Tag: General News

  • SF Giants new leadoff man Jung Hoo Lee stays hot in spring training

    The Giants signed Jung Hoo Lee this winter in hopes of stabilizing the top of their order, and so far in camp, the former Korean League has done just that.

    Lee has at least one hit in all five Cactus League games he’s played in after going 1 for 2 and drawing a walk Monday in a 12-10 loss to the Colorado Rockies at Salt River Fields in Scottsdale, Arizona.

    The 25-year-old center fielder has a spring slash line of .462/.533/1.302 with one homer.

    It’s a small sample size, but it’s an encouraging sign for a team that used nine different leadoff hitters last season and signed Lee to a $113 million, six-year deal.

    Lee was named the MVP in the KBO in 2022, and posted a .340/.407/.491 slash line during his seven seasons.

    – Spencer Howard, a former Phillies top prospect making a big to break camp in the Giants rotation, made his second spring start and struck out three in two innings.

    He also allowed two hits and walked two batters, but didn’t allow a run in a game that ended up a slugfest.

    San Francisco Giants starting pitcher Spencer Howard throws against the Colorado Rockies during the first inning of a spring training baseball game Monday, March 4, 2024, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
    San Francisco Giants starting pitcher Spencer Howard throws against the Colorado Rockies during the first inning of a spring training baseball game Monday, March 4, 2024, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

    The teams combined for 22 runs and 27 hits. Each team had a five-run inning.

    The Giants (2-6) led 7-1 going into the bottom of the fourth and were up 9-8 before the Rockies scored three times in the bottom of the seventh.

    – Former Diamondbacks shortstop Nick Ahmed, who the Giants signed to a minor league free agent deal last week, had another big day at the plate. Ahmed, 33, a two-time Gold Glove winner coming off the worst offensive season of his career, went 2 for 2 and scored three runs against the Rockies.

    San Francisco Giants' Nick Ahmed, center, celebrates his run scored against the Colorado Rockies with Giants' Tyler Fitzgerald (49) and other teammates during the fourth inning of a spring training baseball game, Monday, March 4, 2024, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
    San Francisco Giants’ Nick Ahmed, center, celebrates his run scored against the Colorado Rockies with Giants’ Tyler Fitzgerald (49) and other teammates during the fourth inning of a spring training baseball game, Monday, March 4, 2024, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

    Ahmed, who homered in his first two Cactus League games with the Giants, has five hits in his first eight at-bats in camp.

    — Pablo Sandoval served as the Giants’ DH and remained in the game until the ninth inning, and went hitless in four at-bats with three strikeouts. Sandoval, who hasn’t played in the majors since 2021, is still looking for his first Cactus League hit — he’s 0-for-10 with seven strikeouts.

    – On the day new third baseman Matt Chapman arrived at camp, J.D. Davis started at first base. Davis batted cleanup and went 2 for 3, including a two-run single in the fourth inning that gave the Giants a 6-1 lead.

    – The Giants reassigned three players to minor league camp before the game: outfielder Grant McCray and catchers Adrián Sugastey and Andy Thomas.

    Source

  • Supreme Court Keeps Trump On Colorado Ballot, Rejecting 14th Amendment Push

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump, here on February 8, should appear on the ballot in Colorado. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images via CNN Newsource)

    By John Fritze, CNN

    (CNN) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether the frontrunner for the GOP nomination violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    The opinion is a massive victory for Trump, vanquishing one of the many legal threats that have both plagued and animated his campaign against President Joe Biden. Though the decision has no impact on the four ongoing criminal cases that Trump is facing, including the federal election subversion case that covers some of the same conduct surrounding January 6, 2021.

    The court was unanimous on the idea that Trump could not be unilaterally removed from the ballot.

    But the justices were divided about how broadly the decision would sweep. A 5-4 majority said that no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot – but four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.

    A five-justice majority – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – wrote that states may not remove any federal officer from the ballot, especially the president, without Congress first passing legislation.

    “We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the opinion states.

    “Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,” the majority added.

    “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!” Trump wrote on social media.

    Four justices say the court has gone too far

    Four of the justices disagreed on the scope of the decision.

    With its opinion, the majority, “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a concurring opinion. “We cannot join an opinion that decides momentous and difficult issues unnecessarily.”

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing alone in a concurring opinion, said that the case “does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.”

    The five conservatives went further than the other four were willing to go, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

    “First, the unsigned majority opinion holds that states can’t enforce Section 3 against any​ prospective federal officeholders, and not just against presidential candidates. Second, it also requires Congress to pass affirmative legislation to enforce Section 3 – cutting off other ways that the federal government might enforce that provision, e.g., by refusing to count electoral votes in favor of a candidate who violates Section 3. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson didn’t say they would’ve answered those questions differently; they just wouldn’t have answered them at all.”

    SCOTUS does not discuss if Trump was an insurrectionist

    The Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t directly address whether Trump’s actions on January 6 qualified as an “insurrection” – skirting an issue that the courts in Colorado had wrestled with.

    The unsigned opinion noted that lower courts in Colorado found Trump’s remarks before the attack on the US Capitol qualified as engaging in an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution. But the US Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion didn’t return to that judgment.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal group that filed the the lawsuit on behalf of Republican voters, criticized the Supreme Court ruling – but also said it was “in no way a win for Trump” because it declined to address the insurrection language from Colorado.

    “The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so. Every court – or decision-making body – that has substantively examined the issue has determined that January 6th was an insurrection and that Donald Trump incited it. That remains true today,” the group said.

    Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold opposed the decision as well.

    “I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates,” Griswold said in a social media post. “Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.”

    Longshot bid to use 14th Amendment

    The decision, which marked the first time the high court had weighed Trump’s actions on January 6, landed a day before Super Tuesday, when 16 states and territories, including Colorado, will hold nominating contests.

    Using the 14th Amendment to derail Trump’s candidacy has always been seen as a legal longshot, but gained significant momentum with a win in Colorado’s top court in December, on its way to the US Supreme Court. Since that decision, Trump was also removed from the ballot in Maine and Illinois.

    Courts and legal groups had for months debated the meaning of the post-Civil War provision at the center of the case, language that prohibits certain officials who took an oath to support the Constitution – and then engaged in insurrection – from serving in office again. The key provision, known as Section 3, was originally intended to keep former Confederates from reclaiming power.

    But there was considerable uncertainty about the ban’s meaning and how it should be applied. Several conservative and liberal justices raised fundamental questions during the February 8 arguments about the fairness of Colorado effectively answering those questions for the rest of the nation.

    Trump ridiculed the 14th Amendment lawsuits that have cropped up across the country and routinely complains that they are an unconstitutional affront pursued by Democrats who want to take him off the ballot rather than compete with him in November. His lawyers have argued it would be “un-American” to deprive voters of the opportunity to decide whether Trump should return to the White House.

    Similar 14th Amendment challenges against Trump were rejected – all on procedural grounds – in Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts and Oregon. But in Colorado, a series of decisions by state courts led to a case that Trump ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court in January.

    A liberal-leaning watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed the Colorado lawsuit in September on behalf of six Republican and independent voters, led by 91-year-old Norma Anderson, a trailblazing former Republican state legislator. They sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold and asked a judge to force her to remove Trump’s name from the state’s GOP primary ballot.

    A state district judge in Colorado presided over a weeklong trial before concluding in November that even though Trump “engaged in an insurrection,” he should stay on the ballot because the ban didn’t apply to presidents. The Colorado Supreme Court, on a sharply divided 4-3 vote, affirmed the findings about Trump’s role in the US Capitol attack but said that the ban did, in fact, apply to presidents.

    Only three states had removed Trump from the ballot because of the “insurrectionist ban.”

    In addition to Colorado, the top election official in Maine reached a similar conclusion and determined that Trump is constitutionally barred from office. Trump is appealing, and a state court paused those proceedings while the Supreme Court dealt with the Colorado case.

    An Illinois judge also removed Trump from the ballot in that state on the same January 6 grounds, though implementation of that ruling was paused pending any appeals.

    It appeared during the Supreme Court’s arguments that Trump would win. The court’s conservatives most likely to be skeptical to the former president, like Roberts and Kavanaugh, lobbed relatively friendly questions at Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell. When the attorney representing the voters stood up, questioning became far more pointed and insistent.

    And it wasn’t only conservatives who appeared to be on the attack: Justices Kagan, nominated by President Barack Obama, and Jackson, a Biden pick, also zeroed in on some of the arguments that Trump had raised in his briefs.

    “The question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States,” Kagan pressed Jason Murray, who was representing the challengers. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?”

    CNN’s Marshall Cohen and Devan Cole contributed to this report.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    The-CNN-Wire
    & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

    Source

  • Judge Luttig reacts to Supreme Court Colorado decision

    Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig on Monday called the Supreme Court decision allowing former President Trump to remain on the presidential ballot “stunning in its overreach.”

    In an interview on CNN’s “The Lead,” Luttig refrained from criticizing the decision to let Trump stay on the ballot, but he said the Supreme Court’s expansive decision concerning other constitutional matters “was both shocking and unprecedented.”

    “Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case, though that issue is important, but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification under 14th Amendment,” Lutting told Jake Tapper.

    The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that Colorado cannot disqualify former President Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.

    The Supreme Court also ruled Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in criticizing that decision.

    Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed with the concurrence and said it was not necessary to go beyond the narrow scope of the case.

    “In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter,” Luttig continued.

    “But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under section three of the 14th Amendment, regardless whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” he said.

    Luttig compared the reach of the ruling to those of the Warren Court era, largely considered the most liberal Supreme Court in recent history.

    “It’s stunning in its overreach. It’s a textbook example, Jake, of the kind of activist judicial opinion from the 1960s and the Warren Court era that begat the conservative legal and judicial movement in the 1970s and 1980s. But of course, it’s different here. Because this is unmistakably a conservative court,” he said.

    Luttig – who filed an amicus brief in January calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the Colorado decision barring Trump from appearing on the ballot – defended the liberal justices against Barrett’s warning not to “amplify disagreement with stridency.”

    “Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who did not join the other five in the overreaching decisions that it made, accuse the three concurrences of stridency in their opinions,” Luttig said. “For your listeners and your viewers: There was not one word of stridency in the concurring opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Not one single word of stridency.”

    Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    Source

  • Gangs Overrun Haiti’s Two Largest Prisons, Freeing Nearly 4,000 Criminals As US Urges All Americans Exit


    Curfew imposed, police ask national military for help…

    Haiti’s problems just went from bad to worse, as the UN and embattled Haitian government of Ariel Henry (who is currently abroad as armed rebels seek his ouster) prepare a Kenyan peacekeeping force to intervene amid constant armed gang warfare which have taken over the streets of Port-au-Prince.

    Despite for months not having had control of the capital city, authorities have ordered a nighttime curfew following gunmen overrunning the country’s two biggest prisons.

    “The police were ordered to use all legal means at their disposal to enforce the curfew and apprehend all offenders,” Finance Minister Patrick Boivert said of a new 72-hour curfew.

    Local reports say that at least 12 people were killed and some 3,700 inmates escaped in the jailbreak. The prisons were stormed over the weekend, include a major facility in the capital and another in nearby Croix des Bouquet.’

    • Winter Sun Plus is NOW 40% off! Boost your natural defenses with this powerful vitamin D3 and K formula!

    About 80% of Port-au-Prince is already said to be under the control of the gangs, and the prison assaults started with armed groups staging a distraction by attacking police stations. The attack on the police stations then immediately followed with a coordinated assault on the prisons.

    Given thousands of criminals just flooded the streets, the already bleak and lawless situation which has in many cases forced civilian residents out of their homes in the hardest hit neighborhoods, things are about to spiral further.

    Reporters have in the aftermath witnessed bodies with bullet holes strewn about the prisons. According to the BBC, “Haiti’s police union had asked the military to help reinforce the capital’s main prison, but the compound was stormed late on Saturday.”

    “On Sunday the doors of the prison were still open and there were no signs of officers, Reuters news agency reported,” the report continued. “Three inmates who tried to flee lay dead in the courtyard, the report said.”

    A Haitian government statement said Sunday that those behind the attack were “heavily armed criminals wanting at all costs to free people in custody, particularly for kidnapping, murder and other serious offenses.” 

    The US Embassy in Port-au-Prince is urging all American citizens still in the country to “leave as soon as possible” while other embassies are restricting services.

    Haiti’s national police force has an estimated 9,000 officers, which has been unable to reign in the gang violence, given it also is responsible for the security and safety of the island’s 11 million people.





    Source

  • 70 Per Cent Of Financial Crimes Traceable To Banking – EFCC

    The Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, has revealed about 70 per cent of financial crimes are traced to the banking sector.

    The Chairman made the revelation through EFCC’s Director, Internal Audit, Idowu Oluwole-Apejoye, on Monday during the 2024 Annual retreat of the Association of Chief Audit Executives of Banks in Nigeria, (ACAEBI).

    He said: “Broadly speaking, banking fraud in Nigeria is both insider and outsider-related. The insider-related fraud comprises outright stealing of customers deposits’ authorised loan facilities, forgery and several other kinds of unhealthy and criminal practices.

    “The outsider-related ones include hacking, Automated Teller Machine, ATM, fraud, conspiracy among others. And the absurd one is when there is collaboration between the both of them.”

    He therefore called for concerted efforts by relevant authorities and professionals, especially bank auditors to prevent and detect fraudulent practices in the industry.

    Olukoyede also called for a fusion of preventive and detective measures for effective outcomes and cost management of bank frauds.

    He noted that bank auditors are crucial in the fight against economic and financial crimes “as gatekeepers on responsible financial conduct, adherence to regulations, and effective functioning of the financial services industry.”

    The EFCC boss said: “As you retreat, use this opportunity to review developments in the financial sector of our nation and offer sound recommendations to the EFCC on how the rising cases of financial crimes can be curbed in our banks.

    ” I also call on you to always approach the Commission on any issue that you consider germane in addressing corruption not only in the financial sector but in all other areas of life in our dear country.”

    70 Per Cent Of Financial Crimes Traceable To Banking – EFCC is first published on The Whistler Newspaper

    Source

  • Josh Donaldson retires, credits Oakland A’s fans 

    Josh Donaldson, who broke out as an American League MVP candidate with the Oakland A’s, announced his retirement from baseball on Monday.

    Donaldson announced his decision on the “Mayor’s Office” podcast with former big league Sean Casey.

    “Today is a sad but happy day for me,” said the 38-year-old. “I am going to announce my retirement from the game I’ve dedicated my entire life to. It’s sad because I will not be able to go out and play the game I love anymore. It’s also a very happy time that I get to be around the family and take that next chapter in life.”

    Donaldson struggled last year, hitting just .152 within a .667 OPS over 50 games between the New York Yankees and Milwaukee Brewers.

    He said he considered returning for another season, but the right opportunity didn’t present itself.

    Donaldson will finish his 13-year career with a .261 average, .847 OPS, 279 home runs, three All-Star nominations and the 2015 American League MVP award.

    He was originally drafted No. 48 overall by the Chicago Cubs as a catcher/third baseman out of Auburn University in 2007, but was traded to the A’s the following year as part of the trade for Rich Harden and Chad Gaudin.

    He didn’t make it to the big leagues until 2010, when he hit just .156 in 14 games before being sent back down. He was called up and sent back down five times until the middle of the 2012 season, when something clicked.

    “I started making changes, seeing how guys were pitching me, understanding that there were some pitches that I wasn’t able to handle and I needed to figure out a way to do that,” he said on the podcast. “My approach was, if it’s over the plate, swing. Once I got sent down the last time I started honing my approach and thinking, ‘I have to dictate the at-bat.’”

    He was recalled for the final time on Aug. 14, 2012, and hit .290 with an .844 OPS over his final 47 games while leading the A’s to their first postseason berth since 2006. They won their final six games, including a three-game sweep of the Texas Rangers, to win the A.L. West on the final day of the season.

    The following year in 2013, Donaldson exploded while hitting .301 with an .883 OPS and 24 home runs, earning him a fourth-place finish in the MVP voting while again leading the A’s to the postseason.

    After another big year in 2014, Donaldson was due for a big raise, but the A’s instead traded him to Toronto for Franklin Barreto, Kendall Graveman, Brett Lawrie and Sean Nolin.

    It ended up being a poor deal for the A’s, who finished in last place the next three years.

    Still, Donaldson said he remembers his time in Oakland fondly.

    “First and foremost the fans there are pretty spectacular,” he said. “By the end of 2012, 2013, they started showing up more and more. The true fanbase there, they were like our team: they’re grinders. They were out there supporting us through the best of times and the worst of times…

    “We were always overlooked and we over-performed as a team because we were grinders. We weren’t able to get to the World Series, which is the ultimate goal, but we were picked to finish fifth in the division every year and we won the division in 2012…That was a pretty special time in my career.”

    Donaldson won the MVP his first year in Toronto and continued as one of the game’s premier third basemen until his age-36 season in 2022, when he was traded to the Yankees and struggled to perform.

    “The last two years were tough for me,” he said. “It’s tough to play in New York when you’re not winning. It’s especially tough when you’re not playing well.”

    Donaldson said he got married to his longtime partner this offseason. They have a 3-year-old and 7-year-old. He said he plans to golf a lot more in his retirement.

    “If you would’ve asked me in 2010 if I would have the career I was able to accomplish, there’s 5% of me that would’ve said yes,” Donaldson said. “The other 95% of me would’ve been like, ‘you’re crazy.’”

    Source

  • Eastside Catholic Wins Boys State 3A Title With Hard-fought Win Over Rainier Beach

    By Kiara Doyal, The Seattle Medium

    The Rainier Beach Vikings faced off against the Eastside Catholic Crusaders last night in the 3A Boys State Championship game under the bright lights at the Tacoma Dome.

    Eastside won the opening possession, but slowly but surely the ball was in the hands of the Vikings’ Kaden Powers who got the first points of the night for Rainier Beach, and helped his team build a 5-0 lead early in the first quarter. The Vikings’ run stopped after Eastside Catholic’s Yabi Aklog sank a jump shot to narrow the deficit to 3 points, 5-2.

    Aklog’s first basket of the night ignited a spark within him, as he went to the free-throw line twice after being fouled while shooting. Despite only converting one of the shots, Aklog ended the first quarter dominating on the court as he scored all 14 of Eastside Catholic’s points in the opening quarter, to give the Crusaders a slim 1-point lead over the Vikings,14-13, as they headed into the second quarter.

    The second quarter had a very high-pace, with possessions changing rapidly between the Crusaders and the Vikings, both teams taking turns in leading the game for the majority of the quarter.

    The Crusaders’ Jacob Cofie rode the momentum that Aklog generated during the first quarter and began to contribute significantly for his team. Cofie would score 8 second quarter points, including a slam dunk on an assist from teammate Alex Elston, as the Crusaders stretched their lead to 27-23 as they went into halftime. 

    RELATED ARTICLE: Garfield Lady Bulldogs Clinch Fourth State 3A Basketball Title

    During the opening minutes of the second half, Eastside Catholic’s Kayden Green sent the Vikings’ Maceo Rivers to the free throw line for three shots. Making two of the 3 shots, Rivers cut the Vikings deficit to 2 points. However, Green would make up for his mistake by making a critical three-point shot to push the Crusaders lead out to 30-25 over the Vikings. 

    Coming off of a remarkable first half, Aklog further extended the lead to 10 points with a dunk that ignited the Crusader fans in the crowd. 

    With the help of a jump shot and a three-point shot just seconds before the buzzer by Powers, the Vikings managed to comeback from a 10-point deficit, to tie the game at 44 at the end of the third quarter. 

    In the final quarter, the referees were sharp at noticing fouls for either team. The Crusaders went to the free throw line 6 times. Meanwhile the Vikings had two trips to the line, converting 2 of their 3 free throw shots, keeping the game neck and neck. With the help of Aklog’s two trips to the free-throw line and two three-point shots by Riley Wallace, the Crusaders increased their lead to 60-50 as they approached the final minute of the quarter. 

    During the last minute of the matchup, we saw a lot of action from the Vikings, as they tried to narrow the gap by intensifying their offensive efforts. With 20 seconds remaining in the final quarter, the Vikings’ Jeremiah White made a dunk, followed by a jump shot by Marceo Rivers, bringing the score to 57-63 with 6 seconds left on the clock.

    After a couple of trips to the free throw line, the Crusaders sealed the 3A State Championship title with a 66-57 victory over the Rainier Beach Vikings.

    Aklog, who scored the first 16 points for the Crusaders in the game, with 28 points to lead Eastside Catholic, while Powers led the Vikings with 15 points, with Rivers was not far behind with 13 points to lead the Vikings.

    Source

  • Vaccine Mandates Ruled ‘UNLAWFUL’ By Australia’s Supreme Court


    Queensland’s Police Commissioner and Director-General of Health ignored other possible solutions to reduce infections, justice rules.

    The vaccine mandates imposed on Queensland police and ambulance workers in 2021 were unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

    Justice Glenn Martin on Tuesday found the COVID vaccine mandate issued by Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll in December 2021 had violated the Human Rights Act.

    Martin also lambasted Director-General of Queensland Health Dr. John Wakefield for imposing a similarly unlawful vaccine mandate.

    “Neither the Commissioner nor Dr Wakefield gave close attention to the possible range of solutions. Each was presented with a proposal for mandatory vaccination with little in the way of well-developed critiques of alternative means of reducing illness and infection,” Martin stated in the decision.

    The Commissioner and the Director-General’s justifications for the workplace vaccination mandates were also “taken out of context” and “not supported by the evidence,” Martin stated.

    • Winter Sun Plus is NOW 40% off! Boost your natural defenses with this powerful vitamin D3 and K formula!

    The landmark decision by the court could lead to more lawsuits and similar rulings in the future.

    From the Brownstone Institute:

    The decision, which resolved three lawsuits brought by law firms Alexander Law and Sibley Lawyers, is the “tip of the iceberg,” said Bond University associate law professor Wendy Bonyton.

    Prof Bonyton told The Australian, “There are other cases, based on similar grounds, similarly challenging the legitimacy of directions given during the pandemic. This one is interesting because it is the first one to go through… There will be more of these cases to come.”

    Australian businessman and founder of the United Australia Party, Clive Palmer, who reportedly contributed between $2.5 to $3 million towards funding the lawsuits involving 74 police officers, civilian staff and paramedics, said he is considering further legal action following yesterday’s win.

    “We could look at the class action for the ambulance workers and the police workers who have been subjected to harassment by their colleagues at the police department on the direction of the government to try to drop this case,” he told the press outside the Brisbane Supreme Court after the decision was handed down.

    “This decision will force future employers and Government officials to properly consider human rights when implementing vaccine directions in future, at least in Queensland where there is a Human Rights Act which obligates them to do so,” said human rights lawyer Peter Fam.

    But Fam cautioned that the ruling leaves out an “ominous” caveat that the mandate would likely have been declared lawful if the Commissioner had properly considered human rights advice.

    “They won because the Commissioner did not appropriately consider the human rights advice she received. However, the Court also found that although each of the directions limited the workers’ rights to full, free and informed consent, (under Section 17 of the Human Rights Act), the limit was reasonable in all the circumstances,” Fam said.

    “So, if the Commissioner could have proved that she had considered the advice she received regarding human rights, her workplace vaccination directives would likely have been considered lawful,” he added.

    In other words, the vaccine mandates themselves did not violate human rights, but the directives to implement them were issued unlawfully.

    Despite vaccine mandates dropping in 2023, Queensland Health has continued to discipline and even fire healthcare workers as recently as January 2024 for failing to comply with vaccine directives.


    Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds



    Source

  • ‘Stop Exposing High-Level Ignorance’ — Sanwo-Olu Slams Rhodes-Vivour Over Claim Jonathan Funded Lagos Red Line Rail Project

    The 2023 governorship candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in Lagos State, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, has said that former President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration funded the Lagos Red Line rail project and not the administration of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu.

    Recall that the first phase of the 37km rail project was commissioned by President Bola Tinubu last Thursday with an agreement for the second phase, which spans from the National Theater to Marina signed between Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA) and China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) Limited.

    The project which started in 2021, sits on an already existing Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) facility.

    The first phase, which is 27km, has eight stations from Agbado in Ogun State to Iju, Agege, Ikeja, Oshodi, Mushin, Yaba and Oyingbo.

    To prevent human and vehicular interaction, 10 vehicular overpasses and pedestrian bridges have been constructed.

    But reacting to the commissioning of the project on Monday, Rhodes-Vivour said that from the lines to stations to signals and bridges were all paid for by Jonathan’s government.

    According to him, the only significant contribution of the Lagos state government to the project is the purchase of railcars.

    The politician stated that he had earlier refrained from commenting on the launch of the project, but the All Progressives Congress (APC) led administration of Sanwo-Olu has turned the project into political propaganda “laced with misinformation and false narratives”, therefore, compelling him “to set the record straight.”

    “By 2013, there were already trains between Iddo/Apapa to Agbado/Ijoko with new coaches. Thereafter the Lagos state government approached the Federal government to use the federal line and instead of buying new railcars with guarantees, they bought two railcars that had been abandoned for 11yrs in Wisconsin State, USA for an undisclosed amount (of course, you know what that means),” Rhodes-Vivour said via his X handle.

    “Also worth mentioning is that despite the series of false claims by the Lagos state government, the signal office, for instance, will be staffed and paid by the federal government. They claim that they laid 5km of rail to connect the Federal government line to Marina when in fact it is part of the Blue line from National Theatre/Ijora to Marina metro line, whereby passengers will switch lines where they intersect, and not a continuation of the standard gauge line as falsely portrayed.

    “Everything from lines to stations to signals and bridges or tunnels had been costed and paid for by the Jonathan Goodluck administration since 2013. Hence, the most significant contribution of the Lagos state government to this project is the purchase of 11-year-old abandoned railcars at undisclosed fees. To be fair also, they put in quite some work in project supervision and collaboration with the federal government. For this, they deserve some commendation.

    “Most importantly, citizens must realize that while it is important to acknowledge and even applaud transformational policy initiatives by the government, they must never forget that the government and the initiatives are funded by their taxes and commonwealth. They were elected to serve you and never to lord over you.”

    Meanwhile, Rhodes-Vivour has come under heavy criticism from Sanwo-Olu’s aides.

    The Chief Press Secretary to the governor, Gboyega Akosile, advised him to stay away from exposing his ignorance and misunderstanding of how the government functions.

    “Please who would save our brother from his further deep dive into political oblivion, due primarily to lack knowledge, his acute shortage of intellectual depth to match the fast pace movements of the current handlers of Lagos State?

    “For your information @GRVlagos, there’s absolutely nothing new in some of your assertions here-we have told Lagosians times without number that the Red Line is sitting on the existing NRC-FGN facility, carefully thought out and ingeniously executed by a thinking Govt.

    “But I’d advise that you stay away from further exposing your high-level ignorance and misunderstanding of how government functions. If you need further information on the level of investment by Governor @jidesanwoolu’s administration in the widely celebrated and internationally acclaimed project, kindly write to us. Stop misinforming your followers,” Akosile said via his X handle.

    Also, the Senior Special Assistant on New Media to the governor, Jubril Gawat, asked Rhodes-Vivour to provide evidence that Jonathan did anything on the Red Line rail.

    “Man doesn’t know the difference between FG Stations (named after people) and Red Line Stations (named after the areas),” Gawat said with laugh emojis.

    “The idea of kickstarting Red Line Rail started under Former President Buhari’s 2nd Term when Governor @jidesanwoolu got in and groundbreaking done on 15th April 2021.

    “All compensations along the corridor are paid by the state government.

    “NRC Ikeja Staff quarters demolished and rebuilt in Agege by the state government.

    “You can show us evidence of Jonathan doing anything on the Red Line Rail.”

    ‘Stop Exposing High-Level Ignorance’ — Sanwo-Olu Slams Rhodes-Vivour Over Claim Jonathan Funded Lagos Red Line Rail Project is first published on The Whistler Newspaper



    Source

  • Fact Check: The Biden-versus-Trump economy: Who did better on inflation, jobs, gasoline prices and more?

    Get ready: In the 2024 presidential race, the candidates will talk about the economy. A lot.

    We know because it’s already happening.

    Incumbent President Joe Biden has touted the rapid growth of jobs on his watch. His predecessor and front-runner for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump, has focused on the four-decade-high inflation that peaked in the summer of 2022. 

    Biden argues the economy has turned the corner on inflation. Trump, who leads former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley comfortably, counters that residual inflation continues to inflict economic pain. 

    Voters are listening.

    When the Quinnipiac University poll asked respondents in February for what they thought was the most urgent issue facing the country, 20% said the economy — a close second behind preserving democracy at 21%. Among Republicans, 24% chose the economy (second to immigration at 35%) while 24% of independents picked the economy, making it their top issue.

    With the Super Tuesday primaries coming this week, PolitiFact decided to look at a few common economic talking points in the presidential race. We compared the nation’s economic performance not just under Biden and Trump but also under their three predecessors: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.

    No president is all-powerful on economic matters. The severe but relatively brief interruption the coronavirus pandemic caused also makes comparisons tricky. And beyond the numbers are intangibles, such as leadership qualities.

    There’s no simple answer for who has been the better economic steward. On the numbers, Biden has some advantages over Trump, and vice versa. Other economic statistics show both presidents putting up impressive numbers during their first three years in office. (Looking at the first three years in office was the fairest comparison, as Trump’s fourth year was walloped by the coronavirus pandemic, and Biden’s fourth year is just 2 months old.)

    Biden’s best argument: a fast rise in jobs, manufacturing growth

    In January, Biden highlighted that Trump was the first president to oversee a net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover, who was in office when the Great Depression hit — but failed to mention the 2020 pandemic caused the nosedive.

    When excluding the pandemic year of 2020, we found that the economy under Biden added jobs at a faster rate than under Trump — and faster than any of Biden’s recent predecessors. 

    Under Biden, U.S. employment is now 10% above what it was when he was sworn in. Ranking second after three years is Clinton, with almost 8%, followed by Trump with 4.4%. Both Obama and Bush had fewer jobs filled after three years than they had on their first day in office.

    Biden benefited from favorable timing. He was inaugurated January 2021, as the pandemic started receding. Although the jobs recovery began under Trump, Biden was blessed with a steady flow of Americans moving back into jobs that had been hampered during the pandemic. 

    Still, the simple return of workers sidetracked by the pandemic doesn’t explain all the job gains on Biden’s watch, even though Trump has tried to make that case. Employment data through Biden’s first three years in office significantly exceeds where the workforce stood before the pandemic.

    Given that job creation was leveling off during Trump’s last few months in office, “it was not inevitable that we would get the huge bounceback we saw under Biden,” said Dean Baker, co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. Biden’s American Rescue Plan, a pandemic recovery bill passed weeks after Biden took office, “was a huge deal here.”

    Another factor in the expanding labor market — though one that’s become a political two-edged sword — has been higher immigration rates under Biden. This has helped fuel the economy, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and others, even as it lets critics discuss chaos at the border.

    Biden has emphasized the growth of manufacturing jobs when touting bills he’s signed into law, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. 

    The data shows that manufacturing jobs have grown by about 6.5% since Biden took office. Trump ranks second at 3.4%, followed by Clinton at 2.5%. Three years into their terms, Obama and Bush had both overseen losses in manufacturing jobs.

    Trump’s best case: inflation, wage growth, gasoline prices

    Biden and Trump have dueling messages on inflation, which peaked north of 9% in summer 2022. Economists generally blame pandemic-era supply chain problems, with Biden’s aid package exacerbating the rise in prices.

    Biden has emphasized how much inflation has dropped.

    “Wages are rising. Inflation is down,” Biden said in a Feb. 12 speech in Washington, D.C., to the National Association of Counties. The following day, Biden applauded the release of new inflation statistics showing that prices had risen by 3.1% in the year ended January 2024, about one-third of the 2022 peak level. It remains a bit above the 2% that the Federal Reserve wants to see before lowering interest rates.

    The biggest reasons inflation has eased, economists have told us, are factors that the administration doesn’t control: Federal Reserve rate hikes, an oil price decline and a slowdown in China’s economy.

    Inflation did not hamper Trump. During his first three years in office, Trump saw wages outpace inflation — the opposite of Biden.

    For Biden, the data is improving, but that picture depends heavily on the time frame used. 

    If you start with Biden’s first day in office, prices have risen faster than wages — never a good sign for a president seeking reelection. 

    “In 2021 and 2022, people went to work and fell further behind,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum. “They are not over it, despite the gains in 2023.”

    However, wage growth on Biden’s watch is on pace to exceed price growth within a couple of months. Also, wages have outpaced inflation for more than a year now, and wages have also outpaced inflation since Jan. 2020, the final month before the pandemic. 

    One difference between the Biden and Trump economies is data showing that the wage increases under Biden have been especially robust for poorer people.

    Trump could make plenty of accurate claims about the pain of inflation. However, he has exaggerated how much prices have risen for bacon, overall food and gasoline. 

    In December, Trump said gasoline prices “are now $5, $6, $7 and even $8 a gallon.” We rated that claim Mostly False, since just a few gasoline stations nationally had prices that high. The nationwide average per-gallon price at the time was $3.14.

    Gasoline prices have been unusually high under Biden, although they’ve dropped from their $5-per-gallon peak. That decline has stemmed from increased production, including in the United States, and the oil market’s realignment after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, which drove Western nations to restrict purchases of Russian oil.

    Today, gasoline prices remain about one-third higher than they were when Biden took office. That’s a bigger percentage increase after three years than under Clinton, Bush or Trump. Obama fared worse; gasoline prices were 89% higher at his three-year mark.

    Where Biden and Trump have similar success stories: unemployment rates, GDP, stock market

    On several key metrics, Biden and Trump both have records to celebrate.

    In June 2023, Biden touted the low unemployment rate on his watch, saying that it has been “below 4% for the longest stretch in 50 years in American history.” We rated this Mostly True. Unemployment has remained low partly because companies have more jobs to fill than available applicants; that has drawn some Americans back to work.

    However, Trump also oversaw low unemployment rates. During Trump’s first three years in office, the unemployment rate averaged 4%; during Biden’s first three years, which included a few months when unemployment was still settling down after pandemic job losses, the average has been 4.2%.

    Meanwhile, a measure called the “misery index” adds the unemployment rate and the inflation rate. 

    After spiking when inflation was highest in summer 2022, the metric has fallen to a level lower than it was under Clinton, Bush and Obama at the end of year three. Trump’s misery index was lower at this point in his presidency, but Biden’s current level is lower than it was when Trump left office.

    Biden has also trumpeted the growth in the most basic measurement of economic output: gross domestic product, or the collective value of all goods and services made in the U.S.. In January he called a 3.1% expansion in the economy during the fourth quarter of 2023 “good news for American families and American workers. That is three years in a row of growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up on my watch.”

    If you ignore the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021, the annual GDP growth rates under the two most recent presidents have been similar, ranging from about 2% to 3%. That range was also typical under Obama’s presidency and for much of Bush’s, except for the two toughest years of the Great Recession, 2008 and 2009.

    Meanwhile, Biden has recently taken to touting the stock market’s health, saying on X, “The stock market going strong is a sign of confidence in America’s economy.”

    As president, Trump often trumpeted stock market gains, although he’s dismissed the gains under Biden as helping only rich people (incorrectly — more than half the public owns stocks.)

    Either way, both presidents have overseen rising share prices. During Trump’s first three years, the S&P 500, a broad stock market gauge, rose by 1,050 points. In Biden’s first three years, it has risen by 988 points. (Since Jan. 20, 2024, the S&P has risen an additional 287 points.)

     



    Source