Social Media

Former President Donald Trump recently expressed enthusiasm for involving Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in addressing health, food, and medicine issues if he were to serve a second term. Speaking to a crowd at Madison Square Garden, Trump said, “I’m going to let him go wild on health. I’m going to let him go wild on the food. I’m going to let him go wild on the medicines.” Trump, however, specified that Kennedy’s influence would not extend to energy resources, particularly oil, saying, “The only thing I don’t think I’m going to let him even get near is the liquid gold that we have under our feet.” Kennedy, a former environmental lawyer and vocal critic of pharmaceutical companies, had launched an independent presidential campaign before stepping aside in August, ultimately endorsing Trump. Since then, he has taken up an initiative within Trump’s campaign called “Make America Healthy Again.” Throughout his career, Kennedy has focused on the health effects of processed foods and chemical additives in the U.S. food supply, advocating for stricter regulations. His involvement in Trump’s plans for a second term has, however, sparked criticism, particularly due to his controversial stance on vaccines. Kennedy has faced considerable backlash for his opposition to mainstream vaccine policies. Although he has denied being entirely anti-vaccine, his track record includes promoting debunked theories and spreading skepticism about vaccine safety. In a congressional hearing last year, he refuted accusations that he had discouraged vaccinations, saying, “I never told people not to get vaccinated.” However, in a podcast interview two years prior, he admitted to frequently advising strangers against vaccinating their children. Kennedy has also made contradictory statements on vaccines in the media. On CNN in December, he denied suggesting that no vaccines were “safe and effective,” although he was previously recorded stating this exact phrase in an interview last July. The conflicting messages have only fueled concerns among public health officials and medical experts regarding Kennedy’s potential influence on national health policy in a future Trump administration. Based on a report from the Hill 2024-10-29

Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), is under scrutiny after allegedly trying to suppress a formal complaint of sexual misconduct against him by persuading the accuser to deny her claims. According to multiple ICC sources, Khan and a close associate repeatedly pressured the alleged victim to retract her allegations of inappropriate behavior. The Guardian reports that these attempts to dissuade the woman from formally pursuing her claims took place through phone calls and in-person meetings after Khan learned that court authorities were aware of the complaint. Sources reveal that, at the time, Khan had been advised to avoid one-on-one contact with the accuser following an aborted internal investigation. Allegations against Khan include unwanted sexual advances and an alleged incident in which he “pressed his tongue” into the woman’s ear. Khan, 54, denies these accusations. Four ICC staff members aware of the allegations describe them as involving coercive sexual behavior and abuse of authority. The Guardian’s investigation, which includes interviews with 11 current and former ICC officials as well as diplomatic sources and friends of the alleged victim, suggests that the accuser has suffered significant emotional trauma from these events. To protect her privacy, none of the sources revealed their identities. The sources claim the accuser is now experiencing “severe emotional distress” as a result of the situation. The ICC itself is now facing a severe crisis, as internal divisions over the handling of these allegations are surfacing, along with attempts by opponents of the court to leverage the scandal against it. The accusations reportedly pertain to Khan’s behavior between April 2023 and April 2024, with one source clarifying that this was not a single incident but rather an ongoing pattern of misconduct over several months. The alleged victim reportedly recounted to colleagues a series of escalating incidents, beginning with Khan’s attempts to hold her hand during a work trip to London. According to sources, his advances continued, ultimately involving unwanted physical contact at his office, during overseas work trips, and at his home in The Hague. Three sources confirm that she described specific instances in which Khan allegedly groped her and placed his tongue in her ear. She reportedly tried to make excuses to avoid being alone with him but faced professional repercussions as a result. An ICC document outlining the allegations indicates that her efforts to distance herself led to negative workplace consequences, further complicating her position. Last week, the ICC staff union called for an “independent investigation led by an external panel free from any potential conflict of interest.” Khan responded, expressing willingness to cooperate with any new inquiry. On Friday, the Associated Press reported that the alleged victim is now in communication with the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s governing body responsible for decisions on Khan’s position. A diplomatic source indicated that the ASP has not yet initiated a formal investigation. As ICC judges weigh high-stakes cases, including a politically sensitive request from Khan to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza, the unfolding allegations cast a shadow over the court’s leadership and its future stability. Based on a report from the Guardian 2024-10-29

In a rare moment of bipartisan defense, New York City’s Democratic Mayor Eric Adams came to the defense of former President Donald Trump in response to accusations labeling Trump a "fascist." These claims, initiated by Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and reiterated by Vice President Kamala Harris, have sparked considerable debate. Adams addressed the issue ahead of Trump’s scheduled rally at Madison Square Garden, dismissing the notion of Trump as a fascist and urging a reduction in the divisive rhetoric surrounding the former president. In a press conference, Adams clarified his stance, saying, "My answer is no, I know what Hitler has done, and I know what a fascist regime looks like.” He encouraged the public and officials alike to “dial down the temperature,” highlighting the importance of allowing Trump to communicate his message without interference. Adams’ remarks followed those of Harris, who recently echoed General Kelly's claims in a CNN town hall, affirming her belief that Trump meets the definition of a fascist. The Vice President had cited Kelly’s statement that Trump praised Adolf Hitler for “doing some good things,” referencing the former president’s alleged remarks about Hitler’s role in rebuilding Germany’s economy. General Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general and Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff, had shared these allegations in an interview with *The New York Times*. He warned that Trump’s actions, particularly his prioritization of personal loyalty over constitutional principles, were hallmarks of fascism. Trump, however, dismissed Kelly’s claims as a “made-up story.” Despite the former president’s rebuttal, these statements became a focal point of discussion, with Harris and other prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton seizing the opportunity to express concerns about Trump’s influence on American democracy. Clinton, reflecting on Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden, suggested it was an attempt to “re-enact” the Nazi rally held in the same location in 1939. Despite these critiques, Adams voiced his “strong” opposition to any calls to cancel Trump’s event, framing it as an essential exercise of free speech. “I think it’s important that we allow individuals to exercise their right to get their message clear to New Yorkers,” he stated, supporting the principles of democratic discourse, even when the views expressed are contentious. Adams also emphasized the city’s commitment to safety, outlining the significant police and security measures put in place to ensure the event proceeds smoothly. This isn’t the first time Adams has found himself aligned with Trump on particular issues, marking an unusual convergence given his role as a Democratic mayor. Recently, Adams has faced his own legal challenges, having been indicted on federal corruption charges, which he claims are politically motivated. Like Trump, Adams has suggested that his criticism of the Biden administration may have spurred these legal actions. He has previously taken issue with President Biden’s handling of the migrant crisis, arguing that it threatens to “destroy” New York City’s resources and infrastructure. Adams’ defense of Trump highlights the nuances and challenges within contemporary American political discourse, as well as the complex interplay of legal, ideological, and institutional conflicts shaping the nation’s political landscape. In standing up for Trump’s right to gather and speak, Adams underscores the value of upholding democratic principles—even amid sharp ideological divides. Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-29

The common belief about targeted assassinations in the fight against militant groups is often dismissive, rooted in the idea that such actions don’t lead to substantial or lasting outcomes. Over the past year, Israel has engaged in targeted killings of leaders from Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group, and Hizbullah, a Lebanese Shia militia. Each operation triggers discussions among analysts and officials, who frequently predict that these organizations will regroup and restore their former strength. This skepticism isn’t unwarranted, given Israel’s historical experience. However, there are reasons to believe that this time, the situation might differ significantly. There are three key arguments typically made against the effectiveness of targeted killings. The first of these is historical. Audrey Kurth Cronin, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, analyzed the fate of over 450 terrorist organizations, finding that "decapitation" or leader-targeting operations generally prove effective only against small, recently-formed groups without established mechanisms for leadership succession. However, neither Hamas nor Hizbullah fits this description. The historical context, diverges sharply from current circumstances. In the present situation, Israel's campaign against Hizbullah has been relentless. By the time Israel killed Nasrallah on September 27th, the group’s highest military leadership had been decimated. Nasrallah’s presumed successor, Hashem Safieddine, and potentially Wafiq Safa, an influential enforcer within Hizbullah, were also targeted. Even the most resilient organization would face challenges after losing multiple tiers of its leadership. Hamas, too, has suffered significant losses in the past year, with not only two of its leaders but also its military chief, his deputy, and numerous lower-ranking commanders killed. Alongside these losses, both groups have endured thousands of casualties in Israel’s attacks. Nasrallah and Sinwar were uniquely influential, each wielding substantial power and enjoying considerable support from Iran. Their successors may not command the same loyalty or resources, weakening their organizations structurally. A second argument concerns the groups' established institutional roles. Before the recent escalations, Hamas governed Gaza, employing tens of thousands of civil servants, while Hizbullah functioned almost as a "state within a state" in Lebanon, providing jobs, managing economic resources, and even operating its own bank. Unlike purely militant groups, Hamas and Hizbullah are deeply entrenched political and economic entities. Yet, Israel’s sustained campaign has dramatically undermined these roots. In Gaza, for example, the local economy, which once provided Hamas with substantial tax revenue, lies in tatters. The monopoly Hamas once held on violence and resource control has been disrupted by increasingly powerful gangs, who now run protection rackets and control some aid distributions. In Lebanon, Hizbullah's previously robust financial networks have weakened. Fighters now complain of delayed paychecks, while displaced civilians express frustration over inadequate assistance. In Lebanon’s patronage-based political system, any erosion of resources and benefits weakens a group’s support base, suggesting that Hizbullah’s once-dominant position may be under significant strain. The third argument is philosophical. European Union foreign-policy chief Josep Borrell remarked in February, "Hamas is an idea, and you don’t kill an idea," a sentiment echoed by the head of the Arab League about Hizbullah. However, historical examples challenge this perspective. A decade ago, analysts made similar claims about Islamic State (IS), which, despite its initial power and territory, was decimated by a coalition that killed tens of thousands of fighters. The caliphate IS declared lasted less than four years before being dismantled. Likewise, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—a century-old organization—was severely weakened when Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi overthrew Egypt’s Brotherhood-aligned president, leading to mass arrests, asset seizures, and organizational collapse. While neither IS nor the Muslim Brotherhood was entirely eliminated, both were largely marginalized and rendered unable to exert the power they once held. This suggests that while ideas may be hard to eradicate, organizations can be crippled with sufficient violence and repression, pushing them into obscurity for years. Hamas and Hizbullah are not merely ideas but institutions with tangible structures, resources, and influence. Whether or not they retain their current standing remains uncertain. If Hizbullah is weakened, Lebanon’s Shia community may face internal conflicts, and while Palestinian resistance may persist as long as there is no state, it is not guaranteed to be under Hamas’ banner. Based on a report from The Economist 2024-10-29

A dedicated community of science sleuths is bringing overlooked research errors into the spotlight, unsettling some of the world’s most respected scientific institutions. With the aid of artificial intelligence, these independent investigators are more efficiently identifying flaws and potential misconduct in scientific research, raising the call for academic and publishing reform. High-profile cases involving prominent scientists, such as the former Stanford University president and leaders at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, have gained national attention, making science sleuths impossible for the research community to ignore. The momentum of these revelations has editors and academic leaders bracing for new cases. “At the rate things are going, we expect another one of these to come up every few weeks,” remarked Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of *Science*. For sleuths, exposing errors is a vital step in correcting the scientific record and protecting future researchers from investing in dead-end inquiries based on flawed studies. Biologist Michael Eisen, a former editor of *eLife* and vocal advocate for change, expressed empathy for the sleuths, noting, “Everybody — the author, the journal, the institution, everybody — is incentivized to minimize the importance of these things.” For years, science sleuths identified problematic research images, posting findings on online forums like PubPeer, but often with limited response. A turning point came last summer when Stanford’s then-president, neuroscientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne, stepped down amid scrutiny of alleged image manipulation in his work. Though Tessier-Lavigne was cleared of direct misconduct, a report highlighted that some of his lab members had manipulated images in questionable ways. Another notable case surfaced this January when a blog post exposed image issues in studies by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute leaders, leading the institution to retract six articles and issue corrections on many others. This surge in scrutiny has opened a national conversation on research integrity, further fueled by artificial intelligence advancements. New tools help sleuths detect a range of issues, from recent sloppiness to decades-old errors in scientific images. While this technology sharpens sleuths' capabilities, universities and journals are beginning to integrate similar tools in their own processes. Thorp shared that the *Science* journals have recently adopted an AI tool, Proofig, to screen submissions for image issues, quietly deploying it about six months before publicly announcing it in January. The tool has allowed the journal to reject papers with problematic images while permitting authors with logical explanations to address minor issues before publication. Meanwhile, Chris Graf, research integrity director at Springer Nature, reported that they, too, are testing in-house AI software to spot image duplications. Though AI speeds up this work, he stressed the importance of human oversight, adding that “the human element of all our investigations is crucial” to guard against false positives. Beyond individual errors, the uptick in retractions, which hit a record 10,000 last year according to *Nature*, signals a growing acknowledgment of these issues. Yet the increased vigilance has also stirred questions about motivations behind error-hunting efforts, especially as prominent figures discuss deploying AI to scrutinize research at institutions with ideological differences. Bill Ackman, a venture capitalist, recently raised the issue on X, suggesting AI could target leaders of prestigious universities for political motives. Eisen, however, does not believe the science sleuths are engaging in a “McCarthyist” hunt, stating, “I think they’ve been targeting a very specific type of problem in the literature, and they’re right — it’s bad.” Despite these advancements, sleuths often grow frustrated at institutional inaction, with public critiques on platforms like PubPeer sometimes ignored. Dana-Farber research critic Sholto David admitted to largely “giving up” on notifying journal editors after receiving inadequate responses. Image sleuth Elisabeth Bik echoed the sentiment, describing her many attempts to flag issues only to find that “nothing happens.” Thorp contends that the slowness of universities to respond only heightens public mistrust. “Universities are so slow at responding and so slow at running through their processes,” he said, suggesting that universities could mitigate damage by swiftly taking ownership of errors. Based on a report from NBC News 2024-10-29

Police swarmed ther home and seized computers after accusations against the man who's worked with 'some of Britain's most famous names'. A TV soap star has been arrested on suspicion of sexually abusing five underage boys. Police apparently swarmed the person's home before they arrested the actor, who cannot be named at this time, on suspicion of child sex offences. The star - who is understood to have a major role on a TV soap - has denied the allegations and is currently on bail. When carrying out the arrest, police also seized computers and documents while searching for evidence related to the five alleged abuses. The Sun reported that officers visited the actor's home earlier this month following accusations of paedophilia. The allegations date back to the 1990s when the suspect was appearing alongside some of Britain's most famous stars in a number of hit tv shows. His family, including his partner, were left stunned by his arrest. The soap star is also understood to be shocked by the allegations. A police spokesperson said: 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of historical child sex offences involving five victims. Officers investigating allegations relating to the 1990s detained a man. 'He was arrested on suspicion of several sexual offences relating to five men who were teenage boys at the time of the alleged offending.'He has been conditionally bailed while enquiries continue.' Based on a report from the Daily Mail 2024-10-29

In a new surge of drug trafficking in the Middle East, captagon, a stimulant with amphetamine-like effects, is wreaking havoc along Syria’s borders and impacting countries across the region. The drug, used by a wide range of people—from students and taxi drivers to militia fighters—has led to a booming trade that is both lucrative and destabilizing, especially for regions like Jordan, which shares a tense border with Syria. The rise of captagon has added yet another layer of conflict to the area, triggering an alarming health crisis and fueling both war and crime. Captagon’s multibillion-dollar trade has become a primary source of revenue for the Syrian regime under President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah, both of which benefit heavily from the illicit profits. According to the New Lines Institute, an estimated $5.7 billion captagon market has flourished, with Assad’s regime alone earning approximately $2.4 billion annually from 2020 to 2022, which accounts for nearly one-fourth of Syria’s GDP. This surge in profits has helped offset sanctions placed by Western countries, bolstering Assad’s administration, which has been widely accused of enabling large-scale captagon production. However, Syrian officials have consistently denied any role in the drug trade. Captagon smuggling has placed heavy strain on Syria’s neighboring countries, particularly Jordan, which has deployed around one-third of its army along the border to intercept the drugs and weapons trafficked by the same networks. Jordanian authorities have reported a range of smuggling methods, from using drones and catapults to hiring women and children as drug couriers. Recent political and social tensions have led to an increase in captagon seizures along the Jordanian-Syrian border, especially since the beginning of Israel’s conflict with Gaza, with U.S. officials fearing that Iranian-backed factions may be involved in escalating drug and arms smuggling. In January, a devastating incident in Orman, a small village in Syria close to the Jordanian border, underscored the severity of the captagon crisis. Two explosions killed ten people, including women and children, an attack Jordan has been suspected of conducting in response to the ongoing smuggling. In a rare move, Jordanian authorities acknowledged their determination to fight the drug and arms trade, saying they are prepared to confront the threats posed by these networks. "The Syrian regime is creating an example for states that are weathered and under sanctions and are looking to make a buck, a very good buck," said Caroline Rose, a captagon trade expert at the New Lines Institute. While amphetamines have long held appeal in the Gulf region, captagon’s recent expansion has marked a dangerous development. Once manufactured in Germany for medical purposes, captagon found its way into Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in the 1990s, facilitated by criminal networks. The 2011 Syrian war only intensified this trade as economic collapse across Syria and Lebanon opened the door for the drug’s mass production, helping the Assad regime secure additional revenue. According to Col. Farid al-Qassem, a Syrian defector now working with U.S. troops, Assad’s regime “continues to fully rely on captagon” for survival, noting the drug’s role as a backbone of the economy. Pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient in captagon, is imported in massive quantities. In 2020, Syria reported 110,000 pounds of the substance—an amount comparable to pharmaceutical hubs like Switzerland—despite its crumbling health infrastructure, a fact that raised concerns with international authorities. The captagon crisis has expanded beyond the Middle East, reaching Europe, with major busts occurring in Italy, Greece, and Germany. German authorities recently began prosecuting four men linked to a $60 million captagon seizure, an example of the growing international impact. “It’s becoming extremely clear that these illicit networks are trying to create a foothold in Europe,” said Rose, predicting a trickle effect that could bring the drug into Europe and possibly the U.S. markets in the near future. The U.S. has recognized the captagon trade as a significant threat, enacting the Captagon Act in 2022 to curb the network’s expansion and aid Middle Eastern allies in battling it. Though the U.S. has provided surveillance equipment, it has not deployed troops to Jordan, leaving the region to tackle the crisis. However, hopes of Syrian cooperation have dwindled as officials in Jordan and Saudi Arabia report little follow-through from Assad. Meanwhile, captagon’s reach continues to extend, posing increasing challenges for international law enforcement and heightening concerns for public health and safety across the globe. Based on a report from the WSJ 2024-10-29

Former Representative Liz Cheney, known for her staunch opposition to former President Donald Trump, recently stated that while she identifies as pro-life, she does not support the stringent abortion restrictions enacted in several states. In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper, Cheney remarked that state-level abortion bans, particularly in Republican-led states, "cannot stand." Cheney pointed out how recent laws, such as those in Texas and North Carolina, have restricted abortion access to the point where some women in life-threatening situations are unable to obtain necessary care. “You have pro-life women all across this country who have been watching what’s happened in places like Texas and places like North Carolina,” she explained, noting that these states, among others, implemented severe abortion restrictions following the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*. Cheney described cases where women in critical medical need—those experiencing miscarriages or requiring life-saving procedures—are being denied care due to these prohibitive laws. “I think that’s where you have women, who, like me, have been pro-life who are saying, no this, what we have seen, cannot stand,” Cheney said, highlighting the concerns shared by women with a range of views on abortion. Cheney believes that women from both pro-life and pro-choice perspectives are uniting in support of ensuring accessible healthcare for all women, which is why she has joined Vice President Kamala Harris in a shared effort to promote these rights. Based on a report from the Hill 2024-10-29

A couple of topic troll posts removed @georgegeorgia

An inflammatory troll/hate speech post has been removed.

An inflammatory troll post has been removed.

As the last full week of the U.S. election campaign unfolds, both major political parties are going all-out to secure votes. This final stretch has been marked by high-energy rallies, with former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris each rallying for their respective party’s nominees. Their appearances, characterized by sharp rhetoric and fervent appeals to key constituencies, underscore the stakes of the upcoming election and the contrasting visions each party is promoting. Trump’s Push for a Republican Comeback Donald Trump, who remains a highly influential figure within the Republican Party, has been rallying support across battleground states in recent days. His messaging has been geared toward energizing his base while drawing attention to issues he sees as critical for the nation's future—such as economic growth, immigration policies, and what he describes as a "return to American values." Throughout his rallies, Trump has often focused on policy contrasts with the current administration, including criticism of inflation levels and fuel prices. His rhetoric emphasizes a need to reverse several Democratic policies he claims have hurt the middle class and burdened small businesses. Trump’s rallies are notable for their high attendance, with his supporters viewing him as a voice for traditional conservative values and a pathway to reestablish a stronger economy and secure borders. Beyond policy, Trump’s speeches have incorporated themes of national pride and a “save America” narrative, aiming to connect emotionally with voters who feel alienated or left behind by recent political changes. His supporters—many of whom attended his rallies in the 2016 and 2020 elections—are responding strongly to this approach, making clear they see him as a leader who can again shape the party’s future. Harris’s Call for Unity and Progress Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has taken to the campaign trail to bolster support for the Democratic ticket. Her appearances in key swing states have highlighted the administration’s achievements, focusing on the economy, social justice, and healthcare access. Harris’s speeches have painted a picture of a country that is, in her words, “on the path to recovery,” thanks to the initiatives pushed forward by the Democratic administration. Harris has used her platform to address issues close to her political base, including climate action, women’s rights, and education. These themes resonate strongly with younger voters, women, and minority communities—groups the Democratic Party sees as essential to secure a win in tightly contested states. By invoking empathy and resilience, Harris is positioning the Democratic candidates as compassionate leaders focused on fostering a more inclusive future for all Americans. Harris has also used her speeches to emphasize the importance of voting rights, encouraging people to make their voices heard in an election that she says could determine the “future of democracy.” Her tone in recent rallies has been hopeful yet urgent, reminding voters of the impact they can have by participating in the democratic process. A Pivotal Week for American Voters As Trump and Harris crisscross the country, their rallies are more than just campaign events—they are a showcase of two starkly different visions for America’s future. The final push in this week has brought forward the deep ideological divisions within the country, and both parties are working to ensure every possible vote is secured. From large cities to rural areas, the rallies have captured the nation’s attention, energizing voters on both sides of the aisle. Polls indicate a tight race in many key areas, making this last week especially critical for mobilizing supporters who may still be undecided or hesitant. Both Trump and Harris are expected to continue their efforts right up until election day, hoping that their messages resonate enough to sway any remaining undecided voters and get their party’s supporters to the polls. As the candidates make their final appeals, American voters are faced with a crucial choice—one that will shape the political landscape and influence policy direction for years to come. The culmination of the election season promises to be a decisive moment, with Trump and Harris standing as central figures in the national spotlight, rallying their bases for one last push toward victory. 2024-10-28

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has issued a severe warning to voters, arguing that the current geopolitical landscape is perilously close to nuclear conflict. According to Kennedy, casting a vote for Kamala Harris equates to "a vote for nuclear war." His statement underscores rising global concerns over the potential for international tensions to escalate into a nuclear crisis. Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump in this context is significant. Trump has expressed a desire to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. In Kennedy’s view, "If JFK were alive today, he would be standing side by side with President Trump on this issue." The Harris campaign has yet to respond to Kennedy’s statements. The topic of nuclear escalation has drawn broader concerns from officials within the Pentagon, such as Vipin Narang, who recently cautioned that the U.S. is now facing “nothing short of a new nuclear age.” Narang described an “unprecedented mix” of nuclear-armed nations with revisionist agendas, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, none of whom appear interested in arms control or reducing nuclear risks. Russia, in particular, continues to threaten nuclear escalation in Ukraine and has been developing a stockpile of low-yield nuclear weapons, unrestricted by existing treaties. Additionally, Narang pointed to an alarming trend: the strengthening alliance between Russia, China, and North Korea. He noted, “Any one of these nuclear challenges would be daunting by itself, but the simultaneity and growing collaboration and evidence of collusion between them is unprecedented.” This cooperation, he argued, demands a careful reevaluation of escalation dynamics and strategies for deterring opportunistic aggression in this new nuclear age. As Kennedy’s statements continue to resonate within political and public spheres, the debate over nuclear policy and the broader implications of international alliances will likely become a significant factor in the upcoming election, posing urgent questions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy and national security. Based on a report from the Newsweek 2024-10-28

A new report by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and the advocacy group New York City Public School Alliance claims that foreign actors and activist educators are contributing to anti-Israel sentiment in New York City’s public schools, fostering what they describe as a concerning rise in antisemitism. According to the report, teacher groups like NYC Educators for Palestine have allegedly collaborated with organizations linked to foreign governments and extremist groups to introduce anti-Israel material, which they warn brings “radical, anti-American ideologies” into classrooms. Tova Plaut, a pre-K coordinator with the NYC Department of Education (DOE) and co-founder of the NYC Public School Alliance, expressed concerns about the impact of these materials. “The report exposes how the Department of Education’s vetted resources enable radical sympathizers to shape young minds with biased information,” Plaut said. As evidence, the report highlights a controversial map displayed at PS 261 in Brooklyn, funded by the Qatar Foundation, which excluded Israel. The foundation, reportedly tied to Qatar’s ruling family, has donated over $1 million to New York City schools. According to the report, this incident reflects broader foreign influence and the spread of “radical” educational content within the city’s schools. The report calls on the DOE to address this alleged bias by conducting a comprehensive review of the curriculum, enforcing existing anti-discrimination policies, and increasing oversight of foreign funding sources. Additionally, it urges the DOE to adopt a formal definition of antisemitism and mandate training for educators to counter such biases. “If these ideas are left unchecked, they will be internalized by a new generation of students, who will then graduate, attend university, vote, enter the workforce, and raise families of their own, further embedding antisemitic beliefs into wider American society,” stated the NCRI and NYC Public School Alliance. Specific examples of alleged bias cited in the report include resources recommended by the DOE, such as the Zinn Education Project. The report claims that Zinn’s materials, used in some schools like Beacon High School, present a skewed view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, describing Gaza as a “graveyard for children” and referring to Hamas as a “political party and militant group.” Critics argue that such descriptions fail to address the full context of the conflict and demonize Israel, a view reportedly shared by some parents. Another group highlighted is Teach Palestine, which provides materials framing Zionism as a “colonialist” movement and emphasizing Palestinian victimhood. Teach Palestine is funded by the Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA), which has alleged ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. One notable event flagged in the report is a webinar hosted by the PTA of Ella Baker School in May, titled “Teach Palestine,” which was sponsored by the educational group Rethinking Schools. Topics included “anti-Zionism is not automatically antisemitism” and “Israel’s attacks on children, schools, and historical memory in Palestine,” material that may conflict with the DOE’s Chancellor’s Regulation A-830, according to the report. In addition, the report mentions school walkouts organized in collaboration with groups like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), an organization with alleged links to Chinese Communist Party-affiliated entities. These walkouts were part of the Shut it Down for Palestine coalition, which NCRI claims has ties to hostile foreign actors. In light of these findings, the report calls for immediate action to prevent the spread of such ideologies within the school system. In July, U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham flagged several entities, including Shut it Down for Palestine, for potential Foreign Agents Registration Act violations, and called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to review their activities. The DOE has yet to comment on the report’s recommendations, although it previously removed the controversial map at PS 261 after initial pushback. Based on a report from the NYP 2024-10-28

In a striking claim, a former senior editor at The Washington Post has accused Jeff Bezos, the paper’s billionaire owner, of brokering a deal with former President Donald Trump to halt the newspaper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. Robert Kagan, a longtime Post editor-at-large who resigned following the newspaper's decision to forgo endorsements, told The Daily Beast that Bezos supposedly entered into a quid-pro-quo arrangement with Trump, aimed at protecting the business interests of Bezos’s space company, Blue Origin. According to Kagan, the arrangement surfaced following a meeting between Trump and Blue Origin executives soon after the Post’s decision not to endorse any presidential candidate. “Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people,” Kagan reportedly told The Daily Beast, implying that the meeting was strategically timed to reinforce the alleged pact. “Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo,” Kagan alleged. Although Kagan stands by his interpretation of the events, he provided no tangible evidence of a direct quid-pro-quo agreement. Representatives for Trump, Bezos, and The Washington Post have so far not responded to these claims. Kagan, a longtime critic of Trump, asserted that the alleged collaboration between the former president and Bezos had "been in the works for some time" and would likely prompt “a lot of censorship” in the media as influential billionaires seek to protect their financial interests. Kagan’s abrupt resignation came in the wake of a major shift at The Washington Post, as CEO William Lewis announced that the paper would break with its 36-year tradition and would not endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential race, nor in future elections. Kagan, along with other editorial staff, had reportedly been preparing an endorsement of Harris, waiting only for final approval from Lewis and Bezos before the plan was scrapped. Bezos, whose net worth was estimated by Bloomberg Billionaires Index at $209 billion as of Friday, had long been a target of Trump during his time in office, with Trump frequently attacking The Washington Post for its coverage of his administration. Some inside sources at the Post believe Bezos’s decision may reflect a strategic calculation to avoid alienating the Republican frontrunner, whose support could influence the future regulatory landscape for Amazon and other Bezos-led ventures. The Amazon founder has stayed notably silent on the 2024 election. “This is what we have to look forward to,” Kagan reportedly told The Daily Beast, describing the scenario as a forewarning. “All Trump has to do is threaten the corporate chiefs who run these organizations with real financial loss, and they will bend the knee.” The decision to refrain from endorsements echoes that of the Los Angeles Times, whose billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong similarly declined to support any presidential candidate, resulting in a wave of resignations from the Times' editorial board. At The Washington Post, the decision led to 2,000 canceled subscriptions within 24 hours, a number a staffer described to Semafor as “an unusually high number” for such a short period. Kagan’s claims add fuel to an ongoing debate over the intersection of wealth, media influence, and political power, especially in an election season marked by close scrutiny of media endorsements and the interests they represent. Based on a report from the NYP 2024-10-28

As former head of response and recovery for FEMA, I’ve witnessed firsthand the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events reaching unprecedented levels. The recent devastations wrought by Hurricanes Helene and Milton are painful reminders of how relentless and far-reaching these disasters are becoming. The numbers speak clearly—during my tenure, severe weather triggered disaster declarations every three days on average; in 2024, that rate has jumped to nearly every other day. As natural disasters increase in scope and severity, so too does the onslaught of misinformation, a phenomenon that challenges effective disaster response and undermines public trust in agencies like FEMA. While conspiracy theories surrounding disasters are nothing new, their spread has reached alarming proportions, with falsehoods proliferated by influential public figures and on social media. Now, unsubstantiated claims circulate widely, alleging that disasters are orchestrated by the government or that FEMA’s funding is diverted to undocumented immigrants. These rumors are absurd and patently false, contradicting FEMA’s sole purpose of aiding communities before, during, and after disasters. FEMA’s administrator described the impact of these lies as “demoralizing” to both the communities they aim to serve and to the teams deployed in the field. Misinformation has tangible effects on disaster recovery. Imagine a family refusing critical FEMA assistance because they believe unfounded rumors that the agency will seize their property. Trust in FEMA and its personnel is eroded by these lies, causing unnecessary fear and hesitation among disaster survivors who are already enduring trauma and loss. In recent instances, survivors have even become political pawns, leading some to avoid much-needed aid out of distrust. In my years with FEMA, I have been alongside disaster survivors in their most vulnerable moments—immediately after fires, hurricanes, and other tragedies. The emotional toll is profound, often compounded by the loss of lives, homes, and memories. I was present in Lahaina, Hawaii, following the devastating Maui fire, when the air was thick with smoke and FEMA teams were carrying out the solemn task of identifying victims. The courage and humanity shown by these teams in such moments is beyond words, as they help families find solace amid unimaginable devastation. Sadly, the Lahaina fire was also shadowed by a flood of misinformation. International actors, motivated by a desire to sow division, amplified distrust in government by spreading false narratives. While there is yet no definitive evidence that misinformation around Hurricanes Helene and Milton was driven by foreign influence, history suggests that foreign adversaries will take any opportunity to exploit such crises. Even if the volume of misinformation declines after the election, many of these falsehoods will likely linger. In moments like these, leadership must transcend politics and put people first. True leadership is demonstrated in the aftermath of disasters like Hurricane Helene, where government at every level joins hands with nonprofits, philanthropies, and private sector partners to extend compassion and aid to fellow Americans. Officials across party lines have stood against the tide of misinformation to ensure that their communities receive the support and resources they need to recover. This commitment—this collective fight for truth and service to those in need—is the leadership our communities need most amid these challenging times. Based on a report from the Hill 2024-10-28

In a pivotal election that many viewed as Georgia’s defining moment on its path toward Europe, the ruling Georgian Dream party has claimed victory despite intense controversy and allegations of electoral fraud from opposition groups. With preliminary results showing Georgian Dream leading with 53% of the vote, based on 72% of ballots counted, the opposition decried the results, alleging manipulation and intimidation. "Georgian elections going absolutely Russian as regime thugs stuff ballot boxes then beat up a guy that tries to film it." Exit polls suggested a tight race, with two polls from Edison and HarrisX for pro-opposition TV channels projecting Georgian Dream would receive 40.9% and 42% of the vote, while the combined opposition had a slight majority. In contrast, Imedi TV, a pro-government station, indicated Georgian Dream had 56%. This discrepancy has fueled accusations that the central election commission (CEC), which had promised 90% of results within two hours of polls closing, may have delayed the count to favor the ruling party. Dritan Nesho of HarrisX criticized the CEC, stating, “The onus is on a government body to provide transparency required in an electoral process.” Nesho noted significant inconsistencies in precinct data, such as unusually high support for Georgian Dream in districts where the opposition’s support was expected to dominate. Georgia’s political fate has attracted international attention, as Moscow continues to view much of the former Soviet sphere as part of its domain. Russia’s interest was evident as Georgian Dream promoted a “pragmatic” approach toward Moscow, appealing to the Kremlin by promising a restrained foreign policy and accusing the opposition of trying to create a “new front” for Western interests in Russia’s ongoing conflict with Ukraine. Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), accused the United States of plotting a “Colour Revolution” in Georgia, claiming that Western nations sought to influence the election outcome. For the opposition, however, the stakes go beyond mere political power. “This is the moment,” said Levan Benidze, an opposition supporter. “In future there may be no such moment. I know there are a lot of geopolitical risks—from Russia—but this could be the pivotal moment, a turning point.” Despite Georgian Dream’s claims of continued EU aspirations, the party’s “pragmatic” approach has raised doubts among citizens who believe that aligning with the West remains essential to Georgia’s democratic future. As final results are awaited, Georgia faces a period of tension, with opposition leaders and their supporters demanding a path that aligns more closely with European values and less with the influence of Moscow. Based on a report from the BBC 2024-10-28

In her first appearance on the campaign trail alongside Vice President Kamala Harris, former First Lady Michelle Obama delivered a powerful speech urging Americans to vote against the “dangers” posed by Donald Trump. Speaking in Michigan, a state that could sway the results of the upcoming election, Obama warned that the race was “too close” for comfort. Trump has made a direct appeal to Arab-American voters, whom he believes could sway the election in Michigan. The state is home to the “Uncommitted” movement, a group of voters who are critical of Trump but have withheld endorsement for Harris, citing dissatisfaction with her stance on Israel and Gaza. For these voters, a lack of firm policy commitment to a weapons ban in Gaza remains a sticking point. In contrast, many Democratic voters at the Kalamazoo rally appeared more focused on domestic issues, particularly the protection of abortion rights and their perception of Trump as a threat to democratic values. Kelly Landon, a Canton, Michigan resident, expressed that her main motivation in the election was to safeguard the rights of women to make their own choices and ensure the safety of her female family members. “For me, the health and safety of women and their right to live the way they want to live outweighs other issues,” Landon said, underscoring the priority she places on women’s rights. The close contest in Michigan reflects a broader national divide. While Harris holds a slim lead nationwide according to polling averages, Trump is leading in five out of seven key battleground states that could decide the election. With just days left until November 5, Michigan’s outcome remains uncertain, its voters split between concerns over foreign policy, economic promises, and deeply personal issues like reproductive rights. Based on a report from the BBC 2024-10-28

Thirteen former Trump administration officials issued a stark warning about the potential consequences of a second Trump presidency in an open letter on Friday. The group, comprising lifelong Republicans and previous high-ranking members of Trump’s administration, rallied behind John F. Kelly’s recent statements in which he suggested that Donald Trump’s leadership style could resemble a dictatorship if he returns to office. Kelly, a retired Marine general and Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff, recently shared with The New York Times that Trump had occasionally expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and had questioned the loyalty of U.S. generals. “For the good of our country, our democracy, and our Constitution, we are asking you to listen closely and carefully to General Kelly’s warning,” the former officials wrote. Although they expressed shock at Kelly’s statements, they noted they were “not surprised.” They recalled Trump’s past actions and rhetoric, which they believe point to his “desire for absolute, unchecked power.” While the letter did not specifically claim that any of the signatories directly heard Trump speak favorably about Hitler, it emphasized that they had all “witnessed, up close and personal, how Donald Trump operates and what he is capable of.” The letter underscored the group’s shared view that the American people deserve a leader who would prioritize public interest over personal power. “The American people deserve a leader who won’t threaten to turn armed troops against them, won’t put his quest for power above their needs, and doesn’t idealize the likes of Adolf Hitler,” they asserted. This warning comes amid Trump’s increasingly combative rhetoric; he has described Democrats as “the enemy from within” and has suggested that the National Guard may need to be deployed to address potential internal threats if he wins office again. Signatories of the letter included notable figures such as Stephanie Grisham, former Trump White House press secretary; Olivia Troye, an adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence; and Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as communications director. Alyssa Farah Griffin, previously Pence’s press secretary; Sarah Matthews, a former deputy White House press secretary; and three former Homeland Security Department officials, including Kevin Carroll, Elizabeth Neumann, and Sofia Kinzinger, also lent their voices to the letter. The group’s appeal reflects deep concerns over what they describe as Trump’s “disdain for the American military” and his perceived affinity for authoritarianism. The letter’s release was organized shortly after Kelly’s comments appeared in *The New York Times* earlier in the week. According to Kelly, Trump’s understanding of history was limited, and he had tried to explain the troubling implications of speaking positively about Hitler. Still, Trump reportedly continued to make occasional remarks suggesting Hitler’s achievements. The former aides’ letter echoed Kelly’s sentiments, reinforcing the belief that Trump’s return to office would be characterized by a leadership style placing his personal power over democratic principles. The Trump campaign has not responded to the letter or Kelly’s remarks, leaving unanswered questions about the former president’s stance on the allegations raised by his former allies. Based on a report from the NYT 2024-10-28

A knife-wielding attacker reportedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" and "Long live Palestine" fatally wounded a Swiss tourist in a brutal attack in Algeria, leaving her three children and a friend devastated. The incident occurred on October 11 at the Scanner café terrace in Djanet, a popular tourist destination in southern Algeria. The woman, whose identity remains undisclosed, was attacked while seated with her family and a friend in the bustling city center of Djanet. The assailant, described as a young man from northern Algeria, approached and slit the woman’s throat. She was rushed to the hospital but succumbed to her injuries after losing significant blood, according to reports from Swiss broadcaster RTS. Although the exact motive remains unknown, witnesses stated that the attacker shouted "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is greatest," as well as “Long live Palestine” during the assault. Following the attack, the man quickly fled the scene. In response, Algerian authorities launched a sweeping manhunt, enlisting helicopters and distributing the attacker’s photo to the public. After an intense search, he was apprehended several days later. According to RTS, the man had previously attempted to assault another group of tourists at a local market on the same day but was repelled before he could cause any harm. Locals reported that he had been living in Djanet for six months and was dressed in the style of a "Tuareg," a nomadic ethnic group native to the Sahara. The incident was initially reported by Swiss media but did not gain widespread coverage until it was reported by French newspaper *Libération*. Switzerland's foreign ministry has since confirmed the tragic event, noting it is aware of “the violent death of a Swiss citizen on October 11 in southeastern Algeria.” Authorities also clarified that they have assisted the victim's children and her friend, arranging for their safe return to Switzerland. However, they refrained from disclosing additional details out of respect for the family’s privacy. Algerian authorities have chosen to stay silent on the matter, even advising locals to avoid posting or sharing information about the attack on social media. Reports suggest that this incident has dealt a heavy blow to Algeria’s ongoing efforts to boost tourism, particularly in the Sahara region. Djanet, known for its striking landscapes and cultural heritage, has recently been at the center of the government's promotional campaigns aimed at positioning Algeria as a tourist-friendly destination. Just last year, the country welcomed 2.5 million visitors—the highest figure in two decades—signaling progress for the tourism sector. Algeria’s push for increased tourism comes as the government actively works with ANEP, its media and advertisement agency, to promote the Sahara region as a safe, attractive destination. Despite Algeria’s push for tourism, the country’s past struggles with violence loom large. In the 1990s, Algeria experienced a bloody civil war following the electoral success of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), a group advocating for an Islamic state. Tensions escalated as the FIS clashed with government forces, igniting a conflict that left tens of thousands dead, with Islamist groups bearing much of the responsibility for the casualties. Although Algeria has made strides in stabilizing and reviving its tourism sector, incidents like the recent tragedy in Djanet reveal the challenges that persist as the nation attempts to reshape its image on the global stage. Based on a report from the Daily Mail 2024-10-28

In central London, tensions escalated as thousands of Tommy Robinson supporters marched in what was branded the "Uniting the Kingdom" protest, facing off against a large gathering of anti-fascist counter-protesters. The Metropolitan Police, alongside British Transport Police and other forces, implemented significant security measures, including barricading Parliament Square’s statue of Winston Churchill, as well as the Cenotaph on Whitehall, to prevent damage. Officers also created a “sterile zone” along Whitehall to separate both camps, hoping to limit direct confrontation. Robinson, a far-right activist known legally as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, had organized the rally to rally supporters. The gathering moved from Victoria Station toward Whitehall, where pro-Robinson demonstrators waved Union Flags and banners, some of which displayed inflammatory slogans. Robinson supporters chanted, “Oh Tommy, Tommy,” “We want Starmer out,” and provocative phrases, while others held signs referencing controversial topics like migration and cultural grievances. Demonstrators displayed a massive banner reading “The Rape of Britain” alongside images of political figures including London Mayor Sadiq Khan, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. Other banners demanded the return of deportation policies and criticized asylum programs, while some attendees wore badges commemorating Peter Lynch, a man who died in custody after being jailed for verbally assaulting police officers. Yet, Robinson himself did not attend the march, as he was held in custody following his refusal to provide a phone access code under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Robinson’s absence fueled frustrations among some demonstrators, with supporters calling for his release. The activist is also due in court for an ongoing case regarding alleged breaches of a High Court order that prevents him from repeating libellous claims against a Syrian refugee. Nearby, tens of thousands rallied in a counter-protest organized by Stand Up To Racism, which had called for a massive anti-fascist turnout. Anti-racist demonstrators gathered near Piccadilly Circus and filled the northern end of Whitehall, many holding placards with slogans like “Stop the Far Right” and “No to Islamophobia.” Trade unions, community groups, and activists brought banners from the National Education Union (NEU), RMT, and Fire Brigades Union, with Palestinian flags also present in the crowd. Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the NEU, addressed the crowd, saying, “I was a teacher. When I lined children up for dinner – black, white, Jewish, Muslim – do you know what they did? Hold hands. Our children show us the type of future we all want to see. Let’s stand up to the racists, and build a society fit for all our children.” Arrests were made at both demonstrations. Police apprehended two individuals from Robinson's march for public order offences, including a racially aggravated incident. Among the counter-protesters, one woman was initially detained for assault but later released after providing her information, and another arrest occurred when an officer was assaulted at The Mall. Additional arrests followed, including one for a racist comment directed at a police officer. Stand Up To Racism estimated that Robinson’s march attracted around 25,000 attendees, while 20,000 joined the counter-protest. This rally and counter-protest follow a July demonstration by Robinson supporters, which also attracted tens of thousands, with reports of Islamophobic chants. Robinson has a long history with far-right movements, having formerly been a member of the British National Party and founding the English Defence League. Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-28

Long before he became a household name, South African-born Elon Musk began his entrepreneurial journey in the United States with a dream and a tenuous legal footing. Musk, now a vocal supporter of stricter immigration policies and a major donor to former President Donald Trump, once navigated the complexities of immigration law himself. According to former associates, court records, and documents obtained by *The Washington Post*, Musk worked without legal authorization in his early career, helping to establish what would later become the highly lucrative company Zip2. In 1995, Musk arrived in Palo Alto, California, on a student visa after enrolling in a graduate program at Stanford University. However, he quickly decided against pursuing his studies, opting instead to build his tech startup. Leon Fresco, a former Justice Department immigration litigator, explained that foreign students are not legally permitted to work on business ventures if they have left their studies, even if they are unpaid. Despite his ambitious pursuit of a tech empire, Musk lacked the legal basis to work in the United States. Zip2, initially known as Global Link Information Network, received substantial venture capital funding in 1996, including a $3 million investment from Mohr Davidow Ventures. However, the funding came with a stipulation: Musk, his brother Kimbal, and another associate needed to secure legal work status within 45 days, or the firm would be able to withdraw its investment. Derek Proudian, a Zip2 board member and later its CEO, recalled that the board’s priority was “We don’t want our founder being deported.” Proudian and other investors feared Musk’s precarious immigration status could derail the company’s prospects for growth and eventual public offering. Throughout his career, Musk has often portrayed his immigrant experience as one marked by personal sacrifice and resilience. He has even referenced the gray legal area he operated in at the time, once joking about it in 2013. In a 2020 podcast, he stated that he was “legally there” but working in a “student work” capacity after deferring his Stanford enrollment. However, legal experts and immigration laws at the time indicate that Musk, without proper status, should have left the United States immediately upon withdrawing from Stanford. His decision to stay and build Zip2 was technically unauthorized. In a rare admission in 2005, Musk disclosed in an email to Tesla co-founders that he had no legal right to remain in the country when founding Zip2. He explained that applying to Stanford had been his way to solve both his need for legal status and his financial limitations. “Actually, I didn’t really care much for the degree,” Musk wrote in the email, “but I had no money for a lab and no legal right to stay in the country, so that seemed like a good way to solve both issues.” This early chapter of Musk’s career highlights the contradictions between his current stance on immigration and his own past. Recently, he has used his social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to amplify Republican viewpoints on “open borders” and undocumented immigration, sharing these with over 200 million followers. However, his immigrant story reveals a more complex narrative. His brother Kimbal has also openly spoken about their experiences as immigrants without legal status, calling it a testament to the challenges talented foreigners face under the current U.S. immigration system. “We were illegal immigrants,” Kimbal Musk said, summarizing his experience as part of a broken system. Elon Musk’s journey from an immigrant without legal status to one of America’s most successful tech figures underscores both the obstacles and opportunities present in the U.S. for ambitious newcomers. The story of Musk’s early struggles complicates his present-day advocacy for restrictive immigration policies, highlighting an irony that the world’s wealthiest person—and one of America’s most influential immigrants—began his career on uncertain legal ground. Based on a report from the WP 2024-10-28

Again, posts from @Neeranam removed for blatant trolling, off topic deflections, unsubstaniated claims. Any more of the same will result in an instant posting suspension.

Off topic diversion posts from the usual suspect @Neeranam for your information, read the OP. This is not about you demonizing Israel constantly. More off topic posts like this and you will take a break from posting.

In a significant show of support for Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, global superstar Beyoncé endorsed Harris at a rally in Houston focused on abortion rights. This marks a noteworthy political statement from Beyoncé, nearly seven months after Harris publicly praised the singer’s latest album, *Cowboy Carter*, saying it “redefined a genre and reclaimed country music’s Black roots.” In a city already buzzing with anticipation, Beyoncé’s appearance with longtime friend and fellow Destiny’s Child member, Kelly Rowland, underscored the importance of the moment. Beyoncé and Kelly Rowland take the stage at the Kamala Harris rally in Houston The endorsement from Beyoncé follows another high-profile support Harris recently received from Taylor Swift in September, strengthening Harris’s base in the music community and potentially amplifying her reach among younger voters. A recent poll from the New York Times and Siena College, released just before Beyoncé’s endorsement, showed Harris tied with former President Donald Trump in the popular vote at 48% each. With Beyoncé’s influence, some wonder if her endorsement might sway undecided voters in Harris’s favor and impact the tight race heading into Election Day. Based on a report from USA News 2024-10-26