Social Media

The tragic and brutal murder of Pauly Likens, a 14-year-old transgender girl from Pennsylvania, has ignited a fervent call from advocates to investigate her death as a possible hate crime. The horrifying details of her killing have shaken the community and prompted demands for justice and a thorough examination of potential motives, including anti-transgender bias. Pauly Likens was last seen on June 22, according to a press release issued by the Pennsylvania State Police. In the days that followed, a series of discoveries revealed a grim fate. "Various dismembered human remains" were found scattered around Shenango Lake, and these remains were later identified as Pauly's by the Mercer County Coroner. The sheer brutality and nature of the crime have left many in shock and horror, raising urgent questions about the circumstances leading to her death. DaShawn Watkins has been arrested in connection with Pauly's murder. Surveillance footage allegedly shows Watkins carrying a large duffle bag and making several trips in and out of his apartment with different bags on June 24. This evidence led police to his residence, where they reportedly found blood, including under the bathroom floor, further implicating him in the crime. Watkins has been charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with evidence. As of now, it remains unclear if he has secured legal representation or entered a plea. Pam Ladner, from the LGBTQIA+ Alliance Shenango Valley, disclosed that Pauly was a transgender female, based on information provided by Pauly’s mother. Despite this significant detail, authorities have not yet classified the killing as a hate crime. The Pennsylvania Youth Congress, a statewide LGBTQ organization, has fervently called on both local and federal authorities to consider hate crime charges against Watkins. The organization emphasized the profound loss and the tragic waste of a young life, stating, "Pauly was only 14 years old and had a whole life ahead of her. No mother should have to bury their baby, and due to her unexpected death, the family was not financially prepared for funeral expenses." Pauly Likens' life was marked by her vibrant personality and her love for gaming and animals. An online obituary described her as someone who could light up any room she entered, spreading joy with her contagious laughter and smile. Pauly was also noted for her selflessness and generosity, always ready to help others and even donating her spare change to veterans outside Walmart as a child. The brutal murder of Pauly Likens has left a community in mourning and has sparked significant calls for a detailed investigation into whether her identity as a transgender girl played a role in her death. Advocates and supporters continue to push for justice, not only for Pauly but for the broader message it sends about protecting the rights and lives of transgender individuals. This case underscores the urgent need to address and combat violence against the transgender community, ensuring that such acts are met with the full force of the law and a commitment to safeguarding all lives, regardless of gender identity. Credit: People 2024-07-10 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant policy shift, Labour has announced that it will allow over 100,000 migrants to apply for asylum after abolishing Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme. This announcement coincides with the first migrant boat crossing the Channel since Sir Keir Starmer took office. A spokesperson for Sir Keir Starmer confirmed that the 90,000 migrants previously earmarked for deportation to Rwanda will be included among the 102,000 who will now be processed through the asylum system. The arrival of the first migrant boat since the election has highlighted the challenges the new government will face this summer. With 13,600 migrants having crossed the Channel so far this year—a record number for this period—there is an urgent need to address the asylum process. This figure represents a three percent increase from the 13,172 crossings at the same point in 2022 and an eight percent increase from the 12,503 crossings at the same point in 2023. When asked if those arriving by small boats would now have the right to claim asylum, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman emphasized the importance of processing arrivals promptly to avoid the prolonged and costly practice of housing migrants in taxpayer-funded hotels. Shadow Home Secretary James Cleverly criticized the move, calling it an effective amnesty. He argued that the Labour government’s actions would make the UK more attractive to asylum seekers, undermining previous efforts to deter illegal immigration. As of April 2024, there were 102,888 asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their claims. The Refugee Council has estimated that around 60,000 of the 90,000 migrants will likely be granted asylum, given the countries from which they originate. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is collaborating with Home Office officials to determine whether it is necessary to repeal Conservative immigration legislation to transition migrants into the asylum system and to introduce new legislation. These changes are expected to be part of a new Border Security Bill to be presented in next week’s King’s Speech. Currently, nearly 36,000 migrants are accommodated in hotels, with more than half coming from countries with high asylum grant rates, costing taxpayers £2.9 million a day. Ms. Cooper has pledged to end the use of hotels within a year and to begin saving money immediately. However, this pledge comes with the challenge of addressing the increasing backlog of asylum claims unless the flow of migrants crossing the Channel is stemmed. The Refugee Council predicts that an additional 27,000 migrants will cross the Channel by the end of this year, further adding to the backlog. In response, the government has introduced the new Border Security Command, supported by 1,000 extra police officers with enhanced powers to combat people smugglers, treating them with the same severity as terrorists. On Sunday, Ms. Cooper announced the first steps in establishing the command, beginning with the search for a former police, military, or intelligence chief to lead it. Sir Keir’s spokesman reiterated the government’s commitment to securing borders and dismantling smuggling gangs, stating, “The Rwanda scheme is dead and buried. The scheme was cancelled, and flights won’t go ahead. The government is now focused on the work needed to secure our borders and smash the gangs in addition to recruiting for the Border Security Command.” The spokesman also mentioned that the Home Secretary has commissioned an investigation from the Home Office and the National Crime Agency into the tactics used by people smuggling gangs to inform a major law enforcement drive over the coming months. The government acknowledges the challenges ahead, particularly as the summer is expected to be a testing period for their new policies and initiatives. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-07-10 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A pretrial hearing has laid the groundwork for Alec Baldwin's upcoming involuntary manslaughter trial, stemming from the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the Western movie "Rust." Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer of New Mexico is overseeing the proceedings, where she will consider various motions from both the prosecution and defense that could shape the evidence, testimony, and arguments presented to the jury. The pretrial hearing in Santa Fe is expected to be extensive, lasting most of the day, and Baldwin's attorneys have secured a waiver for his presence at all pretrial hearings. The trial, set to commence on July 9 with jury selection, is anticipated to span ten days. A significant development last week saw the judge permitting key firearms experts to testify for the prosecution, focusing on Baldwin's handling of the revolver and the firearm's functionality at the time of the incident. Baldwin's defense team is seeking to exclude evidence related to his role as a co-producer on "Rust," arguing it is irrelevant to the negligence charges and could confuse the jury. Prosecutors counter that Baldwin's prominent position as a producer likely contributed to a reckless disregard for safety protocols, thus making it pertinent to the case. Disagreements also extend to Baldwin's contractual authority over crew members responsible for weapons and safety. The prosecution aims to bar findings from a state workplace safety investigation, which reported serious violations on the set, arguing the investigation was incomplete and unreliable. Baldwin, charged with a single felony count of involuntary manslaughter, faces up to 18 months in prison if convicted. The film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was previously convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins' death and received an 18-month prison sentence, which she is currently appealing. The fatal incident occurred in October 2021 during a rehearsal where Baldwin, performing a cross-draw maneuver, accidentally discharged the revolver, killing Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza. Baldwin has pleaded not guilty, claiming the gun fired accidentally after he followed instructions to point it at Hutchins, who was behind the camera. He maintains he pulled back the hammer, not the trigger, and was unaware the gun contained a live round. In another significant motion, Baldwin’s attorneys are pushing to exclude any reference to the 1993 death of actor Brandon Lee, who was killed by a makeshift bullet left in a gun while filming "The Crow." Prosecutors have agreed not to mention Lee's death but argue Baldwin should have been aware of the inherent safety risks posed by firearms on set, even in the absence of live rounds. Baldwin’s defense contends it was unimaginable that live rounds would end up on the set of "Rust." Additionally, prosecutors wish to exclude a letter signed by "Rust" crew members disputing claims that the set was chaotic or dangerous before the shooting. They also seek to prevent the defense from using the conclusions of the safety investigation that primarily blamed assistant director Dave Halls, who has pleaded no contest to negligent use of a firearm and may testify at Baldwin's trial. Despite these objections, Baldwin's defense argues that the investigation's findings should be admissible and that state occupational safety officer Lorenzo Montoya should testify. The pretrial hearing also addressed potential inflammatory rhetoric between the prosecution and defense. Prosecutors requested that accusations of "prosecutorial misconduct" and personal attacks be excluded from court proceedings. Furthermore, they asked the judge to bar any evidence or arguments aimed at eliciting sympathy for Baldwin, including expressions of remorse or the impact of the events on his family, stating these factors do not pertain to determining his guilt. As Baldwin's trial approaches, these pretrial rulings will significantly influence the court's proceedings, setting the stage for a high-profile legal battle over the tragic events on the set of "Rust." Credit: ABC News 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The artificial intelligence (AI) boom has propelled Big Tech share prices to unprecedented heights, yet it comes at the expense of the sector’s environmental aspirations. Companies like Google and Microsoft are grappling with the challenge of aligning their soaring energy needs with their sustainability commitments. Google admitted on Tuesday that the rapid advancement of AI technology is jeopardizing its environmental targets. The company disclosed that data centers, which are crucial for AI infrastructure, have contributed to a 48 percent increase in its greenhouse gas emissions since 2019. Google noted "significant uncertainty" around achieving its goal of net zero emissions by 2030, citing the unpredictable future environmental impact of AI. This goal aims to balance CO2 emissions produced by the company with an equivalent amount of CO2 removal or elimination. Microsoft, a major financial supporter of ChatGPT developer OpenAI, similarly acknowledged that its ambitious net zero goal for 2030 might be unattainable due to its AI strategy. This raises the critical question: Can the tech industry reduce AI’s environmental footprint, or will it continue to prioritize AI supremacy despite the environmental costs? AI's threat to tech’s green goals primarily lies in the energy-intensive nature of data centers. These facilities are essential for training and operating AI models, such as Google’s Gemini or OpenAI’s GPT-4. They house sophisticated servers that process vast amounts of data, consuming significant amounts of electricity, which leads to substantial CO2 emissions depending on the energy source. Additionally, the manufacturing and transportation of this equipment generate embedded CO2. According to the International Energy Agency, the total electricity consumption of data centers could double from 2022 levels to 1,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) by 2026, matching Japan's energy demand. Research firm SemiAnalysis estimates that AI could drive data centers to consume 4.5 percent of global energy generation by 2030. The water usage is also notable, with one study projecting that AI could account for up to 6.6 billion cubic meters of water use by 2027—nearly two-thirds of England’s annual consumption. A recent UK government-backed report on AI safety highlighted the carbon intensity of the energy source used by tech firms as a critical factor in assessing the environmental cost of AI. The report also mentioned that a significant portion of AI model training still relies on fossil fuel-powered energy. In their bid to meet environmental goals, tech firms are aggressively securing renewable energy contracts. For instance, Amazon is the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy. However, some experts argue that this trend forces other energy consumers towards fossil fuels due to insufficient clean energy availability. "Energy consumption is not just growing, but Google is also struggling to meet this increased demand from sustainable energy sources," says Alex de Vries, the founder of Digiconomist, a website monitoring the environmental impact of new technologies. The global push to triple renewable energy resources by the end of the decade aims to reduce fossil fuel consumption in line with climate targets. However, the International Energy Agency warns that even though global renewable energy capacity grew at the fastest pace in the past 20 years in 2023, the world might only double its renewable energy capacity by 2030 under current plans. The burgeoning energy demand from AI data centers could further undermine these efforts. Tech companies may need to invest heavily in building new renewable energy projects to meet their escalating power needs. Onshore renewable energy projects like wind and solar farms can be developed relatively quickly, often in less than six months. However, slow planning processes and a global bottleneck in connecting new projects to the power grid could add years to the timeline. Offshore wind farms and hydro power projects face similar hurdles, with construction times ranging from two to five years. Concerns are mounting over whether renewable energy can keep pace with AI’s expansion. Major tech firms have already secured a third of U.S. nuclear power plants to supply low-carbon electricity to their data centers. Without investing in new power sources, these deals could divert low-carbon electricity from other users, leading to increased fossil fuel consumption to meet overall demand. The energy demand for AI is expected to continue growing. Conventional supply and demand dynamics suggest that as AI’s electricity use increases, energy costs will rise, potentially forcing the industry to become more efficient. However, given the unique nature of the AI sector, the largest companies might choose to absorb these costs, investing billions of dollars to maintain their competitive edge. The most expensive data centers in the AI sector are those used to train "frontier" AI systems like GPT-4 and Claude 3.5, which are at the cutting edge of capability. OpenAI, Google’s Gemini, and Anthropic, the maker of Claude, are in a fierce competition to lead this field. The "winner takes all" nature of this competition means that companies are driven to spend vast sums on developing the most advanced AI systems, regardless of the energy costs. The pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—AI systems capable of performing any human task—further amplifies this trend. The potential to monopolize such transformative technology could justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a single training run. While there are ongoing breakthroughs in AI technology that allow for more efficient use of electricity, this efficiency often leads to even more powerful AI systems being developed, rather than reducing overall energy consumption. This phenomenon, known as "Jevons' paradox," was first observed by economist William Stanley Jevons in the context of steam engines: improvements in efficiency led to increased overall use of coal as the cost of steam power fell and new applications emerged. As AI technology continues to advance, the tech industry faces a critical challenge. Balancing the insatiable energy demands of AI with the imperative to meet climate goals will require significant innovation and investment in renewable energy. Without such efforts, the sector’s environmental aspirations may remain out of reach, overshadowed by the relentless drive for AI supremacy. Credit: Mother Jones 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The world has experienced average temperatures surpassing the critical 1.5C (2.7F) warming threshold for twelve consecutive months, according to alarming data released by the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service. June 2023 set a new record as the hottest month, marking a full year of temperatures consistently 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. This troubling trend highlights the severe challenge climate change poses to the planet, despite global efforts to curb it. The past year has seen an average global temperature 1.64C higher than the pre-industrial average and 0.76C above the 1991-2020 average. These figures, while distressing, do not yet indicate a permanent breach of the warming threshold set by the Paris Agreement. The temporary influence of the El Niño weather phenomenon may cause future temperature reductions. However, the persistent data trend underscores ongoing and significant changes in the Earth's climate. Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus, emphasized that the continuous rise in temperatures is more than a statistical anomaly, illustrating a significant and ongoing shift in our climate. He warned that unless we stop adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and oceans, breaking temperature records will become inevitable. This warning comes amidst a prolonged heatwave in the United States, impacting 130 million people and causing dangerously high temperatures. Dr. Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London's Grantham Institute, noted a high probability that 2024 could surpass 2023 as the hottest year on record. She pointed out that while El Niño is a naturally recurring phenomenon that cannot be prevented, the continued burning of fossil fuels—oil, gas, and coal—can and must be stopped to combat climate change. The monthly data release from Copernicus also confirmed that last month was the hottest June on record, marking the 13th consecutive month as the hottest since records began. Despite the global average smoothing out temperature extremes, some regions still experienced cool conditions. For example, parts of Turkey had above-average temperatures in June, while the western parts of Europe experienced temperatures at or below average. The persistent rise in global temperatures over the past twelve months highlights the urgency of addressing climate change. The devastating consequences of this changed climate have been felt worldwide, with heatwaves claiming lives in India, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, and the United States, and wildfires forcing tourist evacuations in Greece. These events underscore the critical need for global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent further warming. The Copernicus data indicates that every month since July 2023 has had an average temperature 1.5C hotter than the fossil fuel era. Limiting warming to no more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is seen as crucial to avoid more severe impacts of climate change, a target enshrined in the landmark Paris Agreement. However, over the last twelve months, the global average temperature has been 1.64C above the pre-industrial average and 0.76C above the 1991-2020 average, according to Copernicus. These findings highlight "continuing" changes to the planet's climate, according to Copernicus's director Carlo Buontempo. He stated, "This is more than a statistical oddity, and it highlights a large and continuing shift in our climate." Buontempo further emphasized that it is "inevitable" temperature records will be broken repeatedly unless greenhouse gas emissions are curtailed. The current data from Copernicus highlights the severe and ongoing impacts of climate change. The prolonged heatwave in the United States, which has shattered records with dangerously high temperatures, is just one example of the devastating consequences being felt around the world. In India, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, and the United States, people have died from extreme heatwaves. In Greece, tourists had to be evacuated amid wildfires. Dr. Friederike Otto from Imperial College London's Grantham Institute stressed the importance of addressing the root causes of climate change. She said, "El Niño is a naturally occurring phenomenon that will always come and go. We can't stop El Niño, but we can stop burning oil, gas, and coal." Her statement underscores the need for a global commitment to reducing fossil fuel consumption to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The persistent rise in global temperatures and the record-breaking heatwaves and wildfires serve as a stark reminder of the urgent need for action. The Copernicus data indicates that the global average temperature has been 1.64C above the pre-industrial average over the past year, highlighting the ongoing and significant changes in the planet's climate. The findings from Copernicus are a clear call to action for global leaders and communities to prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing the root causes of climate change to prevent further warming and its devastating impacts. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

On July 4, a disturbing act of vandalism took place outside the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider. Posters depicting Israeli hostages, including eight Americans, were torn down and destroyed. These posters, which featured photos of more than 100 people taken as hostages by Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel, were found shredded and scattered across the hallway. Congressman Schneider, who represents Illinois and is known for his pro-Israel stance, condemned the act, calling it "a vile act of hate." He expressed his outrage on Twitter/X, sharing a photo of the damaged posters and stating, "This was a shameful act on any day, but especially on July 4, our country’s Independence Day." Schneider emphasized the gravity of the incident by adding, "Sadly, it was but one of many hateful, un-American actions that took place across the country on the day we celebrate freedom and democracy." Capitol police have initiated an investigation into the incident to identify and apprehend those responsible. The timing and nature of the vandalism have intensified its impact, occurring on a day dedicated to celebrating American values of freedom and democracy. This incident is part of a series of recent events targeting Congressman Schneider. Less than a week prior, pro-Palestinian protesters held an overnight rally outside his Highland Park home in Illinois. The demonstrators, many of whom were masked, banged drums, blew horns, and shouted antisemitic chants. The protest, which involved about 40 people, was eventually dispersed by police following multiple complaints from neighbors. Schneider addressed the protest outside his home, condemning the actions of the demonstrators. He stated, "Such actions play directly into the hands of Hamas terrorists, enabling them to continue to hold hostage not only those they kidnapped from Israel but all civilians in Gaza as well." His comments highlight the broader implications of such acts, suggesting that they may inadvertently support terrorist activities and further endanger both the hostages and civilians in the conflict zone. The destruction of the hostage posters and the protest at Schneider's home underscore the heightened tensions and deep divisions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These events also reflect the ongoing challenges faced by politicians who take strong stances on contentious international issues. The acts of vandalism and protest have drawn attention to the complex dynamics at play and the impact of such actions on both local and international communities. New York Representative Ritchie Torres, one of Israel’s staunchest supporters in Congress, decries the vandalization of Democratic Rep. Brad Schneider’s Capitol Hill office last week. In a photo shared by Schneider on X, posters of the 116 hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza since October 7 could be seen “ripped from the wall, shredded and tossed across the hallway.” Responding to the act of vandalism, Torres writes, “If you’re tearing down the posters of hostages, you’re not “pro-Palestinian.” You’re pro-Hamas. You’re not just Anti-Israel. You’re Antisemitic.” “There’s a special place in hell for those who vandalize posters of the kidnapped,” he adds. Source Credit: BBC | X 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan are facing serious allegations of tax evasion on £21 million worth of revenue generated from their online business. Devon and Cornwall Police have initiated a civil claim against the two social media influencers, along with a third individual referred to as J. The accusations were brought to light during a hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court, where Sarah Clarke KC, representing Devon and Cornwall Police, described the Tates as "serial tax and VAT evaders." Clarke highlighted the brazen attitude of the Tate brothers, particularly Andrew, towards tax obligations. She cited a video posted online by Andrew Tate, where he boldly claimed, "When I lived in England I refused to pay tax." Tate's approach to tax evasion was summed up in his own words: "ignore, ignore, ignore because in the end they go away." This admission underscores the alleged deliberate and systematic avoidance of tax payments by the brothers. The court was informed that the Tate brothers failed to pay taxes on their substantial revenue in any country from 2014 to 2022. Clarke detailed how the brothers utilized a "huge number of bank accounts" in the UK to facilitate the movement of their business revenues. Seven of these accounts have been frozen as part of the investigation. Clarke argued that the movement of money through numerous accounts was indicative of tax evasion and money laundering. The revenue in question was derived from various online products and their activities on OnlyFans sites. The court was also reminded of the brothers' arrest in December 2022 near Bucharest, Romania. Andrew and Tristan Tate, along with two Romanian women, were charged with human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. Despite their denials, Romanian prosecutors formally indicted all four in June of the previous year. During the criminal investigation, the Tate brothers were held in police custody from late December 2022 until April 2023 to prevent them from fleeing or tampering with evidence. They were subsequently placed under house arrest until August, after which they were allowed to travel freely within Romania but prohibited from leaving the country. The case against the Tate brothers highlights the complexities of tracking and prosecuting international tax evasion, especially involving high-profile individuals with extensive online businesses. The investigation by Devon and Cornwall Police continues as they seek to hold the Tates accountable for their alleged financial misconduct. Credit: LBC News 2024-07-09 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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