Calley Means, a top aide to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced Thursday that he is resigning.
Means, who played a major role in pushing Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, announced his departure from Health and Human Services on X, saying he is leaving “with tremendous respect” for President Donald Trump and Kennedy.
“They laid out a vision of combatting the entrenched, dark forces in DC that profit from Americans getting sick,” Means wrote. “More policy and cultural change has happened around these goals in the past 2 years than any time in history – and I know this movement is just getting started.”
I am resigning from the White House with tremendous respect for President Trump and Bobby Kennedy.
— Calley Means (@calleymeans) October 22, 2026
They laid out a vision of combatting the entrenched, dark forces in DC that profit from Americans getting sick.
More policy and cultural change has happened around these goals… pic.twitter.com/8vtSjgbmKx
Means did not say in his statement why he resigned. Neither Means nor the White House immediately responded to MS NOW’s requests for comment.
The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported Thursday that Means was unhappy about the White House dragging its feet on some of Kennedy’s policy ideas and blamed other administration officials for allowing special interests to have too much influence. The Journal was the first to report Means’ departure.
Means, a former lobbyist and longtime alternative health and wellness proponent, played a critical role in the Trump-Kennedy alliance during the 2024 election. He was a major driving force behind Kennedy’s MAHA policies in the Trump administration. As senior adviser supporting food and nutrition policy, he had a hand in the new U.S. dietary guidelines that encouraged Americans to eat more protein.
Means has long shared Kennedy’s skepticism toward established health policy. He has denigrated mandatory Covid-19 vaccines and the presence of fluoride in water. He has said that children should drink “more raw milk and less juice,” advice that conflicts with warnings from the Food and Drug Administration of the dangers of raw milk. A 2024 book he published with his sister, Casey Means — Trump’s second failed choice for U.S. surgeon general — argues that the pharmaceutical and food industries have a stake in keeping people sick.
The post Calley Means, top aide to RFK Jr. and a major MAHA proponent, quits appeared first on MS NOW.
[This post was co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman.]
There have been many news reports suggesting that the United States Department of Justice may pursue denaturalization proceedings against Representative Ilhan Omar. These proceedings can take the form of a civil suit under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. The United States may also bring a criminal indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. While the criminal statute has a ten-year statute of limitations, the civil statute does not have any statute of limitation. Moreover, the civil statute requires a lower burden of proof: "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt." The civil proceeding also does not afford the defendant a jury trial. USCIS and Congress.gov have published detailed analyses of how denaturalization operates.
Here, we do not opine on the merits of a potential civil or criminal denaturalization proceeding against Omar, or what sorts of procedures and defenses she would have access to. Instead, we intend to explain what would happen to her congressional seat in light of denaturalization proceedings.
We start with the relevant constitutional text. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . . . ." (emphasis added) And Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
Since the beginning of the Republic, there have been challenges as to whether a member-elect has the requisite years of citizenship. Professor Derek Muller's entry in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (3d) on the Judge of Elections Clause explains two historically noteworthy challenges to qualifications:
In the decades after the Founding, both houses of Congress routinely judged the elections, returns, and qualifications of their members. One early and contested instance arose in 1793. The Pennsylvania legislature elected Albert Gallatin to the [United States] Senate. Gallatin, a member of the [Jeffersonian] Democratic-Republican party, was a rival of Alexander Hamilton, a prominent Federalist. Doubts arose about Gallatin's eligibility for the Senate. He was born in Switzerland and had resided in the United States for thirteen years. But it was unclear whether Gallatin had been a U.S. citizen for the requisite nine years. Two Senate committees dominated by Federalists found against Gallatin, and he was barred from the seat. . . .
A[] notorious contest during Reconstruction came from the election of Hiram Revels [in 1870], the first black Senator. Opponents first charged that his election was improper because the governor of Mississippi who signed his certificate of election was only the provisional governor and therefore not authorized to certify the legislature's selection of Revels. Challengers also claimed that Revels was not "nine years a citizen" because he was not a citizen under the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 [and so Revels was only a citizen between 1868 and 1870]. Defenders noted that Revels had previously resided in Ohio, where he had voted in that state and must have been a citizen. In the end, the Senate seated him over the objection of a few Democrats.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that the United States initiates civil denaturalization proceedings before the new Congress meets in January 2027. This procedure would certainly take some time, and it may not even reach a final judgment (up to the resolution of certiorari) during the duration of Omar's (likely) elected two-year term. Still, absent a final judgment, we sketch out several possible issues.
First, could the House of Representatives determine that Omar lacks the qualifications to be a member of Congress (i.e., a citizen for seven years) in the absence of some judicial finding by a federal district court? The answer is "yes." The House of Representatives is a coordinate branch of government that can make its own determinations of fact when seating a member. The Constitution empowers the House to determine if a member-elect is a citizen and for how long he has been a citizen. There is no need to wait for a federal court to rule on the matter. No such prior judicial proceedings occurred in the case of Albert Gallatin. That question and its answer, we think, should not be controversial.
Second, could the House of Representatives judge Omar's qualifications in the middle of her elected term? Or, can those qualifications only be judged at the time when she is seated? We think it is reasonable to suggest, based on the text, that qualifications should only be determined at the outset of the new Congress, or when a member is first admitted and allowed to take her oath, but we admit there is no definitive answer here. The alternative view is that a member must have the requisite qualifications over the entire course of her elected term, and her house always retains the ability to adjudicate those qualifications if an objection is raised by another member. In these circumstances, a member could simply raise an objection to Omar's qualifications and seek a roll call vote. If determinations about qualifications continuously require a mere majority, as they do at the start of a two-year congressional term, then a mere majority might effectively "expel" Omar. On the other hand, it might be argued that where a mid-session disqualification vote has the effect of expulsion, then a two-thirds vote is required. We are not aware of any congressional precedents that provide clear analogues or guidance on this point.
Third, what happens at noon on January 3 when the new Congress meets? At that juncture, a member could raise an objection to Omar's qualifications. And under established House precedents, Omar would be asked to "step aside" until her qualifications are settled. The potential chaos that could follow is ably described in an excellent article by Professor Brian Kalt:
Under U.S. House precedent, any member-elect can challenge the right of any other member-elect to take the oath of office at the beginning of a new term. The uncontested members-elect then swear in and decide the fate of those who were forced to stand aside. If the House is closely divided and there are disputed elections at the margins, a minority party could exploit this procedure to try to seize control of the House. This would be outrageous and damaging, even if the effort failed. Contending for ultimate control, both sides could level motions, appeals, and tit-for-tat pre-oath challenges. The proto-House would degenerate into a chaotic mass of votes, meta-votes (about who gets to vote), and meta-meta-votes before anyone has even been sworn in. Instead of the House being controlled by the party that won the most seats in the election, it might go instead to the party that is most disciplined and unified—or, failing that, to the party that is more adept at parliamentary machinations. This nightmare is not completely hypothetical; the House once witnessed a power grab much like this—and it succeeded. But even an unsuccessful attempt could worsen the national partisan divide, weaken the House's legitimacy, and threaten the House's already dangerously low levels of comity. So could an attempt by a majority to bolster its advantage by a seat or two.
If the House splits 217-to-217, and Omar would be the 218th vote giving the Democrats an actual majority, the situation could quickly reach an impasse. Indeed, there may not even be enough votes to select a Speaker until Omar's contest is settled. Likewise, in the absence of any working majority, there may not even be enough support to appoint a committee to look into the matter.
Fourth, let us consider whether Omar could be arrested or detained at the start of immigration proceedings. She could be arrested and then incarcerated if indicted under the criminal denaturalization statute. The Constitution's Privilege from Arrest Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) provides "Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." It is clear enough the criminal denaturalization offense is a felony. The clause would not immunize her against arrest for allegedly violating this statute.
There is a separate issue whether this clause would prohibit the government from seizing and then detaining Omar in civil immigration facilities under the civil denaturalization statute. We do not take a position whether the allegations made in this civil proceeding would amount to a "breach of the peace" under the clause. One might believe that this constitutional provision would preclude arrest of a Representative based on ongoing civil denaturalization proceedings, but because the Constitution's "breach of the peace" language lacks substantial development from the courts, we, at this juncture, take no position on this issue.
We raise two other issues that do not have settled answers. First, there is some authority for believing that the scope of the constitutional privilege against arrest extends to members-elect, and not merely just to seated members. So even if the House "sets aside" Omar during an election contest based on qualifications, she would still enjoy the same privilege against arrest that seated members enjoy. Second, there is an open question about when, during the House's two-year constitutional term, the privilege applies. The clause applies "during [a member's] Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." In light of NLRB v. Noel Canning, we have doubts this clause applies during intersession recesses longer than three days. During a period of time when the clause does not apply, neither Omar nor any other member (or member-elect) would enjoy any privilege against arrest.
Fifth, let us assume that a federal court issues a final judgment denaturalizing Omar, and all of her appeals and opportunities to seek reconsideration are exhausted. At that moment, she would no longer be a citizen of the United States. But the Constitution does not expressly require that a person presently be a citizen. The text provides:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
The citizenship requirement is phrased in the past tense: "been seven Years a Citizen." Once a person has held U.S. citizenship for seven years, that person will have satisfied the citizenship qualification for the rest of their life—even if, as an adult, they subsequently voluntarily, intentionally, and knowingly renounce their U.S. citizenship, and even if they do so while actually serving as a member. The text does not clearly require that a person have seven years of citizenship in the seven immediate years before he was elected. Under a literal reading of the text, a person who has held U.S. citizenship for seven years, followed by a renunciation of his citizenship while an adult (arguably) should be allowed to serve in Congress, even if he would not be able under federal law to vote for himself in any federal election. Admittedly, this literal reading of the Constitution's House Qualifications Clause is counter-intuitive. In our prior scholarly writings, we have repeatedly emphasized Dixonian strict legalism as the appropriate method of interpretation of constitutional text involving qualifications in order to maximize voter choice. That is the Democracy Canon.
Sixth, if Omar were denaturalized in 2027, one must still ask was she a citizen of the United States for seven years? Was she ever a citizen? In other words, is the effect of denaturalization to simply withhold citizenship and its benefits from that person going forward post-adjudication, or is the effect to create a legal fiction such that the person was never a citizen in the first place? Is denaturalization retroactive? By way of analogy, some have argued that Donald Trump ceased being President at some point on or after January 6, 2021, and all actions taken in the final two weeks of his administration were ultra vires. They argue that Mike Pence was, in fact, the real President! This position resembles the arguments that Hiram Revels was not a citizen before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, in light of Dred Scott. We addressed this point in our article on Amendment XIV, Section 3:
Is it really that implausible to think that Section 3 could apply retroactively to a person who was already out of office? Retrospective law-making is an American tradition. Consider the case of Senator Hiram Revels, who was the first black person elected to the United States Senate. His Senate term began in 1870. At the time, did he meet the requirements of being a citizen for seven years? After all, stretching from 1857 to 1863, Dred Scott was still the law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment was only ratified in 1868. Some senators argued that Revels was not qualified [arguing that Revel's citizenship only existed after the Fourteenth Amendment went into effect]. But the Senate administered the oath to Revels, in effect retroactively applying Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship provision. Prior to 1868, Revels might not have experienced life as an American citizen for seven years. Under Dred Scott (1857), he was not a citizen. But the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that. Section 1 apparently retroactively made Revels a citizen for the time period he had experienced life as a non-citizen. And the Senate seated Revels.
When seating Revels, Reconstruction-era Republicans argued that Revels was a citizen for nine years (as is required for senators) even if he did not enjoy or experience any of the incidents of citizenship prior to 1868. By contrast, today, Republicans may argue that Omar was never a citizen, much less a citizen for seven years, even though she had all of the incidents of citizenship prior to January 2027.
The civil statute provides that denaturalization "shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate." In other words, the process relates back. If this understanding of our law is correct, even though Omar clearly spent more than seven years living in the United States as a citizen with a passport and even served in Congress, she would have never actually become a citizen. She may be viewed as something akin to a "de facto officer." (We use "akin" as we do not think rank-and-file members of Congress are "officers".) It appears that the law here may be unsettled. We expect that if a final judgment were reached by the courts denaturalizing Omar, and if Omar had exhausted all opportunities for reconsideration and appeal, then the House would rely on that finding. We do not say that the House would be strictly bound to rely on that final judgment. And again, if the federal courts only so concluded after Omar was sworn in and seated as a member, it is unclear what vote—a mere majority or two-thirds—would be needed to unseat and/or expel her.
Seventh, what happens to any actions, including votes, taken by Omar if a court rules that she was not a citizen at the time she served in the House? To make the hypothetical more useful, imagine that she was the deciding vote that gave the House a majority to pass a bill. Had her vote not been counted, the House would have deadlocked 217-to-217, and the President would not have been able to sign it into law. If the vote took place under a prior Congress, such legislation would be insulated against judicial review inquiring into the qualification of members by Chief Justice Chase's decision in Griffin's Case. If the vote took place in the current Congress Congress, such legislation would be insulated against judicial review inquiring into the qualification of members by the enrolled bill rule, which establishes that the authentication of a bill by the House's presiding officer should be viewed as conclusive evidence that all constitutional procedures for bill approval were complied with. So any legislation Omar had voted on was and would remain as valid as it ever was.
Eighth, and finally, what happens if the federal district court rules that Omar is denaturalized, and in reliance on that final judgment, she is expelled from the current House or not seated in a new House, but that judicial ruling is subsequently reversed by a higher federal court, e.g., the United States Supreme Court? Here we quote from our article on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
A prominent example may illustrate this principle: the case of Representative Victor L. Berger. In November 1918, Berger, a socialist, was elected to represent a House district for Milwaukee, Wisconsin in the 66th Congress. In February 1919, Berger was convicted in federal district court proceedings for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. When the 66th Congress met on May 19, 1919, Berger was free on bail. Faced with this conviction, the House proceeded to exclude Berger by resolution on November 10, 1919. The standard narrative is that his exclusion was based upon his antiwar agitation during World War I—in other words, his exclusion was purportedly founded upon Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the legal standard or rationale on which the House refused to seat Berger is far from clear.
Berger's seat was declared vacant. A new election was held, in which Berger was a candidate, and notwithstanding his re-election to the seat, the 66th House refused to seat him a second time. In November 1920, Berger ran yet again in the general election for a seat in the 67th House. He was not excluded from the ballot. Berger did not prevail in that election. In January 1921, before the 66th House expired, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. After the Supreme Court's ruling, Berger ran, and prevailed in, three subsequent elections. He was seated in the 68th, 69th, and 70th Houses.
[Professors] Baude and Paulsen write that "curiously, after the convictions were reversed the House allowed Berger to sit in the sixty-eighth through seventieth Congresses." They do not explain why this seating was "curious." The Supreme Court's decision vacating a conviction under the Espionage Act could have no legal effect on a Section 3 disqualification. Only Congress can relieve that disability by a 2/3 vote of each house. And no such vote took place.
In short, if Omar was undenaturalized—or maybe better to say she was never denaturalized in the first place—a future Congress could seat her. Alternatively, even if a federal court denaturalizes Omar, our view is that members of Congress could independently determine that Omar was and is a citizen for purposes of the House Qualifications Clause. At that point, the tension would not be between the House and the President, but between the House and the federal judiciary.
The relationship between citizenship and qualifications is a tale as old as the Republic. Denaturalization would add a new twist to this old drama.
The post What Happens to Representative Ilhan Omar's Congressional Seat if the United States Files Suit to Denaturalize Her? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
El Cupón Diario de la ONCE es un sorteo de lotería que se celebra cada día en España. Su organización está a cargo de la ONCE (Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles), una entidad cuyo propósito es fomentar la integración social y laboral de las personas con discapacidad visual en el país.
Los orígenes de este sorteo se remontan a los años 30, cuando la ONCE comenzó a vender lotería con el objetivo de financiar sus actividades. El primer sorteo tuvo lugar en 1938 y consistía en una rifa con billetes de 10 pesetas.
En 1984, la ONCE introdujo el formato actual del Cupón Diario, basado en la venta de boletos con un número de cinco cifras y la asignación de premios según el resultado del sorteo. Este juego ha logrado una gran aceptación en España y ha permitido a la ONCE recaudar fondos para desarrollar programas y servicios dirigidos a personas con discapacidad visual, incluyendo formación, empleo, accesibilidad y el fomento de la cultura y el deporte.
¿Quieres saber si te ha tocado la Bonoloto, Euromillones, Lotería Nacional, Primitiva, Mi Día, Cuponazo o Sueldazo? [[LINK:TAG|||tag|||https://cms.larazon.es/6322eb1859a61a391e0a06d2|||Comprueba el resultado del resto de sorteos de loterías del día en LA RAZÓN.]]
NOTA: La Razón no se hace responsable de errores u omisiones que pudieran existir. La única lista oficial válida es la que proporciona la sociedad estatal Loterías y Apuestas del Estado.
“Evidentemente ha notizie di prima mano, conviene che ne parli con il suo omologo il ministro degli Interni e che avverta la polizia giudiziaria per fare le indagini”. Nicola Gratteri così sulle affermazioni del ministro della Giustizia Carlo Nordio che ha ipotizzato infiltrazioni criminali all’interno dei blocchi stradali degli autotrasportatori che protestano per il caro gasolio. “Io non parlo mai di fatti in corso, non parlo mai di indagini o di cose che da qui a poco magari possono diventare procedimenti penali, quindi – conclude Gratteri – se lui ha notizie fa bene a denunciarle oltre che ai giornali anche alla polizia giudiziaria”.
L'articolo Gratteri: “Infiltrazioni camorra della protesta dei Tir? Se Nordio ha notizie le denunci alla polizia giudiziaria oltre che ai giornali” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
El temporal que dejó dos víctimas mortales entre el 3 y el 4 de octubre en Cataluña estuvo ligado a un sistema de tormentas cuya formación dependió de las temperaturas anómalamente altas del Mediterráneo. Así lo ha confirmado un estudio publicado en el blog de la Aemet, donde distintas simulaciones han comprobado que, con un mar entre 2,4 y 2,9 ℃ más frío, el sistema convectivo y la circulación ciclónica en niveles bajos no se habrían desarrollado.
Este dato esclarecedor ha sido divulgado también por el doctor JJ González Alemán, investigador de AEMET: “Hemos encontrado que las temperaturas extremas del Mediterráneo favorecieron el temporal de lluvias y el intento, al menos, de una ciclogénesis tropical en el Mediterráneo”, afirma.
El trabajo examina el episodio que afectó sobre todo a las provincias de Barcelona y Girona, donde se registraron acumulados de 190,8 l/m² en Barcelona-El Raval, 226,6 l/m² en Cabrils y 248 l/m² en Granollers. Como explican los autores de la investigación, el temporal se organizó sobre el mar frente a la costa catalana, en un contexto en el que el Mediterráneo occidental se situaba unos 2,5 ℃ por encima de su referencia climática de 1991-2020.
Hemos publicado en el blog de AEMET un estudio de rápida atribución sobre el episodio del 3-4 de Octubre en Cataluña. Hemos encontrado que las temperaturas extremas del Mediterráneo favorecieron el temporal de lluvias y el intento (al menos) de una ciclogénesis tropical en el Mediterráneo. El gráfico más sorprendente es este: ni con un mar típico del periodo 1991-2020 se habría generado la circulación/vorticidad en niveles bajos que se observó en el radar.
— Dr JJ González Alemán (@glezjuanje) October 21, 2026
Para el estudio se realizaron cinco simulaciones con el modelo HARMONIE-AROME. Todas partieron de las mismas condiciones atmosféricas, pero cada una de ellas tenía una variación en la temperatura superficial marina. Una de ellas reprodujo el mar observado durante el temporal, mientras que las otras emplearon valores propios de distintos períodos climáticos, hasta 2,9 ℃ inferiores.
Con la temperatura real del mar, el modelo generó un sistema convectivo de entre 200 y 250 kilómetros de diámetro, con topes nubosos por debajo de -70 ℃ y un vórtice ciclónico que se extendía desde niveles medios hasta cerca de la superficie. La simulación también evidenció máximos de precipitación superiores a 250 mm mar adentro y acumulados de entre 150 y 250 mm cerca de Barcelona.
Cuando los investigadores sustituyeron esa temperatura por otros valores, aparecieron tormentas aisladas frente a Tarragona y el delta del Ebro. Pero no se formó una circulación organizada en niveles bajos. Lo más sorprendente, como subraya González Alemán, fue que “ni con un mar típico del período 1991-2020 se habría generado la circulación/vorticidad en niveles bajos que se observó en el radar”. Entonces, ¿cómo fue posible la formación de este temporal?
Como indica el estudio, el análisis satelital mostró un escudo nuboso compacto y casi circular entre la costa catalana y Menorca. Mientras que el de Barcelona detectó, durante la madrugada del 4 de octubre, bandas de precipitación curvadas y un flujo de viento hacia la costa compatible con una circulación ciclónica de entre 30 y 50 kilómetros cerca del litoral.
En un inicio, los expertos consideraron que lo que ocurrió el 3 y 4 de octubre no se debía a una dana, sino a otra formación climática denominada medicane. Estos son ciclones mediterráneos que adquieren rasgos tropicales tras la interacción entre una perturbación fría en altura y el calor del mar. Pero tras los datos extraídos del estudio, la realidad podría haber sido otra: el episodio catalán pudo aproximarse a un ciclón tropical que no se había documentado antes en el Mediterráneo.
Según la Aemet, “el sistema se asemejaba a una tormenta tropical en ciernes y el radar mostró un viento que podía corresponder a un giro ciclónico cerca de la costa”. Esto es algo insólito, pues estos sistemas son un conjunto de tormentas que pueden organizarse y generar su propio vórtice sin ese impulso inicial. Por lo que los autores apuntan a que este fenómeno se formó sin la presión de un fenómeno en niveles altos.
Esto introduce un gran dilema. Según el Climate Shift Index que menciona el doctor, “las temperaturas del mar que alimentaron el inédito intento (al menos) de ciclogénesis tropical frente a las costas de Cataluña que hemos estudiado, fueron 100 veces más probables de ocurrir debido al cambio climático”.
Pese a ello, la agencia de meteorología advierte que la convección atmosférica es sensible a pequeñas variaciones y que será necesario repetir los experimentos con más simulaciones. También deberá analizarse si existió una circulación cerrada, un mínimo de presión en superficie, un núcleo cálido y flujos de calor latente propios de una ciclogénesis tropical.
Sin embargo, “todo apunta a que un Mediterráneo cada vez más cálido podría empezar a comportarse, en ocasiones, como un mar tropical y facilitar procesos puros de formación de ciclones tropicales”, señala la AEMET. Asimismo, González Alemán añade que el mar seguirá bajo observación: “Estamos en otra realidad climática en el Mediterráneo”.
La excandidata presidencial del correísmo Luisa González, detenida este jueves en Ecuador, aseguró a través de un comunicado en redes sociales que el país andino "ha llegado a una situación insostenible" y denunció que "el ataque a las libertades y la persecución política son una realidad permanente en la dictadura de (Daniel) Noboa".
En el mensaje difundido desde su cuenta oficial de la red social X, González afirmó que el motivo de su detención, en el marco de unas investigaciones de la Fiscalía por lavado de dinero al haber tenido un supuesto manejo irregular de su campaña electoral de 2023, es "una acusación absurda". "Responderé con la dignidad de las ecuatorianas y los ecuatorianos que nada deben y que están comprometidos con lograr la libertad de Ecuador y un futuro mejor para el país", señaló González, que perdió en segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales de 2023 y 2025 ante el actual mandatario, Daniel Noboa.
"Hemos llegado a una situación insostenible. La dictadura de Noboa no solo ha llevado a nuestro querido país al desastre económico, con una violencia y una corrupción totales, sino que el ataque a las libertades y la persecución política son una realidad permanente", enfatizó. González pidió a la Revolución Ciudadana, el partido del expresidente Rafael Correa (2007-2017), y a las demás fuerzas progresistas "unidad, unidad y unidad para lograr la libertad y la democracia en el país".
"Gracias por esa infinita solidaridad que se ha ido construyendo en todo Ecuador. Más temprano que tarde, el silencio explotará en cada rincón del territorio y lograremos la tan anhelada democracia", concluyó. La excandidata presidencial de la Revolución Ciudadana fue detenida en Canuto, la localidad rural de la provincia costera de Manabí (oeste) donde se crió y creció, en medio de las investigaciones abiertas contra ella y el movimiento correísta por la presunto manejo económico irregular de la campaña de 2023.
La Fiscalía solicitó las detenciones en el marco del caso 'Laberinto', donde se le imputa un delito de lavado de activos, adicional al primero por el que ya era investigada por delincuencia organizada con fines de lavado de activos, en el caso 'Caja Chica', en el que se investiga la supuesta financiación de la campaña con dinero en efectivo traído desde Venezuela. La detención de González se da a cinco semanas de la celebración de las elecciones locales en Ecuador, donde la Revolución Ciudadana ha sido suspendida y no puede participar, a petición del Ministerio Público, a raíz de estas investigaciones.
Además del proceso contra González, que trató sin éxito de presentarse como candidata a prefecta provincial de Manabí por el partido indigenista Pachakutik, la Fiscalía también allanó el miércoles la sede del Municipio de Quito, donde su alcalde, Pabel Muñoz, ganó en 2023 los comicios como candidato del correísmo. Adicionalmente, en la Cárcel del Encuentro, la prisión de máxima seguridad construida por Noboa en Ecuador a semejanza del modelo carcelario del presidente Nayib Bukele en El Salvador, cumple condena el alcalde de Guayaquil, Aquiles Alvarez, que en 2023 también fue elegido de la mano de Revolución Ciudadana.
© EFE
“Se vogliamo consentire all’Italia di rialzarsi, dopo quattro anni in cui ci siamo inginocchiati, nonostante poderose risorse che l’Europa ci ha messo a disposizione, adesso i nodi stanno venendo al pettine”. Così Giuseppe Conte, intervenendo nell’aula dei gruppi parlamentari a Montecitorio a conclusione all’evento ‘Eccellenze 2026. Focus su aree interne e territori fragili di tutto il Paese’.
Per l’ex presidente del Consiglio “oggi c’è un grande disagio da Nord a Sud” e il governo risponde a quello dei giovani “in termini securitari. Il ministro Nordio ha dichiarato che la risposta per le violenze, giustamente, ognuno deve rispondere di comportamenti violenti e reati, ma sentir parlare un ministro la cui risposta è “massicci arresti dei giovani, dobbiamo adesso dedicarci ad ampliare le carceri minorili”, vuol dire che non sei un politico, devi andare a casa”.
Il leader del M5s ha insistito: “Oggi parlando con tanti giovani hanno perso la speranza di poter migliorare la loro condizione familiare, di raggiungere sogni e garanzie di cui hanno beneficiato i loro genitori. Uccidere la speranza dei giovani è la responsabilità più grossa di una politica che oggi offre risposte in termini securitari”.
L'articolo Conte: “Parole Nordio sui minori non da politico, vada a casa” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
Las grandes empresas -aquellas con más de 5.000 trabajadores- pagaron en el 2024 un 7,08% de impuesto de sociedades sobre sus beneficios. El porcentaje se eleva al 19,71% si se tiene en cuenta la base imponible para calcular el abono del tributo, según las últimas cifras publicadas ayer por la Agencia Tributaria correspondientes a dos años atrás.
O Exército Português obteve autorização para modernizar o sistema de armas carro de combate Leopard, até 82,35 milhões de euros. O investimento foi aprovado esta quinta-feira em Conselho de Ministros. Foi ainda aprovado reforço orçamental de combustíveis para a Marinha Portuguesa e um Decreto-Lei que cria a carreira especial de Técnico de Salvamento Marítimo.
“O investimento permitirá executar o programa de Midlife Upgrade da frota, que inclui a reparação geral, a modernização de sistemas, a aquisição de ferramentas e equipamentos especiais, manuais técnicos e formação, reforçando a prontidão operacional do Exército e a capacidade de Portugal para responder aos compromissos assumidos no quadro da NATO”, pode ler-se no comunicado do Conselho de Ministros.
O Conselho de Ministros aprovou ainda o reforço de 2,4 milhões de euros para a compra de combustíveis operacionais da Marinha Portuguesa para este ano. “A decisão garante a continuidade do abastecimento das unidades navais e a capacidade de cumprimento das missões da Marinha”, pode ler-se no comunicado.
Para a Marinha, o Conselho de Ministros trouxe ainda novidades no que toca a carreiras, tendo sido aprovado um Decreto-Lei que cria a “carreira especial de Técnico de Salvamento Marítimo, integrando-a no Quadro do Pessoal Militarizado da Marinha, e no regime de transição dos atuais Tripulantes de Embarcações Salva-Vidas”.
“A alteração reconhece as especificidades das funções de salvamento, socorro e assistência marítima, designadamente o risco, o desgaste, a disponibilidade permanente e a necessidade de mobilização rápida das tripulações, salvaguardando os direitos adquiridos e valorizando o enquadramento remuneratório e estatutário dos trabalhadores”, informa comunicado.
(Última atualização às 19h44)
O USDA (Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos) selecionou oito projetos de fabricação de fertilizantes que representam mais de US$ 1,34 bilhão em investimentos previstos no país. As iniciativas incluem aproximadamente US$ 573 milhões em recursos federais propostos e têm como objetivo ampliar a produção doméstica, reduzir a dependência de fornecedores estrangeiros e aumentar a concorrência no setor.
O anúncio foi feito nesta quinta-feira (22) pelo vice-presidente dos Estados Unidos, J.D. Vance, e pela secretária de Agricultura, Brooke Rollins. Os projetos foram selecionados no âmbito do Programa de Investimento e Expansão da Oferta Doméstica de Fertilizantes no Longo Prazo.
O programa conta com orçamento inicial de US$ 500 milhões. Além desses recursos, o governo pretende direcionar verbas recuperadas de projetos “malsucedidos” para “novas iniciativas com maior viabilidade financeira e investimentos privados”.
Segundo o USDA, os oito projetos abrangem a produção de fertilizantes nitrogenados, fosfatados, potássicos e sulfurados. Juntos, devem viabilizar aproximadamente 1,08 milhão de toneladas de produção e capacidade doméstica anual de fertilizantes.
A estimativa do departamento é que a ampliação da oferta reduza os preços dos fertilizantes nitrogenados em 4,4% e os da potassa em 5,3%, quando os projetos estiverem em operação. A produção doméstica de nitrogenados poderá crescer 3,7%, enquanto a de potassa poderá aumentar quase 40%.
Entre os maiores investimentos está o da TalusAg, que prevê a instalação de 20 unidades modulares de fabricação de amônia em sete estados americanos. O projeto tem custo estimado em US$ 270,2 milhões, dos quais aproximadamente US$ 99,8 milhões em recursos federais propostos. A produção anual esperada é de 130 mil toneladas de amônia anidra.
A Intrepid Potash prevê construir uma unidade de sulfato de potássio nas proximidades de Carlsbad, no Novo México. O investimento total estimado é de US$ 265 milhões, com US$ 139 milhões em recursos federais propostos. A instalação deverá produzir 220 mil toneladas por ano.
Já a PCI Nitrogen pretende modernizar duas unidades de fabricação de fertilizantes no Texas e no Oregon, em um projeto de US$ 200 milhões. A iniciativa poderá receber aproximadamente US$ 100 milhões do USDA e deve sustentar uma produção anual de 148,3 mil toneladas de fertilizantes, incluindo ureia e sulfato de amônio.
Outro projeto prevê a construção de duas unidades da Agriculture Project Holdco, no Kansas e em Indiana, para transformar esterco de propriedades leiteiras em fertilizante líquido à base de nitrato de amônio. O investimento estimado é de US$ 360 milhões, com aproximadamente US$ 116,9 milhões em recursos federais propostos.
A lista também inclui a expansão da Peace Valley, na Flórida, com investimento de US$ 50,6 milhões; a modernização da AdvanSix, na Virgínia, em um projeto de US$ 98,1 milhões; a ampliação da SUL4R-PLUS Illinois, em um investimento de US$ 69,7 milhões; e a expansão da True Organic Products, com instalações na Califórnia, no Oregon e no Arizona, em um projeto de US$ 30,6 milhões.
O governo americano afirma que a ampliação da produção doméstica também busca reduzir a concentração do mercado de fertilizantes. De acordo com o comunicado do USDA, quatro empresas controlam aproximadamente 77% da capacidade de produção de fertilizantes nitrogenados da América do Norte. No segmento de fosfatados, duas companhias concentram mais de 90% da capacidade, enquanto outras duas respondem por cerca de 90% da produção regional de potassa.
A administração Trump afirma que os novos investimentos devem ampliar a capacidade de fabricação e a concorrência entre fornecedores, além de reduzir a exposição dos agricultores americanos às importações.
El Sorteo Diario de la Lotería Nacional es una modalidad de la Lotería Nacional que se celebra desde 2003. Aunque lo cierto es que antes de esta, existió otra modalidad similar que se llamaba "Lotería Instantánea", que se jugaba a través de tarjetas o boletos que se podían adquirir en diversos establecimientos, como quioscos y estancos.
El Sorteo Diario de la Lotería Nacional se celebra todas las semanas, de lunes a sábado, y consta de un primer premio, de 30.000 euros por serie, y un segundo premio, de 6.000 euros por serie. Además, aparte de estos dos grandes premios, también se entregan otros adicionales a los números anterior y posterior al primer y segundo premio.
Por su parte, la Lotería Nacional ha evolucionado a lo largo de los años, desde los primeros sorteos que se celebraban en papel y los números se extraían de un bombo manual, hasta la utilización de máquinas automáticas para el sorteo de los números, lo que permite agilizar el proceso y aumentar la seguridad, tal y como ocurre en la actualidad.
El Sorteo Diario de la Lotería Nacional se ha convertido en una modalidad muy popular entre los jugadores, ya que permite ganar premios diariamente con un coste relativamente bajo. Además, también ha contribuido a aumentar la recaudación de fondos para el Estado y para diversas causas sociales y benéficas.
En definitiva, el Sorteo Diario de la Lotería Nacional forma parte de la evolución de esta institución centenaria y ha permitido adaptarse a las nuevas formas de juego y a las demandas de los jugadores.
¿Quieres saber si te ha tocado la Bonoloto, Euromillones, Lotería Nacional, Primitiva, Mi Día, Cuponazo o Sueldazo? [[LINK:TAG|||tag|||https://cms.larazon.es/6322eb1859a61a391e0a06d2|||Comprueba el resultado del resto de sorteos del día en LA RAZÓN.]]
NOTA: La Razón no se hace responsable de errores u omisiones que pudieran existir. La única lista oficial válida es la que proporciona la sociedad estatal Loterías y Apuestas del Estado.
© Difoosion
La Habana, 22 oct (Prensa Latina) La presidenta de la Asociación Cubana de Naciones Unidas (ACNU), Norma Goicochea, denunció hoy que el bloqueo impuesto por Estados Unidos viola los derechos civiles y políticos al ser utilizado como herramienta para intentar derrocar la Revolución.
The post Bloqueo de EEUU viola derechos políticos y civiles, denuncian en Cuba (+Foto) first appeared on Noticias Prensa Latina.
Querer a alguien no basta para estar a salvo. Esa es la premisa de la que parte la novela Dime, niña bonita , de Laura Galve, que se ha alzado esta tarde con el III Premio de Narrativa Diana Zaforteza en una gala celebrada en el Conventet de Pedralbes. La obra llegará a librerías el 4 de noviembre de la mano de Galaxia Gutenberg.
Login