Alexander Soros, son of George Soros and chairman of the Open Society Foundations, is engaged to veteran Democratic operative Huma Abedin, according to his Instagram account. “This happened … we couldn’t be happier, more grateful, or more in love,” Soros wrote on social media on Tuesday alongside a picture of him proposing to Abedin. Soros proposed to Abedin in New York City in late May, with the couple later absconding to Italy to celebrate and only making their engagement public more than a month later, Vogue reported. George Soros handed over control of his $25 billion philanthropic empire to Alex in June 2023, with the younger Soros subsequently describing himself as “more political” than his father in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. Abedin, meanwhile, is a close ally of Hillary Rodham Clinton, having served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff during her time as secretary of state and working as the vice chair of the former first lady’s 2016 presidential campaign. “The House of Soros is passing on the title to the firstborn son. And now, that son is marrying a powerful duchess to shore up the family empire,” America 2100, a think tank run by a former chief of staff to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., wrote on X. “Every society has a ruling class.” One of the great lies of our time is that “meritocracy” replaced the Old World nobility. It didn’t.The House of Soros is passing on the title to the firstborn son. And now, that son is marrying a powerful duchess to shore up the family empire.Every society has a ruling class. pic.twitter.com/lxyM4EQztV— America 2100 (@America_2100) July 10, 2024 Soros and Abedin first met at a mutual friend’s birthday party last fall and bonded over their mutual interest in politics, according to Vogue. Since then the two have made a number of public appearances together, including at a White House state dinner and at the 2024 Met Gala. Now that he has control of the charitable network built by his father, the younger Soros plans to levy its resources to boost Democratic politicians and to expand access to abortion, he told The Wall Street Journal. One former Clinton aide told the New York Post that Soros and Abedin are a “classic Clinton World couple.” The marriage will be Soros’ first and Abedin’s second as the high-profile Democratic staffer was married to former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. Abedin and Weiner divorced after he was caught sexting with an underage girl, according to CBS News. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Heir to George Soros’ Empire to Wed Ex-Hillary Clinton Aide Huma Abedin appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Tony Blair Institute’s Future of Britain Conference 2024 (co-organized with My Life My Say) seems to have gone out of its way to cover (with a positive spin) pretty much all the key contested by rights advocates’ plans and schemes, digital ID being inevitably among those. One of the panelists, former Indian Minister of State for Electronics, Information Technology, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Rajeev Chandrasekhar was there to praise a major set of goals aimed at ushering in digital ID and payments by the end of the decade. The “umbrella” for achieving that is what’s known as the digital public infrastructure (DPI) – a buzzword shared by the UN, the EU, the WEF, and Bill Gates’ Foundation. At the same time, Rajeev downplayed privacy fears associated with digital ID and revealed that his country was working with others to push the initiative. The host asserted that introducing digital identity is “so important for the transformation of a country” (he didn’t specify in which direction this transformation is supposed to go). But Chandrasekhar made sure to talk about the positives, such as that the system, Aadhaar, which at this time provides 1.2 billion Indians with digital identities, is helping improve on what was previously seen as his county’s “dysfunctional governance.” And he appears to suggest that the notion once in place in Asia – that this type of scheme is only good for countries like China but not democracies – is shifting. The perception (or fact-based belief) that aggressive digitization and privacy are ultimately incompatible is “a false binary,” he said. And despite the many instances of Aadhaar being the target of data breaches, hacks, and the ensuing concerns for the safety of the people’s personal data, Chandrasekhar sought to downplay these dangers – by citing which legislative tools are in place that are supposed to prevent them. Related: Rise in Stolen Singaporean ID Data Shows The Dangers of Digital ID The former government official said that in India privacy and data protection are fundamental and constitutional rights and that the country has a data protection law. And this, it appears, is Chandrasekhar’s argument that privacy and policies covered by the DPI and digital ID are actually safe. Chandrasekhar also notes that “if you go down and deep dig a little deep into this, you can figure out solutions that can both protect the individual’s rights to information privacy as well as grow an innovation ecosystem.” But he does reveal whether India, or others that he is aware of, are actually “digging a little deeper.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Privacy on the Line: Tony Blair Institute Champions Digital ID appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Biden Will Finally Start Shipping (Some) Heavy Bombs to Israel

Morning Joe Goes There: Is A Former President Orchestrating the Oust Biden Movement?

Lucky for us, the world is a dazzling display of colors. With so many animals relying on vision to perceive their environment, colors and patterns are a language used within and across species. But what about animals that hide underground, away from view? Why would they need a rainbow of colorful coverings?Evolutionary biologists, fascinated by these displays as much as the rest of us, have found theoretical and empirical explanations for the evolution of these traits. All colors started out as happy accidents. Chance mutations in the genes of individuals gave them unexpected advantages, allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on those mutations. The coats of some animals use "cryptic" colors that allow them to blend into their environment. Think tan-colored gazelles in the savannah, as well as dazzling mimetic chameleons. Being less visible to predators enhances chances of survival and of passing on their color. Other species don "conspicuous" colors that stand out from their background. Bright colors can be favored during sexual selection, or be alarming to potential predators, leading in both cases to the perseverance of these traits. There are 700 species of crayfish, the freshwater cousin of the lobster. While many of them evade predatory eyes with "cryptic" colors, a whooping 400 species are coated in blue, red, orange, or purple. The catch is that these brightly colored crustaceans predominantly live in muddy burrows and only come out at night. This led Zackary A. Graham and colleague Dylan J. Padilla Perez to wonder: why be so colorful if no-one will see it? There seemed to be no evolutionary advantage for this phenomenon: could this be an evolutionarily neutral trait? This brings us to one of science’s trickiest problems: proving the lack of evolutionary pressure for colorful carapaces. "Not every single trait that exists is adaptive," Graham told Science. "If we were perfectly adapted to our environment, we would never get infected, we would never get diseases, we would never die. But that’s not the way that evolution works."Armed with a phylogenetic tree and pictures of crayfish dutifully color-labeled by a group of Crayfish Biology students, they discovered that conspicuous colors had emerged more than 50 times. The evolution of these traits was also correlated with the evolution of burrowing behaviors.  An opposite hypothesis could emerge: the tan coloration of some open-water crayfish came about under evolutionary pressure to be more "cryptic", and blend in with the environment. They found that no conspicuously colored crayfish maintained their colors when evolving aquatic behaviors. Mutations that lead to conspicuous coloration in crayfish may be quite frequent. If no evolutionary pressure will stop them, these happy accidents will propagate through the population, coloring the crayfish for our eyes only. The study is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

While looking down at his home planet, astronaut Matthew Dominick spotted a flurry of colorful bursts of energy dancing in Earth’s upper atmosphere.The spectacular light show was photographed on June 3 as the International Space Station (ISS) cruised over thunderstorms off the coast of South Africa, according to NASA.Known as transient luminous events (TLE), they usually occur in the upper atmosphere when thunderstorm lightning is raging below. This particular image also shows a specific form of TLE known as red sprites, luminous red-orange flashes that occur at altitudes of 50 to 90 kilometers (31 to 56 miles).The red color is due to nitrogen in the atmosphere interacting with an electric charge, such as those present in lightning storms. When nitrogen meets the electric charge – boom! – it lets out a red glow in the form of plumes and spiny tendrils.A closer look of the red sprites seen above the South African thunderstorm.Image credit: NASA/Matthew DominickStudies have also indicated that sprites are associated with gravity waves, tiny ripples in the very fabric of spacetime created by violent cosmic events, although the nature of the link is not fully understood.Red sprites and other TLEs can occasionally be spotted from Earth’s surface under the right conditions, although they’re not always visible because they're so high up in Earth’s atmosphere. They’re best seen from high-altitude planes or, better still, an object in low-Earth orbit like the ISS. These events only last for a split second, so it's easier for astronauts to catch them on camera using long exposures.Earth isn’t the only planet that experiences sprites. Astronomers have also observed the lightning-like electrical outbursts on Jupiter. Here, the upper atmosphere of the planet is abundant in hydrogen, as opposed to nitrogen, so the sprites tend to appear blue rather than red.Scientists don’t fully how, when, and why sprites form on Earth. To find out, they might need your help. In 2022, NASA launched a citizen science project called Spritacular that asked the public to upload their images of sprites into an online database.“People capture wonderful images of sprites, but they’re shared sporadically over the internet and most of the scientific community is unaware of these captures,” Dr Burcu Kosar, a space physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and Spritacular principal investigator, said in a statement at the time. “Spritacular will bridge this gap by creating the first crowdsourced database of sprites and other TLEs that is accessible and readily available for scientific research,” the scientist added.

Two NASA astronauts who have been stranded on the International Space Station (ISS) have described the moment they realized that the spaceship that brought them there was faulty. The astronauts – Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore – departed for the ISS on June 5, the third and final test of Boeing's new Starliner capsule, and its first launch with a crew.“Launch was spectacular," Wilmore said on Wednesday, speaking live from the ISS. "I mean, truly amazing." While in space, but not yet docked with the ISS, the astronauts took over manual control for over an hour of flight demonstrations. Of these initial tests, Wilmore explained that the spaceship held "truly amazing" precision, adding that the spaceship "performed unbelievably well", at least at first. The problems began the following day, as the spacecraft was in its usual autonomous mode."And then we got into day 2. The start of day 2 was the same starting off, and then we did have some failures as we are all aware. We lost an RCS jet, then we lost another one. And then you could tell the thrust, the control, the capability was degraded. The handling qualities were not the same."The crew resumed manual control of the spacecraft for about an hour, having been granted permission by NASA, troubleshooting the problems from the ground."From that point on you could tell that the thrust was degraded," Wilmore added. "At the time we didn't know why."            The Starliner performed well during precise docking with the ISS, a task which leaves very little room for error, and the astronauts got into their new living quarters. Though their mission was only meant to last a week, they have been stranded on board the space station while NASA attempts to fix the problems – including a helium leak – which prevented them from returning on board Starliner in June.Fortunately, the astronauts do not appear to particularly mind their extended trip. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that they are zooming above the world on a space station."We are having a great time here on ISS," Williams said. "Butch and I have been up here before and it feels like coming back home. It feels good to float around, it feels good to be in space and work up here with the International Space Station team. So I'm not complaining, Butch is not complaining that we're here for a couple of extra weeks."NASA is hoping to get the crew home soon using the Starliner, but the next arrival of ISS crew in August is the hard deadline to avoid overcrowding.“Some of the data suggests optimistically, maybe it’s by the end of July, but we’ll just follow the data each step at a time,” Steve Stich, NASA’s commercial crew program manager, added during a press conference. For now, they remain stranded in space, and continue to assess their ride home.

Singapore is known internationally for its food – so far, for its ability to embrace cuisines from around the world and meld them into something uniquely and deliciously its own. But the next big thing on the Singaporean menu – or, to be more accurate, the next little thing on the menu – might get the city-state a slightly different reputation.It’s bugs.Specifically, 20 species of insect, which the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has approved for sale and consumption this week. “With immediate effect, SFA will allow the import of insects and insect products belonging to species that have been assessed to be of low regulatory concern,” the agency announced in a circular sent to food traders in the city-state.“These insects and insect products can be used for human consumption or as animal feed for food-producing animals,” they said.So which insects made the grade? The list comprises five species of cricket; three types of locust; grasshoppers; seven types of beetle larvae, including mealworms and giant rhino beetle larvae (google it if you want to lose your appetite); two types of moth larvae; silkworms, for when you’re feeling fancy; and, perhaps most surprisingly, honey bee larvae.For proponents of insectivorous diets, it’s welcome news. “It’s really amazing to see that they have such a big list of species now that are approved for human consumption,” Skye Blackburn, an Australian entomologist and food scientist who advocates for insect consumption, told The Guardian. “It’s really showing that Singapore is a little bit more open than we thought they were going to be to edible insects”. Eating bugs and beetles is far from a new idea. Not only is it common in more than 100 countries – with the most insect-hungry nations being Mexico, Thailand, and India – but some consider a global shift towards the practice as a potential solution to the looming climate apocalypse.  “Insects are an overlooked source of protein and a way to battle climate change,” reported the World Economic Forum in 2022. “Our consumption of animal protein is the source of greenhouses gas and climate change. [...] The consumption of insects can offset climate change in many ways.”Of course, for many of us – Singapore included – eating insects is currently more of a nasty surprise than a novelty. But the creepy-crawlies set to enter the gastronomic world will face regulations designed to guarantee their safety for consumers: for example, they may not be “harvested from the wild”, the SFA announced, with products requiring “documentary proof that insects are farmed in premises regulated by Competent Authority.”Other doubts about the six-legged smorgasbord may spring from the last inclusion on the list – aren’t honey bees, you know, kind of sacred at this point? But according to Blackburn, we shouldn’t worry unduly: while some cuisines do eat female bees, by far most of those used for food are males – drones.And it seems that eating those guys is kind of doing them a favor. “They remove the drone bees from the hives because that’s where the varroa mites live,” Blackburn explained. “So that’s why the drone bees are actually used as a source of food, because it is a byproduct of the hive.” That said, if you’re hoping to sample a delicious insect set menu, we’d probably advise avoiding the bees. Not for environmental reasons or anything. Just because, you know – bees are technically fish, not insects. 

Before the liberal media had to publicly admit President Biden’s cognitively impaired, they were relentlessly consumed with a years-long campaign (that now exists in the background) to delegitimize the Supreme Court and turn the American public against it because of rulings they refuse to accept. An examination of headlines from The Washington Post revealed a comical double standard in coverage of these two supposed national scandals — the two flag-flying flaps by Justice Alito and who Justice Clarence Thomas’s choice of who he spends free time with — compared to when Donald Trump laid into the now-late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020 for having trashed him years earlier. Using “recusal” and “Trump” then each of the justice’s names, a search of The Post’s archives revealed an even more stunning double standard with over 1,100 results for the manufactured Alito hubbub, roughly 3,000 for Thomas, but only 234 for Ginsburg. In May 2024 when the Alito hubbub was still at a fever pitch, the walking parody Philip Bump had a whiny May 29 piece with the headline “Samuel Alito Has Decided That Samuel Alito Is Sufficiently Impartial”. The Post also ran an AP story (since removed from their site, as evidenced by this dead link) with this header: “To recuse or refuse? A look at Supreme Court justices’ decisions on whether to step aside in cases”. In it, reporter Mark Sherman whined (click “expand”): In declining to step aside from two high-profile Supreme Court cases, Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday provided a rare window on the opaque process by which justices decide to step aside from cases. Alito faced calls from Democrats to recuse from two cases involving former President Donald Trump and Jan. 6 defendants because of the controversy over flags that flew over his homes. (....) Revelations about the flags came as the court is considering cases related to the Jan. 6 riot, including charges faced by the rioters and whether Trump has immunity from prosecution on election interference charges. In letters to members of Congress, Alito said he had no involvement in flying an upside-down flag over his home in 2021 and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his New Jersey beach house last year. He said his wife, Martha-Ann, was responsible for both flags. His impartiality, he said, could not reasonably be questioned. (....) Supreme Court justices decide for themselves whether and when to recuse from a case. On rare occasions, a party to a case will ask a justice to recuse. (....) Alito pointed to the Supreme Court’s ethics code to explain that justices have an obligation to take part in a case unless their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In this instance, he said, anyone “not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases” would see that recusal is not required. Longtime leftist court observer and columnist Ruth Marcus similarly bemoaned that day of the justice and his wife Martha-Ann having “one weird marriage” with there also being “reasons to question Alito’s candor and judgment here” since he “wrapped himself in an unconvincing blend of faux feminism and free speech, with an Alito-esque helping of victimhood.” The tone of the Thomas coverage has been similar, as well, painting Justice Thomas as being in a bizarre, creepy marriage. Post Courts reporter Tobi Raji giddily proclaimed on February 6 that “Thomas is facing calls from Democrats and court transparency advocates to recuse himself from a case examining whether former president Donald Trump can appear on 2024 primary election ballots nationwide”, adding (click “expand”): Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns about Thomas’s ability to remain impartial in this and several other Jan. 6-related cases given the involvement of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, in the movement to overturn the 2020 election results. The ballot disqualification case, which is likely to be decided quickly, is a test of the court’s recently released code of conduct and recusal guidelines. (....) The Supreme Court’s newly adopted ethics code asks the justices to disqualify themselves if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The code suggests recusal if a justice or their spouse has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” or is “likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who previously served on Harvard University’s Board of Overseers, notably recused herself from one of two cases examining the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions practices in 2022 because Harvard was the defendant. However, the decision to recuse is up to the individual justice — a point of contention among critics including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is sponsoring legislation to impose an enforceable ethics code on the justices. Flashing back to an earlier chapter in this manufactured hubbub, The Post breathlessly boasted on March 27, 2022: “Democrats urge Clarence Thomas to recuse himself after wife’s texts; Republicans continue to defend the justice’s integrity”. Many of The Post articles spoke glowingly of ProPublica’s sham reporting, which of course resulted in a Pulitzer for the liberal non-profit. One particular column from March 30, 2022 by none other than walking meme Jennifer Rubin was egregious: “The Thomas scandal exemplifies the rot spoiling our democracy.” Rubin huffed that “[w]e lack institutional mechanisms to restrain and punish public figures who don’t ethically police themselves” and argued that Thomas’s existence was proof of “the slow deterioration of our democracy.” Five days earlier, the editorial board called Thomas’s wife Ginni “a political extremist” and thus “a problem for the court” and the justice needed to recuse himself from politically sensitive cases or there would be “further erosion of public faith” in the third coequal branch of government. Well, the liberal media seem to have achieved their objective as evidenced by a May 24, 2023 piece by staff writer Aaron Blake with this boast as a headline: “Clarence Thomas’s image takes a hit”. Finally, there’s Ginsburg. Here was a brief summary from a March 2020 column in The Wall Street Journal by Emory University law professor Michael J. Broyde: In public interviews in 2016 she called Candidate Trump a “faker” and said: “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.” She even mused about fleeing the country: “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” She apologized—kind of: “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” She admitted her remarks were “ill advised,” and that “in the future I will be more circumspect.” The controversy died down, in part because hardly anyone expected Mr. Trump to become president. Now that he’s raised the matter again, is he right? The answer seems to be yes. Litigants—including Mr. Trump—have a right to appear before judges who have not prejudged the case or the person. Sure, there were some tough pieces in 2016 and 2017, such as “Justice Ginsburg has come explaining to do” and “In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line”, but again, they were in short supply versus Alito and Thomas. But when Trump sounded off on this, they rushed to Ginsburg’s defense when, on February 24, 2020, Trump tweeted about how Ginsburg should recuse herself “on all Trump, or Trump related, matters” in order to preserve “fairness”. Instead of diving into the merits, the liberal media pitched a hissy fit. At The Post, they made Trump’s reaction out to be unhinged, not Ginsburg’s words. This was a news story from February 25, 2020: “Trump slams Sotomayor and Ginsburg, says they should recuse themselves from ‘Trump-related’ cases”. Here was the lede from Meagan Flynn and Brittany Shammas (click “expand”): President Trump went after Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a pair of tweets and at a news conference in India on Tuesday, days after Sotomayor issued a dissent critical of the Trump administration’s legal strategy and the court’s majority for enabling it. Tweeting just before appearing at a welcome ceremony at the Indian president’s ceremonial residence in New Delhi, Trump cited a Laura Ingraham segment on Fox News titled, “Sotomayor accuses GOP-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Trump.” He then called on Sotomayor and Ginsburg to recuse themselves in all Trump-related matters. “Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way?” Trump said of Sotomayor. “She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a ‘faker'. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related matters! While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!" The article cited a tweet from liberal court observer and now-CNN legal contributor Steve Vladeck, who defended Sotomayor as “right” for claiming GOP-appointed justices are biased. That same day, then-lead Court reporter Robert Barnes and political reporter Ashley Parker kvetched that Trump “escalat[ed] an unorthodox battle” with a “broadside” against “the judiciary from which even his own lawyers have advised retreat” and went astray from “what normally is an arm’s-length distance between the White House and the high court, and cast the disagreements into starkly personal terms.” If Trump tweets are “personal” attacks, then what has Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) entire bit been against Thomas?

Tampa Bay Rays shortstop Wander Franco was formally charged with sex crimes in the Dominican Republic after being accused of having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old.The young player was charged with sexual abuse, sexual exploitation against a minor, and human trafficking. The charges reportedly carry a potential sentence of up to 20 years.It was previously reported that an anonymous tip provided to the authorities in July 2023 eventually ignited an investigation against Franco. The anonymous individual said that he or she had seen a media post that alluded to the possibility that Franco was in a relationship with the 14-year-old girl.'Our investigation remains open, and we will continue to closely monitor the case.'The 23-year-old shortstop was placed on administrative leave, a deal that was struck between Major League Baseball and its players association that took the player off the field but still paid him. It appeared the league wanted to see if Franco would be charged while keeping him out of the spotlight. At the end of the administrative leave, the Rays reportedly requested that the MLB place Franco on the restricted list for not reporting to the team. Franco's bail conditions require him to stay in the Dominican Republic, and, therefore, he was unable to report to his major league team.Now that the charges have been formally laid, the request was granted, ESPN reported, and the player will not be paid and not receive service time.Authorities spent more than six months building the case after it was initially reported that Franco took the underage girl away from her home in Puerto Plata in late 2022, with the girl's mother allegedly giving consent for the relationship to continue.As previously reported by Blaze News, a nearly 600-page document acquired by journalists in early 2024 stated that Franco started the relationship when he was 21 and the girl was 14. The shortstop also was accused of paying the child's mother $1,700 per month (for seven months) and gave her a new car. The vehicle was for the mother "to allow the relationship and let her go out with him wherever she wanted," according to the document that quoted the underage girl.The mother's home was raided in September 2023 with authorities finding 800,000 Dominican pesos ($13,700 USD) and another $68,500 USD hidden behind a frame. A separate seizure found $36,000 USD in the form of a guarantee certificate from a local bank, which was allegedly tied to payments from Franco.The mother has been charged with money laundering."We are aware of the charges against Mr. Franco," the MLB said in a statement. "Our investigation remains open, and we will continue to closely monitor the case as it moves forward."ESPN reported that it was able to reach Franco's U.S.-based lawyer, who confirmed he received the charging documents but declined to comment.Franco was just a couple years into an 11-year, $182 million contract and was an All Star in 2023.The preliminary hearing for his case will reportedly take place on August 14, 2024.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!