Zeitnah, unabhängig und direkt: Die aktuellsten Videos warten auf euch!
Verschafft euch einen fundierten Überblick zum Start in den Tag. Ob internationale Ereignisse, kultureller Wandel oder politische Analysen – wir fassen zusammen, was wirklich zählt. Keine Nebengeräusche, keine Schönfärberei – nur Inhalte mit Wirkung. Klickt euch rein, bleibt kritisch und diskutiert mit, denn Wissen wächst im Dialog.
Eilt: Totales Desaster für deutsche Sicherheitsbehörden! Was wusste Merz?Weidel spricht Klartext!
CIA-Whistleblower: Sie sehen alle Nachrichten. CIA nutzt deine Geräte.
Spike – eine Biowaffe ?!
Katastrophenzyklen Teil 3/3 – Gesellschaftszyklen – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning
Impfobligatorium in der Schweiz: Welche Kantone bestrafen?
Neue Epstein-Akten bestätigen, dass PizzaGate echt war!
Authorities overseeing some of Britain’s most famous countryside landscapes are launching targeted outreach programs aimed at ethnic minority communities, after a government-commissioned review warned rural areas are widely perceived as a "white" and unwelcoming space.
"The countryside is seen by both black, Asian and minority ethnic groups and white people as very much a ‘white’ environment," the report stated, "We are all paying for national landscapes through our taxes, and yet sometimes on our visits it has felt as if National Parks are an exclusive, mainly white, mainly middle‑class club, with rules only members understand and much too little done to encourage first time visitors."
Critics say the initiative reflects misplaced government priorities. Michael McManus, director of research at the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital: "At a time of low growth, high taxes and stretched public services, it’s astonishing that ministers are spending time and money worrying about the ‘whiteness’ of the countryside. Government exists to grow the economy and fix real problems, not to indulge in culture war distractions that deliver nothing for working people."
The initiatives stem from the 2019 Landscapes Review, commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and led by author Julian Glover. The review concluded that England’s protected landscapes often feel disconnected from large parts of the population.
The review also criticized the leadership of protected landscapes, arguing that governance bodies do not reflect the country they serve. "Of the almost 1,000 people on National Park and AONB boards today, the great majority are male… and a tiny fraction are of black, Asian or minority ethnicities," the report said, calling that imbalance "wrong for organizations which are funded by the nation to serve everyone."
Following the review, organizations representing National Landscapes, formerly known as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, have published updated management plans outlining steps to attract more diverse visitors. According to individual plans published between 2024 and 2025, and as reported by U.K. outlets including LBC and GB News, the measures apply to landscapes including the Cotswolds, the Chilterns, the Malvern Hills and others.
Under those plans, the Chilterns National Landscape will launch targeted outreach programs in Luton and High Wycombe, areas with large Muslim populations. One barrier cited in follow-up research was concern among some visitors about unleashed dogs in rural areas.
The Cotswolds National Landscape referenced the DEFRA findings directly, saying it is seeking to broaden its appeal to reach "the widest demographic."
In its own management strategy, the Malvern Hills National Landscape said many minority communities lack a generational connection to the countryside because parents and grandparents "did not always feel welcome in it." The plan added that while many white English visitors value solitude, ethnic minority visitors may be more inclined toward group or family-based activities.
Other landscapes raised similar concerns. Nidderdale National Landscape in North Yorkshire warned that ethnic minority visitors may worry about how they will be received in unfamiliar rural settings. Dedham Vale, Surrey Hills, and Suffolk and Essex Coast Heaths said they aim to identify and address barriers limiting access for under-represented groups, including people without English as a first language.
Together, the plans signal a broader shift in how Britain’s publicly funded countryside is managed, as landscape authorities face growing pressure to demonstrate cultural relevance to a changing society, even as critics warn the focus risks sidelining economic priorities and traditional conservation goals.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in England for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
Nicht erklärte Kriege sind an der Tagesordnung. Tragischerweise führt unsere Regierung Präventivkriege, auch bekannt als Aggression, ohne dass sich das amerikanische Volk darüber beschwert. Leider haben wir uns daran gewöhnt, mit der unrechtmäßigen Anwendung von Gewalt durch die Regierung zu leben. Um eine wirklich freie Gesellschaft zu entwickeln, muss das Thema der Gewaltanwendung verstanden und abgelehnt werden.
In einer fesselnden Sendung von „Judging Freedom“ am 2. Februar 2026 sprach Judge Andrew Napolitano ausführlich mit dem ehemaligen CIA-Analysten Larry Johnson über die hochbrisante geopolitische Lage. Im Zentrum standen die Spannungen zwischen den USA und dem Iran, die Frage eines möglichen Militärschlags unter Präsident Trump sowie die daraus resultierenden Konsequenzen für die NATO und die globale Ordnung. Johnson zeichnete ein nüchternes, teils düsteres Bild: Die USA stoßen zunehmend an ihre militärischen und wirtschaftlichen Grenzen, während Iran – gestützt durch Russland und China – als ernstzunehmender Gegner auftritt. Das Gespräch beleuchtete zudem die anhaltenden Regime-Change-Bestrebungen, gemeinsame Marineübungen und die strukturellen Schwächen westlicher Bündnisse.
Napolitano zu Trump und Iran
Napolitano fragte zu Beginn, ob Trump einen Angriff auf den Iran in Erwägung ziehen könnte, um von innenpolitischen Problemen abzulenken. Johnson verneinte das entschieden: Ein solcher Schritt wäre selbstzerstörerisch – „sich selbst die Haare anzünden“. Pentagon-Strategen hätten Trump und seinem Team klargemacht, dass ein Krieg gegen den Iran ein Desaster wäre.
Militärische Realität eines Iran-Kriegs
Johnson verglich die Situation mit der gescheiterten Spanischen Armada und betonte die technischen und logistischen Hürden:
US-Schiffe müssten mindestens 1.000 Meilen (ca. 1.609 km) vor der Küste bleiben, da iranische Drohnen Reichweiten von 1.000 bis 2.000 Meilen (ca. 3.219 km) haben.
Iran verfügt über lenkbare Hyperschall-Raketen, die Flugzeugträger treffen können.
Tomahawk-Marschflugkörper reichen aus solcher Entfernung kaum bis ans iranische Festland.
Die vertikalen Startzellen (VLS) der Begleitschiffe sind nach wenigen Salven leer; ein Nachladen ist nur im Hafen mit Kränen möglich.
Eine Trägerkampfgruppe könnte maximal zwei bis drei Tage intensiv kämpfen, bevor sie sich zurückziehen müsste.
Iran könnte mit Drohnen- und Raketenschwärmen in einem Ausmaß kontern, das die Huthi-Angriffe im Roten Meer bei weitem übertrifft.
Signale aus dem Pentagon
Johnson wies darauf hin, dass Verteidigungsminister Pete Hegseth möglicherweise alles abnicken würde, die tatsächlichen Militärplaner jedoch realistische Warnungen sendeten. Hinweise ergäben sich aus dem „Secretary of Defense Orders Book“ (SDOB) sowie aus indirekten Indikatoren – etwa dem Ausbleiben später Pizza-Bestellungen im Pentagon. Die Schlussfolgerung: Kein unmittelbarer Angriff geplant.
Vorgeschichte: Von Regime-Change zu Drohgebärden
Johnson rekonstruierte die Vorgeschichte:
Am 28. Dezember 2025 startete die CIA eine verdeckte Operation. Wirtschaftsdruck, gefälschte Proteste, Infiltration und Gewalteskalation sollten bis Mitte Januar 2026 zum Regime-Sturz führen. Finanzminister Scott Bessent bestätigte den wirtschaftlichen Angriff.
Iran schaltete jedoch – unterstützt von Russland und China – frühzeitig das koordinierende Starlink-Netz ab. Daraufhin wechselte man zu Phase zwei: militärische Drohgebärden mit der Verlegung von Flugzeugträgern in den Arabischen Golf und der Stationierung von F-35-Kampfjets.
Irans klare rote Linien
Iran antwortete mit einer eindeutigen Botschaft: Keine begrenzten Schläge mehr wie im 12-Tage-Krieg 2025. Stattdessen würde ein totaler Regionalkrieg folgen – mit Angriffen auf alle US-Basen in der Region, auf Israel sowie mit der Schließung der Straße von Hormus, über die rund 20 Prozent des weltweiten Öltransports laufen.
Globale wirtschaftliche Folgen
Die wirtschaftlichen Konsequenzen wären katastrophal: eine Explosion der Ölpreise, extreme Volatilität bei Gold und Silber sowie Chaos an den Finanzmärkten. Trumps Zollkrieg gegen China habe Peking nur unabhängiger gemacht.
Ein Krieg gegen Iran würde eine globale Finanzkrise auslösen – genau das, was Trump angesichts sinkender Popularität und republikanischer Wahlniederlagen, etwa dem Verlust eines langjährigen Sitzes in Texas, nicht gebrauchen könne. Hinter den Kulissen drängten Saudi-Arabien, die Emirate, Russland und China auf Deeskalation.
Wer ist der Aggressor?
Johnson betonte, dass der durchschnittliche Amerikaner keinerlei Schaden durch den Iran erlitten habe. Iran habe nie Terroranschläge gegen Zivilisten verübt, wobei Terror als Angriff auf Nicht-Kombattanten zu politischen Zwecken definiert wurde.
Stattdessen seien es die USA gewesen, die aggressiv agierten:
Unterstützung von Saddam Husseins Angriffskrieg gegen Iran ab 1980
Lieferung chemischer Vorläuferstoffe für Senfgas mit Hunderttausenden Toten
Förderung der terroristischen MEK-Gruppe, die iranische Wissenschaftler ermordete
Kritik an Kriegsrhetorik
Ein Clip von Lindsey Graham („Nimm den Iran runter – sie sind so schwach wie nie!“) wurde von Johnson als weltfremd bezeichnet. Die USA könnten Teheran nicht stürzen. Iran sei militärisch Welten entfernt von den Huthis, die allein die US-Marine aus dem Roten Meer verdrängt hätten.
Aktuelle Entwicklungen und diplomatische Optionen
Aktuell verletzten israelische Luftangriffe im Südlibanon den Waffenstillstand. Gleichzeitig sei ein Treffen des iranischen Außenministers mit einem US-Vertreter in Istanbul geplant – ein möglicher Ausweg für Trump.
Der iranische Minister warnte glaubwürdig: Ein Krieg würde die gesamte Region erfassen. Iran habe aus dem 12-Tage-Krieg gelernt, sei vorbereitet, wolle aber keinen Krieg.
Iran, Russland und China
Seit 2019 führen Iran, Russland und China jährlich gemeinsame Marineübungen im Arabischen Meer durch, langfristig über 18 bis 24 Monate geplant. Das signalisiert, dass Iran nicht isoliert ist.
Trump verließ das JCPOA. Neue Verhandlungen könnten Obergrenzen für die Urananreicherung gegen eine vollständige Aufhebung der Sanktionen bringen. Russland und China würden neue Sanktionen nicht mehr mittragen. Ballistische Raketen sowie Unterstützung für Hisbollah, Hamas und ähnliche Gruppen blieben für Teheran tabu.
NATO, Ukraine und rote Linien
Zur NATO erklärte Johnson, es sei illusionär zu glauben, Russland würde jemals ausländische Truppen – insbesondere US-Truppen – in der Ukraine dulden. Das sei eine absolute rote Linie und einer der Hauptgründe des Konflikts.
Seit 1995 habe sich die NATO ostwärts ausgedehnt. Die Ukraine, kein NATO-Mitglied, sei Schauplatz von mehr US- und NATO-Übungen gewesen als 85 Prozent der tatsächlichen Mitgliedsstaaten.
Schlusswarnung
Abschließend warnte Johnson: Die USA seien es gewohnt, gegen schwächere Gegner zu kämpfen. Gegen einen ernsthaften Akteur wie Iran drohe die massive Vernichtung US-amerikanischer Kräfte in der Region.
Der fallende Dollar – sinkende Nachfrage nach US-Staatsanleihen, steigende Zinsen und Gold-Arbitrage zwischen New York und Shanghai – zeige den beginnenden wirtschaftlichen Bedeutungsverlust. Die Kombination aus militärischer Überdehnung, Finanzchaos, Epstein-Enthüllungen und politischen Niederlagen zwinge Trump vermutlich zum Rückzug.
Schlussappell
Die Sendung endet mit einem Appell: Solange Regierungen ungehindert Gewalt initiieren dürfen, bleibt wahre Freiheit unerreichbar. Die NATO steht vor einer ungewissen Zukunft – möglicherweise dem Ende einer Ära, in der der Westen uneingeschränkt dominieren konnte.
When Donald Trump floated the idea of a “Board of Peace,” the reaction from much of the political and media class was predictably dismissive. Some framed it as vague branding, others as […]
Some may wonder how the same narrative on certain topics, such as false narratives about US President Donald Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021, reverberates across the world – from Canada to […]
Elon Musk doubles-down, calls out Mark Kelly for putting Urkaine before the US.
Under the direction of France’s globalist President Macron, French authorities escalated their confrontation with American tech entrepreneur Elon Musk this week, launching high-profile raids of X’s offices in Paris and summoning Musk himself for what prosecutors termed a “voluntary interview.”
The move marks a dramatic intensification of France’s long-running effort to rein in the America-based free-speech platform.
According to the Paris public prosecutor’s office, the operation was carried out by French cybercrime units with assistance from Europol, targeting the French premises of X. Authorities claim the investigation centers on whether X’s algorithm improperly influenced French political discourse.
Summonses were issued to Musk and former X CEO Linda Yaccarino, calling them to Paris in April 2026 to answer questions related to the probe. Yaccarino, who stepped down last year, is listed alongside Musk as a manager during the period under review.
The investigation was formally opened in January 2025 following complaints filed by French political figures aligned with President Emmanuel Macron’s globalist government. Chief among them was MP Éric Bothorel, who accused X of allowing too much ideological diversity and objected to Musk’s direct involvement in platform governance.
To critics of the French government, of which there is no shortage, that complaint alone revealed the true nature of the case—not criminal enforcement, but political retaliation.
Under Musk’s ownership, X has dismantled many of the vague content controls that once favored left-wing establishment narratives across Europe.
French prosecutors later broadened their inquiry, citing concerns related to X’s AI chatbot Grok, including claims it produced offensive or false content. Musk’s company responded by correcting errors, removing disputed posts, and publicly documenting its moderation actions—steps critics say would have been praised had they come from a European firm.
France’s legal framework, which criminalizes certain forms of speech, has long clashed with America’s First Amendment traditions. That tension now sits at the heart of the transatlantic standoff, as Paris seeks to apply its speech codes to a American-owned platform operating globally.
The timing has also raised eyebrows. The raid comes as right-wing, national-conservative, and anti-globalist parties continue gaining ground across Europe, often using X as a primary channel to bypass legacy media. For Macron’s government, controlling the digital battlefield is increasingly viewed as a political necessity.
Officials close to the investigation insist the probe is purely legal, yet the rhetoric surrounding it suggests otherwise. The Paris prosecutor’s office openly framed the case as ensuring X’s “compliance” with French law—language critics say sounds like ideological enforcement.
X’s leadership has rejected the allegations outright, calling the investigation “politically motivated” and warning that it risks setting a dangerous precedent for state-directed censorship. The company maintains it enforces clear, public rules while protecting open debate.
Washington has also weighed in. American officials previously warned that aggressive European enforcement against American tech firms could trigger retaliation, particularly if free expression is curtailed under the guise of digital regulation.
The European Union has separately launched its own inquiries into X, part of a broader regulatory push that disproportionately targets American platforms while leaving state-aligned European media largely untouched.
Macron’s government, already weakened by public backlash over immigration, economic stagnation, and unabashed top-down governance, now appears determined to silence platforms that refuse to follow the approved script. X’s openness has made it a focal point for dissent the French establishment no longer controls.
Laura Fernández Delgado declared victory in the Costa Rican presidential election on Sunday after preliminary results showed her Sovereign People’s Party leading the national vote with just over 48% support.
The National Liberation Party followed in second place with approximately 33% of the vote, according to the latest official tally from Costa Rica’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal, which oversees and certifies national elections.
"Change will be deep and irreversible," Fernández said at her victory party in San Jose, according to a translation of her remarks from Reuters.
A former government minister, she is the handpicked successor of outgoing President Rodrigo Chaves, who is constitutionally prohibited from seeking re-election.
Fernández, 39, is set to become Costa Rica’s second female president, after Laura Chinchilla, who served from 2010 to 2014.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday congratulated Fernández on her victory in Costa Rica’s presidential election, emphasizing the United States’ commitment to working closely with her incoming administration.
"Under her leadership, we are confident Costa Rica will continue to advance shared priorities to include combatting narco-trafficking, ending illegal immigration to the United States, promoting cybersecurity and secure telecommunications, and strengthening economic ties," Rubio said.
Reuters reported that Fernández, who is married and has a young daughter, has built her political profile around conservative Catholic values and a strong emphasis on family, helping her gain traction among Costa Rica’s expanding evangelical electorate.
She has publicly expressed admiration for Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, and his tough stance on crime, signaling openness to enhanced security measures in violence-prone areas.
Fernández has also said she would complete construction of a maximum-security prison modeled on El Salvador’s CECOT facility as part of a broader strategy to address serious crime.
The president-elect is scheduled to be sworn in on May 8.
A 13-year-old boy swam for hours through rough ocean waters to save his family after they were swept out to sea off Australia’s coast, a heroic effort police say saved his mother and two younger siblings.
Austin Appelbee recalled ditching his life jacket so it wouldn’t restrict his swimming before he set off alone on a nearly four-hour-long, 2.5-mile (4-kilometer) swim that saw him battle huge waves until he ultimately reached shore and triggered a rescue that saved his mother, Joanne Appelbee, 47, his brother Beau, 12, and his sister Grace, 8, police said.
"The waves are massive, and I have no life jacket on.… I just kept thinking, ‘Just keep swimming, just keep swimming,’" Austin said on Tuesday. "And then I finally I made it to shore, and I hit the bottom of the beach and I just collapsed."
The family, visiting from Perth, was using rented kayaks and paddle boards near Quindalup in Western Australia around midday Friday when strong winds and rough seas dragged them farther from shore. Austin initially tried to paddle for help on an inflatable kayak, but abandoned it when it began taking on water.
A search helicopter later found Joanne and the two younger children clinging to a paddleboard while wearing life jackets around 8:30 p.m. They had drifted about nine miles (14 kilometers) from shore and spent up to 10 hours in the water, police said.
"The actions of the 13-year-old boy cannot be praised highly enough — his determination and courage ultimately saved the lives of his mother and siblings," said Police Inspector James Bradley.
Joanne Appelbee said sending her eldest son for help was the hardest decision she has ever made.
"One of the hardest decisions I ever had to make was to say to Austin: ‘Try and get to shore and get some help,’" she told Australian Broadcasting Corp.
She said the group tried to stay positive as conditions worsened, but fear set in as night approached and help had not yet arrived.
"We kept positive, we were singing, and we were joking and … we were treating it as a bit of a game until the sun started to go down and that’s when it was getting very choppy. Very big waves," she said.
By the time rescuers arrived, all three were shivering, and Beau had lost feeling in his legs due to the cold, his mother said.
"I have three babies. All three made it. That was all that mattered," she said.
All four family members were medically evaluated and did not require hospitalization.
Relations between President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro have swung sharply from open confrontation to cautious engagement over the past year, setting the stage for a pivotal White House meeting scheduled for Tuesday.
Once considered a model partnership in the Western Hemisphere, U.S.–Colombia ties are now being tested by deep disagreements over drug policy, security cooperation and migration.
Speaking to reporters ahead of the visit, President Donald Trump suggested the tone between the two leaders has shifted in recent weeks, while underscoring that drug trafficking will dominate the talks.
"I mean, he’s been very nice over the last month or two," Trump said during a press availability. "They were certainly critical before that. But somehow after the Venezuelan raid, he became very nice. He changed his attitude. Very much so."
Trump said he is looking forward to meeting Petro in person, while making clear that narcotics remain a central concern. "He’s coming in. We’re going to be talking about drugs because tremendous amounts of drugs come out of his country," Trump said. "And I look forward to seeing him. We’re going to have a good meeting."
Colombia has long been one of Washington’s closest partners in South America, particularly on counternarcotics and security. Bilateral cooperation expanded dramatically under Plan Colombia beginning in 2000, with U.S. military and law-enforcement assistance playing a central role in Colombia’s fight against insurgent groups and drug trafficking networks. That cooperation helped stabilize the country and eventually led the United States to designate Colombia a major Non-NATO ally. U.S. officials and analysts say that foundation has eroded in recent years amid diverging priorities and growing mistrust.
Tensions first erupted in January 2025, when Petro initially refused to allow U.S. deportation flights carrying Colombian nationals to land. The standoff prompted Trump to threaten tariffs, travel bans and visa restrictions before Colombia reversed course and agreed to accept the flights. The episode marked the first major rupture between the two leaders following Trump’s return to office.
Relations deteriorated further in September 2025, when Petro traveled to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, participated in protests and publicly urged U.S. soldiers to "disobey the orders of Trump." The remarks prompted the U.S. State Department to revoke Petro’s visa on Sept. 27, 2025. The following month, the Trump administration announced punitive measures targeting Petro and members of his inner circle, citing concerns about drug trafficking and security cooperation.
Colombian officials denounced the moves as politically motivated. Trump publicly labeled Petro a "drug leader," suspended U.S. aid and threatened additional punitive measures, pushing relations to what observers described as their lowest point in decades.
Signs of de-escalation emerged last month when the two leaders spoke by phone for the first time since the diplomatic breakdown. Trump later described the call as a "great honor," saying he appreciated Petro’s tone and looked forward to meeting him in person. Both sides agreed to restart dialogue on contentious issues, including counternarcotics, migration and trade. Colombia subsequently resumed U.S. deportation flights as part of broader efforts to stabilize relations, paving the way for Tuesday’s face-to-face meeting.
Melissa Ford Maldonado, director of the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute, said the visit highlights how much is now at stake for both countries.
"Colombia remains the most important U.S. partner in South America, but that status is conditional, and lately it’s been under real strain, largely because of President Gustavo Petro’s tolerance for criminal networks that threaten both Colombian sovereignty and American security," Maldonado told Fox News Digital.
She said the Trump administration’s objectives heading into the meeting are likely focused on restoring what she described as "real cooperation" on counternarcotics and security after years of drift.
"Counternarcotics and security cooperation will likely dominate the conversation," Maldonado said, pointing to record cocaine production and what she described as growing tolerance within parts of the Colombian state for criminal networks. She argued that Washington has increasingly treated Colombia as failing to meet U.S. expectations in the fight against illegal drugs.
Maldonado said the administration has signaled it is no longer willing to accommodate governments it believes enable narco-criminal ecosystems.
"What to watch going forward is whether Colombia chooses to course-correct or continues drifting toward the model next door, which blurred the line between the state and organized crime," she said. "Colombia earned its status as a major Non-NATO Ally through decades of sacrifice. That trust has been badly damaged, but it is not beyond repair if Colombia demonstrates genuine resolve against cartels, rejects political cover for criminal groups and realigns clearly with the United States on hemispheric security."
She added, "This visit should make one thing unmistakable: the United States wants a strong, sovereign Colombia. It is in America’s best interest. However, it will not tolerate ambiguity when it comes to narco-terrorism, regional security or the safety of the American people," Maldonado said.
