Social Media

As the Republican convention unfolds in Milwaukee, the possibility of Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House is becoming more tangible. Leaders in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, key U.S. allies in the Middle East, are keenly assessing how a second Trump presidency might influence their domestic and regional agendas. For these leaders, who enjoyed warm relations with Trump during his first term, there are perceived advantages to his potential return. A central consideration is how Trump might handle the ongoing war in Gaza, which has significantly impacted Israeli politics and unsettled both Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had a strained relationship with Trump after he congratulated Joe Biden following the 2020 election, a move Trump viewed as disloyal. However, Netanyahu and Trump had a strong alliance during Trump’s first term. A second Trump presidency could bolster Netanyahu’s right-wing government, particularly if the conflict in Gaza extends into the coming year. Trump has endorsed Israel's actions in Gaza, stating that Israel should "do what you have to do," and has criticized pro-Palestinian protesters in the U.S. His alignment with Netanyahu extends to their shared hardline stance on Iran. Trump withdrew from the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran, a move that pleased Netanyahu, and supported diplomatic agreements between Israel and several Arab states. If re-elected, Trump is likely to continue efforts to forge a similar arrangement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also sees potential benefits in a second Trump term. The Trump Organization recently signed a deal with a Saudi real estate company to construct a residential tower, reflecting the Trump family's ongoing ties with the kingdom. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund is a significant investor in an investment firm founded by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, after his White House tenure. Additionally, the Saudi-backed LIV Golf league has been a substantial new revenue source for the Trump family. During his presidency, Trump had a close relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, defending him after the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, Gulf officials privately acknowledge Trump’s unpredictability, noting his lack of a strong response to an Iran-backed attack on Saudi oil fields in 2019. Despite this, Saudi officials have recently emphasized their ability to work with both U.S. political parties. Egypt also benefited from warm relations with Trump, despite some Egyptian officials' concerns over perceived anti-Muslim bias among Trump’s advisers. Trump once referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as "my favorite dictator." Under Trump, the U.S. rarely criticized el-Sisi’s government, which has received over $1 billion in annual aid from the U.S. since Egypt became the first Arab country to make peace with Israel in 1979. When Biden took office, his administration initially threatened to withhold aid due to Egypt's human rights abuses, signaling a potential shift in U.S. policy. However, Egypt’s role as a mediator in regional conflicts helped restore warmer relations with the Biden administration. For Egypt, the potential return of Trump could reaffirm the status quo, reinforcing the belief that while U.S. presidents may change, Egypt remains a crucial regional partner. Analysts suggest that if Trump’s approach to el-Sisi remains as friendly as during his first term, it could reduce pressure on Egypt to implement reforms. Overall, the prospect of a second Trump presidency is seen by America’s Middle Eastern allies as an opportunity to strengthen their positions both domestically and regionally, leveraging their established relationships with Trump to advance their strategic goals. Credit: NYT 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

China has announced the suspension of arms control and nuclear non-proliferation negotiations with the United States, citing dissatisfaction with Washington's continued arms sales to Taiwan. The decision, revealed by Beijing's foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jain during a press conference, marks a significant escalation in the already strained relations between the two countries. "Over the past weeks and months, despite China's firm opposition and repeated protest, the U.S. has continued to sell arms to Taiwan and done things that severely undermine China's core interests and the mutual trust between China and the U.S.," Lin stated. "Consequently, the Chinese side has decided to hold off discussion with the U.S. on a new round of consultations on arms control and non-proliferation." China considers Taiwan a rogue province and has expressed a willingness to reclaim it by force if necessary. The United States, while not having official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, maintains an unofficial relationship that includes the sale of weapons. This relationship was recently highlighted by a $360 million arms deal approved by the Biden administration last month, as well as an $8 billion military aid package for Taiwan signed by President Joe Biden in April. U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller confirmed China's decision to withdraw from the talks, likening China's stance to that of Russia. "China has chosen to follow Russia's lead in asserting that engagement on arms control can't proceed when there are other challenges in the bilateral relationship," Miller told reporters. "Unfortunately by suspending these consultations, China has chosen not to pursue efforts that would manage strategic risks and prevent costly arms races." The suspension of talks comes as China's nuclear arsenal is on the rise. A recent report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute indicated that China's nuclear warhead count increased from 410 to 500 over the past year, with expectations for continued growth. This increase in nuclear capabilities adds a layer of complexity to the already fraught diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and China. Despite the current suspension, both nations have expressed a willingness to return to the negotiating table. Miller emphasized that the U.S. remains open to discussions provided China is prepared to manage strategic risks. Conversely, Lin laid the responsibility for creating conducive conditions for dialogue on the U.S. "The U.S. must respect China's core interests and create necessary conditions for dialogue and exchange," Lin said. This development highlights the deepening rift between the two global powers, driven by conflicting interests and mutual distrust. As China's nuclear capabilities expand and the U.S. continues its arms deals with Taiwan, the path to resuming productive dialogue on arms control and non-proliferation remains uncertain. Credit: UPI 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Samir Ousman al-Sheikh, a former Syrian military official, has been arrested in California on charges of attempting to obtain U.S. citizenship through fraudulent means. Al-Sheikh, who once oversaw one of Syria's most notorious prisons, is accused of lying about his involvement in political persecution and killings. His arrest came just before he was to board a one-way flight to Beirut. Court documents reveal that al-Sheikh, a Los Angeles resident since 2020, attempted to naturalize fraudulently by denying his past actions at Syria’s infamous Adra prison. Known for torturing and executing political dissidents, Adra holds a grim reputation for human rights abuses. Federal investigators are contemplating additional charges against him. Former National Security Council director for Syria, Andrew Tabler, likened al-Sheikh's case to that of Nazi war criminals seeking refuge abroad after World War II. "Adra prison is one of the crown jewels of the Assad regime’s gulags," Tabler remarked, highlighting the gravity of al-Sheikh’s actions. The U.S. Justice Department has been actively pursuing accountability for the Syrian government's use of detention and torture. Investigations are ongoing into the 2016 death of American aid worker Layla Shweikani and the disappearance of journalist Austin Tice. Al-Sheikh is believed to have close ties to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose regime employs violence and abductions to suppress dissent. From 2005 to 2008, al-Sheikh managed Adra prison, located near Damascus, where detainees endured starvation, beatings, and executions. Five former inmates testified about al-Sheikh’s direct involvement in their torture. One described how guards, under al-Sheikh’s orders, broke his back. Another recounted how an inmate who aided him was brutally beaten in al-Sheikh’s office. Following the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, al-Sheikh was appointed governor of Deir Ez-Zour Province, a region known for its protests against Assad. Al-Sheikh led violent crackdowns on demonstrators. Syrian activist Amjad Al Sary stated, "His appointment was not arbitrary. He was willing to kill, maim, and terrorize people." Zyad al-Kadhem, a former provincial employee, detailed al-Sheikh's brutality, sharing evidence of his oppressive measures. Al-Kadhem narrowly escaped execution through his family's intervention. "My family paid all of their life savings so that my fate would not be the same as countless others," he said. In 2017, al-Sheikh's wife, a naturalized U.S. citizen, petitioned for him to join her in Los Angeles. However, al-Sheikh allegedly lied on his visa application, denying any involvement in violence or persecution. He continued these falsehoods during his citizenship application process. Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, alerted law enforcement to al-Sheikh's presence in the U.S. Moustafa provided evidence linking him to Syrian government atrocities, ensuring that his crimes did not remain hidden. The arrest of Samir Ousman al-Sheikh underscores ongoing efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable, even as they attempt to seek refuge abroad. Credit: NYT 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In Coolock, a neighborhood in north Dublin, tensions have been escalating over the government's handling of immigration. For months, residents have voiced their opposition to plans to house up to 1,500 asylum seekers in a disused factory. Despite their protests, the government has not changed course, leading to recent clashes with police. The area has seen unrest, with bricks, petrol bombs, and fireworks being thrown at officers, while protesters cheered each time they hit their mark. For the past three months, the protest outside the Crown Paints factory had been mostly peaceful. It sometimes grew to thousands of demonstrators trying to halt the work on the site. Locals built wooden shacks at the entrance, displaying banners like “Coolock Says No” and “Irish Lives Matter.” Their efforts delayed the construction until recently, when builders arrived with a police escort. The situation quickly deteriorated as hundreds of demonstrators gathered, some setting fire to machinery and mattresses. The police, in response, used pepper spray and pushed back the crowd, leading to skirmishes in nearby estates. This violence resulted in several police cars being damaged, one security guard hospitalized, and 21 people charged. This incident is the latest in a series of violent protests in Ireland over immigration. Similar events occurred in Newtownmountkennedy in April and Dublin last November, with citizens expressing frustration at what they see as poorly managed policies. Ireland, having welcomed many asylum seekers over the years, now finds its housing and services stretched thin, particularly in areas like Coolock. The Taoiseach, Simon Harris, condemned the violence as “sheer thuggery.” However, the unrest was not entirely unexpected. In 2022, a cabinet memo warned that a large influx of asylum seekers could threaten “social cohesion” in deprived communities. Despite this, the government allowed 100,000 Ukrainians and thousands more from other countries to enter. By mid-2023, non-Ukrainian asylum applications had nearly doubled from the previous year. To accommodate the newcomers, the government has repurposed hotels, offices, and industrial sites, sparking protests across the country. Communities feel blindsided by the abrupt placement of asylum seekers without prior notice or consultation. In 2022, legislation was passed that waived planning laws for migrant accommodations, allowing the government to bypass local councils. This move has benefited landlords, who profit from housing migrants, and the government, which can fulfill its international obligations more freely. However, it leaves local communities feeling ignored. Residents near the proposed migrant center in Coolock have sent numerous emails to officials, but their objections have been dismissed. Their peaceful protests were an attempt to make their voices heard, but with little success. When police arrived to secure the site, frustration boiled over into violence. The police force in Ireland, An Garda Síochána, traditionally operates on the principle of policing by consent. Yet, in communities resistant to absorbing large numbers of asylum seekers, trust in law enforcement is waning. The government plans to use more sites for housing migrants, many of which may require police intervention, potentially leading to more violence. Coolock is among the neighborhoods most affected by the influx. The closure of the Crown Paints factory in 2016, which employed over a hundred locals, added to the area's challenges with unemployment and crime. Residents worry about increased competition for hospital appointments and school places with the arrival of new migrants. More broadly, there are concerns about how the newcomers might change the community's character. Reports have emerged across Ireland of young male migrants loitering, drinking, and causing disturbances, often without speaking English. The government has hired translators to assist with their integration. Despite these challenges, the people of Coolock maintain a strong sense of community. During difficult times, a common saying was, “We don’t have much, but we have each other.” Now, they fear they will have even less and will need to share what remains with strangers. As Ireland grapples with these complex issues, finding a balance between international responsibilities and local well-being remains a pressing challenge. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Britain has become the first country in Europe to approve lab-grown meat, with UK start-up Meatly receiving the green light from regulators to sell its cultivated chicken in pet food. This approval marks a significant milestone in food innovation, as cultivated meat products are expected to hit pet stores by the end of the year, pending successful taste trials among dogs. Owen Ensor, Meatly’s chief executive and co-founder, highlighted the regulatory and governmental support that has facilitated this rapid approval process post-Brexit. He emphasized that the UK's departure from the European Union allowed for a more flexible regulatory environment, in contrast to the traditionally conservative stance of the EU and the food politics embroiling the US. Ensor stated, “There has been an opportunity with Brexit, both legally with the disengaging from the EU process, but also from a government perspective. There’s been a lot of enthusiasm for innovative solutions and I think that we’ll see that continue with the current Government.” Founded in 2022, Meatly is the first company globally to receive authorization for cultivated pet food, which is produced from animal cells. While countries like Singapore have already approved lab-grown meat for human consumption, Ensor anticipates that it will take at least two years for the UK to follow suit. However, recent statements from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) suggest that changes to streamline the approval process for cell-cultivated meat are being considered, potentially reducing regulatory burdens and accelerating market entry. Meatly plans to license its technology to other companies, potentially paving the way for human-consumable lab-grown meat. Ensor noted that the production process for human and pet food from cultivated meat is very similar. He also emphasized the ethical and sustainability challenges addressed by focusing on pet food, as a significant portion of global meat consumption is attributed to feeding pets. Lab-grown meat offers a solution that reduces the need for rearing and slaughtering animals, aligning with the values of pet owners who are concerned about animal welfare. Environmental concerns about lab-grown meat's production impact have been raised, particularly regarding its potential global warming effects. A study by the University of California suggested that lab-grown meat could generate emissions four to 25 times higher than traditional beef, due to the energy-intensive purification processes required to avoid contamination. However, other research, such as that from the Good Food Institute, indicates that cultivated meat could eventually produce up to 92% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional meat, especially as production scales up. Ensor remains optimistic about the sustainability of lab-grown meat, asserting that it is “dramatically more sustainable” than conventional meat products. He pointed out that this innovation addresses significant ethical dilemmas for pet owners who struggle with the idea of killing animals to feed their pets. Ensor added, “There’s a real challenge for people who love animals so they want to get a pet but that requires killing other animals to feed those pets. We want to make this as available as possible.” With Britain's pioneering move in approving lab-grown meat for pet food, Meatly is set to revolutionize the market, offering a sustainable and ethical alternative that could eventually extend to human consumption. As the technology develops and regulatory landscapes evolve, the potential for cultivated meat to transform food production and consumption practices looks increasingly promising. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The newly published UK Covid inquiry Part 1 has sharply criticized former UK health secretaries Jeremy Hunt and Matt Hancock for their inadequate preparation for the pandemic, which resulted in over 230,000 deaths in the UK. Lady Hallett, chair of the inquiry, emphasized the need for a significant overhaul in the government's approach to civil emergency planning. Jeremy Hunt, health secretary from 2012 to 2018, and Matt Hancock, who served until 2021, were singled out for not addressing critical flaws in the UK’s contingency planning. The government's focus was primarily on the threat of an influenza outbreak, neglecting the potential for another coronavirus pandemic, despite previous outbreaks in Asia and the Middle East. Lady Hallett described this oversight as a "fundamental error" and stated, "It was not a black swan event." The report, which spans 240 pages, asserts that the UK's civil contingency structures failed its citizens, leading to unnecessary deaths and suffering. Hallett's recommendations include having the leader or deputy leader of each of the four nations chair a Cabinet-level committee on civil emergency preparedness and conducting a UK-wide pandemic response exercise every three years. She also suggested the establishment of an independent statutory body to advise the government and consult with voluntary groups on emergency preparedness. This report is the first from the statutory inquiry into Covid-19, based on extensive hearings and thousands of documents. It was published in London, where families who lost loved ones gathered to acknowledge this significant milestone. Many bereaved families had long campaigned for a public inquiry, finally announced by Boris Johnson in May 2021. More reports are expected over the next few years as various sectors continue to deal with the pandemic's aftermath. Hallett highlighted that preparations for a no-deal Brexit had interrupted pandemic preparedness efforts. She noted that in the years before Covid-19, health improvements slowed, and health inequalities widened, with public services operating beyond their capacities. Hallett stressed, "If the reforms I recommend are implemented, the nation will be more resilient and better able to avoid the terrible losses and costs to society that the Covid-19 pandemic brought." She expects all recommendations to be acted upon and intends to monitor progress closely. The report implicitly criticizes former Chancellor George Osborne for the Treasury's lack of planning for non-economic shocks. Hallett stated that early identification of major economic policy options could have mitigated some of the pandemic's impacts. Osborne acknowledged that the UK Treasury had not planned for a scenario requiring the entire population to stay home for extended periods. Hallett pointed out that, with better preparation, the UK could have avoided some of the pandemic's human and financial toll. Before Covid-19, there was no ministerial leadership within the UK government to develop strategy and resilience for civil emergencies. Key preparedness flaws included the UK focusing on the wrong pandemic, influenza, and relying on outdated strategies. The 2011 pandemic plan was inadequate and lacked adaptability for new threats. The report criticized a lack of consideration for the pandemic's impact on ethnic minorities and vulnerable populations. There was also a "damaging absence of focus" on scalable systems like testing and tracing. Hallett found that ministers lacked training in civil contingencies and failed to challenge scientific advice, which often suffered from "groupthink." Regarding lockdowns, Hallett noted Hancock's testimony that the existing strategy was to manage the effects of a pandemic rather than prevent it. She urged future consideration of legally mandated lockdowns and preventive measures for novel infectious diseases. Hallett held all health secretaries adhering to the outdated strategy, including Hunt, accountable for not addressing these issues sooner. Hancock admitted believing the UK was well-prepared, citing WHO rankings, but the inquiry found that many ministers could have done more by questioning existing plans. The inquiry's first module examined the UK's resilience and preparedness, featuring testimonies from former government ministers, including David Cameron, George Osborne, and Jeremy Hunt, along with those in office during the pandemic, such as Hancock and Michael Gove. Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As the conflict in Gaza drags on, the prospect of another devastating war in the Middle East looms ever larger. Israel and Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese armed group backed by Iran, have been engaging in a simmering conflict along their shared border for the past nine months. Should this confrontation escalate to full-scale war, the consequences could far surpass the destruction seen in Gaza, potentially involving Iranian-backed militias from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, spreading chaos across the region and drawing in the United States. Direct intervention from Iran itself is not out of the question, leading the United Nations to warn of a "catastrophe beyond imagination." Currently, a low-level conflict persists along a 120km stretch of border, but any spark could ignite a widespread conflagration. On October 8th last year, just a day after Hamas militants launched a deadly assault from Gaza, killing about 1,200 Israelis and taking 251 hostages, Hezbollah began firing at Israeli targets from Lebanon. Claiming to act in support of Gaza, the Shia Islamist group soon found itself in a tit-for-tat exchange of fire with Israeli forces. Hezbollah, also a political party, is the most formidable force in Lebanon. Like Hamas, it is designated a terrorist organization by many countries, including the UK and the US. Unlike Hamas, however, Hezbollah possesses an arsenal that can significantly threaten Israel, with more than 150,000 rockets and missiles, some precision-guided, capable of causing extensive damage across the country. Hezbollah, whose name translates to "The Party of God," wields more arms than many sovereign nations. Its backer, Iran, which denies Israel’s right to exist, is more than willing to train and fund those opposed to the Jewish state. The conflict has been intensifying, with thousands of cross-border strikes. Several countries have already advised their nationals to leave Lebanon urgently, including Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. The UK has issued a travel advisory against all travel to the country, urging Britons who are there to leave while they still can. So far, the violence has primarily targeted military installations near the border, adhering to established red lines. Israeli officials report that 33 people have been killed in Hezbollah attacks, mostly soldiers. Lebanon’s losses are higher, with 466 reported dead, primarily fighters, according to its Ministry of Health. One of Hezbollah’s top commanders, Mohammed Nimah Nasser, was a significant target for Israel. A veteran of the 2006 conflict with Israel and subsequent engagements in Syria and Iraq, Nasser had “planned, led, and supervised many military operations against the Israeli enemy” in recent months, according to Hezbollah. His death came on July 3rd in Tyre, when an Israeli airstrike incinerated his car in broad daylight. In south Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, Nasser was given a hero’s funeral, complete with military honors. The event was meticulously organized and strictly segregated, with men and women, including the press, kept separate. His coffin, draped in Hezbollah's yellow flag, was borne by pallbearers in camouflage uniforms and red berets, flanked by ranks of fighters standing at attention. A brass band in spotless white uniforms played somber tunes, lending the ceremony the air of a state funeral in a country lacking a functional state. Lebanon is a nation in crisis, with no president, a caretaker government, and a shattered economy. Sectarian divisions and endemic corruption have left its citizens to fend for themselves. Many Lebanese are exhausted and dread the prospect of another war. But at Nasser's funeral, the mood was one of defiance and readiness for martyrdom, if necessary. Hassan Hamieh, a 35-year-old nurse, expressed his resolve: “We are not afraid. In fact, we are longing for an all-out war. Martyrdom is the shortest path to God. Young or old, we will all take part in this war, if it is forced upon us.” Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has made it clear that while the group is prepared for war, it is not eager for it. He has stated that Hezbollah will cease fire if a ceasefire is agreed upon in Gaza. Whether this will satisfy Israel remains uncertain. Israel perceives Hezbollah as an ever-present threat too close to its borders and demands that the group pull back. There have been numerous aggressive declarations from both sides. Israel’s Education Minister, Yoav Kish, has threatened that Lebanon would be “annihilated” in the event of war. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has warned that the country would be returned “to the stone age.” As the cycle of attacks and reprisals continues, families are torn apart. Recently, an Israeli couple was killed by Hezbollah rockets as they drove home in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, leaving behind three teenage children. In southern Lebanon, an Israeli strike killed three children aged between four and eight, whose parents were Syrian farm workers. A month ago, the IDF approved “operational plans for an offensive in Lebanon.” Currently, no tanks have crossed the border, and there has been no political decision to launch a full-scale attack. Israel is still deeply engaged in Gaza, and fighting on two fronts could stretch its military capabilities to the limit. However, without a diplomatic resolution between Israel and Hezbollah, the possibility of all-out war remains a looming threat. Credit: BBC 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The dismissal of former President Donald Trump's classified documents case by Judge Aileen Cannon has brought the future of special prosecutor Jack Smith into question. Attorney and law professor Greg Germain from Syracuse University in New York shared his insights with Newsweek, suggesting that the Supreme Court will likely uphold Cannon's decision, potentially signaling the end of Smith's involvement in the case. On July 15, Judge Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump, who was facing 40 federal charges related to the handling of sensitive materials seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after leaving the White House in January 2021. Trump, who had pleaded not guilty, has consistently claimed that the case is part of a political witch hunt. Within hours of Cannon's ruling, special prosecutor Jack Smith received permission from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appeal the decision. Cannon's ruling was based on the assertion that Smith's appointment as special counsel violated the U.S. Constitution's appointments clause, which governs how federal officials are hired. "This is the end of the documents case for now, unless and until Smith gets the decision overturned," Germain told Newsweek. He further explained that if and when the case reaches the Supreme Court, he expects a divided majority to agree with Cannon's ruling regarding the appointments clause violation. However, Germain noted that the Supreme Court might advise Cannon that she could have addressed the issue differently by allowing the DOJ to rectify the problem. "Cannon should have given the Justice Department an opportunity to fix the problem: either by appointing a supervisor who has been confirmed by the Senate, a U.S. attorney for example, or by getting the president to appoint Smith and having him confirmed by the Senate. That one would take a lot of time," Germain said. He also mentioned that the DOJ could have avoided the crisis altogether. "They could have just had the U.S. attorney for Florida, who has been confirmed by the Senate, bring the case; and the U.S. attorney could have hired anyone, including Jack Smith, to prosecute the case," Germain explained. "There would have been no appointments clause problem as long as the top person on the letterhead is a Senate-approved officer." Germain criticized the DOJ's approach, suggesting that their attempt to present the appointment of an "independent" prosecutor was flawed. "They wanted it to appear that they were appointing someone 'independent' to prosecute, but, of course, the attorney general chose the prosecutor, so how 'independent' is that really? It's no more 'independent' than having the U.S. attorney for Florida, or any other U.S. attorney, prosecute the case," he said. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A groundbreaking experimental drug has been shown to extend the lifespan of mice by 25%, raising the possibility that similar treatments could benefit humans. The drug, an antibody known as anti-IL-11, was administered to mice in middle age and demonstrated significant health benefits, including a reduction in cancer-related deaths and fewer incidences of diseases linked to fibrosis, chronic inflammation, and poor metabolism—conditions often associated with aging. Professor Stuart Cook, a senior scientist on the study, shared his enthusiasm about the findings. "These findings are very exciting. While these findings are only in mice, it raises the tantalizing possibility that the drugs could have a similar effect in elderly humans. The treated mice had fewer cancers and were free from the usual signs of aging and frailty, but we also saw reduced muscle wasting and improvement in muscle strength. In other words, the old mice receiving anti-IL-11 were healthier." Visual evidence provided by the researchers highlighted the stark differences between untreated and treated mice. The untreated group displayed greying fur patches, hair loss, and weight gain, while those that received the antibody injections retained glossy coats and demonstrated greater activity levels. This study was conducted collaboratively by researchers from the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Medical Science (MRC LMS), Imperial College London, and Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. The mice received the antibody injection at 75 weeks old, roughly equivalent to a human age of 55 years. The treated mice went on to live an average of 155 weeks, which is 35 weeks longer than the untreated group, as reported in the journal Nature. Remarkably, the drug showed very few side effects. Professor Cook noted, "Previously proposed life-extending drugs and treatments have either had poor side-effect profiles, or don't work in both sexes, or could extend life, but not healthy life—however, this does not appear to be the case for IL-11." The antibody works by inhibiting the action of the IL-11 protein, which is believed to play a role in the aging of cells and body tissues in both mice and humans. Professor Cook elaborated, "The IL-11 gene activity increases in all tissues in the mouse with age. When it gets turned on it causes multimorbidity, which is diseases of aging and loss of function across the whole body, ranging from eyesight to hearing, from muscle to hair, and from the pump function of the heart to the kidneys." The scientific community has long sought ways to slow the aging process, aiming to help people remain healthier for longer periods. Aging is often accompanied by multiple diseases, significantly impacting quality of life and imposing substantial costs on healthcare systems like the NHS. Other approaches, such as the diabetes drug metformin and severe calorie restriction, have shown promise in early studies, but their long-term effectiveness and safety remain under investigation. However, the notion of 'treating' aging remains controversial among some scientists. Ilaria Bellantuono, professor of musculoskeletal aging at the University of Sheffield, expressed caution: "The problem with all these interventions is that we do not have evidence in patients. Although trials are underway in the USA, there are scientific hurdles to overcome to use these interventions in patients, such as understanding who is at risk of frailty and would benefit from the intervention. It is unthinkable to treat every 50-year-old for the rest of their life. Every drug has side effects and there is a cost associated with it." Despite the challenges, the potential implications of anti-IL-11 are profound. If similar effects can be replicated in humans, this drug could revolutionize the approach to aging and extend not just lifespan but healthspan—the period of life spent in good health. The ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life for the elderly, reducing the burden of age-related diseases and enhancing overall health and vitality. As research progresses, the scientific community remains hopeful that treatments like anti-IL-11 will pave the way for a healthier, longer life. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A deflection post has been removed along with a repetaitive trolling post on beheaded babies. Read the OP before making comments @Neeranam next time it will be more than posts removed.

Off topic non news unapproved video removed.

President Joe Biden's COVID-19 diagnosis could spell serious trouble for his reelection campaign, with political consultant Jay Townsend suggesting it might be the "nail in the coffin." Biden tested positive for the virus on Wednesday, prompting him to cancel his appearance at a UnidosUS event in Las Vegas, Nevada, and begin self-isolating at his home in Delaware in accordance with CDC guidelines. This development comes at a crucial juncture in the presidential race, just days after an assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and amidst mounting calls from within Biden's own party for him to step aside as the Democratic nominee. The timing couldn't be worse, as Trump has recently announced Senator JD Vance of Ohio as his running mate at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Townsend told Newsweek that Biden's diagnosis "could be the nail in the coffin" for his campaign, particularly if his symptoms linger. "It costs him time," Townsend said. "Time he won't have to be the President. Time he won't have to be a candidate. Time is the one thing in a political campaign you can never get back." Jeffrey Kraus, a government and politics professor at Wagner College, concurred, noting that Biden's illness comes at a particularly inopportune moment. "At a time when he needs to be countering the message coming out of Milwaukee, he will be unable to," Kraus said. "It is also not helpful at a time when a growing number of leading Democrats are suggesting he should not run because of his performance in the first debate and some of the other episodes of his misspeaking that have recently come to light." The White House, in response to these developments, referred Newsweek to a previous statement from spokesperson Andrew Bates, in which Biden reaffirmed his commitment to remain in the race. "He is the nominee of the party," Biden said, "and he plans to win." This latest challenge adds to a series of difficulties Biden has faced in recent weeks. Following a lackluster performance in a CNN debate last month, Biden has been the subject of increasing scrutiny and criticism. His frequent misspeaking and apparent confusion during the debate have renewed questions about whether the 81-year-old is fit to serve a second term. If reelected, Biden would be the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history. The pressure on Biden to reconsider his candidacy has been mounting, with Representative Adam Schiff of California becoming the most prominent Democrat to publicly call for Biden to step aside. Schiff, who is running for the US Senate, praised Biden's legacy but stressed the need for a change in leadership. "While the choice to withdraw from the campaign is President Biden’s alone, I believe it is time for him to pass the torch. And in doing so, secure his legacy of leadership by allowing us to defeat Donald Trump in the upcoming election," Schiff said. Despite the growing chorus of voices urging him to withdraw, Biden has remained steadfast in his determination to stay in the race. In a recent interview with BET, Biden indicated that the only factor that might cause him to reconsider his candidacy would be a "medical condition." "If I had some medical condition that emerged, if somebody, if doctors came to me and said, 'You got this problem, that problem,'" Biden told BET host Ed Gordon. The timing of these comments, just a day before his COVID diagnosis, has led to speculation about whether his illness might be the impetus for Biden to exit the race. Townsend suggested that Biden's diagnosis could provide an "excuse to drop out," potentially framing it as a necessary step for the good of the party and the nation. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Rep. Adam Schiff has become the most prominent elected Democrat to publicly call on President Joe Biden to drop out of the race. Schiff, who is currently running for the US Senate in California, made this announcement following the failed assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump over the weekend. Schiff’s statement is significant not only because of his status but also due to his close relationship with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He is the first Democrat to suggest that Biden step aside since the incident involving Trump. In his statement, Schiff acknowledged that the decision to withdraw from the campaign is ultimately Biden’s to make, but he expressed his belief that it is time for Biden to pass the torch. “While the choice to withdraw from the campaign is President Biden’s alone, I believe it is time for him to pass the torch. And in doing so, secure his legacy of leadership by allowing us to defeat Donald Trump in the upcoming election,” Schiff said. He went on to praise Biden’s leadership but emphasized the critical juncture at which the nation finds itself. “A second Trump presidency will undermine the very foundation of our democracy, and I have serious concerns about whether the President can defeat Donald Trump in November,” Schiff added. Schiff has been a vocal critic of Trump, having served as an impeachment manager during one of Trump's impeachment trials. His call for Biden to step aside is notable as it departs from the cautious stance he had previously taken. Following Biden’s poor performance in a CNN debate last month, Schiff had only suggested that the president should carefully consider the future of his campaign. Now, Schiff is unequivocally urging Biden to withdraw. A Biden campaign official responded to Schiff’s statement by referring to a July 8 letter from Biden to congressional Democrats, which reiterated his intention to remain in the race. The official also highlighted Biden’s continued support from other Democratic lawmakers, including Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Nanette Barragan. The Democratic Party is currently facing significant internal debate about the best path forward. There are growing concerns that Biden may not be able to defeat Trump in the upcoming election and that his continued candidacy could negatively impact other Democratic candidates in down-ballot races. CNN reported that the Democratic National Committee is proceeding with its plan to virtually nominate Biden at the Democratic convention in Chicago next month. This decision has been controversial, with some elected officials within the party calling for a reconsideration of the strategy amid the ongoing debate about Biden’s candidacy. As the political landscape continues to evolve, Schiff’s call for Biden to step aside marks a pivotal moment in the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2024 election. The coming weeks will likely see further discussions and potential shifts in strategy as Democrats navigate the challenges posed by a possible Trump candidacy and the internal divisions within their own ranks. Credit: CNN 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The European Commission has been criticized for its lack of transparency regarding COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreements. On Wednesday, the EU general court ruled that the Commission did not provide the public with sufficient access to these agreements made with pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic. This decision comes at a critical juncture as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen seeks reelection in a vote at the European Parliament. A group of EU lawmakers took legal action after the Commission refused to grant them complete access to the COVID-19 vaccine contracts. The pandemic shed light on the issue of transparency in negotiations for vaccines between the EU and large pharmaceutical companies. The European Commission was tasked with organizing the joint procurement of vaccines for the 27 member states and led the negotiations with manufacturers. This centralized approach enabled the EU to rapidly amass 2.7 billion euros ($2.95 billion) to order over a billion vaccine doses. In 2021, some members of the European Parliament requested full details of the vaccine agreements, but the Commission only provided partial access to certain contracts and documents, which were made available online in redacted form. The Commission also withheld information on the costs of the billions of doses, citing confidentiality clauses in the contracts. The court criticized the Commission's approach, stating that it "did not take sufficient account of all the relevant circumstances in order to weigh up correctly the interests at issue." This lack of transparency has been a recurring issue. Two years ago, the EU's ombudsman accused the Commission of "maladministration" in a separate case involving access to text messages between President von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. These messages were related to the vaccine procurements for EU countries, a fact revealed by a New York Times story. Following the report, a journalist requested access to these messages and other related documents, but the Commission claimed no records of the text messages were kept. Commission officials argued that text messages are ephemeral and do not contain significant information warranting their inclusion in the document management system. Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly recommended that the Commission conduct a more thorough search for the relevant messages. However, the executive branch maintained its stance, further fueling concerns about its commitment to transparency. The ongoing scrutiny and legal challenges suggest that the European Commission may need to revise its policies and practices regarding access to information, especially in matters of significant public interest such as health and safety. The court's decision underscores the need for greater openness in how the European Commission conducts its negotiations and manages information. As the pandemic highlighted the crucial role of vaccines, ensuring transparency in the procurement process is vital for maintaining public trust and accountability. The Commission's reluctance to provide full access to the vaccine agreements has raised questions about its handling of public health issues and its commitment to transparency. The legal challenge by the EU lawmakers and the court's ruling reflect growing concerns about the need for greater openness and accountability in the Commission's operations. The European Commission's handling of the COVID-19 vaccine agreements has brought to light the importance of transparency in public health matters. As the EU continues to navigate the challenges of the pandemic, it is essential for the Commission to ensure that its actions are transparent and accountable to the public. The court's ruling serves as a reminder of the need for greater openness in the Commission's operations and the importance of maintaining public trust in its decisions. The European Commission must address these concerns and take steps to improve its transparency and accountability in order to effectively serve the public and protect public health. Credit: ABC News 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Ohio Senator JD Vance, newly nominated as the Republican party’s vice-presidential candidate, has sharply criticized President Joe Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Vance, known for his populist views and recent shift to a pro-Trump stance, accused Biden of prolonging the war and obstructing efforts to strengthen ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Speaking to Fox News, Vance argued that Israel should swiftly conclude its war in Gaza to enable a coalition of Israel and Sunni Arab states to counter Iran. He expressed concern that Biden’s policies are hampering Israel’s ability to defeat Hamas and are delaying the potential for peace in the region. "What Biden has done is the worst of all possible worlds," Vance said. "He has prolonged the war, Israel’s war to actually take out Hamas, but in the process, he’s made it harder for us to really move towards a sustainable peace." Vance outlined two main objectives: ending the war quickly and reinvigorating the peace process involving Israel and key Arab states. "Number one is, you want to get this war over and as quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on the harder [Israel’s] situation becomes. But second, after the war, you want to reinvigorate that peace process between Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Jordanians and so forth," he said. The senator emphasized the importance of the Abraham Accords, agreements brokered during Trump’s presidency that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. Vance suggested that Biden’s lack of action has stalled progress made by these accords. "Maybe the most important diplomatic issue of the Trump administration was the Abraham Accords," Vance said. "The Abraham Accords showed real promise of uniting the Israelis with some of the Sunni Arab states. You’ve got to enable the Israelis and the Sunni Arab states to work together and actually provide a counterbalance to Iran." Vance criticized Biden for not utilizing the existing infrastructure to weaken Iran and support Israel. He contrasted this with Trump’s decisive actions, such as the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, which he claimed brought peace rather than escalating conflict. "Joe Biden’s done nothing. You have the infrastructure there, sitting there, to weaken Iran, to strengthen our ally Israel. Joe Biden’s done nothing with it, Donald Trump would reinvigorate it," Vance asserted. The vice-presidential candidate also took issue with Biden’s approach to energy policy, arguing that American energy independence could weaken adversaries like Iran and Russia. "We’re sitting on the Saudi Arabia of natural gas in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Joe Biden would rather buy this stuff from Iran than buy it from Pennsylvania workers," Vance claimed, although the US does not buy oil from Iran due to sanctions. Vance reiterated his stance against further US support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, aligning with Trump’s “America First” policy. He suggested that the US should focus on negotiating a resolution to the Ukraine conflict to better address the threat from China. "I think what President Trump has promised to do is to go in there, negotiate with the Russians and the Ukrainians, bring this thing to a rapid close so that America can focus on the real issue, which is China. That’s the biggest threat to our country and we’re completely distracted from it," Vance said. Despite his isolationist views on Ukraine, Vance underscored the strategic importance of the US-Israel alliance, particularly in defense. He highlighted Israel’s technological advancements and contributions to US missile defense systems as vital to American national security. "Israel is one of the most dynamic, certainly on a per capita basis, one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced countries in the world," Vance stated, noting the importance of maintaining missile-defense parity through cooperation with Israel. "That’s a very important national security objective of the United States of America, and that’s something we’re working with one of the most innovative economies in the world to accomplish," he concluded. Vance’s comments come as he and former President Trump prepare for the upcoming election, with Vance’s nomination seen as solidifying Trump’s influence over the Republican party. As the election approaches, Vance’s positions on foreign policy and energy independence are likely to play a significant role in shaping the party’s platform and appeal to voters. Credit: TOI 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As the prospect of a second Trump presidency looms, the United Kingdom requires a Foreign Secretary capable of uniting rather than dividing. Recent remarks by Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican nominee for vice-president, have compounded the difficulties for David Lammy, the current Foreign Secretary. Vance's comments last week suggested that the first Islamist state to obtain nuclear weapons was not Iran or Pakistan, but the UK. While these remarks were intended to be humorous and elicited laughter from his audience, they underscore the pressing need for Britain to prepare for a possible Trump 2.0 administration. David Lammy's appointment to one of the four great offices of state was already controversial before the recent attempt on Donald Trump's life. Lammy's historic tweets, made while he was in opposition, have come under renewed scrutiny. These tweets raise serious questions about his judgment and his suitability for the role of Foreign Secretary, a position he has held for less than a fortnight. In 2019, Lammy mocked Trump for complaining about his treatment by political opponents, tweeting, “4 US presidents have been assassinated snowflake.” While Lammy might argue that he would not have made such a crass comment had he known Trump would become the target of a gunman, his remark highlights the importance of avoiding inflammatory statements, especially given America's history of presidential assassinations. Lammy's political career has been marked by shifts in allegiance and inconsistent positions. Under the last Labour government, he supported Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, including voting to renew Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. However, in opposition, he aligned with Jeremy Corbyn, despite Corbyn's known stance as a unilateralist and his critical views on the European Union. Despite Lammy's previous claims of being a staunch Remain supporter, he nominated Corbyn, the only anti-EU candidate, for Labour leader just before the EU membership referendum. In 2016, Lammy's Christian faith supposedly influenced his decision to oppose the renewal of Trident, despite his previous voting record. Later, with Corbyn suspended and Starmer leading Labour, Lammy once again supported retaining Trident. In 2017, he praised Corbyn’s speech at the Labour conference as “bloody brilliant” and predicted Corbyn’s ascent to Number 10. By 2021, Lammy had changed his tune, expressing regret for nominating Corbyn and denying he ever believed Corbyn would become prime minister. Lammy’s past remarks about Trump further underscore his questionable judgment. Describing Trump as a “neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” and a “tyrant in a toupée” may have won him praise from Labour activists but were not the words of a serious politician or a statesman, especially one destined for the role of Foreign Secretary. Lammy has claimed to count Senator Vance as a friend, praising Vance’s autobiographical work, “Hillbilly Elegy,” and drawing parallels with his own upbringing in London. However, any perceived friendship with Vance would likely take a back seat to Vance's loyalty to Trump. Should Trump and Vance triumph in the upcoming election, it would present significant challenges for NATO and Ukraine. The Foreign Office would need to deploy all its diplomatic skills to protect British interests in a new Trump era. Yet, Keir Starmer, aware of the possibility that Trump could become president again, appointed Lammy, who had previously labeled Trump a neo-Nazi. Judgment in leadership is crucial. Leaders must measure their words and criticism carefully, even at the risk of disappointing their supporters. Some responsibilities transcend personal media profiles. If the Foreign Secretary fails to grasp this, Britain could face severe repercussions. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A federal grand jury in Brooklyn, New York, has indicted Michail Chkhikvishvili, a 21-year-old leader of the neo-Nazi extremist group "Maniacs Murder Cult," on charges related to a plan to poison Jewish children in New York City. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment on Tuesday, detailing four charges that include soliciting hate crimes and acts of mass violence. Chkhikvishvili, a native of the Republic of Georgia, is accused of plotting a mass casualty attack scheduled for New Year’s Eve. Prosecutors allege that Chkhikvishvili devised a plan in November 2023 to have an associate dress as Santa Claus and distribute poisoned candy to children at Jewish schools in Brooklyn. The DOJ emphasized that this plan was intended to create widespread fear and chaos. According to the DOJ, Chkhikvishvili provided specific instructions to an undercover law enforcement officer, whom he believed to be a recruit. These instructions included detailed manuals on creating lethal poisons and gases. Court documents reveal that Chkhikvishvili visited New York City at least twice in 2022, staying with his grandmother in Brooklyn. The arrest came after Chkhikvishvili allegedly attempted to enlist the undercover officer in carrying out violent crimes as part of a broader scheme to incite terror. This scheme included plans for bombings and arson. Chkhikvishvili, also known by aliases such as Mishka, Michael, Commander Butcher, and Butcher, is accused of leading the Maniacs Murder Cult, which is based in Eastern Europe. The group adheres to a neo-Nazi accelerationist ideology that promotes violence against racial minorities, the Jewish community, and other groups it deems "undesirables." The DOJ detailed that Chkhikvishvili began recruiting for his extremist cause in 2021, distributing a manifesto called the "Hater's Handbook." This document discusses the group’s principles and describes methods for committing mass terror attacks. Chkhikvishvili claims in the handbook that he has "murdered for the white race" and encourages others to engage in school shootings, suicide bombings, and other acts of violence. The manifesto specifically mentions using vehicles to target large gatherings and pedestrian-congested streets, urging attacks within the United States. If convicted, Chkhikvishvili faces severe penalties, including up to 20 years for solicitation of violent felonies, five years for conspiracy to solicit violent felonies, 20 years for distributing information on explosive devices, and five years for transmitting threatening communication. The DOJ's announcement underscores the ongoing threat posed by extremist groups and the importance of vigilance and law enforcement efforts to prevent acts of terrorism and hate crimes. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the remote Peruvian Amazon, the Mashco Piro, an uncontacted indigenous tribe, has been making more frequent appearances, driven out of their forest sanctuary by the encroaching presence of logging operations. This rare glimpse into the life of a reclusive tribe was brought to light by Survival International, an organization dedicated to the rights of indigenous peoples. The images, published on Tuesday, show dozens of Mashco Piro individuals on the banks of a river close to areas where logging companies have established their concessions. These unprecedented sightings have alarmed local indigenous rights groups, particularly FENAMAD, which noted that the Mashco Piro seem to be searching for food as they venture out of the rainforest. This increased activity suggests a response to the growing threat posed by logging companies. "These incredible images show that a large number of isolated Mashco Piro live alone a few kilometers from where the loggers are about to start their operations," said Caroline Pearce, director of Survival International. At the end of June, more than 50 Mashco Piro individuals were photographed near the Yine village of Monte Salvado. Another group of 17 appeared by the nearby village of Puerto Nuevo. Historically, the Mashco Piro have remained deeply isolated, seldom interacting with the Yine or any other communities. Their recent emergence from the dense forest underscores the pressing issue of habitat disruption caused by logging activities. Several logging companies hold timber concessions within the territory traditionally inhabited by the Mashco Piro. Among these companies is Canales Tahuamanu, which has constructed over 200 kilometers (124 miles) of roads to facilitate the extraction of timber. Despite the company’s certification by the Forest Stewardship Council, which authorizes them to extract cedar and mahogany from 53,000 hectares (131,000 acres) of forest in Madre de Dios, the impact on the indigenous population is profound and troubling. A representative from Canales Tahuamanu in Lima did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. The Peruvian government reported on June 28 that local residents had spotted Mashco Piro individuals along the Las Piedras river, approximately 150 kilometers (93 miles) from Puerto Maldonado, the capital of Madre de Dios. This is not an isolated incident; sightings have also been reported across the border in Brazil. Rosa Padilha, from the Brazilian Catholic bishops’ Indigenous Missionary Council in the state of Acre, explained, "They flee from loggers on the Peruvian side. At this time of the year, they appear on the beaches to take tracajá (Amazon turtle) eggs. That’s when we find their footprints on the sand. They leave behind a lot of turtle shells." Padilha further elaborated on the Mashco Piro’s plight, describing them as "a people with no peace, restless, because they are always on the run." The displacement and continuous movement of the Mashco Piro illustrate the severe disruption caused by logging activities, pushing these indigenous people into an ever-smaller area and forcing them to seek sustenance outside their traditional forest habitat. The situation of the Mashco Piro brings into sharp focus the broader issues faced by uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. The encroachment of modern industry into their territories not only threatens their immediate survival but also jeopardizes their cultural and social structures. As these tribes are forced out of their secluded environments, they become increasingly vulnerable to diseases, exploitation, and further displacement. This critical juncture calls for urgent action to protect the Mashco Piro and other uncontacted tribes from the encroachment of logging and other industrial activities. The Peruvian government, international organizations, and indigenous rights groups must work together to enforce stricter protections for these vulnerable populations. It is imperative to recognize the sovereignty of uncontacted tribes over their ancestral lands and to safeguard their right to live undisturbed by external forces. The recent sightings of the Mashco Piro serve as a stark reminder of the fragile balance between human activities and the natural world. The images released by Survival International not only highlight the immediate threat to the Mashco Piro but also underscore the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to conservation and indigenous rights. Without decisive action, the world risks losing not only a unique cultural heritage but also the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the Amazon rainforest. Credit: CNN News 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In response to a new law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, Elon Musk announced he is relocating the headquarters of two of his tech companies, SpaceX and X (formerly Twitter), from California to Texas. The move comes after Newsom signed a groundbreaking measure that prohibits public schools from notifying parents when their children identify as transgender, making California the first U.S. state to enact such a law. The legislation aims to protect transgender students and teachers who support them from potential retaliation. Musk announced his decision on Tuesday, stating that the headquarters of SpaceX will move from Hawthorne, California, to Starbase, Texas, while the headquarters of X will relocate from San Francisco to Austin, Texas. In his post on X, Musk cited the new law and previous legislation as factors that have made California inhospitable for families and businesses, prompting his decision to move. "Because of this law and the many others that preceded it, attacking both families and companies, SpaceX will now move its HQ from Hawthorne, Calif., to Starbase, Texas," Musk wrote on X. He mentioned that he had warned Newsom a year ago that such laws would drive families and businesses out of California. Musk also highlighted safety concerns in San Francisco as another reason for relocating X's headquarters. He pointed out that getting in and out of the building in San Francisco often involves "dodging gangs of violent drug addicts," a situation he hopes to avoid in Austin. Additionally, Musk has changed his state of residence from California to Texas, partly motivated by Texas' lack of personal income tax compared to California's high state income tax rates. Musk's announcement also touches on his personal life, specifically his relationship with his estranged son, Xavier Alexander Musk, who transitioned to female and legally changed her name to Vivian Jenna Wilson in 2022. Musk has attributed his daughter's transition to "neo-Marxists" and described her as a "fervent Marxist" who refuses to have any contact with him. He revealed that he only learned about her transgender identity through someone else and has unsuccessfully attempted to reach out to her. Despite the move of SpaceX and X to Texas, Musk previously relocated the headquarters of electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla from Austin to Palo Alto, California, in 2021. He has not indicated any plans to move Tesla's headquarters back to Texas at this time. This significant move by Musk reflects his ongoing discontent with California's political and social environment, which he believes is becoming increasingly hostile to both individuals and businesses. His decision underscores the broader debate over state policies and their impact on business operations and personal choices. Credit: UPI 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Attorneys for Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the 2021 fatal shooting on the set of the movie "Rust," have filed a motion for a new trial or for her case to be dismissed. This filing comes on the heels of the related case against actor Alec Baldwin being dismissed due to significant prosecutorial misconduct and discovery violations. The motion, filed on Tuesday in the Santa Fe First Judicial District Court, cites "egregious prosecutorial misconduct" and multiple allegations of "severe and ongoing discovery violations by the state." Gutierrez Reed's attorneys are demanding the court order her release from prison and remove Kari Morrissey as the special prosecutor for what they claim are misconduct and violations committed in their client's case. On Friday, the involuntary manslaughter charges against Baldwin, who authorities say held the prop gun that discharged and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins in October 2021, were dismissed. The judge overseeing Baldwin’s case ruled that prosecutors had failed to properly turn over evidence to the defense. This collapse of Baldwin's case has fueled speculation among legal experts that Gutierrez Reed's conviction could similarly be overturned. She is currently serving an 18-month sentence following her March conviction. In their motion, Gutierrez Reed's attorneys argue that her case should be dismissed or retried, partly based on the judge’s determination of withheld evidence in Baldwin’s case. They assert that Morrissey lied in court about the evidence during Baldwin's trial and claim there were other instances of suppressed evidence in the armorer’s case. CNN has sought comment from Morrissey but has yet to receive a response. The shooting occurred on October 21, 2021, when Baldwin was on set at a ranch outside Santa Fe practicing a “cross draw” with a prop gun. This maneuver involves pulling the gun from a holster on the opposite side of the body from the draw hand. The gun discharged a live round, killing Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza. As the armorer, Gutierrez Reed was responsible for firearm safety and storage on the set. Prosecutors argued at her trial that she repeatedly violated safety protocols and acted without caution in performing her duties, ultimately leading to Hutchins’ death. Gutierrez Reed’s defense attorneys argued that she had been scapegoated for the safety failures of the film set management and other crew members. The evidence that led to the implosion of Baldwin’s trial surfaced last week when a crime scene technician testified that a man had delivered a box of ammunition to the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office in March, right after Gutierrez Reed’s conviction. The man, Troy Teske, a retired police officer and friend of the armorer’s father, told investigators he had obtained the ammunition from prop supplier Seth Kenney and believed it could be associated with the "Rust" incident. However, the technician testified that the items were cataloged separately from Baldwin’s case and were not included in the "Rust" case inventory or tested to see if they matched the lethal round. Baldwin’s attorneys, in a filing last week asking for the case to be dismissed, claimed this could indicate “an external source of the live ammunition (prop supplier Seth Kenney)” on set. The Baldwin team’s filing alleged that prosecutors did not disclose the evidence because it “would be favorable to Baldwin.” Baldwin was unaware of the risk that live ammunition had been brought to the "Rust" set, and for prosecutors to establish a link between Baldwin and the live ammunition source, they would have to show that Gutierrez Reed, the armorer, had brought the rounds to the set. "Evidence that the live rounds came from Kenney is therefore favorable to Baldwin, which is why the state buried it," the document states. During a chaotic, hourslong hearing on Friday, investigators testified that they and Morrissey determined the ammunition was not relevant to the "Rust" case and did not turn it over to the defense. Morrissey also testified, stating that investigators had determined the ammunition was not a match to those found on the "Rust" set and had no evidentiary value. The lead investigator, however, testified that the rounds looked “similar” to the dummy rounds on the film’s set. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled that prosecutors had not properly turned over evidence to the defense and dismissed Baldwin’s case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again. In Tuesday’s filing, Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys said prosecutors—and even Gutierrez Reed’s defense team—were aware of the ammunition Teske had before he gave it to the sheriff’s office in March. Her attorneys wrote an email to Morrissey in January, stating it was “important to compare the powder of the Teske rounds to the powder in the live rounds found on the Rust set.” Morrissey responded that she did not plan to retrieve or test the rounds because she found them visually dissimilar and not relevant, according to Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys. However, during Baldwin’s trial on Friday, Morrissey claimed that Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys did not want the rounds that Teske had because they incriminated their client. "That is an absolute falsehood. ... Far from distancing (themselves) from the Teske rounds, defense counsel recognized their potential exculpatory value had the state tested them," the court filing states. Teske had turned the rounds over to the sheriff’s office in March, hoping that it would test the rounds “while Gutierrez Reed pursued her appeal,” the filing says. “Instead, the state placed them in a separate case file and attempted to hide them,” Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys wrote. The attorneys also claim that an interview with Kenney, the prop supplier, was suppressed. They would have used his statements in cross-examination in Gutierrez Reed’s trial had they known about them. In the interview, Kenney spoke about Gutierrez Reed’s experience and mentioned that he had not heard allegations that she was unsafe, among other things, the attorneys wrote. A report conducted by state firearms experts was likewise not made available to Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys. The state revealed it to Baldwin’s defense team only after Gutierrez Reed was convicted. The report said the gun used on the "Rust" set had “unexplained toolmarks on critical surfaces of the trigger and sear,” according to Tuesday’s filing. Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys previously made this argument in a separate court filing, which Reuters reported last month, asking that a court release her from prison. The firearms experts’ finding is evidence that the gun could have accidentally fired and could have led to her not being found guilty in the case, said her attorney Jason Bowles last month, according to Reuters. Her defense team "has also become aware of another possible 900 or so pages of material" related to the state’s witnesses that were disclosed to Baldwin’s attorneys shortly before his trial but not to Gutierrez Reed’s attorneys. "Her lawyers were still reviewing these at the time of the filing of this motion," the filing reads. The state violated Gutierrez Reed’s due process rights by failing to disclose evidence, her attorneys argue in Tuesday’s filing. "This court stated on July 12 that the integrity of the judicial system demanded that the court dismiss Mr. Baldwin’s case with prejudice," the filing said. "How can it be any different with Ms. Gutierrez Reed’s case, with this proven litany of serious discovery abuses?" "The intentional withholding of crucial evidence ... by the state has compromised the integrity of the entire judicial process," the filing continued. Gutierrez Reed previously filed an appeal of her conviction in May, and this latest motion represents another critical step in her legal battle. As the legal proceedings continue to unfold, the court's decision on this motion could significantly impact the future of Gutierrez Reed’s case and the broader implications for justice and accountability in the tragic incident on the set of "Rust." Credit: CNN 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Joe Rogan has recently addressed the growing speculation that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has constructed a nuclear bunker to protect himself in the event of a nuclear war. This theory, fueled by international tensions and unverified reports over the past few decades, suggests that public figures have built secret bunkers for safety against potential nuclear strikes. Rogan discussed this topic on his podcast with investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen, who has written extensively on the subject in her latest book, "Nuclear War: A Scenario." During the podcast, Jacobsen shared alarming insights from her book, which includes interviews with various defense officials. According to her research, the outcome of a nuclear war would be catastrophic, with an estimated 5 billion people dead within 72 minutes. She emphasized that once a nuclear war begins, it rapidly escalates into a nuclear holocaust, leaving no time for anyone to retreat to a bunker. Jacobsen said, "If nuclear war begins, it doesn't end until there is a nuclear holocaust. And it happens so fast—there is no quickly going to your secret bunker you have." Rogan expressed his skepticism about the effectiveness of such bunkers, particularly the one allegedly built by Zuckerberg. He dismissed the idea, saying, "Yeah, all that's nonsense. These people think, like, Zuckerberg is building a bunker in Hawaii [and] he's going to survive. He's building a hurricane shelter that might not work." Jacobsen agreed, noting that unless Zuckerberg was in the bunker at the exact moment of the nuclear attack, it wouldn't serve its purpose. "And also, unless he happened to be there in the exact moment when all of this went down..." she added. Rogan highlighted the impracticality and fear associated with these doomsday preparations, noting that one would have to know in advance about the imminent launch of a nuclear strike to make use of such a bunker. He described the whole scenario as terrifying. In December, Wired published a report claiming that Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, were planning to build a 5,000-square-foot underground shelter on their Hawaii ranch. This shelter would be equipped with its own energy and food supplies and be part of their 1,400-acre Ko'olau Ranch on the island of Kauai. The planning documents reviewed by Wired indicated that the ranch would also feature more than a dozen buildings, including at least 30 bedrooms and 30 bathrooms, two mansions, and 11 tree houses. However, the intended use of the bunker was not explicitly stated at the time of the investigative article's publication. Brandi Hoffine Barr, a spokesperson for Zuckerberg and Chan, clarified that Kauai County encourages homeowners to build shelters, offering tax breaks for constructing hurricane-resistant safe rooms. She stated, "Mark and Priscilla value the time their family spends at Ko'olau Ranch and in the local community, and are committed to preserving the ranch's natural beauty." According to Hoffine Barr, there were initial plans to build 80 luxury homes on the property before the couple purchased it, but they are now developing on less than one percent of that land, dedicating the remainder to farming, ranching, conservation, and wildlife preservation. This debate over nuclear bunkers comes amidst data from the Federation of American Scientists, which shows that Russia currently has the most nuclear warheads globally, with 5,977, while the U.S. possesses 5,428. The Federation also reports that of the world's 12,700 nuclear warheads, more than 9,400 are in military stockpiles for use by missiles, aircraft, ships, and submarines. As these statistics highlight the ongoing nuclear threat, the conversation about the practicality and morality of doomsday bunkers for the elite remains a contentious topic. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

On October 7, 2023, Hamas-led armed groups executed a series of severe crimes against humanity and war crimes during an assault on southern Israel. This coordinated attack included summary killings, hostage-taking, and other grave offenses, sparking urgent calls for the immediate release of all civilian hostages and the prosecution of those responsible. A detailed 236-page report by Human Rights Watch, titled "'I Can't Erase All the Blood from My Mind': Palestinian Armed Groups' October 7 Assault on Israel," documents numerous violations of international humanitarian law. These crimes, committed at nearly all the civilian attack sites, include murder, hostage-taking, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report reveals that the attacks were meticulously planned to kill civilians and take as many hostages as possible, prompting a global call to end all abuses against civilians in both Israel and Palestine. Between October 2023 and June 2024, Human Rights Watch interviewed 144 people, including 94 Israeli and other nationals who witnessed the October 7 assault, victims’ family members, first responders, and medical experts. They also verified and analyzed over 280 photographs and videos taken during the assault. On the morning of October 7, Hamas-led groups carried out multiple coordinated attacks on civilian residential communities, social events, and Israeli military bases in southern Israel near the Gaza Strip. They attacked at least 19 kibbutzim and 5 moshavim (cooperative communities), the cities of Sderot and Ofakim, two music festivals, and a beach party. The fighting lasted for much of the day and, in some cases, extended longer. Across these attack sites, Palestinian fighters fired directly at civilians at close range, hurled grenades, shot into shelters, and used rocket-propelled grenades to destroy homes. They set houses on fire, resulting in deaths by burning and suffocation, and forced people out, who were then shot or captured. They took dozens of hostages and summarily killed others. Nirit Hunwald, a nurse from Kibbutz Be’eri where 97 civilians were killed, described dragging a rapid response team member who had been shot into the kibbutz’s dental clinic to treat his wounds, stating, “There was a blood trail. I cannot erase it from my mind, all the blood.” Agence France-Presse reported that 815 of the 1,195 people killed on October 7 were civilians. The armed groups took 251 civilians and Israeli security force personnel hostage and transported them to Gaza. As of July 1, 116 remained in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 42 who had been killed. The bodies of another 35 who were killed were returned to Israel. The Qassam Brigades led the assault, and Human Rights Watch confirmed the participation of four other Palestinian armed groups. The fighters' affiliations were identified by headbands and claims of responsibility posted on their Telegram channels. These armed groups committed numerous violations of the laws of war, amounting to war crimes, including targeting civilians and civilian objects, willful killing of people in custody, cruel and inhumane treatment, crimes involving sexual and gender-based violence, hostage-taking, mutilation and despoiling bodies, using human shields, and looting. The widespread attack was directed against a civilian population, with the killing of civilians and taking of hostages being central aims of the planned assault. Human Rights Watch concluded that these acts constituted crimes against humanity. Further investigation is needed into other potential crimes against humanity, including persecution based on racial, national, ethnic, or religious grounds, rape or other sexual violence, and extermination if there was a mass killing calculated to destroy part of a population. Hamas authorities, in response to questions from Human Rights Watch, claimed their forces were instructed not to target civilians and to abide by international human rights and humanitarian law. However, Human Rights Watch investigations found evidence contradicting these claims. Survivors' accounts, along with verified photographs and videos, showed that Palestinian fighters intentionally sought out and killed civilians from the onset of the assault, indicating that these actions were planned and highly coordinated. Credit: HRW 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

President Joe Biden is reportedly considering endorsing significant reforms to the US Supreme Court, potentially including the end of lifetime appointments for justices. This shift in stance comes after a series of controversial decisions by the court, such as the removal of the federal right to abortion and a ruling that granted Donald Trump immunity from prosecution for his official acts as president. According to US media, Biden is exploring the establishment of term limits for justices, currently lifetime appointments, and bolstering the court's ethics code. Implementing these changes would be a major reversal for Biden, who has long resisted calls from his party to reform the court. The push for change intensified after his predecessor, Trump, appointed three conservative justices, creating a 6-3 conservative majority. This majority has issued several high-profile rulings that have significantly affected American law, including decisions on abortion rights, gun laws, the environment, and Trump's criminal trials. CBS News, the BBC's partner in the US, reported that Biden discussed these potential reforms with experts and indicated that announcements would be made soon. A source familiar with the matter revealed that Biden informed Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus during a weekend call. Despite being asked about the proposed changes, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to provide further details or a timeline for an official announcement. In a post on Truth Social, Trump criticized the potential reforms, calling them an "illegal and unconstitutional attack on our SACRED... Supreme Court." His response highlights the contentious nature of the proposed changes and the significant opposition they are likely to face. Biden's contemplation of these reforms also comes amid questions about the ethics of some justices on the high court. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has faced scrutiny for accepting luxury trips from a billionaire Republican donor. Additionally, there have been questions about the involvement of Thomas's wife in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which saw Trump lose to Biden. Early in his presidency, Biden created a commission to issue recommendations on Supreme Court reforms. However, the advice provided by this commission was never acted upon. The political landscape remains challenging, with Democrats facing a divided Senate and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, making any significant judicial reforms difficult to pass. The Supreme Court's recent term has underscored the sharp political shift with the conservative majority. Among the notable decisions was the rejection of Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which would have eliminated billions in debt for Americans. On its last day of opinions, the court ruled that Trump and other presidents have broad, but not absolute, immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions in office. Following this ruling, one of the four criminal cases against Trump was dismissed, and sentencing in another case was delayed. In addition to considering Supreme Court reforms, Biden is reportedly examining the possibility of backing a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the broad immunity cited by the court. If announced, these changes could provide Biden with a new campaign issue as the November election approaches. The president frequently references the Supreme Court and its rulings on the campaign trail. During a recent interview with BET, Biden mentioned the court's 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal right to an abortion. He warned of the potential consequences if Trump were to win another term and appoint additional justices, stating, "Just imagine if he has two more appointments." Credit: BBC 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

On July 16, Kaspersky Lab, a prominent Moscow-based software company, announced its decision to close its U.S. offices and lay off its American workforce. This move comes in response to a recent ban imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department, which cited national security concerns as the reason for the prohibition. For nearly two decades, Kaspersky Lab had established itself as a leading antivirus software provider in the United States, with its products widely used by government agencies and private entities alike. The company's seminars and training sessions were particularly popular in the Washington, D.C., area, highlighting its significant presence and influence in the cybersecurity sector. However, the situation took a dramatic turn in June when the U.S. Commerce Department, led by Secretary Gina Raimondo, announced a ban on Kaspersky Lab and its subsidiaries. The department's statement emphasized that Kaspersky's products posed "an undue or unacceptable national security risk" to the United States. This ban effectively barred the company from selling its products or providing updates within the country. Simultaneously, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Kaspersky and several members of its leadership team, reinforcing the narrative that the company represented a threat to national security. The sanctions, combined with the Commerce Department's ban, left Kaspersky with no viable business opportunities in the U.S. market. Kaspersky Lab expressed its regret over the decision, stating, "The company has carefully examined and evaluated the impact of the U.S. legal requirements and made this sad and difficult decision as business opportunities in the country are no longer viable." This statement, reported by CNN, reflects the company's acknowledgment of the insurmountable challenges posed by the new regulatory landscape. Founded in Moscow in 1997, Kaspersky Lab quickly rose to prominence in the global cybersecurity industry. It became one of the top antivirus software companies, competing with American giants such as McAfee and Symantec. Despite facing persistent allegations of aiding the Russian government in cyber activities, Kaspersky Lab consistently denied these accusations, maintaining its commitment to delivering high-quality cybersecurity solutions. The ban, which takes effect on July 20, will halt the sale and distribution of Kaspersky's products in the U.S. Additionally, American customers will no longer receive updates to their existing Kaspersky software after September 29. This disruption poses significant challenges for users who have relied on Kaspersky's antivirus protection and will need to seek alternative solutions to safeguard their systems. Kaspersky's departure from the U.S. market marks a significant shift in the cybersecurity landscape. As one of the industry's major players, its exit will undoubtedly create a void, potentially benefiting its competitors. However, the broader implications of this move extend beyond commercial interests, reflecting ongoing geopolitical tensions and the increasing focus on cybersecurity as a critical component of national security. Credit: UPI 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As Covid-19 cases surge once again in the United States, concerns about the virus's impact are resurfacing. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), emergency department visits associated with Covid-19 have been increasing steadily, with a 23.5% rise reported for the week ending July 6 compared to the previous week. Additionally, Covid-19 viral activity in wastewater remains high nationally. These trends are echoed in personal experiences and public events, as evidenced by infections among friends and public figures, including Doug Emhoff, and the impact on events like the Tour de France. This summer wave prompts a re-evaluation of Covid-19's spread and raises important questions: Why is this wave occurring now? Should individuals be concerned about getting infected again? How can one minimize the risk while maintaining a normal lifestyle, especially when traveling? Is it advisable to get vaccinated now or wait for the updated vaccine? Do home tests still provide reliable results? What are the current recommendations if one contracts Covid-19? To address these questions, CNN consulted with Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and clinical associate professor at George Washington University, and a former health commissioner of Baltimore. Dr. Wen acknowledges the current summer wave of Covid-19 infections, noting that such patterns have been observed throughout the pandemic. Multiple waves each year, including peaks in the summer, are partly attributed to increased travel and indoor gatherings due to hot weather. The level of concern should be tailored to individual medical circumstances. Those at higher risk, such as older adults, the immunocompromised, and individuals with multiple underlying health conditions, should remain vigilant. Ensuring up-to-date vaccinations, having a plan for antiviral treatments, and considering additional precautions like masking in crowded indoor spaces and opting for outdoor gatherings are recommended steps for these vulnerable groups. For those resuming pre-pandemic activities, Dr. Wen suggests a balanced approach. While many people are returning to socializing, attending events, and other activities, reducing the risk of infection, especially before visiting vulnerable individuals, is crucial. Measures such as avoiding indoor gatherings, masking in public transit, and taking rapid tests before visits can significantly reduce the risk of transmitting the virus. Regarding the efficacy of home tests, Dr. Wen confirms that while rapid antigen tests are less accurate than PCR tests, they remain a convenient tool for screening Covid-19. Individuals with symptoms should take rapid tests, and if the initial result is negative, retest the following day. It is important to remember that symptoms could be due to other respiratory viruses, so staying away from vulnerable individuals is advisable even if the Covid-19 test is negative. When traveling, Dr. Wen advises wearing an N95 or equivalent mask in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces, such as during boarding planes or on crowded trains. Opting for outdoor dining when possible, carrying rapid tests, and having a plan for accessing antiviral treatments if needed are also recommended. Travel insurance can provide additional security, covering medical care and costs if plans change due to illness. As for vaccinations, a new Covid-19 vaccine formulation is expected to be available in the fall, possibly as early as August. The CDC recommends that everyone aged six months and older receive this updated vaccine, which is anticipated to be more effective against current variants. Given the proximity to the release of the new vaccine, Dr. Wen suggests waiting for the updated formulation. The primary goal of vaccination is to reduce severe illness, hospitalization, and death rather than merely preventing infection, as the latter benefit diminishes quickly over time. Those requiring extra protection should continue to take additional precautions. If one contracts Covid-19, the CDC's updated guidance recommends staying home until fever-free for at least 24 hours and symptoms are improving, with additional precautions like masking and limiting contact with others for five more days. Dr. Wen emphasizes that individuals should consider the medical circumstances of their household members. If living with someone highly vulnerable, it is prudent to avoid close contact until testing negative for Covid-19, including avoiding indoor dining and shared spaces. Ultimately, while many people can continue their daily activities during this summer wave, those at higher risk should adopt additional precautions. It is essential for everyone to contribute to protecting the most vulnerable by taking reasonable measures to reduce the spread of Covid-19. Credit: CNN News 2024-07-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe