Paradise News

Tag: General News

  • Swalwell on Biden age: ‘I’ll take the guy who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts’

    Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.

    “I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.

    “It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, speaking about the 2024 election. “It’s about the idea of competence versus chaos, or even greater, freedom versus fascism. If we make it about those ideas, and what they mean in our daily lives, we’re gonna win.”

    Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report noted that Biden had problems with memory and recall.

    “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” special counsel Robert Hur wrote in the report.

    Ezra Klein, a columnist and podcast host for The New York Times, made an argument that Biden should stop running for reelection due to the scrutiny the president is facing over his age and memory Friday on his podcast “The Ezra Klein Show.”

    “To say this is a media invention, that people are worried about Biden’s age because the media keeps telling them to be worried about Biden’s age?” Klein said.

    “If you’ve really convinced yourself of that, in your heart of hearts, I almost don’t know what to tell you,” he added. “In poll after poll, 70 percent to 80 percent of voters are worried about his age. This is not a thing people need the media to see.”

    A recent poll, conducted in the wake of the report, found that 86 percent of Americans think he is too old for office.

    Trump still faces several other legal challenges heading into the 2024 election season, including in the ongoing Georgia probe.

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    Source

  • Breaking! Govt. Scientist Warn Chemicals In Cheerios Sterilizing/Bending Gender Of Children


    Alex Jones breaks down the dangers of chlormequat!

    Alex Jones breaks down an alarming study showing that popular oat cereals contain sterilizing pesticides like chlormequat and how they’re linked to the globalists’ depopulation program.



    Source

  • Edo APC Primary: Clem Agba Rejects Results

    Prince Clem Ikanade Agba has rejected the outcome of the All Progressive Congress governorship primary elections in Edo State.

    Dennis Idahosa was declared the winner and gubernatorial candidate of the party for Edo State.

    Agba, who also contested the primary, expressed gratitude to his supporters in a statement on Saturday, but said the process did not meet democratic standards.

    He said many loyal party members were disenfranchised during the process.

    Recall that the chairman of the APC primary election committee and Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodimma, announced that Idahosa polled 40,483 to defeat nine other contestants

    Agba who is the immediate past Minister of State, Budget & National Planning, while reacting to the outcome of the election, stated that the results announced undermined the principles of democracy and fair play. He noted that the reported outcome also ridiculed the democratic values of one man, one vote.

    He said, “To my good people of Edo State and esteemed members of our great party, the All Progressives Congress, I want to thank you for your loyalty and support for my candidature.

    “Unfortunately what we have all witnessed in the APC party primaries in Edo State on Saturday February 17th, 2024 falls below the minimum standard of democratic elections that is universally acceptable.

    “I believe strongly that thousands of loyal party members were disenfrachished. Based on the
    authentic turnout, we clinched victory. The result so far announced is a ridicule and undermines the principles of democracy and fair play. The votes of the people did not count, the processes of election were compromised and the strength and unity of our party greatly undermined.”

    While maintaining loyalty to the party, Agba declared his refusal to be part of a process that denies the party members their right to vote. He called for unity to challenge the perceived injustice, promising to pursue justice swiftly within the party’s guidelines.

    “While I remain a loyal party member, I will not be part of a process that robs the mass of our loyal party members of their inalienable right to vote. What has taken place in Edo State negates all that even our political leaders have taught us over the years about democracy, the will of the people, one man, one vote and justice and fair play.

    “We must come together to challenge this great injustice and restore the integrity and strength of our great party. Such Impunity that the people have been subjected to should have no place in our great party.

    “We will proceed speedily within the guidelines laid down by our party to seek for justice,” he declared.

    While expressing gratitude to his supporters, Agba emphasized that the fight for a better future for Edo State would persist.

    The former minister urged everyone to march forward with courage and conviction until justice is served and the people’s will is honored.

    “I want to thank everyone that has supported me for your unwavering commitment and belief in our vision and qualification. Your passion and dedication have been the driving force behind
    our campaign, and I am truly grateful.

    “As we move forward, remember that our journey is far from over. We will continue to fight for a better future for Edo State, a future where every citizen can thrive and succeed. Our resolve is unbreakable, and our commitment unwavering. We will not rest until justice is served and the people’s will is honoured.

    “Thank you, and let us march forward with courage and conviction,” he said.

    Idahosa who was declared as the candidate of the APC in the September 21 governorship election in the state, currently represents Ovia South/ West-Ovia North/East Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives. He served as Commissioner for Investment, Public and Private Partnership under the administration of Adams Oshiomhole in 2014.

    THE WHISTLER had earlier reported that the APC flagbearer in the last governorship election, Osagie Ize-Iyamu, announced his withdrawal from the race.

    A former deputy governor of the state, Lucky Imasuen also stepped down.

    Edo APC Primary: Clem Agba Rejects Results is first published on The Whistler Newspaper

    Source

  • Fact Check: Ukraine aid bill doesn’t contain ‘a hidden impeachment clause against President Trump’

    Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, said “all Republicans should oppose” a bill that would provide $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. 

    Why? He claims the legislation — which the Senate passed with a 70-29 bipartisan vote — could be weaponized against former President Donald Trump, should he win a second term.

    “Buried in the bill’s text is an impeachment time bomb for the next Trump presidency if he tries to stop funding the war in Ukraine,” Vance wrote in a Feb. 12 X post. The post included screenshots of a memo he said he’d sent to his Republican colleagues. 

    He titled the memo, “The Ukraine Supplemental Includes a Hidden Impeachment Clause Against President Trump.” In it, Vance broke down his argument. 

    The bill includes about $60 billion to support Ukraine in the war against Russia. Vance’s memo focused on two lines of funding: $1.6 billion for “foreign military financing in Ukraine” and nearly $14 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, the U.S. Defense Department’s effort to help Ukraine’s defense.

    “These funds expire on September 30, 2025 — nearly a year into the possible second term of President Trump,” Vance wrote in the memo. “These are the exact same accounts President Trump was impeached for pausing in December 2019.” 

    Vance argued that if Trump withheld the funding after becoming president, it would amount to “the same fake violation of budget law from the first impeachment, under markedly similar facts and circumstances.” On those grounds, he said, Democrats would again impeach Trump.

    Some Republican members of Congress and conservative political commentators and publications amplified Vance’s argument. 

    “JD is correct,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., wrote in an X post. “This bill is an impeachment trap.”

    We searched the bill’s text for the words “impeach,” “impeachment” or “remove,” and found no results. But Vance argued the clause was hidden, so we unpacked his argument and still found it flawed.

    The bill merely dictates how money should be spent. Because it is the president’s job to spend congressionally appropriated funds, whoever is elected president in 2024 will be responsible for spending the money allocated in the bill, if it becomes law. The bill does not target Trump; it would apply the same way to President Joe Biden, should he be reelected. 

    The bill appropriates money. It doesn’t change impeachment laws, procedures

    Matthew Green, a politics professor at the Catholic University of America, told PolitiFact that “impeachment is basically irrelevant” to the supplemental appropriations bill.

    Several things have to happen for Vance’s impeachment scenario to come to fruition. 

    “The bill involves impeachment only if (a) it becomes law, (b) Trump is elected president, (c) Democrats win control of the House, (d) Trump decides to ignore the law, and (e) Democrats decide to pursue impeachment in response,” he said. 

    Currently, the Republicans have a narrow House majority; Democrats control the Senate 51-49. If Republicans retain control of the House, it is unlikely the bill would factor in impeachment proceedings against Trump because the Constitution grants the House the “sole power” to initiate impeachment proceedings and a simple majority vote is required to impeach. 

    Trump said he believes he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine quickly, and Vance argued in the memo that the bill is an attempt “to stop President Trump from pursuing his desired policy” or provide grounds for impeachment if he pursues it anyway.

    Vance’s office pointed PolitiFact to a portion of a Jan. 26 Washington Post story mentioned in the memo. It read, “Not incidentally, a U.S. official said, the hope is that the long-term promise — again assuming congressional buy-in — will also ‘future-proof’ aid for Ukraine against the possibility that former president Donald Trump wins his reelection bid.”

    Vance argued that the excerpt shows “that tying President Trump’s hands on foreign policy is very much top of mind for Biden administration officials.” Vance’s office also pointed to two former Trump administration officials, who appeared to agree with Vance’s interpretation. 

    But it is the elected president’s job, no matter who it is, to spend the funds appropriated by Congress, said Gregory Koger, director of the George P. Hanley Democracy Center and political science professor at the University of Miami. The Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974 underlines that responsibility.

    “This is not a ‘trap,’” Koger said. 

    If Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, it will be his job, Koger said. Same with Biden.

    Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a book about the history of impeachment, told PolitiFact that the funding bill “declares that money should be spent for a particular purpose.”

    It “does not target any president or either party,” he said. If passed, it would bind the next president. 

    “Any president, regardless of party, could, in theory, be impeached for a sufficiently unambiguous violation of law relating to a matter of sufficient national importance,” Bowman said.

    Bowman said that the funding provisions “are no more a ‘hidden impeachment clause’ than any provision of any bill.” 

    Trump’s 2019 impeachment was about more than withholding Ukraine aid

    Responding to a conservative think tank’s critique of Vance’s stance, Vance also argued that “the legal ‘core’” of Trump’s first impeachment “rested on” paused aid to Ukraine. None of the previous supplemental Ukraine aid bills, he said, have included “sunset dates stretching into a potential future presidential administration.” 

    In the bill, some of the money earmarked to support Israel and Taiwan also has a Sept. 30, 2025, sunset date.

    Trump’s attempts to withhold Ukraine aid were part of his 2019 impeachment, but his impeachment was about far more than withholding that funding. 

    In December 2019, the House impeached then-President Trump on two charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., joined by other Democratic leaders, announces that the House is pushing ahead with two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Dec. 10, 2019. (AP)

    The abuse of power article focused on Trump’s alleged efforts to coerce Ukrainian officials into investigating a potential political opponent, Biden, by withholding military aid and a sought-after White House visit. 

    The House approved that charge by a vote of 230-197. No Republicans voted against Trump. 

    Experts told PolitiFact that Vance’s characterization of Trump’s impeachment was misleading.

    “Donald Trump was not impeached in 2019 merely because he had a difference of opinion with Congress over spending priorities,” Koger said. “He was impeached because he was holding Congressionally allocated funds hostage to extort a political favor from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.” 

    It’s likely Congress would consider this type of action “unacceptable no matter which country was involved,” Koger said. In that way, “it is not the legislation that ‘traps’ Trump; it is his own behavior.”

    Bowman said that Trump’s 2019 withholding of military aid violated law because a president must, by law, spend congressionally appropriated funds once legal conditions are met, which was the case in 2019. Per the Impoundment Control Act, presidents must inform Congress of their intent and reasoning for withholding or pausing aid. In 2019, Trump did not do this, Bowman said.

    That law violation, the defiance of Congress, the harm to U.S. security interests and Trump’s personal motive were all part of the first impeachment article, Bowman said.

    If Trump, upon reelection, wanted to withhold money Congress had appropriated for Ukraine, he could adhere to the Impoundment Control Act and inform Congress. If Congress passed a bill agreeing to withhold the aid, there’d be no basis to impeach him. If Congress refused within 45 days to pass a bill agreeing to Trump’s plan, “he’d have to provide the aid,” Bowman said. 

    “If Trump simply ignored the aid authorization legislation and the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act and withheld congressionally mandated aid despite the clear commands of Congress, could he be impeached for that, even without the element of corruption?” Bowman asked. “I think so, but it would be a less compelling case than the 2019 affair.”

    Our ruling

    Vance argued that the Ukraine supplemental aid bill “includes a hidden impeachment clause against President Trump.”

    The bill does not target Trump or say anything about impeachments. It dictates how money should be spent. Experts said it is the president’s job to spend congressionally appropriated funds, so whoever is elected in 2024 will be responsible for spending the money allocated in the bill, if it becomes law. 

    What could lead to an impeachment scenario is if Trump gets reelected and does not follow the law, but that’s not because of a hidden trap in the funding bill, experts said.

    We rate that claim False.



    Source

  • San Jose Sharks to play Kevin Labanc

    SAN JOSE – The San Jose Sharks, it would seem, are giving forward Kevin Labanc a greater chance at success on Saturday night when they play the Columbus Blue Jackets at SAP Center.

    Instead of playing Labanc on the fourth line, where he’s been at various times this season, the Sharks’ coaching staff will have the winger join the third line with Nico Sturm and Filip Zadina, who is coming off a four-point night in Calgary on Thursday.

    “Just a frickin’ honest effort for 60 minutes,” Sharks coach David Quinn said when asked what he wants to see out of Labanc, who is playing his first game since Jan. 16, “and possess the puck and play a good game.”

    Labanc was among the first Sharks players on the ice Saturday morning.

    “It feels good,” Labanc told Bay Area News Group on Saturday morning. “Just work hard and have fun with it. And then we got the new (black) jerseys coming out, so I’m sure it’ll be buzzing. It’s Saturday. I’m excited.”

    It’s unusual for a coach coming off a win to change his lineup for the next game.

    But Quinn said he wanted to get Labanc, who had been a healthy scratch for eight straight games, a chance to play again, while also creating more balance among the forward lines. Jacob MacDonald will come out of the lineup for Labanc.

    “I just liked that look better than just replacing Labanc for McDonald,” Quinn said.

    Of course, if the Sharks want to trade Labanc, as the player’s agent, Mike Curran, and general manager Mike Grier have indicated that they’re both working towards, then it behooves everyone to get the New York City native back on the ice.

    Labanc, at his best, can be an offensive contributor for any playoff-contending team, as his 216 points in his first 432 NHL games would indicate. He can be a dynamic playmaker on a power play.

    Too often, though, Labanc’s game at even strength has been unsteady, a major reason why he has been in Quinn’s doghouse at times this season.

    Going into Saturday. Labanc, a pending unrestricted free agent, had just seven points and was averaging a career-low 11:47 in ice time per game.

    From a financial perspective, Labanc’s contract has an average annual value of $4.725 million. To deal Labanc, the Sharks might have to use their final retention spot on whatever the winger’s remaining cap hit is by the March 8 trade deadline. That might hamper, though, efforts to trade some of the Sharks’ other pending UFA’s

    In other words, it’s going to be a challenge for Grier to get a deal done for Labanc. But by playing him, there’s at least a better chance, or so it would seem.

    For Saturday’s game, scouts from the Chicago Blackhawks, Edmonton Oilers, Nashville Predators, Tampa Bay Lightning, Winnipeg Jets, the New York Rangers, and the Blue Jackets were credentialed.

    Asked if this was an opportunity for Labanc to regain his trust, Quinn said, “When he’s playing well, I trust him. It’s like any player. He knows what he needs to do. There is no gray area.

    “He’s had some good games this year. There’s a lot that goes into it. He’s just got to be more consistent. Usually, when a player isn’t in the lineup, it’s the consistency piece.”

    For his part, Labanc, 28, just wants to play a simple, smart game Saturday. After sitting out for so long, it’s a challenge for any player to quickly get back up to speed.

    “I don’t think anything fancy for me,” Labanc said. “It’s going to be chip it in, chip it out, get it in deep. Play a simple game. Nothing too crazy.

    “Get shots through, work hard, backcheck, forecheck. Like I said, nothing crazy or fancy.”

    Source

  • Why Putin finds himself in a much stronger position than the West believes

    As Alexei Navalny, the undisputed leader of the Russian opposition, died in an Arctic prison facility Friday, most of the commentators argued that Vladimir Putin’s regime had lost the last remnants of its credibility. Dozens of Western leaders assigned full responsibility for his passing on the Kremlin while President Biden said he “is looking at a whole number of options” in response to this brutal human rights violation in Russia.

    These reactions might please many of democracy activists in and around Russia, but I think the time has come to ask oneself why Russia rejected a democratic system in favor of Putin’s lifelong presidency? Unlike many dictators, Putin hasn’t introduced one-party rule or banned the elections, and while there are more people in Russia disagreeing with his policies that the Kremlin insists, just dozens went out to lay flowers in memory of the Kremlin’s most dedicated opponent.

    I had predicted Vladimir Putin would rule Russia until the end of his days back in 2013, and I still believe in my forecast. Putin’s strength, to my mind, stems not only from his authoritarianism and terror against the dissenters (the latter started just in early 2020s), but from a combination of historic background and traditions, on the one hand, and of sophisticated policies pursued by the ruling elites, on the other. 

    First, it should be noted that Russia’s history has been built around the thirst for territorial expansion and imperial aspirations since Muscovy established itself as an empire well before it had turned into Russia in its contemporary sense. Moreover, the nation has been fueled for centuries by a feeling of its uniqueness — religious, cultural, ideological and military — which has merged with the country’s identity.  From the establishment of modern Russia in the 16th century, it was economically based on the use of its vast natural resources, so the central government’s right to redistribute the nation’s wealth has never been questioned. All this makes the strong centralized political system quite natural for Russia.

    Second, Putin’s team have done a brilliant job since he arose as the national leader in 1999 because they orchestrated a very gradual change in the social system, exchanging the economic freedom for political expression. The system, simultaneously proclaiming respect for laws and rules but presupposing massive exclusions and combining business with public service, seemed very common to the Russians so they got accustomed to them quite quickly. And, finally, Putin and his team talked with their people in a much more plain and transparent way than the liberal opposition did.

    Moreover, the Kremlin has masterfully used the statist propaganda, which was welcomed by the Russian people. In 2010 I argued that Russia of the 2000s is nothing like the Soviet Union of the 1970s — the new emerging authoritarian order has been built without both the Soviet ban on information and the Soviet sealed borders. To build a largely authoritarian system where people are personally free was an incredible achievement for the Kremlin leadership. I would add that Putin had spent around 10 years, starting by his annexation of Crimea, changing Russians’ priorities: The so-called “Crimean consensus” put geopolitical concerns above economic ones in people’s minds and lay the groundwork for Russia to be able to survive a decade-long economic slowdown without visible political discontent and preparing it to encounter massive outside pressure stemming from President Putin’s Ukrainian adventure. 

    The strength of Putin’s regime is based on three pillars. First, he resonates with Russians’ imperial aspirations and their feelings of their country’s uniqueness. Second, he succeeded in building a system beneficial for Russians — not only bureaucrats and silovikis, but state employees of all ranks, entrepreneurs, wealthy city dwellers and even retirees — who are interested in its stability. Third, through pulling his country into war, he transformed all those critical of him into Ukraine’s supporters (the emigrant opposition claims now that Ukraine’s victory means Russia’s freedom) and, therefore, into traitors. All this makes his regime stronger today than it was 10 years ago — and the Western policymakers shouldn’t ignore this fact.

    The last point I want to make concerns Putin’s inner circle. For years I believed that such a personalistic regime cannot survive its founder’s death. Today, as during the war almost nobody of the ruling elite has deserted it, I’m not so sure of such a perspective. Putin’s inner circle realizes well that the advantages caused by its position outweigh any discontent that might arise from personal animosities. To the contrary, the anti-Putin forces are now fighting each other more fiercely than they are taking on the Kremlin because they have nothing to defend.

    No one knows whether Putin’s fifth term will be his last one. But it might be that after Putin the West encounters another Putin, even his name might be different, and not someone similar to Alexei Navalny.

    Vladislav Inozemtsev is special adviser to the Middle East Media Research Institute’s (MEMRI) Russian Media Studies Project and is director of Moscow-based Center for Post-Industrial Studies.

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

    Source

  • Major Victory For Russian Army As Ukraine Forces Flee Eastern City

    The capture of the city is the most significant triumph for Russia since it took Bakhmut last May.

    Following a year that saw little change in control of territory, the Russian army has secured a major victory in its war in Ukraine as Ukrainian forces have retreated from the eastern city of Avdiivka. 

    Shortly after midnight Saturday in Ukraine, the country’s newly-installed top commander, General Oleksandr Syrsky, announced that he had ordered troops to evacuate the city.Surrounded in three directions by the Russian army, Ukrainian soldiers in the city found themselves in a rapidly-tightening noose. 

    “Based on the operational situation around Avdiivka, in order to avoid encirclement and preserve the lives and health of servicemen, I decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more favorable lines,” said Syrsky in a Facebook post. 

    While its authenticity can’t be confirmed, video circulating on social media purportedly shows Ukrainian armored vehicles executing a fiery but mostly orderly retreat: 

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

    The capture of the city is the most significant triumph for Russia since it took Bakhmut last May. Situated nine miles northwest of the Russian-held city of Donetsk, Avdiivka was was briefly controlled by pro-Russia separatists in 2014 before Ukraine retook the city, which had a pre-war population of 32,000.  

    Russia’s victory is a new step toward a principal objective announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin when he ordered the “special military operation” — taking control of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. Together, the two territories comprise the heavily industrialized, coal-rich Donbas region, which has a majority Russian-speaking population. Russia has since expanded its territorial goals, and has taken huge swaths of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts, thus forming a land bridge to Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. 

    Ukraine deployed one of its two specialized assault brigades — the 3rd Assault Brigade — to help cover the retreat. Oleksandr Tarnavskyi, who leads Ukrainian forces operating in southeastern Ukraine, described the dismal scenario faced by his troops in Avdiivka, which he characterized as the “hottest” zone along the entire 600-mile-long battlefront:

    “In a difficult battlefield situation, when only ruins and a pile of broken bricks remain from the fortification, our priority is to save the soldiers’ lives…The enemy launches massive bomb attacks day and night, and does not stop attacking simultaneously from several directions.”  He described Russia as “practically wiping the city from the face of the earth.” 

    The fall of Avdiivka came a day after President Biden tried using the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny to pressure Congress into throwing billions more dollars into the war in Ukraine. “History is watching the House of Representatives,” said Biden. “The failure to support Ukraine at this moment will never be forgotten…The clock is ticking, and this has to happen, we have to help now.”

    Then again, maybe it’s time to stop promoting the fiction that Ukraine has any hope of ejecting Russia from the approximately 20% of the country it has captured — and time to start earnestly pursuing a settlement that restores peace and ends a proxy war that has cost countless lives while only benefitting the military-industrial complex.  



    Source

  • Nigeria Ready For 2028 Take-Off Of African Central Bank In Abuja — Tinubu Tells AU 

    President Bola Tinubu has told the African Union (AU) that Nigeria is prepared to host the proposed African Central Bank (ACB). 

    Tinubu stated this on Saturday during the 37th ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

    The proposed ACB will be established as one of the original five financial institutions of the AU with the aim to issue a single African currency known as the “Afro” or “Afriq.”

    The bank will act as the banker for African governments, regional unions, and private and public banking institutions.

    When established, the ACB would also serve as regulator of the African banking industry in collaboration with regional central banks.

    President Tinubu pledged his administration’s dedication to working with the AU Commission and member states to ensure the bank’s successful launch by 2028.

    He highlighted the significance of education, the summit’s theme, in equipping future generations with the necessary skills to address Africa’s unique challenges.

    “As a continent and as individual nations, we face strong headwinds and difficult hurdles threatening to complicate our mission to bring qualitative democratic governance and economic development to our people. Many of these obstacles, such as climate change and unfair patterns of global trade, are largely not of our making. However, some of the pitfalls, including coup-birthed autocracies and the deleterious tinkering with constitutional tenure provisions, are developmental cancers we as Africans are giving to ourselves,” Tinubu told the African leaders.

    Beyond economy, the Nigerian leader also addressed the recent coups in West Africa, urging for dialogue and regional cooperation despite disagreements.

    “The drive for a peaceful, strong, and united West Africa is bigger than any one person or group of people. The bonds of history, culture, commerce, geography, and brotherhood hold deep meaning for our people. Thus, out of the dust and fog of misunderstanding and acrimony, we must seize the chance to create a new people-centric era of trust and accord.

    “To all who care to listen, I declare that if you come to the table to discuss important matters in good faith, you will find Nigeria and ECOWAS already sitting there waiting to greet you as the brother that you are,” President Tinubu said.

    On education, which is the theme of this year’s summit, the President said education is the core ingredient in the process of evolving creative solutions to the unique challenges long confronting the continent.

    “In helping to achieve the Agenda 2063 objective of a peaceful, united and prosperous Africa, I consider African education, not only in the narrow context of the benign use of science and technology to improve the material standards of our people, but also in the nuanced appreciation of the fact that Africa must also become better educated in the humane art of democratic practice, diplomacy, and conflict resolution without violence.

    “This year’s theme encourages us to remodel our educational systems to fit these goals. In Nigeria, my administration is devoting ample resources to education at all levels. From redesigning our school feeding programmes and academic curricula to making ourselves an Information and Communication Technology hub, through which we shall bring more youths into the classroom and furnish them with the tools required to flourish in the global economy of the 21st century,” he said.

    Nigeria Ready For 2028 Take-Off Of African Central Bank In Abuja — Tinubu Tells AU  is first published on The Whistler Newspaper

    Source

  • Fact Check: What do articles of impeachment say Alejandro Mayorkas did or didn’t do?

    In the historic Feb. 13 impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas, House Republicans said the Homeland Security secretary “willfully and systematically refused to comply with immigration laws” and “breached public trust” by falsely telling Congress the U.S.-Mexico border was secure.

    This is the second time in U.S. history that a Cabinet member has been impeached; the first was in 1876, when Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached for corrupt kickbacks.

    We reviewed what the articles of impeachment say Mayorkas did or did not do and found the articles misconstrued what is possible under immigration law and congressional appropriations.

    Constitutional scholars, former Homeland Security secretaries and immigration experts have criticized the impeachment, saying the articles cite policy disagreements rather than impeachable offenses, which include “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    Refusing to comply with immigration law by not detaining people

    House Republicans said Mayorkas “willfully and systematically” refused to comply with the law by refusing to enforce a detention mandate. This charge lacks context about the federal government’s capacity to detain migrants who cross the southern U.S. border.

    Federal immigration law generally requires that people who enter the U.S. illegally be detained while they await court proceedings.

    Immigrant detention can involve multiple federal agencies. People who are apprehended at the border are temporarily taken into custody by Border Patrol agents as they decide next steps. Some people are transferred from temporary border holding facilities to detention centers across the country operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    But there’s not enough detention space for the large number of migrants who cross the southern border.

    “Due to consistent and significant funding shortfalls … DHS has never had ‘sufficient detention capacity to maintain in custody every single person,’” U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a 2022 opinion about the program known as “Remain in Mexico.”

    In fiscal year 2023, Congress allocated money for immigration authorities to detain 34,000 people. That year, Immigration officials encountered migrants 3.2 million times — a number that represents events, not people. If one person tries to enter the country three times and is stopped each time by border officials, for example, that equals three encounters, even if it’s the same person encountered.

    Although immigration law requires that people be detained, courts have long debated whether people can be indefinitely detained, according to the Congressional Research Service.

    Mounting backlogs of millions of immigration cases mean that court proceedings can take years to resolve. And not every country will accept its nationals who have been deported from the U.S.

    So, even if there were enough detention space, there likely would be legal challenges to holding people for extended periods.

    Impeachment articles say Mayorkas made false statements to Congress

    The impeachment articles also said, “Mayorkas knowingly made false statements to Congress that the border is ‘secure’ … and that DHS has ‘operational control’ of the border.”

    The missing context is that given the legal definition of operational control, no administration has ever achieved it.

    Operational control is a legal term that was defined by Congress in the 2006 Secure Fence Act. The law tasks DHS with preventing all illegal entries into the U.S., including “terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

    During an April 2022 House committee hearing, Republicans questioned Mayorkas about whether he had “operational control” of the border.

    “Will you testify under oath right now? Do we have operational control, yes or no?” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked Mayorkas during the 2022 hearing.

    “Yes, we do,” Mayorkas responded.

    Roy read the 2006 legal definition of operational control and asked, “Do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control in light of this definition?”

    “I do, and Congressman, I think the Secretary of Homeland Security would have said the same thing in 2020 and in 2019,” Mayorkas responded.

    Roy switched discussion topics before Mayorkas could elaborate.

    In March 2023, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz told a House committee that the Biden administration did not have “operational control” over the southern border. Soon after, Senate Republicans pressed Mayorkas to assess the issue again.

    “Do we or don’t we” have operational control, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Mayorkas.

    Mayorkas said when gauging operational control, he does “not use the definition that appears in the Secure Fence Act.”

    “So, the way I define it is maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results, and we are indeed doing that,” Mayorkas said.

    Impeachment uses program termination as evidence; Supreme Court signed off

    House Republicans said Mayorkas “breached the public trust” by refusing “to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the illegal entry of aliens.”

    As evidence, the articles of impeachment cite Mayorkas’ termination of Migrant Protection Protocols. The Trump-era program, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” sent some migrants seeking asylum back to Mexico to await immigration court proceedings.

    Mayorkas ended the program. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ending it did not violate immigration law.

    House Republicans cited a lower court’s ruling forcing Biden to restart the program as evidence that Mayorkas failed to fulfill his duty to secure the border, and that ending the program increased illegal immigration. But the impeachment articles don’t acknowledge the Supreme Court’s decision that allowed the program to end.

    Also, the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has raised doubts about the program’s effectiveness at lowering illegal immigration.

    RELATED: GOP claims that Homeland Security secretary is ‘responsible’ for fentanyl crisis are False

    RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: What branch of government is ‘really’ responsible for the crisis at the border?



    Source

  • Logan Couture, Tomas Hertl out indefinitely

    SAN JOSE — Logan Couture is improving, Sharks coach David Quinn said, but there’s still no indication as to when both he and Tomas Hertl will be able to return from their respective lower body injuries.

    Couture will miss his third straight game Saturday night when the Sharks host the Columbus Blue Jackets after he recently had a recurrence of an injury, osteitis pubis, that kept him out for all of training camp and the entire first half of the season.

    Quinn said Couture, 34, remains week to week, adding, though, that he can walk. Couture said last month that when his injury was at its worst late last year, he wasn’t able to even get out of bed or play with his young son, now just over six months old, at home.

    “He’s getting better, so that’s a good sign,” Quinn said of Couture. “So, he’s shut down until he feels better to get back out there.

    “He’s getting dressed, he’s getting out of bed. He’s picking his son up.”

    Hertl was expected to miss several weeks after he elected to have surgery to remove loose cartilage in his left knee on Monday. At the time, Sharks general manager Mike Grier said in a statement the timetable for Hertl to return would be determined, “based on the findings of the procedure and his rehabilitation.”

    Quinn didn’t have an updated timeline on Hertl and estimated that it could be another week before more is known. There is still optimism that Hertl can return before the end of the regular season in April.

    Hertl dealt with the knee issue on and off this season but aggravated the injury in a Jan. 27 game against Buffalo as he absorbed a hit from Sabres defenseman Henri Jokiharju. With Hertl already playing in some discomfort, the hit, Quinn said recently, “kind of brought it a little bit to a new level.”

    Hertl missed the last two Sharks games at the end of last month but wanted to be a part of the NHL All-Star Game’s festivities in Toronto, where he, his wife, and their two young sons met his parents, who had never been to Canada before.

    After Saturday’s game, the Sharks host the Vegas Golden Knights on Monday, the Nashville Predators next Saturday, and the New Jersey Devils and Anaheim Ducks on Feb. 27 and 29, respectively.

    Without Couture and Hertl, the Sharks lost 1-0 to the Winnipeg Jets on Wednesday before they beat the Calgary Flames 6-3 the following night. That night, Filip Zadina had four points and Justin Bailey added three as the Sharks improved to 6-4-2 since the end of a 12-game losing streak last month.

    Source