Seahawks vs. Bears predictions and live updates: NFL ‘Thursday Night Football’ score, odds and latestArticle content The Edmonton Coalition on Housing and Homelessness (ECOHH) held a rally Saturday while the snow fell and the temperature dropped, with a goal of spurring action to develop more social housing to help more than 4,000 people experiencing homelessness in the city. “We’re all dressed nice and warm, of course, but the people who we’re here for are not, and they don’t have the luxury of going home afterwards,” said ECOHH chairwoman Nadine Chalifoux at the beginning of the event. A crowd of more than 50 people were bundled up in tarps and blankets at the North Plaza of the Legislature Grounds — experiencing a just fraction of what thousands experiencing homelessness endure throughout the winter. ECOHH’s rally was just one among 15 other cities across Canada to recognize of National Housing Day, aiming to raise awareness and to encourage action from municipal, provincial, and federal governments to invest in social housing for vulnerable Canadians. Attendees of the rally were given postcards addressed to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau created by Social Housing & Human Rights Canada , calling on the federal government to create a “minimum of 50,000 net new rent-geared-to-income social housing units each year for 10 years, starting now.” ECOHH’s rally comes on the heels of a deadly two-weeks for Edmonton which saw four people found dead in bus shelters across the city as the weather has gotten colder and the snow began to fall. The four people were believed to be homeless, which president of transit union ATU Local 569, Steve Bradshaw, believed was weather related. “ They are coming out of their encampments and back onto the system, it’s a seasonal shift,” said Bradshaw to Postmedia. Safety response In response to the changing weather, the City of Edmonton activated its winter safety response plan to support Edmonton’s thousands of people experiencing homelessness. The initiative rolls out a variety of resources, including a free nightly shelter shuttle bus (which the city just added one more of for the winter), wound care pop ups, and warm public spaces, among others. Edmonton’s Hope Mission hit a new milestone since the change in the weather, providing shelter for more than 1,000 people for the first time ever. The organization said the demand for shelter was met with similarly increased demand for hot meals. Tim Pasma, director of programs and homelessness with Hope Mission, thanked the Alberta government for its financial support. “ We are so grateful that the province has helped us to open these additional shelter spaces. They have helped enable us to meet this growing need,” said Pasma in a release. For its part, the Alberta government said it increased funding for shelters in Edmonton to more than $42 million, bringing the total provincial budget for homelessness in 2024-25 to nearly $210 million. But funding for shelters wasn’t enough for the chanters at Saturday’s rally, which made clear by their collective voices echoing off of the surrounding provincial buildings in the quiet, cold, afternoon. “Build houses — not shelters,” the crowd shouted during a call-and-response segment of the rally. “I think this is honestly an appropriate day to be doing this and thinking about us being here together in solidarity with over 4000 people that are also outside today and unhoused or homeless,” said University of Alberta researcher Rylan Kamara to the bundled-up crowd in the plaza. “With those kind of numbers, it just shows how market approaches to this housing crisis, they don’t work, and they haven’t for a long time.” The crowd listened to several speakers and performers, including drumming from members the Enoch Cree Nation, and a performance by Martin Kerr of his song “ God Rest Ye Merry Billionaires ,” which was released last year. Juno award-winning songwriter Maria Dunn also performed a song specifically about the unfolding homelessness crisis, calling on Canadians to put the same effort into helping support the homeless as is put into hockey. “I think about how much our society values and seems to assemble lots of resources and money to celebrate hockey, which is wonderful to celebrate with joy, but why can’t we do that for people who are out on the street?” asked Dunn prior to beginning the song. “No matter what’s happened to you, no matter what you’re going through, you deserve a decent place to live. Without housing first, where does healing begin?” sang Dunn, as the crowd joined in for the final chorus. “Bring them home. Bring them home. Leave it all on the ice. We need everyone bring them home.” With files from Lauren Boothby.
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister) In June 1975, the Prime Minister was honoured by the international community with two important assgnments. The first was by the International Labour Organization (ILO), where she was invited to make the keynote address to the new ILO sessions opening in Geneva. The second was by the United Nations where she was invited to make the keynote address at the First UN International Conference on Women to be held in Mexico City, Mexico. She was also due to address The Group of 77 in Geneva. Manel Abeysekera of the Foreign Ministry and I, accompanied the Prime Minister. We had three major speeches to work on. We already had drafts ready, which were the result of much work and many refinements. But we had decided to finalize them in Geneva after two of our ablest diplomats, Susantha de Alwis and Karen Breckenridge perused them. Gamani Corea was to go through the Group of 77 speech in particular. Geneva We left for Geneva on June 8, 1975 by Swissair. En route we landed at Karachi at 1 a.m. and were met at the airport by the Minister of Education and Planning of the Province of Sindh and Mr. Aga Shahi, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, who had been specially dispatched from Islamabad for the occasion. After an interesting conversation, we re-boarded and took-off. I worked through the Prime Minister’s Group of 77 speech on the plane. We couldn’t land in Geneva due to fog and were diverted to Zurich. That didn’t work either. Zurich was also fog bound. Finally, we landed at Basle. This of course meant hassle and delay. For me, this was a worry because we didn’t have much time to finalize the speeches. Susantha and his charming wife, Achala, put us all up in their official residence. Thanks to them, we were relaxed and comfortable. Breckenridge joined us later to work on the speeches. With so many important speeches, coming up so rapidly, work was hectic. Finally, by the time we finished working on the Group of 77 speech, It was 2.15 in the morning. On June10, at 10 a.m. the Prime Minister addressed the ILO and that afternoon at 3.45 p.m. the Group of 77. To our relief and satisfaction, both addresses were well received. There were several other appointments over the next couple of days, including meetings with the Director General of ILO and senior officials, as well as with various persons knowledgeable on issues of development. We had also to put the finishing touches on the Prime Minister’s address to the conference on Women. Manel and I worked on that. Mexico City We next left for Mexico. The journey took us through Houston where there was a refueling stop. Shirley Amerasinghe, our Permanent Representative at the UN was at the airport when we landed. I took the opportunity to show him the speech and inquired whether he had any views. Shirley thought the speech “excellent.” We were pleased that an experienced internationalist like Shirley had this opinion. At the airport at Mexico City, the Prime Minister and party were met by the Foreign Minister; Minister of the Interior; and the Minister for the Presidency and their wives. We were lodged at the Hotel Camino Real, which was both spacious and comfortable. On June 18 at 10.30 a.m. the Prime Minister called on President Ecchevaria. Talks between the two sides went on till I p.m. and encompassed both bilateral affairs and trade, as well as international affairs. The discussions were friendly and open. There was some delay due to translations. At 1.30 p.m. the President hosted the Prime Minister and delegation to lunch. The Mexican Cabinet; the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court; other local dignitaries and the diplomatic corps were present. After coming back to the hotel I telephoned Jayantha Dhanapala of the Foreign Service, at our Embassy in Washington and read out the text of a long statement, which I had drafted for the Sri Lanka newspapers. Since we didn’t have an embassy in Mexico, communications were a problem. The Prime Minister’s address itself to the conference went off very well and we believe that she received somewhat more than the customary compliments paid to speakers on such occasions. Our stay in Mexico, though brief was a crowded one with lunches, cultural shows and some sightseeing thrown in which included a visit to the excellent national museum. At one of these lunches hosted by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the Shah of Iran, and which included Ms. Imelda Marcos, I was one of the very few males present. The conversation was wide ranging and interesting with an emphasis on art, culture and social issues. Just before we left for home, Mr. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden called on the Prime Minister in her hotel. The youthful looking Mr. Palme had a reputation for being a radical. He had participated in marches and demonstrations in Sweden against the American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the discussions, he displayed a quiet, soft-spoken style. The Mexican Minister of Trade called on the Prime Minister before her departure. At this discussion Mexico agreed to issue licenses for a larger quantity of Sri Lankan cinnamon. At the airport, Valentina Teresckova, the Soviet woman cosmonaut came to meet the Prime Minister. It was a meeting between the first woman in space and the first woman Prime Minister. Katchativu and the settlement of issues with India From, about 1973, the Prime Minister was turning her attention to solving the only two outstanding issues with India, that of the ownership of the Island of Katchativu off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka; and that of the remaining 150,000 settlers of Indian origin in the country, which had not been covered by the Sirima-Shastri Pact. Katchativu was a tiny barren island in a part of the sea between Sri Lanka and India where fishermen of both countries engaged in fishing. At certain times of the year, Indian fishermen used to dry their nets on this rocky island. There was also a Catholic festival held there annually by the Sri Lanka Church, attended mostly by fishermen and their families. Katchativu was therefore being used for different purposes by the fishermen of both countries. Traditionally, however, Sri Lanka always considered the tiny island hers. The difference of views with India lay in the fact that there was no legal resolution of ownership. The issue was most important to a small country like Sri Lanka. India was one of the largest countries in the World. To Sri Lanka, it was considered vital to demarcate her maritime boundary in the North, and for this too the status of Katchativu was important. This was furthermore an area, which due to fishing by people of both countries, it was very necessary to properly demarcate the maritime boundary in order to minimize disputes. The law of the Sea Conference and the proposed 200 mile limit of sea which was to come within the sovereignty of countries was a factor which added to the importance of the resolution of this issue. Official contacts were therefore made with India, and a process of discussions begun. To complicate matters for us, it was discovered that some vitally important papers on the subject were missing from the Foreign Ministry files. One would not however like to speculate on a matter such as this. However, papers available in the National Archives helped. The Prime Minister in her meetings and contacts with Mrs. Gandhi had broached the necessity of resolving the outstanding issues with India. The two Prime Ministers got on well together and had established considerable rapport, a relationship going back the good relations between the Bandaranaike and Nehru families. Mrs. Bandaranaike was therefore keen that the existing favourable political configuration in the two countries should be used without delay to resolve our common problems. The Indian Prime Minister agreed. She had enormous problems on her hands including political turmoil, separatist tendencies and guerilla action in several parts of the country. The problems with Sri Lanka were not intractable ones, and she herself obviously thought that the time had come to get them out of the way and have some degree of stability and peace on her Southern border. A friendly Sri Lanka was in India’s interest. The virulent anti-Indian rhetoric by the JVP during 1969-71 which included the holding of clandestine classes for its cadres where an important lesson was on “Indian domination”, was a recent demonstration of the potential to inspire fear and hatred. This was another factor taken into account by Mrs. Bandaranaike in developing a policy on the quick resolution of problems with India. The two sides therefore, engaged in a process of discussions. These discussions were ongoing in a quiet manner when in mid-1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert. A cacophony of condemnation arose all over the world. The shrill condemnation that followed could not be dignified with the word “chorus.” India was depicted in the world’s press, and particularly in the Western press as some kind of sanctimonious humbug which preached non-violence, Ahimsa and arms control on the one hand, but practiced something else on the other. It was at the height of this situation that one day I dropped in at Temple Trees in the morning to get some urgent letters signed by the Prime Minister. When I reached there, I found the Prime Minister seated at the large dining table attending to work with W T Jayasinghe. I was about to take a seat in the verandah, when she saw me and invited me in. I found that WT was also finishing his work. He asked me whether I could give him a lift back to the Ministry, since he had sent his car somewhere else. I said that it wouldn’t be a problem. Both of us finished soon thereafter and WT loaded a large number of files into my car. We set off soon thereafter for the five-minute run to Republic Square. During the trip, WT told me that the Prime minister was sending a tiff note about the testing of the nuclear device and that she had signed the letter. I was quite appalled. I told WT, that I did not know the content and tone of the letter, since I had not seen it, but that I hoped that the close relationship between the two Prime Ministers and the on-going discussions on Katchativu and other matters had been taken into account in drafting the letter. I ended by saying that I hoped that our overall national interest had been properly assessed in sending this communication at this time. W T became somewhat agitated by what I said. He had the objectivity to say, “No I don’t think we had thought about matters to that extent.” I shrugged. He then pulled out the file and showed me the letter. I took one look and said that we might as well abandon our on-going discussions with India. The letter was a typical foreign Ministry sectoral, one-dimensional draft, which had only a thought of the issues of non-proliferation and non-alignment. It was clear that no thought had been given to the course of bilateral relations, strategic considerations, or an assessment of Sri Lanka’s overall national interest. WT by now was considerably alarmed. We had now reached the end of our short journey. He said, he wanted to come to my room to discuss matters further. Indeed, by now, he was convinced that the letter was a mistake. He wanted me to do an alternate draft. I said that I would do so only if he would place both drafts before the Prime Minister, not telling her who drafted the alternative, until she had decided which one to send. This was too important a matter for any bias to creep in. I thereupon changed the whole tenor of the letter from one of protestations and criticism to what I thought was a more balanced approach. India was congratulated on her achievements in Science and Technology and our satisfaction at this record mentioned. But the Prime Minister urged caution on going the nuclear route and she said that she was encouraged by the Indian Prime Minister’s statement that India would not develop a nuclear arsenal. (The various reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons later would be a matter for study, debate and even controversy. But this was 1974, and we had to react at that time.) Suitable reference was also made to the issue of the Non-Aligned stance on nuclear proliferation. The whole tenor or the letter was an expression or admiration and recognition of India’s achievements in science and technology, but at the same time a friendly expression of concern about the prospect of nuclear proliferation. WT’ thought that my draft was much better. I soon forgot about it amidst other work. A few days later WT walked into my room. He had done what I had suggested and the two drafts had been placed before the Prime Minister. She had immediately reacted, and had angrily asked, who had done the first draft. She had stated that the second draft was the one that really reflected her views, and that she was misled into signing the first. It was only at this point that WT had mentioned who the author of the second draft was. This whole episode brings up some interesting points. In the first instance, it was by sheer accident that there was ever a second draft. The earlier letter would have been disastrous. This surmise indeed was subsequently proved by the Indian Prime Minister’s warm and lengthy response to the Prime Minister’s letter. This was a time, when Mrs. Gandhi was having serious internal problems in India too. The reply was an outpouring from the heart of a beleaguered leader to one whom she could trust. Amongst many candid and personal matters contained in the reply, there was gratitude expressed for Mrs. Bandaranaike’s understanding and vision. The relationship could have ended up being quite different.Donald Trump Ordered To Sit For Deposition Next Week In His Defamation Lawsuit Against ABCSteelers CB Joey Porter Jr.'s 'serial killer mentality' is serving him well amid bumpy patch
Vikings right guard Dalton Risner says he’ll continue to get better at new position'This wasn't my year' - Christian McCaffrey makes 2025 promise after 49ers star's latest injury
Hydrogen Car Market SWOT Analysis by Big Giants: Toyota, Hyundai, HondaWith Boston College trailing defending champion Miami, Flutie threw the Hail Mary and found receiver Gerard Phalen, who made the grab while falling into the end zone behind a pair of defenders for a game-winning 48-yard TD. Flutie and many of his 1984 teammates were honored on the field during BC’s 41-21 victory over North Carolina before the second quarter on Saturday afternoon, the anniversary of the Eagles’ Miracle in Miami. “There’s no way its been 40 years,” Flutie told The Associated Press on the sideline a few minutes before he walked out with some of his former teammates to be recognized after a video of The Play was shown on the scoreboards. It’s a moment and highlight that’s not only played throughout decades of BC students and fans, but around the college football world. “What is really so humbling is that the kids 40 years later are wearing 22 jerseys, still,” Flutie said of his old number. “That amazes me.” That game was played on national TV the Friday after Thanksgiving. The ironic thing is it was originally scheduled for earlier in the season before CBS paid Rutgers to move its game against Miami, thus setting up the BC-Miami post-holiday matchup. “It shows you how random some things are, that the game was moved,” Flutie said. “The game got moved to the Friday after Thanksgiving, which was the most watched game of the year. We both end up being nationally ranked and up there. All those things lent to how big the game itself was, and made the pass and the catch that much more relevant and remembered because so many people were watching.” There’s a statue of Flutie winding up to make The Pass outside the north gates at Alumni Stadium. Fans and visitors can often be seen taking photos there. “In casual conversation, it comes up every day,” Flutie said, when asked how many times people bring it up. “It brings a smile to my face every time we talk about it.” A week after the game-ending Flutie pass, the Eagles beat Holy Cross and before he flew off to New York to accept the Heisman. They went on to win the 49th Cotton Bowl on New Year’s Day. “Forty years seem almost like incomprehensible,” said Phalen, also standing on the sideline a few minutes after the game started. “I always say to Doug: ‘Thank God for social media. It’s kept it alive for us.”’ Earlier this week, current BC coach Bill O’Brien, 55, was asked if he remembered where he was 40 years ago. “We were eating Thanksgiving leftovers in my family room,” he said. “My mom was saying a Rosary in the kitchen because she didn’t like Miami and wanted BC to win. My dad, my brother and I were watching the game. “It was unbelievable,” he said. “Everybody remembers where they were for the Hail Mary, Flutie pass.”
'His honesty will always be an inspiration for us': Priyanka, Rahul condole demise of former PM Manmohan SinghNone
By KENYA HUNTER, Associated Press ATLANTA (AP) — As she checked into a recent flight to Mexico for vacation, Teja Smith chuckled at the idea of joining another Women’s March on Washington . As a Black woman, she just couldn’t see herself helping to replicate the largest act of resistance against then-President Donald Trump’s first term in January 2017. Even in an election this year where Trump questioned his opponent’s race , held rallies featuring racist insults and falsely claimed Black migrants in Ohio were eating residents’ pets , he didn’t just win a second term. He became the first Republican in two decades to clinch the popular vote, although by a small margin. “It’s like the people have spoken and this is what America looks like,” said Smith, the Los Angeles-based founder of the advocacy social media agency, Get Social. “And there’s not too much more fighting that you’re going to be able to do without losing your own sanity.” After Trump was declared the winner over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris , many politically engaged Black women said they were so dismayed by the outcome that they were reassessing — but not completely abandoning — their enthusiasm for electoral politics and movement organizing. Black women often carry much of the work of getting out the vote in their communities. They had vigorously supported the historic candidacy of Harris, who would have been the first woman of Black and South Asian descent to win the presidency. Harris’ loss spurred a wave of Black women across social media resolving to prioritize themselves, before giving so much to a country that over and over has shown its indifference to their concerns. AP VoteCast , a survey of more than 120,000 voters, found that 6 in 10 Black women said the future of democracy in the United States was the single most important factor for their vote this year, a higher share than for other demographic groups. But now, with Trump set to return to office in two months, some Black women are renewing calls to emphasize rest, focus on mental health and become more selective about what fight they lend their organizing power to. “America is going to have to save herself,” said LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of the national voting rights group Black Voters Matter. She compared Black women’s presence in social justice movements as “core strategists and core organizers” to the North Star, known as the most consistent and dependable star in the galaxy because of its seemingly fixed position in the sky. People can rely on Black women to lead change, Brown said, but the next four years will look different. “That’s not a herculean task that’s for us. We don’t want that title. ... I have no goals to be a martyr for a nation that cares nothing about me,” she said. AP VoteCast paints a clear picture of Black women’s concerns. Black female voters were most likely to say that democracy was the single most important factor for their vote, compared to other motivators such as high prices or abortion. More than 7 in 10 Black female voters said they were “very concerned” that electing Trump would lead the nation toward authoritarianism, while only about 2 in 10 said this about Harris. About 9 in 10 Black female voters supported Harris in 2024, according to AP VoteCast, similar to the share that backed Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Trump received support from more than half of white voters, who made up the vast majority of his coalition in both years. Like voters overall, Black women were most likely to say the economy and jobs were the most important issues facing the country, with about one-third saying that. But they were more likely than many other groups to say that abortion and racism were the top issues, and much less likely than other groups to say immigration was the top issue. Despite those concerns, which were well-voiced by Black women throughout the campaign, increased support from young men of color and white women helped expand Trump’s lead and secured his victory. Politically engaged Black women said they don’t plan to continue positioning themselves in the vertebrae of the “backbone” of America’s democracy. The growing movement prompting Black women to withdraw is a shift from history, where they are often present and at the forefront of political and social change. One of the earliest examples is the women’s suffrage movement that led to ratification in 1920 of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution , which gave women the right to vote. Black women, however, were prevented from voting for decades afterward because of Jim Crow-era literacy tests, poll taxes and laws that blocked the grandchildren of slaves from voting. Most Black women couldn’t vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Black women were among the organizers and counted among the marchers brutalized on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama, during the historic march in 1965 from Selma to Montgomery that preceded federal legislation. Decades later, Black women were prominent organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police and vigilantes. In his 2024 campaign, Trump called for leveraging federal money to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs in government programs and discussions of race, gender or sexual orientation in schools. His rhetoric on immigration, including false claims that Black Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs, drove support for his plan to deport millions of people . Tenita Taylor, a Black resident of Atlanta who supported Trump this year, said she was initially excited about Harris’ candidacy. But after thinking about how high her grocery bills have been, she feels that voting for Trump in hopes of finally getting lower prices was a form of self-prioritization. “People say, ‘Well, that’s selfish, it was gonna be better for the greater good,”’ she said. “I’m a mother of five kids. ... The things that (Democrats) do either affect the rich or the poor.” Some of Trump’s plans affect people in Olivia Gordon’s immediate community, which is why she struggled to get behind the “Black women rest” wave. Gordon, a New York-based lawyer who supported the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s presidential nominee, Claudia de la Cruz, worries about who may be left behind if the 92% of Black women voters who backed Harris simply stopped advocating. “We’re talking millions of Black women here. If millions of Black women take a step back, it absolutely leaves holes, but for other Black women,” she said. “I think we sometimes are in the bubble of if it’s not in your immediate circle, maybe it doesn’t apply to you. And I truly implore people to understand that it does.” Nicole Lewis, an Alabama-based therapist who specializes in treating Black women’s stress, said she’s aware that Black women withdrawing from social impact movements could have a fallout. But she also hopes that it forces a reckoning for the nation to understand the consequences of not standing in solidarity with Black women. “It could impact things negatively because there isn’t that voice from the most empathetic group,” she said. “I also think it’s going to give other groups an opportunity to step up. ... My hope is that they do show up for themselves and everyone else.” Brown said a reckoning might be exactly what the country needs, but it’s a reckoning for everyone else. Black women, she said, did their job when they supported Harris in droves in hopes they could thwart the massive changes expected under Trump. “This ain’t our reckoning,” she said. “I don’t feel no guilt.” AP polling editor Amelia Thomson DeVeaux and Associated Press writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.A since-deleted TikTok purportedly depicts a person using an illegal flamethrower to burn the words “TRUMP” and “USA” onto a street in Glen Burnie, according to a screen recording obtained by the Capital Gazette. Before it was taken down, the TikTok post was used by Anne Arundel County Fire investigators to file one felony and two misdemeanors against . Authorities say McQuin, 35, set the road outside his home ablaze less than two weeks after Donald Trump won the presidency for a second, nonconsecutive term. Attorney Richard Altmark, who identified himself in an email as representing McQuin, declined to comment Wednesday. Messages sent to social media accounts for McQuin’s wife, who investigators say first published the TikTok, were not returned. The 30-second video, first published Nov. 15, shows a person walk up to a black-outlined set of letters on a street. A line of small flames ignites a blue ring of fire that expands across the road. The flamethrower soon pushes a streak into the air before the person directs it to the ground. Doing so, the word “TRUMP” appears across Hickory Hollow Drive in an orange glow. One photograph then shows the same person posing with their work before transitioning to another with the enflamed “USA.” The TikTok ends with a clip of the person setting off a firework. During the entire video, a song celebrating Trump and denouncing President Joe Biden plays in the background, while “God Bless America!” sits onscreen in red font. Investigators responded to the Creekside Village community Nov. 15 following a vandalism complaint, according to charging documents. The burn marks, they said, had stretched between 15 and 20 feet in length and approximately 5 feet in width, costing $5,500 to repair. After speaking with someone in the neighborhood’s homeowners association, investigators were told a video of the incident had been posted online by McQuin’s wife, according to charging documents. Most of the TikTok page is dedicated to two pigs she cares for, though one post makes reference to a construction site outside the White House and says, “Hang them all!” As of Monday, the flamethrower video could no longer be viewed on the wife’s TikTok account. A representative from the Creekside Village Homeowners Association declined to comment or provide the name of its president Wednesday. The association’s website does not list its board members. The flamethrower McQuin allegedly used can be purchased in every state except Maryland, according to its manufacturer, Exothermic Technologies. Though the Florida-based company describes the device allegedly used in Glen Burnie as a “long range torch,” capable of launching fire up to 25 feet, it said flamethrowers are “outright prohibited” in Maryland. State law categorizes flamethrowers as “ ,” similar to a grenade, Molotov cocktail or missile. The felony McQuin faces for possessing a destructive device carries with it a 25-year maximum sentence and/or a fine upwards of $250,000. Though a summons has been issued for McQuin to appear before a judge, a date was not specified in the court record.NoneUnique among ‘Person of the Year’ designees, Donald Trump gets a fact-check from Time magazine