99bet music

9 killed in Ethiopia Oromia region attackBy HALELUYA HADERO, Associated Press President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to pause the potential TikTok ban from going into effect until his administration can pursue a “political resolution” to the issue. The request came as TikTok and the Biden administration filed opposing briefs to the court, in which the company argued the court should strike down a law that could ban the platform by Jan. 19 while the government emphasized its position that the statute is needed to eliminate a national security risk. “President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case,” said Trump’s amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case. The filings come ahead of oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 10 on whether the law, which requires TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company or face a ban, unlawfully restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment. Earlier this month, a panel of three federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the statute , leading TikTok to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The brief from Trump said he opposes banning TikTok at this junction and “seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.”Top Wall Street analysts suggest these stocks with attractive upside potential

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there’s one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That’s because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn’t touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” A small problem, but wide support for a fix Kansas’ experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions’ provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. Why the courts rejected the Kansas citizenship rule After Kansas residents challenged their state’s law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That’s an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn’t justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” Would the Kansas law stand today? The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state’s law was challenged. “If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different,” he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call,” Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted “a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Born in Illinois but unable to register in Kansas Initially, the Kansas requirement’s impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver’s license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn’t accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn’t know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven’t traveled outside the U.S. and don’t have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don’t have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” ___ Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.

Now the sun shines Macomb, Detroit, Michigan- Oil has been a dominant force shaping global economies over the past two centuries, acting as both a maker and breaker of fortunes. Fluctuations in oil prices and supply chain disruptions have historically been a nightmare for governments worldwide. Low oil prices in the mid-20th century encouraged the production of large, fuel-inefficient vehicles, the conversion of coal-based power plants to oil-based ones, and the industrial shift to oil as a primary energy source. This transition boosted the economies of oil-producing nations, significantly raising the quality of life for their populations. Once regarded as an efficient and clean source of energy, oil— often called “black gold”— evolved into a potent political and security tool for oil-rich nations. By the mid-1970s, oil-producing countries, especially OPEC members, realized the political leverage and economic influence they wielded. The 1973 oil embargo, led by Arab nations, demonstrated how increased oil prices could disrupt global economies and even trigger regime changes. Oil became a weapon that could bring even powerful nations to their knees. In response, oil-importing nations began transforming their industries by developing nuclear power plants and producing fuel-efficient vehicles. However, their reliance on oil persisted. Devastating nuclear plant disasters, such as Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), shifted the focus towards renewable energy sources. Scientists explored several options to reduce dependence on oil, including nuclear fusion, where hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium, releasing immense energy. However, the extreme heat generated by fusion reactions proved too intense for any material currently known to mankind to withstand, making the technology unviable for practical energy generation. Alcohol-based fuels, like ethanol blends, were also introduced as alternatives, but motorists often criticized their performance. This compelled scientists to turn to renewable energy sources such as wind, ocean waves, and solar power as the most promising avenues for reducing reliance on oil. Among these, solar energy emerged as a frontrunner, steadily challenging the dominance of “black gold” with increasing effectiveness. Recognizing the vast potential of solar energy, countries around the world began making substantial investments in developing innovative technologies to harness it. Global investment in solar energy has surged, with China leading at over $100 billion in 2023, pioneering perovskite-silicon tandem cells with efficiencies exceeding 30 percent, and dominating low-cost panel production. The USA follows, investing $56 billion, achieving breakthroughs like quantum dot solar cells with 39.5 percent efficiency and advanced grid-scale storage. India, at $25 billion, excels in agrivoltaics and bi-facial cells (22 percent efficiency), while Germany, with $19 billion, advances thin-film solar cells (26 percent efficiency) and decentralized storage. Japan, investing $17 billion, developed multi-junction cells achieving 47 percent efficiency and floating solar farms. The global shift to solar energy has enabled significant economic savings by reducing reliance on oil imports. China leads with annual savings of $13 billion through extensive solar adoption in industries, followed by the USA at $11 billion due to reduced oil usage in power generation. India saves $9 billion annually, leveraging solar for rural electrification and industrial needs, while Germany’s $8 billion savings result from replacing oil-fired power plants. Japan ($6 billion) benefits from residential and industrial solar systems, and Australia ($4.5 billion) achieves savings through rooftop solar and large-scale farms. Collectively, the top ten sunshine gold nations save over $60 billion annually, demonstrating solar energy’s role in enhancing energy security and cutting costs. If solar cell efficiency continues to improve, reaching consistent 40-50 percent efficiency in the coming decades, solar energy could progressively replace oil across various sectors. By 2035, solar could significantly reduce oil demand for electricity generation, which accounts for 10-15 percent of current usage, especially with advancements in energy storage and grid integration. By 2050, with widespread adoption and enhanced technology, solar could replace 70-80 percent of global oil demand, particularly in electricity, transportation (via electric vehicles), and industrial heating. A complete replacement of oil by solar energy is plausible by the 2060s, contingent on overcoming technological, political, and infrastructural barriers. This transition would bring profound economic changes. Oil-importing nations would save trillions, enhance energy security, and reduce geopolitical risks, while oil-exporting countries could face severe economic disruptions, necessitating diversification. Global energy markets would shift towards renewables, fostering job creation in solar industries but challenging oil-dependent economies. Additionally, transitioning to solar energy would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, offering environmental and health benefits. The good news is that sunshine gold (solar energy) does not hold the same economic and security value for producing and consuming countries as black gold (oil). For sunshine-producing countries with abundant sunlight, solar energy offers economic opportunities through domestic use and export, but unlike oil, it cannot be monopolized or wielded as a geopolitical weapon. Solar energy’s decentralized nature makes it accessible to many, reducing the ability of any one country to dominate it. For sunshine-consuming countries, solar energy provides significant economic benefits by lowering energy costs and enhancing energy security, reducing reliance on foreign oil. However, the security value of solar energy will depend on technological advancements, such as storage and grid infrastructure, and international cooperation. To foster a win-win situation between sunshine-rich and non-sunshine countries, the global community must right now prioritize equitable collaboration in renewable energy development and trade. This would involve cross-border energy sharing through advanced grids and storage technologies, technology transfer, and joint R&D to adapt renewables to diverse climates. Establishing global green funds, fair carbon credit systems, and hybrid energy solutions can ensure financial and energy access equity. In addition, international cooperation should be emphasized for fair revenue distribution, capacity building, and private sector engagement, alongside ethical resource management and community empowerment. By integrating diverse renewable energy sources, fostering innovation, and strengthening global climate agreements, the global community should create a sustainable and inclusive energy future that addresses economic disparities and mutual dependencies. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );ZURICH (AFP) – Billionaires have seen their combined wealth shoot up 121 per cent over the past decade to USD14 trillion, Swiss bank UBS said, with tech billionaires’ coffers filling the fastest. Switzerland’s biggest bank, which is among the world’s largest wealth managers, said the number of dollar billionaires increased from 1,757 to 2,682 over the past 10 years, peaking in 2021 with 2,686. The 10th edition of UBS’s annual Billionaire Ambitions report, which tracks the wealth of the world’s richest people, found that billionaires have comfortably outperformed global equity markets over the past decade. The report documents “the growth and investment of great wealth, as well as how it’s being preserved for future generations and used to have a positive effect on society”, said Head of strategic clients at UBS global wealth management Benjamin Cavalli. Between 2015 and 2024, total billionaire wealth increased by 121 per cent from USD6.3 trillion to USD14.0 trillion – while the MSCI AC World Index of global equities rose 73 per cent. The wealth of tech billionaires increased the fastest, followed by that of industrialists. Worldwide, tech billionaires’ wealth tripled from USD788.9 billion in 2015 to USD2.4 trillion in 2024. “In earlier years, the new billionaires commercialised e-commerce, social media and digital payments; more recently they engineered the generative artificial intelligence (AI) boom, while also developing cyber-security, fintech, 3D printing and robotics,” UBS said. The report found that since 2020, the global growth trend had slowed due to declines among China’s billionaires. From 2015 to 2020, billionaire wealth grew globally at an annual rate of 10 per cent, but growth has plunged to one per cent since 2020. Chinese billionaire wealth more than doubled from 2015 to 2020, rising from USD887.3 billion to USD2.1 trillion, but has since fallen back to USD1.8 trillion. However, North American billionaire wealth has risen 58.5 per cent to USD6.1 trillion since 2020, “led by industrials and tech billionaires”. Meanwhile billionaires are relocating more frequently, with 176 having moved country since 2020, with Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Singapore and the United States (US) being popular destinations. In 2024, some 268 people became billionaires for the first time, with 60 per cent of them entrepreneurs. “The year’s new billionaires were mainly self-made,” said UBS. The report said US billionaires accrued the greatest gains in 2024, reinforcing the country’s place as the world’s main centre for billionaire entrepreneurs. Their wealth rose 27.6 per cent to USD5.8 trillion, or more than 40 per cent of billionaire wealth worldwide. Billionaires’ wealth from mainland China and Hong Kong fell 16.8 per cent to USD1.8 trillion, with the number of billionaires dropping from 588 to 501. Indian billionaires’ wealth increased 42.1 per cent to USD905.6 billion, while their number grew from 153 to 185. Western Europe’s total billionaire wealth rose 16.0 per cent to USD2.7 trillion – partly due to a 24-per cent increase in Swiss billionaires. UAE billionaires’ aggregate wealth rose 39.5 per cent to USD138.7 billion. UBS said billionaires faced an “uncertain world” over the next 10 years, due to high geopolitical tensions, trade barriers and governments with mounting spending requirements. Billionaires will therefore need to rely on their previous distinctive traits: “smart risk-taking, business focus and determination”. “Risk-taking billionaires are likely to be at the forefront of creating two technology-related industries of the future already taking shape: generative AI and renewables/electrification,” UBS predicted. And more flexible wealth planning will be needed as billionaire families move country and spread around the world. The heirs and philanthropic causes of baby boom billionaires are set to inherit an estimated USD6.3 trillion over the next 15 years, UBS said.

None

Wireless LAN Controller Market to Observe Prominent CAGR of 7.80% by 2031, Size, Share, Trends, Demand, Growth, Challenges and Competitive Outlook 12-06-2024 07:25 PM CET | Advertising, Media Consulting, Marketing Research Press release from: Data Bridge Market Research The wireless LAN controller market is expected to witness market growth at a rate of 5.5% in the forecast period of 2021 to 2028. Data Bridge Market Research report on wireless LAN controller market provides analysis and insights regarding the various factors expected to be prevalent throughout the forecast period while providing their impacts on the market's growth. Market Definition: Wireless LAN controller refers to a wireless connectivity device that is highly utilized with the combination of access point protocol for delivering and managing access points in high quantities by the network infrastructure center. The controller enables better performance and connectivity of wireless network for numerous devices and systems. It assists in optimizing and improving the overall performance by stretching the bandwidth to raise the quantity of devices being connected to the network. Browse More About This Research Report @ https://www.databridgemarketresearch.com/reports/global-wireless-lan-controller-market The major players covered in the wireless LAN controller market reports are Belden Inc., Cisco, ALE International, ALE USA Inc., Allied Telesis, Inc., Dell, D-Link Corporation, Fortinet, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Extreme Networks, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP, Juniper Networks, Inc., Best IT World (India) Pvt. Ltd., ZTE Corporation, Ruckus Networks, TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd., Zyxel Communications Corp., Korenix Technology (Beijer Electronics Group), NETGEAR, SAMSUNG, Avaya Inc., LANCOM Systems GmbH and 4ipnet, Inc., among other domestic and global players. Market share data is available for global, North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific (APAC), Middle East and Africa (MEA) and South America separately. DBMR analysts understand competitive strengths and provide competitive analysis for each competitor separately. Competitive Landscape and Wireless LAN Controller Market Share Analysis: The wireless LAN controller market competitive landscape provides details by competitor. Details included are company overview, company financials, revenue generated, market potential, investment in research and development, new market initiatives, global presence, production sites and facilities, production capacities, company strengths and weaknesses, product launch, product width and breadth, application dominance. The above data points provided are only related to the companies' focus related to wireless LAN controller market. Browse More Reports: https://databridgenews.blogspot.com/2024/12/microtome-market-trends-challenges-and.html https://databridgenews.blogspot.com/2024/12/sequencing-reagents-market-trends.html https://databridgenews.blogspot.com/2024/12/carbonated-beverage-processing.html https://databridgenews.blogspot.com/2024/12/appointment-scheduling-software-market.html About Data Bridge Market Research: An absolute way to predict what the future holds is to understand the current trend! Data Bridge Market Research presented itself as an unconventional and neoteric market research and consulting firm with an unparalleled level of resilience and integrated approaches. We are committed to uncovering the best market opportunities and nurturing effective information for your business to thrive in the marketplace. Data Bridge strives to provide appropriate solutions to complex business challenges and initiates an effortless decision-making process. Data Bridge is a set of pure wisdom and experience that was formulated and framed in 2015 in Pune. Contact Us: - Data Bridge Market Research US: +1 614 591 3140 UK: +44 845 154 9652 APAC: +653 1251 1629 Email: - sopan.gedam@databridgemarketresearch.com This release was published on openPR.

Barclays PLC Buys 14,915 Shares of Burke & Herbert Financial Services Corp. (NASDAQ:BHRB)Turkish troops brave cold for border protection in country’s eastOn Saturday night, Donald Trump announced he intends to appoint Kash Patel as director of the FBI. The news sparked an immediate frenzy from establishment figures across media and politics. Legal and national security “experts” were deployed to the Sunday morning news shows to characterize the move as evidence that Trump intends to politicize the FBI and use it as a weapon against his many political opponents. The political establishment’s concerns about what a Trump FBI could do mirror a lot of what we’ve heard from the right in recent years as they found themselves in the Bureau’s crosshairs. But almost all of these complaints and warnings have operated under the assumption that—with maybe the exception of a few bad episodes in the 1960s—the FBI has long been an essential crime-fighting force that has only recently become—or threatens to become—corrupted by politics. In truth, the FBI has always been used as a weapon against political movements and rivals of the established political class. That’s the reason it was created. At the end of the 1800s, left-wing anarchists were attacking heads of state all across Europe. In a few short years, the king of Italy, the prime minister of Spain, the empress of Austria, and the president of France were all assassinated by anarchists. While no communist or anarchist movement had yet to take over a country, the tenacity of these activists and revolutionaries was seriously concerning those in power in the United States. Then, in 1901, President William McKinley was shot and killed by an anarchist while attending a meet-and-greet in Buffalo, New York, which brought his vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, into office. It was President Roosevelt who tapped his Attorney General Charles Bonaparte—the grandnephew of Napoleon—to create the FBI. The AG was required by law to get congressional approval before creating this new “investigative” service of special agents within the Department of Justice. In the spring of 1908, Bonaparte officially requested the money and authority to create the FBI. Congress came back with an emphatic no. Members of the House saw through the innocuous language of the request and figured out exactly what the president and AG were doing—creating a secret police force that was answerable only to them. House Democrats like Joseph Swagar and John J. Fitzgerald and Republicans like Walter I. Smith and George Waldo all loudly condemned the proposal, saying it called for a “system of espionage” comparable to the Tsar’s secret police in Russia that stood in stark contrast to the very principles at the heart of the American system. Congress explicitly forbade the AG from creating this new Bureau. So what did Bonaparte do? He waited for Congress to break for the summer and then went ahead and created the FBI anyway. Congress was only notified about the new federal police force half a year later when Bonaparte included a quick throw-away line at the end of his annual report: “It became necessary for the department to organize a small force of special agents of its own.” So, the FBI was not created in response to out-of-control crime; its creation was a crime. Immediately, the new Bureau was unleashed on anyone and everyone who was perceived as a threat to those in power. That started with left-wing anarchists but quickly expanded to include many antiwar activists as President Wilson pulled the country into World War I. From the outset, the FBI operated primarily as a domestic intelligence agency—recruiting spies within groups they were targeting and breaking into offices and homes, intercepting mail, and tapping the phones of anyone they considered a threat. As the years wore on—like most other executive agencies—the Bureau evolved away from serving the direct interests of whoever happened to sit in the Oval Office to instead serve its own interest and the interest of the broader entrenched, permanent power structure in Washington. In the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, the FBI conducted covert operations aimed at inciting violence between domestic groups, breaking up political organizations it disapproved of, and, perhaps most famously, collecting blackmail on Martin Luther King Jr. that they then tried to use to drive him to commit suicide. Related Articles Commentary | A new Legislative session: Time for pocketbook pragmatism Commentary | Climate activists should pivot from costly pipe dreams to realistic solutions Commentary | Privacy agency oversteps authority, jeopardizes California’s opportunity to lead in AI Commentary | Newsom’s wrongheaded special session is a misuse of gubernatorial power Commentary | Scott Horton: Can Trump actually fend off the war hawks and bring peace? Although today’s FBI acknowledges and publicly disavows these past activities, they are still carrying out egregious operations that always seem to benefit the political class. The Bureau has taken up a kind of sting operation where, over and over again, agents find isolated, gullible, often mentally-handicapped young men, pretend to be political radicals or higher-ups in a terrorist organization, and then convince the young men to plan and carry out a terrorist attack with FBI-funds and resources. Agents then step in at the end and act like they heroically stopped a real plot. The FBI did this relentlessly with young Muslim men after 9/11. The arrests helped prolong the perception that the global war on terror and extreme measures like the Patriot Act were necessary. In recent years, the FBI has conducted a number of similar schemes with right-wing groups—advancing the establishment’s narrative that Donald Trump is radicalizing “uneducated” middle Americans and turning them into violent insurrectionists. And then there are, of course, all the ways the FBI directly tried to undermine and hinder Trump’s first term. Right-wingers are correctly deriding the establishment for panicking about Trump’s FBI doing to them what they have tried to do to him. But many—on both sides—go wrong when they present the Bureau as only recently, or imminently, being corrupted into serving the interests of those in power. That’s been its role since the beginning. Connor O’Keeffe ( @ConnorMOKeeffe ) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. This commentary is republished from the Mises Institute.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An online spat between factions of Donald Trump's supporters over immigration and the tech industry threw internal divisions in his political movement into public display. The rift laid bare the tensions between the newest flank of Trump's movement — wealthy members of the tech world including billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and their call for more highly skilled workers in their industry — and people in Trump's Make America Great Again base who championed his hard-line immigration policies. The debate touched off this week when Laura Loomer, a right-wing provocateur with a history of racist and conspiratorial comments, criticized Trump's selection of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence policy in his coming administration. Krishnan favors the ability to bring more skilled immigrants into the U.S. People are also reading... Loomer declared the stance to be "not America First policy" and said the tech executives who aligned themselves with Trump did so to enrich themselves. Much of the debate played out on the social media network X, which Musk owns. Loomer's comments sparked a back-and-forth with venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks, whom Trump tapped to be the "White House A.I. & Crypto Czar." Musk and Ramaswamy, whom Trump tasked with finding ways to cut the federal government, weighed in, defending the tech industry's need to bring in foreign workers. It bloomed into a larger debate with more figures from the hard-right weighing in about the need to hire U.S. workers, whether values in American culture can produce the best engineers, free speech on the internet, the newfound influence tech figures have in Trump's world and what his political movement stands for. Trump had not yet weighed in on the rift. His presidential transition team did not respond to questions about positions on visas for highly skilled workers or the debate between his supporters online. Instead, his team instead sent a link to a post on X by longtime adviser and immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller that was a transcript of a speech Trump gave in 2020 at Mount Rushmore in which he praised figures and moments from American history. Musk, the world's richest man who has grown close to the president-elect, was a central figure in the debate, not only for his stature in Trump's movement but his stance on the tech industry's hiring of foreign workers. Technology companies say H-1B visas for skilled workers, used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, are critical for hard-to-fill positions. Critics say they undercut U.S. citizens who could take those jobs. Some on the right called for the program to be eliminated, not expanded. Born in South Africa, Musk was once on an a H-1B visa himself and defended the industry's need to bring in foreign workers. "There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent," he said in a post. "It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley." Trump's own positions over the years reflected the divide in his movement. His tough immigration policies, including his pledge for a mass deportation, were central to his winning presidential campaign. He focused on immigrants who come into the U.S. illegally but he also sought curbs on legal immigration, including family-based visas. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump called the H-1B visa program "very bad" and "unfair" for U.S. workers. After he became president, Trump in 2017 issued a "Buy American and Hire American" executive order, which directed Cabinet members to suggest changes to ensure H-1B visas were awarded to the highest-paid or most-skilled applicants to protect American workers. Trump's businesses, however, hired foreign workers, including waiters and cooks at his Mar-a-Lago club, and his social media company behind his Truth Social app used the the H-1B program for highly skilled workers. During his 2024 campaign for president, Trump said immigrants in the country illegally are "poisoning the blood of our country" and promised to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. However, Trump told a podcast this year that he wants to give automatic green cards to foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges. "I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country," he told the "All-In" podcast with people from the venture capital and technology world. Those comments came on the cusp of Trump's budding alliance with tech industry figures, but he did not make the idea a regular part of his campaign message or detail any plans to pursue such changes. Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox!

The FBI has been political from the startDame Prue Leith has defended Gregg Wallace over allegations about his behaviour, stating that he should not be dismissed. The presenter, who has temporarily stepped back from hosting the BBC cooking show, is facing historical misconduct allegations which are currently under external review. The 60-year-old also confronts new harassment accusations, including inappropriate touching of a woman at an event and making unwanted physical contact with another while filming a separate show. His legal team has categorically denied that he engages in sexually harassing behaviour, and Wallace himself has strongly refuted all allegations levelled against him. Great British Bake Off's Dame Prue has voiced her opinion on the matter, asserting that while Wallace shouldn't lose his job, TV producers and executives need to enforce strict behavioural standards for presenters. Speaking on Times Radio, the 84-year-old Dame Prue stated: "I'm a great believer in due process... He should just stay off social media because he's just digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole because he's too insensitive to understand how offensive it is. But that's his problem, that he's insensitive. He hasn't, that I can see, disobeyed the law." Dame Prue has voiced her opinion on the recent controversy, stating: "I don't believe people should be cancelled or sacked. I can see why you would ask somebody to step aside while they investigate things, which I suppose is what they're doing. But I think the tragedy in this is that I bet you Gregg has no idea what he's done wrong", reports the Mirror . However, while she doesn't advocate for Gregg's dismissal, she feels television executives could be firmer with their talent. She elaborated in her discussion with Cathy Newman, criticising TV chiefs for being "weak" in handling stars like Gregg Wallace. She remarked: "Yes, very weak. For goodness sake, they can replace Gregg Wallace. They can replace anybody. So they should be tough with their presenters. They should be very clear about whatever the rules are." Further to her commentary, Dame Prue added: "I do think they've been weak. But I don't want to say that he should be sacked because I don't know what the crime is." Accusations against Gregg have surfaced, alleging inappropriate behaviour including groping an individual's reara serious claim tantamount to sexual assault. The negative atmosphere reportedly instigated by Wallace has also been echoed by MasterChef staff and past contestants, including notable faces such as Emma Kennedy and Kirsty Wark. Adding to the charges, Gregg's own ghostwriter Shannon Kyle voiced allegations on Victoria Derbyshire's NewsNight program on Wednesday. Wallace has been accused of making a British Sign Language interpreter sign inappropriate phrases. An attendee at the BBC Good Food Show alleged that Wallace asked the interpreter to sign "big boobs" and "sexy bum" at the NEC Arena in Birmingham in 2012. "There was a British Sign Language interpreter there and he wandered over to her at one point and just said: 'Do you have to sign everything I say? ' And she said yes, and then he just started saying, 'big boobs', 'sexy bum' this sort of thing, in order to get her to sign it. It was like he could control her, I suppose," the attendee told the Guardian. Gregg is facing allegations from 13 individuals across various shows over a 17-year period, as revealed by BBC News on Thursday, with many more sharing their experiences since. The presenter is "committed to fully cooperating throughout the process" during the BBC 's investigation, according to a statement from Banijay UK, the show's production company. He has also stepped down from his role on the show during the investigation. On Sunday morning, Gregg took to social media to dispute the accusations, claiming they came from "middle-class women of a certain age", leading Ulrika to comment that his "ignorance and arrogance knows no bounds". He later issued a heartfelt apology and announced that he would be taking a break from social media.

The FBI has been political from the start