Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1] The all new Chicco Baby Moment Gentle Body Wash and Shampoo is 2 in 1 solution for keeping your baby’s hair ultra-soft and skin deeply moisturized for daily bathing from its first usage
During his 27-year run as a TV host, Jerry Springer became synonymous with a few tropes: the paternity test, the bleeped-out swearing, the security guards always ready to break up a fight. Nearly every one of his 4,000 episodes could be considered explosive, but there are a few moments that surpass even the wackiest standards of tabloid TV.
After his death on Thursday at the age of 79, there is no better time to look back at the craziest Jerry Springer moments of all time.
You Slept With My Stripper Sister!
Let’s start with a 2011 clip that has everything: one family member revealing a “secret” to another, a cheating boyfriend, and, yes, a stripper sister. The unassuming woman tells Springer upfront that she knows whatever her sister has to reveal to her “can’t be good”, because we all know how this goes. But, to be fair, her sister has a history of sleeping with the woman’s exes. When she comes onstage and lets her sister know that she bedded her boyfriend after a night at the club and apologizes, there is the requisite slapping and hair-pulling. Things only get worse when the boyfriend tries to say he’s sorry, but ends up slapped as well.
Confronting a Racist Family
‘I feel sorry for you’: Jerry Springer confronts antisemitic priest – video
Springer often hosted racists and Ku Klux Klan members on his show – and as the son of Jewish-German refugees who fled the Nazis, the subject was quite personal to him. In 1995, he told an antisemitic priest, “I don’t hate you, I feel sorry for you.” When the priest went into a Holocaust-denial rant, Springer told him to “shut your face”, which almost led to blows.
‘I Slept With 251 Men in 10 Hours!’
In 1995, Springer spoke to Annabel Chong, a 22-year-old porn actor who took part in the “world’s biggest gangbang”. Despite the predictable slut-shaming that took place (“Are you ever going to be able to love a man?” Springer asked), Chong spoke of the experience as an empowering reversal of gender norms. “Why not?” she said of her decision. After some years in the industry, Chong went on to work in software development – and left her record behind. It was broken by Jasmin St Clair, who also went on Jerry Springer to discuss the feat.
‘I Married A Horse’
In 2004, Springer introduced the world to Mark, a Missouri farmer and zoophile who introduced a truly disgusted audience to his wife, a horse named Pixel. “I had to earn her love and respect,” Mark said in a voiceover, while showing off photos he had taken of Pixel wearing women’s underwear (with a hole cut in the bum for her tail). “As far as sex goes, we make love. We don’t fool around on each other.” Springer would later tell Meredith Viera that he did not know what Mark was going to reveal on the show, which explains why he felt physically ill on-air.
‘Married to Your Dad But Want You Back’
In a love story of Shakespearean proportions, a Montana woman fell in love with a California man, who apparently walked 1,200 miles to be with her (he didn’t have a car). When they broke up, she ended up with his father, who she had a child with – her ex-husband’s younger sister. But regret nagged at the woman so much that she tried to reunite with the son on Springer’s show. He declined.
“Zack … the 70lb Baby”
A rare happy ending for a Springer guest: in 1996, baby Zack Strenkert made headlines for his size and weight. (He was later diagnosed with Simpson Golabi Behmel Syndrome, which causes overgrowth.)His parents lived an unconventional life, putting their infant in adult diapers, but it didn’t matter. “Wouldn’t change him for the world,” his father said during his first appearance on the show. Strenkert returned to the show as an adult, saying he was happy and working as a competitive gamer.
[ad_2]
#Jerry #Springer #Show #outrageous #moments
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1] The Chicco Baby Moments Essential Gift Pack comes with a Complete Care Set which includes everything needed to make the newborn’s bathing routine special and full of care. From head-to-toe cleaning to gentle moisturizing, it has everything to keep the baby’s delicate skin and hair clean, soft, and healthy. If you are looking forward to giving your friend one more reason to be delighted on the baby shower occasion, this can be the ideal gift. It is a go-to set that makes baby’s bath time easy and brings more joy to the parent-to-be. Chicco New Baby Moments products do not contain Phenoxyethanol & Parabens. Moreover, they are also free from other harmful toxins & preservatives like Tropolone, Mineral oil, Dyes, Alcohol, Phthalates, and EDTA, which can adversely impact the baby’s delicate skin. Made with the goodness of natural ingredients, all Chicco Baby Moments products provide deep hydration and nourish baby’s skin right from the first usage. At Chicco, we make every effort through our scientific knowledge and global experience of more than 60 years to give the ideal care for babies, because we, like parents, believe that babies deserve the best. Perfect for Special Occasions: This little bundle of love gift box is ideal for celebrating the special joy of a newborn baby. From baby shower, first birthday anniversary to expecting and new parents, this gift pack delivers absolute warmth on every occasion Baby Moments Gifting Range: All products under Baby Moments Gifting Range are made better with the goodness of Natural Ingredients that are best known for nourishing & moisturizing baby’s skin Advanced Formula as It’s Phenoxyethanol Free: Every Baby Moments product is free from Phenoxyethanol, which is a commonly used preservative, the excess usage of which is suspected globally to cause skin irritation and allergies on babies’ sensitive skin Safe Formula: All the products are also free from harmful chemicals & preservatives like Parabens, Tropolone, Mineral oil, SLS, SLES, Alcohol, Dyes & with no added Phthalates All the products are made of Vegetarian origin ingredients and dermatologically tested, thus suitable for babies’ sensitive skin Backed up with trust and Global expertise of Chicco Research Center. The new range of Chicco Baby Moments is formulated to meet the strictest standards of safety & efficacy of Chicco Research center, thus meeting the requirements of the new-age parents
Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1] Taking care of the newborn’s rich moisturization is an essential care for any new parent. Our New Baby Moments Body Lotion has an Advanced formula that does not contain Phenoxyethanol & Parabens. Moreover, it is also free from other harmful toxins & preservatives like Tropolone, Mineral oil, Dyes, Alcohol, Phthalates, and EDTA, which can adversely impact the baby’s delicate skin. The new Chicco Body Lotion provides a very rich moisturization from its first usage on baby’s skin as it contains the goodness of natural ingredients like Almond Milk, Murumuru Butter, and Almond oil, making it even ‘Better’ for newborns. At Chicco, we make every effort through our scientific knowledge and global experience of more than 60 years to give the ideal care for babies, because we, like parents, believe that babies deserve the best. Better: Made with the goodness of Natural Ingredients that have high proven efficacy in moisturizing baby’s skin Almond Milk is known for its deep moisturizing properties which restores moisture and keeps baby’s skin hydrated. Murumuru Butter acts as a natural skin protectant with anti-clogging properties. It keeps baby’s delicate skin soft and moisturized Advanced Formula as It’s Phenoxyethanol Free: Phenoxyethanol is a commonly used preservative, the excess usage of which is suspected globally to cause skin irritation and allergies on babies’ sensitive skin Safe Formula: Also free from harmful chemicals & preservatives like Parabens, Tropolone, Mineral oil, SLS, SLES, Alcohol, Dyes & with no added EDTA & Phthalates Ultra-rich, non-sticky and quick absorbing formula that makes baby’s skin deeply moisturized and nourished Made of Vegetarian origin ingredients. Dermatologically tested on babies’ sensitive skin
The three liberal justices and Amy Coney Barrett all raised questions about whether the states had standing to bring the case. A big wild card is three other Republican appointees — Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts — all of whom were silent on the standing question, even though they seemed sharply critical of the merits of the case.
Here’s POLITICO’s look at five key aspects of Tuesday’s closely-watched arguments on one of the Biden administration’s highest-profile policy initiatives:
John Roberts: Size matters
One particular fact about the Biden administration’s education debt relief program really seemed to be galling to Chief Justice John Roberts: It’s so darn big.
Roberts seemed fixated on the sheer amount of the debt cancellation the Education Department was planning to offer before the courts froze the effort: an estimated $400 billion.
Not content with the B-word that made astronomer Carl Sagan famous, the chief justice turned to the even more gargantuan T-word at least four times to make the debt relief program sound simply enormous.
“We’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans,” Roberts intoned just minutes into the arguments Tuesday. “Congress shouldn’t have been surprised when half a trillion dollars is wiped off the books?”
That became the prevailing framing of the program for Roberts and many of his colleagues, even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Samuel Alito uncharitably characterized the administration’s arguments this way, perhaps with inspiration from the late Senate Majority Leader Everett Dirksen: “When it comes to the administration of benefits programs, a trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, it doesn’t really make that much difference to Congress.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the conservative justices they were making a mistake to put so much emphasis on the overall cost and insisted it was proportionate to the need. “I recognize that this is a big program,” she said, adding, “but that’s in direct reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic, which itself was a really big problem.”
Did Kavanaugh compare student loan relief to Korematsu?
One of the most jarring comparisons at Tuesday’s arguments came when Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that the dangers posed by Biden’s debt relief plan could be akin to those from some of the worst excesses of presidential power. Kavanaugh mentioned the seizure of steel mills by President Harry Truman in 1952.
Another leading example that the Trump appointed-justice didn’t cite directly is the internment President Franklin Roosevelt ordered of about 120,000 people of Japanese descent during World War II, a policy blessed by the Supreme Court in 1944 in Korematsu v. U.S., a decision many Americans hold in disgrace.
“Some of the biggest mistakes in the Court’s history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power. Some of the finest moments in the Court’s history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power. And that’s continued not just in the Korean War, but post-9/11 in some of the cases there,” said Kavanaugh, who worked in President George W. Bush’s White House during the September 11 attacks.
While Kavanaugh said that history left him concerned about the Biden policy, he later seemed to backtrack a bit, pointing to an amicus brief calling the debt relief plan “a case study in abuse” of those powers. “I’m not saying I agree with that,” the conservative justice quickly added, muddling the question.
The most pointed rejoinder to Kavanaugh came from Justice Elena Kagan, who sits next to Kavanaugh and often trades quiet asides with him during arguments. She said Biden’s action didn’t sideline Congress as other presidents have, but directly embraced Congressional authority.
“Congress used its voice in enacting this piece of legislation,” the Obama appointee said, referring to the 2003 law allowing the Education secretary to waive various rules during emergencies. “All this business about executive power, I mean, we worry about executive power when Congress hasn’t authorized the use of executive power.”
Where’s MOHELA?
The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, known as MOHELA, figured heavily in the justices’ debate over whether the GOP states had standing to bring their lawsuit in the first place.
Missouri, one of the states, argues that it can advance its case based on harms to MOHELA, which is a state-created entity that will face a reduction in revenue under Biden’s student debt relief plan.
Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, conceded that if MOHELA itself had brought the lawsuit, the government wouldn’t contest its standing to bring such a case. But she said that Missouri couldn’t adopt MOHELA’s injuries as its own.
Several of the justices also seized on the fact that MOHELA wasn’t part of the case.
“If MOHELA is an arm of the state, why didn’t you just strong-arm MOHELA and say, ‘you’ve got to pursue this suit?’” Barrett asked the lawyer representing the GOP states.
“That’s a question of state politics,” responded James Campbell, the Nebraska solicitor general who was representing the group of Republican states, including Missouri.
Kagan suggested the state of Missouri was so far removed from MOHELA that the attorney general had to submit a public records request to obtain documents from the company. “If MOHELA was willing to hand you over the documents, you wouldn’t have filed a state FOIA request,” she said.
Alito, who appeared sympathetic to the state’s argument for standing, speculated that MOHELA might have been worried about its contract with the Education Department under which the company is paid to manage millions of federal student loan borrower accounts. “Do you think there might be a dependent relationship between agencies like MOHELA and the federal government since we’re speculating about why they’re not here?”
Indeed, MOHELA has publicly distanced itself from the GOP states’ lawsuit. The company has said its “executives were not involved” with the Missouri attorney general’s decision to file a lawsuit.
MOHELA officials from the company also privately sought to reassure Democratic congressional aides and Biden administration officials that they were not involved in the lawsuit, POLITICO previously reported.
Sotomayor tugs at heartstrings
In hours of debate on complicated legal questions of standing, statutory interpretation and separation of powers, one soliloquy by Justice Sonia Sotomayor stood out: She detailed what hangs in the balance for borrowers in personal terms.
“There’s 50 million students who … will benefit from this who today will struggle,” Sotomayor said, somewhat inflating the number of federal student loan borrowers who would benefit. (The Education Department estimates the total is roughly 42 million).
“Many of them don’t have assets sufficient to bail them out after the pandemic,” the Obama appointee said. “They don’t have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments. The evidence is clear that many of them will have to default. Their financial situation will be even worse because once you default, the hardship on you is exponentially greater. You can’t get credit. You’re going to pay higher prices for things. They are going to continue to suffer from this pandemic in a way that the general population doesn’t.”
Sotomayor also seemed to warn her colleagues against substituting their judgements about fairness and need for those the administration made in setting up the debt relief program.
“What you’re saying is now we’re going to give judges the right to decide how much aid to give them,” Sotomayor said during an exchange with Campbell. “Instead of the person with the expertise and the experience, the Secretary of Education, who’s been dealing with educational issues and the problems surrounding student loans, we’re going to take it upon ourselves.”
A former Education secretary makes an appearance:
Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who invoked the HEROES Act in 2020 to extend the pandemic moratorium on student loan payments, was among those who watched the arguments from the court gallery.
DeVos has been sharply critical of student debt relief and signed an amicus brief with other former Republican education secretaries that blasted the proposal as unconstitutional.
Under her leadership, the Education Department developed a legal opinion concluding that the agency lacked the legal authority to cancel large amounts of student debt without new Congressional approval. The Biden administration last August rescinded the department’s legal opinion and issued its own memo concluding that the HEROES Act provides a basis for broad-based debt relief.
Several Biden Education Department officials also attended the arguments, including Rich Cordray, the head of the department’s student aid office, who oversees implementation of the debt relief program.
[ad_2]
#key #moments #Supreme #Court #showdown #Bidens #student #debt #relief
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Before this contest fizzles into a two-person runoff in April, here are the big, weird, lowbrow moments as voters cast their Election Day ballots:
Conservative Democrat — or Republican spy!
Former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas is running to the right of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, politically squishy on abortion rights, pushing to flood the streets with more cops and getting the backing of the conservative Fraternal Order of Police. Although he told Block Club Chicago in mid-February that he is a “lifelong Democrat,” his rivals say everything adds up to being a Republican.
“What I feel like I am listening to is a version of Extreme Makeover: Paul Vallas Edition,” Lightfoot said during a January debate.
The speculation mainly stems from a 2009 interview, where Vallas said he was “more of a Republican than a Democrat now” and that he does not support abortion rights for religious reasons. He also said he was a fan of Rudy Giuliani during his presidential run at the time. Lightfoot ran with those sound bites, using the interview clips in an ad that closed with: “Paul Vallas is a Republican. Just ask him.”
Vallas accepted the Fraternal Order of Police’s endorsement by saying it represents support from the union’s rank-and-file officers, rather than its controversial leadership that has commended fatal police shootings, resisted vaccine mandates and posted inflammatory and racist things on social media.
‘Hunt them down like …’
Ever since his son was killed in a 1995 drug-related shooting, Willie Wilson, a perennial candidate who has run for president, Senate and another three times for mayor, has taken a strong anti-crime, police-friendly stance. But during a January debate, arguing that Lightfoot wasn’t doing enough to curb Chicago’s violence, he said she needs to “take the handcuffs off the police” and allow officers to “chase [somebody] down and hunt them down like a rabbit.”
The line instantly attracted jeers and is perhaps his most attention-getting moment of the race (even at his rallies).
Lightfoot said Wilson was unfairly targeting Black and brown men. Community activist Ja’Mal Green said it was “disgusting” to have an older man “who was a sharecropper from down South who would get on TV and constantly double down on hunting people down like rabbits.”
“I don’t respond to kids,” Wilson responded.
Wilson has a policing plan that includes bolstering police presence on city transit and installing more cameras throughout Chicago, but his main philosophy goes beyond that. “I don’t care what color you are. … I’m gon‘ lock ‘em up. And they get out again, we’ll lock ‘em back up. Because crime has no color,” Wilson told The TRiiBE in January.
Tricky Twitter fingers
The weekend before the election, the Chicago Tribune reported that Vallas’ official Twitter account had liked several inflammatory posts that bashed Lightfoot or had racist connotations. Some referred to the city’s first openly gay mayor as “Larry” rather than “Lori” and others made fun of her appearance and height, while another called her “beyond human.”
Still other tweets promoted “stop-and-frisk” policies as potential policing solutions — things that did not help dispel the idea that Vallas might be a Republican.
First, Vallas said he had nothing to do with those likes, as he doesn’t personally manage the account, and that his team was trying to identify who was responsible. Some of the liked tweets predate his campaign announcement, the Tribune reported.
The candidate told CBS News on Saturday that his account had been hacked altogether: “Even though we shut down our system; changed our password, they’re still trying to hack us.”
But he denied the tweets in question were “the R word” — or racist.
Civil service campaign fodder
The top four candidates in the race — Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García, Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson, Vallas and Lightfoot — dominated the airwaves during the election, with more than $7 million spent across 40 ads. But it was García, who ran for mayor before in 2015, who mishandled a TV spot, which included a clip of two uniformed CPD officers walking down a street with the candidate under the caption “fully fund community policing.”
The Chicago Board of Ethics said they were never consulted by his campaign on using images of uniformed officers ahead of the release. CPD’s policies state officers cannot participate in partisan or political activity, though their image can be used in campaigns as part of documenting a specific event. García later released a reedited version of his ad with generic images of a police car and law enforcement uniforms.
Lightfoot had her own public service dustup.
A letter from Lightfoot’s campaign team to CPS and City Colleges of Chicago employees in January sought to recruit student volunteers to “help Mayor Lightfoot win this spring.”
The emails were a “common practice to provide young people with the opportunity to engage with our campaign [and] done using publicly available contact information,” the campaign said in an initial statement. But Johnson and García panned the move as “desperate.”
Lightfoot later apologized, attributing the “mistake” to a “young staffer,” and that seemed to be it, only for the public to discover it wasn’t an innocent — if inappropriate — one-off. It was one of thousands.
Chicago news outlets found that Lightfoot’s campaign had been sending similar notes to city school employees for months. The requests included fundraising, invitations to town halls and requests for help gathering petitions — totalling almost 10,000 emails since April. Lightfoot’s team repeated that it was a mistake and that they had “long since halted any such recruitment efforts,” despite dozens of employees continuing to receive emails after the campaign said they had stopped.
The Board of Ethics is still investigating the matter and has not made additional comments.
Property wars
Few things are worse to a Chicagoan than someone mouthing off about the city only to find out they’re from the suburbs. WTTW reported in February that Vallas listed his permanent residence as an address in south suburban Palos Heights — a 20-minute drive from the edge of Chicago’s southern neighborhood of Beverly.
The county assessor’s office did look into Vallas’ residency but closed their investigation since a mayoral candidate only has to live in the city for a year before announcing their candidacy. Vallas says he lives full-time in the South Side neighborhood of Bridgeport, a 12-minute drive from downtown, while his wife is the primary resident at their Palos Heights home. Other candidates also own property outside the city limits, which made the episode feel like a waste of time.
That didn’t stop Lightfoot from getting in a jab while she voted early last week: “I’m glad my wife lives in the city of Chicago and can vote for me, unlike some.”
[ad_2]
#oddest #moments #Chicagoans #vote #mayor
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
As the fighting continues to rage, both sides of the Atlantic fear that Russia is finding its footing, Ukraine may be overmatched in certain parts of the east and south and the West’s pipeline of weapons will slow to a trickle.
Biden leaves Monday for Poland to meet with President Andrzej Duda and other key NATO leaders. U.S. officials believe that Ukraine’s defense is about to hit a critical phase with Russia launching its much-telegraphed offensive. The Biden administration has urgently pressed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s administration to consolidate its gains — and perhaps launch its own counterstrike.
The White House has also told Zelenskyy’s team, per multiple officials, to prepare for the offensive now, as weapons and aid from Washington and Europe flow freely, for fear that backing from Ukraine’s European neighbors could be finite.
In Washington, support for Ukraine has remained largely bipartisan, though some in the administration fear that it may be harder to send additional aid to Kyiv amid mounting resistance from the new Republican-controlled House. For now, though, even some of Biden’s fiercest critics salute the work he has done.
“He’s been good about connecting our national interests to the fight and that it’s good for the world for Russia not to be successful,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in an interview. “It’s going to be one of the decisive moments of his presidency.”
Biden’s trip to Poland comes just days ahead of the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion, a date which many military analysts believe Putin, fond of symbolism, may mark with a show of force. Aides have explored attempting to covertly get Biden across the border in Ukraine but a trip has been all but ruled out. The president is one of the last Western leaders who has not made the journey, which would require a 10-hour train ride or a daring flight. But most aides believe the security risk to Biden or Ukraine would not be worth it.
Biden will underscore the need for the West — and voters back home — to stay the course with Ukraine and he will tout the need for both alliances and American leadership on the world stage, aides previewed. But his speech will also reflect the duality of the moment.
On one hand, it will celebrate Ukraine’s remarkable resistance. But it will also acknowledge the continued vulnerabilities. Despite Kyiv’s successes, Russia still controls nearly 20 percent of Ukraine and the conflict has slowed to a brutal war of attrition. Moreover, Putin shows no signs of wavering in his vow to control all of Ukraine, according to American officials. In the best estimation of U.S. intelligence, Putin believes that despite the setbacks his military has faced, Russia still has two decisive advantages: manpower and time. European intelligence officials further assess Putin feels confident he can wait for an inevitable break in Western resistance.
Though the Russians have suffered heavy losses, they still have far more troops than Ukraine to send into combat, including ex-prisoners being pushed into battle by the mercenary Wagner Group. That group has shown surprising success at the front, per U.S. officials, while displaying little regard for the casualties suffered.
Facing little domestic pressure to end the war, Putin is operating as if he can outlast the Western alliance. Some in the Biden administration believe Putin will continue the onslaught — and could launch another massive mobilization of men — until at least the U.S. 2024 presidential election, hoping a candidate less convinced of the Ukrainian cause proves victorious. Former President Donald Trump has openly called for the war to immediately end to prevent it from escalating, even though that would allow Russia to keep its gains. And recent polling suggests that American voters’ willingness to send arms and weapons to Kyiv has slipped.
“I think the jury is still out on whether [Biden] can keep NATO unified,” said retired Brig. Gen. David Hicks, who commanded all U.S. and NATO forces tasked with training and advising the Afghan Air Force. “It’s only going to get more difficult going forward. Ukraine will have to show results with the aid they have received.”
To this point, the capitals of Europe have largely remained in lockstep supporting Kyiv despite the economic and energy challenges stemming from the war. In Washington, the Biden administration believes the funding Congress passed at the end of last year should carry Ukraine for much of 2023 and has been encouraged so far that the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill has continued to publicly support Kyiv.
At the Munich Security Conference, arguably the world’s premier defense-focused forum, Zelenskyy on Friday rallied the West to help Ukraine’s “David” defeat Russia’s “Goliath.” “Speed is crucial,” he said, alluding to a quick tempo of weapons handovers, because Putin “wants the world to slow down.”
But there is a small, yet growing, faction within House Republicans questioning the need to fund Ukraine.
“There’s never been a blank check with respect to supporting Ukraine,” acknowledged National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who stressed in a briefing Wednesday that the administration would stand with Kyiv for “as long as it takes” to repel Russia. “We’re proving every single day that this isn’t just about some moral or philosophical effort.”
Still, lawmakers supportive of Ukraine’s cause expressed confidence that both chambers will continue to back the effort.
“The overwhelming majority of Congress –– both Democrats and Republicans –– continues to be in lockstep on the need to provide assistance to Ukraine because we know what happens if Ukraine falls,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Europe panel. “Bipartisanship in Congress and continued coordination with our allies is essential as we move forward to support Ukraine because this is about more than Putin –– this is about sending a message to any dictator who threatens democracies that they will pay a severe price.”
In recent weeks, Kyiv has relentlessly called for equipment it believes it needs to contend with a larger war. It has received a pledge of Western tanks, though most will not reach the battlefield for months or even years. But, to this point, Ukraine has been rebuffed in its ask for fighter jets. A more pressing need has arisen as Russia intensifies its onslaught: ammunition.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently warned that the Russian offensive has already begun and there are signs that the fighting has increased. There is real concern inside the White House about Europe’s ability to provide artillery ammunition and other aid to Ukraine. The continent’s defense-industrial base is stretched and some countries already say their stockpiles are tapped.
On stage in Munich, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz addressed the issue, calling for “a permanent production of the most important weapons we are using.” French President Emmanuel Macron followed right after arguing Europe must “invest more in defense. If we want peace, we need the means to achieve it.”
The comments made clear alarm bells are going off in Europe’s power centers. “The war has exposed profound deficiencies in European countries’ capabilities and weapons stocks,” said Alina Polyakova, head of the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, D.C. “The concern is that they already don’t have enough to supply Ukraine and restock at the same time. And whether the U.S. defense industry can pivot fast enough — many think that it can’t.”
While European capitals are looking at Washington to fill the gap, the administration has pushed back at allies to do more, noting that the war could stretch well into 2024 and beyond. Administration officials insist that they will not pressure Ukraine to negotiate, even as some diplomats have speculated that a deal could be put forth to restore the borders at the start of the war: Ukraine would regain its territory in the east and south but Russia would keep Crimea.
In a private Zoom meeting Wednesday with outside experts, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Ukraine’s recapture of Crimea is a red line for Putin. That’s one reason why the U.S. is encouraging Kyiv to focus on where the majority of the fighting is, even if Washington still says any and all decisions on countering Russia are Ukraine’s decision alone.
But the reality Biden will confront in Poland is that Zelenskyy has made clear that he will not negotiate until all of Ukraine’s territory is restored — all but ensuring that the war will stretch into the distant horizon.
“We’re in this for the long-haul and it’s going to grind on for quite some time,” said Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center. If Western support starts to fade away, “there’s no denying that it will have an effect on both the outcome and the length of the war.”
[ad_2]
#decisive #moments #presidency #Biden #heads #troubled #Europe
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Indian badminton team confirmed its first-ever medal at the ongoing Badminton Asia Mixed Team Championships after defeating Hong Kong in the quarterfinals and advancing to the semifinals. Ahead of India’s landmark semifinal match against China, let us look at some of country’s most iconic badminton moments.
Source: Twitter
Prakash Padukone’s All England Open Badminton Championships win
Legendary Indian shuttler Prakash Padukone made history in 1980 by becoming first-ever Indian to win the All England Open Badminton Championships. He defeated Indonesia’s Swie King Liem in straight sets by 15–3, 15–10 in the summit clash. The Indonesian was number one in the world, the defending champion, but his run was stopped by Padukone.
Source: Olympics
Pullela brings back All England Open Badminton Championships trophy to India in 2001
Gopichand became the second Indian to lift the title, bringing the trophy to India after 21 years. He defeated China’s Chen Hong in the final by 15–12, 15–6.
Source: Olympics
PV Sindhu’s Rio Olympics 2016
At the Rio 2016 Olympics, Sindhu became the first-ever Indian shuttler to reach the badminton final. However, she had to settle for a silver after losing to Spain’s Carolina Marín, a huge rival of hers.
Source: Kiren Rijiju Twitter
PV Sindhu’s World Championships win in 2019
PV Sindhu became the first-ever Indian shuttler to clinch a gold medal at the Badminton World Championships in 2019, defeating Nozomi Okuhara of Japan by 21-7, 21-7 in two straight games.
Source: Sachin Tendulkar Twitter
India’s maiden Thomas Cup win
The Indian badminton team made history in 2022 and clinched their first-ever Thomas Cup trophy, the most prestigious men’s team world championships in the sport. They defeated 14-time champions Indonesia by 3-0 in the final.
Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1] The Chicco Baby Moments Delight Gift Pack comes with a Complete Care Set which includes everything needed to make the newborn’s bathing & skincare routine special and full of care. From head-to-toe cleaning to gentle moisturizing, it has everything to keep the baby’s delicate skin and hair clean, soft, and healthy. If you are looking forward to giving your friend one more reason to be delighted on the baby shower occasion, this can be the ideal gift. It is a go-to set that makes baby’s bath time easy and brings more joy to the parent-to-be. Chicco New Baby Moments products do not contain Phenoxyethanol & Parabens. Moreover, they are also free from other harmful toxins & preservatives like Tropolone, Mineral oil, Dyes, Alcohol, Phthalates, and EDTA, which can adversely impact the baby’s delicate skin. Made with the goodness of natural ingredients, all Chicco Baby Moments products provide deep hydration and nourish baby’s skin right from the first usage. At Chicco, we make every effort through our scientific knowledge and global experience of more than 60 years to give the ideal care for babies, because we, like parents, believe that babies deserve the best. Perfect for Special Occasions: This gift box with an abundance of love & care is ideal for celebrating the special joy of a newborn baby. From baby shower, first birthday anniversary to expecting and new parents, this gift pack delivers absolute warmth on every occasion Baby Moments Gifting Range: All products under Baby Moments Gifting Range are made better with the goodness of Natural Ingredients that are best known for nourishing & moisturizing baby’s skin Advanced Formula as It’s Phenoxyethanol Free: Every Baby Moments product is free from Phenoxyethanol, which is a commonly used preservative, the excess usage of which is suspected globally to cause skin irritation and allergies on babies’ sensitive skin Safe Formula: All the products are also free from harmful chemicals & preservatives like Parabens, Tropolone, Mineral oil, SLS, SLES, Alcohol, Dyes & with no added Phthalates All the products are made of Vegetarian origin ingredients and dermatologically tested, thus suitable for babies’ sensitive skin Backed up with trust and Global expertise of Chicco Research Center. The new range of Chicco Baby Moments is formulated to meet the strictest standards of safety & efficacy of Chicco Research center, thus meeting the requirements of the new-age parents
The assault weapons bill set Feinstein against the NRA. Her quest to uncover intelligence abuses spurred an extraordinarily contentious fight with a less predictable foe: a Democratic administration.
As chair of the powerful Intelligence Committee, Feinstein was determined to examine the Central Intelligence Agency’s program of detention and interrogation after the Sept. 11 attacks. She pursued the investigation during President Barack Obama’s administration, clashing bitterly with a fellow Democrat over reckoning with America’s wartime conduct. The result: The public can read the bulk of a 700-plus page executive summary cataloguing how the CIA’s torture and detention of terrorism suspects did not produce valuable intelligence and was more brutal than the agency had publicly acknowledged.
“The major lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need to act, the Intelligence Community’s actions must always reflect who we are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards,” Feinstein wrote in a foreword. Instead, CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values.”
Initially, CIA director (and fellow Californian) Leon Panetta worked with Feinstein and her staffers by sharing a tranche of documents that Senate staffers pored over inside a secure facility in northern Virginia. After three years of work, they sent a damning report to the White House.
“I really felt that Senator Feinstein, as chair of the Intelligence oversight committee, understood the responsibility to not only determine what happened but also to determine the lessons from that period in time,” Panetta said in an interview.
That collaborative spirit evaporated by the time John Brennan became CIA director in 2013. Brennan disputed the report’s conclusions, contradicting an internal agency summary and delaying publication. A larger conflict erupted over access: Brennan’s counsel filed a report with the Department of Justice alleging Senate staffers had accessed CIA documents without authorization; lawmakers accused the CIA of tapping into Senate staff computers.
It came to a head in March of 2014. Feinstein delivered a Senate floor speech describing how she learned “chilling” and “horrible” details of an “un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation” that entailed “significant CIA wrongdoing.” She demanded the CIA apologize for breaching the computers Senate staff were using, which Brennan ultimately did after an inspector general’s report vindicated Feinstein.
In the ensuing months, Feinstein would negotiate the fine points of redactions with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, who flew to San Francisco to meet with her. She faced blowback until the very end. Just days before the committee published its executive report, Secretary of State John Kerry lobbied Feinstein to hold off. She did not. Now the report is an indelible part of her record and a primary document of the country’s history.
“I think it was Dianne’s hope that, if she persisted and she presented what happened, that although it would be difficult, although it would offend a lot of people in the process, that nevertheless she would serve the national interest,” Panetta said. “She knew what needed to be done, and she was experienced enough to know how the bureaucracy can be a barrier to finding the truth.”
[ad_2]
#Dianne #Feinsteins #legacy #defined #moments
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )