Now On Air

Liberty #MAGAOne Mix

Via MAGA One Mix

6:00 am 8:00 am


Upcoming shows
Real News

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Liberty #MAGAOne Mix

Via MAGA One Mix

6:00 am 8:00 am



Maga First News

Upcoming Shows

Join The MAGA Network on Discord

0 0

MLB disciplines three following Reds-Pirates brawl

MLB: Cincinnati Reds at Pittsburgh Pirates
Apr 7, 2019; Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Pittsburgh Pirates starting pitcher Chris Archer (24) delivers a pitch against the Cincinnati Reds during the first inning at PNC Park. Mandatory Credit: Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

April 9, 2019

Pittsburgh right-hander Chris Archer, Cincinnati outfielder Yasiel Puig and Reds manager David Bell received suspensions Tuesday for their roles in Sunday’s bench-clearing brawl in Pittsburgh.

Joe Torre, chief baseball officer for Major League Baseball, announced the disciplinary measures.

Archer received a five-game suspension for intentionally throwing a fastball behind the back of Derek Dietrich during the fourth inning at PNC Park in Pittsburgh. In his first at-bat, Dietrich had dropped his bat and stood to admire his towering 436-foot home run.

Puig drew a two-game suspension for “his aggressive actions during the incident,” the league said in a statement. Puig grabbed Pirates bench coach Tom Prince in the ensuing melee and attempted to put him in a headlock before being restrained by teammates.

Bell, who raced onto the field to argue that Archer should have been ejected, received a one-game suspension for his actions.

All three were also hit with undisclosed fines.

Archer’s suspension is subject to an appeal. Puig will begin serving his suspension Tuesday night when the Reds host the Miami Marlins. Bell will also sit out Tuesday’s game.

–Field Level Media

Source: OANN

0 0

The Latest: Netanyahu prepared to take more action in Gaza

The Latest on the Israel-Palestinian conflict (all times local):

3:45 p.m.

Israel's prime minister says he is prepared to take further military action in the Gaza Strip, but only as a last resort.

Benjamin Netanyahu made his comments Thursday as Egyptian mediators were trying to broker an expanded cease-fire between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers following a new round of fighting.

Netanyahu visited troops sent to the Gaza border this week after a two-day outbreak of fighting.

"If we need a broader operation, we will enter it strong and confident, and after we have exhausted all other options," he said.

Israel carried out retaliatory airstrikes against Hamas after a rocket fired from Gaza destroyed a house north of Tel Aviv and wounded seven Israelis. Palestinian militants responded with rocket barrages in some of the most intense fighting since a 2014 w

___

3:10 p.m.

Egyptian mediators are heading to Israel to discuss a potential cease-fire plan with Hamas to end hostilities in the Gaza Strip that began earlier this week.

Three Hamas officials familiar with the negotiations said Thursday that the Egyptians offered Hamas a series of measures to ease the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza. In exchange, Hamas would have to pledge to halt rocket fire and keep protests along the Israeli border under control.

The officials say the deal would only take effect after a planned mass demonstration along the Israeli border. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were ongoing. One of the officials described the atmosphere as positive.

Another official said the Egyptians were discussing the proposal with Israel on Thursday afternoon.

There was no immediate Israeli comment.

Source: Fox News World

0 0

Linda McMahon on possible Trump-Bernie matchup: ‘I would love to see that’

The former head of the Small Business Association, Linda McMahon, said Monday that for the economy to continue to grow President Trump must be reelected.

"We need to re-elect President Donald Trump because he put all of these policies in place. I mean, do we really want to stop this economy and the growth that is going?" McMahon said on "The Story with Martha MacCallum."

SOME SANDERS BACKERS UPSET WITH BUTTIGIEG

McMahon, who last month left the administration, is the chair of the pro-Trump America First Action PAC.

"I'm just a very practical, common sense person, when I'm out looking across the country and I see the positive impact that the president's policies have had, I'm going 'why do we want the stop this?" McMahon added saying she was 100 percent behind the president.

McMahon didn't seem too worried about a matchup with Democratic presidential candidate frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and was asked by guest host Ed Henry about a possible general election featuring pro-capitalist Trump versus Democratic socialist Sanders.

"I would love to see that," McMahon said.

"Because I really do believe Americans, and polls show, that most Americans do believe in capitalism and not socialism. It's where our country has been founded on, what made our country so successful."

SANDERS NABS TOP SPOT IN NEW DEMS POLL AS PETE BUTTIGIEG GAINS MOMENTUM

McMahon also touted Trump's vision for America and the economy.

"I think the president certainly touts that experience as an entrepreneur who built a business and has watched the economy grow here as being president. He's known what to do. He's been a bit disruptive doing it and I think that's why he was elected, " McMahon told Henry.

Source: Fox News Politics

0 0

Zelenskiy faces battles with Ukraine’s hostile parliament

FILE PHOTO: Candidate Zelenskiy reacts following the announcement of an exit poll in a presidential election in Kiev
FILE PHOTO: Ukrainian presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelenskiy reacts following the announcement of the first exit poll in a presidential election at his campaign headquarters in Kiev, Ukraine April 21, 2019./File Photo

April 23, 2019

By Matthias Williams and Pavel Polityuk

KIEV (Reuters) – Before Ukraine’s new president Volodymyr Zelenskiy was even elected, an opposition leader was plotting to curb his powers and make it easier for him to be impeached.

Andriy Sadovyi, head of the Samopomich party, the second largest opposition group in parliament, announced two days before the vote he was garnering support for a parliamentary bill to weaken the presidency.

The opening salvo is a measure of the hostility that may be in store for Zelenskiy, a 41-year-old comedian who beat incumbent president, Petro Poroshenko, in Sunday’s election despite having no prior political experience or representation in parliament.

Zelenskiy is expected to take office next month. His ability to work with parliament, known as the Rada, will be crucial to meeting the expectations of his voters and passing reforms to keep foreign aid flowing.

Lawmakers from Samopomich and other parties feel the president has too many powers.

“Let him have responsibility like other political players, he cannot stand above the law,” Oksana Syroyid, a Samopomich lawmaker and deputy speaker in parliament told Reuters.

Zelenskiy’s powers will include appointing the head of the state security service, the head of the military, the general prosecutor, the central bank governor and the foreign and defense ministers.

But parliament must confirm each appointment and although Zelenskiy beat the incumbent decisively in the presidential vote and his party could win the largest number of seats in parliamentary elections in October it is unlikely to win an outright majority, opinion polls show.

This means he would need to ally with at least one other party if he is to get his election pledges enacted and his appointments approved. He has not indicated which parties he would be prepared to work with.

Adding to the hostility is his election promise for a bill to strip lawmakers, and himself, of immunity from prosecution.

Volodymyr Ariev, a lawmaker from Poroshenko’s faction, told Reuters it was unlikely that parliament would back that move because lawmakers fret about being prosecuted in political vendettas.

Zelenskiy also needs lawmakers to pass legislation that matters to the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine’s most important foreign backer, such as a bill to criminalize illegal enrichment by officials.

Stuart Culverhouse, Head of Sovereign and Fixed Income Research at Tellimer, said lawmakers might not back that bill until after October. This could lead to delays in IMF tranche disbursements under the $3.9 billion assistance program. The next one is due in May.

“This could be enough to burst the pre-election Zelenskiy market bubble,” he said.

Yields have fallen as investors became more comfortable with Zelenskiy and also because another presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko — who was hostile to some major reforms — was knocked out of the running.

POLITICAL PARALYSIS

Samopomich’s Syroyid said her party wants to strip the president of some powers, including the right to appoint the chairman of the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission (NEURC) who sets energy tariffs with the government.

“What do the tariffs have to do with the president? Today he (the president) has influence – he appoints the chairman of the NEURC.”

Tymoshenko, another opposition leader who ran in the election against Zelenskiy, has previously also called for the president’s powers to be curbed.

    “It may be necessary to… more clearly define what the president can and cannot do,” Oleksiy Riabchyn, a lawmaker in Tymoshenko’s party told Reuters.

The government is led by Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, who was appointed by Poroshenko. He is expected to stay in power until the October election. If Zelenskiy wins enough seats in parliament, he is expected to form a new government.

This means that until those elections, he may struggle to make any significant changes.

“Until the October parliamentary election Mr Zelenskiy’s team will need to secure the support of various factions in the current legislature in order to pass policies,” said Agnese Ortolani, an analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

“This might prove difficult, as part of the political elite is likely to attempt to paralyse Mr Zelenskiy’s presidency.”

Zelenskiy could try and bring forward the parliamentary election now while his popularity may be at a peak. But he would only be able to do that with parliament’s blessing.

“If parliament does not support the president’s initiatives it will be very hard to explain to Ukraine’s voters why not,” Dmytro Razumkov, an adviser to Zelenskiy’s campaign, told Reuters.

“It’s up to lawmakers. I hope their political survival instincts will dominate.”

(Additional reporting by Polina Ivanova; editing by Anna Willard)

Source: OANN

0 0

Suspect formally charged in Nipsey Hussle murder, due in court

Andre Ward v Paul Smith
FILE PHOTO: Rapper Nipsey Hussle performs before a boxing match between Andre Ward and Paul Smith at the Oracle Arena in Oakland, California, on 20/6/15. Action Images via Reuters / Andrew Couldridge

April 4, 2019

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – A 33-year-old Los Angeles man accused of killing Grammy-nominated rapper Nipsey Hussle was formally charged with murder and attempted murder on Thursday, prosecutors said.

Eric Ronald Holder, who was arrested earlier this week in connection with the fatal shooting, was expected to make his first court appearance in the case later on Thursday, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said in a written statement.

Hussle, 33, whose real name was Ermias Asghedom, was shot multiple times on March 31 outside his Marathon Clothing store, in south Los Angeles. Two other people were wounded in the gunfire, according to police.

Holder, 29, was taken into custody on Tuesday in the Los Angeles suburb of Bellflower after a tipster called to report seeing the man police had named as a suspect. Investigators have said that the killing was motivated by a personal dispute between the two men.

Holder faces a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted at trial. It was not immediately clear if he had retained a criminal defense attorney.

Holder is accused of walking up to Hussle and two other men outside the store and opening fire, before fleeing in a Chevy Cruze driven by a woman, police have said. The woman has not been identified publicly or arrested.

On Monday, a crowd gathered for a vigil outside Hussle’s clothing store. A disturbance set off a stampede and at least two people were critically injured, officials and media reports said.

Hussle’s debut studio album, “Victory Lap,” was nominated for Best Rap Album at this year’s Grammy Awards. His death rattled the entertainment and hip-hop world, with celebrities posting memories of him on social media.

The rapper, who was of Eritrean descent and grew up in south Los Angeles, has said that he once belonged to a street gang, but more recently had become a community organizer and activist.

The day he died, Hussle wrote on his Twitter page, “Having strong enemies is a blessing.”

(Reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Source: OANN

0 0

Supreme Court To Review New York City Gun Control Law

A headline in Reason Magazine said it all: “Have Gun, Can’t Travel.”

That’s the plight of New York City “premises licensees” under one of the most bizarre and oppressive gun control laws in the nation.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has that law in its sights.

In January, the high court agreed to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding the regulation against a challenge under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.

Should the court resolve the case on Second Amendment grounds, it will be the first time since McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 that the Supreme Court applied that provision to a gun control law.

Even many gun control advocates probably don’t expect New York City’s regulation to fare any better before the high court than the handguns bans from Washington, D.C. and Chicago did in 2008 and 2010, respectively. Like those laws, the handgun travel ban is an outlier.

Most of the suspense and speculation instead revolve around whether the court will resolve the case narrowly or establish more generally applicable principles that could broadly be applied to other gun control laws.

But the story of New York City’s defiance of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in reviewing overreaching gun control demonstrate how the steadfast activism of the NRA and our five million members continues to play a vital role in securing our nation’s constitutional legacy.

New York City’s handgun laws are a case study of the strange and often contradictory thinking of the nation’s most fervent gun control advocates.

The system is designed to make obtaining the license necessary to acquire and own handguns as difficult and expensive as possible for the ordinary applicant.

It dates back to the enactment of New York’s Sullivan Act in 1911 when its proponents – including the New York Times – openly promoted it as a way to keep firearms out of the hands of Italian immigrants.

Commenting on what was supposedly the first conviction under the law – of Italian immigrant Marino Rossi, who claimed to be an honest working man carrying a revolver for self-defense – the Times wrote on Sept. 29, 1911:

Judge FOSTER did well in sentencing to one year in Sing Sing MARINO ROSSI, who carried a revolver because, as he said, it was the custom of himself and his hot-headed countrymen to have weapons concealed upon their persons. The Judge’s warning to the Italian community was timely and exemplary.

Consistent with this discriminatory outlook, the law allows licensing officials a wide degree of discretion in determining who possesses the requisite “good moral character” and, in some cases, “proper cause” for a license.

It also provides for different types of licenses, including “premises licenses,” which allow the holder to “have and possess [a handgun] in his dwelling” and “carry licenses,” which bestow some latitude to possess or carry the handgun beyond one’s own residence.

New York City supposedly provides for both types of licenses.

But in reality, the only applicants who can get a New York City carry license are the rich and famous or the especially well-connected. The licensing system has repeatedly spawned corruption scandals and prosecutions over the years.

The best an ordinary New York City resident can realistically hope for is a premises license, yet even that requires a substantial investment of time, money, and self-disclosure.

As of January, the mandatory application fee for a three-year premises license was $340, not counting a separate $88.25 fingerprinting fee.

Applicants must register online with the city and complete a lengthy application form, which includes the uploading of numerous documents. Besides providing information about prior arrests, convictions, summonses, and orders of protection, applicants must disclose employment and residential timelines and any history of “mental/physical conditions and any medications taken in connection therewith.”

Paper applications have been prohibited since January 1, 2018. Low income residents who lack ready access to computer equipment, including digital scanners and high-speed Internet access, are out of luck.

After the online application is completed, the New York Police Department (NYPD) License Division will schedule a date for the applicant to appear in person during business hours to pay the required fees, get fingerprinted, and provide hard copies of the same documents that were already submitted digitally.

Once the application is reviewed by the Licensing Division, the applicant may be required to appear on subsequent occasions to submit additional documentation.

In any case, when the application itself is considered complete, all applicants must appear for an in-person interview with a licensing official.

Applicants can expect a decision from the Licensing Division, according to its website, “[w]ithin approximately six months of receipt of your handgun application, and all required documents/forms.”

Unfortunately, none of these requirements is specifically at issue in the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Even more unfortunately, most of them have been upheld by lower state and federal courts in New York. They do, however, form the backdrop for the Supreme Court’s deliberations.

For now, the issue before the Supreme Court is the circumstances in which premises licensees can travel with their own firearms.

New York City currently allows them to do so only for specified purposes and only to one of seven approved shooting ranges in the city, which in some cases require advanced written permission from the NYPD. In all cases, the firearms must be unloaded and in a locked container, with any ammunition stored separately.

The plaintiffs in the case, however, wish to travel with their lawfully licensed handguns to ranges outside the city for use in training or competition. One plaintiff wants to be able to take his lawfully licensed handgun back and forth between his New York City residence and his second home in upstate New York.

These are all prohibited by New York City’s rules.

It takes an especially zealous gun control advocate to even think up such ludicrous regulations, much less to argue them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, it appears that New York City’s transport ban may be the first and only one of its kind in U.S. history. That does not bode well for the city’s position that it is nevertheless a commonsense measured aimed at promoting public safety.

Even taking the city’s arguments at face value, it appears the real reason for the law is simply to exercise a maniacal level of scrutiny and control over Gotham’s lawful handgun owners.

In its brief urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case, the city noted that it used to have a “target license” that allowed for holders to transport their locked, unloaded guns to NYPD-approved ranges outside New York City. What it discovered, however, was that it was difficult as a practical matter to determine whether licensees who ventured outside the city with their own handguns were actually doing so for NYPD-approved reasons.

Notably, the city did not go so far as to claim there were any violent crimes or other harmful behavior committed by traveling target licensees. City officials instead apparently expect the court to believe that any movement of a licensed handgun that has not been specifically preapproved and documented by the NYPD is inherently dangerous, even if done for innocent reasons.

Thus, premises licensees can only practice at or compete at NYPD-approved shooting ranges within the city itself (and at big city prices). These facilities, in turn, “are required to maintain a roster listing the names and addresses of all persons who have used the range and the date and hour that they used it and to make those records available for inspection by NYPD during their hours of operation.” This underscores that owning a gun in New York City is a bureaucratically administered privilege, not a fundamental right.

For nearly 10 years, lower courts have upheld almost every sort of gun control law imaginable, while the Supreme Court has not taken up another Second Amendment case.

Thanks to the work of NRA members like you, President Donald Trump has appointed two justices to the high court who take the Constitution’s original meaning seriously.

Time will tell, but that will hopefully mean the Supreme Court is finally poised to accord our right to keep and bear arms the respect it deserves.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Source: The Daily Caller

0 0

Inside the Fed’s balance sheet in four charts

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Powell holds news conference following two-day policy meeting in Washington
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell holds a news conference following the two-day Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) policy meeting in Washington, U.S., March 20, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

March 21, 2019

By Dan Burns

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve will remain the top holder of U.S. Treasuries for the foreseeable future after the central bank said it would stop shrinking its $4 trillion balance sheet by the end of September.

So just what is inside this vast holding of assets?

Before the financial crisis struck in late 2007, the Fed’s balance sheet was less than a quarter of its current size and consisted almost entirely of Treasury securities.

Then, to help foster an economic recovery, the Fed went on a buying binge that ran from the end of 2008 to late 2014 in three phases, a program known as quantitative easing (QE). It bought a mix of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and over those six years its balance sheet mushroomed nearly five-fold.

Today, Treasuries account for just 55 percent of the assets on the Fed’s balance sheet. The other big chunk is MBS at about 40 percent. The remainder is a hodge-podge of other assets, including gold.

The Fed would like to get back to a balance sheet consisting mostly of Treasuries.

(GRAPHIC: The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet – https://tmsnrt.rs/2ULcay0)

But not all Treasuries are the same. These securities range in maturity from 1-month bills to 30-year bonds, and the Fed has held a different mix of these over time.

Ahead of the crisis, its preference was for short-term securities such as T-bills, which mature in a year or less, and shorter-dated notes, typically maturing in no more than five years.

The needs of the QE program changed that, and the program’s priorities also shifted over time. The result was that the composition of the Treasuries portfolio is markedly different today than it was a decade ago.

(GRAPHIC: How the Fed’s Treasury portfolio has changed – https://tmsnrt.rs/2HzaYdX)

Before the crisis, for instance, notes maturing between five and 10 years accounted for just 7 percent of the Fed’s Treasury holdings, and the longest-term securities, maturing in 10 years or more, were around 10 percent of that portfolio.

The five-to-10 year sector shot up to as much as 52 percent of the portfolio by early 2013 when the Fed was making a concerted effort to lengthen its maturity profile to pressure long-term bond yields lower and boost the housing market. The longest-dated bonds grew to account for 25 percent, and its holding of T-bills dropped to effectively zero.

Today, the Fed’s stash of five-to-10 year paper is again its smallest bucket, just over 11 percent. Interestingly it has kept its holdings of long-dated bonds steady, and as the balance sheet has shrunk the share has risen to nearly 30 percent.

(GRAPHIC: The Fed’s Treasury holdings by maturity – https://tmsnrt.rs/2Hv6Iwd)

In his press conference detailing the Fed’s plans for its balance sheet over the long term, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said he would like to see the overall balance sheet continue to shrink a bit more relative to the U.S. economy.

At its peak, the balance sheet was the equivalent of roughly 25 percent of annual U.S. economic output compared with around 6 percent before the crisis.

As a percentage of nominal gross domestic output, the balance sheet today is just 20 percent of the nearly $21 trillion U.S. economy.

Powell and his colleagues at the Fed would like to see it get down to about 17 percent, at which time they would likely begin growing the portfolio again at a pace to maintain that balance sheet-to-GDP ratio over the long term.

(GRAPHIC: The Fed’s balance sheet was a quarter of GDP – https://tmsnrt.rs/2HvdrGt)

(Writing by Dan Burns; Editing by Chris Reese)

Source: OANN

NOW ON AIR
Now On Air

Liberty #MAGAOne Mix

Via MAGA One Mix

6:00 am 8:00 am



Police secure the area where the body of a woman was discovered near the village of Orounta
Police secure the area where the body of a woman was discovered near the village of Orounta, Cyprus, April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Stefanos Kouratzis

April 26, 2019

NICOSIA (Reuters) – Cypriot police searched on Friday for more victims of a suspected serial killer, in a case which has shocked the Mediterranean island and exposed the authorities to charges of “criminal indifference” because the dead women were foreigners.

The main opposition party, the left-wing AKEL, called for the resignation of Cyprus’s justice minister and police chief.

Police were combing three different locations west of the capital Nicosia for victims of the suspected killer, a 35-year-old army officer who has been in detention for a week.

The bodies of three women, including two thought to be from the Philippines, have been recovered. Police sources said the suspect had indicated the location of the third body, found on Thursday, and had said the person was “either Indian or Nepali”.

Police said they were searching for a further four people, including two children, based on the suspect’s testimony.

“These women came here to earn a living, to help their families. They lived away from their families. And the earth swallowed them, nobody was interested,” AKEL lawmaker Irene Charalambides told Reuters.

“This killer will be judged by the court but the other big question is the criminal indifference shown by the others when the reports first surfaced. I believe, as does my party, that the justice minister and the police chief should resign. They are irrevocably exposed.”

Police have said they will investigate any perceived shortcomings in their handling of the case.

One person who did attempt to alert the authorities over the disappearances, a 70-year-old Cypriot citizen, said his motives were questioned by police.

The bodies of the two Filipino women reported missing in May and August 2018 were found in an abandoned mine shaft this month. Police discovered the body of the third woman at an army firing range about 14 km (9 miles) from the mine shaft.

Police are now searching for the six-year-old daughter of the first victim found, a Romanian mother who disappeared with her eight-year-old child in 2016, and a woman from the Phillipines who vanished in Dec. 2017.

The suspect has not been publicly named, in line with Cypriot legal practice.

A public vigil for the missing was planned later on Friday.

(Reporting By Michele Kambas; Editing by Gareth Jones)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
An employee looks up at goods at the Miniclipper Logistics warehouse in Leighton Buzzard
FILE PHOTO: An employee looks up at goods at the Miniclipper Logistics warehouse in Leighton Buzzard, Britain December 3, 2018. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

April 26, 2019

LONDON, April 26 – British factories stockpiled raw materials and goods ahead of Brexit at the fastest pace since records began in the 1950s, and they were increasingly downbeat about their prospects, a survey showed on Friday.

The Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) quarterly survey of the manufacturing industry showed expectations for export orders in the next three months fell to their lowest level since mid-2009, when Britain was reeling from the global financial crisis.

The record pace of stockpiling recorded by the CBI was mirrored by the closely-watched IHS Markit/CIPS purchasing managers’ index published earlier this month.

(Reporting by Andy Bruce, editing by David Milliken)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks at the opening ceremony for the second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks at the opening ceremony for the second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, China April 26, 2019. REUTERS/Florence Lo

April 26, 2019

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – Fewer than half of Malaysians approve of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an opinion poll showed on Friday, as concerns over rising costs and racial matters plague his administration nearly a year after taking office.

The survey, conducted in March by independent pollster Merdeka Center, showed that only 46 percent of voters surveyed were satisfied with Mahathir, a sharp drop from the 71 percent approval rating he received in August 2018.

Mahathir’s Pakatan Harapan coalition won a stunning election victory in May 2018, ending the previous government’s more than 60-year rule.

But his administration has since been criticized for failing to deliver on promised reforms and protecting the rights of majority ethnic Malay Muslims.

Of 1,204 survey respondents, 46 percent felt that the “country was headed in the wrong direction”, up from 24 percent in August 2018, the Merdeka Center said in a statement. Just 39 percent said they approved of the ruling government.

High living costs remained the top most concern among Malaysians, with just 40 percent satisfied with the government’s management of the economy, the survey showed.

It also showed mixed responses to Pakatan Harapan’s proposed reforms.

Some 69 percent opposed plans to abolish the death penalty, while respondents were sharply divided over proposals to lower the minimum voting age to 18, or to implement a sugar tax.

“In our opinion, the results appear to indicate a public that favors the status quo, and thus requires a robust and coordinated advocacy efforts in order to garner their acceptance of new measures,” Merdeka Center said.

The survey also found 23 percent of Malaysians were concerned over ethnic and religious matters.

Some groups representing Malays have expressed fear that affirmative-action policies favoring them in business, education and housing could be taken away and criticized the appointments of non-Muslims to key government posts.

Last November, the government reversed its pledge to ratify a UN convention against racial discrimination, after a backlash from Malay groups.

Earlier this month, Pakatan Harapan suffered its third successive loss in local elections since taking power, which has been seen as a further sign of waning public support.

Despite the decline, most Malaysians – 67 percent – agreed that Mahathir’s government should be given more time to fulfill its election promises, Merdeka Center said.

This included a majority of Malay voters who were largely more critical of the new administration, it added.

(Reporting by Rozanna Latiff; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
The German share price index DAX graph at the stock exchange in Frankfurt
The German share price index DAX graph is pictured at the stock exchange in Frankfurt, Germany, April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Staff

April 26, 2019

By Medha Singh and Agamoni Ghosh

(Reuters) – European shares slipped on Friday after losses in heavyweight banks and Glencore outweighed gains in healthcare and auto stocks, while investors remained on the sidelines ahead of U.S. economic data for the first quarter.

The pan-European STOXX 600 index was down 0.1 percent by 0935 GMT, eyeing a modest loss at the end of a holiday-shortened week. Banks-heavy Italian and Spanish indices were laggards.

The banking index fell for a fourth day, at the end of a heavy earnings week for lenders.

Britain’s Royal Bank of Scotland tumbled after posting lower first quarter profit, hurt by intensifying competition and Brexit uncertainty, while its investment bank also registered poor returns.

Weakness in investment banking also dented Deutsche Bank’s quarterly trading revenue and sent its shares lower a day after the German bank abandoned merger talks with smaller rival Commerzbank.

“The current interest rate environment makes it challenging for banks to make proper earnings because of their intermediary function,” said Teeuwe Mevissen, senior market economist eurozone, at Rabobank.

Since the start of April, all country indexes were on pace to rise between 1.8 percent and 3.4 percent, their fourth month of gains, while Germany was strongly outperforming with 6 percent growth.

“For now the current sentiment is very cautious as markets wait for the first estimates of the U.S. GDP growth which could see a surprise,” Mevissen said.

U.S. economic data for the first-quarter is due at 1230 GMT. Growth worries outside the United States resurfaced this week after South Korea’s economy unexpectedly contracted at the start of the year and weak German business sentiment data for April also disappointed.

Among the biggest drags on the benchmark index in Europe were the basic resources sector and the oil and gas sector, weighed down by Britain’s Glencore and France’s Total, respectively.

Glencore dropped after reports that U.S authorities were investigating whether the company and its subsidiaries violated certain provisions of the commodity exchange act.

Energy major Total said its net profit for the first three months of the year fell compared with a year ago due to volatile oil prices and debt costs.

Chip stocks in the region including Siltronic, Ams and STMicroelectronics lost more than 1 percent after Intel Corp reduced its full-year revenue forecast, adding to concerns that an industry-wide slowdown could persist until the end of 2019.

Meanwhile, healthcare, which is also seen as a defensive sector, was a bright spot. It was helped by French drugmaker Sanofi after it returned to growth with higher profits and revenues for the first-quarter.

Luxembourg-based satellite operator SES led media stocks higher after it maintained its full-year outlook on the back of the company’s Networks division.

Automakers in the region rose 0.4 percent, led by Valeo’s 6 percent jump as the French parts maker said its performance would improve in the second half of the year.

Continental AG advanced after it backed its outlook for the year despite reporting a fall in first-quarter earnings.

Renault rose more than 3 percent as it clung to full-year targets and pursues merger talks with its Japanese partner Nissan.

(Reporting by Medha Singh and Agamoni Ghosh in Bengaluru; Editing by Gareth Jones and Elaine Hardcastle)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
U.S. President Donald Trump hosts Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day at the White House in Washington
U.S. President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to his audience as he hosts Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

April 26, 2019

By Jan Wolfe and Richard Cowan

(Reuters) – The “i word” – impeachment – is swirling around the U.S. Congress since the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted Russia report, which painted a picture of lies, threats and confusion in Donald Trump’s White House.

Some Democrats say trying to remove Trump from office would be a waste of time because his fellow Republicans still have majority control of the Senate. Other Democrats argue they have a moral obligation at least to try to impeach, even though Mueller did not charge Trump with conspiring with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election or with obstruction of justice.

Whether or not the Democrats decide to go down this risky path, here is how the impeachment process works.

WHAT ARE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT?

The U.S. Constitution says the president can be removed from office by Congress for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Exactly what that means is unclear.

Before he became president in 1974, replacing Republican Richard Nixon who resigned over the Watergate scandal, Gerald Ford said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a forthcoming book on the history of impeachment, said Congress could look beyond criminal laws in defining “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Historically, it can encompass corruption and other abuses, including trying to obstruct judicial proceedings.

HOW DOES IMPEACHMENT PLAY OUT?

The term impeachment is often interpreted as simply removing a president from office, but that is not strictly accurate.

Impeachment technically refers to the 435-member House of Representatives approving formal charges against a president.

The House effectively acts as accuser – voting on whether to bring specific charges. An impeachment resolution, known as “articles of impeachment,” is like an indictment in a criminal case. A simple majority vote is needed in the House to impeach.

The Senate then conducts a trial. House members act as the prosecutors, with senators as the jurors. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides over the trial. A two-thirds majority vote is required in the 100-member Senate to convict and remove a president from office.

No president has ever been removed from office as a direct result of an impeachment and conviction by Congress.

Nixon quit in 1974 rather than face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 were impeached by the House, but both stayed in office after the Senate acquitted them.

Obstruction of justice was one charge against Clinton, who faced allegations of lying under oath about his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Obstruction was also included in the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN?

No.

Trump said on Twitter on Wednesday that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats tried to impeach him. But America’s founders explicitly rejected making a Senate conviction appealable to the federal judiciary, Bowman said.

“They quite plainly decided this is a political process and it is ultimately a political judgment,” Bowman said.

“So when Trump suggests there is any judicial remedy for impeachment, he is just wrong.”

PROOF OF WRONGDOING?

In a typical criminal court case, jurors are told to convict only if there is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” a fairly stringent standard.

Impeachment proceedings are different. The House and Senate “can decide on whatever burden of proof they want,” Bowman said. “There is no agreement on what the burden should be.”

PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?

Right now, there are 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans and three vacancies in the House. As a result, the Democratic majority could vote to impeach Trump without any Republican votes.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would requires 67 votes. So that means for Trump to be impeached, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?

A Senate conviction removing Trump from office would elevate Vice President Mike Pence to the presidency to fill out Trump’s term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Richard Cowan; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Peter Cooney)

Source: OANN

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!

Listen to https://magaoneradio.net and Listen Daily! Don't Forget to Share Click a Link Below!
Current track

Title

Artist