711bet paano mag withdraw

NASSAU, Bahamas -- Javon Small scored five of his 31 points in overtime and Tucker DeVries added key free throws late in regulation and finished with 16 points as West Virginia beat No. 3 Gonzaga 86-78 in the Battle 4 Atlantis on Wednesday. Small's layup with under 2 minutes left in OT gave West Virginia a 79-75 lead. After a Gonzaga miss, Sencire Harris hit two free throws to make it a six-point lead. With 27.1 seconds left, Harris made a steal and scored on a dunk for an eight-point lead, putting the game out of reach. Amani Hansberry scored a career-high 19 points and Toby Okani added 10 for West Virginia (3-2). Braden Huff scored 19 points and Khalif Battle 16 for Gonzaga (5-1). Gonzaga showed its depth, outscoring the West Virginia bench 30-2. West Virginia’s only loss was by 24 points at Pitt, but the rebuild under Darian DeVries is showing promise. Gonzaga turned it over at midcourt late in regulation when Tucker DeVries poked it away from Nolan Hickman and raced the other way before getting fouled. DeVries made two free throws with 5.9 seconds left to tie it at 71-all. Battle inbounded the ball and got it back, but lost control on a drive as time expired. The shorter Mountaineers outrebounded Gonzaga 42-36 and shot 50% in the second half, battling the Zags to a draw in the paint. Nembhard had 12 assists and just one turnover in 43 minutes, but was 1 of 10 from the field. West Virginia will play Louisville on Thursday in the winner's bracket. Gonzaga faces No. 14 Indiana on the consolation side. ___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketballSaudi’s $1.2bn investment to create more jobs for Nigerians – FG

A cacophonous US election has concluded with a historic return to office for Donald Trump. As the Democrats reflect on what might have been, Trump becomes the first US president in almost 130 years to win non-consecutive terms. With the Republican party also securing a majority in the Senate, the scene is set for a more inward-looking America with broader geopolitical and economic consequences for the rest of the globe. Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. In the end, the election was not as closely contested as anticipated. The US Supreme Court already has a conservative majority, and this may be strengthened further during the second Trump presidency. Trump will potentially be one of the more powerful US presidents in recent memory with the ability to deliver on his ambitious but contested agenda. This includes radical measures on trade, such as his declared intent to put a 60 per cent tariff on all imports from China and an across-the-board 10-20 per cent tariff on imports from other countries. If he goes ahead with these tariffs, expect trade retaliation, most certainly from China. In a highly polarised election, Trump was able to cut through a clutch of swing states, including North Carolina, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Disappointingly for Kamala Harris, she wasn’t able to land a convincing message with the undecided voters. Support from women and the younger demographic turned out to be lower than anticipated. Biden’s poor approval ratings clearly hurt her, and she was unable to set out a differentiated prospectus convincingly. Conversely, Trump was able to rally his base. Other politicians might have been sunk by two impeachments and a convicted felony, but in Trump’s case, it only propelled his supporters with more vigour. Trump’s success was underpinned by his consistency of message. He continued to draw on his original pitch to “Make America Great Again”. This time around, he also promised to “Make America Affordable Again”. He appealed to the “forgotten majority”, workers across the Rust Belt, putting their concerns uppermost in a battle against Washington insiders. The irony of a billionaire putting forward an anti-establishment prospectus continued to be part of the appeal. Trump was consistent in his aim to reduce immigration, advance a protectionist trade policy and realign foreign policy. In an age where politicians are notorious for breaking manifesto commitments, Trump looked to act as he promised. Voters relied on evidence from his first term. Recalling his first term, the electorate was aware that Trump took a hard line on immigration, signed executive orders to support domestic products, left the Trans-Pacific Partnership, withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, challenged NATO and exited the Paris climate change accord. He outlined an “America First” vision where multilateralism was deemed surplus to requirements. Voters were aware that it was also Trump who dared to be muscular with China. It was also during his earlier presidency that there were overtures to North Korea and an entente achieved between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. That said, it was hard to ignore the manifest coarseness that marked Trump’s initial presidency. His strong-man tendencies had more in common with autocrats such as Putin and Orban than a “leader of the free world”. As allies around the world take stock of this election, they should expect Trump’s second term to be in the same mould. Arguably, he may also advance a more radical agenda to secure his legacy. Trump is likely to expect European allies to pay their fair share of military spending, instead of leaning heavily on America. From a British perspective, the expectation is that Starmer’s administration is likely to emphasise that the “special relationship” between the two nations will endure. However, a Free Trade Agreement still seems somewhat off. In relation to current conflicts, Trump is unlikely to continue funding Ukraine, but it remains to be seen how the underlying tension is resolved. It also remains to be seen if Trump has the appetite to broker a truce in the Middle East. On the trade policy front, a more protectionist approach will impact China but also risks inflationary pressures. Geopolitically, if America looks to retrench, that may have a push-and-pull impact on the balance of power in East Asia. What other signals can we read from Trump’s victory? His substantial achievement lies in converting the Republican party from its country club elitism to a mainstream blue-collar party. The other understated facet of Trumpism is that his message of self-reliance, entrepreneurism and liberty has resonated with minority groups that probably felt too shy to say so publicly. It explains his win in Florida, for example, where the Latino community tilted the balance in his favour. Millions of Americans noted that he oversaw record job creation till the global pandemic came along. On the economy, they took to heart his warning that Harris’ plans for raising taxes would constrain innovation and choke off a recovery. We can say, a victory for Trump signifies the possibility of American exceptionalism as a key organising principle in his second term. Given the current climate of geo-political uncertainty, allies across the globe should take note and recalibrate where necessary. The hope is that Trump can help resolve entrenched conflicts, but the off-setting risk remains an increase in volatility.The innovative energy company is prudently evaluating its business prospects. *Stock prices used were the afternoon prices of Nov. 20, 2024. The video was published on Nov. 22, 2024.

The distinguished economist Manmohan Singh, who has died aged 92, was one of India’s longest serving prime ministers (and the first Sikh to hold the office), yet he never won a direct parliamentary election. After nearly two decades as an economic bureaucrat, Singh was often seen as more of a civil servant than a politician. Unlike India’s more charismatic leaders, he humbly admitted to being a poor public speaker. Yet, as India’s finance minister (1991-96) this unlikely politician played a crucial role in the economic reforms that led to the rapid growth of India’s GDP. Then, as prime minister from 2004, he forged a new relationship with the US, ended India’s nuclear isolation and passed groundbreaking social legislation. In all this, he was bolstered by his reputation for absolute honesty, a considerable asset in the world of Indian politics. The son of Amrit Kaur and Murmuk Singh, and one of 10 children, he was born in the village of Gah, in the North West Province of what is now Pakistan . His father dealt in dried fruit imported from Afghanistan. At partition, the family made the perilous journey through the Muslim-dominated West Punjab to the Sikh holy city of Amritsar. Singh graduated from Punjab University and went on to study in the UK, at St John’s College, Cambridge, where he received a first in economics – the only student to achieve this distinction in his final year. Later he would return to Britain for a DPhil at Nuffield College, Oxford. At Cambridge, he was influenced by two renowned economists and socialists, Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor. Both held Singh in high regard. Robinson, his supervisor, described him as “very quiet and gentle in manner ... [with] a determined resistance to bunkum of all kinds”. Kaldor, similarly impressed, recommended Singh to India’s finance minister for a position. Singh had other ideas: becoming first an academic before working for the UN. Eventually he ended up in India’s finance ministry. During his civil service career, including a tenure as governor of the Reserve Bank of India (1982-85), Singh implemented the Congress party’s leftwing economic policies. While civil servants are expected to remain impartial, Singh agreed with some government decisions, later telling his daughter Daman, a journalist and author, that nationalising India’s banks was “a good idea at the time”. Yet his own thinking – articulated decades earlier in his Oxford thesis – was essentially liberal, emphasising the importance of foreign trade and greater openness to the world economy for India’s development. Such an analysis became a virtue in 1991 when the then prime minister, Narasimha Rao , in the midst of an economic crisis, decided to accept IMF conditions for a massive loan in order to prevent India defaulting on its payments. The conditions included the end of India’s infamous web of bureaucratic controls and an across-the-board reduction of import tariffs as well as severe cuts in welfare spending and subsidies. Rao appointed the apolitical Singh as finance minister, thinking no politician would risk his future by implementing the unpopular IMF conditions. The reforms that followed were one reason for the defeat of the Congress party in 1996. While Congress was out of power, Singh was leader of the opposition in the upper house of parliament. In the 2004 election Congress, under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, widow of the assassinated prime minister Rajiv Gandhi , won enough seats to form a coalition government and she, instead of taking the role herself, nominated Singh to be prime minister. It was clear that ultimate power rested with Gandhi. However, Singh did defy her when he insisted on ratifying an agreement with the US intended to end the international ban on selling civilian nuclear equipment and technology to India. Gandhi feared opposition to the agreement would split the coalition and the government would fall. But Singh pressed ahead, pushing it through parliament by a narrow majority. His reputation for honesty was a factor in Congress’s improved performance in the 2009 general election. However, during his second term, corruption in the preparations for hosting the 2010 Commonwealth Games and in the allocation of licences to run mobile phone networks (the “2G spectrum scam”) led to questions about whether Singh was tolerating dishonesty in his government. Throughout his two terms in office, Singh’s position was weakened by his dependence on the support of smaller parties in the coalition. As prime minister he made his disapproval of the plan to allocate the phone network licences clear, but the telecommunications minister was allowed to go ahead because his party threatened to pull out of the coalition. Pressure from coalition parties delayed economic reforms that Singh favoured, which would have introduced more foreign competition in banking, insurance, retail, and other businesses. He had to go slower than he wanted on privatising nationalised industries. He also had reservations about Gandhi’s pro-poor policies, which she insisted were necessary to combat the impression that the economic reforms only benefited the prosperous. In particular, he was concerned about the cost and effectiveness of a scheme guaranteeing employment to the jobless in rural India. But he did not oppose it. His former press adviser wrote of the Gandhi-Singh diarchy that “while power was delegated, authority was not”. For 20 years as a bureaucrat and more than 30 years as a politician, Singh played a vital role in India’s economic history. As a bureaucrat he was never an out-and-out socialist; as a politician he did not fall head over heels for the market. His partnership with Gandhi, and it was more of a partnership than was generally realised, kept two fractious coalition governments in power, governments that passed important social and economic legislation. But Singh did not acquire his own power base and remained a Congress party loyalist. Although he announced he would not remain India’s PM after the 2014 election, in opposition he continued to serve as a member of the upper house of the Indian parliament until April this year. Indian politics is a rough trade, and Singh was known more as a thinker than a brawler. The last decade, however, was marked by acrimonious exchanges between Singh and his successor Narendra Modi . Modi, a Hindu nationalist strongman, questioned his predecessor’s honesty in a “corrupt government” and even claimed that he had “colluded” with India’s arch-rival Pakistan. Both allegations were met by blistering denials. In return Singh was critical of his successor’s economic policies, describing Modi’s 2016 overnight decision to render worthless 86% of Indian banknotes “a case of organised loot, legalised plunder of the common people”. He also attacked Modi’s silence in 2018 when one of his party’s elected representatives was accused of raping a teenager. Singh, who came from a religious minority, was aware of the need for mutual respect in India and was appalled by Modi’s rhetoric. During this year’s Indian elections, Singh said of Modi that “no [Indian] prime minister in the past has uttered such hateful, unparliamentary and coarse terms, meant to target either a specific section of the society or the opposition”. Singh was a transformative figure in Indian history. Not only was he the architect of India’s economic reforms, but in 2009 he became the first sitting prime minister in almost half a century to have completed a full term and seen his party re-elected with a bigger majority. He is survived by his wife, Gursharan Kaur, whom he married in 1958, and their daughters, Upinder, Daman and Amrit. Manmohan Singh, economist and politician, born 26 September 1932; died 26 December 2024

Campus DEVCON Summit empowers 700+ young minds in CALABARZON to shape the future of tech

Trump asks Supreme Court to delay TikTok ban so he can weigh in after he takes officeNo. 7 Tennessee dispatches UT Martin to remain undefeatedTrinity teen’s family has much to be grateful for

Innovative AI Law Service To Assist The Less Fortunate In Civil Rights Cases: VRN News

President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak at a meeting of the House GOP conference, followed by Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., last week in Washington. Alex Brandon/Associated Press NEW YORK — A number of President-elect Donald Trump ‘s most prominent Cabinet picks and appointees have been targeted by bomb threats and “swatting attacks,” Trump’s transition team said Wednesday. The FBI said it was investigating. “Last night and this morning, several of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees and Administration appointees were targeted in violent, unAmerican threats to their lives and those who live with them,” Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. She said the attacks ranged from bomb threats to swatting, in which attackers initiate an emergency law enforcement response against a target victim under false pretenses. The tactic has become a popular one in recent years. Leavitt said law enforcement and other authorities acted quickly to ensure the safety of those who were targeted and Trump and his transition team are grateful. Among those targeted were New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, Trump’s pick to serve as the next ambassador to the United Nations; Matt Gaetz, Trump’s initial pick to serve as attorney general; and former New York congressman Lee Zeldin, who has been tapped to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Law enforcement officials are also looking into whether Susie Wiles, Trump’s incoming chief of staff, and Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general whom Trump has chosen as Gaetz’s replacement, and other incoming administration officials were also victims – as well as how each was targeted, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity as the investigation continues. Wiles and Bondi did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The FBI said in a statement that it was “aware of numerous bomb threats and swatting incidents targeting incoming administration nominees and appointees” and was investigating with its law enforcement partners. The FBI added: “We take all potential threats seriously, and as always, encourage members of the public to immediately report anything they consider suspicious to law enforcement.” A pipe bomb threat targeting me and my family at our home today was sent in with a pro-Palestinian themed message. My family and I were not home at the time and are safe. We are working with law enforcement to learn more as this situation develops. We are thankful for the swift... — Lee Zeldin (@LeeMZeldin) November 27, 2024 White House spokesperson Saloni Sharma said President Biden had been briefed and the White House is in touch with federal law enforcement and Trump’s transition team. Biden “continues to monitor the situation closely,” Sharma said, adding the president and his administration “condemn threats of political violence.” Stefanik’s office said that, on Wednesday morning, she, her husband, and their 3-year-old son were driving home from Washington for Thanksgiving when they were informed of a bomb threat to their residence in Saratoga County. Her office said “New York State, County law enforcement, and U.S. Capitol Police responded immediately with the highest levels of professionalism.” The New York State Police said a team was dispatched to sweep Stefanik’s home on Wednesday morning in response to the bomb threat but did not locate any explosive devices. The agency directed further questions to the FBI. Zeldin said in a social media post that he and his family had been threatened. “A pipe bomb threat targeting me and my family at our home today was sent in with a pro-Palestinian themed message,” he wrote on X . “My family and I were not home at the time and are safe. We are working with law enforcement to learn more as this situation develops.” Police in Suffolk County, Long Island, said emergency officers responded to a bomb threat Wednesday morning at an address listed in public records as Zeldin’s home and were checking the property. In Florida, the Okaloosa County sheriff’s office said on Facebook that it “received notification of a bomb threat referencing former Congressman Matt Gaetz’s supposed mailbox at a home in the Niceville area” around 9 a.m. Wednesday. While a family member resides at the address, the office said, Gaetz “is NOT a resident.” No threatening devices were found. Gaetz was Trump’s initial pick to serve as attorney general, but he withdrew from consideration after allegations that he paid women for sex and slept with underage women. Gaetz has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and said last year that a Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving underage girls had ended with no federal charges against him. The threats follow a political campaign marked by disturbing and unprecedented violence. In July, a gunman opened fire at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, grazing the then-candidate in the ear with a bullet and killing one of his supporters. The Secret Service later thwarted a subsequent assassination attempt at Trump’s West Palm Beach, Florida, golf course when an agent spotted the barrel of a gun poking through a perimeter fence while Trump was golfing. Trump was also the subject of an Iranian murder-for-hire plot, with a man saying he had been tasked with planning the assassination of the Republican president-elect. Also this week, authorities arrested a man they say posted videos on social media threatening to kill Trump, according to court documents. In one video posted on Nov. 13, Manuel Tamayo-Torres threatened to shoot the former president while holding what appeared to be an AR-15 style rifle, authorities said Among the other videos he posted was one from an arena in Glendale, Arizona on Aug. 23, the same day Trump held a campaign rally there, according to court papers. An attorney for Tamayo-Torres did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. Public figures across the political spectrum have been targeted in recent years by hoax bomb threats and false reports of shootings at their homes. About a year ago the FBI responded to an uptick in such incidents at the homes of public officials, state capitols and courthouses across the country around the holidays. Many were locked down and evacuated in early January after receiving bomb threats. No explosives were found and no one was hurt. Some of those targeted last year were Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. This year, there was not just one but TWO assassination attempts on President Trump. Now some of his Cabinet nominees and their families are facing bomb threats. This is dangerous and unhinged. It is not who we are in America. Joe Biden and all Democrat leaders have an... https://t.co/0xZztX4DQo — Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) November 27, 2024 In Wu’s case, a male caller told police he had shot his own wife and tied another man up. When police and EMT responders arrived at the address given by the caller, they quickly realized it was the Boston mayor’s home. Wu, a Democrat, has also been targeted by many swatting calls since she took office in 2021. The judges overseeing the civil fraud case against Trump in New York and the criminal election interference case against him in Washington were both targeted earlier this year. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, who recently abandoned the two criminal cases he brought against Trump, was also the subject of a fake emergency call on Christmas Day last year. Earlier this year, schools, government buildings and the homes of city officials in Springfield, Ohio, received a string of hoax bomb threats after Trump falsely accused members of Springfield’s Haitian community of abducting and eating cats and dogs. And in 2022, a slew of historically Black colleges and universities nationwide were targeted with dozens of bomb threats, with the vast majority arriving during the celebration of Black History Month. The U.S. Capitol Police said in a statement Wednesday that anytime a member of Congress is the victim of a swatting’ incident, “we work closely with our local and federal law enforcement partners.” The force declined to provide further details, in part to “minimize the risk of copy-cats.” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called the threats “dangerous and unhinged.” “This year, there was not just one but TWO assassination attempts on President Trump,” he wrote on X . “Now some of his Cabinet nominees and their families are facing bomb threats.” He added: “It is not who we are in America.” Associated Press writers Colleen Long and Eric Tucker in Washington, Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, and Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York, contributed to this report. Comments are not available on this story. Send questions/comments to the editors. « Previous