48.5 F
New York
Saturday, April 20, 2024
Home Blog

Susan Sarandon Joins Anti-Israel Protesters Outside Columbia University

0
Susan Sarandon. (Shutterstock)

(Breitbart) Actress Susan Sarandon joined anti-Israel protesters assembled outside of Columbia University a day after more than a hundred pro-Palestinian activists were arrested.

In video footage posted to X, Sarandon was seen wearing a letter jacket with characters from The Simpsons and leading a group of protesters in a chant as they repeated after her.

In November 2023, Sarandon received backlash after making a comment at a pro-Palestinian rally that Jewish people were “getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country,” in response to a rise in antisemitism.

As a result of her comment, Sarandon was dropped by her agency, United Talent Agency.

Sarandon could be heard saying Friday as a crowd of protesters repeated:

….That it is very important to have their voices heard. And, that it is their right in a democracy, especially in a place of education, and supposedly higher thoughts. To be attacked with racism and intolerance is not acceptable. There are many, many people who stand with you. You must know that you inspire so many people. People who are afraid, people who are old and afraid, are looking to you and your voices, and your organization, and your tenacity, and your kindness to make a difference in the situation. You give me hope, to me and so many people, and in the end, the truth will win.

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the students who were arrested and given summonses for trespassing.

Prior to being arrested, Hirsi had revealed on X that she was among the students who had been suspended from Barnard College over her involvement in the anti-Israel encampment set up on the south lawn of Columbia University.

GOP Bill To Reimpose Trump-Era Houthi Terrorist Designation Passes House With Bipartisan Support

0
AP

Henry(Daily Caller)

The U.S. House passed legislation Wednesday night that was reintroduced in October by Republican Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde and would redesignate Iran-backed Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization.

The Daily Caller first obtained the piece of legislation at the time, which is entitled the Standing Against Houthi Aggression Act. The bill would reinstate sanctions that former President Donald Trump placed on the Iran-backed Houthis, which would designate the group a foreign terrorist organization. In 2021, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump administration’s policy by removing the Houthis from the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist lists.

The bill passed the House in a 285-135 vote. There were 72 Democrats who joined Republicans in voting for the legislation.

“Since stepping foot in the White House, President Biden has gone to great lengths to appease our adversaries, including Iran and its terrorist proxies. In a stunning act of politically motivated spinelessness, President Biden recklessly removed the Iran-backed Houthis’ Foreign Terrorist Organization designation that President Trump rightly imposed on the group,” Clyde said.

READ THE LEGISLATION HERE: 

“I’m incredibly pleased by today’s passage of my bill to place these terrorists back on the FTO list where they belong, as our effort signals bipartisan rejection of Biden’s weakness on the world stage and support for Trump’s strong stance against Iranian terrorism,” Clyde added. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Clyde Introduces Legislation To Redesignate Iran-Backed Houthis As Foreign Terrorist Organization)

The original cosponsors include Reps. Mike Gallagher, Rich McCormick, Andy Ogles, Scott Perry, Guy Reschenthaler, Claudia Tenney and Randy Weber.

Sen. Fetterman: We must talk about the hostages until they come home

0
AP

(A7) Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) posted a video on social media on Friday in which he vowed to keep bringing up the issue of the hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza until they return home.’

Near the start of the war, Fetterman put up posters of the Israelis who were abducted by Hamas in his front office and said that those photos will stay up until every single person is safely returned home.

In Friday’s video, published ahead of Passover which begins at sundown on Monday, the Senator said, “I’m here in my office and all of these hostages, they’ve been up on our walls for over six months. And that’s exactly where they’re gonna stay until everyone is back home.”

“And I’ll never understand why we’re not talking about that more, and why there’s not more stories about that in the media,” he continued.

Fetterman said the hostages should continue to be talked about “until every last one is accounted for and brought back home. Because everyone who wants peace, we have to do this.”

He further pointed out that “if Hamas would just send everybody home and surrender, all the death, destruction and misery in Gaza would end right now.”

Fetterman has shown to be a supporter of Israel, having told Israel’s Channel 12 News in February, “For me personally, it’s been just incredibly easy to be on the right side. And I believe the right side is with Israel. Some people call that moral clarity. It is my job as a senator to be on the right side on any issue, and especially after October 7, there’s only one clear, right side and that’s with Israel.”

When anti-Israel protesters showed up outside Fetterman’s office, chanting accusations of genocide, he responded by waving an Israeli flag from the roof of the building.

Last month, Fetterman condemned the decision by the Biden administration to abstain rather than veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza for the month of Ramadan.

“It’s appalling the US allowed passage of a resolution that fails to condemn Hamas. The UN has always been unwilling to condemn this group of terrorists, cowards and rapists,” he said.

Polls Show Netanyahu’s Support Continuing to Rise in Israel

0
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a press conference at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv on February 29, 2024. (Nimrod Klikman/POOL)

By Joel B. Pollak (Breitbart)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is rising in the polls, despite efforts by the domestic opposition and the U.S. Democratic Party to push him out of office through new elections in the middle of a war.

As Breitbart News reported in February, and again in March, Netanyahu’s poll numbers have been improving in some polls after taking a major hit in October following the Hamas terror attack.

The latest polls continue that trend. The Jerusalem Post reported Friday:

In two recent surveys, the Likud Party and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuhave received the highest levels of support since the Oct. 7 massacre. In the first war, conducted by Maariv, the Likud party has reached a new high since the onset of the conflict, marking significant gains in public support. The poll, spearheaded by Lazar Research in collaboration with Panel4All, indicates that Likud now holds 21 seats [vs. 31 for the opposition National Union Party], a peak since the Swords of Iron War began on October 7. This surge came amidst ongoing tensions and the recent thwarting of an Iranian attack.

The survey also highlights a tightening race for Prime Minister, with Benny Gantz receiving 42% of the support compared to Benjamin Netanyahu‘s 37%. The gap between the two has significantly narrowed, with Gantz’s lead shrinking from 12% to just 5% over the past week.

In a separate but mandated survey by Direct Polls published on Channel 14 this week, a shift in public sentiment shows Gantz’s National Union declining sharply, from over 40 seats to just 22. Meanwhile, Likud would garner 26 seats if elections were held today, showing a different aspect of political dynamics. Additionally, the coalition parties would have 58 seats versus 52 for the opposition, including 10 seats shared between Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al.

Israelis may be rewarding Netanyahu for a successful confrontation with Iran — one that saw Israel take out Iran’s leading generals in the region in Damascus, Syria, and successfully intercept an Iranian drone and missile attack.

In addition, many Israelis trust Netanyahu to stand up to the Biden administration’s flawed policies on Hamas and Iran. Ironically, President Joe Biden’s efforts to oust Netanyahu may have solidified Netanyahu’s domestic support.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, “The Zionist Conspiracy (and how to join it),” now available on Audible. He is also the author of the e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Democrat Rep. Mike Levin Calls for New Israeli Leadership, Breaking Ranks with AIPAC Amid Tense Election Campaign

0

Democrat Rep. Mike Levin Calls for New Israeli Leadership, Breaking Ranks with AIPAC Amid Tense Election Campaign

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In a significant political development, Representative Mike Levin of California, a Democrat facing potential vulnerability in his district, has openly criticized the current Israeli leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to report on Thursday that appeared on the Politico.com web site. During a statement to reporters, Levin expressed his belief that new leadership is necessary in Israel to foster a more peaceful outcome in the region. The Politico report noted that this stance marks a distinct shift for Levin, who has previously received endorsement from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a major pro-Israel lobbying group.

AIPAC, known for its influential role in U.S. politics, particularly in supporting pro-Israel policies, has actively campaigned against elected officials who advocate for a permanent ceasefire in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as was noted in the Politico report.  Despite this, AIPAC has not publicly commented on Levin’s recent remarks.

Levin’s political landscape is further complicated by his designation as the only “frontliner” from California by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, indicating his perceived vulnerability in upcoming elections. According to the information provided in the Politico report, he represents a district that spans parts of San Diego and Orange counties, a region known for its competitive political environment. In the 2022 elections, Levin secured his third term with a relatively narrow margin of 52.6 percent of the vote.

Looking ahead to the 2024 elections, Levin’s stance on Israel could become a significant factor. He will be challenged by Republican Matt Gunderson, who has previously criticized Levin for his perceived lack of unconditional support for Israel, as was pointed out in the Politico report.   Additionally, the National Republican Congressional Committee has targeted Levin over his Israel-related positions, potentially signaling a contentious campaign focused heavily on foreign policy.

Levin, who has been under pressure from protesters in his district, has voiced support for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the region. His stance reflects a nuanced approach; while advocating for a ceasefire, he simultaneously supports military aid to Israel to defend itself against Hamas, which the United States designates as a terrorist organization, as was indicated in the Politico report. Furthermore, Levin has emphasized the importance of humanitarian aid to Gaza, calling it “imperative” to alleviate the humanitarian crisis there while also supporting the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas.

Amid these complex geopolitical dynamics, Levin articulated a vision for the future: “We need a leader in Israel who is committed to a two-state solution,” he stated, firmly opposing the continuation of Hamas’s governance in Gaza, as was explained in the Politico report.

The backdrop to Levin’s remarks includes growing dissent within his party, as evidenced by other prominent Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Politico reported. Schumer recently criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict in Gaza and suggested that new elections might be necessary—a stance that has stirred controversy and backlash.

However, Levin has differentiated his position from Schumer’s more direct criticism of Israeli leadership. He emphasized that any decision regarding leadership changes in Israel should be left to the Israeli people, suggesting that external pressures should not undermine the democratic processes necessary for such decisions: “It needs to be the decision of the Israeli people,” Levin noted, according to the Politico report. He pointed out that external comments could “discourage” the ability of Israeli leaders to conduct fair elections.

 

 

Are Iran’s Nine Lives Nearing An End?

0
AP

By Victor Davis Hanson

The theocracy of Iran has been the world’s arch-embassy attacker over the last half century.

So it has zero credibility in crying foul over Israel’s April 1 attacks on its “consulate” in Damascus and the killing of Iran’s kingpin terrorists of the Revolutionary Guard Corps there.

Remember, the world was first introduced to the Iranian ayatollahs by their violent takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1980.

Iranian surrogates next bombed the American embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks in 1983.

In fact, Iran has attacked U.S. and Israeli diplomatic posts off-and-on for decades, most recently in 2023, when Iran helped plan an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

For this reason and several others, Iran’s justification for sending 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles into Israel on the grounds that Israel had bombed an Iranian diplomatic post is completely ridiculous.

One, Iran has never honored diplomatic immunity. Instead, it habitually attacks and kills embassy personnel and blows up diplomatic facilities across the world.

Two, on April 1, the Israelis attacked a pseudo-“consulate” in Damascus that was hosting grandees of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as they planned terrorist attacks on Israel.

Without Iran, the Middle East might have had a chance to use its enormous oil and natural gas wealth to lift its 500 million people out of poverty rather than to be mired in constant tribal and religious anti-Israeli, anti-American and anti-Western terrorism.

During the Iraq War, Iran’s Shiite terrorists and its massive supplies of deadly shaped-charge explosive devices killed hundreds of Americans. It routinely hijacks container ships in the Straits of Hormuz and stages near collisions with American ships and planes.

How does Iran get away with nonstop anti-Western terrorism, its constant harassment of Persian Gulf maritime traffic, its efforts to subvert Sunni moderate regimes and its serial hostage-taking?

The theocrats operate on three general principles.

One, Iran is careful never to attack a major power directly.

Until this week, it had never sent missiles and drones into Israel. Its economy is one-dimensionally dependent on oil exports. And its paranoid government distrusts its own people, who have no access to free elections.

So Iranian strategy over the last few decades has relied on surrogates—especially expendable Arab Shiite terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, along with the Sunni Arabs of Hamas — to do its dirty work of killing Israelis and Americans.

It loudly egged all of them on and then cowardly denied responsibility once it feared Israeli or American retaliation.

Two, it has fooled Western governments and especially left-wing American administrations by posing as a persecuted victim. Iran claims it is the champion of aggrieved Shiite Arab and Persian minorities, unfairly exploited by Israel, moderate Arab regimes and rich Sunni Gulf monarchies.

Three, Iran hopes its pseudo-diplomatic outreach to left-wing Western governments, coupled with its lunatic existential threats and unleashing terrorist attacks on its enemies, can coax or bully the West into granting it concessions — especially time to acquire a dozen or so nuclear weapons.

Yet for all its loud, creepy threats, Iran is incredibly weak and vulnerable.

Israel and its allies shot down almost all its recent nocturnal missile and drone barrages. Lots of other missiles reportedly blew up on liftoff in Iran or crashed in transit.

Before the Biden appeasement of Iran, the Trump administration had isolated and nearly bankrupted Tehran and its proxies. Its Revolutionary Guard terrorist planners proved to be easy targets once they operated outside Iran.

Iran’s only hope is to get a bomb and, with it, nuclear deterrence to prevent retaliation when it increases its terrorist surrogate attacks on Israel, the West and international commerce.

Yet now Iran may have jumped the shark by attacking the Israeli homeland for the first time. It is learning that it has almost no sympathetic allies.

Does even the Lebanese Hezbollah really want to take revenge against Israel on behalf of Persian Iran, only to see its Shiite neighborhoods in Lebanon reduced to rubble?

Do all the pro-Hamas protestors on American campuses and in the streets really want to show Americans they celebrate Iranian attacks and a potential Iranian war against the United States?

Does Iran really believe 99 percent of any future Israel barrage against Iranian targets would fail to hit targets in the fashion that its own recent launches failed?

Does Iran really believe that its sheer incompetence in attacking Israel warrants them a pardon — as if they should be excused for trying, but not succeeding, to kill thousands of Jews?

In sum, by unleashing a terrorist war in the Middle East and targeting the Israeli homeland, Iran may wake up soon and learn Israel, or America, or both might retaliate for a half-century of its terrorist aggression — and mostly to the indifference or even the delight of most of the world.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won,” from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected].

Can We Shield Our Children from the Overwhelming Influence of Smartphones?

0
(Photo Credit: Shutterstock)

Can We Shield Our Children from the Overwhelming Influence of Smartphones?

Jonathan Haidt’s latest work, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing An Epidemic of Mental Illness,” serves as a pivotal moment in our understanding of the burgeoning mental health crisis facing today’s youth. This book, underpinned by Haidt’s robust academic credentials and a career dedicated to studying emotion, culture, morality, and more recently, child development and adolescent mental health, captures a truth many have felt but few have been able to articulate with such clarity.

In his book, Haidt crystallizes what has become an open secret: the deep and detrimental impact of social media and gaming on the mental health of the younger generation. Generation Z, those born post-1995, finds itself at the epicenter of this crisis. They matured as several technological innovations converged—a perfect storm that included the ubiquity of the iPhone, the spread of broadband internet, the rise of hyper-viralized social media, and the introduction of the front-facing camera on smartphones.

This generation was the first to experience adolescence with these technologies as constants in their daily lives. The consequences, as Haidt discusses, have been profound. The relentless pressure to curate perfect online personas for both peers and strangers has led to an unparalleled scrutiny and a hypercritical culture that have contributed significantly to the escalation of mental health issues among the youth.

Haidt’s arguments are not merely observational but are backed by data that expose a stark correlation between the rise in mental health issues and the pervasive reach of social media and digital technologies. His insights provide the empirical backing needed to turn what many have long suspected into a conversation backed by evidence, giving it a new sense of urgency and legitimacy.

This is more than an academic discussion. It’s a call to action for parents, educators, policymakers, and indeed the entire society, to acknowledge and address the elephant in the room. It challenges us to rethink how we allow our children to interact with technology and to consider the long-term implications of a digitally saturated upbringing.

The significance of Haidt’s serves as a thunderclap, awakening us to a crisis that is unfolding in real-time, one tweet, like, and share at a time. It empowers communities, particularly parents’ groups, to demand and create change that prioritizes the mental health and well-being of our children over the profits of tech companies.

The sharp increase in smartphone ownership and the subsequent rise in screen time have fundamentally altered the landscape of adolescence, thrusting an entire generation into a digital realm fraught with both opportunities and perils.

In 2011, only 23% of teens had a smartphone, according to Pew Research. This limited their access to the burgeoning world of social media to times when they could use a family computer. By 2016, this figure had skyrocketed to 79% among teens and 28% among children ages 8 to 12. The implications of this shift are staggering, with teens now reporting nearly seven hours of screen time per day. This constant connectivity has ushered in a new era of social interaction, where virtual engagements often replace face-to-face human connections.

The timing of this digital immersion coincides perilously with a critical developmental phase: puberty. During this period, the brain undergoes significant changes, adapting and responding to its environment in ways that will shape its long-term structure and function. Haidt points out that the activities engaged in during this time—whether they be physical, intellectual, or social—have a profound impact on neural development. The adage “neurons that fire together, wire together” calls attention to the lasting influence of habitual actions and experiences during these formative years.

For the current generation, these experiences increasingly occur in a digital context, away from direct human interaction. The ramifications are visible and multifaceted. Girls, for instance, are transitioning their social interactions to platforms like Instagram and Snapchat, environments that often prioritize superficial aesthetics over genuine connections. Boys, meanwhile, are losing themselves in immersive video games and other online content, including YouTube and potentially harmful sites like pornography. These platforms offer escapism and instant gratification but do little to foster the emotional and social skills necessary for mature interpersonal relationships.

Perhaps most concerning is the decline in “embodied social behaviors”—the fundamental human interactions involving play, conversation, physical touch, and eye contact. These activities are not merely recreational; they are essential for emotional and social development. They teach empathy, understanding, conflict resolution, and build a myriad of other skills that cannot be replicated in a digital environment. The lack of these interactions can lead to a range of developmental issues, from poor social skills and loneliness to more severe mental health conditions like depression and anxiety.

The situation, as outlined by Haidt, is not merely a change in the mode of communication; it represents a significant and potentially dangerous experiment in human development. This generation of children and adolescents is navigating a radically different landscape, one that previous generations were not exposed to, and the long-term impacts are still not fully understood.

It is imperative, then, that this issue be met with urgent actions from multiple fronts. Parents, educators, and policymakers must come together to address the challenges posed by digital saturation. This could involve setting limits on screen time, especially for younger children, promoting more face-to-face interactions, and integrating digital literacy education that includes the psychological impacts of screen time into school curriculums.

Moreover, there is a pressing need for further research into the effects of digital media on young brains. Such studies will help in crafting strategies that can mitigate the negative impacts while enhancing the positive aspects of digital technology.

In essence, the current situation calls for a balanced approach that recognizes the benefits of digital advancements while also protecting young minds from their potential harms. Without such measures, we risk precipitating a mental health crisis that could have lasting effects on future generations.

 

 

Surging Mortgage Rates & Commission Uncertainty Shake U.S. Housing Market Amidst Regulatory Overhaul

0
pixabay

Surging Mortgage Rates & Commission Uncertainty Shake U.S. Housing Market Amidst Regulatory Overhaul

Edited by: TJVNews.com

The U.S. housing market is encountering renewed volatility as mortgage rates surge past 7%, leading to a significant decline in home sales. According to a recently published report in the Wall Street Journal, this turbulence is compounded by uncertainty surrounding real estate commissions, all of which are reshaping the landscape for buyers, sellers, and the broader economy.

In March, the average rate on the standard 30-year fixed mortgage ascended sharply to 7.1%, as reported by Freddie Mac. This rate, the highest since late 2023, represents a near quarter percentage point increase from the previous week, marking the largest weekly surge in nearly a year, as was detailed in the WSJ report. This uptick in mortgage rates is a pivotal factor behind the cooling housing market, as higher borrowing costs directly impact buyer affordability.

Concurrently, existing home sales experienced a downturn, falling 4.3% from February to March, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). This decline is the most substantial monthly percentage drop since November 2022, signaling a potentially rocky road ahead for real estate activity. The information provided in the WSJ report indicated that the decline in sales reflects a stark reversal from the positive momentum observed at the beginning of the year, where a temporary dip in mortgage rates spurred a flurry of buyer activity, including increased listings and real estate showings.

However, as mortgage rates began to climb again in February, the burgeoning optimism was quickly dampened. The escalation in borrowing costs is dragging affordability towards the historic lows witnessed last year, with home prices remaining near record highs. Additionally, the report in the WSJ noted that other homeownership expenses such as insurance premiums, property taxes, and maintenance costs have seen significant increases, further straining potential buyers’ budgets.

Amidst these financial pressures, there is also looming uncertainty about changes to the rules governing real estate agent commissions. A historic settlement was reached last month following claims that the industry had conspired to keep agent commissions artificially high. The impending new regulations, set to take effect in July, aim to make it easier for home buyers to negotiate fees with their agents. As was pointed out in the WSJ report, this change is intended to potentially lower the costs for buyers but has introduced a degree of uncertainty that could cause both buyers and sellers to delay their market activities until the implications of these new rules are clearer.

Selma Hepp, chief economist at CoreLogic, notes the resulting confusion and hesitation among potential homebuyers. “There’s so many mixed signals now in the market that for many people, it’s just too much,” Hepp explained to the WSJ, indicating a growing trend of prospective buyers opting to “sit it out” amid the uncertainty.

This hesitation is partly fueled by the broader economic context, especially inflation rates and monetary policy responses. As per the report in the WSJ, recent data showing stronger-than-expected inflation has led to speculation that the Federal Reserve might maintain higher interest rates for an extended period. In turn, this affects the yield on 10-year Treasury notes, a benchmark that closely influences mortgage rates. As these yields have risen, so too have the costs of securing a mortgage, adding another layer of complexity for would-be homebuyers.

The supply of available homes remains critically low, a factor that continues to drive prices upward despite the cooling demand. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the national median existing-home price in March escalated to $393,500, marking a 4.8% increase from the previous year. Speaking to the WSJ was Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist. He  emphasized the dire need for more inventory, stating, “Home sales are essentially stuck. We need more inventory, definitely.”

This shortage is reflected in the sales volume of existing homes, which constitute a significant segment of the market. Data shows a notable decline of 3.7% in March on an annual basis, with a seasonally adjusted drop of 4.8% from February to March as estimated by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.

Adding to the complexity is the impending modification in the rules governing how real estate agents are compensated. These changes, aimed at increasing transparency and potentially reducing costs for buyers by enabling more straightforward negotiation of agent fees, are causing both buyers and sellers to hesitate, the WSJ report indicated.

This uncertainty about commission structures is particularly impactful because it intersects with broader financial considerations about affordability and market participation. If buyers believe they can secure lower costs by waiting, they may delay purchasing decisions, which could dampen the market activity typically seen in the spring.

In the case of David Bramlett and Alexandra Hodson, the decision to delay their home purchase last fall and re-enter the market this year proved to be fortuitous. According to the information contained in the WSJ report, the couple purchased a four-bedroom home with a yard in Cumming, Georgia, for $480,000 in March. Bramlett’s experience highlights a less competitive market, which he attributes to their timing: “There was no bidding war,” he noted, when speaking with the WSJ. “It was good to get in when we did, where we did, with a motivated seller.” This anecdote illustrates how strategic timing and patience can sometimes benefit buyers, especially during periods when market dynamics shift.

However, not all homebuyers have experienced similar conditions. The broader market has shown signs of tension and uncertainty. According to real estate brokerage Redfin, the median monthly payment for a home purchase climbed to $2,775 in the four weeks ending April 14, marking a substantial increase of 10.6% from the previous year, as was pointed out in the WSJ report. This rise in costs reflects the growing challenge of affordability in many parts of the country.

Clint Jordan, a real estate agent in Colorado Springs, Colorado, observed a significant slowdown in both March and April. Also speaking to the WSJ, he pointed to rising interest rates as a key factor causing prospective buyers to hesitate: “Rates are a little bit higher, so a lot of our buyers are sitting back.” This sentiment is echoed across various markets in the U.S., where the uptick in interest rates has directly impacted buyer enthusiasm and capability.

The connection between interest rates and home buying activity is a critical one. As rates increase, the cost of borrowing money to buy a home rises, which can significantly affect a buyer’s decision-making process. This relationship speaks volumes about the sensitivity of the housing market to broader economic indicators, particularly the policies set by financial institutions regarding interest rates.

As the housing market navigates through these choppy waters, potential buyers and sellers must consider a range of factors. Economic conditions such as inflation, interest rate fluctuations, and general economic stability play significant roles in shaping market dynamics. Additionally, the WSJ report said that individual circumstances such as timing, location, and the specifics of local markets can drastically affect the outcome of buying or selling a home.

According to a 2023 analysis by CBRE, a global real estate services firm, the average monthly new mortgage payment was 38% higher than the average apartment rent in the U.S. at the end of the year. This disparity marks a significant premium that has persisted in the double digits for two years—a trend unprecedented in its duration and intensity.

Matt Vance, senior director and Americas Head of Multifamily Research at CBRE, noted while speaking with the WSJ, “It’s never been this high for this long.” He added, “It doesn’t seem likely that it will come down any significant amount in the next several years.” This ongoing disparity is partly fueled by the sustained rise in home prices coupled with relatively high mortgage rates, which together have escalated the costs of homebuying well beyond the rate of rental increases.

This shift towards renting over buying could have significant economic implications. For one, it affects household spending patterns, as renting might allow for more flexibility and liquidity than owning a home, as was explained in the WSJ report. However, it also means that fewer people are building home equity, traditionally a key component of long-term wealth accumulation in the U.S.

Moreover, the high cost of homeownership could contribute to a slower rate of household formation, as young adults and other potential first-time homebuyers may find themselves priced out of the market. Indicated in the WSJ report was that this demographic shift could have long-term effects on consumer spending and the overall economic health.

Looking forward, the real estate market faces a complex array of challenges. While the Federal Reserve’s policies will continue to influence interest rates and mortgage costs, other factors like demographic trends, the supply chain issues affecting new home construction, and broader economic conditions will play critical roles in shaping the market.

 

For the Sake of NPR’s Integrity, Katherine Maher Should Step Down

0
Katherine Maher

For the Sake of NPR’s Integrity, Katherine Maher Should Step Down

In the arena of public trust, the credibility of news organizations hinges profoundly on the perceived impartiality and integrity of their leadership. A recent revelation concerning National Public Radio (NPR) brings this delicate balance into stark relief, casting shadows of doubt over the impartiality that is sacrosanct in journalism.

Katherine Maher, who has recently taken the helm as CEO of NPR, was discovered to have donated $500 to Fair Fight, a political action committee led by Stacey Abrams, known for its staunch stance on election integrity issues, particularly following the contentious 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race. It is essential to scrutinize the implications of such a donation made by someone who now leads a major, taxpayer-funded national news organization.

The essence of this concern lies not in the mere act of donating — as private citizens undoubtedly have the right to support political causes of their choosing — but in the particular alignment of this donation with a group that has actively challenged the legitimacy of an election outcome. Stacey Abrams, after her defeat in the 2018 race, vehemently contested the results, levied serious accusations against the integrity of voting systems, and engaged in legal battles that were ultimately dismissed, with her organization bearing the cost of legal fees for what was determined to be a baseless challenge.

Now consider a hypothetical yet analogous scenario where a high-ranking executive at ABC News had made donations to a fund supporting Donald Trump post-January 6, amidst swirling controversies and debunked claims of a stolen election. The uproar from the journalism community and the public would be swift and unforgiving, likely culminating in a forced resignation due to the untenable position of appearing to endorse alleged falsehoods about democratic processes.

This isn’t just about individual rights or partisan affiliations; it’s about the broader implications for journalistic integrity. NPR, funded by public dollars, occupies a unique position of trust. It is expected to deliver news and analysis that is not only factual but also free from the taint of partisan bias. This expectation is not merely idealistic but foundational to the role of the press in a democracy.

The revelation of Maher’s donation to an organization that has been at the forefront of contesting electoral outcomes without substantive evidence raises serious questions. It unavoidably colors perceptions of NPR’s neutrality and undermines its credibility, especially in the run-up to another election cycle. If the leader of such an organization has financially supported efforts that many consider to be undermining the democratic process, how can the public be assured that the coverage provided by her organization remains unbiased?

The role of a CEO in any organization, especially a journalistic one, carries the burden of not just managing operations and strategy but also embodying the ethical and professional standards that the organization espouses. In the case of NPR, Maher’s past donation, though legally and ethically her right as a private citizen, becomes a point of contention in her role as a leader of a national news organization.

This issue is further compounded by Maher’s history of controversial public statements and the broader accusations of pervasive progressive bias at NPR, highlighted by the departure of a long-serving veteran of the organization. The situation calls for a deeper examination of both the standards applied to media executives and the implications of their personal political activities on their professional responsibilities.

Furthermore, Maher’s public statements, such as the controversial tweet likening modern-day looting to a historical response against a system of oppression, reflect a personal ideology that seems to align closely with the type of progressive groupthink that some critics argue has overtaken NPR. Such views, when expressed by the leader of a news organization, can cast doubts on the fairness and balance of its reporting. This is particularly problematic in an era where the public’s trust in media is already dangerously low.

NPR’s silence in response to inquiries about its awareness of Maher’s donation and whether it believes a person with her background is suitable for the role of CEO only adds to the concerns. Transparency and accountability are crucial in maintaining public trust, especially when it involves a publicly funded entity.

Maher’s controversial TED Talk, in which she questioned the primacy of truth by suggesting that “our reverence for the truth might be a distraction” and promoting the idea that “we all have different truths,” strikes at the heart of journalistic ethics. Such statements, which have drawn widespread criticism from both journalists and public intellectuals, are antithetical to the foundational beliefs of journalism as a profession dedicated to truth-seeking. For journalists at NPR, who pride themselves on rigorous fact-checking and unbiased reporting, such a philosophical stance from their leader is not just confusing but deeply concerning.

Additionally, Maher’s expressed views on the First Amendment and misinformation are troubling. Labeling Senator Tom Cotton’s op-ed as “misinformation” and implying that such expressions of differing opinions should not be published is a stark departure from the traditional journalistic values of free speech and open debate. This stance undermines the role of journalism in fostering a well-informed public discourse and stands in contrast to the values upheld by previous generations of journalists who championed press freedom as fundamental to democracy.

Given these concerns, it becomes increasingly clear that Maher’s position as the leader of NPR is untenable. Her controversial views and actions have not only damaged her reputation for nonpartisanship but have also potentially jeopardized the credibility of NPR itself. In an era where public trust in media is both fragile and paramount, the leader of a taxpayer-funded organization must not only be free of bias but must also be perceived to be free of bias.

The leadership of NPR faces a decisive moment. They must consider whether continuing under Maher’s leadership is in the best interest of the organization and its mandate to serve the public with news that can be trusted. For the sake of NPR’s integrity and its role in upholding the highest standards of journalism, Katherine Maher should step down. This action would serve as a commitment to NPR’s foundational principles and as a signal to the public that it remains a stalwart of unbiased reporting in an increasingly polarized media landscape.

Super Wealthy Americans Pause Purchases of Private Jets & Yachts Hoping for Trump’s Tax Triumph

0
Donald Trump posted a $175 million bond in his NY civil fraud case. Photo Credit: AP

Super Wealthy Americans Pause Purchases of Private Jets & Yachts Hoping for Trump’s Tax Triumph

Edited by: TJVNews.com

Amid the approaching presidential election, members of the ultra-wealthy 1% are strategically pausing their purchases of high-ticket items such as private jets and yachts, anticipating potential tax savings should Donald Trump reclaim the presidency, as was reported on Friday in the New York Post. This calculated delay stems from a belief that Trump’s election could lead to the reinstatement of favorable tax provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which significantly benefitted high-net-worth individuals.

The 2017 legislation, championed by Trump during his first term, included a particularly advantageous tax deduction known as 100% depreciation. According to the information provided in the Post report, this provision allows businesses to deduct the full cost of certain capital investments—such as jets and yachts used predominantly for business purposes—directly from their tax bills. For example, under this rule, a $40 million jet would translate to a $40 million deduction, which at the average tax rate of 37% for the wealthiest Americans, could mean nearly $15 million in tax savings.

These deductions are not only applicable to the initial purchase price but extend to operational costs as well, provided these expenses are justified as business necessities, such as flying to meetings or hosting clients. The current trajectory of tax policy, however, has seen these benefits being phased out. Indicated in the Post report was that the allowable deduction for capital investments has decreased from 80% last year to 60% this year and is scheduled to further reduce to 40% in 2025, reaching zero by 2027 unless there is legislative intervention to extend or restore the cuts.

This looming reduction in tax advantages has motivated affluent individuals and business owners to adopt a wait-and-see approach. A bi-coastal business owner, contemplating substantial investments in both a jet and a yacht, exemplifies this trend. He told The Post, “If I can save millions on my taxes by waiting a few more months, I will.” His statement reflects a broader sentiment among the wealthy, who are aligning their investment decisions with potential political and legislative changes that could favor their financial interests.

Donald Trump’s communication with influential circles about his intentions to restore the 2017 tax cuts further fuels these expectations. As was noted in the Post report, at a recent fundraiser in Palm Beach hosted by hedge fund manager John Paulson, Trump reiterated his commitment to reinstating these tax provisions, a pledge that has resonated strongly with his wealthy supporters and potential donors.

Amid the backdrop of the Palm Beach International Boat Show, where over 800 boats were showcased and more than 55,000 visitors attended, the potential impact of the upcoming presidential election on luxury asset purchases became a focal point of discussion among industry insiders. According to the Post report, a source involved with the event highlighted a palpable sense of anticipation, with many attendees deliberating whether to delay purchasing decisions until after the election, reflecting broader trends within the luxury sectors of yachts and private jets.

The consideration of postponing such significant investments is driven by the Republican Party’s promises to reinstate full tax write-offs for certain business expenses, including those associated with the operation and purchase of yachts and jets, the Post report said. These incentives are highly attractive to businesses and wealthy individuals, offering substantial financial benefits that can significantly influence purchasing decisions.

The yacht and private jet industries are notoriously discreet, often characterized by private sales and a clientele that values confidentiality. This privacy extends to the sales figures of events like the boat show, which remain undisclosed, adding an element of mystery to the market’s dynamics. However, the Post report pointed out that the sentiment among potential buyers at the show was clear, with many opting to wait and see how the political landscape evolves, especially regarding tax policy, before committing to large expenditures.

This strategic postponement is corroborated by trends noted by industry experts such as Michael Mikolay, CEO of Mikolay Jet Group. The report in the Post said that Mikolay has observed a slowdown in demand across various classes of private aircraft. For instance, the market for super-midsize jets, such as the Gulfstream G280 or Bombardier Challenger 300 — capable of flying distances like New York to London — has seen a dip. These aircraft, while luxurious and efficient, come with a hefty price tag starting around $12 million. Similarly, demand for ultra-long range aircraft, which can cost upwards of $75 million and cover distances from New York City to the Middle East, like the Bombardier Global 6000 or Gulfstream G700, has also softened.

The Post report said that Mikolay also pointed out that the current market for pre-owned jets is facing a surplus, with supply outstripping demand. This observation is reflected in the sales figures: between October 2023 and March 2024, there were 719 jets sold, a decline from the 815 jets sold during the same period the year prior.

These trends suggest a cautious approach among buyers, who are sensitive to changes in economic policies that could affect their investment returns. As explained in the Post report, the possibility of restored tax benefits plays a significant role in this dynamic, potentially leading to deferred decisions on high-value purchases until after the election’s outcome is clear.

The situation in the yacht market presents a varied picture. According to super yacht broker Jamie Edmiston, the most luxurious yachts—those costing upwards of $65 million—continue to attract international buyers without a noticeable decline in sales, as per the information contained in the Post report, However, the market for slightly less expensive yachts, ranging from $40 million to $65 million, is experiencing a softening. This indicates that while the ultra-luxury segment remains resilient, the broader market is becoming more cautious, likely due to economic factors and the anticipation of potential changes in tax policy.

Tax considerations are particularly influential in the decision-making processes of those purchasing luxury assets for business purposes. As was reported by the Post, one source in the jet industry noted that while personal luxury expenditures such as purchasing a high-end Birkin bag may proceed uninhibited, investments in business assets such as jets are scrutinized more closely for potential tax savings. The possibility of major tax incentives, such as those seen in previous administrations, can lead to deferred purchasing decisions. The report added that business owners, understanding the substantial savings that could arise from favorable tax legislation, are inclined to delay acquisitions until the fiscal environment becomes clearer.

This sensitivity to tax implications is not unique to the super-wealthy but is a common factor across all economic segments—everyone seeks to minimize their tax liabilities within the bounds of the law. This strategic financial behavior is especially pronounced during election years, as noted by Amanda Applegate, a partner at Soar Aviation Law. The Post reported that she observed that sales typically slow down in presidential election years, with the slowdown becoming more pronounced as the election nears, particularly around August.

David Hernandez, Chair of Business Aviation and Regulation practice at the law firm VedderPrice, provided insights to the Post concerning the challenges and strategies involved in these high-stakes investments.

Hernandez advises his clients on the risks associated with delaying purchases in anticipation of more favorable tax treatments. While the lure of potential tax savings is significant, this strategy does not come without its pitfalls, as was detailed in the Post report. One major risk is the possibility of increased prices at the end of the fiscal year. Sellers are often aware that buyers who delay their purchases in hopes of capitalizing on tax breaks might become desperate as the year closes. This can lead to inflated prices, negating some of the financial benefits the buyer might have gained from any new tax incentives.

Moreover, Hernandez highlighted another growing concern that is making potential buyers hesitant: increased scrutiny by the IRS. As was noted in the Post report, following an announcement in February, the IRS has ramped up audits of jet owners, particularly targeting high-income individuals who might be using these expensive assets for personal rather than business-related travel. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel emphasized that with expanded resources, the IRS is intensifying its efforts to ensure that those who claim business deductions for aircraft are genuinely using them for legitimate business purposes, such as flying to meet clients or oversee investments, the Post added. This move is part of a broader initiative to ensure that high-income groups meet their tax responsibilities without exploiting loopholes.

The IRS’s focus is on verifying the actual use of private jets that are written off as business expenses. This means that owners need to be diligent about documenting their use of the aircraft to substantiate their tax deductions. Pointed out in the Post report was that the misuse of such deductions for personal travel, such as trips to vacation destinations like the Bahamas, could lead to significant penalties and back taxes, adding a layer of financial and legal risk to owning a private jet.

This enhanced scrutiny has added a “chilling factor” to the market, as potential buyers must now weigh the benefits of owning a private jet against the increased risk of audits and the implications of being found non-compliant with tax laws. The combination of potentially higher prices due to strategic purchasing delays and the risk of rigorous tax audits is reshaping how individuals approach the acquisition of luxury aircraft.

 

Man sets himself on fire outside Trump trial in NYC

0

A man has set himself on fire outside the courthouse in New York where former US President Donald Trump is on trial.

Max Azzarello, a self-described ‘investigative researcher’’ has been identified as the self -immolating man,’

Moments before he doused himself in gasoline and set himself ablaze, Azzarello tossed a stack of pamphlets into the air, which included links to a Substack newsletter apparently authored by the self-immolator called “The Ponzi Papers.”, according to the NY Post.

 

Newsweek reported on the details 

Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung, who has been reporting from inside the courtroom all week, said the man was holding a sign before the incident, which included a link to a Substack site. A letter on the site was entitled, “I have set myself on fire outside the Trump Trial.”

“My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan,” the site reads.

“This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery: We are victims of a totalitarian con, and our own government (along with many of their allies) is about to hit us with an apocalyptic fascist world coup.”

The man was in the designated protest area outside the courthouse, Fox News reported

It comes after jury selection for Trump’s hush money trial concluded with 12 people, and six alternatives, chosen to decide whether the former US president covered up payments to women who alleged they had affairs with him.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Video Appears To Show Pro-Palestinian Activist Shoving Israeli Arab At Columbia University

0
screenshot

By Ilan Hulkower(Daily Caller)

A masked pro-Palestinian activist near Columbia University appeared to shove and throw a punch at an Israeli Arab who was expressing pro-Israel sentiments Thursday near Columbia University.

“I was physically attacked by pro-terror protesters before my lecture at Columbia University. Instead of a lecture, I had to file a complaint with the police. They may have drawn blood but these cowards will never stop me,” Yoseph Haddad, the Israeli Arab, tweeted alongside a video of the incident.

The altercation appeared to begin with the masked protester shoving Haddad from behind. When Haddad got up, the masked protester appeared to throw a punch. Haddad then ran away from the confrontation.

“I just got punched in the face,” Haddad said. Blood appeared to be present on his lip. Police then escorted the angry protestor away, who said he did not punch Haddad.

Haddad also posted a photo of his cut lip. “I’m not moved by some stupid and violent pro-Hamas protesters,” he wrote in Hebrew after noting that he received messages from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers inquiring about his wellbeing.

Haddad also tweeted out other photos of the demonstration that day. “They can curse, they can threaten, they can also attack… But they cannot stop me and the truth that I represent as a proud Israeli Arab citizen. I will keep fighting to counter their anger!” he wrote.

Haddad is a correspondent for the Israeli news outlet i24 News and the CEO of Together Vouch For Each Other. Haddad’s organization is dedicated toward “bridging the gap between the Arab sector of Israeli society with Israeli society as a whole,” the Jewish National Fund says. Haddad also served in the IDF.

Biden admin sanctions additional supporters of ‘violent extremists in the West Bank’

0
President Joe Biden speaks on the US banking system after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, March 13, 2023. (Shutterstock)

(JNS) The U.S. Treasury Department announced new sanctions on two Israeli charities and an Israeli citizen for supporting “violent extremists in the West Bank” on Friday.

The Mount Hebron Fund and Shlom Asiraich (“The Well-Being of Your Prisoners”) raised the equivalent of $140,000 and $31,000, respectively, in crowdfunding campaigns for Yinon Levi and David Chai Chasdai.

The crowdfunding campaigns were removed from their respective websites, and the funds for Levi were “withheld by a local financial institution,” according to Treasury.

Shlom Asiraich previously raised money for Yigal Amir, who assassinated former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.

The Biden administration sanctioned Levi and Chasdai in February along with two other Israelis that it accused of engaging in “extremist settler violence” and “undermining peace, security and stability in the West Bank.”

The U.S. State Department added Ben Zion (“Bentzi”) Gopstein to that list on Friday. Gopstein was convicted of incitement to racism by an Israeli court in January.

“The Department of State is today designating Ben Zion Gopstein, the founder and leader of Lehava, an organization whose members have engaged in destabilizing violence affecting the West Bank,” said State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller. “Under Gopstein’s leadership, Lehava and its members have been involved in acts or threats of violence against Palestinians, often targeting sensitive or volatile areas.”

U.S. sanctions against Israelis have been deeply criticized by Israeli politicians, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said he protested to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in February.

“If the U.S. wanted to use it in an equal manner it would have imposed sanctions on hundreds of thousands of Palestinians,” Netanyahu said at a press conference in February. “I told Blinken it is a highly problematic thing.”

Israel Downplays Iran Strikes; Proof of Capability, Rather than Escalation

0

Joel B. Pollak(Breitbart)
Israel downplayed reported airstrikes against Iran that appeared to hit targets near that country’s suspected nuclear program on Friday, seeming to cast the operation as proof Israel could reach the sites, rather than a full-scale attack.

As Breitbart News noted, there were media reports that Israeli drones, or missiles, had hit targets near Isfahan, Iran — close to the Natanz nuclear facility — as well as targets in Syria and Iraq. Israel’s Army Radio repeated these reports.

However, there were no reports of what the damage might have been, and one Israeli lawmaker — national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir — posted dismissively on Twitter/X that the attack had been a “scarecrow,” or “lame.”

That post appeared to represent an acknowledgment by Israel that it was, in fact, the source of the strikes — which would have been a counterattack to Iran’s massive missile and drone attack last weekend, which Israel intercepted.

While some in Israel wanted a more forceful response, seeing an opportunity to target Iran’s nuclear program and even the regime itself, others believed that simply demonstrating Iran’s limits, and Israel’s capabilities, was enough.

The U.S. appeared to discourage a strong Israeli response, with President Joe Biden reportedly telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to respond, and that the U.S. would not be party to any counterattack by Israel.

However, Israel had already pledged to respond to any attack originating from Iranian territory — as most of the missiles and drones had done — with a direct attack on Iran. Israeli military leaders reaffirmed that pledge this week.

There were reports that Israel had agreed to limit its response to Iran in exchange for obtaining U.S. approval for an operation in the city of Rafah, in Gaza, to destroy the last Hamas battalions there.

It is also possible that the U.S. threatened to allow a United Nations Security Council resolution approving a Palestinian state to pass if Israel did not restrain itself. The administration was coy about whether it would veto the resolution until just hours before the vote.

The most immediate threat to Israeli security is Iranian-backed Hezbollah, the terrorist army on its northern border. As Breitbart News reported this week, some 60,000 Israelis are still refugees from Israel’s northern border towns. Hezbollah continues to fire missiles, rockets, and drones at those communities, and Israel has been returning fire. Earlier this week, it was confirmed that Israeli commandos were operating on the Lebanese site of the border.

For Israelis, the priorities are finishing Hamas, rescuing the hostages, pushing Hezbollah back from the border, and removing the threat to shipping by the Houthis in Yemen.

Iran backs all of these groups, but remains distant, for now.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, “The Zionist Conspiracy (and how to join it),” now available on Audible. He is also the author of the e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Who Are the 12 Jurors Seated in the Trump Hush Money Trial?

0

Kristina Wong(Breitbart)

Here is a breakdown of the 12 jurors seated in the trial of former President Donald Trump. The trial is taking place in solidly-Democrat Manhattan, making it challenging for Trump’s defense to find fair and impartial jurors.

The jurors who were selected on Thursday include:

— A man who lives in Hells Kitchen, works in investment banking, has an MBA in finance, is married and lives with his wife, and enjoys hiking, music concerts and living with his wife. He describes himself as agnostic, but raised Catholic. He said he uses X, follows Truth Social Posts via X, follows trial witness Michael Cohen, the anti-Trump X account user Mueller She Wrote, and follows news on the Ukraine and Israel Wars. He said he also listens to SiriusXM radio.

— A man who lives in West Village, has worked as a security engineer for 25 years, is married with three children, and whose wife is a teacher. His hobbies are his children, and metal and woodworking. He said he does not have social media and follows a “spattering” of news outlets. He answered “yes,” when asked “Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump or anyone in his family?”

— A man who lives in the Upper East Side originally from Lebanon, is retired but still consults with some clients, has an MBA, is married with a son and a daughter, enjoys fly fishing, and skiing and does yoga and meditation every morning. He said he follows the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, and CNBC. His brother in law is a lawyer.

— A woman who lives in the Upper East Side who grew up in New Jersey, works as a speech therapist for the Department of Education, has a B.A. and Master’s degree, is single with no children, lives alone, enjoys walks, restaurants, and taking advantage of living in New York City, said, “I don’t watch any news or follow it too closely.” She said she subscribes to the New York Times’ “morning whatever” and CNN’s Five Things newsletters, listens to podcasts about reality TV, and has a mom who works for the state of New Jersey. She said about Trump, “I do have opinions, yes,” but she insisted she can be fair and impartial. She also said, “I do not agree with a lot of his politics and his decisions as a president, but I have really taken the past two days to reflect and make sure that I could leave that at the door and be a totally impartial juror, and I feel like I can.”

— A man who lives in Murray Hill, is originally from Ohio, works for an eyewear company in commerce, is unmarried with no children, lives with an accountant, likes the outdoors and animals. He said he did not have a “strong opinion” about Trump, and said, “Some things I am in favor, for things I am not in favor.”

— A woman who lives in Upper Manhattan, works as a product development manager for a multinational apparel company, is unmarried with no children, enjoys exploring New York and eating, said, “I don’t really follow the news,” but uses Google and reads industry-specific outlets. She said, “I don’t have strong opinions about him, but I don’t like his persona, how he presents himself in public. I don’t really agree with some of his politics, but that does not mean I can’t be impartial.” She added, “I don’t like some of my co-workers, but I am not going to — but I can hear him out and understand his point of view and understand his issues.” She also said, “He just seems very selfish and self serving, so I don’t really appreciate that in any public servant. So I don’t, I mean I don’t know him as a person, so I don’t know how he is in terms of his integrity or anything in his personal life. But how he is in public and how he himself portrays himself in public, it just seems to me it is not my cup of tea.”

— A woman who lives on the Upper East Side who works as a physical therapist, has a B.A. and doctorate in physical therapy, is married with no children, and has a husband who works as a coach for a professional sports team, and enjoys running, playing tennis, and paddle boarding with husband and dog. She said she reads the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN. She also listens to podcasts related to sports and faith. She said her in-laws are attorneys. She said she did not have strong feelings about Trump.

The jurors who were selected on Monday and Tuesday include:

— A man who lives in West Harlem and works in sales, who is married, enjoys “anything outdoorsy,” and said he follows the New York Times, Daily Mail, some Fox News and MSNBC.

— A man who lives in Chelsea, is a corporate law attorney, is not married with children, enjoys hiking and running, and get his news from the the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Google.

— A woman who lives in Harlem, is a teacher and lives with her brother, a basketball coach. She enjoys writing, theater, and traveling, and gets her news from Google and TikTok. She said she listens to podcasts on relationships and pop culture, as well as the Breakfast Club podcast.

— A woman who lives in Chelsea and works as a software engineer. She has three roommates, and said she gets news from the New York Times and TikTok.

— A man who lives on the Upper East Side and is a civil litigator. He said he knew virtually nothing about criminal law and election finance. He said he did not think a former president should be held to a higher standard and said he was ambivalent about Trump, saying something things he liked, and some he did not. He said he was not sure if he had any opinion about his character.

As far as alternates, the first one selected is:

— A woman who lives in Midtown East, is an analyst for an asset manager, lives with a self-employed boyfriend, likes to run and hang out with friends and eat, and reads the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Her sister is a law student.

Judge Juan Merchan ordered reporters to stop specifying the physical appearances of jurors, after one juror asked to be dismissed out of concern she would be identified.

The court convenes on Friday at 9:30 a.m. to continue questioning potential alternates.

The court needs five more before opening arguments can begin.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has accused Trump of violating New York state law by falsifying business records in an alleged attempt to hide an alleged campaign finance violation that involved paying former adult actress Stormy Daniels a hush money payment before the 2016 election.

The case is New York v. Trump, No. 71543-23, in the New York Supreme Court for New York County.

Follow Breitbart News’s Kristina Wong on ”X”, Truth Social, or on Facebook.

Israel had to strike Iran but also needs to rebuild trust with US

0
A Revolutionary Guard's speed boat fires a missile during a military exercise, July 28, 2020. (AP/Sepahnews)

By Yaakov Katz

On July 13, 2007 President George W. Bush placed a phone call from the Oval Office to Jerusalem. He was looking for Israel’s prime minister at the time, Ehud Olmert.

Months earlier, Israel had brought intelligence to the Americans about a nuclear reactor North Korea was building in northeastern Syria. Olmert had asked Bush to attack and destroy it and, after months of deliberations, the president was calling to inform the prime minister of his decision.

“I cannot justify an attack on a sovereign nation unless my intelligence agencies stand up and say it’s a weapons program,” the president told the Israeli premier. Instead, he said, he would be taking the issue to the International Atomic Energy Agency and then to the United Nations.

At first, Olmert listened but when Bush was done speaking, his response was forceful and immediate.

“Mr. President,” he started. “I understand your reasoning and your arguments but don’t forget that the ultimate responsibility for the security of the State of Israel rests on my shoulders and I’ll do what needs to be done and trust me – I will destroy the atomic reactor.”

It was a moment that could have led to a great crisis between Israel and the United States especially at a time when the IDF feared that the bombing of the reactor could lead to an all-out regional war with Syria and Hezbollah. But, it didn’t. Bush respected Olmert’s forceful stance and while he disagreed with the decision, he ordered his staff not to get in Israel’s way.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Olmert-Bush phone call ever since Sunday morning and after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had his own phone call with President Joe Biden following the Iranian missile and drone assault against Israel. Both are cases of presidents trying to impress upon a prime minister a policy with which the Israeli leader disagrees, and in both the prime minister pushed back.

There was a similar tension with the Americans in 1981 when Menachem Begin decided to take unilateral action against the Osirak nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein was building near Baghdad. Then-president Ronald Reagan was adamantly opposed to Israeli action and while the US allowed a sharply-worded resolution to pass at the Security Council, Reagan said that he would not publicly condemn Israel. “That would be an invitation for the Arabs to attack,” he said at the time.

Osirak and Syria were two cases separated by 26 years, but connected by a similar foundation – an Israeli understanding that even at the risk of deteriorating ties with the United States, it needs to do what is right for the security of its people. America might not like it, but as seen in these two cases of existential threats, when explained with conviction, the crisis is averted.

The reason the crisis could be averted was because there was a strong foundation of respect between the governments, something that is sadly missing today to the blame of both sides. The Biden administration came into office with a distrust of Netanyahu and made it very clear that it did not want him reelected. When he returned to office at the end of 2022, the White House again made clear its distrust with Netanyahu, his coalition partners and their policies.

It might seem like a lifetime ago, but think back to last year when it was questionable if Netanyahu would even get a meeting with Biden on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. Being invited to the White House, a given under past presidents and prime ministers, was not even in the cards and the New York meeting was only finalized days before it took place.

That meeting was on September 20, just 17 days before the October 7 attacks. While the snub of Netanyahu was obviously not what motivated Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deif to launch the Oct. 7 attacks, it is hard not to think what was going through their minds when they saw the tension with the US. If anything, it most certainly didn’t make them consider that they needed to change their plans. On the contrary, if there was a time to attack, it was now.

Israel didn’t exactly help itself either. The judicial reform that ripped the country apart, the constant attacks by Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich against Biden, as well as Netanyahu’s refusal to rein them in, did not help foster trust. In the end, as one Washington insider explained to me this week, you get what you ask for.

And this is why, after everything, when Iran attacked on Sunday morning, the interception of the missiles and drones was only the first challenge. The next part was coming up with the appropriate response – which finally took place on Friday morning against a military base near Isfahan – while trying to get the Americans on board for whatever might happen next.

On the one hand, it is hard for Israel to retaliate when it does not feel that America is with it. The fear of a wider conflict, particularly with Hezbollah and the potential damage and devastation to the Israeli home front, is hard to think about when knowing that America is not immediately in your corner. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to imagine an American president sitting on the sidelines as Israel is hit with thousands of missiles from Lebanon and Iran. The president doesn’t have to agree with the decision but it will be hard for him to refuse support like the continued supply of munitions and spare parts so Israel can fight back.

Beyond the need to work to restore trust – which might not even be possible anymore – the recent and unprecedented attack from Iran underscores something else that Israelis need to keep in mind – the world only likes us when we are under attack or as Dara Horn called it in her brilliant book: “People love dead Jews.”

In the aftermath of the attack, the world united in declaring its support for Israel’s right to defend itself but, the moment the attack was over, called for restraint. In other words, only when Israel is attacked can it defend itself, but that defense is exactly that, a defense; not an offense.

This is a mistake that emboldens Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. It is an exact repeat of what happened in Gaza – Israel was attacked in an unprecedented way but when it responded with a ground offensive, it was immediately told to stop.

Isn’t it time for this to change?