Marco Rubio - The Real "Fall-Guy" in Real Time as U.S. Peace Plan for Ukraine Sparks Global Uproar

 

U.S. Peace Plan for Ukraine Sparks Global Uproar as Questions Swirl Over Process, Pressure, and Putin’s Shadow

By SDCNewsOne Staff Writer

WASHINGTON [IFS] — A 28-point proposal meant to chart a path out of the bloody Russia-Ukraine war has detonated into a full-blown geopolitical storm, with European leaders openly balking, Kyiv privately fuming, and Washington scrambling to explain how a peace document so consequential emerged from such an unusual drafting process.

The Trump administration insists the plan is simply an “opening framework,” the start of a negotiation designed to end Europe’s largest land war since 1945. But critics on both sides of the Atlantic say the blueprint reads far less like a tentative outline and far more like a Russian-favored settlement — a deal Ukraine was handed, not one it helped shape.

And now, as political fallout intensifies, a new round of speculation has landed on U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who some commentators have suggested is becoming the “fall guy” for a process that Europe claims was flawed from the start. Rubio has denied the allegation and called the theory “absurd.” Yet the questions keep coming.

What began as a diplomatic initiative has become a case study in how fragile, and combustible, wartime diplomacy can be.

A Plan Born in the Shadows

At the center of the controversy is the plan’s origin story — a story that, until leaked drafts reached European capitals, few outside Washington had even heard.

The 28-point proposal was drafted largely by U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, working in close contact with Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill Dmitriev. That collaboration alone was enough to set security analysts on edge. Dmitriev has been a longtime conduit for Kremlin outreach to Western political figures and remains a sanctions-designated official under U.S. law.

What shocked European officials was not only Moscow’s early involvement but the almost total absence of Kyiv from the drafting process. Senior Ukrainian diplomats were briefed only after the document’s key elements had been finalized.

“It was as if someone wrote a script and handed us our lines,” one European foreign minister told Der Spiegel. “This is not how you build peace. This is how you build resentment.”

The comparison circulating in diplomatic circles was less international relations than pop culture: like the old Life cereal commercial, where reluctant kids shove the unknown product toward Mikey — “He likes it! Hey Mikey!”

Except, this time, Ukraine was Mikey, and nobody seemed particularly confident it would “like” anything in the bowl.

The Terms: Concessions Masquerading as Peace

The plan asks Ukraine to:

• Recognize Russian control over significant swaths of the Donbas.

• Accept a demilitarized corridor in the east.

• Limit the size of its military to levels far below NATO’s recommendations.

• Freeze its NATO aspirations indefinitely.

In return, the U.S. would offer security guarantees — though the nature and force of those guarantees remain hazy.

Historians note that proposals echo older, uneasy European settlements. The forced disarmament clauses evoke the post-Napoleonic system, where the victorious powers sought to restrain France through strict military limits. The territorial concessions mirror the 1938 Munich framework, where a democratic state was pressed, under great-power pressure, to cede land in the name of “peace.”

“Europe has seen this movie before,” said Dr. Helena Riis, a historian of modern conflict at King’s College London. “Deals imposed on a besieged nation rarely produce durable peace. They usually precede the next war.”

Europe’s Fury: Blindsided and Alarmed

European backlash was swift and unusually blunt.

German Chancellor Annalena Baerbock called the plan “destabilizing.” France’s foreign minister said it “pressures the victim rather than the aggressor.” Poland’s prime minister warned it would “reward the use of force” and “encourage future invasions.”

Behind closed doors, diplomats were even more candid.

“This is Russia’s plan with American handwriting,” said one senior EU official. “We were not consulted. Ukraine was not consulted. And yet we are expected to sell this to our publics.”

For Europeans, the proposal reopened a longstanding suspicion: that Washington, from time to time, is willing to negotiate European security over Europe’s head.

Rubio Caught in the Crossfire

Secretary of State Marco Rubio finds himself navigating a minefield not of his own making. After leading a new round of talks in Geneva aimed at revising the plan, Rubio emerged telling reporters the discussions were “productive” and that the proposal was “far from final.”

Asked whether the plan was effectively written by Russia, Rubio bristled.

“That’s false,” he said. “This is a U.S. document based on a wide set of inputs.”

But Rubio’s denials have not stopped Washington and European observers from questioning how deeply the Trump administration relied on Russian-provided frameworks.

Nor have they stopped the swirl of speculation — much of it unsubstantiated — about supposed private financial motivations hidden behind the diplomatic theater.

There is currently no evidence supporting claims of a secret wealth arrangement with Vladimir Putin. But the mere existence of such rumors underscores how fraught the geopolitical atmosphere has become.

Trump’s Position: Peace, Pressure, and Provocation

President Trump has said repeatedly that he wants the war “finished quickly,” framing the conflict as a drain on American resources. He has taken public shots at Ukraine’s leadership, accusing them of insufficient gratitude for U.S. weapons and aid.

At the same time, he has insisted the 28-point proposal is not his “final offer” and that revisions will come “once Europe stops complaining.”

Trump’s allies argue the plan is simply a starting point — a first draft in a long diplomatic process. Critics argue that starting with Russia’s maximalist demands reshapes the negotiation around the Kremlin’s interests, not Kyiv’s.

The Historical Weight of a Bad Peace

The controversy has revived a century-old debate: is a flawed peace better than a prolonged war?

Historians point to several cautionary episodes:

• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918): A coerced agreement where Russia ceded vast territory to Germany — undone within months, but deeply destabilizing.

• The Munich Agreement (1938): Famously sold as “peace for our time,” it instead emboldened Nazi expansion.

• The Dayton Accords (1995): A fragile, imposed peace that stopped a war but froze ethnic divisions for generations.

“Peace requires legitimacy,” said Dr. Riis. “To impose peace on Ukraine without Ukrainian authorship risks repeating painful history.”

Kyiv’s Dilemma: Between Survival and Sovereignty

Ukrainian officials, speaking cautiously to avoid antagonizing Washington, described the proposal as “not viable in its current form.” Privately, they have been more blunt.

“It asks us to amputate limbs,” one senior Ukrainian adviser said. “And then smile as if we were healed.”

Ukraine’s government is acutely aware of its reliance on U.S. military aid. But it is equally aware that accepting the plan as drafted would fracture domestic support and likely spark political upheaval.

A Peace Plan Without Peace

For now, the 28-point plan sits in an uneasy limbo — not dead, but far from alive. Trump insists it can be revised. Europe demands major surgery. Ukraine wants agency. And Russia, perhaps the only party quietly pleased, has refrained from comment.

History shows that wars often end with messy compromises. But it also shows that bad agreements can be as destabilizing as the conflicts they attempt to resolve.

Until Washington re-centers Ukraine in the process, diplomats say, this proposal may be remembered less as a peace plan and more as an object lesson in how not to conduct wartime negotiation.

As one European ambassador put it:

“Peace cannot be outsourced. And it certainly cannot be ghostwritten.”

- 30 -

Mavis Batey - Bletchley Park Codebreaker

 Mavis Batey (1921–2013) was a British codebreaker at Bletchley Park during World War II and a renowned post-war garden historian and conservationist. 

Mavis Batey Bletchley Codebreaker

5.0 out of 5 

---

Late 1930s. When World War II was declared, Mavis Batey, previously studying German Romanticism, abandoned her studies to do her duty for her country. At Bletchley Park, Britain's best kept secret, she became one of the first women codebreakers, a pioneer and a star, breaking codes vital to bringing peace.

Mavis Batey , a unique biography, delves into the life of one of Britain's best female codebreakers, taking the reader through the war and to the arrival of peace, when Mavis turned her attention from breaking codes to the conservation and preservation of gardens. Mavis became an important figure in conservation, becoming President of the Garden History Society, which, under her watch, became an academic society and campaigning force for the protection of landscapes, parks, and gardens of historic interest. She also lobbied Parliament, fighting threats of encroachment and misuse of land. Acts of Parliament were passed, English Heritage was established, and grants were introduced. Historic gardens became officially recognised as essential components of European culture and her National Register of Historic Gardens came to fruition. Mavis's passion was writing and she wrote many books.

Mavis was finally awarded the RHS Veitch Memorial Medal and the MBE for Services to the preservation and conservation of historic landscapes. Mavis never did retire: her final project was to inspire an American Garden Trail for Bletchley Park which she signed off just a few months before her death in November 2013.

WWII Codebreaking

Mavis Batey, née Lever, was recruited in 1940 while studying German at University College London. Her key achievements as a codebreaker in the research unit run by Dillwyn "Dilly" Knox (ISK) included: 

• Battle of Cape Matapan: In March 1941, at just 19 years old, she made a crucial breakthrough in breaking Italian naval Enigma codes, which contributed significantly to the British Royal Navy's decisive victory over the Italian fleet in the Mediterranean.
• D-Day Landings: She was later the first to crack messages from the German intelligence service, the Abwehr, a vital breakthrough that helped confirm the success of an Allied deception operation to misdirect German forces about the location of the D-Day landings. 

She met her husband, Keith Batey, who was also a codebreaker, at Bletchley Park. Due to the Official Secrets Act, they were not allowed to discuss their work with each other, even after the war, until the details began to be declassified decades later. 

Post-War Career and Legacy

After the war, Mavis Batey became a leading figure in garden history and conservation. 

• Conservation Work: As Honorary Secretary and later President of the Garden History Society (now The Gardens Trust), she campaigned extensively for the protection and preservation of historic landscapes, parks, and gardens.
• Legislation: Her efforts led to the 1974 Town and Country Amenities Act, which was the first legislation to recognize historic gardens alongside listed buildings. She also initiated the creation of the national Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England, which is now maintained by English Heritage.
• Awards and Recognition: For her conservation work, she was awarded the Royal Horticultural Society's Veitch Memorial Medal in 1985 and was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 1987. 

Batey, who died in 2013, authored numerous books on garden history and a biography of her mentor, Dilly Knox. She was also a consultant for the 2001 film Enigma, with the character Hester Wallace reportedly partly modeled on her.

SDC News One - People of the First Light, How Did That First Thanksgiving Go For You?

The People of the First Light

How Did That First Thanksgiving Go For You?

By SDC News One Staff Writers for SDC TalkRadio

APACHE JUNCTION AZ [IFS] -- On a cool New England morning, long before church bells and weather vanes dotted the horizon, the first rays of sunlight hit the shoreline—gold on gray water, soft on cedar and pine. For thousands of years, this place belonged to the Wampanoag, the People of the First Light, who watched dawn arrive before anyone else on the Atlantic coast. They farmed the “three sisters”—corn, beans, and squash—fished the inlets, harvested shellfish, and lived in dome-shaped wetu warmed by fire and family.

https://youtu.be/R0p8PPbY9kE?si=oWzpFfbaN8vU-_xR

Their world was old. Their society was matrilineal, structured, spiritual, and deeply rooted in the land. And then, in the early 1600s, a new world began washing up on their beaches.

Before the First Thanksgiving

By the time the Mayflower anchored off Cape Cod in 1620, the Wampanoag were already living in the shadow of something catastrophic. Between 1616 and 1619, European-borne diseases—viral ghosts carried on sails and breath—swept through New England and killed an estimated 40,000 Wampanoag people. Entire villages collapsed. Fields fell silent. Families were erased.

So when the Pilgrims arrived, they stepped onto a land haunted by recent loss, where cleared fields and empty houses stood as evidence of a civilization disrupted by invisible invaders.

Massasoit, the Wampanoag sachem, understood immediately what was at stake. He did not meet the Pilgrims from a place of weakness or naïveté. He met them from a place of strategy: this strange new group could become either an ally against rival tribes—or another threat to outmaneuver.

In the spring of 1621, the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims negotiated a peace treaty. It was practical. It was fragile. And for a time, it held.

The Real Story After “Thanksgiving”

The shared harvest feast in 1621—later transformed by myth into the First Thanksgiving—was not a moment of colonial harmony. It was a diplomatic gathering, a brief pause in a century that would soon turn violent.

After that meal, the story did not drift into friendship and abundance.

Here is what actually happened:

1620s–1640s: Expansion and Tension

As more English settlers poured in, Wampanoag land was swallowed piece by piece—through pressure, debt schemes, and “legal” manipulations of English courts that the Wampanoag never agreed to be bound by. Livestock trampled crops. English towns rose where Wampanoag villages had stood for millennia.

The peace treaty with Massasoit lasted, astonishingly, for decades. But once he passed, everything changed.

1675–1676: King Philip’s War

Massasoit’s son Metacom—called “King Philip” by the English—faced a new world: one where settlers outnumbered Indigenous people, where land was vanishing, where English laws and English weapons pressed in on every side.

War broke out.

It became one of the deadliest conflicts in American history per capita. Thousands of Wampanoag were killed, enslaved, or driven from their homelands. By the end of the war, the English had crushed Wampanoag sovereignty and seized nearly all remaining lands. The consequences of that single conflict still ripple through New England’s borders and politics today.

The Centuries After

The Wampanoag survived—though in scattered, reorganized communities. They endured forced conversions, state oversight, boarding schools, and persistent efforts to erase both their identity and their history.

But the story didn’t end there.

The People Who Endured

Today, their descendants live in several communities, including:

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, the “People of the Water,” who fought for federal recognition for decades and won it in 2007.

Aquinnah Wampanoag on Martha’s Vineyard, once known to outsiders as the “Gay Head Wampanoag,” who reclaimed the name Aquinnah to honor their own language and lineage.

These communities still fish the waters their ancestors fished. They still speak their language—Wôpanâak—brought back after a century of forced silence. They still hold ceremonies acknowledging the spirits woven into sea, sky, forest, and fire.

The Wampanoag did not vanish. They adapted. They persisted. They reclaimed pieces of what was taken.

A Different Kind of Thanksgiving Reflection

Every November, the country tells a story about Pilgrims and Native people sharing a meal in peace. But the fuller truth—the one worth hearing on a quiet Sunday morning—is more complicated and far more human.

The Wampanoag gave the Pilgrims knowledge that kept them alive.

They offered diplomacy when they had every reason to mistrust.

They endured catastrophe—disease, warfare, displacement—and still held tight to their identity as the First Light people of the East.

Thanksgiving, for many Wampanoag today, is not a celebration but a National Day of Mourning—a reminder of what was lost, and what was taken.

And yet, the story is not only about sorrow. It’s about endurance. Continuity. A people who refused to disappear.

A Morning Thought to Carry Forward

As the sun rises over Massachusetts and Rhode Island today—casting that same shimmering glow their ancestors once greeted—it touches Wampanoag homelands, old and new. Mashpee. Aquinnah. The trails, the dunes, the shell heaps, the tide pools, the cedar groves.

The People of the First Light are still here.

They have always been here.

And the story of America—our real story—is deeper and older than the myths told at school tables and family feasts.

On this Sunday morning, maybe that’s the point:

To remember the truth.

To honor the people who carried it forward.

And to let the first light of the day fall on the whole history, not just the comfortable parts.

- 30 -

The MAGA Civil War Claims New Casualties — Marjorie Taylor Greene, Brian Glenn, and the Laura Loomer Offensive

 

===============================

OP-ED: The MAGA Civil War Claims New Casualties — Marjorie Taylor Greene, Brian Glenn, and the Laura Loomer Offensive

By SDCNewsOne

APACHE JUNCTION AZ [IFS] -- The fractures inside the MAGA political universe have been widening for years, but the latest feud—centered on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, her boyfriend and reporter Brian Glenn, and far-right activist Laura Loomer—marks a new level of public self-destruction. It’s no longer quiet tension behind closed doors; it’s an open-air brawl with consequences for political messaging, media access, and Donald Trump’s own coalition.

What began as Greene distancing herself from Donald Trump and the MAGA machine has now spiraled into a messy personality-driven conflict, one where televised loyalties matter more than legislative positions. When Greene broke ranks on several issues, including calling for the full release of the Epstein files, Trump abruptly withdrew his endorsement. That alone signaled a major rift. But the ensuing drama has pulled in voices from every corner of the movement—including those with outsized influence online.

At the center of the storm stands Brian Glenn, a White House correspondent for Real America’s Voice and Greene’s partner, who is now fielding political shrapnel simply for defending her publicly. Glenn has long been known for lobbing friendly questions at MAGA-aligned officials, but his personal relationship with Greene has suddenly made him a target.

This week, MAGA influencer Laura Loomer launched a full-throttle campaign against Glenn, demanding the White House revoke his press pass and accusing him of lacking integrity, talent, and independence. She charged that his access exists only because of his proximity to Greene—an argument she paired with personal insults and social-media theatrics. Loomer, whose own attempts to obtain White House credentials have thus far been unsuccessful, has used confrontation as a brand, but this time her attacks appear strategic. She is positioning herself as a gatekeeper of MAGA loyalty and attempting to punish anyone associated with Greene’s break from Trump.

The spectacle reached another low point when Trump, Sen. J.D. Vance, and Brian Glenn himself publicly mocked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for not wearing a suit during meetings—disregarding the fact that Zelensky represents a nation under ongoing military assault. Instead of recognizing the gravity of his country’s struggle, the criticism attempted to reduce a wartime leader to a fashion punchline. It was a moment that left many observers shaking their heads, particularly as Zelensky remains one of the few figures on the world stage unambiguously fighting for democratic survival.

The broader pattern is unmistakable. This is not a policy dispute. It is not about press access or journalism. It is, at its core, a loyalty test administered by a movement that increasingly rewards fealty over substance. Greene’s divergence from Trump triggered a cascade: criticisms from Trump allies, calculated outrage from influencers seeking proximity to power, and a spotlight on Glenn—who now finds himself caught between his professional identity and a political maelstrom he can’t escape.

For now, Glenn’s press pass remains intact. The White House has given no indication it is entertaining Loomer’s demands, and no official reprimands have been issued. But the blowback illustrates how quickly internal MAGA fights can escalate, how personal relationships become political liabilities, and how the movement’s media ecosystem devours its own when loyalty appears to falter.

The MAGA coalition is entering a period of open factionalism—less a unified movement than a series of competing personalities battling for Trump’s approval or for the power vacuum that emerges whenever he shifts positions. Greene, once a core ally, is now a cautionary tale. Glenn has become collateral damage. Loomer is angling for influence. And Trump continues redefining loyalty as a test no ally ever permanently passes.

What happens next will tell us more about the future of the movement than any campaign rally or policy speech. Internal wars often reshape political landscapes more forcefully than external opponents ever could—and this one has only just begun.

---

If you want this expanded into a longer Sunday-long-read style feature, or tightened into a crisp wire-service article, just say the word.

- 30 -

Long Lines, Changing Faces: America’s Food Insecurity Reveals a Shifting Reality

Long Lines, Changing Faces: America’s Food Insecurity Reveals a Shifting Reality

By SDCNewsOne Staff News Writers

APACHE JUNCTION AZ [IFS] -- Across the United States, the images have become increasingly familiar—long lines of cars stretching through parking lots and families waiting in queues that wrap around city blocks. But what’s catching attention on television screens and social media lately isn’t just the scale of hunger—it’s who’s standing in those lines.

More and more, the faces filling America’s food distribution lines are white. That visual shift has startled many viewers who grew up associating hunger and poverty with communities of color—a stereotype never rooted in the full truth.

Yet the data behind those lines tells a deeper story of an economy straining across all demographics, even as structural inequities continue to hit Black Americans hardest.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about 27% of adult SNAP recipients are Black, nearly double their share of the general population. That imbalance reflects decades of policy decisions that widened the racial wealth gap—from redlining and unequal school funding to job discrimination and barriers to home ownership.

The median income for Black households remains well below that of white households, and the poverty rate among Black Americans stands at 17.9%, compared to 11.1% nationwide. In many predominantly Black neighborhoods, limited access to grocery stores and fresh produce—so-called “food deserts”—has compounded the problem.

Still, the recent wave of white families appearing at food banks shows that economic pain is spreading. Pandemic-era relief programs have expired, wages have struggled to keep pace with inflation, and housing costs continue to rise faster than paychecks.

“People are shocked to see who’s showing up,” said a volunteer at a Texas food pantry. “We’re seeing nurses, teachers, even small business owners—folks who’ve never needed help before.”

Experts warn against framing this as a “new” hunger crisis. Instead, they say, it’s an expanded one—where the same systemic pressures that have long affected communities of color are now reaching deeper into white, working- and middle-class households.

Meanwhile, barriers persist for Black families trying to access assistance: limited pantry hours, lack of transportation, and policies that exclude people with prior convictions from food aid programs. These factors continue to shape the nation’s hunger map in quiet but powerful ways.

The faces in the lines may be changing, but the roots of food insecurity in America remain tangled in inequality. And as more people, regardless of race, find themselves waiting for a box of groceries, the question becomes not just who is hungry—but why the wealthiest nation on earth still allows hunger to define so many lives.

Submit Your Site To Search Engines and Win Big

 Click Here to submit another site

  Google.com :   Submitted

====================

https://free-web-submission.co.uk/thank_you.html

Submit Your Site To Search Engines and Win Big

When it comes to making websites more relevant, it's imperative to get into the search engines. The average webmaster might not know how to seriously get your site in the face of consumers, and in case you run into someone like that or you are going the DIY route, you will want to learn how to submit to Bing and others. There are several methods that you can follow, but most importantly, it's crucial to make sure that your website is first ready for presentation. If you feel that your website is ready for its grand premier, than you will be able to submit and get accepted within a few short hours, and in some instances immediately.

The first method is simple, you need to go to Bing and then look for the area that you can submit your website to. You can even search with the keywords you're looking for and then proceed from there. The site allows submissions, but it's hard to figure out what kind of algorithm they are using to list their websites in relevancy and beyond. This method is the direct option, but with so many websites being pushed into the internet's search results, you might find that it will take some time to get listed.

The second thing that you can do is find a submission service that works with a variety of different companies to push your website through to the listing. These companies ping and submit your url to all the major websites out there and make sure that you're listed. This service is usually a one-time deal, and does not require multiple shots.

The one thing that you need to remember is that most of the search engines will come to you. Unfortunately, many people don't believe that, but Bing and others are fast with listings, if you have your website up to date with the right code. If you're coding in xhtml or html 5, you are most likely going to get listed swiftly after you launch. The only reason why you want to add submissions is because you are not getting the attention of the search engines.

There are several reasons why you might not be getting listed, and one of them could be you're not putting together easy to read code in the backend. In order for the engines to pick up on any given website, it is imperative that the code is done properly, and is not full of errors or runaway objects. If you or someone you know is coding the website and it doesn't follow the proper protocol, you will see diminished listings or omissions altogether.

When in doubt, submit directly to Bing and wait for them to respond. The best approach is the direct one, and when that fails, go for a submissions service that will help you. If that fails as well, then you will need to look at your code and make sure that you're currently in line with the standards of the most recent coding updates. Without proper code structure, you can't expect to get into any search engine, unless it's a fluke.

The Top 10 Search Engines

When it comes to the online world chaos abounds. There are millions of websites out there and to figure out what each one does or how they relate to just about anything, can be quite difficult to manage. Think about what would happen if you needed something and couldn't find it. For instance, what if you were in need of a new bicycle and wanted to find a store online that specializes in bikes, but couldn't find anything. Where would you go? If you said search engines, you're right. Without search engines there is no connectivity within the infrastructure of the web, which is why they are important in these modern times.

Finding which engine is best can be daunting, especially since there are so many out there, but the following will try to compile the top 10 search engines that you can utilize online, whether to find something or to submit your website for ultimate SEO and listings.

10.  Duck Duck Go – At the number 10 spot here is the simple web engine that could. It is a site that is simple to use, and gives you simplistic results when you need them. This is not the definitive option that you'll want to utilize in your quest, but it is one that many find to be far easier to utilize than some of the bigger ones on our list.

9. Dogpile – Dogpile came out with an interesting option, search all the engines at once. They still manage to give you results from all engines at once, but it's a far cry from what it was long ago.

8.  Ask – Ask is one of the better sites to utilize as it has more than just results, it has a full portal of questions and answers that will give you information on just about any topic that you can think of.

7. The Internet Archive – This engine is one of the more powerful ones that can dig up the past. If you have an online presence or miss a website of any type, this site will find it and showcase it to you. It also has lots of information, videos, audio and beyond.

6.  Yippy – So you want more web search but less filler? Here you go, Yippy has a lot of pages that you might find elsewhere, but easy to use features make this one a bit more special. It has some serious obscure references in their search and it doesn't filter things quite as much as the big 4.

5. Mahalo – The concept with this site was simple, let's have everyone else do the listings for us, and not let spiders do their job. Well, here you have a human powered search engine, and much like Wikipedia, it works quite well. It can get things wrong sometimes, but hey, we are all human and errors are expected.

4. Lycos – The mighty Lycos is still around and with a whole new contemporary design. The site that used to act more like a portal of cool is now very much looking like Bing in many ways, but many users still utilize is, so it hangs in there as one of the more popular options.

3. Yahoo – One of the longest running search websites in the world is still at it today. They are not #1 in any way, but they still manage to get serious amounts of traffic, and it could be due in large part to the age of their domain name and popularity throughout the years.

2. Bing – Microsoft wanted to get their hands on a better way to search, so they came out with this monster to compete with Google. It works great, has intuitive links and is the #2 option in the world.

1. Google – The biggest and baddest is also the most popular and well-received search engine in the world. There is no way to topple this giant, and if you are a Webmaster, you have better get in good with this engine.

The aforementioned are the top 10 search engines in the world, and they bring the Internet to an easy to digest place to dwell, work, and even play.

Former Bucs RB Doug Martin DIED in Police Custody after RESISTING ARREST for HOME INVASION

 

Another Tragedy in Georgia Sparks Outcry Over Racial Violence and Policing in America

By I F S News Writers Staff Reporters

SDC News Press Telegram — October 21, 2025

GEORGIA — A young Black man has been found dead, hanging from a tree in a rural area of Georgia — the latest in a disturbing string of deaths that community leaders and civil rights advocates say evoke the horrific legacy of racial terror in the American South.

A troubling pattern continues in America, as reports reveal a significant number of young Black men are being targeted and killed by law enforcement. This issue has gained attention due to the involvement of certain individuals within the Christian community who are accused of harboring racist beliefs.

The recent case of a young Black man found hanging from a tree in Georgia is the latest incident in a series of alarming occurrences. These events echo a dark and painful history, as it appears that some in positions of authority are perpetuating violence against Black men.

Many of these young men of honor, including former players from the National Football League, are being subjected to harassment and even murder. The situation calls for urgent reflection and action to address systemic racism and ensure justice for all. The targeting and killing of young Black men continue to be a grim reality in America. The prevalence of Christian nationalists and racists in positions of power raises serious concerns, reminiscent of the historical violence against Black males, particularly in the Deep South.

The man, whose name has not yet been released, was reportedly in his 20s and had previously played football at the collegiate level, with a brief stint in the National Football League. His death is being investigated, but many in the community fear a cover-up or, worse, another hate crime ignored by authorities.

The case has reignited debate across the country about the treatment of Black men by law enforcement and broader systems of authority. Civil rights organizations are calling for federal oversight and an independent investigation, citing a pattern of unaddressed racial violence.

“Too often, we see the same pattern — young Black men ending up dead, and no one held accountable,” said Rev. Angela Hill of the Southern Justice Initiative. “This is not just about individual acts. This is about systems that continue to devalue Black life.”

A troubling trend is unfolding across the United States, as Black men — including former athletes, students, and community leaders — report harassment, abuse, and deadly encounters with police. Critics point to a culture of impunity within some law enforcement agencies, and raise concerns about how racism, including ideologies tied to religious or political extremism, may influence those in positions of power.

“There’s a long history in this country of Black men being hunted, lynched, and silenced,” said Dr. Marcus Eldridge, a professor of American history at Howard University. “We can’t ignore the parallels between the past and what we’re seeing now — only the uniforms have changed.”

Some activists have gone further, accusing factions within law enforcement and government of perpetuating a modern form of racial terror. They point to the religious and cultural affiliations of certain individuals in power, warning that unchecked extremism can lead to violence.

While such claims remain controversial, the pain and anger across Black communities is undeniable — as is the sense that justice remains elusive.

Protests have already begun to emerge across Georgia and beyond. Many are demanding not only justice for the young man found dead but sweeping changes in policing, hiring practices, accountability structures, and federal protections for minority communities.

“We can’t keep burying our sons,” said Marlene Davis, a local mother attending a candlelight vigil. “We can’t keep saying ‘never again’ when it keeps happening.”

The Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will open a civil rights investigation into the death. Local authorities say they are treating the matter “with the utmost seriousness,” but many community members remain skeptical.

As another family grieves, the nation faces a growing demand to reckon with the realities of systemic racism — not just in words, but through lasting reform and real accountability.

-30-