Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock of The Greens party has called for more migrants to come to her country.
Connecting the low birthrate in Germany with the need for new people to fill the void, she made her comments at the reopening of the German embassy in Damascus, Syria.
“Germany is a country with not a very strong birth rate so we need migrants, otherwise our country will not be running in the future anymore,” Baerbock said on March 24.
“Therefore we also need people who speak German. Unfortunately, it is not the most easy language in the world. That is why we have an interest worldwide in having German schools and German universities.”
Baerbock is set to become UN General Assembly President in 2025/26, after having usurped Helga Schmid, a seasoned diplomat initially nominated for the role, in a move some observers called “shameless”.
It was the second time in a short period that Baerbock had made an official visit to Syria.
In January this year, she was criticised when she ignored that fact that Ahmed al-Sharaa, the Syrian President, made an effort to shake the hand of France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, but not hers.
This was was seen as pandering to radical Islam, despite Baerbock’s stated goal of encouraging women’s rights under the new regime and her self-declared “feminist foreign policy”.
According to outlet Apollo News, al-Sharaa demonstratively refused to shake Baerbock’s hand again during the second state visit.
The German embassy in Damascus has been opened despite alleged grave human rights violations committed under the new interim government. The EU has been supportive of the new regime.
Between March 6 and 9, a wave of mass killings was reported in the Alawite region of the country.
Following an alleged initial attack by so-called Assad loyalists, government-aligned forces responded with extreme brutality.
More than 1,000 people reportedly died and images were circulated apparently of Sunni Islamist militants loyal to al-Sharaa’s government calling for the “ethnic cleansing” of Alawites, together with video’s of Alawites and Christians seemingly being humiliated by armed men.
Shortly after the alleged violence took place, the European Union promised to send more financial aid to Syria. On March 17 it pledged €2.5 billion in support “for a successful transition” of the government.
Germany promised €50 million to supply the country with food and medicine after it had already pledged €8 million in humanitarian aid and announced that it wanted to “measure the HTS militia by its deeds”.
The Alawites, a Shia minority on Syria are being ethnically cleansed by leader Ahmed al-Sharaa's thugs.
Barbara Skrzypek Photo: Dominik Tarczyński on X, 15 March 2025
Did 66-year-old Barbara Skrzypek, a long-time Law and Justice Party staffer, die because a Tusk-allied prosecutor did not take her health issues seriously but interrogated her for hours, denying Skrzypek’s lawyer the right to be present? That is the allegation by Skrzypek’s party colleagues—but the prosecutor’s office denies a connection and threatens anyone linking the two events with legal action.
Since coming to power, the Polish government led by Donald Tusk has taken a series of measures against the conservative opposition that are hardly in keeping with the vaunted rule of law that Brussels claims to defend so much. From the closure of media outlets to the imprisonment of opposition MPs, this totalitarian drift is now accused by conservative opposition party members of having taken a new and fatal turn.
Barbara Skrzypek, who worked from the 1990s until 2020 as director of the Law and Justice (PiS) office and chief of staff of Jarosław Kaczyński, and later, until 2024, as a member of the board of directors of the Kaczyński Institute, died last Saturday, three days after being questioned by the prosecutor in a corruption case linked to Kaczyński.
On Wednesday, March 12th, Skrzypek was called to testify at the prosecutor’s office regarding the alleged Two Towers PiS scandal, a corruption case from 2018-19 that was reopened earlier this year. Krzysztof Gotkowicz, Skrzypek’s lawyer, was barred from attending her interrogation after the prosecutor argued that it was not a criminal interrogation and, therefore, the lawyer’s presence was not required.
Gotkowicz justified the need for his presence by highlighting his client’s poor health and the stress caused by having to testify, especially since she has never been in conflict with the law. He also pointed out the presence of two lawyers for the opposing party as something that “could be interpreted as an element of pressure,” but his concerns were disregarded. Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek said that these health problems were not enough to interrupt the proceedings and that Gotkowicz had not provided any evidence to the contrary.
After nearly five hours of interrogation, Skrzypek had difficulty breathing and did not feel up to meeting with Jarosław Kaczyński, so they made an appointment for Monday.
However, on Saturday evening, Skrzypek died.
The Warsaw prosecutor’s office, through its spokesman Piotr Skiba, stated that they have launched an investigation, but that “the death occurred in the early hours of March 15, in an apartment, in the presence of a family member” and that “the ambulance doctor who went to the scene pronounced the death and issued a death certificate in which he wrote ‘sudden death of unknown cause’.”
Skrzypek’s death has provoked an angry response from Law and Justice leaders, who blamed the prosecution’s actions for what happened. Kaczyński himself stated on X:
The summons and the many hours of questioning by the neo-prosecutor Wrzosek were a tremendous shock and enormous stress for Barbara Skrzypek. This was said by Barbara herself when she was unjustifiably denied the assistance of a lawyer, but also immediately after the interrogation. Barbara Skrzypek’s death is therefore directly related to this interrogation and the slander to which she was subjected by the prosecutor, Roman Giertych and his associates. We will not be intimidated.
MEP Dominik Tarczyński went even further, pointing out that Skrzypek was “persecuted to death by Donald Tusk’s regime.”
Barbara Skrzypek, a close associate of Jarosław Kaczyński, is dead.
In the face of these and other reactions, the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office issued a statement and a report justifying its actions, insisting that the four-hour interrogation had been conducted “in a very civilized atmosphere” and that Skrzypek had even been given “a break of several minutes to rest.” The statement also reiterated that the denial of the presence of Skrzypek’s lawyer was justified “because the interests of the witness did not require it.” Finally, the statement said that any attempt to “link the witness’s death to her interrogation … will result in the prosecution filing a civil suit to protect the good name of the institution and the person in charge of the case.” Meanwhile, prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek also announced that she would take legal action against those who suggest that Skrzypek’s death was the result of her interrogation.
The prosecutor’s report was called “unprofessional” by several lawyers who raised even more doubts about the procedure. According to the report, which does not mention the atmosphere or the behavior of the witness, the almost five-hour interrogation contained nine questions, eight from prosecutor Wrzosek and one from the two lawyers. In the opinion of Dr. Michał Skwarzyński, such an interrogation “does not take five hours, but one hour at most.”
Criticism has also been directed at Ewa Wrzosek because of her political affiliation, which is seen as incompatible with her role as a prosecutor. In 2016, with PiS in government, she rose to head of the Warsaw-Mokotów district prosecutor’s office but was fired three months later. Since then, Wrzosek has actively aligned herself with the Civic Platform and even participated in the anti-PiS march organized by Donald Tusk on June 4, 2023. Nevertheless, the government continues to defend the “independence” of the prosecutor.
At the time of writing, Tusk had not commented on the events. President Andrzej Duda has demanded explanations and Karol Nawrocki, the independent conservative presidential candidate supported by PiS, expressed absolute indignation:
I see this case as the culmination of the destruction of the Polish prosecutor’s office and its politicization. … I am running for office so that we do not have to live in a state where a lawyer is not allowed, a politician is sent to an old woman in serious health and ends up dying. This must stop, because the Polish state is sinking into the chaos to which Donald Tusk is leading us.
On November 29, when MP Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill passed second reading in the U.K. Parliament, people in wheelchairs gathered outside of Westminster wept openly. At the same time, Dame Esther Rantzen celebrated. She called the vote a “huge relief” and “something I never expected to see.” Rantzen has said that when she ultimately opts for assisted suicide, she’d like to go out after a meal of champagne and caviar.
These two reactions are a perfect microcosm of the contrast unfolding in the U.K.’s assisted suicide debate. On one hand, a wealthy, privileged person celebrating her “right to die.” On the other, the despair of the vulnerable, marginalized disabled who will pay the price for her crusade. Before the vote, Rantzen told the BBC that the U.K.’s euthanasia ban is “cruel” and “terrible.” She claimed that the law “forced” people like her to travel to Switzerland to die alone in a Dignitas clinic.
The unsayable truth is that people like Dame Esther Rantzen have options when they are suffering. People like those in wheelchairs in front of Westminster do not. Kim Leadbeater and her activist allies at Dying with Dignity, however, are speaking for the Esther Rantzens in society – and resolutely ignoring those with disabilities who are asking, desperately, for parliamentarians to uphold laws that they see as essential bulwarks against deeply ingrained societal discrimination.
If the U.K.’s ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide is, in fact, “cruel” enforcement of suffering, it is worth asking why organizations representing society’s chronic sufferers are so staunchly opposed to legalization. Why are most palliative care specialists so opposed to assisted suicide? Why is every single organization advocating for people with disabilities opposed to assisted suicide? Why are organizations representing the psychiatric profession sounding the alarm? What are they telling us that euthanasia activists are not?
Indeed, even Dame Esther Rantzen – who made the astonishing claim last year that “assisted dying” has no impact on palliative care – provides us a case study highlighting the dangers of assisted suicide and the inherent imprecision of these deadly decisions. As Yuan Yi Zhu noted recently in the Telegraph:
In January 2023, television presenter Dame Esther Rantzen was diagnosed with lung cancer. By May, her cancer had reached stage 4, and by the end of that year she had joined Dignitas. The next year, she extracted a promise from Sir Keir Starmer that he would allow time for an assisted suicide Bill to be debated in Parliament.
Like many cancer patients, Dame Esther did not expect to survive very long. In 2023, she told a journalist that: “I thought I’d fall off my perch within a couple of months, if not weeks. I certainly didn’t think I’d make my birthday in June, which I did, and I definitely didn’t think I’d make this Christmas.” Certainly she had reason to think her time on earth was short: the average life expectancy for stage 4 lung cancer is one year.
Yet she is still with us today, more than two years after her diagnosis, thanks to Osimertinib, a decade-old “wonder drug” which inhibits the growth of her cancer. As she wrote last Christmas, despite the constraints imposed by her condition, “my own life is still worth living and enjoyable.”
If Leadbeater’s deceptively named “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill” takes effect, Zhu observes, many people will be deprived “of the additional time [Rantzen] has enjoyed thanks to modern medicine” due to the bill’s current iteration making assisted suicide an option for those whose death “can reasonably be expected within six months.” Zhu adds:
But as Rantzen’s own case shows, to predict how long a patient has to live is a notoriously difficult – if not impossible – task. According to a 2017 study, doctors’ predictions that their patient was likely to die in 6 to 12 months were wrong 54 per cent of the time; their prognoses were less accurate than a coin toss. All the Leadbeater Bill requires is that doctors should believe in their own assessment of a patient’s life expectancy. This is despite the evident unreliability of such predictions.
Moreover, if they are wrong and the patient undergoes assisted suicide as a consequence, there are no recourses – if the patient is dead it will obviously be impossible to ever know if the doctors’ assessments were right or not. Even more worryingly, experts have warned that the Leadbeater Bill would allow those who suffer from severe eating disorders to be eligible for assisted suicide; they can claim it because refusing food and water would bring down their life expectancy.
However, amendments proposed by parliamentarians to prevent these predictable eventualities have all been voted down, along with most of the other proposed safeguards. Zhu poses the question: “How many wrongful deaths are we prepared to tolerate as a society?” If the Canadian case study is any indication, it appears that once the euthanasia Rubicon is crossed, wrongful deaths simply become part of social reality. Those who were killed cannot complain; their grieving loved ones can be brushed off with a pithy progressive retort about “autonomy” and “choice.”
Dame Esther Rantzen has made herself central to the U.K.’s debate on assisted suicide. In fact, she is the perfect case study for the dangers of Leadbeater’s bill. She is a privileged person with options, opposed by marginalized people without options. She insists that the current laws are “cruel”; the U.K.’s chronic sufferers say those laws protect them. And in the greatest irony, Rantzen has gotten to enjoy more of life than she might have if the bill she currently advocates had been law at the time of her diagnosis.
An Iranian asylum seeker has been fined £16,000 after pretending to be a teenager to enter Britain.
The 5ft 8in man with a “prominent Adam’s apple” claimed to be 17-years-old when he arrived in the UK in 2022.
A tribunal found the man, who had “adult physical characteristics”, deliberately tried to deceive authorities about his true age.
The migrant was determined to be 18 at the time of his entry.
Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane ruled the Iranian was aged 18 when he entered the UK and chose to “conceal” his true age during his asylum bid.
The man had claimed he was born in May 2005, which would have made him 17 at the time of entry.
Social workers from Liverpool City Council assessed him as over 18 in November 2022, attributing him a birth date of May 1999.
The British Red Cross launched a legal challenge against the decision, arguing the man was a child because he liked to “hold and cuddle” a teddy bear.
Helene Santamera, Project Co-ordinator at British Red Cross, told the tribunal: “From my observations, he is much more comfortable and relaxed with the children that have had their age accepted than he is with adults.”
She added that at a Christmas party, he had “gratefully received teenage boy appropriate presents” and asked for a teddy bear.
An investigation into the migrant’s true date of birth revealed he had a “deep voice”, “fully formed jaw line”, a “well-developed bone structure”, “large ears”, and “physical characteristics of an older male”.
The tribunal report outlined the council’s initial assessment, noting: “[He] has a fully formed jaw line, prominent Adam’s apple, large ears and facial features of an adult and appears significantly older than his claimed age.”
The report also mentioned he appeared to be “trying to make himself look smaller than he actually is”.
At the tribunal, the Iranian argued he had no ID documentation to prove his age.
He claimed he knew his birth date because his uncle told him “my grandfather passed away on the day I was born”.
Judge Lane dismissed this as “a convenient fiction” with “every characteristic of a learned response”.
The judge said the man was “not an impressive witness” and concluded he had “sought to deceive the United Kingdom authorities as to his true age”.
Judge Lane dismissed the need for a Judicial Review and ordered the unnamed migrant to pay Liverpool City Council’s legal bills of £16,442.
The final amount the Iranian will have to pay is yet to be determined.
The tribunal was told the man is “currently provided with support and accommodation by the Home Office” and has been living in hotels.
He had told the Home Office he worked as a smuggler in Iran aged 16 for around two years.
NCF Senior Fellow Dr. Philip Kiszely appeared on Talk TV to discuss the woke backlash against Irish comedian Garron Noone for posting a very mild defence of MMA fighter Conor McGregor’s concerns about mass immigration.
Products from the USA are placed upside down on the shelves. This method is used to clearly label them and distinguish them from domestic goods.
The suspected intent is to discourage shoppers from choosing them, as with the “Don’t Buy From Jews” signs once placed on the windows of Jewish shops.
Retailers offer a different explanation:
In the USA, nutritional information, ingredient lists and packaging standards are often less strict or formatted differently than in the EU. … Inverted products would therefore immediately signal to employees and customers: ‘This is an imported product that requires special attention.’
Also, more visible imported products might have some benefit when taking stock.
However, differing labeling regulations and stocktaking issues did not seem to be a problem prior to Trump’s return to the White House and the “ubiquitous demonisation of his policies.”
The country that voted for these policies might also be in for some demonization where moonbattery prevails.
In the wake of Conor McGregor announcing his intention to run for president, Irish prosecutors are reportedly considering charging the UFC legend over allegedly “inciting hatred” amid the 2023 Dublin riots.
In the wake of McGregor being invited by the Trump administration to the White House and later announcing his intentions to run for the Irish presidency, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Dublin is said to be examining social media posts from the outspoken mixed marital artist for potential criminal charges, the Irish Independentreported.
According to the paper, the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (NBCI) recently sent the DPP a police file regarding an investigation into posts McGregor made in 2023. If the prosecutors take up the case, the Irish fighter could face up to seven years in prison for his social media comments under the European nation’s draconian speech restrictions.
One of the supposedly offending posts came on the night before the Dublin riots, in which McGregor said in response to Ukrainian refugees being allowed to vote in local elections: “Ireland, we are at war.”
The following day, riots broke out in the Irish capital following a mass stabbing outside a primary school that left three young children hospitalised. The alleged attacker was later identified as Riad Bouchaker, a migrant from Algeria, who is currently awaiting trial for multiple counts of attempted murder.
In response to statements condemning the attack from the political class, McGregor wrote: “I don’t care about President Higgins statement. Or Varadkar’s statement. Or Mary Lou’s. Or Justice [Minister] McEntee’s. Or Garda Commissioner’s. Announce our plan of action!! What are we waiting for? Your statements of nothing are absolutely worthless to the solving of this issue. Take Action!! Fix this situation IMMEDIATELY!”
‘Doesn’t Speak for Ireland’ — Leftist Irish Govt Condemns Conor McGregor’s Comments on Migrationhttps://t.co/becFOLMskp
The following day, Mr McGregor condemned the violence on the streets, writing: “I do not condone any attacks on our first responders in their line of duty. I do not condone looting and the damaging of shops. Last night’s scenes achieved nothing toward fixing the issues we face.
“I do understand frustrations, however, and I do understand a move must be made to ensure the change we need is ushered in. And fast! I am in the process of arranging. Believe me I am way more tactical and I have backing.”
Last week, McGregor announced his intention to run for president in Ireland. It remains to be seen if he can get on the ballot, however, with Irish law stipulating that candidates need the support of at least 20 members of the parliament or the backing of four local councils.
Mass migration, which has radically transformed Ireland over the past two decades — with foreign-born residents making up over one in five people on the island — will likely feature heavily in a McGregor campaign.
On Sunday, McGregor vowed that if elected as president, he would not sign the EU migration pact, which seeks to redistribute migrants throughout the bloc.
“They will propose for me to sign off on Ireland’s EU migration pact, which I will refuse, as President, without it voted on by the people,” he wrote on X.
“IRELAND WE ARE A DEMOCRACY! THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE THE POWER! A Vote for McGregor is a vote for yourself!”
Germany’s increasingly unpopular and politically irrelevant Green party—which, according to the latest polls, commands just 12% of the national vote— is advocating for a ban on Alternative for Germany (AfD), the nation’s second most popular party. Reports suggest they are also pressuring other globalist parties to support this effort.
The Green Party’s push to ban the AfD—widely seen as an anti-democratic, globalist-driven move—follows a failed attempt by Christian Democratic Union (CDU) MP Marco Wanderwitz. This CDU politician, defeated by an AfD candidate in a 2021 local election, introduced a motion to ban the party in October 2023. However, the support for the effort fizzled out.
Now, as the AfD nears record-high levels of public support, authoritarian globalists—lacking a compelling message of their own capable of resonating with the large sections of the German electorate—are once again attempting to suppress their opposition.
The Managing Director of the Greens parliamentary group Till Steffen stated days ago that a cross-party ban application “should be submitted as soon as possible,” according to the Frankfurter Rundschau.
According to the newspaper, sources within the CDU/CSU—Germany’s nominally “conservative” party—indicate that the Union may back a ban on the AfD if the party is officially designated a “confirmed right-wing extremist” by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), the country’s highly politicized domestic intelligence agency.
To illustrate the agency’s overt politicization, in June 2023, the head of the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV) in Thuringia—responsible for the state’s internal security—used dehumanizing rhetoric to describe AfD voters, effectively branding all 16 million of them as “fascist scum.”
Thuringia’s state intelligence chief, Stephan Kramer, made remarks strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton’s infamous 2016 “deplorables” comment, where she referred to half of Americans as “deplorables.” Kramer characterized AfD supporters, now constituting well over one-fifth of Germany’s population, as the “brown dregs.”
Originally scheduled for release in 2024, the agency’s report on the AfD has been delayed following the departure of its chief, Thomas Haldenwang. Nancy Faeser, Germany’s globalist extremist activist interior minister, has yet to appoint a successor.
Interior Minister Faeser previously wrote for an Antifa publication, the press organ of the Bund der Antifaschistinnen und Antifaschisten (VVN-BdA), an organization classified as left-wing extremist by the Bavarian state intelligence agency.
Media reports suggest the appointment will occur only after the new Chancellor is sworn in. As a result, a decision from the BfV is now not expected until May 2025 at the earliest.
Earlier, CDU leader Friedrich Merz, who is poised to become the new Chancellor, cautioned against pursuing a ban procedure in early 2024. However, at a parliamentary group meeting in early 2025, he reportedly indicated that the CDU/CSU could only support such an application after the 2025 federal election.
The Social Democratic Party of Germany’s parliamentary group is also awaiting the final opinion from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
Bayer, Germany’s biggest pharmaceuticals and biotech company, has been ordered to pay a record almost $2.1 billion (€1.94 billion) in punitive damages to a US cancer patient.
On March 24, a jury in the US State of Georgia ordered the company to pay $65 million (€60 million) and $2 billion (€1.85 billion) in damages to John Barnes.
He had sued Bayer subsidiary Monsanto in 2021, alleging that the company’s Roundup weedkiller had caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Punitive damages are court-ordered payments that exceed the actual damage incurred by the plaintiff and are meant to deter the defendant and others from engaging in unlawful conduct.
The Bayer penalty was one of the largest legal settlements in a Roundup-related case so far with the biggest compensation of $2.25 billion (€2.8 billion) awarded by a Philadelphia court earlier in 2025.
Roundup is a popular weedkiller sold by US agrochemicals company Monsanto. It contains the contentious chemical glyphosate, which has been accused of causing cancer.
Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for €56 billion. Since then, the German multinational has been hit with a spate of verdicts, primarily in the US, ordering it to pay damages amounting to several billions of Euros.
In 2018, Monsanto was accused of inadequately warning customers of the dangers of Roundup. A Californian jury found that the company knew its Roundup and RangerPro weedkillers were dangerous and failed to warn consumers, according to the BBC.
It was ordered to pay $289m (£226m) damages to a man who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer.
Altogether, Bayer has already faced almost 180,000 lawsuits similar to the Barnes case and has set aside €16 billion for potential settlements.
The German company has announced it would appeal the Georgia sentence.
“We do not agree with the verdict of the jury,” the company wrote in a statement.
The decision did not align with scientific findings and the assessment of glyphosate by regulators around the world.
The European Union has concluded that glyphosate was not cancerogenic and allowed its use in member states at least until 2033.
Bayer also pointed out that, in the past, it had managed to reduce damages awarded by juries in similar cases by 90 per cent on average.
Bayer shares traded for €22 on March 24, only marginally above the 21-year-low of €19 they reached in autumn 2024.
In the six years since its acquisition of Monsanto, Bayer’s shares have lost almost 80 per cent of their value.
Blendi Axhami was first arrested in Britain for possession of Class A drugs Surrey Police
An Albanian criminal has been permitted to stay in Britain because his son could have a learning disability.
Blendi Axhami’s son was born in the UK in 2017 – just a few years after his convict father had arrived illegally in the UK.
The young boy is mainly looked after by his mother, while Axhami looks after his son once a week.
Now, it has come to light that the father had been handed an eight-year-long jail sentence in Albania for an unspecified crime – for which the Home Office tried to give him the boot.
However, the convict was able to resist his deportation by deploying the excuse that his son is currently being treated “as if he is autistic” and is currently waiting for his final diagnosis, a tribunal heard.
Official documents have revealed that the criminal first applied to remain in the UK after his son’s birth but failed to declare his previous conviction.
His criminal history was unveiled after he was arrested twice in 2021 and was charged with one charge for possession of Class A drugs.
As a result, the Home Office threw out his application for “leave to remain”.
Lower Tribunal judge Angharad Lloyd-Lawrie ruled that the criminal’s son “would face considerable distress” if his father was extradited.
The Home Office then launched an appeal against the ruling but the case was dismissed earlier this year in January.
A Home Office spokesman confirmed that the department “fought this case right the way through the tribunal system…
“Foreign nationals who commit heinous crimes should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain’s streets.”
Axhami has become the latest case where a foreign criminal has managed to avoid deportation.
Klevis Disha, 39, came to the UK illegally in February 2001, when he was a 15-year-old unaccompanied child.
An immigration tribunal ruled that it would be “unduly harsh” for C to be forced to move to Albania with his father owing to his sensitivity around food.
The sole example provided to the court was his distaste for the “type of chicken nuggets that are available abroad.”
