https://www.facebook.com/121467224372186/

ASFAN Insight, New york, Taytay (2026)

05/09/2026

Another part of Lebanon’s long history is being erased amid the destruction in the south.

Yohmor al-Shaqif is not a recently established military site.

It is a centuries-old southern Lebanese village, recorded in Ottoman documents dating back to 1596, where generations of families built homes, cultivated farmland and lived near the Litani River and historic Beaufort Castle.

Today, residents describe a village where virtually no house has escaped severe damage.

Israeli airstrikes, artillery fire and demolition operations have caused extensive destruction in Yohmor during 2026. Human Rights Watch has also reported and verified the use of airburst white phosphorus over residential areas earlier this year.

However, the claim that every civilian home has been completely destroyed has not been independently verified.

What is clear is that the damage across the area is extensive.

Satellite assessments of southern Lebanon have documented widespread destruction in numerous villages, with some areas showing severe damage and others appearing largely flattened amid Israel’s expanding military-controlled buffer zone.

These were more than structures.

They were family homes, farms, memories and communities shaped over generations, long before the current conflict.

When an entire community is reduced to ruins, describing the consequences only as “military operations” can overlook the enormous impact on civilians who have lost their homes and surroundings.

Yohmor’s history should not be forgotten.

05/09/2026

North Korea has once again made its position on nuclear weapons clear:

Pyongyang has no intention of abandoning its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea has rejected renewed U.S. calls for denuclearization, accusing Washington of maintaining what it describes as a “hostile policy” toward the country.

Rather than signaling a willingness to reduce its nuclear capabilities, North Korean officials continue to emphasize the importance of strengthening their nuclear forces.

For Kim Jong Un’s government, nuclear weapons are increasingly described not simply as negotiating tools, but as essential to national security and deterrence.

That presents a major challenge for Washington.

Donald Trump has previously expressed interest in another meeting with Kim, while the United States and South Korea have also adjusted some military activities in an effort to manage tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

But North Korea’s position remains firmly opposed to giving up its nuclear capability.

The message from Pyongyang is essentially:

We can discuss relations.

But giving up our nuclear weapons is not on the table.

That leaves the United States facing a difficult reality.

Years of sanctions, diplomatic efforts, military pressure and high-profile summits have failed to achieve North Korea’s denuclearization.

Instead, Pyongyang continues to present itself as a nuclear-armed state and says it will further develop its capabilities.

And that means the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula remains unresolved.

04/09/2026

It really makes you stop and think.

Across many parts of the workforce, people in their 70s or 80s may face significant difficulty finding employment. Older workers often describe experiencing age-based bias, assumptions about their ability to adapt to technology, and situations where younger applicants are favored.

Yet when the discussion turns to leading the most powerful nation in the world, age can suddenly receive far less attention.

Donald Trump is one example of why voters should consider more than someone’s age. His long political career brings substantial experience, but voters can still reasonably question a candidate’s cognitive abilities, stamina, decision-making, judgment and overall ability to handle the demands of the presidency—as they can with any candidate.

The presidency carries enormous responsibilities, including decisions involving nuclear weapons, military conflicts, economic emergencies, foreign relations and policies affecting hundreds of millions of Americans.

The Constitution does not establish a maximum age for serving as president.

And being older should never, by itself, be treated as proof that someone is incapable of doing the job. Many older adults remain highly capable, mentally alert, physically active and deeply experienced.

At the same time, voters should be free to raise legitimate questions about Donald Trump—or any other candidate—without those discussions automatically becoming partisan battles.

If ordinary employees can face questions about performance, health, retirement and their ability to continue working, it is reasonable to debate how much scrutiny should apply to people seeking the nation’s highest office.

Experience matters.

But so does the ability to meet the extraordinary demands of the presidency.

Ultimately, voters—not age alone—should decide whether a candidate is capable of carrying those responsibilities.

04/09/2026

REPORTER: “WILL THIS WAR STILL BE GOING ON BY THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS?”

JD VANCE: “I WOULDN’T DESCRIBE IT AS A WAR.”

So are officials once again avoiding the word “war” when the question turns to how long the conflict will last?

For months, Donald Trump has repeatedly described the U.S. campaign against Iran in terms of victory, defeat and progress toward peace, while making statements suggesting the conflict could be nearing an end.

Trump has also used phrases such as “we won” when discussing the results of U.S. military action.

Meanwhile, Americans have seen continued military strikes and Iranian retaliation, along with reports of U.S. service members killed or wounded, significant government spending, civilian casualties and disruption affecting global energy markets.

Yet when a reporter asks whether the conflict could continue into the midterm election period, the Vice President says he would not even describe it as a war.

That distinction is striking.

The language seems to change depending on the question being asked.

When political leaders discuss the outcome, the emphasis can be on victory and success.

When questions turn toward responsibility, duration and consequences, the terminology becomes much more carefully defined.

And when voters ask the most basic question — when does it actually end?

They are left debating whether it should even be called a war.

So after all the talk about winning, defeating Iran and bringing the conflict to an end, Americans are still left with one obvious question:

If this isn’t a war, then what exactly have we been winning?

04/09/2026

Donald Trump Jr.’s rapid rise in investment fortunes is now drawing attention on Capitol Hill.

House Judiciary Committee Democrat Jamie Raskin has opened an inquiry into 1789 Capital, the venture-capital firm Trump Jr. joined as a partner only days after his father secured a second presidential term.

And the financial growth is drawing questions.

Before Trump Jr. came aboard, the firm reportedly oversaw about $150 million in assets.

Today, that figure has reportedly climbed above $3 billion, while its primary fund has posted returns of roughly 200%.

Raskin says some 1789 investments appeared to benefit soon after from major actions taken by the Trump administration — including federal contracts, grants and regulatory decisions involving companies such as Vulcan Elements, Juul and Polymarket.

He is seeking communications involving federal officials, investment records and documents concerning Trump Jr.’s position at the firm.

To be clear, Trump Jr. has not been found guilty by any court of fraud or insider trading.

Still, when the president’s son joins an investment firm and that firm then experiences dramatic growth while making investments that Raskin says seemed unusually well-positioned for government decisions, it is reasonable for lawmakers to seek answers.

The questions now center on the money, the timing and the connections.

Follow the money.

04/09/2026

Albania is showing the world what sustained peaceful resistance can look like.

For 97 straight days, Albanians have continued returning to the streets, refusing to let their movement fade after a single demonstration, news cycle, or burst of public anger.

What began with opposition to a major luxury development associated with Jared Kushner near the environmentally sensitive Vjosa-Narta wetlands has developed into a broader political movement.

The protests have expanded to demands for Prime Minister Edi Rama’s resignation, stronger accountability, action on corruption, and deeper political change.

One message continues to stand out:

“Albania is not for sale.”

Some political voices have described the demonstrations as opposition to an “Epstein class.” However, that is political rhetoric rather than a factual description of what the movement is specifically about.

The protests are not primarily a movement about Jeffrey Epstein.

Instead, protesters are challenging what they view as a powerful political and business establishment influencing decisions about Albania’s land, resources, development and future, while ordinary citizens believe they should have a greater voice.

Ninety-seven days.

And the protesters are still showing up.

Whatever the eventual outcome may be, that level of persistence is difficult to ignore.

Support Albanians who are peacefully calling for greater transparency, accountability and a stronger public voice in decisions affecting their country.

04/09/2026

“Sometimes these things happen.”

That was JD Vance’s response when discussing reports that a U.S. strike may have hit a wedding celebration in southern Iran.

Reports say five people were killed and roughly 68 others were injured. Families had gathered to celebrate a marriage when an explosion struck the event.

And Vance’s response?

“Sometimes these things happen.”

To be fair, Vance also stated that the United States does not intentionally target civilians and that officials are working to determine exactly what happened.

That investigation is important because civilian deaths, by themselves, do not automatically establish a war crime. Investigators must examine the intended target, what commanders knew, whether reasonable precautions were taken and whether the anticipated civilian harm was disproportionate.

But a Reuters analysis has indicated that the wedding celebration was likely directly struck by a U.S. mu****on.

That makes the incident deserving of far more than a dismissive response.

When American civilians are killed, politicians rightly demand answers, accountability and justice.

Iranian families deserve that same consideration.

“Sometimes these things happen” should never become an excuse for civilians killed during a military operation.

If an avoidable mistake—or an unlawful strike—took place, the facts should be established and responsibility addressed.

War does not eliminate accountability.

And civilian lives should not be treated as an afterthought.

04/09/2026

At this point, the explanations surrounding the Epstein files are becoming increasingly difficult to follow.

Donald Trump has suggested that Democrats could have inserted false information into the Epstein records, arguing that they could “easily put something in the files that’s a phony.”

But there’s a major question that remains unanswered:

What evidence has been provided to show that names or information were actually fabricated or deliberately planted?

So far, no evidence has been presented here establishing that such a scheme occurred.

The broader timeline also raises questions about the argument being made.

The first major federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein took place between 2006 and 2008, during the administration of Republican President George W. Bush.

Epstein was later arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019, while Donald Trump was president.

None of that means that everyone mentioned in Epstein-related records committed a crime. A person’s name appearing in documents is not proof of criminal conduct. The records can contain contacts, photographs, articles, testimony and references to many different people.

But suggesting that politically uncomfortable names may have been planted without providing evidence does little to resolve the questions surrounding the files.

The better answer is transparency.

Release whatever records can lawfully be made public.

Protect survivors.

Investigate credible allegations.

And let evidence—not political affiliation—determine where the investigation goes.

Because every time the explanation changes, the public is left with even more questions.

At this point, the whole situation is becoming increasingly difficult to take seriously.

04/09/2026

Here’s the real test of whether accountability applies equally to everyone:

Would you support Thomas Massie making public the identities of people credibly connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s operation — even if the evidence eventually pointed toward the President of the United States?

Massie has taken the unusual step of naming 14 individuals on the House floor whom he says should face investigation over possible crimes related to Epstein.

Donald Trump was not included among those 14 names.

And being mentioned in Epstein-related records, by itself, does not establish that someone committed a crime. A person’s name could appear in photographs, contact lists, emails, flight records, testimony or other documents for many different reasons.

But someone’s political position should never decide whether credible evidence deserves scrutiny.

If evidence points toward a billionaire, investigate it.

If it points toward a Democrat, investigate it.

If it points toward a Republican, investigate it.

And if credible evidence ever points toward a sitting president, that evidence should be investigated as well.

No one should face prison simply because their name appears in a document.

But no one should be protected from potential prosecution simply because their name is associated with the White House.

Release records that can lawfully be made public. Protect survivors. Examine the evidence carefully.

Follow the facts wherever they lead.

No political exceptions.

04/09/2026

What is Donald Trump’s legacy ultimately supposed to look like?

His critics argue that his presidency has been defined less by creating lasting achievements and more by chaos, personal promotion, major disruptions and constant branding.

Trump returned to the White House promising peace, affordability and the beginning of a new golden age.

Yet America is now seven months into another Middle Eastern conflict involving Iran.

At home, he has devoted attention to renaming prominent landmarks — including the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario — while also raising the possibility of putting his own name on the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, Trump’s personal fortune remains enormous. Forbes has described his second presidency as highly lucrative and estimates his wealth at approximately $7 billion.

None of this proves that Trump has literally done “absolutely nothing” for America. His supporters point to policies and accomplishments they believe matter, and history will eventually assess his entire record.

Still, the criticism is understandable.

Americans were promised lower prices, fewer wars and more effective government.

Instead, many critics see increased instability, continued conflict and a president who appears heavily focused on branding and symbolic changes.

History will ultimately determine the legacy.

For now, the branding may be more visible than the accomplishments.

ASFAN Insight

05/09/2026

05/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

04/09/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request