been desperate to have a child “to complete their family” when a friend’s sister, the woman who became the mother of the child, agreed to be a gestational surrogate. This meant that she would have an embryo implanted in her womb that was comprised of a donor egg and sperm from the men. The donor egg plan did not work, so they agreed that she would use her own egg, becoming the child’s true mother.

The trio had planned that she would be in the child’s life, but the men became afraid, as the woman carried her child, that she would be unwilling to give them her son after she birthed him. She agreed to give them her son, admitting that she was afraid they would cut her out of her son’s life, which they attempted to do.

The couple and the child’s mother signed contracts to ensure that the gay dads would be the primary carers and that she would have regular contact with her son. The men reneged on the deal, sought legal protections for their parenthood and tried to use the court system to remove their son’s mother from his life.

“Whilst many surrogacy arrangements work very successfully, this case provides a graphic illustration of the difficulties that can be encountered if the arrangement breaks down,” Justice Theis said. “Z is clearly thriving in X and Y’s care. That is not in issue and G has never suggested should not live with them, for Z that security is there. Z has seen G recently and has expressed the wish to see her again.”

“I hope now that these decisions have been made the parties will be able to focus on the important issue in this case, namely, to take steps to seek appropriate therapy and support with the aim of seeking to repair their relationships, as the one thing that unites all the adults is ensuring that Z’s welfare needs are met,” the judge went on. “This is now the opportunity for each of them to demonstrate to Z that they can work together and each play their part to ensure that is achieved.”

This Story originally came from humanevents.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers:

As Congress prepares for another nailbiting stalemate over efforts to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the government funded, one particular Republican demand has become particularly urgent. Specifically, members of both the House and Senate Republican cauci – Mike Lee and Chip Roy chief among them — are calling for any such resolution to also include the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility or SAVE Act.

What is the SAVE Act, you might ask? Put simply, it is something which – in a sane country – should be redundant: namely, a bill which prevents noncitizens from voting in United States elections. It does this by requiring those arriving at polling places to present one of ten forms of legal identification in order to vote. Those who cannot do so would be removed from the voter rolls. Those who can do so, but present fraudulent documents, would face fines or imprisonment. It’s as simple as that. And in our view, it must be a precondition for Republican cooperation with any CR on the table.

Now, granted, fights over CRs are notoriously unpredictable instances of partisan wrangling. “What does this have to do with our budget,” many will ask. To this we say, they have answered their own question with those last two words: “Our budget.” Because, whatever you believe about what that budget should look like, the fact that it belongs to a government which is ultimately controlled by the actual people that government is obliged to represent is the most important element. Refuse to safeguard that, and we are no longer a country, let alone a democracy, but simply a battleground of competing electioneering operations, both foreign and domestic. We, at least, believe the fight to preserve America’s stature as a democracy is worth more than any amount of money.

However, this will not be an easy fight to win. Why? Because the Democrats – and even some Republicans — are about as dead set on stopping something like the SAVE Act as it’s possible to get. The most high-profile Republican defector, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at least has a facially reasonable objection: that Republicans attaching a bill unrelated to the budget to a CR will create a precedent whereby Democrats will do the same. While we understand his reservations, we are simply skeptical that Democrats will care that much whether precedent has been set or not. This is the party, after all, that likes to “make history” at all costs, even in invidious and tyrannical ways. Their disregard for norms when those norms cease to favor them is blatantly obvious to everyone, and if you doubt that, just look at how quickly the liberal call to pack the Supreme Court went from being a fringe fantasy to part of the 2024 Democratic party consensus. You cannot cower behind intangibles forever; principles without power are delusional.

To be fair, McConnell also argues that the Democrats would never pass a bill with the SAVE Act attached, and even if they did, that President Biden would never sign it. And on that, perhaps, he is correct, at least barring an effective effort to put the Democrats on the hot seat for letting America’s budget dry up in the name of stopping Voter ID measures – something which an overwhelming majority of Americans support. We understand the hesitation to provoke a government shutdown fight – they have historically gone very, very badly for the GOP – but those fights were over fiscal disagreements which the Democrats could easily spin as heartless cruelty. This is about securing democracy itself. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

However, the objection that the Democrats would refuse to pass this is revealing in its own way, because it begs the question…why? It’s not as if purging ineligible voters from rolls is in any way unprecedented or dangerous. Texas just cut 1 million voters from its rolls. Granted, liberals were hasty to pooh pooh this as simply getting rid of people who were either dead and/or had moved away, but that in itself is a victory. It does not matter one bit to a potential fraudster why an eligible person is on the rolls, so long as they know that person can be impersonated by someone ineligible. Which, without any ID requirement, they can be. Closing that opening is precisely the sort of thing that laws like the SAVE Act should encourage.

The more honest Leftist response, however, came from Democrats who complained that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s choices of who to cull sent a message to Latinos. In other words, they argue that moves like Abbott’s are racist. This is a bizarre idea, since it implies that either a) Latinos are too dumb to know how to obtain a legal ID (which is itself a racist sentiment), or b) most Latinos are here illegally (also a racist idea). When arguments fail to add up that obviously, there is something disingenuous being done, and the most charitable possible interpretation of what that is, is that Democrats truly think everyone living in this country should be able to vote, regardless of their citizenship or even legal status. The ACLU has also weighed in, complaining that they don’t know if the purges are legitimate because they weren’t allowed to review the data. In the same breath, however, they dismiss the move as simply “routine culling” which is being wrongly used to provide evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Naturally, you have to ask, if it’s as “routine” as all that, why all the scare tactics? Again, the most charitable interpretation is that the ACLU simply believes that any attempt to claim credit for removing illegitimate voters will discourage voting by people whose votes are legally illegitimate, but who they still think should have voting rights.

The trouble with these ideas, aside from their obvious contempt for actual American law, is that their consequences would be utterly catastrophic. If anyone who happens to be present in America on election day can vote, then that creates a gigantic incentive for not just corrupt actors in the United States, but even foreign governments to try to rush as many people who share their interests into polling places as possible. If we had a secure border which could prevent mass migration as a form of electioneering, this would be at least somewhat preventable. Unfortunately, we don’t. And what’s more, to sincere globalists, who aspire to end sovereignty, particularly in western nations like the United States, democracy be damned. That is a feature, not a bug.

What’s more, let’s assume, for the sake of argument that the problem the SAVE Act wants to solve isn’t all that large, which is the other argument made by the Left against it. Okay, if that’s true, then why the ferocious attempt to stop it, despite its being favored by 80 percent of Americans? Do they sincerely believe those remaining 20 percent not only are too incompetent to carry ID, but also don’t drive cars, travel, or buy booze or cigarettes? You know, any of the things for which carrying an ID is mandatory? At the basic level of common sense, it’s hard to imagine how adding an ID requirement to voting, assuming that requirement was communicated transparently in advance, would stop any actual citizen from casting a ballot. Which leads to the uncomfortable question: is the Left so opposed to this because they know they can only win by cheating and casting illegitimate ballots?

We think that such a question is not one that should need to be asked in a free country. We think that in a nation like the US, one should always be able to presume in favor of both political parties’ earnest desire to represent that nation’s actual citizenry. This isn’t a high-minded idealistic statement; if anything, it’s an insultingly low bar for a political party to meet. But, if the Democrats want to put that question on peoples’ minds by refusing to fund the government in order to stop a bill which secures American elections, then we are not going to argue with our opponents when they make mistakes. Which is why we call on both House and Senate Republicans to gird their loins and follow through on including the SAVE Act in the next continuing resolution. Because, contrary to what the folks at MSNBC or the New York Times might tell you, we conservatives do believe in “our democracy” – which is to say, the particular democracy which rightfully belongs only to Americans.
This Story originally came from humanevents.com

Stay Updated with news.freeptomaineradio.com’s Daily Newsletter

Stay informed! Subscribe to our daily newsletter to receive updates on our latest blog posts directly in your inbox. Don’t let important information get buried by big tech.

Current subscribers: