NEWS HIGHLIGHTS

USA & CANADA (901)

Tragedy As Two Nigerian Sisters Drown While Swimming In A Beach In The US

The funeral service for the sisters took place at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 9, at the Yankasa Masjid Mosque.…

Biden and Trudeau: Two leaders in trouble who are resisting calls to step aside

As Canadians celebrate the anniversary of the founding of their country on Monday and Americans observe the anniversary of the…

Latest News

The most realistic way to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee – allow him a graceful exit

Thursday, 04 July 2024 04:04 Written by theconversation

Within minutes of the conclusion of this week’s presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it became clear to many that the 81-year-old Biden may not be capable of winning the general election in November.

His inability to clearly communicate during the 90-minute debate earned harsh criticism from across the US political spectrum, most notably among Democrats.

Van Jones, a former official in the Obama administration and CNN analyst, said about Biden:

He had a test to meet tonight to restore confidence in the country and of the base, and he failed to do that.
We’re still far from our convention. And there is time for this party to figure out a different way forward.

Biden did land a few blows on his predecessor over Trump’s various personal indiscretions and the January 6 2021 insurrection on the US Capitol, saying at one point, “you’ve got the morals of an alley cat”.

But it was not enough to persuade many sceptics that Biden is capable of fighting off the Trump campaign, not to mention performing the duties of US commander-in-chief and the hardest job in the world for another four years.

If polls over the weekend show Biden is losing support after his dreadful debate performance, which seems highly likely, the move to replace him as the Democrats’ candidate will become even more intense and, ultimately, irresistible.

How would this play out in the next few weeks?

Persuading Biden to step aside

Even with the withering criticism from his party, Biden remains in control of his fate. He won 99% of the pledged delegates in the Democratic primary process earlier this year, meaning he is entitled to the nomination. As a result, any decision to move to a different candidate starts with Biden himself.

Absent dramatic health news or his removal under the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which allows for such action by the vice president and a majority of his cabinet if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, Biden would have to agree to step down as the party’s nominee.

We should be realistic here: Biden is a very stubborn man. You don’t get to be the president of the United States without being enormously self-confident. Biden may not be the smartest or most talented politician, but he is dogged and relentless in his ambitions.

He ran for president twice before his success in 2020. He didn’t let a brain aneurysm, plagiarism charges, familial dramas or personal tragedy stop him seeking the highest office in the land. The day after the debate with Trump, he shook his fist at a campaign event in North Carolina and asserted, “When you get knocked down, you get back up”.

Persuading Biden to step down would require collaboration with his wife, First Lady Jill Biden. “Dr Jill”, as she is known, has taken a hands-on role in managing the president’s daily life and public appearances.

There are very few Democratic Party elders who can be influential with the Bidens. The list probably starts and stops with former President Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If those two go to the first lady and forcefully urge Biden’s withdrawal, it could be very difficult to resist.

How could Biden save face?

If Biden withdraws from the race before the Democratic convention in mid-August, his delegates could then vote for a new nominee at the event. Potential nominees include Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

Notably, except for Harris, none of these candidates has been vetted publicly during the Democratic primary process for the world’s most scrutinised job.

If Biden were to withdraw from the race after the convention, a special meeting of the members of the Democratic National Committee would decide on the new nominee. This committee includes around 500 leading party members from all US states and territories. (Whitmer is one of three vice chairs.)

A question senior Biden confidants might be asking themselves is, which scenario offers Biden a more graceful and successful exit?

He may want to anoint a successor and he would want to choose the method that offers him the most control. That may be the convention route, where he at least can claim the allegiance of his primary delegates.

This would require an announcement in the next few weeks. The sooner the better, so as to build as much public support as possible for a new nominee. Biden could salvage a significant amount of his reputation if his handpicked successor then defeated Trump in November.

Things look grim for Democrats right now, but in the long run, they may be in a strong position. Trump is very unpopular with most Americans. The 2021 insurrection remains a massive stain on his legacy. His vote ceiling among probable voters in November is still likely below 50%.

Veteran Obama strategist David Axelrod warned Republicans after the debate:

If, for whatever reason, there’s a change at the top of the ticket, you guys are in trouble with Donald Trump. Because the guy who was up there tonight is not a guy who’s going to inspire people.

A tough and nimble Democratic candidate who can communicate clearly could be very successful in November.

Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Published in USA & CANADA

Trump ally and former adviser Steve Bannon ordered to report to prison by July 1 for refusing to testify to Congress over Jan 6 capitol riot

Friday, 07 June 2024 09:25 Written by lindaikejiblog

A US federal judge on Thursday, June 6 ordered former Donald Trump adviser, Steve Bannon to report to prison by July 1.

Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress in 2022 after failing to provide documents and testimony to the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack. He was sentenced to four months in prison.

The federal judge presiding over the case, Carl Nichols, had initially paused the sentence while Bannon appealed the conviction.

But last month, a DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously rejected several challenges Bannon made to the case, and prosecutors immediately asked Nichols to send Bannon to prison to begin serving his sentence.

Nichols said Thursday that, given the appeals court ruling, he did not believe the basis he had for pausing Bannon’s sentence “exists any longer.”

The judge, who was appointed by Trump, said that he concluded that he had the authority to lift the hold on Bannon’s sentence, even as an appeal of conviction will continue.

Shortly after the hearing concluded, Bannon vowed to fight his contempt of Congress conviction “all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to.”

Bannon also claimed without evidence that his prosecution by the Justice Department was about “shutting down the MAGA movement, shutting down grassroots conservatives, shutting down President Trump.”

“There’s nothing that can shut me up and nothing that will shut me up. There’s not a prison built or a jail built that will ever shut me up,” he told reporters outside the federal courthouse in Washington.

“We’re going to win at the Supreme Court,” he added.

Prosecutor John Crabb said that Bannon had not satisfied the legal threshold for staying out of prison while his appeal continued. Crabb pointed to the failed effort by Peter Navarro, another ex-Trump adviser prosecuted for refusing to comply with a House January 6 committee subpoena, to pause his sentence, an effort that was rebuffed by the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court.

At the hearing, Bannon’s attorney, David Schoen, argued that his client should be able to remain out of prison until the Supreme Court had a chance to weigh in on the case. Schoen also said that his request for the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case would be filed by June 24.

Nichols said Navarro’s case presented different issues, and the judge ultimately pointed to the fact that three appeals court judges “wholeheartedly” rejected the arguments Bannon was making in his case.

With less than a month until the surrender date, Bannon could try to file emergency motions with the appeals court and even the Supreme Court seeking to push off his sentence longer.

Published in USA & CANADA

US shuts off asylum to migrants who cross border illegally

Thursday, 06 June 2024 04:02 Written by OASESNEWS

The US government under Joe Biden is quickly invoking an authority to shut off access to asylum for migrants who cross the US-Mexico border illegally.

Biden unveiled the sweeping executive action Tuesday afternoon, June 4 at the White House, attempting to use executive action to affect the situation on the border after a bipartisan measure failed earlier this year.

The action comes as Biden tries to gain the upper hand on immigration just weeks from the first presidential debate by using the same authority former President Donald Trump tried to use in office.

In a speech at the White House, Biden said Republicans in Congress who blocked a bipartisan border deal left him no choice but to take executive action.

“I’m moving past Republican obstruction and using the executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border,” Biden said.

The new executive action bars migrants who cross the border illegally from seeking asylum – a departure from decades-long protocol, once a daily threshold is met. Unless they meet certain exemptions, migrants will be turned away to Mexico or returned to their country of origin.

Border authorities encountered around 3,500 migrants crossing the border unlawfully on Monday, according to a Homeland Security official, above the threshold needed for the executive action to take effect.

The number of people crossing the US southern border has consistently been a challenge for the Biden administration and Homeland Security officials have recently been arresting just under 4,000 migrants daily at the US-Mexico border.

Unaccompanied children, victims of a severe form of trafficking, and those who present an acute medical emergency or an imminent and extreme threat to life and safety are exempt from this rule.

“Frankly, I would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation because that’s the only way to actually get the kind of system we have now that’s broken, fixed. To hire more Border Patrol agents, more asylum officers, more judges. But Republicans have left me no choice,” Biden said in the speech from the East Room of the White House.

The president responded to criticism from progressives and others who have likened the move as similar to steps taken under Trump.

“For those who say the steps I’ve taken are too strict, I say to you that be patient and the good will of the American people is wearing thin right now. Doing nothing is not an option. We have to act. We must act consistent with both our law and our values. Our values as Americans. I take these steps today, not to walk away from who we are as Americans, to make sure we preserve who we are for future generations to come,” he said.

Biden also directly rebuked Trump.

“I will never demonize immigrants, I will never refer to immigrants as poisoning the blood of a country. And further, I’ll never separate children from their families at the border. I will not ban people from this country because of their religious beliefs. I will not use the US military to go into neighbourhoods all across the country to pull millions of people out of their homes and away from their families, to put detention camps while awaiting deportation, as my predecessor says he’ll do if he occupies this office again,” Biden said.

Published in USA & CANADA

Canada drops police clearance requirement for temporary residents Canada drops police clearance requirement for temporary residents

Friday, 31 May 2024 04:01 Written by OASESNEWS

The Canadian government has announced that police clearance certificates are not required for individuals entering the country as temporary residents, including those with study permits.

Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, Marc Miller, confirmed this during a session of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday.

Miller said, “I have never said such certificates are required for temporary residents.”

Miller also said the government does “verification,” which he explained was biometrics, basically fingerprints, which are run through partner and police databases.

Miller stated that temporary residents are not required to have police certificates from their home country.

“They may be required if an officer decides to do so as part of a cascading security screening,” he added later.

Miller also dismissed the efficacy of such checks, saying, “You could imagine how unreliable those certificates would be.”

The minister’s announcement comes amid increased scrutiny of Canada’s security checks for temporary residents, particularly international students, after it was revealed that at least two of the four people arrested in connection with the murder of pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar entered Canada as students.

Nijjar was killed on June 18 of last year in Surrey, British Columbia.

Of the four Indian nationals arrested and charged in relation to Nijjar’s murder, Karan Brar and Karamdeep Singh were confirmed to have arrived in Canada as students, while Amandeep Singh was also reported to have studied in the country.

Earlier this month, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said that a “number of people with organized crime links from Punjab” had been “made welcome in Canada.”

Jaishankar added, “We have been telling Canada saying, look these are wanted criminals from India, you have given them visas. But the Canadian government has not done anything.”

However, Miller responded to Jaishankar’s statement on May 6, stating, “We’re not lax. And the Indian foreign minister is entitled to his opinion. I’m going to let him speak his mind. It’s just not accurate.”

Miller had also stated there was an elaborate process for screening student visa applicants, saying, “You check them. If they have a criminal record; they don’t come in.” (The Guardian)

•Immigration Minister Marc Miller

Source: News Express

Published in USA & CANADA

Popular News

73Yrs Old Woman Mauled To Death By Her Own Pit Bull Inside Massachusetts Home

felicilin at 20-11-2024 09:47 AM (6 hrs ago) (f) …

Quebec court orders hospital to keep woman on life support so she can die in Nigeria

A spokesperson for the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) says…

Prosecutors oppose Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss hush money conviction

Manhattan prosecutors have announced they will oppose President-elect Trump’s…

US election: Trump gives condition to concede defeat

Former US President and Republican candidate, Donald Trump said he…

Donald Trump found guilty in hush-money case

Friday, 31 May 2024 03:45 Written by DAILYPOST

A New York jury has found former US President Donald Trump guilty of falsifying business records to commit election fraud.

This historic decision makes Trump the first former US president to be criminally convicted.

He was found guilty of all 34 counts he faced. Unanimity was required for any verdict.

Trump will now be sentenced on July 11.

Speaking outside the court, Trump claimed that the conviction was a “disgrace” and that he is “a very innocent man.”

He also insisted the trial was “rigged” and that the judge was “conflicted” and “should never have been allowed to try this case.”

Trump was at the centre of a scheme to cover up “hush money” payments to buy the silence of a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.

Published in USA & CANADA

California is about to tax guns more like alcohol and tobacco − and that could put a dent in gun violence

Monday, 20 May 2024 15:12 Written by theconversation

Starting in July 2024, California will be the first state to charge an excise tax on guns and ammunition. The new tax – an 11% levy on each sale – will come on top of federal excise taxes of 10% or 11% for firearms and California’s 6% sales tax.

The National Rifle Association has characterized California’s Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act as an affront to the Constitution. But the reaction from the gun lobby and firearms manufactures may hint at something else: the impact that the measure, which is aimed at reducing gun violence, may have on sales.

As a professor who studies the economics of violence and illicit trades at the University of San Diego’s Kroc School of Peace Studies, I think this law could have important ramifications.

One way to think about it is to compare state tax policies on firearms with those on alcohol and tobacco products. It’s not for nothing that these all appear in the name of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, also known as ATF.

What alcohol, tobacco and firearms have in common

That agency, part of the Justice Department, is tasked with making American communities safer. The ATF focuses on those products because, while legal, they can cause significant harm to society – in the form of drunken driving, for example, or cancer-causing addictions. They also have a common history: All have been associated with criminal organizations seeking to profit from illicit markets.

Alcohol and tobacco products are thus usually subject to state excise taxes. This policy is known as a “Pigouvian tax,” named after 20th-century British economist Arthur Pigou. By making a given product more expensive, such a tax leads people to buy less of it, reducing the harm to society while generating tax revenue that the state can theoretically use to offset those harms that still accrue.

California, for instance, imposes a US$2.87 excise tax on each pack of cigarettes. That tax is higher than the national average but much lower than New York’s $5.35 levy. California also imposed a vaping excise tax of 12.5% in 2021.

Of the three ATF product families, firearms have enjoyed an exemption from California excise taxes. Until now.

The costs of gun violence

Anti-gun advocates have long called for the firearm industry to lose the special treatment it receives, given the harms that firearms cause. The national rate of gun homicides in 2021 was 4.5 per 100,000 people. This is eight times higher than Canada’s rate and 77 times that of Germany. It translates into 13,000 lives lost every year in the U.S.

Additionally, nearly 25,000 Americans die from firearms suicide each year. This implies a rate of 8.1 per 100,000 per year, exceeding Canada’s by more than four times. Moreover, more people suffer nonfatal firearm injuries than die by guns.

Gun deaths and injuries aren’t just tragic – they’re expensive, too. One economist estimated the benefit-cost ratio of the U.S. firearms industry at roughly 0.65 in 2009. That means for every 65 cents it generates for the economy, the industry produces $1 of costs.

And that back-of-the-envelope calculation may be an underestimate. It included the cost of fatal gun violence committed within the U.S. But the estimate didn’t include nonfatal injuries, or the cost of firearm harms occurring outside the U.S. with U.S.-sold weapons.

Mexico pays a steep price for US gun trade

America has been called the world’s gun store. No country knows this better than Mexico. The U.S. endured roughly 45,000 firearms deaths in 2019, while the rest of the world combined saw 200,000. Mexico, which shares a long, permeable border with the U.S., contributed 34,000 to that grisly total.

Mexico’s government estimates that 70% to 90% of traceable guns used in crimes seized in the country come from the United States. Other examples abound. For instance, U.S.-sold guns fuel gang violence in a lawless Haiti.

No investor would back such an industry if they were forced to pay its full cost to society. Yet U.S. gun sales have grown tenfold over the past 20 years to about 20 million guns annually, even though they’re now deadlier and more expensive.

What alcohol, tobacco and firearms don’t have in common

Across the U.S., there’s not a single state where firearms are taxed as much as alcohol and tobacco. I think guns should probably be taxed at a higher level than both of them. That’s because unlike alcohol and tobacco – consumable products that disappear as soon as they’ve been used – firearms stick around. They accumulate and can continue to impose costs long after they’re first sold.

Starting in July, California will tax firearms at about the level of alcohol. But the state would have to apply an excise tax of an additional 26% to equal its effective tax on tobacco.

It’s unclear how the new tax will affect gun violence. In theory, the tax should be highly effective. In 2023, some colleagues and I modeled the U.S. market for firearms and determined that for every 1% increase in price, demand decreases by 2.6%. This means that the market should be very sensitive to tax increases.

Using these estimates, another colleague recently estimated that the California excise tax would reduce gun sales by 30% to 44%. If applied across the country, the tax could generate an additional $1.5 billion to $1.9 billion in government revenue.

One possible problem will come from surrounding states: It’s already easy to illegally transport guns bought in Nevada, where laws are more lax, to the Golden State.

But there’s some evidence that suggests California’s stringent policies won’t be neutralized by its neighbors.

When the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, making it much easier to buy AR- and AK-style rifles across much of the U.S., gun murders across the border in Mexico skyrocketed. Two studies show the exception was the Mexican state of Baja California, right across the border with California, which had kept its state-level assault weapons ban in place.

Gun seizures in Mexico show that all four U.S. states bordering Mexico rank in the top five state sources of U.S.-sold guns in Mexico. But California contributes 75% less than its population and proximity would suggest.

So, California laws seem to already be making a difference in reducing gun violence. I believe the excise tax could accomplish still more. Other states struggling against the rising tide of guns will be watching closely.

Topher L. McDougal, Professor of Economic Development & Peacebuilding, University of San Diego

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Published in USA & CANADA

Policeman sparks an investigation after puffing a cigar while arresting a suspect

Saturday, 18 May 2024 16:14 Written by OASESNEWS

A St. Louis policeman has sparked an investigation after firing up a cigar and puffing it while arresting a suspect.

It was gathered that the incident occurred on Sunday, May 12. The police officer took multitasking to a whole new level as he borrowed a lighter from another nearby officer to ignite his stogie while straddling a man on the ground whom he was placing under arrest outside Marquee Restaurant & Lounge.

St. Louis Police Department told TMZ the officer was working secondary employment for Marquee Lounge when they asked him to remove the man from the premises. They also said the man was eventually taken into custody for trespassing on private property and resisting arrest.

While the police department doesn't have very many answers on what made the police officer light up a cigar, they are officially looking into it.

The department has launched an internal investigation to "better understand the circumstances of the situation, what led up to the video, and the events that transpired after."

Published in USA & CANADA

Porn Star Testifies Against Trump At Hush Money Trial

Friday, 10 May 2024 03:14 Written by infotrustng

The porn star at the heart of Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial, Stormy Daniels, testified on Tuesday about an alleged 2006 sexual encounter with the former president in a hotel penthouse suite.

Trump, 77, is accused of falsifying business records to reimburse his lawyer, Michael Cohen, for a $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels on the eve of his 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, when the lurid story of marital infidelity could have sunk his campaign.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger announced “The people call Stormy Daniels,” as Trump, who is seeking to recapture the White House in November, sat at the defense table in the Manhattan courtroom flanked by his lawyers, AFP reports.

What followed was detailed testimony about the sexual encounter Daniels said she had with Trump – his pajamas, his boxer shorts, the sexual position, that he did not wear a condom – all while the former president, sitting just feet away, stared on in silence, stony-faced.

Trump has denied having sex with Daniels, and his defense team sought, unsuccessfully, to have a mistrial declared.

The extraordinary courtroom face-off comes six months before election day when Trump will try to defeat Democratic President Joe Biden.

Daniels walked prosecutors through her difficult childhood in Louisiana, a stint as a stripper and her eventually joining the adult film industry.

The 45-year-old, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said she met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe where she was employed as a greeter by X-rated movie company Wicked Entertainment.

Daniels said she was 27 at the time and Trump was “probably older than my father.”

She said a member of Trump’s security detail told her the real estate tycoon wanted to have dinner with her. She was reluctant but agreed after discussing it with her publicist.

When she arrived at the penthouse where Trump was staying he emerged wearing “silk or satin pajamas which I immediately made fun of,” Daniels told the jury.

“I said ‘Does Mr Hefner know you stole his pajamas?’” she said in a reference to the outfit favored by the late Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner.

Trump changed clothes and they began talking about adult movies.

“He was very interested in a lot of the business stuff,” Daniels said.

Trump, who was married at the time to his current wife, Melania, suggested Daniels be on his hit reality television show, “The Apprentice,” she said.

Daniels said she went to the bathroom at one point and when she emerged Trump was on the bed in boxer shorts and a T-shirt.

“It startled me,” she said. “The intention was pretty clear.”

“I was not threatened verbally or physically,” Daniels said, although there was an “imbalance of power.”

She said they had brief sex on the bed “in missionary position” and Trump did not wear a condom.

“I felt ashamed I didn’t stop it, didn’t say no,” Daniels said.

Daniels said she met with Trump again on several occasions but cut off contact when it became clear she would not appear on “The Apprentice.”

After Trump announced his candidacy for president, Daniels said her publicist suggested she could sell her story and put her in touch with Keith Davidson, a Hollywood lawyer who testified previously at the trial.

“My motivation wasn’t money, it was to get the story out,” Daniels said.

She said she entered into a non-disclosure agreement in October 2016 on the eve of the presidential election negotiated by Davidson and Cohen for which she was paid $130,000.

“I couldn’t tell my story, he couldn’t tell the story,” she said.

After a lunch break, Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche asked Judge Juan Merchan to declare a mistrial, objecting to some of Daniels’ testimony, particularly her claim that she was threatened in 2011 by a man in a Las Vegas parking garage who allegedly warned her not to talk about Trump.

“It’s extremely prejudicial to insert safety concerns into a trial about business records,” Blanche said.

Merchan denied the motion, saying “I don’t think we have reached a point where a mistrial is in order.”

Trump is under a partial gag order prohibiting him from publicly attacking witnesses, the jury or court staff.’s Downfall

Merchan has already fined him $10,000 for breaching the gag order and warned Trump he may face Porn star testifies against Trump at hush money trial.