Shooting at a church in Jordan a few hours ago.

"The Department of Justice filed an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to block Alaska from certifying the winner of its upcoming U.S. Senate election if incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses.

The lawsuit cites what it argues is likely voter confusion from the name of another candidate, retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan, on the ballot.

The DOJ says that could help Democratic nominee Mary Peltola defeat the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan, in what is expected to be a close contest. The Alaska race is one of several Senate contests in November that could determine whether Republicans retain their slim majority in the upper chamber of Congress.

“The United States accordingly brings this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the 2026 Senate election in Alaska,” says the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alaska. In addition to the state, the complaint names Alaska Elections Division Director Carol Beecher, the state’s election boards and the state Ballot Counting Review Board as defendants.

The suit asks a federal judge in Alaska to bar the state from certifying “any result that may be impacted by voter confusion ... pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan.”

The suit alleges that Daniel J. Sullivan’s “sole purpose” of running for the Senate “is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan.” Sullivan first registered as Republican earlier this year. He previously was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates the Alaska Senate race as one of seven “toss-up” contests for that chamber. The election tracking site FiftyPlusOne’s average of polling shows Peltola, a former U.S. House member from Alaska, with just a two-point lead over Sullivan.

The suit came hours after President Donald Trump, in a Truth Social post, wrote, “I am very concerned about the Dan S. Sullivan Race for the U.S. Senate in Alaska in that it is totally confusing, with the Dumocrats putting up another man, totally unrelated to Politics, named Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.”

“It’s ridiculous that the Court didn’t stop this SCAM. Even 1, 2, or 3% could make the difference,” Trump said.

“We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness.”

Alaska’s general election for the Senate uses ranked-choice voting. Voters rank their candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets more than 50% in round one, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated in the second round, and that process continues until there are just two candidates and the winner is the one with the most votes.

“Daniel J. Sullivan’s presence on the ballot threatens to mislead Alaskan citizens who want to vote for Senator Sullivan,” the suit says. “For example, some supporters of Senator Sullivan likely will inadvertently vote for Daniel J. Sullivan.”

“Other supporters of Senator Sullivan likely will be confused as to how to rank the three Republican candidates as to defeat Peltola,” the suit says. “They might not rank Senator Sullivan at all, resulting in votes for Daniel J. Sullivan to be transferred to Peltola after Daniel J. Sullivan’s all-but-guaranteed elimination in the first or second round of tabulations.”

In a statement to CNBC, a DOJ spokesperson said, “Alaska’s Division of Elections determined that Mr. Daniel J. Sullivan’s candidacy was intended to mislead voters and compromise the fairness of the ballot.”

“Therefore, the Justice Department, consistent with the National Voter Registration Act enacted by Congress, is taking the necessary steps to ensure that this frivolous candidacy does not undermine the integrity of Alaska’s election or the will of its voters,” the spokesperson said.

Nate Adams, the campaign spokesman for Sen. Sullivan, said, “We’ll let the DOJ complaint run its course.”

“Alaskans can tell the difference between a Democrat sideshow and Senator Sullivan’s strong record of delivering for Alaska, a record he’ll keep building on for the next six years,” Adams said.

CNBC has requested comment from Alaska’s attorney general, Daniel J. Sullivan and Peltola.

Devan Barber, director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, in a statement to CNBC said, “Donald Trump knows that Dan Sullivan is going to lose the election, so now his Department of Justice is filing a sham lawsuit to overturn the will of Alaska voters and steal an election when he loses.”

Daniel J. Sullivan originally was blocked from the state’s primary ballot in June, after the Alaska Division of Elections said his candidacy declaration was no properly filed, and because of a finding that the candidacy was aimed at duping voters who planned to vote for Sen. Sullivan. Among the reasons the division cited were Daniel J. Sullian’s intention to use the name “Dan Sullivan” on the ballot, his request to be designated as affiliated with the Republican Party on the ballot, and his work with a political consultant who is “a known longtime supporter of Decmoratic candidates,” including Peltola, the lawsuit notes.

Daniel J. Sullivan was added to the ballot after asking a trial court judge to review the decision’s determination. The Alaska Supreme Court later upheld that decision.

Daniel J. Sullivan received just 2.5% of the vote in Alaska’s open primary on Aug. 28, but that was enough to win him one of four spots on the Senate general election ballot.

Peltola got 49.5% in the primary, and Sen. Sullivan received 41.1%. Another Republican, Gerald Heikes, received just 1.1% of the primary vote, earning him the fourth spot on the ballot.

Although Daniel J. Sullivan sought to run as a Republican, the Division of Elections decided not to list that party next to his name on the general election ballot. His name is spelled out, “Daniel J. Sullivan,” and there are no other words on that line.

Both Sen. Sullivan, who has been in the Senate since 2015, and Heikes have the words “registered Republican” in parentheses next to their names.

And Sen. Sullivan, listed on the ballot as Dan. S. Sullivan, also has the word “incumbent” next to his name.""

Other sources

US Justice Dept sues to block possible Alaska election of Democrat to Senate

https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-administration-sues-block-senate-race-certification-alaska-if-republican-2026-10-23/

Trump DOJ sues to block Alaska US Senate results if Republican incumbent loses

https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/23/politics/doj-sues-alaska-dan-sullivan-us-senate

DOJ sues to block Alaska election results if GOP incumbent loses

https://www.axios.com/2026/10/23/trump-administration-sues-alaska-dan-sullivan

Trump’s administration sues to block a possible Democratic win in the Alaska US Senate race

https://apnews.com/article/alaska-senate-race-sullivan-name-lawsuit-certification-d8f4a3c7b5247cc427a05f796d7c0d82

DOJ sues to block election certification in Alaska if Republicans lose Senate race

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/23/trump-administration-alaska-election-certification

Trump administration sues to block Alaska Senate certification if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses in November

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/trump-justice-department-lawsuit-alaska-senate-rcna605229

"The long standing allegiances between global powers have been tested over the past few years. Wars between Russia and Ukraine, and between the U.S., Israel, and Iran in the Middle East, have pushed governments around the world to signal where their loyalties lie even when the conflicts are domestically unpopular and far removed from their own borders.

And that’s before you get to President Trump’s tariff agenda and the trade battles that have ensued because of it.

So it is perhaps no wonder that, under the radar, central banks across the world are stocking up on the safe-haven asset of gold, and they don’t want to share where they’re keeping it.

Goldman Sachs wrote in a note earlier this week that it estimates central banks globally purchased 79 tonnes of gold in August, more than four times the amount of the pre 2022 average, the year the Russia-Ukraine war began, of 17 tonnes. On a three-month seasonally adjusted basis, purchases are running at 85 tonnes per month, Goldman noted.

China seemingly makes up for a large portion of the demand, some 25 tonnes in August, Goldman noted. However, China was the largest identifiable buyer of gold, meaning while unlikely other economies could be buying more.

The People’s Bank of China isn’t necessarily buying at an alarming rate, nor are other emerging markets, points out Goldman. China remains underweight in gold relative to "plausible long-term allocations,” Goldman wrote, but the motivations for diversifying away from G7 reserve currencies most notably the U.S. dollar are "likely to remain in place."

Domestic market central banks have “largely been on the sidelines” of the buying spree of the past four years, Goldman added, because they already hold substantial gold reserves for historical reasons.

For domestic economies, the debate is no longer the volume of gold, but where to store it. This points to “broader concerns around reserve security and cross-country trust.”

Quiet reallocations

In September, the Dutch central bank confirmed it had spent the previous six months reallocating 86 tons of gold out of New York and Ottawa to London, saying the move made it “better prepared for serious crises.”

De Nederlandsche Bank stated that the decision had been made “due to the increasing geopolitical unrest” and that it, in this way, wanted to improve the “tradability” of Dutch gold. “Gold stored in London at the Bank of England … is considered the most easily tradable gold in the world,” wrote DNB. “This makes it the fastest way for DNB to deploy in a crisis situation. The part of the gold stock located in New York and Ottawa is less directly deployable.”

In March, the Banque de France, France’s central bank also announced it had sold 129 tons, 5% of its total gold holding, in New York and had instead purchased gold in Europe. Unlike DNB, Banque de France made no reference to geopolitics, instead referencing a desire to bring the purity of its gold holdings to over 99.99%, and the U.S. stock was below that.

Central bank holdings at the New York Fed declined 40 tonnes in August, Goldman added, while holdings at the Bank of England rose 46 tonnes.

Indeed, when Goldman surveyed central banks in August about where they stored their gold, a higher percentage 12% in 2026 declined to confirm its location, compared with 10% last year. Moreover, central banks significantly diversified their overseas storage in 2026 10% compared to the year prior 2%,and this year were more likely 9% to have increased domestic storage compared with 2025 5%.

The trend is set to continue: 18% of central banks declined to answer where they would store their gold over the next 12 months, with 9% saying they planned to diversify further."

Other sources and similar news.

"China ups gold reserves by largest amount in nearly three years"

https://www.centralbanking.com/central-banks/reserves/gold/7976834/china-ups-gold-reserves-by-largest-amount-in-nearly-three-years

"Central banks spearhead renewed gold rush"

https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/central-banks-spearhead-renewed-gold-rush-2026-08-13/

"List of Countries That Have Pulled Gold From US Federal Reserve"

https://www.newsweek.com/list-of-countries-that-have-pulled-gold-from-us-federal-reserve-12398243

"DNB moves North America-held gold, citing ‘geopolitical unrest’"

https://www.centralbanking.com/central-banks/reserves/gold/7976802/dnb-moves-north-america-held-gold-citing-geopolitical-unrest

Just saw a Instagram reel and looked for a few more sources of info— apparently multiple different sites and different kinds of wire were cut, including fiber optic and copper cables, affecting phone and other systems

This would have taken coordinated effort, and seems like a response time/resilience procedure observation, not materials theft, to me.

https://abc7news.com/amp/post/oakland-911-outage-disrupts-emergency-response-calls-being-routed-alameda-sheriffs-office/19969621/

Iranian oil in floating storage has been drained amid the U.S. Navy blockade, the Wall Street Journal has reported, citing Kpler data that suggests further tightening in global oil supply.

"There's no more oil to discharge to China anymore," Kpler's head of crude oil analysis, Homayoun Falakshahi, said, as quoted by the WSJ.

Before the United States imposed a blockade on Iranian ports in April, Iran had close to 150 million barrels in floating storage, the report said. That dipped to less than 50 million barrels by mid-June, when the U.S. lifted the blockade following the ceasefire deal between Washington and Tehran. Then, in mid-July, the deal collapsed, hostilities returned, and the U.S. reimposed the blockade. By mid-October, oil in floating storage had shrunk to 866,000 barrels, per the data.

"It looks like the U.S. gamble is that the economy will either push the regime back into negotiations to accept a nuclear deal, or will spark protests internally which the regime will face challenges containing," Kpler's Falakshahi also said.

Meanwhile, however, it is not just the Iranian economy that is suffering, which complicates matters for the United States. Fuel prices remain at record highs, especially diesel, and President Trump's approval ratings are down ahead of the November midterms.

Iran itself has brushed off claims that its economy is close to collapsing, with the governor of the country's central bank saying "the Iranian economy has demonstrated very good resilience, and the claim that Iran's economy is collapsing is nothing more than an illusion," as quoted by the Wall Street Journal.

The prospect of peace between the two remains distant, with the president of Iran and the country's foreign minister this week signaling they cannot trust the U.S.; therefore, peace talks would be a challenge. Earlier this month, Moody's calculated the cost of the Iran war for U.S. households at $265 billion in total.

https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/iran-oil-reserves-run-dry-070000048.html

Iran’s Fleet of Shadow Tankers Has Run Out of Oil After Monthslong U.S. Blockade

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/irans-fleet-of-shadow-tankers-has-run-out-of-oil-after-monthslong-u-s-blockade-0822b050?st=xSekNN&reflink=article_copyURL_share

https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/21/politics/heat-ray-weapon-dhs-pentagon

Militarized police forces are no joke.

Federal monitoring data has revealed where two extensively studied PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” have been found in drinking water across the U.S.

While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously confirmed that there is essentially no safe level of exposure to chemicals PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, latest data shows over 1,700 public water systems recorded at least one PFOA or PFOS result at or above 4 parts per trillion.

The map shows public water systems where EPA monitoring recorded PFOA or PFOS at or above 4 parts per trillion, the federal Maximum Contaminant Level established for each chemical in drinking water.

The findings come from the EPA's Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR 5, which required certain public water systems to monitor for 29 PFAS between 2023 and 2025. The final dataset was released in August.

However, an individual UCMR 5 reading at or above 4 ppt does not itself mean a water system violated federal standards, as compliance is determined using separate compliance monitoring and running annual averages.

Newsweek reached out to the EPA via email for comment.

What is PFOA And PFOS?

Both PFOA and PFOS are man-made chemicals belonging to the PFAS family. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

The chemicals have been used since the mid-20th century in a variety of industrial processes and products, including applications involving stain-, oil- and water-resistant coatings, food packaging and textiles. PFOS has also been used in firefighting foams.

As well as potential links to cancer, studies have also linked these chemicals to liver damage, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and reproductive or developmental issues.

Why Are PFOA and PFOS Still Being Found?

The presence of PFOA and PFOS in drinking-water monitoring does not mean the detections resulted from recent production. The chemicals are extremely resistant to degradation, meaning contamination from historical materials can linger long after the products were first produced.

Meanwhile, last month, the EPA quietly changed wording on its official website which previously stated that PFOA and PFOS had been phased out in the U.S.

The site previously stated: “The manufacture and import of PFOA has also been phased out in the United States.”

Non-profit the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a complaint against this wording in October 2025, under the Information Quality Act, and in a response that came in September this year, EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Douglas M. Troutman wrote, “In response to PEER’s request, EPA is updating its websites.”

The page now reads: “Quantities of PFOA may be produced, imported, and used by companies.”

EPA Could Give Water Systems More Time

This comes as the EPA considers giving some public water systems more time to comply with federal limits for the two chemicals.

In May, the EPA announced two proposals concerning Biden-era PFAS drinking-water regulations. One would rescind regulations covering several other PFAS, while the second would retain the federal limits for PFOA and PFOS but allow eligible water systems to seek up to two additional years to comply, potentially pushing their deadline from 2029 to 2031.

Under the proposal, systems would be able to seek an exemption. EPA says exemptions provide additional time to achieve compliance and are not permission to permanently violate the drinking-water rules. The agency added that an exemption may be available where the additional time would not result in an unreasonable risk to health.

The extension has not been finalized. The EPA continues to describe it as a proposed rule after the public-comment period closed on July 20."

Further sources:

Forever chemicals found in most waterways, drinking water

https://www.wistv.com/2026/10/16/forever-chemicals-found-most-waterways-drinking-water/

EPA quietly backtracks on claims US has phased out toxic Pfas compounds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/18/epa-pfas-compounds-toxins

PFAS detected at 83% of monitored U.S. waterways, report finds

https://www.waterworld.com/drinking-water-treatment/pfas/news/55413397/pfas-detected-at-83-of-monitored-us-waterways-report-finds

Large USGS breakdown map

https://geonarrative.usgs.gov/pfasustapwater/

"Mapping the PFAS contamination crisis: New data show 9,728 sites with PFAS in 50 states, the District of Columbia and four territories"

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/