Connect with us

International

Keir Starmer’s left-wing UK government is at war abroad and against its own people

Published

12 minute read

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

With Britain’s economy facing disaster and its citizens under threat of imprisonment for tweet crimes, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government is stoking war abroad and charged with starting one at home – against its own people.

On the Fourth of July 2024 Keir Starmer won the U.K. general election with around one-fifth of the vote. This delivered him a huge majority in Parliament, and he vowed on the day that “politics can be a force for good. And that is how we will govern.”

Four months later, over two-and-a half million Britons have signed a petition to call another election. Though few believe this will result in an election, it is a strong sign of mounting dissatisfaction with the Labour government – and the numbers signing are rising by the thousands every minute.

Almost immediately on taking office the Starmer government plunged in popularity. Despite ending his first week in power with a reasonable approval rating in the polls, his support has suffered an “historic drop” in ratings, according to Politico’s report three weeks ago.

“Keir Starmer has suffered the biggest post-election fall in approval ratings of any British prime minister in the modern era,” the report said. He is “languishing on an approval rating of -38,” which is “a precipitous 49-point drop” from early July.

A disastrous budget and a declaration of “class war” on British farmers has followed this survey, with the latest indication of Starmer’s deep unpopularity seeing millions call for him to go.

One major reason for the call for an election is the Starmer government’s response to the knife murder of three girls aged six, seven and, nine by suspect Axel Rudakubana, initially described as a “boy … from Cardiff” on July 29, 2024.

Court sketch of “Cardiff teen” Axel Rudakubana. Source: X

READ: UK’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer moves toward digital tyranny in response to civil unrest

“Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” – asked Musk as news of the arrests for speech crimes broke.

British judges have handed down harsh sentences – up to 38 months – for “hate speech,” including posts on sites such as X (formerly Twitter).

One man, Yorkshire grandfather Peter Lynch, subsequently died in prison. He was described as “the victim of a vengeful, out-of-touch Prime Minister” in the Daily Telegraph. Starmer had vowed to “crack down on far-right thugs” such as Lynch, who was jailed for shouting that police were “protecting people who are killing our kids and raping them.”

A 2015 report said up to “one million British children” may have been sexually exploited by immigrant gangs. The judge who jailed Lynch had also set a convicted child sex offender free.

The convictions were pursued under an official narrative of countering hate speech, as many of those prosecuted alleged a terrorist motive to the killings, linking this to the fact that the suspect was the child of Rwandan immigrants. These claims were routinely dismissed as dangerous conspiracy theories – and hate speech.

Starmer was formerly a lawyer who has worked in the past to secure rights and benefits for illegal immigrants, and once promoted a 2015 petition to “accept more asylum seekers and increase support” for them.

Evidence emerged at the initial hearing before his trial that the suspected killer had been found in possession of an “Al Qaeda training manual” and was attempting to manufacture the nerve agent ricin. He was charged under the Terrorism Act.

In addition to terrorism charges, and three counts of murder, the BBC reported “he is also charged with ten counts of attempted murder and possession of a knife.” Eight children were wounded, along with two adults, during the attacks.

READ: UK’s draconian ‘online safety’ laws are turning traditional values into criminal ‘hate speech’

As this news broke, reports emerged showing Starmer had known that the suspect would face terror charges “for weeks,” whilst he and his government condemned “misinformation” whenever terrorism was mentioned in connection with the attacks.

As The Sun reported, both former Prime Minister Liz Truss and a former adviser to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, said Starmer would have known this “immediately” after the attacks.

Many judges who have imprisoned British social media users for “tweet crimes” have been found to have released child sex offenders without jail time, fueling further outrage. A report from the Telegraph confirmed the trend of releasing “pedophiles” without custodial sentences.

Musk again commented on one shocking case.

 

With the investigation of a British journalist, Allison Pearson, over a “non-crime hate incident,” the charge of “Keir Stasi” was reprised, with Elon Musk once again chiming in.

Pearson was visited at home by police over an old tweet, in a case which has since been dropped. Yet Elon Musk’s friction with the Starmer government does not end here – nor with him.

READ: Keir Stasi? UK government wants to prosecute ‘non-crime hate speech’

Breaking the ‘special relationship’?

The Starmer government is also mired in a serious scandal concerning the incoming Trump administration. As the Washington Post reported, Starmer’s Labour Party “helped organize 100 members to volunteer for the Kamala Harris campaign, with a focus on the swing states.”

The Trump campaign responded with a legal complaint with the U.S. Federal Election Commission, charging Starmer’s Labour, together with the Harris campaign, with “making and accepting illegal foreign national contributions.”

Though the scandal was hand-waved away by Starmer, his cabinet ministers have a long history of making outrageous remarks about President Trump. U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, for example, has alleged Trump is a member of the Ku Klux Klan and called Trump a “neo-Nazi sociopath.”

That the Trump campaign has called Starmer’s party “far-left” is not the half of it. The U.K. government has long pressed for escalation in Ukraine – a war which Trump has vowed to end.

With the war’s end would come a harsh reckoning of costs – including to energy bills, in human lives, and of course in the once notorious corruption of Ukraine itself. The Pandora Papers revealed the “hidden fortunes of the world’s elite and crooks” and the report, issued in November 2021, even detailed the shady financial dealings of Zelensky himself.

With isolation looming in Europe, Starmer is looking very lonely. His chief continental ally, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has just seen his government dissolve. Right-wing populism is growing across Europe, with France, Sweden, Austria, and the Netherlands looking to politicians far friendlier to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán than to pro-open borders and permanent war progressives like Starmer.

British intelligence operations under Starmer have also included attempts to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” with Kit Klarenberg reporting on November 3 how “British Intel Again Targets Donald Trump.”

Starmer’s troubles at home and abroad are serious and seemingly insoluble. His Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, has recently been exposed as a liar. She had claimed to have been an economist, when in fact she had been a sort of clerk – and had also been described as “useless.”

With Britain’s economy facing disaster, its citizens under threat of imprisonment for tweet crimes, and with the Labour Party seeing farmer protests in London against its tax and land grab, Starmer’s government is stoking war abroad and charged with starting one at home – against its own people.

His government is an advertisement for a world order which Americans – and Europeans – are voting against in huge numbers. So, what happened in the U.K. in July?

The real winner of the last election in the U.K. wasn’t the Labour Party. Half of all adults did not vote at all, and turnout was the lowest since universal suffrage was introduced, as the IPPR reported.

“If non-voters were a party, they would have been the largest party by some distance,” it found.

Britain does not just face a crisis of confidence in its current government when the largest vote share is won by “none of the above.” It is hard to see how a petition can fix this, but given the level of disengagement with the electoral machine, it is notable that two-and-a-half million people can be bothered to sign it at all.

If you can motivate millions of people who do not vote into taking an interest in politics, perhaps – as Keir Starmer did – you can call yourself a “force for good.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Independent Media “The Free Press” hits 1 Million subscibers

Published on

Free Press founder Bari Weiss interviews Peter Thiel
By Bari Weiss

The rise of The Free Press happened simply and honestly: story by story.

Christmas and Hanukkah celebrate otherworldly miracles. But this Chrismukkah—the holidays fell on the same day this year—we at The Free Press added a miracle of an entirely human kind. We reached one million subscribers.

Grateful—and hopeful—doesn’t begin to cover it.

I have been beaming since Wednesday morning, when I refreshed my screen and got the good news in Nellie’s childhood home. (We captured the moment; this was before I cried.) Mostly I’m pinching myself, thinking back to how this all began, and wondering how we got here.

The easy answer would be: Americans’ faith in the legacy press has collapsed, with curious and independent-minded readers unsubscribing from The New York Times, pausing their donations to NPR, and searching for trustworthy alternatives.

And that’s certainly part of what happened. It was definitely the beginning.

But we quickly discovered that you can’t build something new—or certainly not something lasting—based only on rejecting the old. You have to build something people value. Something people need.

At The Free Press, that something is the truth—the only goal of real journalism. That’s what we’ve run hard and fast toward. From day one, we’ve had a single guiding principle: Pursue the truth and tell it plainly. No shortcuts. No exceptions.

From day one, we’ve been reporting stories the legacy media was scared to touch or had overlooked as a result of its incuriousness, politesse, or entrenched interests. We’ve aimed to pair the political freedom of the new world with the professed standards of the old. And because we’ve been a subscription business from the start, we’ve been liberated from the need to please advertisers or get clicks. That’s allowed us to do ambitious journalism, driven by a desire to bring our readers great work that informs them about the world as it is.

We’ve done all this very lean. We don’t have hordes of consultants, mammoth business teams, or special strategies for ranking on social media or Google. Until a few weeks ago, we didn’t even have a metered paywall, let alone a product manager.

And when I say we—I don’t just mean our editorial team, which is the hardest working in the industry. I mean all of us. All one million, especially those who have been here from our earliest days.

Back then, honestly, a paid subscription didn’t get you anything so different from a free one. Now we’ve expanded to offer a whole fleet of content and events and podcasts. Soon, we’ll have even more. But our early subscribers didn’t sign up when we had any of that. They believed deeply in the mission, and that belief allowed us to grow.

In other words: there were no fancy tricks. The rise of The Free Press happened simply: story by story. Podcast by podcast. Debate by debate. Video by video. Interview by interview. And subscription by subscription.

As I’ve told our newsroom on more than one occasion: There is no secret business—no gaming or cooking app, for now at least. The business is the stories we tell. If a story is excellent, if it tells our readers something new, something revelatory, if it explains something in a new way, if it deepens trust, we will grow. If it doesn’t do these things, we won’t. Our readers are discerning: They love and reward quality.

This is all a way of saying: We reached this milestone because of you.

The Free Press began as a question I asked myself after resigning from The New York Times, scratching my head at what I saw there. Is there still a market for real journalism? For fearless, fair, independent journalism that treats readers like adults? Journalism that presents the facts—even the uncomfortable ones—and allows people to draw their own conclusions?

The answer, it turns out, is a resounding yes.

That “yes” from one million of you—and counting—has given me hope not just for journalism but for the future.

So here’s to you, the first million members of the Free Press community. Here’s to the next million. And most important of all: Here’s to the next story.

In honor of this milestone, we’re offering a 25% discount to become a paying member of our community. If you’re a free subscriber, there’s never been a better time to upgrade. We’re keeping this sale on annual subscriptions going until midnight ET on December 31, 2024, because we want many, many more of you to join us, officially, in 2025.

If the price—less than $80 a year—is prohibitive, please write to us: [email protected] and put “subscription help” in the subject line.

Technically my assignment for today was to choose my favorite stories of 2024. All week long we’ve been recommending the best of The Free Press. Today was my day. Honestly, I found it an impossible task. But if you’re still wondering what makes The Free Press tick, or if it’s worth supporting our work by becoming a paid subscriber, allow me to recommend . . .

1. Uri Berliner would never describe himself as brave, but I will. His bombshell essay, “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.,” captured how the public radio network lost its way—and shaped conversation for months. If you want to understand why The Free Press is an urgent project, read this.

2. One of the best things to happen to The Free Press this year was my friend Niall Ferguson joining us as a columnist. Start with his inaugural and provocative essay, “We’re All Soviets Now.”

3. Abigail Shrier is one of the most important reporters working today. We were thrilled that she officially joined as a contributing editor this year. Her recent investigation—“The Kindergarten Intifada”—exposes a widespread, pernicious campaign in American public schools to indoctrinate children against Israel.

4. Free Press columnist Coleman Hughes is a generational talent: cool-headed, hyper-rational even as he touches the hottest subjects in our politics and culture. His review essay of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s new book, The Message, is definitive: “The Fantasy World of Ta-Nehisi Coates.”

5. In “They’re Black Democrats. And They’re Suing Chicago Over Migrants,” our reporter Olivia Reingold reminded Americans that you can never, ever make assumptions about what any cohort of voters thinks or believes.

6. And in “I’m 28. And I’m Scheduled to Die in May,” Rupa Subramanya illustrated, in harrowing detail, why a mentally ill person would end her own life in a country where death is seen as a cure.

7. Douglas Murray’s Sunday column, “Things Worth Remembering,” is a weekly jewel. I particularly loved this one, about what makes a great conversationalist: “Conversation Is an Art.”

8. Maddy Kearns’s story on British citizens getting arrested for silently praying was one of the most troubling dispatches I’ve read on the perilous state of free expression in the West: “She Was Arrested for Praying in Her Head.”

9. Not only does she deliver TGIF every week, but Nellie Bowles somehow managed to write a book this year. This excerpt—“The Day I Stopped Canceling People”—is a deeply personal account of going along with the crowd before realizing other things, like love, are more important than fitting in.

10. The Free Press decamped to Israel earlier this year to report from the ground. But our man in Jerusalem, since the start of the war, had been Matti Friedman. Don’t miss his piece “Why I Got a Gun,” a sobering tale of how terror transformed a family.

Beyond the Best of The Free Press, here’s what summed up my 2024. . .

Best thing I read this year: The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig.

Best thing I watched: Ratatouille! This is the first—and only—movie our daughter has seen. We watch it in 10-minute increments, so I don’t yet know how it ends. Highly recommend the movie—and this methodology.

Best thing I heard: Beyonce’s Cowboy Carter. And I don’t know if this quite qualifies, but I’m also going with the Roast of Tom Brady. Cultural glasnost, brought to you by Netflix. The beginning of the great un-freezing.

Best thing I bought: These $45 jeans from Amazon. Are they flattering? Absolutely not. But you will not find more comfortable pants.

Best thing I ate: This Alison Roman recipe, which I make in a tagine, never fails. Also: Courage Bagels in LA are worth the wait.

Biggest regret of the year: Not pausing to celebrate wins. And every bedtime I missed because of work. Resolutions, both.

Best thing that happened: The birth of our gorgeous (enormous) son in July.

New Year’s resolution: Become a Pilates mom.

What I am most looking forward to in 2025: Building The Free Press—and spending time with the talented, tireless people I get to build it alongside.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

Congress’ Shield against Trump’s Hammer of Justice

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By el gato malo 

Somewhere amid the 1,500+ pages of legislative clutter in the latest Continuing Resolution—the bill apparently killed by public exposure alone—lies a provision so audacious, so shameless, I can only assume it was drafted by a cabal of Congressional career criminals. Section 605—a sterile title masking its true intent—amounts to nothing less than a legislative fortress erected to shield Congress from the Justice Department, the FBI, and, most troubling of all, accountability.

At a time when President-elect Trump’s administration prepares to restore integrity and justice, Congress appears to have donned its armor, hiding its secrets behind a wall of bureaucratic legalese. This provision, if left unchallenged, sets a dangerous precedent: members of Congress placing themselves above the law, protected from scrutiny by the very agencies tasked with upholding justice.

Section 605: The House above the Law

Let’s strip away the camouflage. Section 605 does three things with surgical precision:

First, it declares that Congress retains perpetual possession of all “House Data”—a broad, almost limitless category including emails, metadata, and any electronic communication touching official House systems. This means providers like Google or Microsoft, who store or process this data, are mere bystanders, unable to act as custodians for investigators. The House claims total dominion.

Second, courts are ordered to “quash or modify” subpoenas for House Data. Investigators from Trump’s Justice Department, no matter how compelling the evidence, will now face a procedural minefield laid by Congress itself. Compliance with the legal process will be, in essence, denied.

Third—and most chilling—this protection applies retroactively. Any ongoing investigation that hasn’t yet secured House data is now dead on arrival. Existing subpoenas? Nullified. Pending warrants? Quashed. Section 605 doesn’t just safeguard future misconduct; it effectively buries the past.

The Investigations behind the Curtain

This isn’t a hypothetical problem. There are two glaring examples of why Congress is so eager to cement its immunity.

First, let’s talk about Shifty Schiff and Eric Swalwell. For at least three years, the DOJ has been investigating these two California Democrats—Schiff, now a senator, and Swalwell, perpetually ensconced in mediocrity—over illegally leaking classified documents to the media. A courageous Congressional staffer blew the whistle, revealing that both men had routinely fed classified information to friendly reporters to score cheap political points. The Grand Jury concluded that these leaks broke the law, yet the investigation’s smoking gun lies in House communications.

Under Section 605, that investigation would be dead. The DOJ and FBI would find their subpoenas quashed and their warrants denied. Schiff and Swalwell, guilty of weaponizing national security secrets, would escape justice—retroactively.

Second, there’s the case of Liz Cheney—a name that now evokes memories of hubris and betrayal among Republicans. During her star turn on the January 6th Committee, Cheney engaged in witness tampering to shape Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony. By all accounts, Cheney pressured Hutchinson to craft a narrative favorable to the Committee’s political objectives, a flagrant abuse of power that would warrant criminal investigation.

But with Section 605 in place, the DOJ’s efforts to uncover the truth would be paralyzed. Cheney’s communications—the very evidence needed to prove witness tampering—would be walled off. Congress would simply claim that its data is untouchable, its members above reproach.

Historical Parallels: A Republic’s Betrayal

The Romans had a term for this sort of legislative cunning: privilegium—a law that benefits a select few at the expense of justice. Cicero, in his fight against corrupt senators, warned that “the closer a man clings to power, the more strenuously he seeks to avoid the law.” Section 605 is the embodiment of Cicero’s warning. It allows the very lawmakers tasked with overseeing government to shroud themselves in secrecy, impervious to scrutiny from Trump’s incoming Justice Department.

This is not the first time Congress has played such games. During the Watergate era, Richard Nixon famously claimed that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Nixon’s arrogance, of course, led to his downfall. But now, it appears Congress has adopted the same mantra: when members of Congress write the law, they are beyond its reach.

Undermining Justice in the Age of Trump

Make no mistake: Section 605 is an act of preemptive lawfare. Trump’s Justice Department will soon be tasked with untangling years of corruption, leaks, and abuse of power that have flourished in Washington. The DOJ and FBI, freed from the shackles of political interference, are primed to restore the rule of law.

Yet Congress, fearing exposure, has pulled up the drawbridge. Section 605 would ensure that leakers like Schiff and Swalwell remain untouchable. It would protect Cheney from accountability for witness tampering. It would obstruct investigations, shield misconduct, and shatter public trust.

This is not about protecting Congress from political harassment. It’s about protecting Congress from justice.

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Congress?

The Framers never intended Congress to be a castle immune from oversight. The very idea that lawmakers can exempt themselves from the justice system would have been anathema to Jefferson and Madison, who understood that accountability is the lifeblood of a republic. When one branch of government declares itself untouchable, the balance of power collapses.

Section 605 cannot stand. It must be challenged, overturned, and consigned to the legislative ash heap. For if Congress succeeds in placing itself above the law, then the rule of law itself will become nothing more than a hollow promise.

As President-elect Trump prepares to take office, let this be a rallying cry: the swamp cannot be allowed to protect its own. If justice is to prevail, no one—not Schiff, not Swalwell, not Cheney—can be above the law.

And that includes Congress.

Author

el gato malo is a pseudonym for an account that has been posting on pandemic policies from the outset. AKA a notorious internet feline with strong views on data and liberty.

Continue Reading

Trending

X