Author

admin

Browsing

The Department of Justice on Thursday sued five additional states, requesting that their election data be shared with the Trump administration amid its push for access to voter rolls from states across the country.

Four states President Donald Trump carried in the last three presidential elections — Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and West Virginia — were slapped with the latest legal action, along with New Jersey.

The DOJ has now sued more than two dozen states in efforts to access election records, with most of the states being controlled by Democrats.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon suggested that state election officials were ‘choosing to fight us in court rather than show their work’ with voter roll access.

‘We will not be deterred, regardless of party affiliation, from carrying out critical election integrity legal duties,’ she said in a statement on Thursday.

‘The Justice Department will continue to fulfill its oversight role dutifully, neutrally, and transparently wherever Americans vote in federal elections,’ Dhillon said.

The Trump administration has intensified its efforts to take over elections in recent months even though the U.S. Constitution gives states, not federal officials, the authority to run elections. Most states have their secretary of state oversee elections.

Access to election information varies by state, but election officials generally release redacted versions of their voter rolls to the public and government agencies, according to Politico. However, the DOJ has demanded that states give the federal government unredacted files, including voters’ private data such as their driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

‘Accurate, well-maintained voter rolls are a requisite for the election integrity that the American people deserve,’ Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. ‘This latest series of litigation underscores that this Department of Justice is fulfilling its duty to ensure transparency, voter roll maintenance, and secure elections across the country.’

The DOJ has argued the states are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which affirms that the attorney general can request voter records from election officials, but state officials contend that the department is seeking an escalation of the administration’s wider attempts to become involved in state election proceedings.

‘Neither state nor federal law entitles the Department of Justice to collect private information on law-abiding American citizens. Utahns can be assured that my office will always follow the Constitution and the law, protect voters’ rights, and administer free and fair elections,’ Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said in a statement to Politico.

Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams also criticized the lawsuit, saying the state’s elections were ‘a national success story.’

‘Kentucky law protects voters’ personal information, and I will not voluntarily commit a data breach by providing Kentuckians’ personal data to the federal bureaucracy unless a court order tells me to,’ he said in a statement to the outlet.

West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner’s office said it had not yet been served with a lawsuit.

‘Regardless, I think Secretary Warner’s comments to the DOJ were pretty clear. Bring it on! The federal government is not going to get any personal information on West Virginia voters as long as Kris Warner is Secretary of State,’ spokesperson Mike Queen said in a statement to Politico.

Earlier this month, the FBI executed a search warrant at an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, seizing ballots and other voting records from 2020, according to local officials. The Peach State went to former President Joe Biden in 2020, but Trump carried the state in 2024.

In efforts to ensure only American citizens are voting, Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship by providing a photo ID and other documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate.

Related Article

Georgia
Georgia’s Fulton County files motion seeking return of 2020 election materials seized by FBI

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As the Trump administration appoints Vice President JD Vance to lead a nationwide ‘War on Fraud,’ a coalition of conservative state financial officers says it has already uncovered and stopped billions in taxpayer waste and is pledging to partner with the White House to root out corruption nationwide.

In a Thursday letter to the White House, the State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) praised President Donald Trump’s focus on what he called fraud scandals that have ‘resulted in tens of billions of dollars being stolen from American taxpayers,’ writing that such corruption ‘shreds the fabric of a nation’ 

SFOF CEO OJ Oleka told Vance that the group’s 40 conservative state treasurers, auditors and comptrollers across 28 states stand ready to support the administration’s anti-fraud mission, noting they collectively oversee more than $3 trillion in state funds.

The letter accompanied SFOF’s inaugural 2025 Oversight Report, which claims that affiliated state financial officers safeguarded more than $28 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in 2025 alone.

The report highlights some of the most egregious examples within that $28 billion including in Florida, where Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia just under $2 billion in excessive spending and in Kentucky, where Auditor Allison Ball found more than $836 million in improper Medicaid payments.

Medicaid fraud has been of particular interest to the Trump administration given the massive fraud scandal that has unfolded in Minnesota and Vance said on Wednesday the administration has ‘decided to temporarily halt certain amounts of Medicaid funding that are going to the state of Minnesota in order to ensure that the state of Minnesota takes its obligations seriously to be good stewards of the American people’s tax money.’

The report also highlights North Carolina, where it says State Auditor Dave Boliek discovered more than $1 billion in lapsed salaries from long term vacancies in the state. Additionally, Utah auditor Tina Cannon identified more than $518 million in fraud, waste and abuse across agencies and nonprofits receiving state and federal funds.

In his letter, Oleka told Vance that SFOF’s members are ‘allies already on the battlefield’ and stand ready to assist the administration in protecting taxpayer dollars.

‘The American people deserve nothing less,’ he wrote.

SFOF argues that state-level financial watchdogs, often elected independently of governors and legislatures, are uniquely positioned to expose mismanagement and enforce fiscal discipline.

With billions already identified at the state level, the group says a coordinated federal-state approach could dramatically expand the scope of fraud detection nationwide, potentially reshaping how taxpayer dollars are safeguarded across the country.

‘By working together, we can protect our nation’s treasure to the fullest extent against every foe and every plot to endanger it,’ Oleka wrote.

Related Article

JD Vance spearheads
JD Vance spearheads ‘war on fraud,’ promises to root out taxpayer money ‘stolen’ by illegal immigrants

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Former President Bill Clinton will testify to the House Oversight Committee in a high-stakes deposition for the committee’s probe into Jeffrey Epstein on Friday.

The closed-door meeting is expected to take place at 11 a.m. at the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center in Westchester County, N.Y.

Chappaqua has been the Clintons’ primary residence since they left the White House at the end of the former president’s tenure.

Republicans have been eager to question Bill Clinton about his ties to Epstein for months as the committee has gone back and forth with his lawyers about terms of the interview.

Both Democrats and Republicans are expected to grill Clinton, as well as committee staff on both sides.

His sitdown comes a day after his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appeared before the panel for her own lengthy deposition in the Epstein probe.

However, House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters on Thursday that he anticipated Bill Clinton’s deposition would be ‘even longer’ than his wife’s.

He also stressed Thursday that neither of the Clintons are being accused of wrongdoing tied to Epstein.

‘No one’s accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing. They’re going to have due process,’ Comer said. ‘But we have a lot of questions, and the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.’

Both depositions will be released on video sometime later.

Hillary Clinton told lawmakers in her opening statement that she could not recall any contact with Epstein, nor did she have any more information for the committee past what she sent in a Jan. 13 statement.

She also criticized the probe’s attention on her as a ‘fishing expedition’ and accused Republicans of trying to use her to pull attention from Trump.

‘A committee endeavoring to stop human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008,’ she told the panel, according to her opening remarks.

‘But that’s not happening. Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.’

Unlike his wife, however, Bill Clinton had a well-documented relationship with Epstein before his federal probes related to prostitution of minors and sex trafficking.

Bill Clinton’s name and photo appear numerous times in documents released by the federal government on Epstein, and flight records show he did ride Epstein’s plane.

But neither he nor Hillary Clinton have been implicated in Epstein’s crimes.

The committee has also interviewed two former Trump administration officials, ex-Attorney General Bill Barr and ex-Labor Secretary Alex Acosta.

Their testimonies come weeks after the House nearly voted on holding both Clintons in contempt of Congress for defying Comer’s subpoena. House leaders dropped the effort after the Clintons said they would comply.

Related Article

Democrats dodge questions as House GOP prepares contempt votes against the Clintons
Democrats dodge questions as House GOP prepares contempt votes against the Clintons

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

As President Donald Trump pressures Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions amid rising tensions, Vice President JD Vance told The Washington Post there is ‘no chance’ the U.S. will enter a yearslong war in the Middle East.

‘The idea that we’re going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight — there is no chance that will happen,’ Vance said on Thursday, according to the outlet.

‘I think we all prefer the diplomatic option,’ he said, according to the Post. ‘But it really depends on what the Iranians do and what they say.’

‘I do think we have to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. I also think that we have to avoid overlearning the lessons of the past. Just because one president screwed up a military conflict doesn’t mean we can never engage in military conflict again. We’ve got to be careful about it, but I think the president is being careful,’ Vance told the outlet.

Fox News Digital reached out to Vance’s office and the White House on Friday morning.

Trump said during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, ‘My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number-one sponsor of terror — which they are by far — to have a nuclear weapon.’

Vance, after SOTU, says

In a Truth Social post regarding Iran on Monday, the president said that he ‘would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don’t make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them.’

Related Article

Iran rejects Trump demands despite
Iran rejects Trump demands despite ‘significant progress’ in nuclear talks

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

On February 11, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its annual Budget and Economic Outlook report, covering 2026 to 2036. Among the projections, the report found that Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance will be unable to pay full benefits in 2032 (a year earlier than projected in last year’s report). This is due to the higher projected cost-of-living adjustments and lower projected revenues. To put that in perspective, Social Security will be unable to pay full benefits before the program turns 100. 

Social Security is in desperate need of reform, but doing so is easier said than done. Perhaps the worst cultural consequence of Social Security is that this unsustainable program is pitting generations of Americans against one another. The young support benefit cuts while the old support higher payroll taxes. Successful reform means balancing the interests between these generational divides to prevent political backlashes, which may jeopardize future reforms. 

What Social Security Is and Is Not 

In 2007, AIER published “What You Need to Know About Social Security.” This Economic Education Bulletin outlines Social Security’s history, some myths and realities about the program, as well as options for reform and what individuals planning for retirement could do in the meantime. Many of the bulletin’s lessons are still applicable. 

Chief among them is the nature of the program. Social Security is not a system of individual retirement accounts. Nor is it a defined benefit pension program. It is a pay-as-you-go structure, where payroll taxes collected from working Americans go to fund benefit payments for the elderly. Despite being sold to Americans as an earned benefit, the true nature of the program is much closer to a Ponzi scheme than many care to admit. 

This means that the program relies upon working Americans to pay into the system outnumbering retirees. That number has dwindled, and it currently sits at 2.7 workers per Social Security recipient, an unsustainable ratio. Minor adjustments are not a feasible solution. The program needs structural reform. 

Possible Reforms  

Properly reforming Social Security requires a structural transition to a system based on ownership, savings, and investment. Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) can help anchor the transition if they are paired with policies that address the generational divide over the program. 

One such proposal made by the AIER Bulletin, as well as others, is a transition to a flat benefit. While this would drastically improve the program’s solvency, it risks immense political backlash. Current retirees and those near-retirement are planning on specific levels of benefits. Changing those overnight will likely result in voters 50 and over (one of the largest and fastest-growing voting blocs) punishing politicians who supported reforms by supporting challengers in primary and general elections. Furthermore, that punishment at the polls will make incumbents reluctant to offer other reforms in the future.  

To mitigate this political risk, policymakers can consider cohort differentiation. This would mean that current retirees and near-retirees receive all accrued benefits, financed transparently through general revenues, while the youngest cohorts transition out of the traditional program entirely and have access to USAs, which provide them with control over their finances and the portability to take those savings with them regardless of career or location changes. 

Additionally, Social Security’s Old Age Insurance could be separate from Disability Insurance and Survivors’ Insurance. The combined OASDI framework encourages benefit creep, especially as old-age insurance costs increase. Stand-alone programs can help prevent the re-expansion of the old-age system through cross-subsidization. 

The AIER Bulletin also notes that, while total privatization of retirement savings would be ideal, offering a smaller, flat benefit could encourage people to save more. Furthermore, the bulletin recommends encouraging saving through tax policies that incentivize savings over consumption (such as a decrease in reliance on income taxes). Additionally, policymakers can make it easier for Americans to save by replacing the myriad savings vehicles in the tax code with a broader universal savings account system without restrictions on how that money is used. 

There is also the possibility of devolving the program to state governments and having states manage these funds like defined benefit pensions. This would enable benefits to be connected to earnings. One such drawback, however, is state management of defined benefit pension plans is mixed at best. A defined benefit system at the federal level may exacerbate the knowledge and incentive problems that occur at the state level. 

Finally, long-term success will be determined by the institutional constraints in place. These include hard cohort cutoffs and a supermajority requirement for benefit expansions. Without such constraints, we will likely see a reversion to what we have now, with the same empty promises that the system would be fully self-funded, only to saddle Americans with massive tax obligations. 

Institutional Reform — or Generational Reckoning

Social Security reform is no longer a choice; it is the only way to avoid a very unfortunate future. Ignoring that reality will mean higher taxes on working Americans and benefit cuts to retirees. Enacting sustainable policy solutions can help avoid disaster without leaving Americans, young and old, destitute. The best hedge against the failures of the status quo, however, is to take control of one’s plans for the future instead of expecting the government to manage the future for us.

What US industry is the most subsidized and regulated by the federal government? If you answered nuclear power, you are correct. 

As a result, the 70-year “Atoms for Peace” program represents the most expensive failure (malinvestment) in US business with a history of uncompleted projects and massive cost overruns, as well as future decommissioning liabilities.  

Still, President Trump is all-in with nuclear, setting a goal of ten new reactors in construction by 2030 and a quadrupling of total US capacity by 2050. Biden was bullish too, and George W. Bush had his turn at a “nuclear renaissance.” Each failed, but in the nuclear space, hope springs eternal. 

Commercial fission began in the 1950s amid government and scientific fanfare. The promise was virtually limitless, emission-free, affordable electricity compared to coal-fired generation. But the technology was experimental and encumbered by a fear of radioactive contamination. Electric utilities and municipalities resisted. It would take open-ended (federal) research and development, insurance subsidies, and free enriched uranium, and rate-base returns under state regulation, to birth nuclear power.  

Scale economies and learning-by-doing were expected by vendors General Electric, Westinghouse, and others. Their turnkey projects guaranteeing cost and delivery, which produced a “bandwagon effect” of new orders in the 1960s, backfired. Almost half of the plant cost had to be absorbed by vendor stockholders. Cost-plus contracts would ensue with captive ratepayers in tow. 

In the 1970s, cost overruns, completion delays, and cancellations marked the end of the nuclear boom. With the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, a regulatory ratchet accelerated. “Federal regulations used to take up two volumes on our shelves,” one participant told Congress. “We now have 20 volumes to explain how to use the first two volumes.” Legalistic, overly prescriptive, retroactive rules now came from adversarial hearings and “the way of the institutions of government.” 

At the same time, turbine engines fueled by oil and natural gas took off. Cogeneration and combined cycle plants set a new competitive standard for nuclear, not only coal. Such technology used far fewer parts and was much more serviceable than a fission plant. 

Today, 94 active reactors produce dependable power to reinforce a grid weakened by intermittent wind and solar. With high up-front capital expense sunk, marginal-cost economics supports their continued operation. But for new capacity, large necessary government subsidies confirm an enduring reality: nuclear fission is the most complicated, fraught, expensive way to boil water to produce steam to drive electrical turbines

Hyperbole abounds about new reactor design. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are newsworthy, but is a turnkey project being offered to ensure timeliness and performance? Or does the fine print of the contracts offer the buyer “outs”? This question should be asked of those promising to buy or develop gigawatts of new nuclear capacity in the next decade. 

What now for nuclear policy to enable affordability and reliability? In a nutshell, the twin evils of overregulation and oversubsidization should give way to a real free market. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should yield its civilian responsibilities to the best practices established by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, an industry collaborative created after Three Mile Island. Federal insurance via the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 (extended seven times to date) should be replaced by private insurance per each “safe” reactor.  

Federal grants, loans, and tax preferences for nuclear should end. Antitrust constraints on industry collaboration should cease, and waste storage and decommissioning should be the responsibility of owners. 

Nuclear fission today is an essential component of a reliable electric grid. But economics and incentives matter, and U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers should not bear the costs of an uncompetitive technology. Neutral government is best for all competing energy sources, after all, in contrast to the energy designs of both Republicans and Democrats. 

Read more from this author:  Nuclear Power: A Free Market Approach

Pakistan’s defense minister declared an ‘open war’ with Afghanistan on Friday after the two sides exchanged heavy fire along their shared border on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

Defense Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said in a post on X that Pakistan had hoped the Taliban would bring stability after NATO’s withdrawal, but instead accused the group of turning Afghanistan ‘into a colony of India’ and ‘exporting terrorism.’

‘Our patience has now run out. Now it is open war between us,’ he said.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate
Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Perth, Australia (ABN Newswire) – Basin Energy Limited (ASX:BSN) (OTCMKTS:BSNEF) announced that it has now executed a Mineral Rights Purchase and Sale Agreement (‘MRPSA’) with Green Canada Corporation Inc (‘GCC’), a 54% owned subsidiary of PTX Metals Inc. (TSXV: PTX) (‘PTX’) to sell the Marshall Uranium Project (‘Marshall’), located in Saskatchewan, Canada. This follows the binding letter of intent, as announced on the 24th November 2025.

Key Highlights

– Mineral Rights Purchase and Sale Agreement executed, advancing Basin’s sale of 100% of the Marshall Uranium Project to Green Canada Corporation Inc (‘GCC’).

– GCC progressing toward public listing on Canadian Stock Exchange, in conjunction with a reverse takeover of Maackk Capital Corp.

– Basin will receive consideration of up to:

o C$600,000 payable in cash in four equal annual instalments;

o C$300,000 payable in shares over three equal annual instalments; and

o 9.99% of the total issued capital of the newly listed entity.

– Basin retains strong upside optionality, including a 25% project level buyback option and threeyear Right of first refusal (ROFR) on any future sale.

– Basin and CanAlaska Uranium Ltd (CVE:CVV) (‘CanAlaska’) have also granted GCC a 9-month exclusivity for the North Millennium Project.

The transaction is now conditional primarily on the proposed Reverse Takeover (‘RTO’) by GCC of Maackk Capital Corp (‘MAACKK’) and concurrent minimum C$2.5 million financing and admission to the Canadian Securities Exchange (‘CSE’) or such other stock exchange as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

In addition to the Marshall agreement, Basin and CanAlaska have agreed to grant GCC a 9-month exclusivity right to conduct due diligence and, if satisfactory, negotiate the terms of an earn-in option to acquire up to a 51% interest in the North Millennium joint venture project of CanAlaska and BSN.

Managing Director, Pete Moorhouse commented:

‘The execution of the definitive agreement marks a key milestone in unlocking value from the Marshall Uranium Project, while maintaining meaningful upside exposure for Basin shareholders.

With GCC progressing toward its public listing and associated financing, we are pleased to see a clear pathway toward funded exploration and drill testing at Marshall in the near term. Importantly, Basin retains leverage and upside through our equity interest, buyback option and right of first refusal, ensuring continued alignment with the project’s success.’

Terms of the Deal

In consideration, GCC has agreed to the following payments to Basin:

– C$600,000 payable in cash in four equal annual instalments, with the first payment due on closing of the transaction;

– C$300,000 payable in shares, issuable in three equal annual instalments based on the 5-day Volume-Weighted Average Price on the business day immediately preceding the date of issuance; and

– 9.99% of the total issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares on a non-diluted basis after giving effect to the concurrent financing at the time of closing of the proposed RTO, subject to 12-month escrow.

Basin will receive an additional 400,000 shares in the resulting issuer upon closing of the RTO in return for granting the 9-month exclusivity right in the North Millennium joint venture.

Basin will have a right of first refusal on any sale of the Marshall Project by GCC for a period of three years following the closing date of the transaction. In addition, Basin will retain a repurchase right to acquire from GCC a 25% interest in the Marshall Project for C$1,000,000 for a period commencing on the closing date and ending on the earlier of: the date that is five years from the closing date or the date on which GCC has incurred total exploration expenditures of C$10,000,000 on the Marshall Project.

Pursuant to the terms of the MRPSA, GCC is required to fund exploration expenditures for an initial work program on the Marshall Project to be carried out within twenty-four months from the closing. The Initial Work Program will have a budget in an amount that is the greater of C$1,500,000, and the minimum amount required to maintain the mineral claims comprising the Marshall Project in good standing under applicable governmental regulations.

Basin will also have the right to nominate one director to the board of the resulting issuer.

GCC will retain the right to withdraw from the transaction at any time after the closing of the transaction, in which case the project will return to Basin and no further payments will be required.

The Company has considered the application of ASX Listing Rule 11.4(a) and considers it does not apply.

About Green Canada Corporation

GCC is a 54% owned subsidiary of PTX Metals Inc. (CVE:PTX) and a uranium exploration company with a portfolio of projects located in Thelon Basin, Nunavut, the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Concurrent to the LOI to acquire Basin’s Marshall project, GCC announced that it has entered into a binding letter of intent with MAACKK pursuant to which GCC and MAACKK intend to complete a transaction that would result in a reverse take-over of MAACKK by the shareholders of GCC (the ‘Proposed RTO’). Closing of the Proposed RTO will be subject to, among other things, requisite regulatory approval for the listing of the resulting issuer of the Proposed RTO (the ‘Resulting Issuer’) on the Canadian Securities Exchange or such other stock exchange as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, along with completion of concurrent financing and execution of the definitive agreements in respect of the acquisition of the Marshall project.

Upon completion of the Proposed RTO, the current directors and officers of MAACKK will resign and it is anticipated that the board of directors of the Resulting Issuer will be reconstituted to consist of Richard J. Mazur, Greg Ferron, Olivier Crottaz and a representative from the Basin.

About the Marshall and North Millennium Projects

The Marshall project is 100% owned by Basin, and the North Millennium Project is under joint venture agreement on a 40:60 basis with CanAlaska.

The Marshall and North Millennium projects are located less than 11 km from Cameco Corporation’s Millennium deposit (104.8Mlb at 3.8% U3O8) and around 40 km from the prolific McArthur River uranium mine, one of the world’s highest-grade uranium operations, refer to Figure 1*. Both projects are deemed prospective for unconformity style uranium exploration.

In 2024, ground electromagnetics (‘EM’) at Marshall identified three main targets which confirms the geological and exploration model. Of note is Target 1, refer to Figure 2*, where modelled EM plates below the unconformity align with a sandstone Z-Tipper Axis Electromagnetic (‘ZTEM’) anomaly, which is interpreted to be alteration within sandstone. The identification of these targets is encouraging and consistent with regional trends in the southeastern Athabasca and provides increased confidence in drill hole targeting.

*To view tables and figures, please visit:
https://abnnewswire.net/lnk/R3LUUKE8

About Basin Energy Ltd:

Basin Energy Ltd (ASX:BSN) (OTCMKTS:BSNEF) is a green energy metals exploration and development company with an interest in three highly prospective projects positioned in the southeast corner and margins of the world-renowned Athabasca Basin in Canada and has recently acquired a significant portfolio of Green Energy Metals exploration assets located in Scandinavia.

Source:
Basin Energy Ltd

Contact:
Pete Moorhouse
Managing Director
pete.m@basinenergy.com.au
+61 7 3667 7449

Chloe Hayes
Investor and Media Relations
chloe@janemorganmanagement.com.au
+61 458619317

News Provided by ABN Newswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Senators Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know. So, I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. 

‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Related Article

US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman
US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Afghanistan and Pakistan exchanged significant cross-border fire Thursday in an escalation of hostilities along their shared border, according to multiple reports.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate
Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS