Social Media

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing their alleged involvement in crimes against humanity and war crimes committed between October 8, 2023, and May 20, 2024. The warrants, issued by ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, mark a significant development in the ongoing investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine. The ICC Chamber determined that the alleged actions of Netanyahu and Gallant fall within the Court's jurisdiction, reaffirming an earlier decision that the ICC’s authority extends to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The Chamber chose not to exercise its discretionary powers to assess the admissibility of the cases at this time, leaving open the possibility of further jurisdictional challenges at a later stage. The allegations against Netanyahu, born October 21, 1949, and Gallant, born November 8, 1958, are serious. As co-perpetrators, the two leaders are accused of crimes including the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, as well as crimes against humanity such as murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. Additionally, the Chamber believes there are reasonable grounds to conclude that both Netanyahu and Gallant bear responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally targeting civilian populations. These allegations and the subsequent arrest warrants highlight grave concerns about the conduct of military and political leaders in the context of the conflict. The decision to release details of the warrants underscores the ICC’s intent to shed light on the ongoing issues and to serve the interests of the victims and their families. This development also reaffirms the ICC's stance that its jurisdiction applies to territories under dispute, an assertion previously challenged by Israel. The ICC's move is likely to provoke strong reactions internationally, particularly in Israel, which has historically rejected the Court's authority over its officials and actions. As the warrants remain classified, further steps in the investigation are likely to proceed with caution to protect involved parties and maintain the credibility of the judicial process. These charges against high-ranking officials signal the ICC’s determination to pursue accountability in the context of international law, even at the highest levels of government. Based on a report by ICC 2024-11-21

Tensions between Russia and the West have escalated further following reports that Ukraine has used six ATACMS missiles supplied by the United States, striking targets deep within Russian-occupied territory. This development comes on the heels of a chilling warning from the Kremlin, suggesting that such actions could trigger a nuclear response under an updated doctrine approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The question now looms: will Putin act on these threats? In principle, he now has the option. With changes to Russia's nuclear doctrine officially approved, Putin has lowered the threshold for deploying nuclear weapons. The new guidelines allow for the use of nuclear force in response to attacks using conventional weapons, such as missiles, aircraft, or drones, by any state. Notably, these criteria appear to encompass the US-supplied missiles used by Ukraine. Adding to the alarming rhetoric, Moscow has redefined an attack on its territory by a non-nuclear power—like Ukraine—backed by a nuclear power, such as the United States, as equivalent to a joint assault. This doctrine represents a stark escalation in nuclear posturing and raises questions about how far Putin is willing to go. Despite the dramatic shift in rhetoric, several factors suggest that Russia is unlikely to escalate the conflict to a nuclear level. For one, Putin’s most significant ally, China, has consistently signaled its opposition to the use of nuclear weapons. Beijing’s disapproval carries considerable weight, as Moscow relies heavily on Chinese diplomatic and economic support amidst the strain of international sanctions. Moreover, the timing of any nuclear escalation would likely be politically disastrous for Moscow. The current signals from the United States indicate that Donald Trump, a potential future president, remains committed to his promise of negotiating a swift resolution to the conflict—an outcome that could favor Russian interests. A nuclear strike would undoubtedly derail any such diplomatic opportunities, alienating Russia further from the international community and potentially jeopardizing long-term strategic goals. Nevertheless, there remains an undercurrent of unpredictability. Few anticipated Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, an action that defied conventional wisdom about the Kremlin’s willingness to take high-stakes risks. Over a thousand days later, the stakes are even higher, and the West must once again rely on its ability to correctly interpret Moscow's intentions. As the war drags on, the specter of nuclear escalation underscores the precarious balance of global power and the profound risks associated with miscalculation. While compelling arguments suggest that Russia will not resort to nuclear weapons, the world watches nervously, hoping that this dangerous gamble does not spiral into catastrophe. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-21

As Democratic Rep.-elect Sarah McBride of Delaware prepares to make history in January as the first openly transgender member of Congress, House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated plans to introduce a controversial rule that would bar transgender women from using women’s restrooms in the Capitol. According to Republican lawmakers, the proposal would be part of a rules package voted on next year, potentially going into effect as McBride begins her term. House Speaker Mike Johnson: “Let me be unequivocally clear; a man is a man and a woman is a woman and a man cannot become a woman.” The rule’s chief proponent, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, introduced the resolution to enforce bathroom access based on “biological sex.” Mace, the first woman to graduate from the Citadel military college, made her position clear on social media, stating, “Biological men do not belong in private women’s spaces. Period.” Conservative ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also voiced her support, claiming that Speaker Johnson assured lawmakers that transgender women would not be permitted to use women’s restrooms in the Capitol. If implemented, the rule would charge the House’s sergeant-at-arms, the body’s top law enforcement official, with ensuring compliance. While some Republican lawmakers are confident about its passage, the slim GOP majority in the House raises questions about whether there will be enough votes to approve the rule. This debate over Capitol bathroom policies reflects a larger national divide over transgender rights. Laws restricting bathroom access for transgender individuals based on their biological sex have been enacted in roughly a dozen states, particularly in schools and some government buildings. These laws have faced significant legal challenges, with courts issuing mixed rulings. Some federal judges have struck down such laws as unconstitutional, while others have upheld them, leaving the issue unsettled at the national level. McBride’s upcoming term marks a significant milestone for LGBTQ+ representation in Congress. Having won the seat vacated by Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, who is now heading to the U.S. Senate, McBride is entering a political arena that appears poised to amplify debates over identity and equality. Whether the proposed bathroom rule succeeds or fails, it underscores the challenges McBride is likely to face as she takes her place in the House of Representatives. Based on a report by WSJ 2024-11-21

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has come under fire from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for failing to adequately assess the impact of her National Insurance (NI) policy on workers. The policy, introduced as part of the latest Budget, underwent an evaluation by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on behalf of the Treasury. However, the findings were initially withheld and only released after mounting pressure. In a pointed letter to the Treasury and HMRC, the EHRC expressed concern, stating that the assessment “does not demonstrate how HMRC is considering the potential equality impact of the policy and is not by itself likely to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty.” The report claimed the NI raid would have no equality impact since it targets businesses rather than individuals. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) contradicted this, warning that 80% of the financial burden would ultimately fall on workers through reduced wages. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) added further criticism, highlighting that the adverse effects would disproportionately affect women, who are overrepresented among lower-paid workers. In contrast to the NI policy, all other major Budget measures were accompanied by comprehensive Tax Information and Impact Notes (TIINs) on the day of the announcement. Government officials initially stated that the NI policy’s assessment would be published next year alongside finalized legislation. However, after *The Telegraph* reported the withholding of the document, it was swiftly released in response to a Freedom of Information request. The revealed assessment also disclosed that seven out of ten disabled pensioners would face reduced winter fuel payments due to cuts implemented by the Chancellor. The incident has drawn sharp criticism from political opponents. Conservative Party members labeled the situation “appalling” and suggested that Reeves might have violated the ministerial code. Gareth Davies, the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, condemned the handling of the policy, saying, “We have been sounding the alarm over the damaging impacts of Labour’s National Insurance jobs tax, and now the equalities watchdog is doing just the same. This broken promise not to tax working people will harm small businesses, depress wages and drive up prices for consumers—impacts it seems the Government has failed to even consider with their substandard assessment, like many other of their policies.” The controversy underscores growing scrutiny over the government’s handling of economic policies, particularly their effects on vulnerable populations and compliance with equality standards. Critics are now calling on Reeves and her team to provide a more detailed analysis of the NI raid’s full implications. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-21

As fears of a potential World War III grow, Russia has begun mass-producing mobile bomb shelters capable of withstanding nuclear blasts. These shelters, dubbed “KUB-M,” are designed to provide protection against a variety of threats, including nuclear radiation, natural disasters, and conventional weaponry. The announcement coincides with increasing global tension and fresh accusations from Moscow directed at U.S. President Joe Biden, claiming his actions risk escalating into a worldwide conflict. As geopolitical tensions escalate, the research institute reiterated the shelters’ critical role. “This initiative underscores our commitment to protecting lives in the face of both natural and man-made threats,” the organization stated, presenting the project as a proactive measure in a world fraught with uncertainty. While the new doctrine and advanced safety measures may be seen as steps toward readiness, they also highlight the growing anxiety about global security in the current geopolitical climate. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-21

Tom Homan, President-elect Donald Trump’s newly appointed border czar, has outlined the role of the military in the administration’s planned mass deportation efforts, dismissing claims from liberal critics that soldiers would enforce immigration laws on U.S. streets. Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), clarified that the military's involvement would be strictly administrative, aiding ICE operations rather than engaging in direct enforcement actions. “They certainly can handle transportation, whether that’s ground transportation or air transportation… and certainly help building infrastructure,” Homan explained in an interview. He emphasized that these duties would free up ICE agents for fieldwork, enabling them to focus on apprehending individuals deemed significant public safety threats. “The more non-enforcement work [the Department of Defense] can do, releases more enforcement officers on the street to look for the bad guys,” Homan said. Trump recently confirmed his intent to declare a “national emergency” and deploy military resources to expedite deportations upon taking office. On Truth Social, he affirmed a post by Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, which described the administration’s plan as a response to what Trump has labeled the "Biden invasion." Fitton’s post celebrated the approach as “good news,” to which Trump responded, “TRUE!!!” ICE has faced operational strain in recent years, with up to 70% of its personnel tied up with administrative duties rather than street-level enforcement. Many agents have spent significant time processing the influx of migrants who crossed the border during the Biden administration. Homan and other ICE sources have expressed eagerness to return to field operations. One ICE source remarked that many officers are ready to focus on criminal apprehensions, claiming they are determined to target individuals who, in their view, have gone unchecked under Biden’s tenure. “The rank-and-file are excited about catching criminals that Biden let roam freely in the country for the last four years without any consequences,” the source said. Homan acknowledged, however, that sanctuary city policies pose a challenge to ICE’s enforcement efforts. Such jurisdictions often restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Nevertheless, Homan asserted that these policies would not deter ICE from carrying out its mission. Instead, he warned that sanctuary city leaders might inadvertently increase the number of arrests, as ICE agents would be compelled to apprehend individuals in public settings rather than jails. “They don’t want to help us in the jail, then we’ll go into the community and arrest them,” Homan said. “And what happens in the community when we find the bad guy, the chances are he’s with others, so others are going to be arrested that weren’t even on the radar, but you know what, sanctuary city policies forced us into that position.” Homan also cautioned sanctuary leaders against obstructing federal immigration enforcement, pointing out that “harboring illegal aliens” constitutes a felony. “Don’t cross that line,” he warned during an appearance on *Fox & Friends*. The planned use of military resources has sparked debate, given legal limits on deploying active-duty troops for domestic law enforcement under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. However, Homan and others highlighted historical instances where the military supported federal agencies in non-enforcement roles, such as providing aerial surveillance or logistical aid during operations. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Davis Younts noted that such collaborations are not unprecedented. “When I worked with the National Guard, we would do things with the FBI, ATF, or DEA,” Younts explained. “We would be doing a large bust and we would provide overwatch from helicopters, we would provide drone support, we would do all of those things.” As Trump prepares to implement this sweeping immigration plan, the administration faces significant legal, logistical, and political hurdles. Sanctuary city policies, court challenges, and the operational constraints of ICE are likely to shape the outcomes of this contentious strategy. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-21

Former President Donald Trump has resumed receiving intelligence briefings at his Mar-a-Lago estate as he prepares to return to the White House. Following his recent electoral victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has initiated the tradition of briefing the President-elect, marking the beginning of Trump's preparations for his second term in office. The ODNI, which has followed this tradition since 1952, confirmed the provision of these briefings without specifying whether Trump has personally attended any sessions. A spokesperson stated, “ODNI is acting consistent with the tradition, in place since 1952, of providing intelligence briefings to the President-elect.” The Trump team has not commented directly on the matter, neither confirming nor denying the report. Trump, now 78, has wasted no time in outlining his plans for the intelligence community and key executive agencies. During his campaign, he pledged to overhaul these institutions, particularly targeting what he has described as "corrupt actors" in the national security and intelligence apparatus. The President-elect has already made some key appointments, signaling his intent to reshape these departments significantly. Among the first major announcements is Trump’s nomination of former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard for the position of Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard, a Democrat-turned-Republican known for her opposition to what she calls her former party’s "pro-war" stance, was praised by Trump for her "fearless spirit" and commitment to “championing our Constitutional Rights, and securing Peace through Strength.” Gabbard’s nomination reflects Trump’s broader strategy to bring unconventional voices into prominent roles within his administration. Another potential appointment that has drawn attention is former Pentagon official Kash Patel, who is being considered to lead the FBI. Patel, an outspoken critic of the current intelligence establishment, claimed in his 2023 book *Government Gangsters* that the bureau has become “so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken.” Patel’s potential nomination underscores Trump’s intention to implement sweeping changes to federal agencies he views as adversarial. This period marks the first time Trump has received sensitive briefings from intelligence officials since the FBI’s 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate, during which the Justice Department accused him of unlawfully retaining classified documents. These briefings signal a pivotal shift in Trump’s standing with the intelligence community as he prepares for his second term, with a focus on asserting control and implementing his vision of a reformed federal apparatus. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-21

Allison Pearson, a prominent journalist, recounts a troubling week that she says reflects the decline of the Britain she once trusted—a nation known for fairness, freedom, and common sense. Pearson describes a visit from police officers to her home on Remembrance Sunday, an event triggered by a single complaint about a tweet she posted over a year ago. The officers informed her she was under investigation but refused to specify the offending tweet or identify the complainant, a situation she found absurd and indicative of a broken system. Pearson links her experience to what she sees as a broader issue of misplaced police priorities. She criticizes law enforcement for pursuing cases like hers while neglecting what she considers real crimes such as burglaries or car thefts. She claims police are increasingly focused on issues like trans rights and “spurious Non-Crime Hate Incidents” rather than serving the needs of the majority, including victims of anti-Semitism and other hate crimes. The offending tweet, as later reported by *The Guardian*, was posted in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks. Upset by the perceived leniency shown to pro-Palestine marchers who displayed anti-Semitic slogans, Pearson criticized the police for refusing to pose for a photo with her group, British Friends of Israel, while allegedly smiling with individuals she referred to as “Jew haters.” She promptly deleted the tweet upon realizing the image in question predated the current crisis. Pearson insists her criticism was aimed at the police’s inconsistent standards rather than any racial or religious group. She says her comments were made in the context of rising anti-Semitism, which she has actively campaigned against for over a year. She notes, however, that her case has been categorized as inciting racial hatred, a far more serious accusation than the “Non-Crime Hate Incident” she initially assumed. Pearson highlights what she sees as double standards in policing and politics. She points to instances where inflammatory remarks by public figures, such as a Labour MP’s tweet accusing Kemi Badenoch of representing “white supremacy in blackface,” went unpunished, while her own actions faced intense scrutiny. Similarly, she cites the case of an imam whose call to “destroy Jewish homes” was dismissed by police, drawing a stark contrast with her own treatment. Despite her criticism, Pearson acknowledges that not all officers share this approach. She recounts receiving support from senior police officials outside Essex who expressed disbelief at how her case was handled. One officer wrote to her, emphasizing the true mission of policing: to protect and support those in fear or danger and to hold wrongdoers accountable. Pearson finds solace in these messages but remains deeply concerned about the direction of British policing and its impact on free speech. As she and her legal team prepare for the next steps, she reflects on what she sees as a critical moment for Britain—a country that, in her view, must reclaim its principles of fairness and freedom. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-21

As political tensions simmer in the United States following its presidential elections, the quaint village of Ollolai in Sardinia, Italy, has turned the global moment into an opportunity. With a population dwindling from 2,250 a century ago to just over 1,150 today, the village has launched a campaign targeting disenchanted Americans, offering them the chance to buy homes for as little as one euro. In a bid to reverse decades of depopulation, Ollolai’s mayor, Francesco Columbu, unveiled a dedicated website aimed squarely at would-be American expats. “Are you worned (sic) out by global politics? Looking to embrace a more balanced lifestyle while securing new opportunities?” the site asks, promising an escape in the idyllic paradise of Sardinia. Mayor Columbu told CNN the initiative is explicitly designed for Americans, saying they are the “winning card” to revive the village. “We just really want, and will focus on, Americans above all,” he said, adding that while applicants from other countries can apply, U.S. citizens will enjoy a fast-track process. “Of course, we can’t specifically mention the name of one U.S. president who just got elected, but we all know that he’s the one from whom many Americans want to get away from now and leave the country.” The housing options in Ollolai come in three tiers: free temporary homes for digital nomads, one-euro homes requiring renovation, and ready-to-occupy properties priced up to 100,000 euros ($105,000). Columbu emphasized the village’s commitment to guiding potential buyers through the process, offering tailored tours, assistance with contractors, and help navigating the paperwork. The mayor revealed that interest has been overwhelming, with 38,000 inquiries pouring in, predominantly from the United States. This surge follows a previous effort to attract residents, including schemes like the symbolic one-euro home sale in 2018 and a “work from Ollolai” program for digital nomads launched last year. Despite the buzz, progress has been slow, with only 10 homes sold and renovated since the initial program began. Columbu remains undeterred, describing the new initiative as a consolidation of Ollolai’s previous attempts to attract newcomers. The village is now preparing to showcase photos and plans of its 100 unoccupied homes online to entice potential buyers further. In addition to its housing schemes, Ollolai has also offered remote workers fully equipped homes at a symbolic rent of one euro, with the requirement to contribute creatively to the community, such as by producing artwork or literature. While the village covers costs like utilities and rent, the broader revitalization effort remains a work in progress. With its picturesque setting, affordability, and a mayor who has a clear vision, Ollolai hopes to become a haven for those seeking a fresh start. For Americans grappling with political fatigue, the village offers not just homes but the promise of a new beginning in the heart of Sardinia. Based on a report by CNN 2024-11-21

Scottish Labour has vowed to reintroduce the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners if it takes control of Holyrood in the 2026 election. This pledge positions the party against its UK-wide leadership, which recently announced the benefit would be means-tested as part of a broader financial strategy. Following Labour’s victory in the UK general election, Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves revealed that the winter fuel payment, previously available to all pensioners, would now only be provided to those receiving specific benefits. This decision reduced eligibility from 7.6 million households to approximately 1.3 million, aiming to address a £22 billion deficit in public finances they attribute to the previous Conservative government. Initially, Scotland, where benefits are devolved, planned to replace the payment with an equivalent scheme. However, after the UK-wide Labour government’s policy shift, the SNP-led Scottish government announced its intention to means-test the new program as well. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar criticized this approach and pledged to reverse it if his party comes to power. Sarwar promised to reinstate universal winter fuel payments for pensioners in Scotland, while indicating a future transition toward a tapered system that ensures wealthier recipients no longer receive taxpayer-funded subsidies. Sarwar stated, "A Scottish Labour government will reinstate the winter fuel payment for pensioners in Scotland. The winter fuel payment was supposed to be a devolved benefit this year, and there were additional resources available to the Scottish government through the household support fund." He continued, "That meant we could have taken a different approach in Scotland to support more households this year – instead, the SNP decided to hand the power back to the DWP." Sarwar also highlighted his party’s criticism of the current eligibility threshold tied to pension credit, calling for a “Scottish solution” to address the issue. "For months I have said that the eligibility criterion of pension credit is too low and called for a Scottish solution to this issue," he said. Scottish Labour’s plan involves reclaiming the devolved power over winter fuel payments from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and implementing a system that ensures support reaches those who need it most. Sarwar added, "A UK Labour government is clearing up the mess left by a chaotic Tory government – here in Scotland, people are demanding a new direction, and in 2026 we have the opportunity to deliver it with a Scottish Labour government." As the debate over winter fuel payments unfolds, it underscores broader tensions between Scottish Labour and the national Labour leadership, as well as the complexities of devolved governance in addressing social welfare challenges. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-21

Post containing a link to an unapproved web link that lacked contact details or any named owners has been removed along with the unverified claims made in the post.

Whitehall was awash with green waxed jackets, flat caps, and wellies as more than 10,000 farmers gathered to protest against the government's proposed inheritance tax reforms. In a rare show of solidarity, farmers young and old braved bitter drizzle to express their outrage over a 20% inheritance tax planned for farms valued above £1.5 million, a policy they see as a betrayal of generations of labor and land stewardship. The anger reached a crescendo as protesters directed a collective howl of indignation toward 11 Downing Street, targeting Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Tractors adorned with Union Jacks thundered through the streets, their horns blaring in defiance. Two drivers were later reprimanded for crossing barrier lines, but the message was clear: farmers would not back down. Andrew Ward, one of the protest organizers, stood atop a lorry doubling as a stage and declared, “If they think we are going to back down now, they can think again.” Protesters also used the occasion to highlight their commitment to feeding the nation. Tonnes of produce, brought to London by demonstrators, were donated to City Harvest, one of the city’s largest food banks. Farmers’ children rode toy tractors in Parliament Square, symbolizing the devastating potential impact of the inheritance tax on the next generation. The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) set the stage earlier in the day with a “mass lobby” at Church House in Westminster, where 1,800 members gathered to share personal stories of how the policy would affect their families. NFU president Tom Bradshaw delivered an emotional speech, tearing up as he described the plight of elderly farmers at risk of losing their life’s work. “The human impact of this policy is simply not acceptable,” Bradshaw said. “Any tax revenue raised will be taken from our children and from those who die in tragic circumstances.” Bradshaw warned that the fight was far from over, pledging months of campaigning to challenge MPs across constituencies. He described the policy as a betrayal, calling it “the straw which broke the camel’s back.” His speech received a standing ovation as he criticized the government for launching such a disruptive policy without consulting the farming community. Farmers face daunting financial realities. While the average English farm spans 216 acres with land valued at £11,500 per acre, the costs of equipment, buildings, and stock quickly escalate. A single tractor can cost £300,000, while a combine harvester may exceed £500,000. Despite being asset-rich, most farms are cash-poor, with an average return of less than 1%. Rising input costs—up over 40% since 2019—compound the financial strain. Though the policy allows single farm owners to pass on land valued up to £1.5 million tax-free, and couples up to £3 million, many farmers argue it is insufficient given the combined value of their land, machinery, and assets. “We’d have to sell land or the whole thing,” one farmer lamented, adding that their modest earnings make the tax unmanageable. With farm budgets failing to keep pace with inflation, many feel abandoned. “Last year I was on a salary of £12,000, and my parents were on £20,000,” one farmer shared. “Labour just doesn’t want to know us.” The protests underscored the deep frustration and unity within the farming community, as they vowed to fight the policy and protect their livelihoods from what they see as an existential threat. Based on a report by Times & Sunday Times 2024-11-20

Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the United States, is positioning itself in direct opposition to President-elect Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The city council is set to pass a "sanctuary city" ordinance that would prevent local resources from being used to assist federal immigration authorities. Alongside this move, the Los Angeles public school system plans to declare itself a "sanctuary" for undocumented immigrants and LGBTQ students through emergency resolutions. Trump, who will take office in two months, has vowed to implement mass deportations. His chosen "border czar," Tim Homan, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has strongly criticized sanctuary cities. Homan recently told Fox News, "Nothing will stop us from deporting migrant criminals. We're going to do the job with you, or without you." These statements echo Trump's campaign rhetoric targeting sanctuary cities, where local governments limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Sanctuary city designations are not legally defined but reflect various local approaches, such as altering policing practices or enacting specific laws. Last week, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass released a draft of a long-anticipated sanctuary city ordinance. According to council member Nithya Raman, the ordinance aims to codify a 2019 executive order into city law by barring federal immigration enforcement from using city facilities or resources. Raman explained to CBS News that the ordinance also seeks to restrict data sharing, further safeguarding undocumented immigrants within the city. Other cities, including Boston and New York, have pledged similar commitments to resist federal immigration enforcement. Los Angeles’ efforts extend to its school system, located approximately 140 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. The school board will vote on emergency resolutions that directly challenge anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ sentiment, which board president Jackie Goldberg attributes to the incoming administration. “We’re not going to be running in fear,” Goldberg told the *Los Angeles Times*. “We’re going to fight you, every inch of the way.” One resolution reaffirms the district’s commitment to immigrant students, families, and staff, framing Trump’s election as the victory of a candidate with an anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. The school board is also considering implementing a high school course to educate students on current events and extending existing non-discrimination policies to cover not just students but also their families, employees, and relatives. California’s laws already prohibit schools from inquiring about students' immigration status, reflecting the state's sizable population of mixed-status families. Although federal law mandates public schools to enroll all eligible students, much of the governance is left to states and local districts. The Los Angeles resolutions seek to fortify protections in the face of what local leaders see as looming threats from the federal government. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-20

The foundational principle of medicine, "First, do no harm," appears at odds with the idea of placing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services. While there’s an argument that his advocacy for healthier lifestyles could be beneficial, his controversial views on health issues suggest more harm than good may result. In May 2023, during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Kennedy sat down to discuss his platform. He showcased his independence, criticizing President Biden’s policies and lamenting the Democratic Party's shift after Donald Trump's 2016 election. While these perspectives earned respect for their political insight, they had little connection to his views on public health, which seemed unmoored from scientific consensus. Kennedy’s health-related theories are a tangle of questionable claims, from blaming “neocons” for America’s problems to suggesting that “pesticides, cellphones, ultrasound” contribute to conditions like Tourette syndrome and peanut allergies. He also posited that the country’s chronic health issues can be traced to a single year in the 1980s when several “bad things” supposedly converged. Such assertions, while appealing to conspiracy theorists on social media, fail to resonate with evidence-based reasoning. Despite his ability to critique issues like the dysfunctional relationship between federal agencies and Big Pharma, Kennedy’s solutions seem impractical. While the pharmaceutical industry has its flaws, it also plays a critical role in innovation and employment. A radical overhaul of the industry, as Kennedy has suggested, could lead to unintended consequences, including economic disruption and a potential decline in access to life-saving medications. Kennedy’s positions also clash with Donald Trump’s priorities. His opposition to fracking, pesticides, and fertilizers undermines Trump’s commitment to supporting farmers and the energy sector. Such contradictions raise questions about how Kennedy could fit into a broader agenda focused on economic growth and stability. The Department of Health and Human Services oversees over 100 programs and employs more than 83,000 people. Effective leadership in this role demands stability and pragmatic decision-making, not the divisive rhetoric or prolonged disruptions that might follow Kennedy’s appointment. The Senate, where Republicans have a slim margin, is unlikely to confirm such a polarizing figure without a fight, further complicating the situation. Trump’s campaign hinges on addressing pressing issues like the economy, border security, and global instability. Diverting resources and attention to defend or manage Kennedy’s controversial positions risks derailing those priorities. The suggestion that a “worm” impacted Kennedy’s cognitive judgment might be hyperbole, but it underscores the broader concern: Kennedy’s appointment could introduce chaos where clarity and competence are paramount. He told us with full conviction that all America’s chronic health problems began in one year in the 1980s when a dozen bad things happened. Convincing to the gullible conspiracy-hungry crowd on Twitter, but not to the rest of us. In fact, we came out thinking he’s nuts on a lot of fronts. In this light, entrusting Kennedy with the nation’s health infrastructure not only risks breaking the first rule of medicine but could also undermine broader efforts to address the critical challenges facing the country. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-20

Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and owner of X (formerly Twitter), has sparked fresh controversy with his criticism of Britain’s proposed tax policy targeting farmers. Responding to an article in *The Observer*, Musk claimed the UK was going “full Stalin” over Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to revoke inheritance tax exemptions for certain agricultural assets. The article, written by former *Observer* editor Will Hutton, argued that Labour’s policy would revitalize rural communities. Hutton suggested that lowering farmland prices by removing tax exemptions could enable younger generations to acquire land. In a pointed response on X, Musk drew a parallel between this policy and the Soviet collectivization of the 1930s under Joseph Stalin, a campaign that forcibly redistributed farmland and led to widespread hardship and famine. The proposed policy, announced in October’s budget by Labour’s Rachel Reeves, seeks to end inheritance tax exemptions on agricultural assets valued over £1 million. Farmers’ unions, however, have condemned the plan. The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) has labeled it “disastrous,” expressing fears that it could decimate family farms. Many farmers are planning a mass demonstration in London to demand that the Government reconsider. Farmers argue that the policy could have far-reaching consequences, with the NFU accusing Reeves of using misleading data. The union claims that the Treasury has underestimated the number of farms affected, suggesting the actual figure is double the official estimate. Musk, known for his outspoken nature and political commentary, had previously criticized the policy, saying: “We should leave our farmers alone. We [owe] farmers immense gratitude for making the food on our tables!” This latest remark adds to his history of high-profile interventions on global political issues. Downing Street has refrained from directly addressing Musk’s critique. A spokesperson stated: “We’re not going to get into a back and forth on individual comments. We will continue to engage with the industry and explain how the process works, and it remains the case that we expect the vast majority of farmers to be unaffected by the changes.” The spokesperson also emphasized the Prime Minister’s ongoing support for farmers, reiterating their importance to the nation and promising efforts to provide reassurance about the policy’s impact. As tensions escalate, thousands of farmers are poised to take their concerns directly to MPs, highlighting the growing unease over policies that they fear could undermine Britain’s agricultural backbone. Musk’s dramatic intervention adds another layer of complexity to the debate, amplifying global attention on a policy that has already divided public opinion. Jonathan Charlesworth, the son of a farmer who took his own life, believes that the new inheritance tax policy announced by the government pushed him over the edge and caused him to take his own life. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph & Sky News 2024-11-20