Social Media

In an era defined by political division, it may come as a surprise that America’s two most prominent political figures, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, share more policy positions than their heated rhetoric might suggest. While they represent opposing ends of the political spectrum, the consensus that has emerged on several major issues reveals a striking alignment, driven by shifting demographics and evolving political coalitions. Though Harris and Trump possess vastly different worldviews and governing styles, many of their disagreements seem to focus more on presentation than substance. Beneath the surface, the policies they support reflect a convergence of priorities shaped by the electorate. This shared ground can be traced to the need for both candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters as they move closer to the general election. For instance, both Harris and Trump agree on the need for stronger borders and tougher immigration laws. The Biden administration has enacted restrictions on asylum that closely resemble the policies Trump once championed — policies they previously opposed. This shift reflects the administration's pragmatic response to rising concerns over border security. Another area of convergence is China. Both Harris and Trump view Beijing as the primary national security threat of the 21st century, even as other global conflicts, such as those in the Middle East and Ukraine, dominate headlines. The House Select Committee on China remains one of the most bipartisan bodies in Congress, a reflection of the growing consensus on the need to curb China's influence on the global stage. Domestic energy production is another realm where their positions have aligned. Trump’s repeated calls to “drill, baby, drill” are echoed by record levels of U.S. oil and gas production under the Biden administration. While the two camps might differ in rhetoric, the practical outcomes suggest a shared commitment to increasing energy independence. The two figures also agree on the need to foster U.S. manufacturing, though their approaches differ. Trump advocates for massive tariffs to compel companies to produce domestically, while Harris supports tax credits like those in the CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act. Both strategies reflect a break from the free-trade consensus of the 1990s and a recognition that America’s industrial base requires revitalization. There are other surprising areas of agreement. Harris and Trump have both expressed support for protecting in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and oppose a national abortion ban. Trump recently suggested making IVF free for women in need, a proposal that raised eyebrows even within his own party. On abortion, despite appointing the justices who overturned *Roe v. Wade*, Trump now says he would veto a federal abortion ban if it passed Congress, seeking to neutralize the issue ahead of the election. Social programs and the economy provide further examples of alignment. Both Harris and Trump support expanding child-care assistance for parents, with Harris proposing a $6,000 child tax credit for new parents, while Republican Senator JD Vance recently floated a similar $5,000 proposal. On Social Security and Medicare, Trump has vowed not to touch these programs, even suggesting cuts to Social Security taxes for seniors — a move designed to court older voters. Meanwhile, despite their differences in economic philosophy, neither candidate seems particularly concerned about the growing national deficit. Both Harris and Trump’s platforms are projected to add trillions to the U.S. fiscal deficit over the next decade. And although Trump’s plans are costlier, the deficit remains a background issue, reflecting the current political reality that voter priorities lie elsewhere. Trump’s base now consists largely of working-class Americans, including union members and non-white voters. This shift has prompted him to embrace more expansive government programs — a striking departure from traditional conservative orthodoxy. In contrast, Harris’ base has expanded to include wealthier, white Americans, and she is courting Never-Trump Republicans in key swing states, prompting her to moderate some of her more liberal positions. These shifts in voter demographics and political priorities have created an unexpected alignment between two figures often seen as emblematic of America’s deep political divide. While Harris and Trump certainly have fundamental differences on key issues like executive power, environmental regulations, and foreign policy, their shared stances on issues like immigration, energy, and economic aid reveal a broader consensus that cuts across party lines. Based on a report from AXIOS 2024-10-11

In a startling development, an additional 65 women have come forward to accuse Mohamed Al Fayed of sexual abuse, sharing their stories with the BBC. These new allegations span over four decades, reaching as far back as 1977 and extending far beyond his well-known Harrods empire. The claims range from sexual harassment to assault and rape, suggesting a broader and more pervasive pattern of abuse by the billionaire, who passed away last year. Many of these women had no formal connection to Al Fayed’s business ventures, revealing a wider scope of victims. Some claim they were lured into positions within Al Fayed's domestic staff under false pretenses, only to find themselves exploited. One woman, in one of the earliest reported cases, alleges that Al Fayed assaulted her in Dubai in 1977, eight years before he acquired Harrods. She describes him stalking and threatening her, a tactic echoed by others who worked for him years later at the iconic London department store. Of the 65 women who have shared their stories, 37 were former Harrods employees. In response to the BBC's inquiries, Harrods acknowledged the seriousness of the claims, stating, “Since the airing of the documentary, so far there are 200+ individuals who are now in the Harrods process to settle claims directly with the business.” Several women who were not employed by Al Fayed but encountered him through other means have also stepped forward. One woman described how, at the age of 21, she was approached while working at a London flower shop in the early 1980s. She was flown to the Ritz in Paris under the guise of a job interview, only to be sexually assaulted by Al Fayed. Another former BBC makeup artist recalled a similar assault while working on an episode of *The Clothes Show* in 1989 at his Paris home, Villa Windsor. Margot, one of Al Fayed’s alleged victims, shared a particularly harrowing account. In 1985, she responded to an advertisement for a nanny position in *The Lady* magazine. She was interviewed and eventually offered a job at Al Fayed’s Barrow Green Court mansion in Oxted. Soon after arriving, however, she realized that the job was not as it seemed. She was rarely allowed to interact with the children and, instead, was repeatedly summoned by Al Fayed for sexual assaults. “The job just didn’t exist. He didn’t need a nanny. He didn’t want a nanny,” Margot said, describing her time there. She explained how she felt trapped at the mansion, unable to leave without his permission. “I was kept at Barrow Green Court, against my will, as a prisoner for several days and still feel that I was very lucky to escape,” she recounted. Another woman, Sheenagh, spoke of her experience with Al Fayed in Dubai in 1977. She recalled how he began visiting her regularly at the bank where she worked before one day offering her a meeting about a potential job. During this meeting, he allegedly assaulted her, blocking the door when she tried to leave. Although she managed to escape, she said Al Fayed stalked and harassed her for weeks afterward. “The threat was there all the time,” she said, describing how he would grope her in public and taunt her with his presence. Based on a report from BBC 2024-10-11

The legal efforts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running for office have largely fallen flat, and special counsel Jack Smith finds himself at the center of the blame. Despite the aggressive approach Smith has taken in prosecuting Trump, his efforts have so far yielded few tangible results. Many expected a swift and decisive outcome, especially in cases that seemed open-and-shut, such as Trump’s mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Yet, in an unprecedented legal twist, the case was dismissed on the grounds that Smith lacked the standing to prosecute Trump. Another significant setback came in the Washington case, where Trump faced charges of conspiring against democracy. The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity derailed Smith’s efforts, essentially forcing the case back to square one. In response, Smith filed a lengthy and unusual 165-page document, containing grand jury materials meant to bolster his position. This move, however, was criticized for appearing to violate the Justice Department's longstanding rule against taking investigative actions that could influence elections. “Federal prosecutors … may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.” Veteran prosecutor Elie Honig referred to Smith's latest filing as “Smith’s October Cheap Shot,” suggesting that the timing of the move was a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion on the eve of the election. The information in the filing, though damaging, offered no new bombshell revelations. The details reiterated Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results and his conduct on the day of the Capitol attack, including his dismissive response when informed that Pence was in danger. When told that his supporters were threatening Pence’s safety, Trump’s indifferent reaction was: “So what?” Despite the potentially damning evidence, many legal experts argue that Smith's actions might do more harm than good. Drawing comparisons to FBI Director James Comey’s controversial handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016, critics see a troubling pattern. In both cases, last-minute revelations appear to have violated the Justice Department’s rule against politically charged actions close to an election. As one critic noted, “Smith could have waited a month. There was no hurry.” Smith's missteps have not been limited to the timing of his filings. His decision to bring the Mar-a-Lago documents case in Florida rather than Washington, D.C., was also a miscalculation. In Florida, Trump won 51.2% of the vote in 2020, while in Washington, he garnered only 5.4%. Moreover, Smith’s choice of Florida placed the case in front of Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge who had already demonstrated a clear bias in favor of the former president. Cannon had been rebuked twice by the 11th Circuit Court for her questionable rulings related to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. Despite this, Smith gambled on avoiding her jurisdiction but ended up with a one-in-three chance of landing her as the presiding judge—a risk that backfired. Adding to the complications, Smith chose to indict Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, and his Mar-a-Lago property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, as co-defendants. This decision complicated the case and played into Trump’s strategy of delaying the trial. By joining Nauta and De Oliveira in the case, Smith inadvertently created room for procedural delays, as the two defendants requested additional time to review documents and prepare for discovery. Legal analysts argue that Smith could have prosecuted them separately, which would have simplified Trump’s trial. Now, with time running out, Smith’s legal maneuvers appear increasingly desperate. If Trump wins the 2024 election, these cases will likely be dismissed, as the sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris were to become president, there’s a chance the cases could be dropped. Ultimately, Smith’s mismanagement of these high-profile cases has left him in a precarious position, and his failure to anticipate Trump’s delay tactics has hindered the legal process. As the clock ticks down, it seems Smith’s pursuit of Trump may end without the conviction he has worked so tirelessly to achieve. Based on a report from The Hill 2024-10-11

Despite his vocal criticism of China, it has been revealed that Donald Trump's "God Bless the USA" Bibles were printed in China, a country the former president has repeatedly blamed for stealing American jobs. While Trump has not disclosed the printing location or production costs, it was discovered that nearly 120,000 copies were shipped from Hangzhou, China, between February and March, according to global trade records. The production cost for each Bible was under $3, yet they are sold for a minimum of $59.99, with some hand-signed copies going for $1,000. The total estimated sales from these Bibles could reach around $7 million. This revelation highlights a contradiction between Trump's public anti-China stance and his commercial ventures, which include promoting products made in the very country he has criticized. In a video promoting the Bible, Trump called for a return to Judeo-Christian values, claiming they are "under attack, perhaps as never before." He encouraged viewers to purchase the Bible, which also contains U.S. founding documents such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A special version of the Bible commemorates what Trump calls an assassination attempt in July 2023, with the words "The Day God Intervened" stamped on the cover. The Bibles are being sold through a website that claims no official affiliation with Trump’s political campaign. However, Trump’s name and image are used under a license from CIC Ventures, a company Trump owns. His financial disclosures show that CIC Ventures earned $300,000 in Bible sales royalties, though it's unclear how much Trump has made since the report was filed. The connection between these Bibles and China has drawn criticism from multiple angles. Claire Finkelstein, a law professor and founder of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, commented on the potential conflict of interest, saying, "Selling products at prices that exceed their value may be considered a campaign contribution." She also warned of the troubling mix of religion and politics in Trump's ventures, calling it "profoundly problematic." Trump’s administration had exempted Bibles and other religious texts from tariffs placed on Chinese goods. This exemption raises questions about the potential for future sales. Oklahoma, for example, plans to purchase $3 million worth of Bibles for public school education, a deal that may include Trump's version of the Bible. However, it remains uncertain whether the Bibles must be printed in the U.S. The production of Trump’s Bible in China is part of a broader issue of Christian nationalism, which seeks to merge American identity with Christianity. Brian Kaylor, president of the Christian media company Word&Way, criticized the move, stating, “Taking what has long been understood as a global message religiously and stamping it with the flag of one nation is the type of thing that for centuries theologians would call heresy.” The quality of the Bible has also been questioned. Tim Wildsmith, a Baptist minister and Bible reviewer, found his copy poorly made, with sticky pages, cramped text, and no information about its origin. “It says to me that it’s more about the love of money than it is the love of our country,” Wildsmith said. This Bible, stamped with the flag and wrapped in nationalistic symbolism, has provoked a wave of critique, challenging the intersection of faith, politics, and profit. Based on a report from The Independent 2024-10-11

Comments on moderation have been removed

France and Italy have recently made headlines by expelling individuals linked to Islamic extremism, demonstrating a firm stance on national security. Italy deported Zulfiqar Khan, a Pakistani imam accused of supporting jihadist ideologies and the Hamas terror group. France, meanwhile, ordered the expulsion of Omar Binladin, the eldest son of Osama bin Laden, following concerns about his online comments. Zulfiqar Khan, who had been serving as an imam at a mosque in Bologna, Italy, was accused of promoting extremist views. The Italian Interior Ministry issued an order for his expulsion, which is now pending confirmation through a hearing. Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini welcomed the move, saying, “We have finally sent him home.” Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi stated that Khan showed “growing ideological fanaticism” and demonstrated a “propensity toward radical positions,” particularly anti-Western and antisemitic rhetoric. In addition, Khan reportedly made anti-gay and anti-feminist remarks. Maurizio Gasparri, a member of Forza Italia, part of the governing coalition, praised the decision, emphasizing that Italy must act to prevent terrorism. He stated, “For preachers of hatred and antisemitism, there is no place in our country.” At the same time, France has expelled Omar Binladin, Osama bin Laden’s eldest son. Although Omar had distanced himself from his father’s violent past, a social media post in 2023—on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death—sparked outrage. In the post, Omar allegedly referred to his father as a “martyr” and “nation builder.” These comments alarmed French authorities, and Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau issued an entry ban on Omar Binladin, citing national security concerns. Despite Omar’s claims that he was not the author of the post, French authorities upheld the decision, and he has since moved to Qatar. Retailleau emphasized in a statement that the courts had confirmed the decision to expel Omar Binladin in the interest of national security, adding that Binladin is now banned from reentering France. Both Italy and France’s actions reflect their governments' efforts to counter extremism and protect national security, ensuring that individuals with radical beliefs are not given a platform to influence society. Based on a report from the EC 2024-10-11

inflammatory unsubstantiated claims removed @Neeranam

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warns would-be Hurricane Milton looters: ‘Don’t even think about it’

First videos starting to emerge:

Vice President Kamala Harris made headlines after her wide-ranging interview with Howard Stern on his SiriusXM show, where she candidly discussed topics from politics to personal preferences. Among the most striking moments of the interview were Harris’s remarks about former President Donald J. Trump’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic, her frustration during their past debate, and her thoughts on the state of the nation. Watch Howard Stern: ‘I don’t understand how Americans support a guy who says he doesn’t support Ukraine.” Harris’s sharp criticism of Trump didn’t stop there. She also reflected on their debate, particularly Trump’s bizarre and false claim that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were eating their neighbors' pets. Harris described the experience as “surreal,” adding, “This was a very serious moment to earn the votes of the American people, and he was talking about things that were factually untrue and quite ridiculous.” The episode highlighted the sense of disbelief and frustration she felt as Trump continued to push falsehoods during what should have been a substantive political exchange. As the conversation continued, Stern, who is a vocal Harris supporter, encouraged his listeners to vote in the upcoming election, pointedly saying, “but not if they plan to vote for Trump.” He concluded the interview by praising Harris, telling her, "God bless you. You should be president." The interview shed light on Harris’s views on leadership, her critique of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, and her belief in the importance of upholding democratic values. Harris’s comments made it clear that she sees the upcoming election as a pivotal moment for the country’s future. Based on a report from NYT | Daily Beast | X 2024-10-10

An Afghan national who entered the United States under a Special Immigrant Visa has been charged with plotting an ISIS-inspired terror attack on Election Day. Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, had been living in Oklahoma City and allegedly began stockpiling AK-47 rifles and ammunition to carry out the attack, according to the Department of Justice. Tawhedi arrived in the US on September 9, 2021, shortly after the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, which resulted in the Taliban regaining control of the country. Tawhedi was granted entry under the Harris-Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program, which allowed more than 70,000 Afghans temporary legal status in the US. Tawhedi, according to the complaint, was on parole pending the outcome of his immigration proceedings. The Justice Department revealed that in addition to gathering firearms, Tawhedi was preparing for the attack by liquidating family assets and making arrangements to resettle his relatives overseas. The FBI uncovered ISIS propaganda on his iCloud and Google accounts. One of the most alarming pieces of evidence was a video found on his phone, where he was recorded telling two children about “the rewards a martyr receives in the afterlife.” In the video, Tawhedi stated, “Martyrs will be exempted from the sufferings of the grave, placed in heaven, get married to 72 virgins, and receive a crown full of jewels.” Investigators also discovered disturbing images on his phone, including a man in a suicide vest, images of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and a portrait of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Tawhedi had also been active in ISIS-aligned Telegram groups, where he communicated with individuals involved in recruiting and training for terrorist activity. He donated $540 in cryptocurrency to a Syria-based charity that is believed to funnel money to ISIS. Tawhedi allegedly planned to carry out the attack with a juvenile co-conspirator, who has also been arrested. The two exchanged messages on Telegram, including discussions about purchasing smuggled AK-47s and 500 rounds of ammunition. In one message to a known terror facilitator, Tawhedi wrote, “We found a person who deals with weapons. We bought two Kalashnikovs. Each one costs $1,200.00. We have ordered 500 bullets. What do you think, brother? Is it enough, or should we increase it?” FBI Director Christopher Wray emphasized the seriousness of the case, stating, “This defendant, motivated by ISIS, allegedly conspired to commit a violent attack, on Election Day, here on our homeland. I am proud of the men and women of the FBI who uncovered and stopped the plot before anyone was harmed.” Wray also reiterated that terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority and vowed to use all resources to protect the American public. Attorney General Merrick Garland also commented on the success of foiling the alleged plot, adding, “We will continue to combat the ongoing threat that ISIS and its supporters pose to America’s national security, and we will identify, investigate, and prosecute the individuals who seek to terrorize the American people.” Tawhedi has been charged with conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma noted that the case is a reminder of the ongoing threats facing the nation and praised the FBI for their work. “With the escalating conflict in Israel and across the Middle East, we must remain vigilant against terrorism here at home,” Lankford said. Based on a report from NYP 2024-10-10

For decades, white women have been a crucial voting bloc for the Republican Party, helping to secure victories in many presidential elections. In 2016, Donald Trump won 47% of the white female vote, and by 2020, that figure rose to 53%. But as the 2024 election approaches, there's growing speculation that this reliable support might be weakening, particularly among younger white women who are moving left. With Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, some wonder whether this demographic will finally shift in favor of the Democrats, joining women of color who have long supported the party. Several factors may play a role in shaping the decisions of white female voters in 2024. One of the most significant is the overturning of *Roe v. Wade* in 2022, which transformed abortion rights into a major election issue. Harris, the first woman of color to be a major-party presidential candidate, brings additional momentum to the Democratic campaign, potentially energizing younger voters. Melissa Deckman, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, notes that "young women of color and young white women are pretty uniformly liberal and feminist," and that Harris’s nomination is likely to enhance their enthusiasm for voting. The generational divide among white women is becoming more pronounced. Younger white women, particularly from Generation Z, are increasingly secular, queer, and delaying marriage—factors linked to more liberal political beliefs. According to Gallup, liberal identification among white women has risen by 6% since 2011. Chloe Fowler, a 23-year-old Democrat from Nebraska, reflects this leftward shift, recalling how Trump’s 2016 win motivated her political engagement. Fowler, now a vice president of Nebraska Young Democrats, explains that events like the Women's March solidified her commitment to progressive values. However, the question remains whether this movement among younger white women is strong enough to significantly alter the overall voting trends. Historically, white women have shown loyalty to the Republican Party, and while younger generations may lean Democratic, older white women are likely to remain a GOP stronghold. Polls indicate a possible narrowing of the gap, but not a complete reversal. A September 2024 poll from 19th News/SurveyMonkey found white women narrowly favoring Harris over Trump, 42% to 40%, but the margin of error makes it clear the race remains close. Jane Junn, a political science professor, cautions against overstating the gender gap in this election, noting that it is more accurately described as a "race gap." While women overall may support Harris—54% of women polled plan to vote for her compared to 40% of men—white women are less likely to make a dramatic shift away from Republicans. Junn emphasizes that many white women voters continue to prioritize traditional Republican issues such as the economy and immigration, areas where Trump maintains a significant edge. Despite these complexities, Harris does have an advantage on issues like reproductive rights and democracy. Many moderate white women, who are pivotal in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, are split on their support between Harris and Trump. Jackie Payne, executive director of Galvanize Action, highlights that while economy and democracy are top concerns, many women will refuse to vote for a candidate who opposes abortion rights. This is particularly relevant in key battleground states with abortion-related measures on the ballot. In states like Ohio, where white women have supported both abortion rights and Republican candidates, the 2024 election could see split-ticket voting, with women supporting abortion-related measures while also casting votes for GOP candidates. This nuanced behavior reflects the complexity of white women’s voting patterns, which may not neatly align with a party’s stance on a single issue. Ultimately, the 2024 election will likely hinge on turnout. The Democratic Party has long relied on women, particularly Black women, to secure victories. Debbie Walsh of Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics underscores the importance of mobilizing this base: "The Democratic Party counts on women. They count particularly on Black women to turn out. Will they be more energized?" As the election approaches, it remains to be seen whether younger white women will fully break from their older counterparts and reshape the political landscape—or if the GOP can maintain its hold on this crucial demographic. Based on a report from The Guardian 2024-10-10

One year after the horrific attacks by Hamas, Iran's leadership continues its unyielding war against Israel, a conflict deeply rooted in Tehran’s strategic aims. October 7, 2023, will forever be remembered as a day of infamy. Comparing it to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, what Hamas did to innocent Israeli civilians stands out for its sheer barbarity, a terrorism-driven assault carried out with calculated malice. Astonishingly, even a year later, many in the West have yet to fully grasp the implications of this Iran-backed atrocity. October 7 marked the launch of Iran’s "Ring of Fire" strategy against Israel, which it sees as "the little Satan." In the immediate aftermath, Iran’s supporters in the Western media and think tanks downplayed Tehran’s involvement. They referenced U.S. intelligence reports suggesting that some Iranian leaders were unaware of Hamas' plans. They also pointed out the absence of clear, direct evidence linking Tehran to the command of the Hamas terrorists. But even if these claims were true, they don’t absolve Tehran of responsibility. It is unrealistic to expect that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which operates under the direct command of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would share sensitive information with anyone outside their tight inner circle. The IRGC’s Quds Force doesn’t operate like Western bureaucracies, and even Iran’s own foreign ministry or high-ranking officials might have been kept in the dark about the attack. This theory gained more traction with Iran’s missile attack on Israel on October 1, 2024. Over 180 ballistic missiles were fired, a clear indicator that civilian officials were not involved in the decision-making process. As noted by journalist Thomas Friedman, citing Israeli sources, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, wasn’t informed about the strike until just before it occurred. The fact that Iran’s president was left in the dark underscores the power and influence of the hardline military faction driving these events. The failure of Israeli and Western intelligence agencies to detect an Iran-to-Hamas order before the October 7 attacks was a significant oversight. But this isn’t surprising, given that no Western intelligence service foresaw the assault itself. The absence of an “execute order” is just part of a larger intelligence failure. This context is essential in understanding the broader failures of the Biden administration and European governments to address the real threat—Iran. This past year has not been a Palestinian war against Israel or an Arab war against Israel. It has been an Iranian war fought through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Yemen’s Houthis. Looming behind these groups is Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which threatens not only Israel but also the oil-rich monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. Arab states are acutely aware of the danger posed by Tehran, and many share Israel’s strategic assessment, which was the foundation of the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. While the prospect of further diplomatic progress has been stalled by the current conflict, many believe Iran’s desire to derail broader recognition of Israel was a driving factor behind its decision to initiate the “Ring of Fire” strategy. One year into the conflict, Israel has made significant strides, nearly eliminating Hamas' top leadership and military capabilities, while Hezbollah faces a similar fate. However, other Iranian-backed forces, like the Houthis, remain largely unscathed, posing a continuing threat to regional security. The blame for failing to neutralize these forces falls on the U.S. and the U.K., whose inaction has allowed Iranian proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen to remain active and dangerous. Israel’s primary focus remains Iran itself. Following an April missile-and-drone attack, Israel's response was limited, largely due to pressure from the Biden administration. Now, however, Israel faces the decision of whether to strike Iran’s nuclear program, its oil infrastructure, military facilities, or some combination of these targets. What Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government decide could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the region. Whatever Israel’s next move, one thing is clear: the only path to lasting peace in the Middle East is through regime change in Iran. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 has been the driving force behind much of the instability and violence in the region, and as long as Tehran’s mullahs remain in power, the threat of war will persist. It is time for the Iranian people to take control of their destiny and bring an end to the regime that has held them and the region hostage for far too long. Based on a report from Daily Telegraph 2024-10-10

Elon Musk, known for his bold statements and controversial opinions, has become one of the most vocal critics of illegal immigration. Interestingly, he once described his own past immigration status as a "gray area." Musk, standing near the US-Mexico border in a video from September 2023, was seen adjusting the brim of his black cowboy hat, just steps away from the boundary that has long fueled heated debate in American politics. Kimbal once revealed, "We were illegal immigrants," referring to the time they were starting their first company in the U.S. Elon, who was born in South Africa, moved to Canada before his 18th birthday and then to the United States in 1992 to attend the University of Pennsylvania. From there, he went on to found several high-profile startups, including Tesla and SpaceX, becoming the world's wealthiest individual with a net worth nearing $270 billion. In a 2013 interview, the Musk brothers recalled the early days of their startup, when they lived in their office and showered at the YMCA to save on rent. It was during this conversation that Kimbal dropped the bombshell, noting that investors were surprised to discover that the two brothers were, at that time, "illegal immigrants." Elon laughed and interjected, "I'd say it was a gray area." This vague explanation has left many questioning Musk's legal status during the formative years of his career. While the details of their visas remain unclear, Kimbal’s candid remark implies that there was indeed a period of legal uncertainty. "Yes, we were," Kimbal insisted, countering his brother’s softer characterization. Musk's immigration status at the time of founding his first company, Zip2, remains murky. Biographies like those by Walter Isaacson and Ashlee Vance mention that investors later helped the brothers secure visas, though specifics about those visas and the path Elon took to eventually become a U.S. citizen are unclear. According to Isaacson, Musk gained citizenship in 2002, a decade after arriving in the country. In response to the "gray area" remark, legal experts are less ambiguous. Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, commented, "Actually, there are no gray areas in immigration. There are people who get caught for violations, and people who don’t." Jennifer Minear, another attorney specializing in employment immigration, echoed that sentiment, suggesting there might have been a period when Musk lacked proper legal status. "It sounds like there was a little bit of wonkiness in his past with immigration," she noted. Musk himself has described the process of becoming a U.S. citizen as "a laborious Kafkaesque nightmare," noting that it took him over a decade to navigate the system. His reflections on the immigration process align with his broader views: advocating for more accessible legal pathways, while staunchly opposing illegal entry. As one of the world’s most influential voices, Musk’s opinions on immigration—shaped by both personal experience and political ideology—continue to stir debate. While his past remains clouded in some uncertainty, his present stance is clear: a call for a balanced, lawful approach to immigration. Based on a report from CNN 2024-10-10

In a recent radio interview, former President Donald J. Trump suggested that he had previously visited Gaza, a claim that has raised eyebrows given that no records support such a visit. The comment was made during a conversation with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on the anniversary of the October 7 attacks orchestrated by Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. When Trump was asked to clarify his statement, an aide to the former president, speaking anonymously, pointed to Trump’s trip to Israel, although Gaza is not part of Israel. This comment led to further confusion as there is no verifiable account of Trump ever visiting Gaza, either during his time as president or as a businessman. His only recorded trips to the region include a 2017 visit to Israel and the West Bank. During that visit, Trump met with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in Bethlehem, a city located approximately 20 miles from Gaza. Trump’s remark about having been to Gaza sparked questions about the accuracy of his statement. A campaign official, when asked for clarification, responded by claiming that “Gaza is in Israel” and that Trump had been to Israel, though Gaza is geographically distinct from Israel. The comment has fueled speculation about how Trump would handle relations in the region if he were to secure another term as president. Some hard-line factions within Israeli politics have expressed interest in reoccupying and annexing Gaza, an idea that Trump’s comments may unintentionally bolster. Throughout his presidency and beyond, Trump has made his support for Israel a focal point of his foreign policy platform. His administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and the signing of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and certain Arab nations, were significant milestones that his supporters often highlight. Trump also emphasized his frustration with American Jewish voters, stating, “I did more for Israel than anybody. I did more for the Jewish people than anybody. And it’s not reciprocal, as they say, not reciprocal.” Trump's claim regarding Gaza, coupled with his strong pro-Israel stance, leaves lingering questions about his understanding of the region’s geography and the complexities of its political landscape. Whether intentional or a slip of memory, his remarks may influence future discussions on U.S.-Middle East policy. Based on a report from NYT 2024-10-10

Kamala Harris' chances of winning the November election have taken a sharp downturn, according to an online betting platform, Polymarket. The platform, which is partially funded by Peter Thiel, a longtime supporter of Donald Trump, initially gave the vice president a 49.8 percent chance of victory on October 4, compared to Trump's 49.6 percent. However, just three days later, by October 7, Harris’ odds had dropped to 45.8 percent, while Trump's had jumped to 54 percent. As of Tuesday, the platform showed Harris holding at 46.1 percent, while Trump stood at 53.3 percent. This shift marks Trump’s best odds against Harris since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Harris on July 21. A week before, Trump had reached a high point in the prediction market, with a 67 percent chance of beating Biden. Interestingly, on October 4, both Harris and Trump were equally positioned on Polymarket. Yet, a wave of new bets in Trump's favor caused the sudden surge. Polymarket’s odds are determined by the "collective wisdom" of bettors, rather than by external indicators such as polls or expert predictions. Newsweek contacted the campaigns for both Trump and Harris via email but had not received responses at the time of writing. Nate Silver, a well-known pollster and advisor for Polymarket, provided some insight into the recent shift in the odds. According to Silver, the surge in bets for Trump may be linked to a combination of market boredom and speculative trading. "A couple of people have asked me what's behind this, and my theory is that there isn't much," Silver commented in his newsletter on Monday. "Sometimes market sentiment has a mind of its own, and that can especially happen when traders are bored and angsty because they're in the doldrums." Silver also noted that while there has been a history of bettors trying to sway public opinion through their trades, such tactics have become increasingly difficult. "It's too costly to keep bets artificially high for long periods," Silver explained. He added that the majority of recent bets likely stem from either genuine Trump supporters or traders hoping to capitalize on market movements. Despite the changes in the betting markets, most polling data shows Harris leading Trump. FiveThirtyEight's poll tracker places Harris 2.6 points ahead, and Silver's own tracker puts her 3 points ahead of Trump. Still, Silver cautioned that while Harris appears to have an edge in the popular vote, the Electoral College remains highly uncertain. According to some forecasts, including Polymarket's, Harris is not currently projected to secure the necessary Electoral College votes for a definitive win. Other prediction platforms indicate a similarly tight race between Harris and Trump. Some betting markets show the two candidates nearly neck-and-neck in their chances of taking the White House in November. Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight's model currently predicts that Harris will win both the popular vote and the Electoral College, with 279 electoral votes to Trump's 259. The Economist's forecast gives Harris 273 electoral votes to Trump's 265, while Silver's own projections show Harris with 281 electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 256. As the election draws nearer, these numbers may continue to fluctuate based on both market sentiment and real-world developments. Based on a report from Newsweek 2024-10-10

In his new book *War*, author Bob Woodward sheds light on the behind-the-scenes interactions between global leaders during some of the most pivotal moments of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Based on interviews with firsthand participants, the book reveals startling new details about high-stakes showdowns involving President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. One of the most alarming revelations is the belief, at one point, within Biden’s national security team that there was a 50% chance Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Woodward describes Biden’s frustrations with former President Barack Obama’s handling of the 2014 Crimea invasion, quoting Biden as saying, “Barack never took Putin seriously.” These reflections highlight Biden’s concerns about how seriously the Russian leader should be taken. The book also reveals that former President Trump may have held as many as seven conversations with Putin since leaving office, according to a Trump aide. As tensions escalated in late 2021, US intelligence provided Biden with clear indications of Putin’s intentions. “It was an astonishing intelligence coup,” Woodward writes, citing sources inside the Kremlin that delivered conclusive information about the planned invasion of Ukraine. “It was as if they had secretly entered the enemy commander’s tent,” Woodward notes, describing the depth of intelligence that showed Putin’s plans for a 175,000-troop invasion. Even though Biden’s advisers agreed the intelligence was credible, it was difficult for them to fully grasp Putin’s intentions. “This would be so crazy,” Biden remarked, before confronting Putin in a heated 50-minute call in December 2021, during which Putin raised the risk of nuclear war. Biden, however, reminded Putin that “it’s impossible to win” a nuclear war. One of the most dramatic moments in *War* unfolds as the threat of nuclear conflict intensified. By September 2022, intelligence reports painted a deeply unsettling picture of Putin’s desperation. The White House assessed that there was a 50% chance Russia would deploy tactical nuclear weapons—a stark increase from earlier predictions. Biden’s response was decisive. “On all channels, get on the line with the Russians,” he instructed national security adviser Jake Sullivan. Biden made it clear that the US would respond forcefully if nuclear weapons were used. A critical exchange between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu in October 2022 highlights the intensity of the situation. According to Woodward, Austin warned Shoigu, “If you did this, all the restraints that we have been operating under in Ukraine would be reconsidered.” Shoigu, not taking kindly to the warning, replied, “I don’t take kindly to being threatened.” Austin’s firm response was a reminder of the US’s unmatched military power: “I am the leader of the most powerful military in the history of the world. I don’t make threats.” Days later, the Russians requested another call, claiming falsely that Ukraine planned to use a “dirty bomb.” Austin firmly dismissed the claim, telling Shoigu, “We don’t believe you… Don’t do it.” This exchange was seen as one of the most hair-raising moments of the conflict. Colin Kahl, a senior Pentagon official, later described the episode as “probably the most hair-raising moment of the whole war.” Through these intense and candid exchanges, Woodward's *War* provides an inside look at the pressure and gravity of decisions faced by global leaders as they navigated the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear conflict. Based on a report from CNN 2024-10-10

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has sent a birthday message to Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him his "closest comrade" and signaling deeper ties between their two nations. In his message celebrating Putin’s 72nd birthday, Kim expressed confidence that relations between Pyongyang and Moscow would reach new heights, a development that has alarmed Western nations. The longstanding relationship between North Korea and Russia dates back to the early days of North Korea’s existence. The Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, supported Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of the current leader, with weapons and technology. North Korea, historically wary of becoming too dependent on China, has sought to maintain strong ties with Moscow. Earlier this year, both countries reaffirmed their commitment to one another by signing an agreement pledging mutual support in the event of "aggression" against either nation, though the specifics of what would constitute aggression remain unclear. Kim has been accused of assisting Russia in its war against Ukraine by providing munitions in exchange for economic and technological support. There is growing evidence to suggest that Russia has deployed North Korean missiles in Ukraine, further solidifying concerns about the deepening cooperation between the two nations. Analysts believe that for Putin, the relationship with North Korea is more tactical than strategic. Russia, in need of support for its ongoing war effort in Ukraine, appears willing to purchase whatever munitions North Korea is willing to sell. According to Jeffrey Lewis, director at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, both Kim and Putin are "trying to reduce the pain of international sanctions by creating an alternate network of friends and partners beyond the reach of US sanctions." While Russia benefits from North Korean weaponry, North Korea is looking to gain access to Russian military technology, which remains far more advanced than Pyongyang's own. Despite North Korea’s progress in developing new missile systems and miniaturizing nuclear devices over the past decade, Russian technology could significantly boost its capabilities. Russia’s more sophisticated thermonuclear warhead designs, re-entry vehicle technology, and solid rocket motor systems are seen as valuable assets for North Korea’s ongoing efforts to perfect its nuclear and missile arsenal. In September 2023, Kim visited Russia, where Putin promised to assist North Korea in developing its satellite program following several failed launches by Pyongyang. This technological cooperation further underscores the growing ties between the two countries. Separately, South Korean lawmaker Rep. Kang Dae-sik, citing South Korea’s intelligence agency, revealed that there are apparent signs North Korea has begun constructing a possible nuclear-powered submarine. While the construction is reportedly in its early stages, further confirmation is needed to determine whether the submarine is nuclear-powered. As North Korea accelerates its drive to become a military superpower with nuclear capabilities, the closer relationship with Russia presents new challenges for global security. Both nations, increasingly isolated from the West, appear intent on bolstering each other’s military and technological capabilities, raising concerns about the impact of their alliance on international stability. Based on a report from BBC 2024-10-10

Russia's intelligence services are actively working to create "sustained mayhem on British and European streets," according to the head of MI5, Ken McCallum. In a recent security update, McCallum disclosed that Russian GRU agents have engaged in "arson, sabotage, and more dangerous actions" across Britain, as the UK continues its support for Ukraine in the ongoing war with Russia. Since 2017, MI5 has foiled 43 late-stage plots involving firearms and explosives aimed at committing "mass murder" in the UK. Alongside these terror threats, the number of state-backed investigations has increased by 48%. "The first 20 years of my career here were crammed full of terrorist threats," McCallum reflected, adding that MI5 now faces these alongside "state-backed assassination and sabotage plots, against the backdrop of a major European land war." Britain's prominent role in supporting Ukraine has heightened its visibility in Russia's eyes, McCallum warned. "We loom large in the fevered imagination of Putin's regime," he said, adding that further acts of aggression on UK soil should be expected. More than 750 Russian diplomats, many suspected of espionage, have been expelled from Europe since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, significantly affecting Russian intelligence operations. In response, Russian state actors have turned to proxies such as private intelligence contractors and criminal organizations to carry out their missions, but this has reduced the professionalism of their efforts, making them easier to disrupt. The MI5 director also discussed the ongoing threat from Iran, highlighting the sharp increase in Iran-backed plots in the UK since the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022. These plots present "potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents," he said, with the number of Iranian-directed actions doubling in recent months. Despite the risk of exposure, Iran shows no signs of scaling back its aggressive stance. Touching upon China, McCallum pointed to the significant economic relationship between the UK and China, which he said underpins security. However, he noted the Chinese Communist Party's increasing efforts to steal data, with MI5 observing 20,000 hidden approaches to individuals by Chinese operatives. The growing number of young people attracted to online extremism is a growing concern for MI5, particularly in the case of right-wing terrorism. McCallum highlighted the "canny understanding of online culture" displayed by these movements, explaining that many of the threats involve “lone individuals indoctrinated online." He warned, "In dark corners of the internet, talk is cheap. Sorting the real plotters from armchair extremists is an exacting task." Sir Keir Starmer, responding to McCallum’s address, acknowledged the "sober findings" but reassured the public, stating that the UK's security services are "world class" and will do everything necessary to keep the country safe. Based on a report from BBC 2024-10-10

Troll posts removed. You know what the topic is: Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War It is NOT other posters and their useful contributions that they make daily

Post making unsubstaniated claims removed @BruceWayne

Off topic misleading unattributed image removed @WDSmart

In a shocking and disturbing incident in Barcelona, a one-year-old girl was slapped by a man in a fit of rage while screaming at her tourist family. The horrifying scene, captured on video, shows the man initially pretending to strike the toddler, only to follow through with a slap across her left cheek. The incident took place on Montjuïc hill, a popular spot for tourists visiting the city’s attractions, including the renowned Basilica de la Sagrada Familia. Watch: "Outrage in Spain after migrant slaps baby in a park in Barcelona. The baby’s parents quickly left the scene, hoping the attacker wouldn’t follow the family." One of the main drivers of these protests is the city’s escalating housing costs. Barcelona’s rent prices have surged by 68 percent over the past decade, with a notable 18 percent increase just last June. Many locals blame this trend on the high number of short-term rentals and tourist-driven changes to the economy. In response, Barcelona’s mayor, Jaume Collboni, introduced a plan in June to phase out all short-term rental accommodations by 2028. This drastic measure aims to address the soaring housing costs and make the city more livable for its 1.6 million residents. Anti-tourism graffiti and public sentiments against visitors have been visible for years, but this latest surge in activism reflects the urgency of the issue as residents call for a balance between tourism and local needs. While the assault on the toddler was an isolated act of violence, it has drawn attention to the broader tensions simmering beneath the surface in tourist-heavy areas of Spain. The court proceedings against the attacker are set to unfold against the backdrop of ongoing debates over the role of tourism in the country’s major cities. Based on a report from Daily Mail 2024-10-09

Elon Musk, sparked controversy on Monday by suggesting that he could face prison time if Vice President Kamala Harris defeats former President Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election. In a candid interview with Tucker Carlson, broadcast on X, Musk did not hold back his fears and frustrations. “If he loses, I’m f—ed,” Musk said, referring to the Republican nominee. Watch: “I have no plausible deniability,” Musk admitted during the interview, addressing his unreserved support for Trump. He made it clear that he had been relentless in his criticisms, saying, “I’ve been trashing Kamala nonstop.” However, he later clarified that his anger was not so much directed at Harris herself but at the political system she represents. “The machine that the Kamala puppet represents,” Musk said, positioning his attacks within a broader context of dissatisfaction with the Democratic establishment. When asked by Carlson about how his life has changed since he became more actively involved in presidential politics, Musk’s initial response was lighthearted: “It’s pretty fun.” But as the conversation turned more serious, the South African-born entrepreneur explained why he had decided to go "all in" for Trump. Musk shared his belief that if Trump does not win this election, it could mark the end of meaningful elections in the United States. "My view is that if Trump doesn’t win this election, it’s the last election we are going to have,” Musk warned, expressing concerns that the Harris-Biden administration's immigration policies could permanently alter the political landscape. He fears that millions of migrants who have entered the country during this administration could eventually be granted citizenship, which would significantly affect future elections. Musk argued that this influx of new citizens could turn crucial swing states solidly Democratic, leading to what he fears would be "single-party rule." To support his point, Musk referenced the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to millions of undocumented migrants. “Thereafter, California turned very strongly Dem,” Musk said, noting that the state, once a Republican stronghold, has consistently voted for Democratic candidates since the 1990s. “You just need enough [new citizens] for there to not be swing states,” Musk continued, predicting a future where the Democratic Party has an unshakable hold on power. “I think we want to remain a democracy and we don’t want to become a one-party state,” he said, arguing that those who view Trump as a threat to democracy are, in his opinion, actually contributing to that very threat. "One-party rule is not democracy," Musk concluded, warning of the dangers of a political system where one party holds overwhelming power. As the election draws closer, Musk’s comments highlight his deep anxieties about the future political direction of the country and his belief that the outcome of this election could have lasting consequences for American democracy. Based on a report from CNN | NYP | Sky News 2024-10-09