Social Media

@MalcolmB 4 posts now removed across topics, make it a fourth today and receive some time to read the rules

Pope Francis has died at the age of 88, the Vatican has announced. What happens when the Pope dies? A papal funeral has traditionally been an elaborate affair, but Pope Francis recently approved plans to make the whole procedure less complex. Previous pontiffs were buried in three nested coffins made of cypress, lead and oak. Pope Francis has opted for a simple wooden coffin lined with zinc. He has also scrapped the tradition of placing the Pope's body on a raised platform - known as a catafalque - in St Peter's Basilica for public viewing. Instead, mourners will be invited to pay their respects while his body remains inside the coffin, with the lid removed. Francis will also be the first Pope in more than a Century to be buried outside the Vatican. He will be laid to rest in the Basilica of St Mary Major, one of four major papal basilicas in Rome. 📺 Sky 501 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/F1BHUy7CUM Francis's papacy heralded many firsts and while he never stopped introducing reforms to the Catholic Church, he remained popular among traditionalists. He was the first Pope from the Americas or the southern hemisphere. Not since Syrian-born Gregory III died in 741 had there been a non-European Bishop of Rome. He was also the first Jesuit to be elected to the throne of St Peter - Jesuits were historically looked on with suspicion by Rome. Francis's predecessor, Benedict XVI, was the first Pope to retire voluntarily in almost 600 years and for almost a decade the Vatican Gardens hosted two popes. As Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina, he was already in his seventies when he became Pope in 2013. Adpated by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-04-21

International Students Face Sudden Visa Revocations via email and told to self deport For countless students around the world, a visa to study in the United States represents a dream come true — a gateway to some of the world’s most prestigious educational institutions and future opportunities. But for hundreds of students currently enrolled in American colleges and universities, that dream is abruptly unraveling as their student visas are being revoked, often without warning, leaving them with a chilling mandate: leave the country immediately or face arrest. Under the administration of President Donald Trump, the U.S. government intensified efforts to scrutinize and cancel visas, particularly those granted to international students and academic researchers. The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have begun employing their broad authority to revoke visas at an alarming pace. In many instances, affected students say they were notified not by immigration authorities but by their schools — if they were notified at all. There are only a few visa types that allow non-citizens to study in the U.S. The most common is the F-1 visa, used by students enrolled in academic programs, while the M-1 visa applies to vocational training. Institutions that host international students are required to follow strict government protocols. “US higher education institutions take the responsibility of enrolling international students and complying with SEVP requirements very seriously and understand the consequences of not doing so,” said Fanta Aw, CEO of the Association of International Educators. “Institutions have codes of conduct and disciplinary measures in place to address student conduct which may result in terminating a student’s SEVIS record as outlined by SEVP, just as there are established grounds for the government or the institution to withdraw its certification.” The process of revoking a student visa does not require a formal criminal charge. According to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, “The Department may revoke a visa when it receives derogatory information directly from another US Government agency, including a member of the intelligence or law enforcement community.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has personally ordered the termination of hundreds of visas under a rarely invoked clause allowing revocation if an individual's presence could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” This bureaucratic shift has created what appears to be a two-pronged approach. Once the State Department revokes a student’s visa, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) steps in, either sending an email instructing the student to leave the country voluntarily or, in some cases, physically detaining them. Some students received no direct communication from the government. Stanford University revealed that it found out about the visa revocations of four students and two recent graduates only during a routine check of the SEVIS database on April 4. According to immigration attorney Jeff Joseph, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the change in enforcement is stark. “Up until Trump took office, it was really up to the designated school officers to initiate that revocation in SEVIS,” he told CNN. “What we’re seeing now is that ICE is doing it themselves.” The State Department reinforced this new posture in a Facebook post in March, stating, “US visa screening does not stop after a visa is issued. We continuously check visa holders to ensure they follow all US laws and immigration rules – and we will revoke their visas and deport them if they don’t.” For some students, the first inkling of trouble comes in the form of an email from DHS. “Do not attempt to remain in the United States. The federal government will find you,” one message read, according to Boston immigration attorney Nicole Micheroni, who received the email on behalf of a client. The students are often told they must “self-deport” within seven days to avoid arrest. The long-term consequences are severe. A student whose visa is revoked for violating the terms of their stay is barred from applying for a new visa for at least five years. And although hundreds of thousands of student visas are approved annually, many for extensions or changes in status, the specter of sudden revocation now hangs over international students like a storm cloud, casting uncertainty on their education and their future in the United States. Adpated by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-04-21

White House Revamps COVID-19 Website to Promote Lab Leak Theory The White House has relaunched its official COVID-19 website with a dramatic shift in tone and focus, now highlighting the controversial theory that the virus originated from a Chinese laboratory. The updated version of Covid.gov includes a prominent image of President Donald Trump and asserts that the virus’s “true origins” lie in a lab leak, distancing itself from earlier narratives supported during President Joe Biden’s administration. Previously a hub for public health guidance, vaccine resources, and testing information, the Covid.gov website now takes aim at policies introduced under Biden and criticizes Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former chief medical advisor, for endorsing what it describes as a “preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.” The site lays out five arguments to support the lab leak theory, drawing attention to Wuhan, where the first known cases of COVID-19 were reported, and its proximity to China’s leading SARS research facility. It also alleges that the lab operated under “inadequate biosafety levels,” contributing to the possibility of an accidental release. “By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t,” the site states, underscoring the administration’s current position on the matter. The lab leak theory, once dismissed as fringe or conspiratorial, has gained renewed legitimacy within parts of the U.S. government and scientific community in recent years. While no definitive conclusion has been reached, both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy have indicated support for the theory, though with differing levels of certainty. Adding further weight to the shift in consensus, the Central Intelligence Agency revised its assessment earlier this year, stating that it was “more likely” COVID-19 emerged from a Chinese laboratory rather than through animal-to-human transmission. This new stance prompted a strong rebuke from China, which continues to insist that a lab leak is “extremely unlikely” and has urged the U.S. to “stop politicizing and instrumentalizing the issue of origin-tracing.” The revamped COVID-19 website emerges at a time of escalating tensions between the United States and China. Washington recently announced new port fees targeting Chinese-affiliated vessels and raised tariffs on a range of goods from China, signaling a deepening trade war between the two economic superpowers. As the debate over the virus’s origin remains unresolved, both scientifically and politically, the White House’s decision to spotlight the lab leak theory signals a stark departure from previous messaging. It also reflects a broader shift in how the pandemic’s early days are being interpreted and framed in light of ongoing geopolitical struggles. Adpated by ASEAN Now from AFP 2025-04-21

Douglas Murray’s War of Ideas: Culture, Conflict, and the Future of the West Douglas Murray sweeps into Brown’s Hotel in Mayfair with the air of someone used to attention. Dressed in a sharp blue suit and casual baseball cap, he’s clearly become something of a public figure, though he seems unaffected by it. When I tell him he’s famous now, he barely reacts. And yet, with over a million followers on X, sold-out arenas, and a best-selling new book On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel, Hamas and the Future of the West, there’s no denying Murray’s rise to prominence as a leading conservative thinker. Over brunch, he’s guarded but playful. When asked about his meeting with Donald Trump, he dodges gently. Murray’s public persona may be a sharp panther, but in person he’s all feline grace and quiet confidence. Speaking in hushed tones, he criticizes anti-Israel protestors as those who “pollute” society—people who, in his view, cheer for Hamas while ignoring the stark reality that “evil exists and there are people who worship death.” He sees a Britain paralyzed by inertia, governed by elites who “push off big problems” and indulge in woke cults and debates over gender and assisted dying. “Isn’t it wonderful,” he texts me later, “that our greatest legal minds have to spend their time trying to work out what a man is and what a woman is? It feels like such progress…” Born in 1979 in Hammersmith, Murray’s early life was hardly one of privilege. His parents, both non-political, supported his academic path through scholarships to elite schools and ultimately to Oxford. His literary talents emerged early with a biography of Lord Alfred Douglas, praised by none other than Christopher Hitchens. Yet, instead of becoming a BBC staple or a Classic FM host—he is, after all, a choral scholar and pianist—he chose provocation. His 2006 book Neoconservatism: Why We Need It set the tone, but it was The Strange Death of Europe in 2017 that catapulted him into notoriety, widely criticized as Islamophobic. Murray has spent increasing time in the U.S., aligning with figures like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. His most recent evolution came after Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, an event that sharpened his rhetoric further. “I can’t bear to see the pollution of our society and cities by people who obviously hate us,” he says. He draws a stark contrast between pro-Israel rallies, where Union Jacks fly, and anti-Israel protests, where he sees only Palestinian, Hamas, and Hizbollah flags. “No one is singing God Save the King that day.” His appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience was another moment of confrontation. Instead of playing to the crowd, he took issue with Rogan’s guests who had spread conspiracy theories, including attempts to recast Churchill as a villain. “Horse s--- of the most profound kind,” he called it. “The aim… is basically to minimise the culpability of the Nazis, maximise the casualty figures caused by the Allies, and then claim there is moral parity in World War II… in order to say that we, in the West, were worse.” Douglas Murray does what few men alive would dare: he calls out Joe Rogan in his own studio. This clip outlines how the next few years may unfold on the American right, so bookmark this and watch it carefully: The American left was defeated by Trump because it was hijacked by brilliant Machiavellian gatekeepers at key nodes in media, politics, and academia. These actors sought to steer society in their direction—and they succeeded too well. The resulting pushback is what see now. Why is Murray so committed to Israel? He sees it as a civilisational anchor. “Everyone who’s anti-Western is always anti-Israel… and they’ve chosen their target well. If you took Jerusalem out, I do think you cut civilisation absolutely at the root.” Though once a self-described atheist, Murray’s relationship with faith is shifting. He now questions the absence of moral language in modern life. “I’m very conscious that in our society we’ve lost the terminology of evil,” he says. After witnessing a terrorist attack in Israel, he thought, “What a thing to do with your life.” Evil, to him, is not banal—it’s real, visceral, and must be confronted. “The answer is obviously Deuteronomy… ‘choose life.’” And yet, he resists self-analysis. Asked about his celebrity, he shrugs it off. “I don’t like self-reflection.” What about being made a peer? “Yes, but the people you’ve got to meet,” he purrs. “You’ve got to spend a lot of time with former Liberal Democrat councillors.” Ever the contrarian. Ever the outsider. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-21

Graham Linehan Says Undoing the “Damage” of the Trans Movement Will Take Decades For Graham Linehan, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the legal definition of a woman was more than just a legal milestone—it marked the culmination of a personal and public battle that had cost him his career, his reputation, and even parts of his personal life. As the co-creator of Father Ted and The IT Crowd, Linehan once stood at the heart of British comedy. Now, years after becoming one of the most vocal critics of the transgender rights movement, he stood in the public gallery, witnessing a moment he believed signified a long-awaited return to biological reality. “You could feel a crackle around the room,” Linehan recalled of the moment when Lord Hodge invoked biological sex in the Court’s ruling. “It was a lovely thing to experience. And then, as soon as the judges left, the whole place just broke out in applause.” For Linehan, who had been ostracized for expressing the same views, it felt like vindication. After the ruling, he emerged into Parliament Square to the cheers of supporters—many of them women who had campaigned alongside him for sex-based rights. “It was,” he said the next day from a friend’s home, “one of the nicest things that’s ever happened to me.” A headline the following morning read: “Trans women are not women”—the very phrase that once got him banned from Twitter, a move he believes further damaged his standing in the industry. “To see it on a newspaper headline — it felt like reality was breaking out.” He celebrated modestly with fellow activists, including Venice Allan, known for campaigning against trans women’s access to female-only spaces like the Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath. Though jet-lagged from travel back from the United States, where he is in the process of relocating, Linehan was unable to sleep. By midday, blurry-eyed but alert on a Zoom call, his mind remained focused on the judgment and what it represented. He likened the ruling’s clarity to a much-needed antidote to what he sees as the confusing and ideologically charged language that has dominated the trans debate. “‘Trans woman’ means man and ‘trans man’ means woman,” he explained. “That kind of oppositional language has been a major weapon for trans activists. They used language in such a way that people felt they were on unsteady ground. They couldn’t argue their points. The language was just so corrupted.” Drawing a controversial parallel, Linehan compared the rise in transgender identification—particularly among young girls—to the surge in anorexia cases following singer Karen Carpenter’s death in the 1980s. “It just spread like wildfire,” he said. “I think that the trans movement for young girls has been a kind of anorexia 2.0.” But unlike anorexia, which was treated as a mental health issue, he argued that with gender dysphoria society took the opposite approach. “In the Seventies and Eighties people were rightly saying, ‘No, you’re not fat.’ But with the trans issue, the whole of society was saying the equivalent of, ‘Yes, you are fat. It’s a problem.’ Everyone was saying this, from celebrities to the NHS. And that’s the difference. And, of course, the internet spread it like Covid.” According to Linehan, it has taken ten years just to begin to reclaim a sense of balance around women’s rights. “It’s going to take decades to undo the damage,” he warned. While he believes the battle to preserve single-sex spaces—such as public toilets, changing rooms, and women’s sports—may have largely been won, the damage to young people who took gender-altering hormones is long-lasting. “The toll on the health of biological girls and boys will persist,” he said. He predicts fewer people will now be fired for holding gender-critical views, but he’s less optimistic about cultural institutions. “The pro-trans bias will persist in the television, theatre, and publishing industries because those areas are heavily captured,” he said. Asked whether he feels sympathy for trans individuals who underwent irreversible treatments only to now see their gender recognition certificates rendered obsolete, Linehan paused. “Well, I guess so,” he said. “But it’s just one of those things that should never have happened in the first place.” While he expressed empathy for those who were misled, he made his deeper anger clear. “I do have sympathy for them but I don’t have sympathy for the people who lied to them. They’re the ones who I really, really hate.” Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-04-21

Trump's Border Breakthrough Could Pave Way for Lasting Immigration Reform While it has flown largely under the media radar, former President Donald Trump has already achieved one of his signature goals: regaining control over the U.S.-Mexico border. With the numbers telling a striking story of decline in illegal crossings, Trump now stands at a pivotal moment. If he wants to be remembered for more than tough talk and executive actions, he has a chance to leave behind a truly transformative legacy by spearheading comprehensive immigration reform. Recent data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection reveal a dramatic shift. In March, only 7,181 individuals were apprehended attempting to cross the southwest land border illegally, and another 3,836 arrived at ports of entry. That’s a total of 11,017 “encounters.” Just a year earlier, in March 2024, that number stood at a staggering 189,359. In fact, the current figures are even lower than those recorded during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. This swift turnaround is no coincidence. Border crossings spiked after President Joe Biden rolled back Trump-era policies early in his term. But political fallout, especially during the 2024 election cycle, forced Biden to reintroduce some enforcement measures last June. As the numbers began to drop, it became clear that Trump’s assertion—that strong messaging from the White House can deter illegal immigration—was not just rhetoric. Would-be migrants appeared to be watching the U.S. political landscape closely. Just two days after the 2024 election, Reuters reported that a migrant caravan in Mexico had halved in size. “I had hoped [Kamala Harris] would win, but that didn’t happen,” a Venezuelan woman told the news agency. That same ripple effect has been felt across the U.S. In New York City, officials announced that the Roosevelt Hotel, once an intake center for over 173,000 migrants, would stop being used for that purpose by June. The outcry from Democratic mayors, once overwhelmed by migrant influxes, has gone conspicuously silent since Biden’s departure. What’s even more remarkable is that Trump didn’t need harsh crackdowns to stem the tide. In February, border encounters totaled 11,709, and the drop came before the administration’s recent diplomatic push in El Salvador. Trump’s key strategy has been deterrence: a clear message that those arriving illegally will not be allowed to stay. He worked with Mexico to increase cooperation, deployed troops to assist with border fortifications, but the numbers dropped even without the much-discussed wall. Despite this success, Trump has been relatively quiet in taking credit. Instead, he has continued pushing for deportations, especially of criminals and gang members—actions that are generally popular. However, enthusiasm wanes when enforcement begins to affect families or skips due process. Now comes the real test: can Trump translate this momentum into broader immigration reform? The flaws in America’s system are not new. The threshold for claiming asylum is low, immigration court backlogs are severe, and there’s a shortage of judges and detention facilities. Some of these issues could be tackled in a budget bill, but meaningful reform would require bipartisan support in the Senate. Such reform should also include expanding legal immigration. As the economy grows, the demand for labor remains unmet. Around half of small businesses report worker shortages. If Trump wants more American-grown produce, someone still needs to pick it. There’s also the unresolved issue of Dreamers—those brought to the U.S. as children. A 2023 Gallup poll found that 64% of Republicans and 82% of independents support giving Dreamers a path to citizenship. And if the U.S. wants to lead in AI and tech, why are H-1B visas for skilled workers capped and distributed by lottery? Trump appears to recognize the value of legal labor migration. Just last week, he floated the idea of allowing immigrants who self-deport to return as legal workers. While trust in the government remains a hurdle, the policy itself signals a pragmatic shift. Immigration has been a politically toxic issue for years. But Trump’s success at the border presents a rare opening. If he seizes this opportunity, he could redefine his legacy—not just as a president who secured the border, but as one who fixed the immigration system for good. It's a chance worth taking. Adpated by ASEAN Now from WSJ 2025-04-21

Afghan Teen Pleads Guilty in Plot to Launch ISIS-Inspired Attack on Election Day An Afghan teenager residing in Oklahoma has pleaded guilty to charges related to a planned Election Day terrorist attack, according to a statement released Thursday by federal prosecutors. Abdullah Haji Zada, 18, who was living in the city of Moore, Oklahoma, admitted in court to conspiring to receive and knowingly receiving firearms and ammunition intended for use in a terrorist act. Court records reveal that Zada entered the plea as part of an agreement with federal prosecutors, acknowledging his role in an ISIS-inspired plot that aimed to strike large gatherings of people during last year’s Election Day. Zada, who was just 17 years old when he was arrested, now awaits sentencing. He faces up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Additionally, the plea agreement includes his removal from the United States upon completion of his prison term. His legal counsel, Jeff Byers, could not be reached for comment; messages left by telephone and email on Thursday were not immediately returned. Zada's co-defendant, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, is currently awaiting trial. Tawhedi, a former security guard at a U.S. military installation in Afghanistan, is accused of conspiring and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State (ISIS), which is officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government. According to prosecutors, the two men worked together to secure AK-47-style assault rifles and ammunition with the intention of carrying out a mass-casualty event targeting crowded public areas during the 2024 Election Day. Authorities said their plan was part of a broader ISIS-inspired agenda aimed at creating chaos and undermining public safety. The details outlined in the court records highlight the serious threat posed by homegrown extremism, even among individuals who had resettled in the U.S. The FBI and federal counterterrorism agencies continue to emphasize the need for vigilance against domestic terror plots tied to international extremist groups. As the judicial process continues for Tawhedi, law enforcement officials remain tight-lipped about additional details, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation. The sentencing date for Zada has not yet been set. Adpated by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-04-21

Democratic Leadership Faces Crisis of Confidence Amid Party Backlash Confidence in Democratic congressional leadership has fallen to its lowest level ever recorded, according to a new Gallup poll, marking a significant shift in public sentiment and deepening internal divisions within the party. The poll, conducted from April 1 to 14 and released on Thursday, reveals that just 25% of Americans express confidence in Democratic leaders in Congress. This marks a nine-point drop from the previous record low of 34% set in 2023. Even more striking is how far this figure has fallen from the historical average of 45% that Gallup has tracked since 2001. The sharp decline appears to be fueled primarily by disillusionment within the Democratic Party itself. According to Gallup, “Democratic congressional leaders’ rating among their own party faithful has fallen 41 points since last year to their lowest point ever.” The pollster emphasized that “the previous low for Democratic congressional leaders among Democrats was 60%, recorded in 2005.” Meanwhile, Republican leadership fared slightly better in the same survey, with 39% of respondents expressing confidence in GOP congressional leaders. Though still below their historical average of 43%, this figure remains significantly higher than the 24% low Republicans experienced in 2014. Gallup noted, “For their part, Republicans’ confidence in their own party’s congressional leaders has never fallen below 42%.” It’s been over a decade since either major party’s congressional leadership enjoyed a majority confidence rating. The last time Democratic leaders reached that threshold was in 2009, while Republicans haven’t hit the 50% mark since 2003. This collapse in confidence comes at a time when Democratic leaders in Congress appear unable to effectively counter President Trump's second-term legislative push. Since Inauguration Day, efforts to oppose or slow down the president’s agenda have largely stalled, contributing to a perception of ineffectiveness. Following the November elections, Democrats lost control of the Senate, while Republicans made gains in the House, further weakening the party’s influence in Congress. The recent controversy surrounding Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has only intensified intra-party tensions. Last month, Schumer faced harsh criticism after siding with Republicans to advance a spending bill that prevented a government shutdown. The decision drew the ire of progressive groups, who organized nationwide protests demanding Schumer step down from his leadership role. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other prominent Democratic lawmakers openly criticized the move, with Pelosi stating that Schumer had given his vote to Republicans “for nothing.” As confidence in Democratic leadership continues to crater, the party faces growing pressure to regroup, reassess its strategy, and rebuild trust—not just with the general public, but with its own disillusioned base. Adpated by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-04-21

Reeves Warns Against Cutting Ties with China, Advocates for Stronger Economic Links Chancellor Rachel Reeves has warned that it would be “very foolish” for the UK to sever or weaken its relationship with China, rejecting calls from former U.S. President Donald Trump to isolate Beijing economically. In an interview with The Telegraph, Reeves emphasized that Britain’s national interests lie in deeper economic cooperation, not in raising barriers. “Well, China is the second biggest economy in the world, and it would be, I think, very foolish, to not engage. That’s the approach of this Government,” Reeves said when asked whether she would reduce engagement with China to appease Trump. Reeves’s remarks come amid ongoing tensions between the UK and China, including a diplomatic rift following the UK’s intervention in British Steel, previously owned by a Chinese firm. Despite this, Reeves is pursuing a strategy of economic pragmatism and aims to reset the UK’s relations with Beijing. Her comments come ahead of her visit to Washington next week, where a UK-US trade deal will be on the agenda, potentially putting her at odds with Trump-era trade hawks in the U.S. administration. She also indicated a willingness to welcome U.S.-based entrepreneurs and businesses looking to relocate due to Trump's recent “liberation day” rhetoric and plans for new tariffs targeting Chinese products. “We would always welcome into Britain global talent,” Reeves stated, adding, “I want Britain to be the best place in the world to start and to grow a business.” Reeves acknowledged the geopolitical sensitivities surrounding Chinese investment but clarified that the UK would continue to safeguard critical infrastructure. She cited the government's decision to take control of British Steel and the exclusion of Chinese investment from the Sizewell C nuclear plant as examples. “Those are areas of critical national infrastructure where the Government is right to intervene,” she said, speaking from the British Steel site in Scunthorpe. She also addressed the controversy surrounding the proposed listing of Chinese fashion giant Shein on the London Stock Exchange, amid allegations of forced labour, which the company denies. “Those are decisions for the Financial Conduct Authority and the London Stock Exchange Group, but they’ve got very strict standards about disclosures, for example. But we do want to welcome new listings onto the London Stock Exchange,” she said. When asked again if she would support a Shein listing if regulators approved it, she added, “We have lost business and we have lost companies in recent years and we’re working closely with the London Stock Exchange to make the UK a more vibrant place to list.” Reeves also dismissed concerns over riding in Chinese-made electric vehicles. “I think we’ve probably all been in a taxi in London and they are produced by a Chinese company there. They’re produced in Britain, but the owner is a Chinese company. I think that those London electric taxis are a good thing. They’re very popular with taxi drivers as well. I wouldn’t be worried about going in one of them,” she said. Despite the diplomatic challenges, Reeves remains committed to economic engagement with China. “I was in China earlier this year as part of an economic and financial dialogue. I had with me some of the biggest UK financial services firms, so HSBC, the London Stock Exchange Group, Standard Chartered, Prudential. We were there to improve the ability of the UK financial services firms to operate out of China,” she explained. She said the agreements made during that trip were worth around £600 million to the UK economy and demonstrated how such engagements are clearly in the national interest. Reeves’s stance reflects the wider direction of the current government, with several high-level visits to China by UK officials, including Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and Trade Minister Douglas Alexander. These trips are seen as paving the way for a potential visit by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who recently held a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Chancellor will meet Trump’s trade secretary Scott Bessent during her Washington trip to discuss a UK-US trade deal, pushing for the removal of the 10 per cent blanket tariff on UK imports. She firmly denied suggestions that aligning with EU food and farming standards would undermine UK trade ambitions with the US. “Let’s just be clear, we have exactly the same food and farming standards as the EU,” she said. On welcoming wealth and innovation from overseas, Reeves reiterated, “Pay their taxes and employ people in Britain. I don’t think anyone’s going to argue with that. I certainly am not going to.” Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-21

Justice Alito Condemns Supreme Court's Midnight Intervention on Alien Enemies Act Deportations In a forceful dissent, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito sharply criticized his fellow justices for issuing a temporary order that halted the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, calling the court’s late-night action “unprecedented and legally questionable.” The emergency order, issued in the early hours of Saturday morning, blocked the Trump administration from using the 1798 wartime law to remove the Venezuelans who are currently being held in Texas. Alito, joined in his dissent by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed alarm over the court’s swift and secretive decision-making process. “Literally in the middle of the night, the court is­sued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” Alito wrote in his opinion. The terse overnight order had initially only included a brief line acknowledging the dissent of Alito and Thomas. However, Alito later expanded on his criticism, arguing that the court had acted “hastily and prematurely” in providing emergency relief, a move he described as out of step with both legal tradition and procedural fairness. The case revolves around President Donald Trump’s invocation of the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act as a mechanism to expedite deportations during what his administration deems a time of national emergency. The law, originally enacted in 1798, allows the government to detain or remove nationals of hostile foreign powers during wartime, but its modern use for immigration enforcement is highly controversial. Trump’s administration is attempting to employ the law to bypass typical legal review processes and speed up removals. Immigrant advocacy groups quickly challenged the use of the law, warning that the detainees faced imminent deportation and that their rights to due process were being violated. In their emergency petition to the Supreme Court, these groups argued that allowing deportations to proceed before a lower court could rule on the matter would cause irreversible harm. The high court’s temporary order sided with the groups, pausing the deportations for now, though it remains unclear how long the stay will remain in effect. Justice Alito’s dissent represents the latest twist in a complex legal battle over executive power and immigration enforcement. His critique underscored concerns that the court was overstepping its traditional role by issuing emergency relief without proper procedural safeguards. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a more detailed and formal ruling in the coming days that will determine whether the Trump administration can proceed with deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. In the meantime, the temporary stay remains in effect, leaving the fate of the detained Venezuelans hanging in the balance. Adpated by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-04-21

Topic continues here

//Closed// Main topic here:

IDF Admits Operational Failures in Deadly Strike on Gaza Medics The Israeli military has admitted that a combination of “professional failures” led to the deaths of 15 emergency workers in southern Gaza’s Rafah on March 23, following a detailed investigation into the tragic incident. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) stated that an “operational misunderstanding” and a “breach of orders” were at the core of the misfire, but insisted that no violations of the military’s ethical code occurred. According to the IDF, the deputy commander of the Golani Brigade’s reconnaissance unit has been dismissed for submitting “an incomplete and inaccurate report” during an initial debrief. The commander of the 14th Reserve Armored Brigade, which oversaw the operation in Rafah, has also been formally reprimanded for his overall responsibility and subsequent management of the scene. The investigation was led by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yoav Har-Even of the General Staff Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism, an independent military body assigned to probe unusual events during the conflict. While the probe acknowledged the absence of ethical breaches, it cited multiple tactical errors and violations of protocol that culminated in the deaths of Red Crescent medics, UN personnel, and members of the Palestinian Civil Defense. On the night in question, Israeli forces had launched an operation to encircle the Tel Sultan neighborhood of Rafah. At around 3:57 a.m., troops opened fire on a vehicle they wrongly believed to be a Hamas police car. Two people inside were killed, and a third was detained for interrogation. Although initially identified as a Hamas operative, he was later cleared and released. Further complications arose when a convoy of emergency vehicles—including ambulances and a fire truck—arrived on the scene to treat casualties from the first strike. The IDF said the troops mistook the vehicles for a threat. The deputy commander could not clearly see the rescue vehicles and misidentified the fire truck, prompting him to open fire. According to the probe, soldiers “fired for about three minutes,” stopping only when they reached the scene and realized the victims were unarmed rescue workers. Later, a United Nations-marked pickup truck entered the area. Although clearly identified, troops opened fire on it in breach of IDF protocol, killing a UNRWA employee. The military said this was an attempt to drive the vehicle away, but admitted it was against standard procedure. The bodies of the medics were gathered and buried at the site under sand to prevent scavenging animals from disturbing them. The IDF said this was standard practice, but acknowledged that using a bulldozer to crush the ambulances was a mistake. “The existing guidelines on the special caution required with regard to rescue forces and medical workers, even in areas of intense combat, were sharpened and clarified,” the IDF said. In an on-the-record briefing, Major General Yoav Har-Even - who investigated the incident - told journalists that the Israeli military maintained that six of the emergency workers were Hamas operatives and said they would later be named. The findings have been submitted to the Military Advocate General, who will assess whether additional disciplinary action is warranted. While the IDF first admitted responsibility five days after the incident, the bodies of the medics were not recovered until April 1. The Palestine Red Crescent strongly rejected the IDF’s conclusions. “It is invalid and unacceptable, as it justifies the killing and shifts responsibility to a personal error in the field command when the truth is quite different,” said Red Crescent spokesperson Nebal Farsakh. The organization described the strike as “full of lies.” The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies called it the deadliest single attack on their personnel since 2017. The United Nations reports that more than 1,060 healthcare workers have been killed since the war began in October, when Hamas launched a deadly assault that killed around 1,200 Israelis and saw 251 taken hostage. The IDF maintains that Hamas operatives frequently operate from within medical facilities. IDF Spokesperson's Statement: Summary of the Examination Into the Incident Involving Rescue Teams and Vehicles In the Gaza Strip https://www.idf.il/286249 Adpated by ASEAN Now from AFP | TOI 2025-04-21 Related Topic: Gaza Paramedics Shot ‘With Intent to Kill,’ Red Crescent Demands International Probe

@SMIAI a flame and baiting post has been removed. You need to stop now!

@cambion a post has been removed. 7. Do not quote more than three multiple nested quotes. Only quote the person you are replying to, and only quote the relevant section that you are discussing. A separate members post with multiple off topic images has been removed.

Second time I've had to remove your off topic image @Will B Good

Trump’s Battle Isn't Against Democracy—It’s Against the Power Brokers Who Claimed It Donald Trump’s aggressive pushback against the Washington establishment is being framed by critics as an attack on democracy itself, but a closer look reveals a very different picture. What’s happening isn’t the destruction of democratic institutions—it’s the dismantling of a decades-old oligarchy that seized control of them. The backlash from the Beltway’s entrenched class shows just how threatened they feel. These so-called defenders of democracy are suffering what can only be described as political shell shock. In the modern era, no incoming administration has taken such a decisive and relentless stand against the political uniparty—those elites who have entrenched themselves in the machinery of American governance. For years, their authority went unchallenged. Now, Trump’s refusal to play by their rules has prompted a furious reaction. Rather than face the real issue—the exposure of their own overreach—they accuse him of authoritarianism and claim he poses a threat to democratic norms. The irony, as many have noted, is almost too much to bear. CNN recently published a lengthy and ominously titled article, “Trump is using the power of government to punish opponents.” The report suggests Trump is stretching presidential powers in an “unprecedented” manner to target political enemies and undermine independent institutions. “His actions,” the article warns, “are paralyzing institutions that stand as pillars of America’s independent civic society.” But let’s examine those claims. Is Trump weaponizing lawfare to jail his opponents? Is he censoring the press, curbing academic freedom, or compromising judicial independence? The answer to all of those questions is no. In reality, Trump is doing the opposite. He is taking aim at a political elite that has monopolized power within these institutions for decades. The measures he’s enacted are aimed at loosening their grip—not tightening his own. Among the most cited offenses: Trump has revoked federal contracts and security clearances from law firms that engaged in politically motivated harassment suits against him. These same groups tried to block him from the ballot in the last election. They even pursued legal maneuvers aimed at incarcerating him before voters had a chance to cast their ballots. Now, those who sought to deny voters a choice are outraged that Trump is pushing back. Several firms have reached multi-million dollar settlements and offered pro-bono services to the Trump administration, hoping to avoid further scrutiny. Another so-called authoritarian overreach was Trump’s pressure on Columbia University and similar institutions over their failure to address anti-Israel protests and harassment of Jewish students. Trump threatened to pull $400 million in federal funding unless universities enacted stricter rules on protests, banned masks, held student groups accountable, empowered law enforcement, and reviewed Middle East studies programs. Columbia ultimately agreed to the demands. Former university president Lee Bollinger called it “the most serious intrusion into academic freedom and autonomy” he could remember. But to many Americans, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, this wasn’t an intrusion but a necessary correction. “America grants visas to foreign students to come and study and get a degree,” said Rubio, “not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses.” Trump’s reevaluation of media access is also portrayed as a danger to democratic norms. In truth, he simply shifted influence away from legacy media outlets—whose credibility has plummeted—and opened the door for alternative platforms that now command public trust. This isn't an assault on press freedom; it's a rebalancing of access and accountability. Finally, Trump’s attempts to root out waste and inefficiency in the executive branch, including his campaign promise to appoint Elon Musk to lead a Department of Government Efficiency, are now being challenged in court. Bureaucrats claim this effort is an attempt to “bend U.S. institutions to his will.” But the reality is straightforward: Trump is asking government employees to follow the directives of the executive branch—the very branch they work for. What we’re witnessing isn’t a breakdown of democracy. It’s the first real effort in generations to return democratic institutions to the people by stripping power from a cloistered elite. The deep state got comfortable calling the shots. Now, their hysterical resistance to change is revealing just how absurd their claims really are. Based on a report by The Hill 2025-04-19

A controversial campaign video circulating in the lead-up to next month’s local elections in Wycombe has drawn sharp criticism from senior political figures and raised concerns over potential breaches of UK electoral law. The video, aimed at Muslim voters, promotes certain candidates based on their stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and uses overt religious messaging, including the phrase “Allah sees everything,” to influence voter behaviour. The video highlights 81 Buckinghamshire county council candidates, distinguishing between those who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and those who do not. Eighteen candidates who pledged to “support and promote divestment from companies involved in human rights violations” are marked with green ticks. In contrast, 63 others who either opposed the boycott or did not respond to inquiries are labelled with red crosses. Text at the start of the video reads: “Think before you vote! It’s clear who is supporting genocide and subservient to their masters. There are those that are against it, have morals and are not scared to support the oppressed. Don’t just vote because they are Muslim.” It ends with a stark warning: “Think before you vote. Separate the clout seekers from humans who will make a difference. Don’t sell your soul as Allah sees everything.” The video bears the logos of the High Wycombe branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the national pressure group Palestine on the Ballot. However, the PSC has publicly denied any involvement in producing the clip. A spokesperson from the High Wycombe branch stated, “This video was not produced by our branch, and we have no knowledge of who created it. It does contain some screenshots of legitimate questions that our High Wycombe branch has asked of all candidates standing in the upcoming local elections, along with their responses.” The video’s use of religious language and its attempt to influence voters on spiritual grounds has sparked concern that it may fall foul of the Elections Act 2022, which prohibits “undue spiritual influence” — a criminal offence carrying a maximum prison sentence of two years. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, strongly condemned the video, calling it “evil Islamist sectarianism.” Speaking to The Telegraph, she said, “Conservatives will never succumb or kowtow to this evil Islamist sectarianism, which destroys lives all around the world. It is evil, make no mistake, and it stands against everything we believe in. Every day millions of people flee countries where this sort of politics is practised. It does not belong in Britain and threatens our democracy and our way of life.” Steve Baker, former Conservative MP for Wycombe and a former minister of state for Northern Ireland, echoed these concerns, drawing parallels between the video and the dangers of religiously divided politics. “As a former minister of state for Northern Ireland, I’ve seen the legacy of sectarian religious politics – it is not a healthy place to go,” he said. “If you’re amongst those who are promoting it, stop it please. You’re not even serving the people of Gaza.” Baker added a direct message to local Muslim voters: “If you’re a local British Muslim, please know that voting on religious lines is not helping that cause, and far from it, it’s harming your own position in the United Kingdom.” Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, also weighed in, claiming the video confirms his warnings about religiously influenced voting blocs. “This is sectarian politics, as I predicted. Do they realise these are local elections?” he asked. According to the 2021 census, around 7 percent of Buckinghamshire's population identifies as Muslim — slightly above the national average. Of the 18 candidates endorsed in the video, eight are Liberal Democrats, eight are independents, and two are Conservatives. Labour, which suffered losses in past elections due to pro-Palestinian independent challengers, has faced declining Muslim support following the October 7 Hamas attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza. Adding to the atmosphere, a group called The Muslim Vote, which advocates for pro-Gaza positions in British elections, stated in a recent social media clip: “We will organise on every front. We will play the game but from now on we play to win,” indicating plans to target “100 seats” in the next general election. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party were contacted for comment regarding the video but had not responded at the time of publication. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-19

The United States military has confirmed it carried out an airstrike targeting a fuel terminal at the Red Sea port of Ras Isa in Yemen, a site controlled by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The operation marks the latest in a series of escalating military actions aimed at curbing the group's capabilities and financial resources. According to the U.S. military, the strike was intended to disrupt the Houthis’ access to essential fuel supplies and diminish the funding pipeline that supports their operations. “The aim of the attack on the Red Sea port of Ras Isa was to restrict supplies and funds for the Iranian-backed movement,” the U.S. military stated. However, Houthi officials reported a heavy human toll, claiming that at least 70 people were killed in the strike, including several paramedics who were responding to the initial blast. Some 171 others were wounded, the health ministry said Friday. The group did not provide details on how the casualties were distributed or whether the site housed non-military personnel at the time. Despite these claims, U.S. officials have not publicly addressed the reported death toll. As noted by Reuters, “U.S. officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the death toll provided by the Houthi media.” The strike comes just weeks after the United States significantly ramped up its military campaign against Houthi positions in Yemen. The increase in attacks is a direct response to the Houthis’ continued targeting of commercial vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These assaults, which began in October 2023 following the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, have had a notable impact on global shipping. The Houthis, who say their attacks are a show of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, have succeeded in sinking vessels and disrupting one of the world’s most vital trade corridors. The Red Sea, which connects to the Suez Canal, accounts for nearly 15% of all seaborne trade. As a result of the danger posed by Houthi attacks, many international shipping companies have rerouted their vessels to avoid the area, significantly increasing transportation costs and delivery times. In an unusual twist, one recent U.S. military operation in Yemen was inadvertently revealed through a Signal chat group after a journalist was mistakenly added to a private conversation among senior officials. This accidental disclosure added a layer of intrigue to what is already a complex and volatile situation. The U.S. has maintained that its actions are a measured response to threats against international shipping and regional stability. Still, the rising death toll and the potential for further escalation highlight the delicate balance between military intervention and humanitarian concerns in an already fragile region. Destruction of Houthi Controlled Ras Isa Fuel Port USCENTCOM The Houthis have continued to benefit economically and militarily from countries and companies that provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. The Iran-backed Houthis use fuel to sustain their military operations, as a weapon of control, and to benefit economically from embezzling the profits from the import. This fuel should be legitimately supplied to the people of Yemen. Despite the Foreign Terrorist Designation that went into effect on 05 April, ships have continued to supply fuel via the port of Ras Isa. Profits from these illegal sales are directly funding and sustaining Houthi terrorist efforts. Today, US forces took action to eliminate this source of fuel for the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists and deprive them of illegal revenue that has funded Houthi efforts to terrorize the entire region for over 10 years. The objective of these strikes was to degrade the economic source of power of the Houthis, who continue to exploit and bring great pain upon their fellow countrymen. This strike was not intended to harm the people of Yemen, who rightly want to throw off the yoke of Houthi subjugation and live peacefully. The Houthis, their Iranian masters, and those who knowingly aid and abet their terrorist actions should be put on notice that the world will not accept illicit smuggling of fuel and war material to a terrorist organization. Based on a report by BBC | CNN | X 2025-04-18 Related Topics: Trump Warns Israel Would Lead Strike if Iran Refuses to Abandon Nuclear Ambitions Iran Withdraws Support from Houthis Amid Intensified US Airstrikes US deploys “overwhelming lethal force” against Houthis in Yemen

Swastikas at NY GOP Headquarters Condemned as a “Vile Act of Political Hatred” In an act that has sparked bipartisan condemnation, the New York Republican Party’s headquarters in Albany was targeted in what party leaders are calling a deliberate and hateful attack. Printed images of swastikas were found duct-taped to the windows and doors of the building early Thursday morning, prompting a police investigation and widespread outrage. Albany police confirmed that they are looking into the incident as a potential hate crime after discovering the symbols—emblems of the Nazi regime—displayed prominently across the GOP state headquarters. Photos revealed black swastikas, printed on white paper with red borders, taped to various parts of the building. Another printed sheet, also affixed to the wall, carried a chilling message: “If this is not what you stand for, prove it.” New York GOP Chair Ed Cox did not mince words in response to the vandalism. “A vandal duct taped swastikas to our doors and windows—symbols of genocidal evil, meant to intimidate and silence. This is not only an attack on our party, it is also an attack on the values of civil discourse, democracy and decency,” Cox said in a public statement. He further called on top Democratic leaders in the state, including Governor Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, to speak out against the incident and condemn the use of hateful symbolism in political discourse. Governor Hochul responded via social media, expressing strong disapproval of the act. “This is unacceptable. No one should ever resort to violence or vandalism to make a political point,” she tweeted. Attorney General James echoed the sentiment, urging unity against all forms of hatred. “Defacing any institution, across any political party, house of worship, or anywhere else with antisemitic hate or hate of any kind is wrong. All New Yorkers should reject these hateful acts to the fullest extent,” she posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. Republican leaders also reacted strongly. House Republican Leadership Chair Elise Stefanik called for full legal accountability for those responsible. “We must ensure that this vicious criminal who perpetrated this heinous crime is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” she said. While authorities continue their investigation, the incident has become a flashpoint in the broader debate about the limits of political expression and the importance of civility in a deeply divided climate. The use of Nazi imagery, a symbol synonymous with genocide and hate, has struck a particularly sensitive nerve across party lines and serves as a grim reminder of the dangers of political extremism. As leaders on both sides of the aisle condemn the attack, the hope remains that this disturbing act will galvanize a renewed commitment to respectful discourse and a firm rejection of hate in any form. Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-19

Police Strip Search Policy for Trans Women Shifts Following Supreme Court Ruling Trans women in the custody of British Transport Police (BTP) will now be subject to strip searches by male officers rather than female, following a landmark Supreme Court ruling that defines "woman" under the Equality Act 2010 as referring to biological sex. The decision has prompted BTP to adopt a temporary policy in line with the court’s interpretation while further guidance is developed. A spokesperson for the BTP Authority told Sky News, “Under previous policy, we had advised that someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) may be searched in accordance with their acquired sex. However, as an interim position while we digest today’s judgment, we have advised our officers that any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.” This interim change marks a significant shift from previous BTP guidelines. In September last year, the force had clarified that strip searches would be conducted by officers who shared the same sex as shown on a detainee’s birth certificate or GRC. At the time, trans women with a GRC were permitted to conduct strip searches on female detainees. Trans-identifying officers without a GRC, however, were not allowed to perform such searches. Strip searches, as defined by BTP, involve the exposure of buttocks, genitalia, and female breasts and go beyond the removal of outer garments like jackets, gloves, or footwear. The policy came under legal scrutiny when the campaign group Sex Matters launched a judicial review in the High Court, arguing that the guidance posed risks to both detainees and officers. “The policy puts detainees at risk of sexual harassment and sexual assault,” the group said, citing Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. They also expressed concern that the policy “puts female officers in a humiliating and dangerous position, as they may be pressured to search trans-identified men.” In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, public bodies across the UK are being urged to review their guidance on implementing equality law. Government minister Karin Smyth confirmed that public institutions have been advised to assess their current policies. “Obviously, public bodies have been asked to look at their own guidance,” she said. “And we will do that very, very carefully.” However, Smyth also cautioned against rushed or inflammatory responses to the ruling, urging agencies not to make statements “that may alarm people,” and to take the time to review their protocols thoughtfully. Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), stated that the judgment brings clarity to the issue. “There is no confusion now,” she said. Falkner also noted that the NHS will need to revise its 2019 policy, which currently allows transgender patients to be placed on single-sex wards that correspond with their gender identity. As institutions and legal experts continue to examine the broader implications of the ruling, the BTP’s new interim policy represents one of the earliest and most concrete responses to a decision that is expected to reshape how gender and sex are treated under UK equality law. Based on a report by Sky News 2025-04-19 Related Topic: UK Supreme Court Rules ‘Woman’ Means Biological Female, in Landmark Decision

Clooney and Silver Reveal Their Democratic Favorites for 2028: AOC, Wes Moore, and the Battle for the Party’s Future Actor George Clooney and political analyst Nate Silver have each weighed in on who they see as the future face of the Democratic Party, laying out their predictions for the 2028 presidential race. While Clooney has thrown his support behind Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Silver is leaning toward progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the most likely nominee. “He’s a proper leader.” George Clooney reveals his choice for the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee: Maryland Governor Wes Moore. Clooney, who played a notable role in encouraging President Joe Biden to step aside from the 2024 race, appeared on CNN and praised Moore’s leadership qualities, particularly highlighting his response to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore in 2023. “I think he is the guy who has handled this tragedy in Baltimore beautifully,” Clooney said. “He has two tours of duty in Afghanistan, active duty. He speaks sort of beautifully. He’s smart. He ran a hedge fund. He ran the Robin Hood Foundation. He’s a proper leader.” The actor didn’t stop there. “I’m a Kentucky guy, I like him, he’s a good guy… And he’s won in a red state,” Clooney said of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, while also mentioning Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. But it was Moore who stood out. “Who I think is levitating above that is Wes Moore,” he emphasized. “I like him a lot. I think he could be someone we could all join in behind. We have to find somebody rather soon because the Republicans are running through government and doing their thing. So it’s our job now to put together a proper team to stand up because we’re right now polling very poorly.” He added, “We say Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Although I think Republicans have fallen in love a little bit with Trump.” Meanwhile, in his “Silver Bulletin” newsletter, Nate Silver offered his own take. Alongside political commentator Galen Druke, Silver singled out Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his top pick for 2028. “She was going to be my first pick… Because of some of the polling; because she has this kind of progressive lane, probably not to herself; because she is younger and media savvy,” Silver said. “I mean, look, in polls, if she were to try to primary Chuck Schumer, she is now ahead in those polls, and New York Democrats are actually a pretty moderate bloc.” Druke shared the sentiment, pointing to Ocasio-Cortez’s strong polling and broad appeal. “In a Yale poll just out this week, AOC has the highest net favorability rating of any of the Democrats that they asked about,” he said. “She has broad appeal across the Democratic Party and there’s a lot of people who could potentially get on board with her.” Druke also stressed that Ocasio-Cortez has “very fervent support,” something he believes will be crucial in a crowded 2028 field. “I think a lot of people are gonna run in 2028, and it’s going to be a contest for attention and getting those sort of people who might be in your boat to turn out and stay with you through thick and thin, and I think that’s Ocasio-Cortez,” said Druke. “The media is kind of obsessed with her, and they’re going to follow her every move, which means she will be able to keep the attention on her throughout the primary process.” While Silver wasn’t sure she would actually run, Druke disagreed. “I think she’s gonna run,” he said, citing her recent “Fight Oligarchy” tour and her strategic messaging. “She has learned a lot as a politician since those early days of opposing Amazon, and especially those early days of the 'Abolish ICE' stuff that was very unpopular ultimately.” Druke noted that Ocasio-Cortez now focuses her message on economic inequality and critiques of Donald Trump’s ties to billionaires. “She’s not forced to talk about identity all the time because she’s sort of self-evidently different from any of the … white guys running, and she doesn’t have to prove her bona fides there,” he said. “At the same time, I think progressives have learned [to] stick to the economic message because what you have to say about those social and cultural state of affairs in America broadly isn’t popular, and I think she knows that.” Both Silver and Druke named Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as their second most likely Democratic nominee, while Druke placed Kamala Harris third and Silver pointed to New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. As the 2028 race starts to take shape in the minds of political insiders and public figures, names like Wes Moore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are emerging as defining contenders, each representing distinct paths for the future of the Democratic Party. Based on a report by The Independent 2025-04-19 Related Topics: George Clooney Says Speaking Out Against Biden’s 2024 Campaign was his ‘civic duty’

Biden's Surprise Visit to Harvard Marred by Protests, Gaffes, and Ice Cream Slip Former President Joe Biden’s attempt to quietly visit Harvard University turned into anything but a discreet affair, drawing protests, controversy, and media scrutiny. What was meant to be a low-key event at the prestigious Ivy League school quickly unraveled into a public spectacle as students protested, Biden stumbled over key geopolitical facts, and even dropped his ice cream on the floor. The 82-year-old president appeared at Harvard’s Kennedy School to speak with a group of roughly 50 students as part of an event reportedly planned weeks in advance. The visit was organized with an air of secrecy, with students only told they were invited to hear from a “special guest.” However, the element of surprise was swiftly undercut, both by circumstances on campus and by Biden’s own performance. Outside the venue, a dozen pro-Palestinian protesters from a group called Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine made their presence felt. Armed with drums, bells, and loud chants, they disrupted the quiet atmosphere the organizers had hoped for. The protesters shouted, “Biden, Biden, you can’t hide. You’re committing genocide,” making it impossible to ignore the growing tensions on campus surrounding U.S. policy in the Middle East. The backdrop to Biden’s visit added to the tension. Harvard is currently under pressure from the Trump administration, which has frozen $2.2 billion in funding and is threatening the university’s tax-exempt status. In a broader push to address what it calls rising antisemitism on campus, the administration has demanded that Harvard abandon DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies, identify activist groups, and accept an independent audit of its academic standards. So far, the university has not agreed to these terms. Biden’s visit was not without its moments of controversy. During his speech, he reportedly confused Ukraine with Iraq while discussing the ongoing war with Russia. His long-time adviser and now Harvard resident fellow Mike Donilon had to step in to correct him. The incident echoed the kind of missteps that plagued Biden’s presidential campaign and ultimately contributed to his decision to bow out of the re-election race following a disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump. Adding to the awkwardness, Biden dropped a melting ice cream bar on the floor after biting into it, according to the Harvard Crimson. While seemingly trivial, the moment was symbolic of the general tone of the visit—an attempt at connection that ended up making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Despite the distractions, Biden praised the university in his remarks to students, saying, “Harvard stepped up in a way no one else has. You should be really thankful.” His comments likely referred to the university’s role in national discourse and possibly its handling of complex political issues, though neither Harvard officials nor Biden’s spokesperson provided further comment about the event. What was intended as a quiet, inspiring appearance ended up drawing unwanted attention—underscoring once again how the spotlight never strays far from the aging former president, even when the event is meant to fly under the radar. Based on a report by The Daily Beast 2025-04-19

Trump Confirms Return Visit to UK at King Charles’s Invitation U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed he will travel to the United Kingdom in September, following a personal invitation from King Charles III. Calling the monarch his "friend," Trump described the upcoming trip as an "honour" and expressed admiration for the royal family and the country. “I was invited by the King and the great country … It is beautiful,” Trump stated during a press briefing in the Oval Office on Thursday. “It is the second time it has happened to one person. The reason is we have two separate terms and it’s an honour to be a friend of King Charles and the family, William.” The King suggested that the first visit could be more informal, perhaps at Balmoral Castle or Dumfries House in Scotland. He proposed that this meeting might take place during one of Trump’s visits to his Turnberry golf course, located along Scotland’s western coast. This potential meeting would be used to discuss the specifics of a larger, more ceremonial occasion. Trump is reportedly interested in returning to Windsor Castle, where he once had a formal audience with the late Queen Elizabeth II. According to The Telegraph, UK officials have been informed that Trump would prefer a more grandiose setting than the secluded Scottish residences. During his presidency, Trump made a state visit to the UK in June 2019 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings. That trip included a military-focused ceremony with Queen Elizabeth and a formal dinner hosted by then-Prince Charles at Winfield House, the official residence of the U.S. ambassador to the UK. In his recent letter, King Charles expressed warm memories of Trump’s prior visits. He wrote that he remembered those moments “with great fondness,” and touched on a shared commitment to “the breadth of challenges across the world” and “the values which matter so much to us all.” If confirmed, the upcoming visit would mark a historic return for Trump, making him one of the few figures to receive multiple state visit invitations — a move that underscores the unique and evolving relationship between him and the British monarchy. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-19