Connect with us

News

Jimmy Carter, longest-lived United States president, dies aged 100

Published

12 months ago

on

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, a broker of peace in the Middle East in his time, and a tireless advocate for global health and human rights, has died, it was announced on Sunday. He was 100 years old.

“My father was a hero, not only to me but to everyone who believes in peace, human rights, and unselfish love,” said Chip Carter, the former president’s son, in a statement.

“My brothers, sister, and I shared him with the rest of the world through these common beliefs. The world is our family because of the way he brought people together, and we thank you for honoring his memory by continuing to live these shared beliefs.”

A Georgia Democrat, Carter was the longest-lived president in US history. He only served one term in the White House and was soundly beaten by Ronald Reagan in 1980. But Carter spent the decades afterward focused on international relations and human rights, efforts that won him the Nobel peace prize in 2002.

Carter had undergone a series of hospital stays before and his family said on 18 February last year that he had chosen to “spend his remaining time at home”, in hospice care and with loved ones. The decision had “the full support of his family and his medical team”, a family statement said.

President Joe Biden on Sunday declared 9 January a national day of mourning, calling on Americans to visit their places of worship to “pay homage” to the late US leader.

Carter’s wife, Rosalynn Carter , died last November, two days after her own transition to hospice care. The former first lady was 96. The pair married in 1946 and the former president attended her memorial service, traveling from the couple’s longtime home in Plains, Georgia, to the Glenn Memorial church in Atlanta.

The Carters’ eldest grandchild, Jason Carter, had said in a media interview in June this year that the former president was not awake every day but was “experiencing the world as best he can” as his days were coming to an end .

Carter took office in 1977 as “Jimmy Who?”, a one-term Georgia governor and devout Christian whose unfamiliarity with Washington was seen as a virtue after the Watergate and Vietnam war years.

Hopes for the Carter presidency were dashed, however, by economic and foreign policy crises, starting with high unemployment and double-digit inflation and culminating in the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. A rolling energy crisis saw the price of oil triple from 1978 to 1980, leading to lines at US gas stations .

Such struggles belied early promise. In 1977, Carter completed a treaty that had eluded his predecessors to return control of the Panama canal to its host country. At Camp David in 1978, Carter brought together the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, and the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, for a deal that would produce peace that endures today.

Carter’s fruitless attempts to halt the economic slide led Republicans to label him “Jimmy Hoover”, after the Depression-era president. But as Carter prepared to run for re-election in 1980, it was the Iran hostage crisis that weighed most visibly on Americans’ minds, the TV anchor Ted Koppel devoting his broadcast five days a week to the plight of 52 Americans held in Tehran. A botched rescue attempt left eight US servicemen dead and fed doubts about Carter’s leadership.

Reagan, a former California governor, won 44 states. The hostages were released on 20 January 1981, hours after Carter left office, prompting speculation that Republicans had made a deal with Iran.

Broadly unpopular then, Carter went on to become not just the longest-lived president but also to have one of the most distinguished post-presidential careers. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize for “decades of untiring effort” for human rights and peacemaking. His humanitarian work was conducted under the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which he founded in the early 1980s, with Rosalynn.

Carter traveled the world as a peace emissary, election observer and public health advocate. He made visits to North Korea in 1994 and Cuba in 2002. The Carter Center is credited with helping to cure river blindness, trachoma and Guinea worm disease, which went from millions of cases in Africa and Asia in 1986 to a handful today.

Carter was a critic of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, drone warfare, warrantless government surveillance and the prison at Guantánamo Bay. He won admiration, and loathing, for his involvement in efforts for Middle East peace, urging a two-state solution in speeches and books including Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid .

He met Shimon Peres, then president of Israel, on a 2012 trip to Jerusalem, but top Israeli leaders generally shunned Carter after publication of the book. As recently as 2015, requests to meet the prime minister and president were rebuffed .

Carter played a central role in promoting Habitat for Humanity, which provides housing for the needy, and was an alternative energy pioneer, installing solar panels on the White House. (Reagan removed them.)

The Carters had four children and 11 grandchildren, among them James Carter IV, credited with playing a pivotal role in the 2012 election when he unearthed a video of Mitt Romney casting aspersions on 47% of Americans .

James Earl Carter Jr grew up in Plains, Georgia, a town of fewer than 1,000 and about 150 miles south of Atlanta. A graduate of the US Naval Academy, he rose to the rank of lieutenant and worked on the nascent nuclear submarine program. After his father’s death in 1953, he took up peanut farming. He was elected to the Georgia senate then won the governorship in 1970, calling for the state to move beyond racial segregation.

Carter’s blend of moral authority and folksy charisma produced moments of unusually frank national dialogue. In a 1979 speech, he spoke semi-spontaneously for half an hour about a “crisis of confidence” – “a fundamental threat to American democracy … nearly invisible in ordinary ways”. Americans had fallen into a worship of “self-indulgence and consumption”, he said, only to learn “that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose”.

The address struck a chord: Carter’s popularity surged 11 points. But after Reagan and others recast it as a self-indulgent exploration of personal malaise, the speech became a liability.

James Fallows, a former Carter speechwriter, wrote in 1979 that the president suffered from an inability to generate excitement but “would surely outshine most other leaders in the judgment of the Lord”.

Carter outlived the two presidents who followed him, Reagan and George HW Bush.

There will be public observances in Atlanta and Washington DC, followed by a private interment in Plains, Georgia. Carter’s state funeral, including all public events and motorcade routes, is still pending.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Houston

Turnout, Trust, and Ground Game: What Decided Houston’s Runoff Elections

Published

4 days ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Low-turnout runoff races for Houston City Council and Houston Community College trustee seats revealed how message discipline, local credibility, and voter mobilization determined clear winners—and decisive losers.

The final ballots are counted, and Houston’s runoff elections have delivered clear outcomes in two closely watched local races, underscoring a familiar truth of municipal politics: in low-turnout elections, organization and credibility matter more than name recognition alone.

In the race for Houston City Council At-Large Position 4, Alejandra Salinas secured a decisive victory, winning 25,710 votes (59.27%) over former council member Dwight A. Boykins, who garnered 17,669 votes (40.73%). The margin was not accidental. Salinas ran a campaign tightly aligned with voter anxiety over public safety and infrastructure—two issues that consistently dominate Houston’s civic conversations. Her emphasis on keeping violent criminals off city streets and expanding Houston’s water supply spoke directly to quality-of-life concerns that resonate across districts, especially in an at-large contest where candidates must appeal to the city as a whole.

Salinas’ win reflects the advantage of message clarity. In a runoff, voters are not looking to be introduced to candidates—they are choosing between candidates they are already familiar with. Salinas presented herself as forward-looking and solutions-oriented, while Boykins, despite his experience and political history, struggled to reframe his candidacy beyond familiarity. In runoffs, nostalgia rarely outperforms momentum.

The second race—for Houston Community College District II trustee—followed a similar pattern. Renee Jefferson Patterson won with 2,497 votes (56.63%), defeating Kathleen “Kathy” Lynch Gunter, who received 1,912 votes (43.37%). Though the raw numbers were smaller, the dynamics were just as telling.

Patterson’s victory was powered by deep local ties and a clear institutional vision. As an HCC alumna, she effectively positioned herself as both a product and a steward of the system. Her pledge to expand the North Forest Campus and direct resources to Acres Home connected policy goals to place-based advocacy. In trustee races, voters often respond less to ideology and more to proximity—those who understand the campus, the students, and the neighborhood. Patterson checked all three boxes.

By contrast, Gunter’s loss highlights the challenge of overcoming a candidate with genuine community roots in a runoff scenario. Without a sharply differentiated message or a strong geographic base, turnout dynamics tend to favor candidates with existing neighborhood networks and direct institutional relevance.

What ultimately decided both races was not a surprise, but execution. Runoffs reward campaigns that can re-mobilize supporters, simplify their message, and convert familiarity into trust. Salinas and Patterson did exactly that. Their opponents, though credible, were unable to expand or energize their coalitions in a compressed electoral window.

The lesson from Houston’s runoff elections is straightforward but unforgiving: winners win because they align message, identity, and ground game. Losers lose because, in low-turnout contests, anything less than that alignment is insufficient.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Africa

Nigeria–Burkina Faso Rift: Military Power, Mistrust, and a Region Out of Balance

Published

4 days ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

The brief detention of a Nigerian Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and its crew in Burkina Faso may have ended quietly, but it exposed a deeper rift shaped by mistrust, insecurity, and uneven military power in West Africa. What was officially a technical emergency landing quickly became a diplomatic and security flashpoint, reflecting not hostility between equals, but anxiety between unequally matched states navigating very different political realities.

On December 8, 2025, the Nigerian Air Force transport aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Bobo-Dioulasso while en route to Portugal. Nigerian authorities described the stop as a precautionary response to a technical fault—standard procedure under international aviation and military safety protocols. Burkina Faso acknowledged the emergency landing but emphasized that the aircraft had violated its airspace, prompting the temporary detention of 11 Nigerian personnel while investigations and repairs were conducted. Within days, the crew and aircraft were released, underscoring a professional, if tense, resolution.

Yet the symbolism mattered. In a Sahel region gripped by coups, insurgencies, and fragile legitimacy, airspace is not merely technical—it is political. Burkina Faso’s reaction reflected a state on edge, hyper-vigilant about sovereignty amid persistent internal threats. Nigeria’s response, measured and restrained, reflected confidence rooted in capacity.

The military imbalance between the two countries is stark. Nigeria fields one of Africa’s most formidable armed forces, with a tri-service structure that includes a large, well-equipped air force, a dominant regional navy, and a sizable army capable of sustained operations. The Nigerian Air Force operates fighter jets such as the JF-17 and F-7Ni, as well as A-29 Super Tucanos for counterinsurgency operations, heavy transport aircraft like the C-130, and an extensive helicopter fleet. This force is designed not only for internal security but for regional power projection and multinational operations.

Burkina Faso’s military, by contrast, is compact and narrowly focused. Its air arm relies on a limited number of light attack aircraft, including Super Tucanos, and a small helicopter fleet primarily dedicated to internal counterinsurgency. There is no navy, no strategic airlift capacity comparable to Nigeria’s, and limited logistical depth. The Burkinabè military is stretched thin, fighting multiple insurgent groups while also managing the political consequences of repeated military takeovers.

This imbalance shapes behavior. Nigeria’s military posture is institutional, outward-looking, and anchored in regional frameworks such as ECOWAS. Burkina Faso’s posture is defensive, reactive, and inward-facing. Where Nigeria seeks stability through deterrence and cooperation, Burkina Faso seeks survival amid constant internal pressure. That difference explains why a technical landing could be perceived as a “serious security breach” rather than a routine aviation incident.

The incident also illuminates why Burkina Faso continues to struggle to regain political balance. Repeated coups have eroded civilian institutions, fractured command structures, and blurred the line between governance and militarization. The armed forces are not just security actors; they are political stakeholders. This creates a cycle where insecurity justifies military rule, and military rule deepens insecurity by weakening democratic legitimacy and regional trust.

Nigeria, despite its own security challenges, has managed to avoid this spiral. Civilian control of the military remains intact, democratic transitions—however imperfect—continue, and its armed forces operate within a clearer constitutional framework. This stability enhances Nigeria’s regional credibility and amplifies its military superiority beyond hardware alone.

The C-130 episode did not escalate into confrontation precisely because of this asymmetry. Burkina Faso could assert sovereignty, but not sustain defiance. Nigeria could have asserted its capability, but chose restraint. In the end, professionalism prevailed.

Still, the rift lingers. It is not about one aircraft or one landing, but about two countries moving in different strategic directions. Nigeria stands as a regional anchor with superior military power and institutional depth. Burkina Faso remains a state searching for equilibrium—politically fragile, militarily constrained, and acutely sensitive to every perceived threat from the skies above.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

News

Bizarre Epstein files reference to Trump, Putin, and oral sex with ‘Bubba’ draws scrutiny in Congress

Published

1 month ago

on

November 14, 2025

By

The latest tranche of emails from the estate of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein includes one that contains what appear to be references to President Donald Trump allegedly performing oral sex, raising questions the committee cannot answer until the Department of Justice turns over records it has withheld, says U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

Garcia insists the Trump White House is helping block them.

In a Friday afternoon interview with The Advocate, the out California lawmaker responded to a 2018 exchange, which was included in the emails released, between Jeffrey Epstein and his brother, Mark Epstein. In that message, Mark wrote that because Jeffrey Epstein had said he was with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, he should “ask him if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.”

“Bubba” is a nickname former President Bill Clinton has been known by; however, the email does not clarify who Mark Epstein meant, and the context remains unclear.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending