Social Media

In a charged atmosphere of political division and distrust, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has become a lightning rod for controversy. Last month, Republican members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic criticized Dr. Fauci for his support of mask and vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and school closures. They accused him of covering up U.S. government funding of research in a Wuhan, China lab that allegedly produced the COVID-19 virus, dismissing his assertion that such a result from this specific project was “molecularly impossible.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) intensified the attack, declaring that “Mr. Fauci belongs in a prison. He should be tried for mass murder and crimes against humanity.” She further added that many people hate him because “he is an a–hole and a liar.” Greene's vehement criticism is not an isolated case. In a July 2020 op-ed, Peter Navarro, then director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy in the Trump administration, claimed that Fauci “has been wrong about everything,” particularly the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. USA Today later acknowledged that Navarro’s claims did not meet its “fact-checking standards.” In November 2020, Steve Bannon, former chief strategist for President Trump, posted a video proposing that Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray should be beheaded: “I’d put the heads on pikes. As a warning to federal bureaucrats. Either get with the program or you’re gone.” The demonization continued in 2021 when Thomas Patrick Connally Jr. sent anonymous emails threatening to make Fauci “pay with your children’s blood for your crimes,” promising to drag Fauci into the street, break every bone in his body “with crowbars and sledgehammers,” and set him on fire. Connally was sentenced to three years in prison in 2022. Fauci also appeared on the “hit” list of a man who believed he was “called upon by God to combat evil demons.” This man was armed with an assault rifle, ammunition, and body armor when arrested. Due to the frequency of death threats, Fauci was constantly accompanied by a team of special agents. These extreme reactions to Fauci’s public health guidance highlight a troubling trend in American society: the mainstreaming of partisan polarization, contempt for expertise, and a cultish propensity for conspiracy theories and violence. By any reasonable standard, Fauci has been an exemplary public servant. Throughout his 50-year career at NIAID, he has played multiple roles: research scientist, physician, administrator, and advisor to policymakers, including seven presidents, on the threats posed by various communicable diseases, including COVID-19. Fauci was a chief explainer to the American public about preventive measures, vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. From 1983 to 2003, Fauci was one of the most cited research scientists globally. His discovery of how to re-dose cancer drugs transformed a 98 percent mortality rate for individuals with the autoimmune inflammatory disease vasculitis into a 93 percent remission rate. Under Fauci’s leadership, NIAID research led to the development of drugs that enabled HIV-positive patients to live long and productive lives while ensuring they could not infect their sexual partners. Fauci was also a driving force behind the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which distributed HIV drugs across Africa, saving millions of lives. For his contributions to public health, President George W. Bush awarded Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007, the nation’s highest civilian honor. Americans have been sharply divided over how to handle the pandemic. However, Fauci's critics should acknowledge that he consistently tried to follow the science during a fast-moving crisis with limited reliable information. NIAID provided essential scientific and logistical support for the development of COVID-19 vaccines through Operation Warp Speed, an immensely successful initiative of the Trump administration. Fauci did not have the authority to impose mask or vaccination mandates, order lockdowns, or school closures. He was also correct that COVID-19 would not quickly “disappear,” that hydroxychloroquine was not effective, and that ingesting bleach would not act “almost like a cleaning.” Fauci could have made tens or hundreds of millions of dollars by joining the pharmaceutical industry but chose to remain a government employee. His top annual salary of $480,654 is largely attributable to his long tenure as NIAID director. Contrary to claims made by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Fauci did not profit from vaccines and made less than $200 annually from patent royalty payments. Fauci and his wife continue to live in the modest home they purchased in 1977. Voter registration records confirm that he is not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties. Given his outstanding contributions to public health, Anthony Fauci should be lionized, not demonized. His career exemplifies dedication to scientific integrity and public service, even in the face of unprecedented hostility and misinformation. As the world navigates ongoing public health challenges, the legacy of leaders like Fauci remains crucial in promoting evidence-based responses and fostering trust in science and expertise. Opinion - GLENN C. ALTSCHULER Credit: Hill 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the country has kept a tight lid on the number of its soldiers who have been killed or injured. However, various sources now suggest that Russia’s military death toll has reached a grim new milestone. According to recent data from independent Russian media outlets Mediazona and Meduza, the number of Russian soldiers killed has crossed 100,000, with estimates ranging from 106,000 to 140,000 dead by June 21, 2024. Their analysis primarily relies on inheritance records and obituaries found on social media and other outlets. This estimate aligns with other recent sources: French officials estimated 150,000 Russian deaths by May, and BBC Russia reported at least 113,000 deaths by June. Mediazona and Meduza's estimates can also be broken down by week, revealing significant spikes in Russian losses during key moments in the conflict, such as Ukraine’s counter-offensive in the summer of 2023 and the battles for Avdiivka and Chasiv Yar. These figures, however, do not include Ukrainians recruited by Russia from occupied territories or Russian soldiers severely wounded and unable to return to battle. Based on leaked documents from the U.S. Department of Defense, it is estimated that around three to four Russian soldiers are wounded for every one killed in battle. This suggests that between 462,000 and 728,000 Russian soldiers were out of action by mid-June, exceeding Russia’s initial invading force in February 2022. French and British officials have also estimated that approximately 500,000 Russians had been severely injured or killed by May. The demographic impact of these losses is stark. The greatest losses have been among men aged 35 to 39, with 27,000 estimated deaths in this age group between February 2022 and June 2024. As a percentage of Russia’s male population, the most severe losses have occurred among those aged 45 to 49. Estimates suggest that around 2% of all Russian men aged 20 to 50 have been either killed or severely wounded in Ukraine since the start of the full-scale war. To put these numbers in historical context, Russia’s losses in Ukraine since 2022 surpass the combined casualties from all its wars since World War II. Despite these heavy losses, Western officials and analysts believe that Russia’s supply of manpower will not be significantly affected in the near to medium term. According to the New York Times, American officials estimate that Russia is able to recruit between 25,000 and 30,000 soldiers per month. On the Ukrainian side, President Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that around 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, though the actual number is likely much higher. Additionally, tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians are thought to have died, with over 10,000 confirmed deaths and at least 22,000 estimated deaths in Mariupol alone. The Economist’s war tracker indicates that July has seen some of the most intense fighting since the invasion began, suggesting that the toll on both sides will continue to rise. Credit: The Economist 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made a significant life change, moving to Montecito, California, after stepping down from their royal duties. Despite the picturesque setting and their new life, reports suggest that Harry’s friends are reluctant to visit him, with many attributing this to Meghan Markle. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who have maintained a complex relationship with the Royal Family, have only visited the UK when necessary. Notably, in June, Harry’s absence was felt at the wedding of Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster and one of Harry’s closest friends and godfather to their son Archie. The wedding at Chester Cathedral saw no sign of Harry or Meghan, raising eyebrows and sparking further speculation about Harry’s current social circle. Royal author and expert Tom Quinn shared insights with The Mirror, shedding light on Harry's social isolation. According to Quinn, Harry rarely sees his old friends, a situation he attributes to Meghan. He explained, "Harry is increasingly bored and looking back across the Atlantic where most of his army and school friends still live and whom he never sees because they won’t visit him in the States because they find Meghan difficult." This sentiment was echoed during Harry’s trip to London for the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games. Instead of staying at a royal residence or reconnecting with old friends, Harry chose to stay alone in a hotel room. The Invictus Games ceremony took place at St Paul's Cathedral on May 8. Quinn noted that Harry’s reluctance to meet with old friends from his pre-Meghan days stems from his distaste for revisiting that part of his life. He also mentioned that Harry's military friends feel "betrayed" by his portrayal of his military service in his memoir, "Spare," and now feel they have little in common with him. Adding to the complexity, many of Harry's old friends reportedly dislike Meghan and blame her for what they perceive as Harry’s transformation into "Harry the Hippy." This transformation has seemingly created a rift that has widened over time. During Harry’s visit for the Invictus Games, the strain on his relationships extended to his family. While Harry was at the Invictus Games service, King Charles and a group of royals displayed unity at a Buckingham Palace garden party, held just two kilometers from St. Paul's. This proximity underscored the apparent divide between Harry and the rest of the royal family. The combination of estranged friendships and family tensions highlights the profound changes in Harry's life since moving to the United States. The reluctance of his old friends to visit Montecito, coupled with strained family ties, paints a picture of a prince caught between two worlds, each pulling him in different directions. Credit: Daily Mirror 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Climate campaigners are increasingly turning to the legal system in their fight against the fossil fuel industry, seeking to hold energy companies accountable for their role in driving climate change. A recent report from the London School of Economics (LSE) highlights a significant surge in climate-related lawsuits against energy companies, revealing that the UK has become a major battleground in this legal fight. The LSE report found that there are currently 132 climate cases in the British legal system, up from 102 a year ago. This positions the UK as the third highest center for climate litigation globally, following the US and Australia. Authored by Dr. Joana Setzer and Cathy Higham of the Grantham Climate Research Institute, the LSE report predicts a record number of climate cases this year, driven by innovative legal strategies such as "ecocide." This new legal concept aims to hold oil and gas company executives personally accountable for the deaths and environmental damage caused by emissions from their products. The report states, "Increasingly, we are seeing the physical and mental health impacts of climate change becoming the focus of litigation – as both the scientific evidence and people’s lived experience of those impacts develop." The United States leads the world with the highest number of ongoing climate cases, totaling 1,745, with 129 new cases filed last year. Australia follows with 132 cases, on par with the UK. This surge in climate litigation is seen as a strategic move to pressure the fossil fuel industry to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to cleaner energy sources. This legal onslaught comes at a crucial time, just before the UK faces its most significant environmental lawsuit to date. This landmark case involves the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in southeast Brazil, operated by BHP, a UK-based mining conglomerate. The disaster resulted in 19 deaths and the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses. BHP is being sued by 700,000 plaintiffs seeking £36 billion in damages. Scheduled for a London High Court hearing in October, this case is expected to set legal precedents that could pave the way for more climate litigation in the future. In addition to the BHP case, the study also references last month's Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by environmentalist Sarah Finch. The ruling mandates that planning authorities must consider the emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels when approving new drilling sites. This decision has thrown the UK fossil fuel industry into disarray, casting doubt on the future development of new oil and gas fields and potentially ending the prospects for fracking in the country. The growing trend of climate litigation is likely to intensify as more individuals and organizations seek legal reparations for the damages caused by climate change. Emma Montlake of the Environmental Law Foundation, which promotes climate litigation, expects a surge in cases against energy companies and governments. She remarked, "As climate chaos and sea level rises unfold and other impacts get worse, people will ask in ever-increasing numbers how legal reparations can be made by those who knew about the effects of burning fossil fuels but hid their conclusions." The increasing use of the courts to address climate change reflects a broader shift in the fight against fossil fuels. With traditional political avenues proving slow or ineffective, campaigners are leveraging the legal system to drive change. This approach not only seeks to hold companies accountable but also aims to create legal precedents that can accelerate the transition to a more sustainable future. Despite the significant rise in climate litigation, major oil and gas companies, such as Shell and BP, along with the industry trade body Offshore Energies UK, have declined to comment on the matter. Their silence underscores the tension and uncertainty within the industry as it faces mounting legal challenges and public scrutiny. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) made a bold statement on Sunday, asserting that both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump should be open to taking cognitive tests as they vie for the White House this November. During an interview on NBC News's "Meet the Press" with Kristen Welker, Schiff emphasized the importance of transparency regarding the mental acuity of presidential candidates. "Look, I’d be happy if both the president and Donald Trump took cognitive tests," Schiff said when asked specifically about Biden. He reiterated his stance when pressed further, adding, "I think they both should be willing to take a test." Schiff went on to suggest that a cognitive test might reveal significant health concerns for Trump, saying, "I think, frankly, a test would show Donald Trump has a serious illness of one kind or another." Schiff's comments come at a time of increased scrutiny on President Biden's capacity to handle the demanding responsibilities of the presidency, particularly following a challenging debate performance. This has led to some within his party urging him to consider stepping aside as the top candidate. In response to these concerns, Biden recently engaged in a high-profile interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. During the interview, Biden was questioned about his willingness to undergo an independent medical evaluation, including neurological and cognitive tests, and to disclose the results. Biden firmly stated, "Look, I have a cognitive test every single day. Every day I have that test; everything I do," and highlighted his active engagement with international leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer earlier that day. When Stephanopoulos asked if Biden believed he had the mental and physical capacity to serve another four years, Biden responded confidently, "I believe so. I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think I did. I’m running again because I think I understand best what has to be done to take this nation to a completely new level. We’re on our way. We’re on our way." A source familiar with the Biden campaign's strategy asserted that the president consistently demonstrates his capability to fulfill his duties, suggesting that the campaign is prepared to move beyond the debate. "Ultimately, the decision is going to come down to what Joe Biden thinks is best," Schiff said in his Sunday interview. "And if his decision is to run, then run hard and beat that SOB. And if his decision is to pass the torch, then the president should do everything in his power to make that other candidate successful." Credit: Hill 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally (RN) fell short of expectations in France's parliamentary elections, coming in third place according to exit polls. This result has defied initial predictions that the RN might become the dominant political force following President Emmanuel Macron's decision to call a snap election. The left-wing New Popular Front coalition (NPF) is now projected to win the most seats in the second round, as indicated by multiple exit polls. An IFOP estimate for broadcaster TF1 suggests that the NPF could secure between 180 and 215 seats in parliament, while an Ipsos poll for France TV projects 172-215 seats for the left-wing bloc. BFM TV's projection offers a range of 175-205 seats. President Macron's centrist group, Ensemble, is reported to be narrowly ahead of the RN. After the RN emerged as the leading party in the first round of voting, centrist and leftist parties took a strategic approach, agreeing to withdraw 221 candidates—83 from Macron's camp and 132 from the NPF—to avoid three-way run-offs that could split the vote. This tactical withdrawal appears to have been effective in curbing the RN's advance. Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the left-wing party France Unbowed, which is part of the NPF, expressed immense relief at the exit poll projections, stating, "We saved the Republic." He emphasized that the NPF is ready to govern and described it as the only alternative with a very organized and detailed program. His sentiment captures the optimism and preparedness within the left-wing coalition as they look ahead to potentially leading the country. Marine Le Pen responded to the results by stating that RN's victory had "merely been delayed" and she sees "the seeds of tomorrow's victory in today's result." She criticized President Macron's position as "untenable" and remains confident about her party's future prospects. Jordan Bardella, president of the RN, voiced frustration over the electoral outcome, claiming, "We've been thrown into the arms of the extreme left and of Jean-Luc Melenchon." Bardella argued that the coalitions formed in response to RN's initial success had "paralysed" the French political system and blamed Macron for pushing the country towards uncertainty and instability. He acknowledged the frustration among millions of RN supporters. Macron's office issued a statement saying that the president, as guarantor of the institutions, will respect the choice of the French people. The president is currently analyzing the results and awaiting a complete picture of the electoral landscape. French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, a member of Macron's Renaissance party, indicated that he would offer his resignation if the exit polls prove accurate. He stated, "Even though we had three times better results than being envisaged, it doesn't mean that it's a majority. So, faithful to the Republican tradition, I will actually withdraw tomorrow morning." Should the exit polls be accurate, France is poised for a hung parliament, divided among three sizeable groups. This scenario could lead to a period of instability unless the left can negotiate effective deals with other parties. The NPF, a broad left-wing electoral alliance, was formed just under a month ago on June 10 in response to Macron's call for a snap election. It comprises several left-leaning parties and groups, including La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), the Socialist Party, Les Ecologistes, the French Communist Party, Generations, Place Publique, and others. Although the NPF has no official leader, Melenchon is widely regarded as the closest figure to that role, given his prominent position within the coalition. The voter turnout for this election stood at 59.71% by 5 pm local time, a significant increase from the 38.11% turnout at the same time during the 2022 election, according to the interior ministry. The campaign has been marked by volatility, with more than 50 candidates reporting physical attacks. In response to potential unrest, over 30,000 police officers were deployed on voting day to ensure security. The outcome of this election, with the NPF projected to win the most seats, signifies a significant shift in the French political landscape. It highlights the electorate's complex and evolving preferences, as well as the strategic maneuvers by centrist and leftist parties to counter the rise of the far-right RN. As France moves forward, the political dynamics within the country will undoubtedly continue to evolve, with new alliances and strategies shaping the future of its governance. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a striking display of local frustration over perceived overtourism, thousands of protesters marched through the streets of central Barcelona, waving placards and squirting foreign visitors with water pistols. The demonstration, which took place under the slogan "Enough! Let's put limits on tourism," saw some 2,800 people marching along a waterfront district, calling for a new economic model that would curb the millions of tourists flocking to the city each year. Protesters carried signs reading "Barcelona is not for sale" and "Tourists go home," and targeted tourists dining outdoors at popular restaurants. Chants of "Tourists out of our neighbourhood" echoed through the streets as demonstrators halted in front of hotel entrances. A primary concern driving the movement is the soaring cost of housing in Barcelona, which has risen by 68 percent over the past decade. The city's residents also lament the detrimental effects of tourism on local commerce and working conditions. According to the property website Idealista, rents in Barcelona and other tourist-heavy cities like Madrid rose by 18% in June compared to the previous year. Anti-tourist graffiti has been a common sight in the city for years, with messages such as "tourists go home" directed at visitors who are blamed for driving up prices and reshaping the local economy to cater predominantly to tourists. In response to these growing tensions, Barcelona's mayor, Jaume Collboni, announced a plan in June to phase out all short-term rentals by 2028, an unexpectedly drastic measure aimed at controlling housing costs and making the city more livable for residents. Despite these efforts, many locals feel that the measures are insufficient to balance the needs of the tourists, who contribute significantly to the city's economy, with those of the residents. "Local shops are closing to make way for stores that do not serve the needs of neighbourhoods. People cannot afford their rents," said Isa Miralles, a 35-year-old musician living in the Barceloneta district. Jordi Guiu, a 70-year-old sociologist, echoed this sentiment, stating, "I have nothing against tourism, but here in Barcelona, we are suffering from an excess of tourism that has made our city unliveable." Barcelona, renowned for its iconic landmarks like La Sagrada Familia, welcomed over 12 million tourists last year, according to local authorities. In an effort to combat the "negative effects of mass tourism," the city council, led by the Socialist Jaume Collboni, announced a ban on tourist apartment rentals by 2028, aiming to return these properties to the local housing market. However, this decision is expected to trigger legal battles and is opposed by an association of tourist apartments, which argues that it will only bolster the black market. The anti-tourism protests in Barcelona are part of a broader wave of demonstrations across Spain's popular tourist destinations, including Malaga, Palma de Mallorca, and the Canary Islands. Spain, the world's second most visited country after France, saw 85 million foreign visitors in 2023, an increase of 18.7 percent from the previous year, according to the National Statistics Institute. Catalonia, with Barcelona as its capital, was the most visited region, attracting 18 million tourists, followed by the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands. Earlier this year, locals in the Canary Islands organized mass protests, warning British travelers that they would target main holidaymaker areas over the summer. These demonstrations, which involved tens of thousands of participants, aimed to discourage foreign holidaymakers and push for new legislation to protect the islands from the effects of expanding tourism. Protesters argued that the influx of tourists was causing environmental damage, driving down wages, and pushing locals out of affordable housing, forcing some to live in tents and cars. Similar sentiments were echoed in Malaga, where more than 15,000 people took to the streets at the end of June. Banners at the demonstration, organized by the Malaga Tenants Union and supported by nearly 50 organizations including Greenpeace and Oxfam, read "We feel like strangers in our own city." The protest aimed to highlight the impact of overtourism on local communities and demand that the city prioritize residents' needs over those of tourists. The backlash against overtourism is not unique to Spain. In various Mediterranean resorts across Spain, Greece, and other countries, graffiti and protests have become commonplace, urging tourists to "go home." In an effort to mitigate tensions, some local authorities have introduced policies to curb reckless behavior by tourists. For instance, Magaluf has implemented rules banning street drinking and restricting alcohol sales in grocery stores after 8:30 PM, with fines for violations reaching up to €3,000. In 2022, the Balearic island of Mallorca introduced a dress code prohibiting tank tops without straps, swimwear, football kits, and certain accessories in bars and restaurants. Additionally, smoking was banned on several beaches, following similar measures in Barcelona, to improve the image of the areas and appease residents. Other popular tourist destinations have experimented with innovative measures to control visitor numbers. In Japan, a town set up a 65-foot screen to block views of Mount Fuji in a bid to deter tourists from gathering at a picturesque spot. Venice became the first city in the world to charge an entry fee for day-tripper tourists, aiming to reduce the number of short-stay visitors who cause congestion during peak times. However, this "tourist tax" has sparked controversy, with some arguing it merely tarnishes the city's image without addressing the fundamental issues. Violent clashes erupted in Venice in April as demonstrators took to the streets, some confronting police in riot gear. Matteo Secchi, leader of the residents' activist group Venessia.com, criticized the entry fee, stating, "You can't impose an entrance fee to a city; all they're doing is transforming it into a theme park. This is a bad image for Venice… I mean, are we joking?" Federica Toninello, head of the ASC association for housing, argued that the council had not fully grasped the consequences of mass tourism. "For a start, €5 will do nothing to deter people. But day trippers aren't the issue; things like the shortage of affordable housing are… What we need are policies to help residents, for example, making rules to limit things like Airbnb." As cities around the world grapple with the challenges posed by overtourism, the balance between welcoming visitors and preserving the quality of life for residents remains a contentious issue. The protests in Barcelona and other tourist hotspots underscore the urgent need for solutions that address the root causes of local frustrations while ensuring sustainable tourism practices for the future. Credit: Daily Mail 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Keir Starmer's achievement is immense. It is the most remarkable turnaround in recent British electoral history and the most stunning in the 120-year history of the Labour Party. His leadership, his changing of Labour, has been focused, determined, and ruthlessly effective. He appointed exceptional talent to conduct the change and put the most capable frontbenchers in the most important positions for future government. These are all qualities that bode well for his leadership of the country. But there is no doubting that this was also the most peculiar election of recent times. There was a huge desire not just to put the Conservative Party out but to punish them. Labour was a credible instrument of punishment. An electoral system really designed for two big parties, plus possibly one "also-ran," has seen not two but four parties all with double-digit proportions of the vote, plus another two also-rans and different varieties of independent splitting many constituency ballots, resulting in a landslide result. Keir will be acutely aware of this. However, people voted for disparate parties knowing full well that doing so would give Labour a big majority. The last throw of the Tory dice was to call upon the electorate not to give Labour a landslide and to explain precisely how this might happen. The advice was ignored, and we have to conclude deliberately. So, he has a mandate. It is for "change," for sure. But what type of change exactly? Stability, not chaos. But after that? What Labour voters want and what Reform UK voters want can point in different directions. What Liberal Democrats want — other than "good things" — is frequently a bit of a mystery. And though we know what Green voters want, and many people support the general aim of protecting the environment, most people do not support their policies. You can make an argument that, although the country has chosen the centre-left to govern, its political centre of gravity also contains signs of moving right. Here is where Keir's decision to keep his manifesto tight and to refuse to mimic a Tory manifesto full of unrealisable promises is a blessing. The five missions he has set out, covering economic growth, the NHS, crime, education, and clean energy, are absolutely the right ambitions and they cover areas of concern that stretch across most of the country. Now he will work on the plan to deliver them. And with the ministers he has chosen and people such as the formidable Sue Gray helping to organise the system, he has sensibly given himself the talent and the room to formulate it, free from too much preconceived baggage. The hardest part of coming into government is recognising that the skill set that brought you to government is not the same as the skill set you need to stay there. Winning power is all about being The Great Persuader. Exercising power is all about being The Great Chief Executive. The former role consists of speeches, symbolic moments of connection, slogans, kissing babies, wooing voters, and all the performative art of a good campaign. The latter role is about the intellectual and practical graft of policy and delivery. Guess which is harder. The size of Labour's majority gives the new government a massive opportunity to put in place a policy agenda that can transform the country over time and bring into being a new coalition of support if it starts with a hard-headed appreciation of the reality it is inheriting and the way the world is changing. Britain's politics over the past few years has often been depressingly introspective at the very moment the world is turning on its axis. The Labour Party always wants to correct social injustice, and quite rightly. But this Labour leadership understands that without economic growth and reform of services and welfare, it will be unable to do so. Keir and Rachel Reeves, the new chancellor of the exchequer, recognise we have reached the limits of traditional tax and spend to solve our problems. We have at present high levels of both, and high levels of debt, but poor outcomes. It is a horrible and unvirtuous circle. There are things that can be done to kickstart economic growth, in particular reforming the hopelessly slow and bureaucratic planning system, both infrastructure and housing, and fixing the worst aspects of the post-Brexit trade deal. But the only game-changer is the full embrace of the potential of technology, especially the new developments in artificial intelligence (AI). For this reason, I don't think there has ever been a better or more exciting time to be governing. My institute will this week hold its Future of Britain conference. To coincide with it, we will publish detailed reports that show how the unvirtuous circle can be turned virtuous by accelerating the application of technological innovation. The spread of the application of AI by the private sector and its encouragement by appropriate government policy is the only answer to Britain's productivity challenge and, over time, it can turbocharge growth. We show how a switch to prevention in healthcare, using new treatments for everything from cardiovascular disease and cancer protection to obesity drugs, not only yields benefits in health but the wealth of the country, adding employment and growth. We need this urgently. Since 2019, we have seen the number of working-age people off work on long-term sickness rise by 800,000 to a record 2.8 million. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits has risen by a whopping £18 billion; and spending on mental health in England is now 10 per cent of the NHS budget. We show how applying AI to the processes of government can cut workforce time by 20 per cent, and, by a specific analysis of the Department for Work and Pensions, how both the way the department operates and the service it gives to those who depend on it can be transformed, as well as cutting the large benefit fraud bill. Using studies from around the world, we show how AI can change education both for teachers and students. And we highlight the fact that, after the US and China, Britain occupies third position in AI globally, and therefore focusing on it and associated areas, such as life sciences and clean energy, is also the right industrial strategy. Over two terms of government, we estimate the savings run into the tens of billions, allowing us to get growth back to the levels it was in the early part of the century. For the avoidance of doubt, I know this technological revolution has its downsides, and generative AI, like any general-purpose technology, can be used for bad as well as good. But it is a fact. Actually, this 21st-century technological revolution is the real-world fact that will change everything. The question is whether we have the imagination to harness it. The companies and countries that do will prosper, and those that don't will fall behind. And at least let's debate it. After a campaign with a week on Rishi Sunak and D-Day, another week or more on the betting scandal, and then endless discussion of polls, not policy, there is surely an appetite! Then there is the challenge of Reform. Here is where British politics has much in common with European politics. Indeed, all over the western world, traditional political parties are suffering disruption. Where the system embeds the two main parties, the disruption is internal. Where the system allows new entrants to emerge, they are running riot everywhere. Look at France or Italy. Cultural issues, as much if not more than economic issues, are at the heart of it. Reform has pillaged the Tory vote in this election, true. But it poses a challenge for Labour too. We need a plan to control immigration. If we don't have rules, we get prejudices. In office, I believed the best solution was a system of identity, so that we know precisely who has a right to be here. With, again, technology, we should move as the world is moving to digital ID. If not, new border controls will have to be highly effective. We need a tough new approach to law and order. At present, criminal elements are modernising faster than law enforcement. And the government should avoid any vulnerability on "wokeism". There is also clearly a challenge in part of the Muslim community, but that is a topic requiring its own special analysis. The country has decided to give Keir and his team a go. That voters should hand Labour one of its biggest victories so soon after handing the party one of its biggest defeats is an enormous tribute to that team. It doesn't matter that, though the chapter headings are in bold print, there are pages of detail to be written. That's an advantage. The Labour Party won, as it always does, by returning to the centre-left. But, contrary to the common critique, the centre ground is not the place of the mushy middle, between the poles of right and left. It is the place of solutions, not ideology; where the policy comes first and the politics second. It can be sensible and radical at the same time. And that is what the country needs. Sir Tony Blair was prime minister from 1997 to 2007 and leader of the Labour Party from 1994 to 2007. Opinion Sir Tony Blair Credit: The Times 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Adnan Hussain, recently elected as an independent MP in Blackburn, has garnered significant attention and criticism due to a controversial speech he made at a 2014 Gaza rally. At the rally, Hussain declared, “Every corporation… that supports Israel, let’s stop their funding. They let Gaza burn, they hate Gaza… Now let’s make Israel burn, let’s make Israel burn. We will stop their funding.” These remarks, which equated Israel's military actions to a "holocaust," have resurfaced following his electoral victory and have become a focal point for his critics. Hussain won his seat by capitalizing on the local electorate's discontent with Labour’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Blackburn, where about one-third of the population is Muslim, resonated with Hussain's campaign promise to vocally oppose what he described as the "injustice being inflicted against the people of Gaza." Although Hussain continued to use the term "genocide" during his campaign, he has refrained from employing the same violent language he used in 2014. The 2014 Gaza conflict, which Hussain referred to in his speech, erupted following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Palestinian terrorists with ties to Hamas. The subsequent military offensive by Israel led to some of the deadliest clashes in the region in decades. The Community Security Trust, a British Jewish organization, responded to Hussain’s past remarks with concern. A spokesman from the organization stated, “Adnan Hussain may have called for Israel to burn several years ago. But the sight in recent months of parts of Israel literally burning at the hands of Hamas terrorists and under Hezbollah rocket bombardments shows just what this slogan means in practice. This kind of rabble-rousing, extreme language would be alarming coming from anyone, but is especially so from a person who has since been elected a member of Parliament and needs to represent the views and interests of all his constituents.” Following his victory, Hussain’s TikTok account featured videos of his supporters chanting “free, free Palestine” as he celebrated with activists. In another video from a campaign rally, Hussain vowed to represent the “rage” of Blackburn residents in Parliament, saying, “My people of Blackburn, I can assure you I will carry your rage in the corridors of power. I will scream until they hear us, I will scream until they stop a genocide. Because I’m telling you, MP or no MP, I have continued to speak for Gaza.” Hussain has expressed that he feels divinely chosen to represent his constituents. He said, “I feel Allah has gifted me an ability to represent you. I have been gifted an ability to speak the truth and speak the truth I shall in the corridors of power, if Allah wills.” On his campaign website, he called for a renewal of leadership in Blackburn, declaring it was “time to get rid of the old guard” and “make Blackburn great again.” A video from a “from Blackburn to Gaza” rally showed his supporters behind a banner that read “from Blackburn to Gaza, globalise the intifada.” While some interpret the term “intifada” as a call for violence, others view it as a call for solidarity with Palestine. Hussain’s election is part of a broader trend where pro-Palestinian MPs have made significant inroads, effectively forming the sixth-largest party in the UK. Alongside Hussain, other independent candidates unseated Labour incumbents, including Shockat Adam, who defeated Jonathan Ashworth in Leicester South. Adam dedicated his victory to “the people of Gaza,” holding up a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf. Additionally, Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader and long-term supporter of the Palestinian cause, was re-elected in Islington North as an independent. Hussain’s controversial past and his strong pro-Palestinian stance continue to draw scrutiny. As he takes his seat in Parliament, he is poised to be a vocal advocate for his constituents and the Palestinian cause, navigating the complexities of representing a diverse electorate while staying true to his campaign promises. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, has referred to the newly elected pro-Gaza MPs as "comrades," despite the increasingly toxic nature of their campaign. This insurgent wave, which made significant inroads in Birmingham, managed to secure seats while significantly reducing previously large majorities. The movement, which mirrors the political impact of Nigel Farage's campaigns albeit with a different focus, saw five MPs elected on a pro-Gaza platform, matching the number won by Reform UK. At a pro-Palestinian rally in London, Corbyn stood alongside Iqbal Mohamed, the newly elected MP for Dewsbury & Batley in West Yorkshire. Mohamed, echoing the movement's sentiments, declared, “Our democracy has been hijacked by a corrupt, racist, brutal, apartheid and genocide-supporting elite.” In Birmingham, the political upheaval was particularly evident. An insurgent candidate took one inner-city seat and substantially cut down Labour's large majorities. This intense political contest led to warnings from two female MPs about threats to their personal safety, the safety of their campaign teams, and broader implications for British democracy. Jess Phillips, MP for Yardley, was re-elected with a drastically reduced majority of 693, down from 10,659, after facing a strong challenge from Jody McIntyre of George Galloway’s Workers Party. Shabana Mahmood, who won in Birmingham Ladywood, saw her majority plummet from 32,000 to 3,421. Phillips recounted incidents of harassment and intimidation during her campaign, including an incident where a young woman delivering leaflets was filmed and screamed at by an older man. Phillips described her campaign as being marred by a “politics of humiliation,” with male opponents frequently filming her and her team. She explained that these actions were intended to generate content that could incite further intimidation. Reflecting on the Labour party's evolving stance on the Gaza conflict, Phillips noted that the party's position had cost her votes despite her resignation from the Labour front bench to advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza in November. In Birmingham Perry Barr, where 38% of the population is Muslim, the independent pro-Gaza candidate and barrister Ayoub Khan defeated the Labour incumbent, Khalid Mahmood, by 507 votes. Khan, who had left the Liberal Democrats in May, attributed his campaign's intensity to widespread passion and frustration across Birmingham. He condemned any violence but defended the right to protest and demonstrate, highlighting the increasing activism within the Muslim community as beneficial for democracy. Local perspectives on the election aftermath were poignant. Adil Parker, an outreach worker at the Masjid Al Falaah in Perry Barr, praised Jess Phillips as a diligent worker but criticized Labour MPs for neglecting Muslim voters' concerns since the Gaza conflict began. Abdul Roghey, Parker’s colleague, stressed that the vote was not just a protest but a response to broader issues like poverty and social neglect in Perry Barr. Shabana Mahmood narrowly retained her seat after independent candidate Akhmed Yakoob garnered significant support. Mahmood condemned the campaign's "harassment and intimidation," describing it as an "assault on democracy itself." Yakoob, facing his own allegations of harassment, denied any wrongdoing and suggested his volunteers were the ones harassed by Labour campaigners. In constituencies with significant Muslim populations, Labour's vote share saw an average decline of 11 points compared to the 2019 elections, reflecting a broader dissatisfaction with the party. Despite Labour's overall landslide victory, the surge in support for independent candidates in Muslim-heavy seats indicates a shifting political landscape. The group "The Muslim Vote," established to support candidates opposing the Conservative and Labour leadership's stances on Gaza, celebrated the increased support for independents, predicting further changes in future elections. Credit: Sunday Times 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

President Biden's determination to stay in the 2024 presidential race has sparked controversy within his own party, as another elected Democrat, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), called for him to step down. On Saturday morning, Craig, who faces a tough reelection battle, urged Biden to drop out, stating, "There is only a small window left to make sure we have a candidate best equipped to make the case and win." Craig's plea came in the wake of Biden's performance at a recent debate in Atlanta. She said, "Given what I saw and heard from the President during last week’s debate in Atlanta, coupled with the lack of a forceful response from the President himself following that debate, I do not believe that the President can effectively campaign and win against Donald Trump." Adding to the pressure, former Vermont governor Peter Shumlin, who had endorsed Biden early in the 2020 primary, echoed similar sentiments. "With him, we lose. With the courage to pass the torch, we win," Shumlin stated in an interview on Saturday, emphasizing the necessity for Biden to step aside for the party's greater good. These calls reflect the ongoing tension within the Democratic Party as it grapples with Biden's candidacy. While Biden remains resolute, supported firmly by his family, including First Lady Jill Biden and his son Hunter, numerous Democrats in competitive races are growing anxious. Craig is now the fifth congressional Democrat to publicly call for Biden to step down, and another 13 members of Congress and governors have expressed concerns about his candidacy, according to a Washington Post tally. Biden's campaign has been scrambling to manage the fallout. His aides spent Saturday explaining why they had provided questions for a radio host to ask him during an interview earlier in the week. They also arranged two campaign events in Pennsylvania for Sunday. Additionally, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) scheduled a call with top House Democrats, and Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), a key Biden ally, canceled a scheduled appearance on CBS’s "Face the Nation." The week ahead is expected to be fraught with tension as congressional Democrats return to Washington. There is growing speculation about whether private conversations concerning Biden's viability as the nominee will become more public. Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) emphasized the need for Biden to meet with House and Senate Democrats upon their return. "It’s going to be tough to win this election unless he’s got the full support of the electeds," Bera said on Fox News. Shumlin, a three-term governor and former chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, despite his high regard for Biden's presidency, has been dismayed by recent developments. He noted, "Joe ran because of what a threat he knew Donald Trump was to our democracy. The way that he beats him for a second time is to accept his aging, to accept the changes that are happening — which will happen to all of us — and pass the torch to new leaders." Shumlin was particularly influenced by Biden's debate performance, which he saw as a clear indication of the toll of the presidency and aging. Biden’s efforts to quell concerns about his candidacy included a battleground-state rally and a prime-time television interview. His defiant stance, however, may push more lawmakers to voice their doubts publicly. In the interview, Biden dismissed polls showing him losing to Trump or his low approval rating, insisting, "All the pollsters I talk to tell me it’s a toss-up" and "That’s not what our polls show." When asked about the potential of Trump winning if he stayed in the race, Biden replied, "I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about." Yet, controversy arose when it was revealed that the questions posed during a recent radio interview were pre-approved by Biden’s aides. The radio host, Andrea Lawful-Sanders, confirmed, "The questions were sent to me for approval. I approved of them," adding that she chose questions she felt were most pertinent to her audience. This practice was defended by Biden’s campaign spokeswoman, Lauren Hitt, who explained, "It’s not at all an uncommon practice for interviewees to share topics they would prefer." Moving forward, however, the campaign indicated it would cease offering suggested questions. Biden spent much of Saturday at his home in Wilmington, Delaware, but attended a biweekly campaign meeting and later attended Catholic mass, accompanied by his sister Val. Despite the turmoil, Biden remains resolute, as evidenced by his comment that only "the Lord Almighty" could convince him to drop out of the race. Biden's schedule includes two campaign events in Philadelphia and Harrisburg on Sunday, as well as participation in a NATO summit and a solo news conference later in the week. Jeffries’s call with top Democrats aims to address the growing concerns within the party. Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking at the Essence Festival of Culture in New Orleans, emphasized the stakes of the election, focusing on the dangers of a potential Trump presidency. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) strongly defended Biden, dismissing critics and asserting, "I don’t care what anybody says — it ain’t going to be no other Democratic candidate. It’s going to be Biden." Biden's allies, including Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), remain supportive, with Coons lauding Biden's accomplishments and Fetterman urging Democrats to "get a spine." Nonetheless, some, like Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), believe Biden needs to do more to reassure voters. Sherman called for a longer, live interview focusing on Biden’s future plans. While Sherman acknowledges Biden’s capability for another term, he emphasizes the need for a more thorough vetting process. Credit: Washington Post 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Trump distanced himself from the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 on Friday, stating he has "nothing to do" with the initiative and expressing disagreement with some of its aspects. In a post on Truth Social, Trump emphasized his lack of involvement with the right-wing think tank's proposal, which outlines various policies and initiatives that some conservatives hope a future Republican administration would implement. Trump asserted, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them." The 900-page 2025 Presidential Transition Project, dubbed a "governing agenda," is filled with conservative priorities and insights from scholars and policy experts. It is divided into sections focusing on five main topics: "Taking the Reins of Government," "The Common Defense," "The General Welfare," "The Economy," and "Independent Regulatory Agencies." The project proposes a range of policy changes, notably reshaping the powers of the executive branch, eliminating various small government agencies, and reducing funding for abortions and the approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. One controversial proposal includes reimplementing Schedule F, a classification for federal workers that makes it easier to fire them and replace them with loyalists. The Associated Press estimated that this could affect 50,000 workers. Trump had initially signed an executive order to institute Schedule F in October 2020, but President Biden revoked the order upon taking office, instituting a new rule to make it more difficult to fire career civil servants. Democrats have criticized Project 2025, viewing it as evidence of an extreme agenda that could be implemented if Trump is reelected. House Democrats recently launched a campaign to counter the project, forming a task force to combat what they see as a threat to American democracy and government institutions. The Heritage Foundation began the project two years ago following criticism from Trump supporters who believed federal government workers were part of a "deep state" undermining Trump's agenda. The group has stated that it is not advising any candidate, and the implementation of its proposals would ultimately depend on the president's decisions. A spokesperson for Project 2025 reiterated this stance on X (formerly Twitter) in response to Trump's post, clarifying that the project does not speak for any candidate or campaign and is a coalition of 110 conservative groups advocating for policy and personnel recommendations for the next conservative administration. They added, "But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement. Rather than obsessing over Project 2025, the Biden campaign should be addressing the 25th Amendment." The coalition backing the project includes various conservative groups, some led by former Trump administration officials. Although Trump has not endorsed the project, he has indicated his intention to bring back Schedule F if elected, stating in a campaign video last year, "First, I will immediately reissue my 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats. And I will wield that power very aggressively." Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts praised the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity, which found presidents are immune to criminal prosecution for official acts, saying conservatives should feel emboldened. Roberts remarked, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." Despite Trump's distancing himself from the project, past reports have shown some ties between him and those involved with crafting it. Trump advisers have previously issued statements saying that statements on policy or personnel from sources other than Trump or his campaign should not be considered official. Ammar Moussa, the Biden campaign’s rapid response director, described Project 2025 as "the extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people." He noted that the project's leaders and staff routinely emphasize their ties to Trump's team and are involved in developing the Republican National Committee's platform and Trump's debate preparation and inner circle. Russ Vought, a Project 2025 adviser who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump administration, is serving as the platform committee’s policy director. Stephen Miller, a former top Trump adviser whose group America First Legal is on the project's advisory board, participated in Trump's debate preparation on at least one occasion. Karoline Leavitt, a former deputy White House press secretary and a current spokesperson for Trump, appears in a Project 2025 video promoting a training program for “future political appointees” to be ready for the start of the next conservative administration. Moussa accused Trump and Project 2025 of creating a playbook for Trump to achieve his dream of being a dictator with unchecked, imperial power. John McEntee, a former director of the White House Personnel Office under Trump and now a Project 2025 senior adviser, mentioned in one interview that "a lot of our work" would be integrated with the Trump campaign as the time for a presidential transition approaches. Democratic National Committee spokesperson Aida Ross stated, "Donald Trump and Project 2025 are one big MAGA operation, coordinating on an extreme blueprint to rip away freedoms and undermine democracy — and they’ve made it clear themselves." Moussa posted on X that the super PAC supporting Trump, MAGA Inc., has run ads promoting Project 2025. However, a source familiar with MAGA Inc.'s effort disputed this, stating that the website referenced by Moussa does not promote Project 2025 but instead gathers search traffic for those looking for it online. The source said the website promotes Trump’s actual policies, comparing them to Biden’s. Credit: Hill 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

President Biden recently defended his performance in the first presidential debate in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, addressing concerns about his fumbling appearance and making several statements that require fact-checking. Biden claimed, “After that debate, I did 10 major events in a row, including until 2 o’clock in the morning after the debate. I did events in North Carolina. I did events in — in — in Georgia, did events like this today, large crowds, overwhelming response, no — no — no slipping.” This statement is exaggerated. According to his public calendar, Biden has traveled extensively along the East Coast and participated in more than a dozen events since the June 27 debate. However, whether these events can be considered “major” and the crowds “large” is subjective, and there were instances where Biden misspoke. For example, before the interview on Friday, he told a rally in Wisconsin that he would “beat [Trump] again in 2020.” At a Fourth of July barbecue, he referred to Trump as “one of our former colleagues” before correcting himself. During a fundraising reception in East Hampton, New York, Biden confused Italy and France when discussing a veterans’ cemetery he recently visited. Biden also stated, “I’m the guy that shut Putin down. No one thought could happen.” This requires context. Biden’s campaign explained that he was referring to Putin’s failed expectations for a quick victory in Ukraine, partly due to Biden’s efforts to marshal allies and provide aid. However, Putin’s war in Ukraine continues two years later, and despite heavy sanctions from the U.S. and other Western countries, Russia’s economy is still growing. The World Bank recently upgraded Russia from an upper-middle-income country to a high-income one. In discussing polling, Biden said, “All the pollsters I talk to tell me it’s a tossup. It’s a tossup. And when I’m behind, there’s only one poll I’m really far behind, CBS poll and NBC, I mean, excuse me.” This is exaggerated. The Biden campaign cited a Bloomberg poll showing Trump leading by two percentage points and argued that most polls show Trump’s lead within the margin of error. While it is true that many polls show Trump’s lead within the margin of error, he is ahead in most public polling. FiveThirtyEight’s average of national polls shows Trump ahead by 2.5 percentage points, and Real Clear Politics’ average shows Trump leading by 3.3 percentage points. Out of 12 polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics and 14 by FiveThirtyEight, only one (from Reuters/Ipsos) showed a tie. The Biden campaign later clarified that he misspoke and meant The New York Times/Siena College poll, which showed a six-point lead for Trump. Polls by The Wall Street Journal and CNN showed a similar advantage for Trump. Biden also claimed, “The New York Times had me behind before anything having to do with this race — had me behind 10 points. Ten points they had me behind. Nothing’s changed substantially since the debate in The New York Times poll.” This statement is misleading. The New York Times/Siena College poll showed Trump’s lead had grown by three points among both likely and registered voters. Before the debate, Trump led among likely voters by 48 percent to 44 percent (a three-point margin before rounding) and among registered voters by 48 percent to 42 percent. Following the debate, Trump led 49 percent to 43 percent among likely voters and 49 to 41 percent among registered voters (a nine-point margin before rounding). The Biden campaign argued that the poll’s margin of error was 2.8 percent, suggesting a minor shift. Regarding Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden said, “This is a guy who told us to put bleach in our arms to deal with Covid, with a million — over a million people died. This is a guy who talks about wanting to get rid of the health care provision we put in place. This is a guy who wants to give the power back to Big Pharma to be able to charge exorbitant prices for drugs.” This statement is exaggerated. Trump’s comments in April 2020 about the efficacy of disinfectants and light as treatments for the coronavirus sparked uproar and confusion. He did not instruct people to inject bleach but suggested that doing so with a disinfectant was an “interesting” concept to test. At an April 2020 news conference, a member of Trump’s coronavirus task force said that the virus dies under direct sunlight and that applying bleach in indoor spaces kills the virus in five minutes, and isopropyl alcohol in 30 seconds. Trump responded, “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.” The Biden campaign explained that his comment about health care referred to Trump’s recent proposals to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. While Trump campaigned on that proposal in 2016, his current position is vague, and he has not yet released a health care plan. Though Trump continues to criticize the health care law as an expensive “disaster,” he said in a January rally in Iowa that his administration would “be either working on Obamacare or doing something new.” Trump also wrote on social media in March that “I’m not running to terminate the ACA,” though he has not released any details on what he would do. Similarly, Trump has not said anything about terminating a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate change, health, and tax law, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. While some Republican lawmakers have expressed interest in repealing that provision, Trump has not commented. Finally, Biden claimed, “Well, Mark is a good man. We’ve never had — he also tried to get the nomination too.” This statement is misleading. Asked about reports that Senator Mark Warner of Virginia was working to convene fellow Senate Democrats to discuss Biden’s future as the party’s presidential nominee, Biden dismissed those reports by claiming that Warner was a former political rival. However, Warner has never run for president. Warner explored a bid nearly two decades ago but announced in 2006 that he would not seek the nomination. Biden briefly ran for president in 2008 but quit the race in January after poor results in the Iowa caucuses. Biden's interview with Stephanopoulos contained several exaggerated and misleading statements about his own record, recent events, and his opponent. While defending his debate performance, Biden downplayed unfavorable polling, overstated his role in international affairs, and misrepresented past comments and positions of his rival, Trump. Credit: NYT 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Noel Gallagher has taken aim at the current state of the Glastonbury festival, labeling it as "a bit woke now." The former Oasis guitarist, known for his candid remarks, expressed his dissatisfaction with the festival's increasing emphasis on political statements and activism. Speaking to the Sun, Gallagher remarked, “It’s getting a bit woke now, that place, and a bit kind of preachy and a bit virtue-signalling. I don’t like it in music – little fucking idiots waving flags around and making political statements and bands taking the stage and saying, ‘Hey guys, isn’t war terrible, yeah? Let’s all boo war. Fuck the Tories man,’ and all that. It’s like, look – play your fucking tunes and get off.” Despite his critique, Gallagher still holds a fondness for the festival, describing it as “probably the best fucking thing about Britain apart from the Premier League.” However, he questioned the impact of political activism within the music scene. He elaborated, “Donate all your money to the cause – that’s it, stop yapping about it. Let’s just say for instance the world is in a bit of a fucked up place… what’s all the kids in a field at Glastonbury going to do about it? Everybody knows what’s going on in the fucking world, you’ve got a phone in your pocket that tells you anyway. What is the point of virtue-signalling?” This year’s Glastonbury festival saw significant political statements, most notably from Banksy. The elusive artist launched an inflatable raft containing dummy migrants across the crowd during performances by Idles and Little Simz, a pointed comment on the English Channel immigration policy under the Rishi Sunak administration. Home Secretary James Cleverly criticized Banksy’s action, stating, “joking and celebrating about criminal actions which cost lives… this is not funny, it is vile… deeply distasteful… completely unacceptable.” In response, Banksy defended his stunt, explaining, “The home secretary called my Glastonbury boat ‘vile and unacceptable’, which seemed a bit over the top. The real boat I fund, the MV Louise Michel, rescued 17 unaccompanied children from the central Med on Monday night. As punishment, the Italian authorities have detained it – which seems vile and unacceptable to me.” Idles, unaware of Banksy’s plans beforehand, made their own political statements during their set, leading the audience in a chant of “Fuck the king.” Other political expressions were seen with strong support for Palestine, particularly during the performance of 47Soul, a Palestinian-Jordanian alternative rap group. Blur’s frontman Damon Albarn also joined in, making an appearance during Bombay Bicycle Club’s set and asking the crowd, “Are you pro-Palestine? Do you feel that’s an unfair war?” He further commented on global leadership, saying, “Maybe it’s time we stop putting octogenarians in control over the whole world,” referring to the upcoming election battle between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Glastonbury has a long-standing history of supporting leftwing political causes, especially environmental issues. Greenpeace has had a major presence at the festival each year, and the Left Field stage, curated by Billy Bragg, hosts annual political discussions. The 2024 lineup included panel debates on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the UK housing crisis. The festival’s longest-standing political partnership is with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), which began in 1981. Festival organizer Michael Eavis credited CND’s involvement with significantly boosting the festival’s popularity, stating, “It was of huge value for us. The whole success of the festival was actually down to that.” Gallagher’s comments come amidst a broader debate about the intersection of politics and art. This year’s Eurovision song contest was marked by discord over the conflict in Gaza, and an artist-led boycott of Live Nation-promoted festivals, such as Download, led to the promoter suspending its sponsorship deal with Barclays. The bank faced criticism for its financial services to defense companies supplying Israel, to which it responded, “The protesters’ agenda is to have Barclays debank defense companies, which is a sector we remain committed to as an essential part of keeping this country and our allies safe.” Furthermore, numerous writers and artists opposed arts sponsorship by investment firm Baillie Gifford due to its holdings in fossil fuel companies and links with Israel. This led to Hay Festival and Edinburgh International Book Festival ending sponsorship deals with the firm. Baillie Gifford refuted the claims, stating that it was “not a significant fossil fuel investor” and that suggestions it was “a large investor in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is seriously misleading.” In his Sun interview, Gallagher also addressed Foo Fighters’ Dave Grohl, who had previously criticized the Gallagher brothers for not reuniting Oasis. Grohl had said in 2023, “To know that they’re out there somewhere, but they won’t come together to do the thing that everybody would love so much. I’m like: you assholes.” Gallagher retorted, advising Grohl to “wind his fucking neck in about Oasis.” Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

David Lammy, the newly appointed Foreign Secretary for the United Kingdom’s Labour Party, has a complex history with former President Donald Trump, whom he once called a “neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath” in a 2018 opinion piece for Time magazine. Lammy, a Labour lawmaker from Tottenham, took on the role of Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs following Labour’s recent victory in the parliamentary elections. In 2018, Lammy’s article was published ahead of Trump’s first visit to the U.K. In it, he committed to joining “tens of thousands on the streets, protesting against our government’s capitulation to this tyrant in a toupee.” He characterized Trump as “not only a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath” but also “a profound threat to the international order that has been the foundation of Western progress for so long.” These remarks were made in response to Trump’s perceived slander and insults towards London, with Lammy highlighting what he described as “barely concealed racist attacks on the U.K.” Despite his previous harsh criticism, Lammy has shown a pragmatic approach towards future U.K.-U.S. relations. As shadow foreign secretary in May, he met in Washington with Senator JD Vance, a close Trump ally and potential vice-presidential pick, demonstrating his readiness to engage with key U.S. political figures despite his earlier stance. In a January interview with Sky News, Lammy emphasized that it doesn’t matter who is in No. 10 Downing Street; the U.K. must work with the United States. He also highlighted his commitment to countering criticisms by Trump and other Republican lawmakers against NATO and support for Ukraine, stating that part of his role as foreign minister would be “to try and persuade and use your influence.” David Lammy has long been an outspoken advocate for social justice and minority issues. He is described as the “first black Briton to study at Harvard Law School” and is the author of a 2020 book exploring his African heritage. His appointment as Foreign Secretary marks a significant moment in his career and indicates Labour's intention to address international relations with a strong emphasis on social justice and global cooperation. Lammy has previously addressed his 2018 criticism of Trump and pledged to work with the former president if he is elected in November. In his interview with Sky News, Lammy stated, “It doesn’t matter who is in No. 10 — you work with the United States,” referring to the U.K. prime minister’s residence, which Labour leader Keir Starmer entered following the election. Lammy also mentioned that he would work to counter criticisms by Trump and other Republican lawmakers against NATO and support for Ukraine, emphasizing that part of the job of foreign minister is “also to try and persuade and use your influence.” Lammy’s 2018 Time article was written in the context of Trump’s impending visit to the U.K., and Lammy was adamant about joining the protests. He described Trump as a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath” and a significant threat to the international order that has been the foundation of Western progress for so long. His strong words were a reflection of the broader sentiment among many in the U.K. who were critical of Trump’s policies and rhetoric. In the years since that article, Lammy’s stance has evolved, showcasing his ability to navigate the complex landscape of international diplomacy. His willingness to meet with key figures like Senator JD Vance indicates a pragmatic approach to foreign policy, prioritizing the U.K.’s relationship with the U.S. despite past disagreements. Lammy’s focus on countering criticisms against NATO and supporting Ukraine underscores his commitment to maintaining strong alliances and addressing global security challenges. David Lammy’s journey from a vocal critic of Trump to a key figure in the U.K.’s foreign policy apparatus reflects his adaptability and dedication to his role. As the first black Briton to study at Harvard Law School and an advocate for social justice and minority issues, Lammy brings a unique perspective to his position. His appointment as Foreign Secretary signals Labour’s intention to approach international relations with a focus on social justice and global cooperation, navigating the complexities of the U.K.’s relationship with the U.S. and other international partners. Credit: Hill 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

French voters are heading to the polls for the third time in a month, with the nation on high alert as the far-right National Rally (RN) might seize control of the government. This possibility seemed highly likely after the first round of voting, but has since diminished due to strategic candidate withdrawals in about 200 constituencies, aimed at concentrating the anti-RN vote. However, these projections are uncertain, as the extent to which voters will follow their party leaders' directives remains unclear. In order to form an anti-RN barrier, many centrist voters will have to support the far left, particularly the New Popular Front, despite their disdain for them. Similarly, many left-wing voters will have to back the Macronites, whom they also despise. Meanwhile, the far-right vote could be energized by the perception that the RN, now the largest party in France, is once again being kept from power by an establishment conspiracy. The ultimate outcome will only be determined at the end of the day. The big question remains: how likely is it that France will wake up on Monday morning with a far-right government? This dramatic scenario has dominated media headlines, discussions in the EU in Brussels, and conversations in government offices across Europe following the first round of France’s parliamentary vote last week. Despite the impressive performance of Marine Le Pen’s RN, the short answer is that an RN majority is possible, though not probable. French centrist and leftist parties have strategically withdrawn candidates to support each other’s contenders ahead of the decisive second round on Sunday. Regardless of the RN's success in securing an outright majority, the impact of this election will be significant. Jordan Bardella, the RN's young, social media-savvy president, might not become France’s new prime minister, but RN is almost guaranteed to win more seats than any other political grouping. This means a long-standing taboo in France, a core EU nation, will be broken. The EU, born out of the aftermath of World War Two as a peace project, with France and Germany at its core, has traditionally kept far-right parties on the fringes of European politics. Last month, world leaders gathered in northern France to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the allied amphibious assault in Normandy that contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Yet today, far-right, hard-right, or populist nationalist parties are part of coalition governments in several EU countries, including the Netherlands, Italy, and Finland. Labeling these parties is challenging because their policies often change and vary by country. This normalization of far-right parties isn't entirely new. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a center-right politician, was the first EU leader to form a government with a post-fascist political group, Movimento Sociale Italiano, in 1994. Six years later, Austria’s conservatives entered into a coalition with the far-right Freedom Party, causing the EU to block official bilateral contacts with Austria for several months. Post-war political etiquette dictated that the political mainstream should form a "cordon sanitaire" to keep the extreme right out of European governments. This practice is so strongly associated with France that the term itself is French, illustrating the nation's strong feelings about it. In the 2002 Presidential election, some French voters even symbolically clipped clothes pegs to their noses while voting for a candidate they disliked just to keep out the far right. This far right was once led by Marine Le Pen’s father, who had former members of a Nazi-led Waffen SS unit in his party ranks. Fast forward to 2024, and Marine Le Pen’s decade-long effort to detoxify her father’s party—changing its name and working to improve its image—appears to have succeeded. The cordon sanitaire has been significantly breached after the leader of France’s center-right Les Républicains struck a deal with the RN to not compete against each other in certain constituencies. This is a political earthquake in France. Crucially, Le Pen’s supporters are no longer embarrassed to admit their allegiance. The RN is no longer seen as an extremist protest movement but as offering a credible political program, despite criticism. French voters now trust the RN more than any other party to manage the economy and public finances, according to an Ipsos poll for the Financial Times, despite the party's lack of government experience and largely unfunded tax-cutting and spending plans. This begs the question: if traditional lawmakers had better served their electorates, perhaps European populists would have less of an opening. Populists like Le Pen claim to represent "ordinary people" against "the establishment," a narrative that resonates when voters feel anxious and ignored by those in power. Similar patterns can be seen with Donald Trump in the US, the unexpected breakthrough of Reform UK in the recent UK election, and the success of Germany’s controversial anti-migration AfD party. In France, many perceive President Macron as arrogant, privileged, and disconnected from the everyday lives of ordinary people outside the Paris bubble. His efforts to lower unemployment and spend billions to mitigate the economic impacts of the Covid and energy crises seem largely forgotten. Meanwhile, the RN focused its campaign on the cost-of-living crisis, promising to cut taxes on gas and electricity and raise the minimum wage for low earners. Such priorities lead RN supporters to argue that the party should no longer be labeled far-right, pointing to a growing support base and distancing from its racist roots under Le Pen senior. A similar argument is heard from Rome, where Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, once a supporter of fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, now leads a stable EU government. She has publicly condemned fascist salutes and emphasized that her party has no place for nostalgia for totalitarian regimes. Despite criticism at home for her stance on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence, her proposals on irregular migration have won praise from mainstream European figures, including EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and the UK’s recently ousted prime minister, Rishi Sunak. On contentious issues like migration, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the rhetoric of the far right and that of traditional mainstream politicians who are sharpening their speeches to retain voters. Examples include former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Macron, who have both adopted tougher stances as right-wing popularity grows. This mainstream mimicry inadvertently legitimizes anti-immigration parties, making them appear more respectable and electable. Geert Wilders' recent success in the Netherlands is a testament to this trend. The label "far right" is complex and context-dependent, varying with each party's composition and policies. While Meloni has gained broader acceptance, Le Pen's RN still struggles with full international legitimacy. The RN believes a parliamentary majority is still possible this Sunday, but more likely outcomes include a hung parliament or a coalition government excluding Le Pen's party. Any of these scenarios would significantly weaken Macron's presidency. Political instability in France and Germany during a time of global uncertainty, with wars in Gaza and Ukraine and the potential return of EU and NATO skeptic Donald Trump, leaves Europe without strong leadership. Voters feel exposed and vulnerable. Regardless of the immediate outcome, Le Pen's supporters are confident that their time is coming soon. Credit: BBC 2024-07-08 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A number of inflammatory and unsubstantiated posts have been removed contravening our community stands @ThaiFelix

In the 22-minute interview, which George Stephanopoulos said had not been edited, Biden repeatedly indicated he doesn’t need a cognitive exam, arguing that he undergoes one “every single day” as president, and that his physicians have never indicated he needs one. He also denied any increased frailty since the 2020 campaign. Biden acknowledged “some” Democrats may want him out of the race but refused to get into any discussion about a potential scenario in which Democrats push him out: “It’s not going to happen.” “If the Lord Almighty came down and said, ‘Joe, get out of the race,’ I’d get out of the race,” he said. “The Lord Almighty’s not coming down.” In what may be an alarming moment for other Democrats, Biden refused to acknowledge that he’s trailing Trump and likened the panic among Democrats today to the fear in 2020 that Biden would lose to Trump. Credit: ABC 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a move that has generated significant controversy within the European Union, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban traveled to Moscow for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This visit comes just days after Orban's trip to Kyiv, where he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The visit, described by Orban's spokesman Zoltan Kovacs as a "peace mission," aims to foster peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, a proposal Ukrainian leaders have firmly rejected due to concerns that Putin would only seek Ukraine's capitulation. Orban's journey marks the first official visit by an EU leader to Russia since the early months of the Ukraine invasion. Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer made a similar trip in April 2022. For Orban, it was his first face-to-face meeting with Putin since their encounter in October 2023 on the sidelines of an international summit in Beijing. The timing of Orban's visit is particularly contentious as Hungary has just taken over the European Union's rotating presidency. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz expressed his surprise, noting that he had not been informed of Orban's plans and emphasizing that Orban was not representing the European Union. Josep Borrell Fontelles, the EU's top diplomat, clarified that Orban's visit was strictly within the bilateral relations of Hungary and Russia, asserting that Orban was not acting on behalf of the EU. The unannounced nature of the trip, revealed only after Orban's plane landed in Moscow, further fueled the dismay among EU officials. Charles Michel, president of the European Council, stressed that the EU rotating presidency does not have a mandate to engage with Russia on the EU's behalf, reiterating that Russia is the aggressor in the conflict and that Ukraine is the victim. He emphasized that any discussions about Ukraine must involve Ukraine directly. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk also took to social media to address Orban, expressing disbelief and concern over the visit. The general stance among Western leaders has been to avoid meetings with Putin since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, aiming to isolate him on the international stage. However, leaders outside the West, including China’s Xi Jinping and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have continued to engage with Putin. Orban's Moscow visit underscores the deep divisions within the EU regarding the approach to Russia and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. While Orban claims to be pursuing peace, the broader EU consensus remains focused on supporting Ukraine and condemning Russian aggression. This discord highlights the complexities and challenges the EU faces in maintaining a unified front in its foreign policy and its stance on the Ukraine conflict. Credit: NYT 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

If you watch shows such as “Emily in Paris,” you can be forgiven for thinking the world is enchanted by Americans who travel abroad. Silly gaffes, like mistaking a public urinal for a monument and taking selfies in front of it, come across as charming quirks on television. However, as a single American woman who moved to Europe and made a lot of faux pas of my own, I can assure you that the real world is definitely not amused. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but sadly, we’ve gained a reputation around the world for being, well, “stupid Americans.” Is it offensive? Yes. Could we get upset about it? Sure. But with tens of millions of Americans traveling abroad every year, the likelihood is that you’ll encounter us wherever you are in the world. Therefore, our reputation is completely understandable. The reality is, we all do “stupid” things, especially when we are in foreign places and we don’t know the local customs, cultures, or surroundings. No one is immune from this humiliation, not even genius scholars. However, smart travelers know that doing “stupid” things abroad can not only be disrespectful and embarrassing, but it can put you at risk of being arrested, hurt, or the victim of crime. That’s why, instead of letting labels upset me, I choose to focus on how I can become a master traveler. After 20-plus years of exploring the world, I think I’ve managed to crack it. So, here are my top tips on how you can avoid the “stupid American” stereotype and become a “Smart American” abroad. One of the first things you need to master is reading social cues. People in most countries are extremely polite. They would never tell you that what you are doing is offensive or socially unacceptable. Instead, they will most likely smile and nod, before quickly changing the topic, running away, or ghosting you. This behavior definitely makes for a very civilized society, but if you’re a tell-it-like-it-is New Yorker like me, it can be very hard to pick up on social cues. For years, I foolishly thought that what I was saying or doing was of genuine interest to those around me. I had no idea that I was embarrassing myself and chasing people away. As you meet people abroad, try to notice if they are genuinely interested (for example, asking lots of follow-up questions, making eye contact, building on your stories, asking to join in, etc.), or if they are just being polite. If your Spidey sense starts to tingle, it’s probably time to change the subject or move on to a new activity. Another important aspect is keeping the volume down. It is very true that most Americans have a wonderful zest for life. We don’t think twice about gabbing away with friends (or strangers) on public transportation or laughing whole-heartedly at the dinner table. That’s just our way of being friendly. However, in many places around the world, speaking loudly is considered extremely rude and highly uncommon. It’s not unusual to visit major cities and see people traveling in complete silence while on a packed train. You’ll also notice that you can’t hear the conversation at the table sitting directly next to you in a restaurant. When I first moved to Europe, people would regularly ask, “Why are you shouting?” I was always shocked. I was just using my normal speaking voice! I didn’t think I was being loud at all. Turns out, I was indeed shouting, at least relative to everyone else around me (imagine how traumatized they’d all be if I did actually shout). Over the years, I’ve learned to become more aware of my surroundings and to control my volume level accordingly. It’s a skill I will always struggle with, as my default level is apparently a nine out of ten to most, but it’s also a skill that has had a major positive impact on my business, romantic, and personal relationships. Don’t get me wrong, when I’m home in New York, I let it all out and no one even notices. However, when I’m traveling abroad, I’m always careful to keep it to what feels like a quiet whisper. Blending in is another key strategy. Normally, I’m all for originality and standing out in a crowd. However, when you’re traveling abroad, even to a place you know well, standing out is like wearing a flashing sign that says, “I’m a tourist, come take advantage of me!” Whether it’s pickpockets, grifters, or someone more nefarious, there are always bad actors lurking about, looking for fresh prey. Unfortunately, criminals can often spot an American a mile away by either their accent (another reason to keep the volume of your voice down) or their fashion (khakis, golf shirts, sneakers, baseball hats, and white socks are usually dead giveaways). The moment these predators know you’re from out of town, they will pounce. That’s why it’s smart to blend in with the locals and avoid drawing any sort of attention to yourself. Not only will it make you a smart American, it’ll also make you a safer American. Being curious is a wonderful trait to develop. No one likes a know-it-all. That’s why one of the best ways to win people over and skyrocket your knowledge is to be curious. Be a sponge and absorb as much new information as possible. Being genuinely interested in a country, its people, its culture, and everyday life is one of the most flattering ways to show respect and connect with a community. Judge Judy always says, “You have two ears and one mouth for a reason.” In other words, listen twice as much as you talk. If you can listen without feeling the need to talk about “how we do things back home” or show off all the things you read in a book, then you will make friends everywhere you go. In fact, the more questions you can ask, the more people will think you’re intelligent! No one expects you to know everything. It’s attractive when you can say, “I don’t know about this, please tell me more.” It shows humility and opens the door for others to share their wisdom and stories with you, which will always help you grow. So, try to forget everything you know, open your mind, and be curious. If you do, people will respond with kindness, appreciation, and believe that you are very wise. Being street smart is essential for any traveler. Every city has its own scams, and it’s important for you to read up on what the most common scams are in the area you’re visiting before you travel so that you can be street smart. One of the most popular scams is when a taxi driver takes the “long way” to get you to your destination, racking up quite the bill. Not every city has Uber. Local taxi drivers instantly know whether you’re from the area or not, simply by the way you make your request when you enter their vehicle. When I traveled to Rome for the first time, I got into a cab and asked the driver, “How much to get to this hotel?” He replied, “80 euros.” I immediately told him to stop. I removed my bags, which made him very angry, and exited his car. I then called the hotel and asked the same question. They told me it would be no more than five euros. The next taxi I entered, I told the driver, “Please take me to this hotel. It’s just down the road so should only be around five euros, right?” He replied, “Yes,” and we were on our way. By letting him know I wasn’t a “stupid American,” we were all able to live happily ever after. The point of this story is do your homework. Get an idea of prices for taxis, food, charges, tipping, etc., ahead of time so you don’t get ripped off or taken advantage of. Know the local scams and know how to reject people who approach you with their games. And most of all, don’t let your excitement to be in a new place lure you into a false sense of security. Be careful about meeting new people, especially from dating apps. Stranger danger is real. Reading the news is a habit every traveler should adopt. America is so vast that the news tends to focus on what’s going on locally in each state, with a touch of what’s happening across the rest of the country. However, it rarely features international news. As a result, many Americans often have little to no knowledge of what’s going on around the world, thus unfairly adding to the “stupid American” stereotype. Luckily, there is a fast and easy remedy. If you’re planning to travel abroad, simply read the news headlines of the country you’re visiting before you travel. You don’t need to know the country’s full history, but it will help tremendously if you know the basics: Who is the current president or prime minister of the country? What are the hot topics and major headlines? What is the country’s national sport and how is their team doing? Where is the country located on a map, and what countries surround it? Having this information available at your fingertips will not only make you look well-informed, it will help you avoid being left out of conversations. Learning some of the language is another important step. Do you need to be fluent when you go abroad? Not at all. Do you need to learn the basics? Yes, absolutely. Most major cities will have plenty of English speakers, but they won’t always be around when you need them. Whether it’s an emergency or just being able to order from a menu, it’s important for you to know some basic words and phrases to get you through the day. I recommend you start with: “Hello,” “Goodbye,” “Thank you,” “Please,” “Help,” “Sorry,” “I don’t speak ___,” “I’m allergic to ___,” “I would like to go to ____,” “Where is ___,” and a smattering of your favorite foods. Sure, there are apps that can help, but memorizing these phrases will go a long way, not just with communication but also with cooperation. Even if you butcher the words, most people deeply appreciate it when you at least try to speak the local language. It shows respect that you made the effort, and you’ll be surprised at how many doors it can unlock for you. Lastly, be an ambassador. In many ways, we are all mini-ambassadors of the United States when traveling abroad. For better or worse, how we act will directly reflect, not just on us, but on all Americans. Yet, there’s something in human nature that makes many people act differently when traveling abroad. It’s as if something snaps inside their brains and, suddenly, they become this completely different person who can do and say things they would never consider doing in their daily lives. Credit: CNN 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Federal authorities are investigating a shocking act of vandalism that targeted nearly 200 gravestones at two Jewish cemeteries in Cincinnati. The Jewish Federation of Cincinnati and the Jewish Cemeteries of Greater Cincinnati reported that two sections of the Covedale Cemetery complex were attacked, resulting in 176 markers being damaged or knocked over in the Beth Hamedrash Hagadol and Tifereth Israel cemeteries. The vandalism, which was discovered early Monday, is believed to have occurred between June 25 and that day, as the damage was not present when a groundskeeper mowed the lawn last Tuesday. The Jewish Federation of Cincinnati stated, "The destruction includes tombstones dating back to the late 1800s, many of which have been knocked over, with some cracked in half. Most of the gravestones have been pushed face down." On Tuesday, the damaged headstones lay flat, overturned with inscribed names hidden against the grass. In some places, whole lines of graves were knocked over and broken, while in other areas, the headstones remained standing, apparently untouched. The atmosphere at the cemeteries was somber as small groups of family members arrived, searching for the graves of their loved ones. Many visitors recognized each other, sharing their grief and frustration. As of Wednesday afternoon, no arrests had been made. The Jewish Cemeteries of Greater Cincinnati is collaborating with SAFE Cincinnati, the security arm of the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Police Department, the FBI, and Green Township to investigate the incident. Law enforcement officials have advised that the vandalized markers should not be touched to "preserve the integrity of their investigation." Sue Susskind, executive director of Jewish Cemeteries of Greater Cincinnati, mentioned that her team would use a cemetery database to identify the graves by their locations once they are cleared to do so. She urged family members to report any findings during their visits. Although no timeline has been given for repairing the damaged gravestones, and no cost estimates for replacements have been provided, some families might be able to cover the costs through their homeowner insurance policies. Additionally, there is a donation page on the Jewish Cemeteries of Greater Cincinnati website to support the repairs. "We're going to do our part to work with everybody so that we make sure everybody's stones get back up," Susskind said. The incident has deeply affected the local community. Visitors arrived at the cemeteries wanting to know if their loved ones' markers were among those damaged. One couple, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, drove to the Tifereth Israel section after learning about the vandalism on Facebook and in the news. The husband noted that he had seen graves knocked over eight or ten times at other cemeteries since he was a child, "but nothing like this." Fortunately, their family's marker was untouched. Rita Birch, from the Cincinnati suburb of Monfort Heights, visited the cemetery to check on markers from both sides of her family. Her family moved to the U.S. from Germany, and her relatives are buried with others from the New Hope congregation. Birch's grandparents' headstone was fine, but her mother's was not. "I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but I'm not," Birch said. "It's not the first time and it won't be the last." President Joe Biden condemned the vandalism in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. "The vandalism of nearly 200 graves at two Jewish cemeteries near Cincinnati is despicable," the post read. "This is Antisemitism and it is vile." The post also stated that the Biden administration is committed to supporting investigators and bringing justice to the perpetrators. Mayor Jeremy Levi also on X said. " While it is unclear whether the acts of vandalism constitute a hate crime, Susskind believes the acts were motivated by hate. "One would have to think that there's more behind it than just doing something mischievous," she said. The American Jewish Committee released a statement highlighting the rising rate of antisemitism in the United States over the past five years. Their 2023 report found that 25% of American Jews felt their Jewish institutions had been targeted by antisemitism. "This incident is unfortunately part of a rising and unacceptable trend of Jewish sites being targeted by antisemitic hate in recent years. Sadly, our community is not immune," said Justin Kirschner, Cincinnati regional director for the group. Antisemitic incidents have increased since the start of the Israel-Hamas war last October, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Their annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents reported 8,873 incidents in 2023, up from 3,698 in 2022. From October to January alone, 3,291 antisemitic incidents were reported in the U.S. The investigation into the vandalism of the gravestones at the Jewish cemeteries in Cincinnati is ongoing, with local and federal authorities working to identify and apprehend those responsible. The incident has highlighted the persistent issue of antisemitism in the United States and the need for continued vigilance and action to protect Jewish communities and their heritage. Credit: Detriot Press 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In an unprecedented move, former President Donald J. Trump is preparing an extreme expansion of his first-term immigration policies, aiming to enact a comprehensive and stringent crackdown if he returns to power in 2025. Trump's proposed measures include reviving and significantly extending many of the controversial policies from his previous administration, with a focus on both legal and illegal immigration. Trump's plan centers on reimposing several first-term border policies, including a travel ban on certain Muslim-majority nations and reinstating a Covid-19-era policy of refusing asylum claims. This time, he would base these refusals on assertions that migrants carry other infectious diseases like tuberculosis. He also intends to suspend the nation's refugee program, categorically barring visitors from troubled countries. Stephen Miller, Trump's former White House aide and the chief architect of his first-term immigration efforts, emphasized that "Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown." One of the most striking aspects of Trump's plan is the proposal for sweeping raids to round up undocumented immigrants already in the United States. These individuals would be detained in large camps while they await deportation. Trump envisions using federal law enforcement agents, local police officers, and National Guard soldiers from Republican-run states to carry out these extensive raids. The idea is to reassign agents and deputize local officers to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in these operations. Miller elaborated, "To make the process of finding and deporting undocumented immigrants already living inside the country radically more quick and efficient, the Trump team would bring in the right kinds of attorneys and the right kinds of policy thinkers willing to carry out such ideas." To facilitate mass deportations, Trump plans to significantly expand the use of expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process that bypasses usual hearings and appeals. This approach would enable swift deportations of undocumented immigrants, especially those apprehended near the border. Additionally, Trump has suggested invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process. The law allows for summary deportation of people from countries with which the United States is at war or that have engaged in "predatory incursions." The logistical framework for these plans includes constructing vast holding facilities near the border to detain immigrants while their cases are processed. Miller indicated that the military would build these camps under the authority and control of the Department of Homeland Security. He explained that these camps would look professional and similar to other facilities for migrants that have been built near the border. The use of these camps would likely focus on single adults, as the government cannot indefinitely hold children under a longstanding court order known as the Flores settlement. Families brought to the facilities would have to be moved in and out more quickly. Trump also plans to bypass Congress by relying on existing statutes to implement his immigration agenda. This strategy minimizes the need for new legislation and prepares for extensive legal battles by overwhelming immigrant-rights lawyers with a "blitz" of legal tactics. Miller stated, "Any activists who doubt President Trump's resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error: Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown. The immigration legal activists won't know what's happening." The Trump team's vision for abrupt mass deportations would likely cause significant social and economic disruption, impacting industries such as agriculture and the service sector. However, Miller cast such disruption in a favorable light, saying, "Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs. Americans will also celebrate the fact that our nation's laws are now being applied equally, and that one select group is no longer magically exempt." Trump's immigration plan also includes measures aimed at keeping people out of the country. He would push to revive agreements with several nations in Central America, and try to expand them to Africa, Asia, and South America. Under such deals, countries agree to take would-be asylum seekers from specific other nations and let them apply for asylum there instead. Additionally, Trump intends to re-establish an agreement with Mexico that asylum seekers remain there while their claims are processed, though it remains unclear if Mexico would agree to this. One of the most contentious deterrents from Trump's first term was the policy of separating children from their parents at the border. While Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out reviving this policy, it remains a deeply controversial issue. After an outcry over the practice, Trump ended it in 2018, and a judge later blocked the government from putting it back into effect. Trump's proposed measures also include canceling visas for foreign students involved in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests, revoking temporary protected status for people from certain unsafe countries, and attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. This would be done by changing government policy on issuing citizenship documents such as Social Security cards and passports. The political environment on immigration has shifted in Trump's favor since he left office. The ebbing of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resumption of travel flows have stirred a global migrant crisis, with millions of people fleeing turmoil in their home countries. Amid record numbers of migrants at the southern border and beyond, voters are increasingly frustrated, and some Democrats are calling for tougher action against immigrants. Trump and his advisers see this as an opportunity and are more prepared now to exploit it than they were during his first term. The legal environment has also become more favorable for Trump. His four years of judicial appointments have left behind federal appellate courts and a Supreme Court that are far more conservative than those that heard challenges to his first-term policies. This shift is illustrated by the fight over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an Obama-era program that shields from deportation and grants work permits to people who were brought unlawfully to the United States as children. Trump tried to end DACA, but the Supreme Court blocked him on procedural grounds in June 2020. However, the 5-4 majority that blocked his attempt no longer exists, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death and her replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett have shifted the court further to the right. Throughout his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Trump's rhetoric on immigration has only grown harsher. He has stoked fear and anger toward immigrants, a strategy that fueled his 2016 takeover of the Republican Party. Recently, Trump claimed without evidence that foreign leaders were deliberately emptying their "insane asylums" to send the patients across America's southern border as migrants. He said migrants were "poisoning the blood of our country," and at a rally in Florida, he compared them to the fictional serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lecter, saying, "That's what's coming into our country right now." Despite these extreme proposals, Trump advisers contend that the plans rely on existing statutes and do not require new substantive legislation. While acknowledging that lawsuits would arise to challenge nearly every one of them, they portray the Trump team's array of tactics as a "blitz" designed to overwhelm immigrant-rights lawyers. Todd Schulte, the president of FWD.us, an immigration and criminal justice advocacy group that repeatedly fought the Trump administration, said the Trump team's plans relied on "xenophobic demagoguery" that appeals to his hardest-core political base. Schulte added, "Americans should understand these policy proposals are an authoritarian, often illegal, agenda that would rip apart nearly every aspect of American life — tanking the economy, violating the basic civil rights of millions of immigrants and native-born Americans alike." In summary, Trump's immigration agenda for a potential second term represents a significant escalation from his first-term policies. The proposed measures aim for a scale of removals and legal changes that would profoundly impact both immigrants and the broader U.S. society. By preparing for sweeping raids, mass deportations, and the construction of large detention camps, Trump and his team are determined to enforce the most stringent immigration crackdown in modern American history. Credit: NYT 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Nigel Farage has finally secured his place in the House of Commons, a milestone in his political journey, as Reform UK secured more than four million votes in a groundbreaking night. The party is now poised to become the third-largest in the UK by vote share, having already clinched four seats. Farage's victory in Clacton, Essex, was particularly notable, as he overturned a Conservative majority of more than 25,000 votes. This victory, marking his eighth attempt to enter Parliament, is seen by Farage as "the first step of something that is going to stun all of you." Reform UK also triumphed in Great Yarmouth and Boston and Skegness, seizing these seats from the Conservatives. Former Tory MP Lee Anderson, who defected to Reform in March, successfully retained his seat in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire. The party made significant inroads in areas that had strong Conservative support during the 2019 election under Boris Johnson, often finishing in second place in many constituencies. In his victory speech, Farage boldly declared, "This is the beginning of the end of the Conservative Party," highlighting a perceived "massive gap on the centre-right of British politics" that he intends to fill. He also set his sights on Labour votes, citing a lack of enthusiasm for Labour leader Keir Starmer and his party, and remarked, "There's no enthusiasm for Labour, there's no enthusiasm for Starmer whatsoever. In fact, about half of the vote is simply an anti-Conservative vote. We're coming for Labour, be in no doubt about that." Despite exit polls predicting that Reform would secure 13 MPs, the actual number of seats won remained uncertain. Polling expert Sir John Curtice noted that Reform UK benefited from a significant decline in the Conservative vote in previously held seats and made notable gains in areas that voted Leave in the 2016 referendum. In all four seats won by Reform, over 70% of the population had voted for Brexit. Richard Tice, Reform UK's chairman, managed to overturn a 27,402 Tory majority to win Boston and Skegness. In Great Yarmouth, businessman and former Southampton FC chairman Rupert Lowe narrowly defeated the Labour candidate, with the Tories falling to third place. Reform UK's success was evident in early results from north-east England, where the party outperformed the Conservatives in Blyth and Ashington, and Houghton and Sunderland South, by more than 4,000 votes. This trend continued in several other constituencies, leading to a significant drop in the Tory vote share. However, Reform struggled to win seats from Labour. In Barnsley North, where the exit poll had forecast a 99% likelihood of Reform winning, Labour held the seat with an increased majority of 7,811. Similarly, in Hartlepool, another seat expected to go to Reform, Labour retained a comfortable majority of 7,698. Reform UK's candidate, Robert Lomas, who was disowned by the party last week for offensive comments on social media, came in second place. Farage's unexpected decision to stand in the election, after previously stating he would not, led to a surge in Reform's opinion polls. His takeover from Richard Tice as the party's leader and his prominent role in the campaign significantly boosted their visibility. Farage, who had previously led UKIP and the Brexit Party, had unsuccessfully stood for Parliament seven times, most recently in South Thanet, Kent, in the 2015 general election, where he finished second to the Conservative candidate. Clacton holds historical significance for Farage, as it was the first constituency to elect a UKIP MP in 2014 when former Tory MP Douglas Carswell defected to the party and won a by-election. In 2019, Reform UK's predecessor, the Brexit Party, had stood aside in over 300 seats previously won by the Tories to avoid splitting the pro-Brexit vote. This time, Reform contested 630 seats across England, Scotland, and Wales, presenting challenges due to the scale of their campaign. The party had to disown six candidates over offensive comments made since nominations closed and blamed the surprise announcement of a July election for the lack of thorough vetting. Two Reform candidates also defected to the Conservatives, criticizing the party leadership's failure to address these issues, although it was too late to remove their names from the ballots. Farage's entry into Parliament represents a dramatic shift in the UK's political landscape, as Reform UK positions itself as a significant force, particularly in traditionally Conservative strongholds. His vision for Reform UK to become the main opposition to Labour by the next election sets the stage for a potentially transformative period in British politics. Credit: BBC 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Veteran left-wing politician George Galloway has lost his Rochdale seat just five months after winning it in a by-election, with Labour grandee Neil Kinnock harshly condemning him as a "repulsive cancer." Galloway, the leader of the Workers Party of Britain, did not attend the count in Rochdale, where he received 11,508 votes, falling short of Labour's Paul Waugh, who secured victory with 13,047 votes. This defeat marks a swift downfall for Galloway, who had won the seat in a February by-election, overturning a Labour majority of 9,668. As the news broke, former Labour leader Lord Kinnock expressed his satisfaction, telling the BBC, "I am delighted. He is repulsive. Galloway is repulsive. He always has been." Kinnock, who led the Labour Party from 1983 to 1992, added, "I have known him since 1983 and he is repellent. He is such a cancer, he's so superficial." Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham echoed these sentiments, stating that communities would be "glad to see the back" of Galloway. Despite not being present at the count, Galloway took to social media platform X to thank his supporters and campaign team, writing, "I thank the people of Rochdale who gave me 54 sitting days in the last parliament as their MP. Big thanks to my agent, my campaign team, and the thousands who voted for me today. We took the government party to within 1,500 votes and serve notice on Labour that we are here to stay in Rochdale. We will field a full slate of council candidates, establish a full-time office there, campaign to re-open the maternity ward and A&E, and keep up the pressure on Labour in the town." During his by-election campaign, Galloway had criticized Labour for supporting Israel in its conflict against Hamas. However, this time he lost to Paul Waugh, a former political journalist who has previously worked for Britain's Independent and Evening Standard newspapers and who grew up in Rochdale. Galloway, 69, is no stranger to controversy. A former Labour parliamentarian, he was expelled from the party in 2003 for criticizing then-Prime Minister Tony Blair over the Iraq war. By that time, he had already drawn criticism for meeting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 1994 and praising him with, "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." Galloway's fame peaked in 2006 when he impersonated a cat on a reality television show. Returning to Westminster as a representative of his third different political party, the Workers Party of Britain, Galloway had previously been both a Labour and Respect MP. His loss in Rochdale is yet another victory for Sir Keir Starmer, who is predicted to become Prime Minister according to recent exit polls. Credit: Daily Mail 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Scottish National Party (SNP), which has held power for more than a decade, experienced a significant setback as Labour made substantial gains in Scotland. SNP leader John Swinney acknowledged the need for the party to engage in some "soul searching" following the collapse of its support and Labour's impressive performance. Mr. Swinney admitted that the SNP had a "very poor performance" and was "not winning the argument on independence," as many of its seats turned red, aligning with Labour's strong performance across the UK. Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, celebrated the victory, marking a devastating night for the SNP, which had been the largest party in Scotland. By 6 a.m. on the day following the general election, the SNP had secured only eight seats, losing 38, while Scottish Labour regained many seats it had lost over the past decade. This dramatic shift came after a couple of turbulent years for the SNP, marked by the sudden resignation of long-time leader Nicola Sturgeon last year and the subsequent leadership of Humza Yousaf, who resigned after facing a motion of no confidence in May. Additionally, a police investigation into SNP finances is ongoing. "It's a very poor result for the SNP tonight," Mr. Swinney told the BBC. "There will have to be a lot of soul searching as a party as a consequence of these results that have come in tonight." He emphasized the need for the SNP to be "better at governing on behalf of the people of Scotland" and conceded that the party was not "winning the argument" on Scottish independence. Despite the disappointing election results, Mr. Swinney maintained his belief in the cause of Scottish independence. "Although we're going to have a bad election result tonight, I still believe in my head and in my heart that Scotland will be better off as an independent country," he said. "But we're obviously not winning that argument with the public to make that a priority at this moment, so we've got to think long and hard about how we address that question and I don't think that in the early hours of the morning after a general election I can give you the definitive answer to what we do in that circumstance." Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, who arrived at the count in Glasgow, expressed optimism and a call for change. His party's early successes in Scotland bolstered his confidence. "Confident we're going to win this election in Scotland," Sarwar stated, a prediction that proved accurate. Among the Labour victories was former minister Douglas Alexander, who won Lothian East with 23,555 votes, reclaiming a seat he had lost in 2015. Meanwhile, the Scottish Conservatives saw their leader, Douglas Ross, lose Aberdeenshire North and Moray East to the SNP after stepping in to stand at the last minute in place of David Duguid, who was recovering from an illness. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-06 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe