Fox News ‘Antisemitism Exposed’ Newsletter: Chicago's Jewish community shaken by shooting

Courtney Burgess, who testified before a grand jury in Manhattan on Thursday, claimed in an interview with NewsNation's “Banfield” that he saw six males and two female celebs engaging in sex acts with the disgraced music mogul.

Emergency teams were dispatched to the downtown station and bulldozers were removing the debris looking for survivors.

The sisters transformed into Lizzie McGuire and Isabella Parigi from the 2003 musical movie with near-perfect costumes ripped from the screen.

No Harris, no humping. No Trump, no pumping.

Follow the Post’s live updates for the latest news, analysis, polling and odds on the 2024 Presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, with Election Day approaching.

Joel and Ryan react to the Game 5 loss and World Series for the Yankees and what to make of the 2024 season. We discuss what’s wrong with this team and organization and how they can improve heading into the 2025 season. Check out Pinstripe Post on YouTube: https://trib.al/7iUXnCW

U.S. Marine vet Daniel Penny's manslaughter trial in New York City subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely kicks off with opening statements Friday.

The Uber passenger charged with a hate crime for pepper spraying a Muslim driver in Manhattan is a former sorority girl who was fired from her PR job over the shocking incident. Manhattan College graduate Jennifer Guilbeault, 23, had just started a promising career at a New York public relations firm when she was caught...

Trump also called Cheney “a deranged person."

Kaulitz and Klum tied the knot in 2019, less than one year after they began dating.

Failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is once again making claims of "voter suppression" in Georgia despite record early voter turnout.

The Labor Department has released October's jobs report with employment growth slowed during the month due to Hurricanes Milton and Helene along with the Boeing strike. CBS News MoneyWatch correspondent Kelly O'Grady breaks down the numbers.

Harry Stock was reinstated as a priest of the Episcopal Church. Four decades ago, he was defrocked after publicly proclaiming his love for his partner.

Fixing the gender bias problem will not happen easily.

Robert Hassell III, the 23-year-old outfielder, has been a star of Arizona Fall League.

American Humane announced its 2024 Hero Dog Award finalists. The standout dogs will be honored at a gala event this winter to celebrate their service and dedication to others.

Disney+'s new John Williams documentary is available to stream, but find out where you can see it in a theater with the sound that his music deserves.

Seeds for wildflowers and sweet peas produce delicate bursts of spring color. Here's how to plant them now in SoCal, plus November plant events.

These titles, plus The Apprentice, Piece By Piece and more are on VOD now!

Autumn colors across Europe, Day of the Dead displays in Mexico, Diwali lights in India, deadly flooding in Spain, a kite festival in South Africa, the School of Santa Claus in Brazil, World Series celebrations in Los Angeles, and much moreTo receive an email notification every time new photo stories are published, sign up here.

The approach of the presidential election has people in both parties in doomscrolling mode. Some Republicans are creating elaborate conspiracy theories about voter fraud in swing states. Some Democrats are creating elaborate conspiracy theories about Nate Silver’s projections. Of course, this kind of internet-based obsession isn’t healthy. Although perhaps the best way to avoid a sense of impending dread about the coming presidential election is to actually participate in some form of civic engagement in the four days before November 5, those who are loath to leave their couches and interact with their fellow human beings have a well-adjusted alternative to volunteering: reading a book. As a journalist who has thought, talked, and written about electoral politics every day for as long as I can remember, I can suggest five books that might lend readers a new perspective on politics—without all the unpleasant mental-health side effects of spending hours online.The Earl of Louisiana, by A. J. LieblingLiebling’s chronicle of the 1959 gubernatorial campaign of Earl Long, Huey Long’s brother, who became the dominant figure in state politics in the decades after his brother’s assassination, is one of the great classics of literary journalism. Set in the byzantine world of Louisiana politics in the mid-20th century, the book is a remarkable character study of the younger Long, who served three stints as governor of the Bayou State (and was briefly institutionalized by his wife during his last term, as chronicled by Liebling). Although it’s arguably not even the best book about one of the Longs—T. Harry Williams’s biography of Huey is a masterpiece— it captures a precise moment of transition as American politics adjusted to both the rise of television and the beginnings of the civil-rights movement. Its glimpse into those changes also serves as a last hurrah for a certain type of traditional politics that seems remote in our very online age.Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72, by Hunter S. ThompsonThompson’s tale of the 1972 presidential campaign has offered a rousing introduction to American campaigns for generations of teenage political junkies. His gonzo journalism is prone to treating the line between fact and fiction as advisory at best, but it also gets into the actual art of politics in a way that few others have managed. His depiction of George McGovern’s campaign’s careful management of the floor of the Democratic National Convention is genuinely instructive for professionals, while still accessible to those with only a casual interest in the field. In a year in which “vibes” have earned a new primacy in campaign coverage, reading Thompson is even more worthwhile, because he did a better job than anyone of covering the vibes of his moment.[Read: Six political memoirs worth reading]SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party, by Ivor Crewe and Anthony KingAmericans frequently complain about their two-party system and wonder why no third party has yet emerged that could somehow appeal to a broad constituency. But sustaining such mass popularity is even harder than it sounds, as shown by this history of the Social Democratic Party in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the closest thing to a full-fledged third party that has emerged in the Anglosphere in the past century, the SDP was formed in 1981 as a breakaway from the Labour Party, which seemed irretrievably in control of fringe leftists and Trotskyites; meanwhile, all the Conservative Party had to offer was Margaret Thatcher. The SDP, in an alliance with the Liberal Party (a longtime moderate party of moderate means and membership), appeared positioned to shatter the mold of British politics. In the early 1980s, it polled first among British voters. But its momentum fizzled, as Crewe and King chronicle, due to both internal conflicts and external events such as the Falklands War. The party, which now exists as the Liberal Democrats, has had varying fortunes in British politics since, but it has never reached the heights that once felt attainable in the early ’80s. Crewe and King explain why, while also outlining just how close the SDP came.This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future, by Jonathan Martin and Alex BurnsIf you feel the need to reflect on contemporary American politics right now, Martin and Burns’s book on the tumultuous end of the Trump administration and start of the Biden presidency provides a smart field guide for understanding how exactly Donald Trump went from leaving Washington in disgrace after January 6 to potentially winning reelection in 2024. It chronicles the series of compromises and calculations within the Republican Party that first enabled and then fueled Trump’s political comeback, and also goes inside the Democratic Party, dissecting Kamala Harris’s rise as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential nominee as well as the missteps that hampered her role in the early days after Biden took office. Days from the presidential election, this offers the best look back at how our country got here.[Read: What’s the one book that explains American politics today?]On Politics, by H. L. MenckenJournalism rarely lasts. After all, many stories that are huge one day are forgotten the next. Seldom do reporters’ or columnists’ legacies live on beyond their retirement, let alone their death. One of the few exceptions to this is Mencken, and deservedly so. Mencken was not just a talented memoirist and scholar of American English but also one of the eminent political writers of his time. Admittedly, many of his judgments did not hold up: Mencken had many of the racial prejudices of his time, and his loathing for Franklin D. Roosevelt has not exactly been vindicated by history. However, this collection of articles covers the vulgar and hypocritical parade of politics during the Roaring ’20s, when Prohibition was the nominal law of the land. The 1924 election of Calvin Coolidge (of whom Mencken wrote, “It would be difficult to imagine a more obscure and unimportant man”) may be justly forgotten today. But it produced absurdities, such as a Democratic National Convention that required 103 ballots to deliver a nominee who lost to Coolidge in a landslide, that were ripe for Mencken’s cynical skewering. Today, his writing serves as a model of satire worth revisiting.

Elon Musk gestures as he steps on stage during a rally for Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York, October 27, 2024. | Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images Elon Musk has arguably done more than any single individual to aid Donald Trump’s campaign. The mega-billionaire has put more than $75 million toward electing the former president, turned America’s most politically influential social media platform into a vehicle for right-wing propaganda, orchestrated a (shambolic) get-out-the-vote effort, and repeatedly appeared beside Trump on the campaign trail. Now, as the race enters its homestretch, Musk is trying to clinch Trump’s victory with a bracing closing argument: If our side wins, you will experience severe economic pain. If elected, Trump has vowed to put Musk in charge of a new “government efficiency commission,” which would identify supposedly wasteful programs that should be eliminated or slashed. During a telephone town hall last Friday, Musk said that his commission’s work would “necessarily involve some temporary hardship.”  Days later, Musk suggested that this budget cutting — combined with Trump’s mass deportation plan — would cause a market-crashing economic “storm.” On his social media platform, X (a.k.a. Twitter), an anonymous user posted Tuesday that, “If Trump succeeds in forcing through mass deportations, combined with Elon hacking away at the government, firing people and reducing the deficit – there will be an initial severe overreaction in the economy…Market will tumble. But when the storm passes and everyone realizes we are on sounder footing, there will be a rapid recovery to a healthier, sustainable economy.” Musk replied, “Sounds about right.” This is one of the more truthful arguments that Musk has made for Trump’s election — which is to say, only half of it is false. If Trump delivers on his stated plans, Americans will indeed suffer material hardship. But such deprivation would neither be necessary for — nor conducive to — achieving a healthier or more sustainable economy.  Already, US retailers are saying that they will increase prices if Trump is elected in order to offset the impact of his 10 percent universal tariff on imports. And contrary to Trump’s suggestion, those painful price hikes would not yield a stronger US manufacturing industry in the long term.  Trump’s plans for mass deportation, meanwhile, would trigger severe labor shortages in the construction and agricultural sectors, rendering food and housing more expensive. And these immediate disruptions would not raise American wages in the long run, but rather, make the economy less productive, and Medicare and Social Security more difficult to sustain.  Musk’s plans for slashing federal spending would be similarly calamitous. He has offered few details about his vision for downsizing Uncle Sam, but recently suggested that the federal government’s $6.75 trillion budget should be cut by at least $2 trillion. Austerity on that scale would disrupt myriad government services on which Democrats and Republicans rely, while threatening to throw the US economy into severe recession. And there is little basis for believing that an economic paradise would rise from such ruins.  Trump’s tariffs would raise consumer prices without aiding the broader economy The first component of the joint Trump-Musk economic vision is a sweeping tariff regime. Trump has promised to impose a 10 percent to 20 percent universal tariff on all imports, and an at least 60 percent tariff on imports from China.   He claims that the cost of these duties would be borne by foreign producers. The theory behind that claim (to the extent that Trump has one) is that overseas companies would feel compelled to fully offset the impact of the tariff for US consumers: Since their goods would face a 10 percent sales tax in the US — while the goods of their American competitors would face no tax — exporters would cut the prices of their goods by 10 percent, and accept lower profit margins, in order to maintain their products’ competitiveness on the US market. But this idea is dubious in theory, and patently false in practice. For one thing, there are many products and commodities that cannot be produced in the United States. Putting a 10 percent tariff on Colombian coffee beans will not make it possible to grow coffee at scale in the US. A Colombian Arabica exporter would therefore have no incentive to lower their prices in response to Trump’s tariff, for fear of getting outcompeted by nonexistent US rivals. Another, even larger problem for Trump’s theory is that American manufacturers cannot produce many of their wares without foreign-made components. Putting a tariff on all imports therefore increases domestic firms’ cost of production. And many American companies are already telling investors and the public that they will raise prices in order to offset that increase in costs.  “If we get tariffs, we will pass those tariff costs back to the consumer,” the CEO of AutoZone, an American auto parts retailer, recently said on an earnings call. “We’ll generally raise prices ahead of — we know what the tariffs will be — we generally raise prices ahead of that.” As the Washington Post reports, Columbia Sportswear and Stanley Black & Decker have announced similar plans. For these reasons, among others, Yale’s Budget Lab estimates that Trump’s tariffs would raise consumer prices by as much as 5.1 percent, or $7,600 per household (in 2023 dollars). Critically, this immediate pain for US consumers would not translate into durable gains for America’s manufacturers. To the contrary, Trump’s tariffs would likely hurt American exporters.  As already mentioned, his tariff would raise input costs for American producers. And that would render such manufacturers less competitive in the global market, leading them to lose market share.  Indeed, the small-bore tariffs that Trump applied during his first term demonstrated this problem. Economists at the University of California San Diego, the Census Bureau, and the Federal Reserve studied the impacts of Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, solar panels, and various Chinese goods. They found that American exporters who were most exposed to tariffs on their inputs saw lower export growth in 2019 than exporters who were unaffected by the duties. And the impacts would likely be significantly larger for a universal tariff that raised the cost of every foreign input to the production process. At the same time, Trump’s tariff would run afoul of America’s obligations under various free trade agreements. And other nations would respond by imposing retaliatory tariffs on American-made goods. Again, Trump’s far more modest experiments with protectionism in his first term illustrated the problem. As America’s trade partners imposed retaliatory duties on US agricultural products, American farmers suffered a $27 billion loss in exports between mid-2018 and the end of 2019.  Further, a 2019 analysis from the Federal Reserve found that US manufacturers exposed to tariffs saw relative reductions in employment as the harms of higher input costs and retaliatory tariffs outweighed the benefits of protection from import competition. Thus, Trump’s tariffs would make life more expensive for consumers in the short term, and American manufacturing less competitive in the long run. Deporting undocumented immigrants en masse would make America poorer Trump also plans to deport undocumented immigrants, including law-abiding workers who’ve long lived in the US. In addition to the human suffering mass deportations would cause, such a plan would impose immediate economic pain with no compensating long-term benefit. Rapidly removing millions of undocumented workers from the economy would devastate the agricultural and construction sectors, where such immigrants make up roughly one-third and one-quarter of the workforce, respectively. This would render both food and housing more scarce, and thus more expensive (at least in the immediate term). The disappearance of millions of working-age people who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes would also expedite the insolvency of those programs. As the American population ages over the next five years, it will need to add 240,000 workers each month to keep pace with retirements, according to a recent study. Trump’s program would make this virtually impossible to achieve.  Trump’s supporters argue that these harms will be offset in the long run by huge wage gains for native-born Americans, who will no longer need to compete with undocumented workers for jobs. But this is a fallacy.  American workers’ bargaining power is determined by the balance between the demand for labor in the economy and the supply of workers. When employers have a high appetite for labor but a limited pool of applicants, workers can secure better pay and conditions. This economic circumstance is commonly described as a “tight labor market.” Mass deportation would reduce the supply of workers in the US economy. But it would also reduce demand for American labor: Immigrants are human beings who purchase goods and services in order to survive and enjoy themselves. Consequently, deporting millions of undocumented immigrants wouldn’t necessarily make labor markets tighter. And in any event, such a destructive policy is unnecessary for creating a favorable environment for US workers.  It’s more than possible to simultaneously generate a tighter labor market and grow the population of workers through immigration. In fact, this just occurred: In 2022 and 2023, an estimated 6 million people immigrated to the US. Over that same period, unemployment fell to historic lows, while wages rose and pay inequality fell.  This was not an aberrant outcome. As economics blogger Noah Smith notes, economists have studied the economic effects of myriad immigration waves, and tend to find no negative impact on native-born workers’ wages or employment prospects. Meanwhile, immigrants tend to increase an economy’s labor efficiency. This is because immigrant workers are far more willing to move in response to shifting economic conditions than native workers who have deep roots in particular US communities. Immigrants are therefore uniquely effective at filling shortages in local labor markets. By plugging these holes, they render other workers in those places more productive. The Harvard economist George Borjas has estimated that such productivity gains generate between $5 billion and $10 billion of economic value for native-born workers each year. Thus, Trump’s immigration plans would make US consumers poorer in the near term, while reducing the size and productivity of the American economy on a longer time horizon. Gutting air safety, meat inspections, and food stamps will not make the economy healthier Finally, Elon Musk’s fiscal plans — which Trump supposedly intends to implement (at least, according to Musk) — would severely disrupt the provision of government services and increase unemployment, while hurting the economy’s long-term growth prospects. During Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden, Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick asked Musk, “How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted, $6.5 trillion Harris-Biden budget?”  This was evidently a reference to the 2024 US federal budget, which is actually $6.75 trillion. “I think we can do at least $2 trillion,” Musk replied. This proposal is so radical that it has attracted criticism from fiscal conservatives who support the broad goal of cutting federal spending. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute, told the Washington Post this week, “The idea that one can cut $2 trillion in wasteful and unnecessary programs is absolutely absurd.”  The reason is simple. According to government watchdogs, actual waste and fraud amounts to less than $300 billion a year. Shaving $2 trillion off the federal budget would therefore require draconian cuts to many popular federal programs. Were Trump to implement Musk’s vision while simultaneously honoring his promise to avoid cutting entitlements and the GOP’s commitment to avoiding defense spending cuts, then he would need to slash all other government programs by 80 percent. That would involve gutting all social services for low-income Americans, food inspections, air safety, health insurance subsidies, and infrastructure investments, among countless other things. This would abruptly and massively reduce demand in the US economy, potentially triggering a recession.  There is little reason to expect such severe and haphazard spending cuts to benefit the economy in the long term. After all, government investments in education and infrastructure often increase the economy’s growth potential — slashing funding for such programs could impair America’s economic performance in the coming decades.  The best argument for Trump’s economic agenda is that he might not act on it Elon Musk is correct to say that Trump’s plans would impose hardship on the American people. But he’s wrong to describe such difficulties as temporary. If Trump and Musk get their way, America’s consumers will pay higher prices, its manufacturers will sell fewer exports, its agricultural industry will fall into chaos, its workforce will become less productive, its federal government will struggle to provide basic services, and its long-term economic growth potential will fall.  Trump’s supporters might reasonably argue that none of this should trouble us, since he rarely fulfills his campaign promises and will surely back away from his economically ruinous agenda once in office. But “don’t worry, our candidate is a huge liar” does not strike me as a much better message than “prepare for temporary hardship.”

Considering tapping into your home equity this November? Here are three smart borrowing moves to know now.

A study from the University of Kansas found that parents seeking information on their children’s health trust AI more than professionals. AI expert Harvey Castro discusses the benefits and risks.

U.N.-backed human rights experts say Russia’s torture of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war is a crime against humanity.

In today's "Mornings Memory," we look back at a 1993 CBS report on America's growing appetite for large portions and bulk buying—a trend that now feels as classic as apple pie.

Jordon Hudson is quite the catch! Bill Belichick and his much-younger girlfriend showed off their mermaid and fisherman costume on Halloween. Watch the full video to learn more about their couple’s costume.  Subscribe to our YouTube for the latest on all your favorite stars.

America’s employers added just 12,000 jobs in October, a total that economists say was held down by the effects of strikes and hurricanes that left many workers temporarily off payrolls.

A surfer in Florida was attacked by a shark at Bathtub Beach near Miami—the same spot where he survived another attack 11 years ago.

With the race for the White House heating up, "CBS Mornings Plus" explores three superstitious election theories, from cookie sales to other quirky predictions. Scott MacFarlane checks to see if these theories might really hint at the 2024 winner.

Seacrest officially signed off from Live in 2023. 

With just days until Election Day, former President Trump and Vice President Harris rallied in key states. Trump enlisted Tucker Carlson to target political rivals, while Harris, joined by Jennifer Lopez, addressed voter issues and Trump's recent remarks. CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa joins "CBS Mornings Plus" for campaign analysis

Financial officers from 15 states urge public pension fund managers to divest from China-based investments due to CCP control over firms, citing "imprudence."

Donald Trump is calling former Rep. Liz Cheney, who's one of his most prominent Republican critics, a “war hawk” and he's suggesting she might not be as willing to send troops to fight if she had guns pointed at her.

Electronics, fashion, toys and big-ticket gifts — Walmart's got it all.

Honduran illegal Wilson Castillo Diaz is accused of raping a 5-year-old girl in suburban New York one decade after entering the United States as a teenager.

As Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign comes down the home stretch, she's continuing to slam former President Trump on issues like abortion. CBS News correspondent Lilia Luciano has more.

Orlando Bloom has been dragged into Katy Perry's battle against a bedridden veteran after she already won the rights to his $15 million California mansion.

Treat the 'hostess with the mostest' to something special with our top picks.

“They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, Ooh gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy,” the former president told Tucker Carlson.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney is firing back at Donald Trump after the former president darkly suggested she be put in the line of fire as he criticized her as a "war hawk."

Camping is the answer. Who cares what the question is?

In the SEC, it just means more. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who helmed four college football programs before turning to politics, roasted Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz Friday over his latest pigskin faux pas. Walz, 60, took to X in an attempt to fire Democrats up as early voting in several states winds down....

Some tickets are over $800 cheaper than they were just four days ago.

The Duchess of Sussex, 43, has faced ongoing trademark troubles since announcing the brand's impending launch in March.

Some include a croissant-shaped dish and a custom pet baseball cap.

Former President Donald Trump went after former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming during a campaign event with conservative personality Tucker Carlson.

Ruben Amorim, 39, has had a quick ascent up the coaching ranks after leading Sporting CP to two league titles in Portugal.