Archive | February 5, 2017

U.S. Voter Fraud Investigation Order Quietly Trashed*

U.S. Voter Fraud Investigation Order Quietly Trashed*

Reports said U.S. President Donald Trump’s heated rush to launch what he said would be a “major investigation” into voter fraud has cooled, leaving White House staff uncertain when it will come to pass or what shape it will take.

An executive action commissioning the probe is still planned but could be several weeks away, two senior administration officials said, the Daily Star reported.

Although Trump instructed staff to jump on the project last week, he has not discussed the issue in recent days, according to two other people in close touch with the president. All demanded anonymity to discuss private conservations.

Asked about the status of the effort, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said: “I do not have an update at this time.”

The indefinite delay comes as some of Trump’s advisers counseled him to abandon the idea, arguing it was a distraction from more pressing issues. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in last November’s election. Trump won the Electoral College vote but lost the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The episode is a striking example of the new president’s mercurial streak and his willingness to impulsively seize on ideas with little planning and sometimes later reverse course when encountering obstacles or criticism.

A senior official said the investigation, which Trump never publicly discussed in detail, has become less of a priority because it has been drowned out by other White House efforts, including attempts to manage the chaotic aftermath of Trump’s executive order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations. The investigation likely would not considered until well after the confirmation of Trump’s pick for attorney general, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the official said.

That would be a marked change from the breakneck pace by which the order was first introduced.

In his earliest days in office, Trump appeared to be fixated on the election results and frustrated by political opponents who questioned the legitimacy of his victory.

At his first meeting with bipartisan lawmakers, he declared believed that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally in November, a widely debunked assertion that sent the White House scrambling to craft an order that met the president’s wishes.

Two days later, Trump announced in a pair of tweets that a “major investigation” will look at those registered to vote in more than one state, “those who are illegal and … even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time).” Depending on results, the Republican tweeted on his sixth day in office, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!”

Several congressional Republicans decried the claim as a distraction, other executive orders were rescheduled and an administration set to roll out an ambitious first-week agenda found itself suddenly sidetracked.

White House staffers told reporters on the afternoon of Jan. 26 to get ready, that it was nearly time to be escorted into the Oval Office to witness Trump sign the order. But the photo-op was abruptly postponed. And now, though more than a week has passed, it has yet to be rescheduled with no timetable announced for its return.

The White House also abruptly canceled an executive action on cybersecurity this week, after briefing reporters on its text and putting the signing ceremony on the president’s public schedule. That action has not yet been signed.

Trump’s call for a probe alarmed Democrats who already believe that efforts to tighten voter ID laws are a means to restrict access to the ballot box. And soon members of Trump’s own party suggested it was misguided.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, broke with Trump, saying he sees no evidence of voter fraud in the 2016 election and says his committee won’t investigate it. He said Trump is free to order the Justice Department to investigate the issue, but that he was not interested in launching a congressional inquiry.

Trump’s own attorneys dismissed claims of voter fraud in a legal filing late last year responding to Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s demand for a recount in Michigan, a state Trump won. Referring to that outcome, the attorneys wrote: “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.”

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said last week that a task force could be commissioned to focus on dead people who remained on voter rolls and people registered in two or more states. And he said it could center on “bigger” states where Trump didn’t compete during the campaign, singling out California and New York, two Democratic strongholds.

No details have been released about the possible probe, including who would oversee it. One possibility would be Sessions, who has shown sympathy toward claims of voting fraud. He will likely face a Senate confirmation vote next week. The president himself can’t order a criminal investigation.


Related Topics:

Obama not Trump Ordered the Voter Fraud Investigation*

Trump Allies Move to Stop U.S. Election Recount*

They Bus People Around to Vote*

The Dead have a Right to Vote when in Colorado Needed*

Serious Clinton Voter Fraud Discovered in Michigan*

Massive Voter Fraud Underway in Texas Calls in Attorney General*

Election Fraud Report Recommends Primary Results for Hillary Invalid*



E.U. to Take Control of British Nuclear Deterrent*

E.U. to Take Control of British Nuclear Deterrent*

By David Ellis

A briefing by Strategic Defence Initiatives on the E.U.’s subversion of the British military.

Everything must now be put on the table — from higher [E.U.] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent. – Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle on 20 January 2017

Comment: The last time I looked the continent is Asia…..

This short briefing sheet (available as a downloadable pdf) has been produced to highlight some of the key areas and perceived risks of the integration of the U.K. into a single integrated E.U. defence structure. The content has been compiled by those with military experience, including submarine operations — this experience is considered important in relation to comments made not only in relation to the Royal Navy, but particularly the nuclear deterrent.

In focusing in greater detail on some significant Royal Navy issues regarding size of the fleet, specific units and the nuclear deterrent, the joint risks of E.U. integration to both the Army and Royal Air Force are by no means belittled. On the contrary, there is much more to be said on behalf of these two services than can be covered in this summary paper.


The recent British referendum has made no difference to the speed and tenacity with which the Conservative Government under Prime Minister Theresa May and Secretary of State for Defence Sir Michael Fallon (a strong E.U. advocate and former E.U. Movement supporter) are continuing the path to E.U. military union. There has been no change in the advancing integration of U.K. military forces into the E.U. structure — the subject is simply not discussed in political, public and media forums, which is testimony to the usual E.U. policy of implementation by stealth where possible.

Perhaps most dangerous here is the rapid integration of the E.U. commercial military procurement and supply chain, operating under an E.U. treasury already being declared and implemented. Once locked together under E.U. procurement rules, and with ‘joint interoperability’ doctrine driving pan-E.U. military needs, Britain will be further stripped of its ability to design, build and supply our own weapons systems and munitions. This will further strengthen the E.U. political tactic of creating ‘interdependence’ between E.U. member states as a tool for removing sovereign identity and the ability to act as an independent nation state.

Understanding E.U. Military Integration Policy

The E.U. has consistently and publicly stated that the goal of the E.U. is to form a single integrated supranational state, with law, internal security, defence and foreign policy controlled from Brussels. The E.U. Organisation for External Action (Foreign Policy vehicle of the E.U.) recently quoted Frederica Mogherini’s policy as follows:

Security is a priority for the E.U. … We have hard and soft power. We have done more on defence in the last seven months than in decades. Building on the ideas in her Global Strategy for EU Foreign and Security Policy, Mogherini has illustrated the European Union’s three-pronged set of measures to strengthen the EU’s security and defence capability … In a reshaping world the only way for the Europeans to be global players is through the E.U.

The implication is clear — E.U. security and defence capability is to be strengthened as a centralised Brussels-led objective. This is not simply an invitation for member states to contribute more to E.U. security and defence at will. Many further official E.U. policy quotes emphasise the integrated E.U. defence objective.

Forming an E.U. military required a number of significant hurdles to be overcome. These included:

  1. integration of E.U. member states’ armed forces with a wide spread of operational performance, equipment types and levels, experience and historic theatres of operation.
  2. imbalance between Britain as a top-tier NATO partner and many other E.U. nation states.
  3. significant strategic imbalance between the maritime strength of the Royal Navy and that of other E.U. navies, whilst acknowledging the size and capability of French maritime forces.
  4. the strong U.S.-U.K. ‘special relationship’, at both military and military intelligence levels, which produces a tiered military structure favouring the U.S. and U.K. over E.U. member states other than the U.K.
  5. negating the perceived threat to NATO strength and operations by the creation of an integrated E.U. military.
  6. achieving a unified defence procurement and build environment across the E.U. member states, particularly one which could replace and equal the power and impact of U.S.-procured weapons and equipment entering the E.U. supply chain, especially via the U.K. on the back of its special U.S. relationship.
  7. integrating the U.K. and French strategic nuclear deterrents to bring them under centralised E.U. political control.
  8. common agreement on defence levels, budgetary contribution and policy amongst E.U. member states — this includes a single E.U. treasury.
  9. establishment of an E.U. command, control and communications structure.

E.U. policy has always been to secure its political objects step by step, salami slicing, using the so- called ‘ratchet mechanism’ and the doctrine of never relinquishing any aspect of the acquis communautaire to ensure that member states cannot easily retract from progress made towards a political goal. This can also be described as a soft power approach, where the change and political agenda is drifted in under distracting labels and language.

In considering the drive to E.U. military union, we must recognise that alongside the call for military union arising externally to the U.K., i.e. by the E.U. itself, this key E.U. political has been driven in parallel from within the U.K. by our own pro-E.U. governments, be they Labour, Conservative or Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition. (N.B.: An important comment is made on Brexit at the end of this briefing.)

Since the U.K.’s internal pro-E.U. military agenda has been largely driven by stealth, or at least by obfuscation of the real political agenda — a smoke-screen of half-truths, spin and outright denial of the ultimate Westminster goal of a fully integrated E.U. military — we must look to the broader evidence for this political goal.

A simple Internet search on the subject of an E.U. army reveals entry after entry for mainstream media articles reporting the plan for this key step towards an E.U. military. These include: Juncker calls for E.U. army, Juncker proposes E.U. military HQ, European Parliament backs plans to create a defence union, Europe forges ahead with plans for an E.U. army — the overall press and media coverage is too numerous to list, and has spanned many years. The plan for an E.U. army has thus been ‘hidden in plain sight’ whilst largely publicly denied by the U.K. government. See particularly the European Commission’s European Defence Action Plan of 30 November 2016, COM(2016) 950 final.

Behind the scenes, the Westminster political strategy towards the E.U. military has proceeded apace with a number of key defence-related policies which now, seen together, and with the advantage of hindsight, give a strong pointer to the undeclared pro-E.U. military line.

E.U.-driven policy for the formation of an Integrated E.U. military

At this point, we return to the potential obstacles to E.U. military union, and add the measures taken by the E.U. and its agents in Westminster to overcome the difficulties:

  1. integration of E.U. member states’ armed forces with a wide spread of operational performance, equipment types and levels, experience and historic theatres of operation.

Action taken: Drive a programme of E.U. exercises and operational co-operation. This objective has accelerated in recent years with, for example, Operation ATALANTA (the joint E.U. maritime anti- piracy force — significantly commanded by the Commandant General Royal Marines), large-scale British and French Army exercises on Salisbury Plain together with the signing of an MOU for those operations and future Franco-British operations, and large scale joint paratroop training. French C3 forces have been integrated into a new joint French military operations centre at the former St Mawgan military airfield in Cornwall. Lately, the E.U. has been particularly active in driving for E.U. forces to operate in Eastern Europe, leading to increasing public confusion as to whether these were NATO or E.U. military exercises.

In recent months, the E.U. has also achieved integration of German and Dutch army units, and several E.U. member states have swapped command posts, a policy which has allowed a senior French officer to command British troops.

  1. imbalance between Britain as a top-tier NATO partner and many other EU nation states.

Action taken: Repeated and substantial cuts to British army capability in men and equipment has now reduced the army to some 82,000 men, and equipment levels which have been openly described as insufficient to fight a major military campaign in Europe, and a complete inability to operate on more than one front. The power and influence of the German army has thus been increased to help restore its position as the traditional European military power, and this effect is being enhanced by integration of Dutch and French units under German command and control.

  1. significant strategic imbalance between the maritime strength of the Royal Navy and that of other E.U. navies, whilst acknowledging the size and capability French maritime forces.

Action taken: Repeated cuts to the size of the Royal Navy by scrapping frigates, destroyers, submarines and serviceable aircraft carriers and operational Maritime Patrol Aircraft so as to bring the RN to greater parity with the French, and particularly to weaken traditional RN operations of scale with the US. Cuts have been exacerbated by delays and increasing chaos in new class orders. It should be noted that such was the rush to destroy the Nimrod MPA fleet that Britain’s nuclear deterrent has been exposed to a level described by many senior military officers as dangerous.

At the same time, evidence of unprecedented Anglo-French maritime co-operation has been revealed by the collision between the French nuclear deterrent submarine Le Triomphant and HMS Vanguard — a collision never explained to the British public, but which placed the U.K. deterrent at grave risk and which can only have occurred due to the deliberate tasking of both units in close geographic proximity. The clear inference is a further layer of undeclared joint Franco-British military co-operation. It is highly significant that the new U.K. aircraft carriers have been jointly designed with the French, and such has been the damage to continuity in British aircraft carrier operations that there are now grave concerns as to the retraining and work-up time required for flight deck and aviation specialists to be reinstated with historic levels of skills and experience. Royal Navy personnel have had to be sent to the French carrier to be trained, and it should be noted that in 2008 Westminster dropped plans for the Queen Elizabeth class to be joint British-French manned. Significantly, a recent article by the Daily Mail on the new carriers ended with the statement:

“As a result the U.S. are expected to make use of the carrier with their aircraft — as may other [E.U.] countries such as Italy who eventually buy the jets.”

  1. the strong U.S.-U.K. ‘special relationship’, at both military and military intelligence levels, which produces a tiered military structure favouring the U.S. and U.K. over E.U. member states other than the U.K.

Action taken: U.S.-U.K. military relations have been successfully undermined by the substantial cuts in U.K. military force levels (driven by pro-E.U.. political policy in the U.K.) which have significantly reduced the ability of the U.K. to support the U.S. in large-scale military operations, as was the case in the Gulf. British anti-submarine capability, highly valued and praised by the U.S., has also been greatly weakened by U.K. defence cuts, particularly in submarines, frigates, the decommissioning of our three anti-submarine-focused aircraft carriers and the loss of the Nimrod fleet. Increasing U.K. involvement with integrated E.U. military operations, including the installation of a London-based E.U. military HQ and command-and-control centre at Northwood, sends confusing messages to the U.S. regarding Britain’s commitment to the U.S. and NATO, and has raised questions as to the security of U.S.-U.K. operations and the protection of high-level intelligence.

  1. negating the perceived threat to NATO strength and operations by the creation of an integrated E.U. military.

Action taken: This concern has been addressed in the first instance by the EU simply and repeatedly denying the formation even of an ‘E.U. army’ — which term is itself a crafted understatement of the goal of full E.U. military integration. This E.U. political lie has then been reinforced by the E.U.’s continual failure to recognise, or more accurately to admit, that an E.U. military must of necessity undermine NATO. To add insult to injury, the E.U. has simply turned a blind eye to the fact that any E.U. military must inevitably be substantially weaker than a U.S.-led NATO. Overall, the E.U. has failed to carry the E.U.-versus-NATO argument which has been re-ignited following the election of President Trump.

  1. achieving a unified defence procurement and build environment across the E.U. member states, particularly one which could replace and equal the power and impact of U.S.-procured weapons and equipment entering the E.U. supply chain, especially via the U.K. on the back of its special U.S. relationship.

Action taken: The E.U. strategy here has been simple and visible. Pan-European projects were created to introduce both the public and military to the idea of joint European development and production. The development of Concorde was an early lead here, and was followed by both other civilian and military aviation projects such as Tornado and Airbus. We might also consider the scrapping of the U.K.’s Sea Eagle missile for the French Exocet — the very missile which was used to sink British ships in the Falklands. The joint U.K.-French design and build of the Queen Elizabeth- class carriers has now taken the building of major warships out of British national control, has shared our shipbuilding and military specifications with the French, and has helped undermine the maintenance of U.K.-based shipbuilding and the associated expertise.

  1. integrating the U.K. and French strategic nuclear deterrents to bring them under centralised E.U. political control.

Action taken: Operating under the E.U.’s established political salami slicing and smokescreen strategy, the clue to the path towards centralised E.U. control of the strategic nuclear deterrent comes from an inspection of the 2010 Lancaster House Treaties signed by Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy after no tangible Westminster debate and no full and open consultation with the higher levels of the U.K. military. Published objectives included:

  • Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty: The purpose of this is to develop co-operation between British and French Armed Forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment including through mutual interdependence [emphasis not original], the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation.
  • Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship: Collaboration on the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of both countries’ independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, including a new joint facility at Valduc in France that will model performance of nuclear warheads and materials to ensure long-term viability, security and safety – this will be supported by a joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the U.K.
  • Operational Matters: It was also decided to sign a Letter of Intent, creating a new framework for exchanges between U.K. and French Armed Forces on operational matters.
  • Industry and Armaments: It was decided to direct the U.K.-France High Level Working Group to strengthen its work on industrial and armament cooperation.

The key statement is Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship. Why in 2010 did the U.K. suddenly need to collaborate with the French in order to be able to develop and operate the technology associated with (in practice, this revolves around the fissile material expertise in) ‘nuclear stockpile stewardship?’ Had the U.K. become incompetent or inept in this field after years of independent operation of a maritime nuclear deterrent? The answer to this statement can only be no, especially when we consider that the focus of British ability in this strategic area had largely swung to U.K.-U.S. shared expertise, in view of the U.S. origin of Trident and its predecessor Polaris.

Why, in 2010, did the U.K. need not only to share highly sensitive nuclear deterrent secrets with the French, but additionally need to build new joint nuclear weapon warhead facilities? Never openly discussed by Westminster, these highly questionable Franco-British plans were simply announced as happening, with no public or political debate as to the need, the security implications or the risks to the independence of the British nuclear weapon stockpile.

Hindsight now affords us the opportunity to join the pieces of the jigsaw, as seen against the other E.U. political moves for E.U. military integration. The step of ‘Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship’ was but a first step towards the integration of the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent into E.U. control, via the stepping- stone of Anglo-French co-operation — a cover for E.U.-driven policy. Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle revealed something of this on 20 January 2017:

‘Everything must now be put on the table — from higher [E.U.] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent.’

As mentioned earlier, the collision between the French nuclear submarine Le Triomphant and HMS Vanguard is a critical event in analysing Westminster’s undeclared French-U.K. nuclear deterrent integration policy. Submarine safety demands that all submarines co-operating in real and exercise conditions are separated by both depth and or geographical area. Collision is a critical danger to all submarines but carries additional risks in the case of nuclear submarines in respect of nuclear hazards, and exceptional and obvious risks for ballistic missile submarines. Since ballistic missile submarines ‘hide’ in the expanse of the oceans, for HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant to collide they must have been jointly tasked in immediately adjacent operating areas.

This is highly unusual for nuclear deterrent operations, and the fact that the boats collided strongly suggests that they were placed in very close or even dangerous proximity for unknown joint operations. No proper public reports were ever made of the reason for the joint Franco-British operation or the reasons for the collision. That the collision happened indicates both professional incompetence in the structuring and execution of the joint French-U.K. mission and the severe and proven risks to the operational nuclear deterrent which such a policy represents. It can be no coincidence that just as the U.K. signs up to joint nuclear weapons stewardship with the French, a botched joint nuclear deterrent operation is exposed. The key question remains — at what level was the move to integrate the U.K.’s nuclear and weapons, and it seems also the operational nuclear deterrent, discussed with senior military officers and indeed in Parliament?

  1. common agreement on defence levels, budgetary contribution and policy amongst E.U. member states — this includes an E.U. treasury.

Action taken: These matters have been rising in visibility and intensity over recent months. Alongside calls for greater NATO spending, the E.U. has also called for greater defence contributions by member states. These E.U. monetary calls have also been reinforced by the initial, and significantly now public, calls for the creation of an E.U. treasury. The establishment of an E.U. treasury with E.U. military integration and pan-E.U. military procurement, together with an E.U.-generated foreign and security policy, creates the E.U. superstate, one with total power and control over its individual member states. It is inconceivable that the political mind working from Brussels (and by means of the pro-E.U. politicians in Westminster) to create a full E.U. superstate could allow nuclear weapons, and a strategic nuclear deterrent, to remain in the hands of an independent sovereign state.

  1. establishment of an E.U. command, control and communication structure.

Action taken: Little needs to be said on this subject, as the E.U. has already set up its military command-and-control structure in the U.K. with its HQ at Northwood, supported by St Mawgan and other cells. This fact is evidenced by the testimony of those officers that were originally tasked to set up this E.U. C3 structure. It can be activated within 24 hours. Other E.U. C3 structures (OHQs) exist in Paris, Potsdam and Larissa (Greece), with the C3 in Germany possibly stood up in December 2016.

The Franco-British Council

Further significant clues to the clandestine nature by which Franco-British, nay E.U., military integration has been progressed, come from the activities of the Franco-British Council. Working with the Royal United Services Institute, another unaccountable ‘change agent’, the FBC has held three high-level invitation-only summits to map out the integration of British and French forces. No minutes were produced, and senior members of all three Armed Forces conspired at these meetings behind closed doors, and in civilian dress, to help frame this highly political E.U. military integration agenda.

The 9 March 2010 FBC meeting was clearly timed to pre-empt and direct the Strategic Defence Review, as well as other British domestic policy. As the FBC itself stated:

The purpose of this meeting was twofold, firstly, to extend the FBC British French Defence Initiative of October 2009 … particularly on the basis of [specific] industrial considerations linked to competitive military capabilities … and secondly, ahead of a decisive period in British politics ahead of the General Election in May 2010, and the Strategic Defence Review in the fourth quarter of the same year … it seemed important to resume discussions before the formation of a new government and a reassessment of British strategic priorities.

Hosted by British Ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott at his Paris residence, a more recent meeting on 6 October 2010 continued the theme in the format of a RUSI-organised Franco-British Defence Cooperation Roundtable held behind closed doors, co-chaired by Rt Hon Baroness Taylor, former UK Minister for Defence Equipment; Senator Xavier Pintat of the Defence Committee of the French Senate; and Dr Jonathan Eyal, director of International Security Studies at RUSI. Speakers included Gisela Stuart MP, Contre Amiral Pascal Ausser, Edward Leigh MP, Amiral Alain Coldefy, French MP Françoise Hostalier, Kevin Taylor of BAE Systems, and Vice Admiral Paul Lambert RN.

Just what was Admiral Paul Lambert of the Royal Navy doing in a political meeting, à huis clos, in France, sitting alongside commercial interests, with no minutes taken?

Looking elsewhere, we find that other evidence of collaboration has broken surface. Navy News casually reported that the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, had “fought hard for his service, as details of the [recent] Strategic Defence Review were thrashed out.” It was therefore surprising to discover — on the same page — that following the Treaty, Mr Stanhope had been collaborating in a meeting with French naval counterparts to develop joint British-French military doctrine, shared training, equipment and technology, and a common supply chain. It was also accurately reported that Stanhope’s collaboration was conducted wearing civilian lounge suits rather than in uniform.


Related Topics:

E.U. Military Union Is Budgetary Union*

Global Power and the History of Trusts

Eurocrats Making Record Number of Laws in Secret*

E.U. Picks Up Speed in the War on Cash*

E.U. Desperate to Raises Taxes Starts Cashless Society Project November 2017*

World Leaders Agree to Merge NATO and E.U.*

Professors and Politicians Gather to Warn Us about the NWO*

The United States of Europe!

E.U. Votes for Citizens to Fund their Own Brainwashing*

E.U. to Ratify Paris Accords*

Soros: Western Society Must Fall Before One World Govt Can Be Established*

War Criminal Blair to Eradicate European Culture to Create a United States of Europe*

High Court Denies Trump Request to Immediately Restore Travel Ban*

High Court Denies Trump Request to Immediately Restore Travel Ban*

A federal appeals court denied early Sunday the Justice Department’s request for an immediate reinstatement of President Donald Trump‘s ban on accepting certain travelers and all refugees.

The Trump administration appealed a temporary order restraining the ban nationwide, saying late Saturday night that the federal judge in Seattle overreached by “second-guessing” the president on a matter of national security.

Now the higher court’s denial of an immediate stay means the legal battles over the ban will continue for days at least. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco asked challengers of the ban respond to the appeal, and for the Justice Department to file a counter-response by Monday afternoon.

Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco forcefully argued Saturday night that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States — an assertion that appeared to invoke the wider battle to come over illegal immigration.

“The power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute, delegated by Congress to the executive branch of government and largely immune from judicial control,” the brief says.

Earlier Saturday, the government officially suspended the ban’s enforcement in compliance with order of the order of U.S. District Judge James Robart. It marks an extraordinary setback for the new president, who only a week ago acted to suspend America’s refugee program and halt immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries the government said raise terrorism concerns.

Trump, meanwhile, mocked Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, calling him a “so-called judge” whose “ridiculous” ruling “will be overturned.”

“Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision,” he tweeted.

Trump’s direct attack recalled his diatribes during the campaign against the federal judge of Mexican heritage who oversaw lawsuits alleging fraud by Trump University, and may prompt some tough questions as these challenges rise through the courts.

But the government’s brief repeatedly asserts that presidential authority cannot be questioned by judges once the nation’s security is invoked.

Congress “vests complete discretion in the President” to impose conditions on alien entry, so Trump isn’t legally required to justify such decisions, it says. His executive order said the ban is necessary for “protecting against terrorism,” and that “is sufficient to end the matter.”

The Justice Department asked that the federal judge’s order be stayed pending resolution of the appeal, so that the ban can “ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

The order had caused unending confusion for many foreigners trying to reach the United States, prompted protests across the United States and led to multiple court challenges. Demonstrations took place outside the White House, in New York and near his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, where Trump was attending the annual American Red Cross fundraising gala.

“We’ll win,” Trump told reporters Saturday night.

“For the safety of the country, we’ll win.”

The State Department, after initially saying that as many as 60,000 foreigners from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen had their visas canceled, reversed course on Saturday and said they could travel to the U.S. if they had a valid visa.

The department on Saturday advised refugee aid agencies that refugees set to travel before Trump signed his order will now be allowed in. A State Department official said in an email obtained by The Associated Press that the government was “focusing on booking refugee travel” through Feb. 17 and working to have arrivals resume as soon as Monday.

The Homeland Security Department no longer was directing airlines to prevent visa-holders affected by Trump’s order from boarding U.S.-bound planes. The agency said it had “suspended any and all actions” related to putting in place Trump’s order.

Hearings have also been held in court challenges nationwide. Washington state and Minnesota argued that the temporary ban and the global suspension of the U.S. refugee program harmed residents and effectively mandated discrimination.

In his written order Friday, Robart said it’s not the court’s job to “create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches,” but rather, to make sure that an action taken by the government “comports with our country’s laws.”

The Justice Department countered that “judicial second-guessing of the President’s national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and the nation at large.”

Robart’s order also imposes harm on U.S. citizens “by thwarting the legal effect of the public’s chosen representative,” it says.


Related Topics:

U.S. Cop Stops Innocent Woman for Walking, Demands to See her ‘Papers’*

DHS Suspends Trump’s Travel Ban, Reverses Visa Cancelation; Vows to Fight*

Rothschild’s Reuters Pays Damages to Finsbury Park Mosque after Falsely Linking it to Terrorism*

Jews give Muslims Key to their Synagogue after Town’s Mosque Burns Down*

UC Berkeley Cancels Appearance of White Nationalist, Trump Responds with Threat to Cut School’s Funding*

Iran Finally Ditched the Dollar: Here’s Why It Matters*

LA Judge Issues Most Sweeping Order Yet against Trump Immigration Ban

Jewish Members of Trump Administration Might Explain a Few Things*

Theresa May Alone in the Trump Debate U.K. Parliament Unites to Send its own Message*

Argentina Trumps U.S. on New Immigration Laws*

Thousands Rally in Tel Aviv against ‘racist’ Israeli State and Home Demolitions*

Thousands Rally in Tel Aviv against ‘racist’ Israeli State and Home Demolitions*

Thousands rallied in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv on Saturday evening in protest of home demolitions targeting Palestinian citizens of Israel, with demonstrators calling the Israeli state’s demolition campaign “racist” and an act of “incitement” against Palestinian citizens.

Protesters reportedly called on Israeli Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan to resign for “lying” to the Israeli public, saying they held him responsible for the killings that took place during a raid to evacuate the Negev region Bedouin community of Umm al-Hiran last month

Local math teacher in Umm al-Hiran Yacoub Abu al-Qian was shot dead on January 18th by police before Israeli authorities demolishes more than a dozen structures in the village, with authorities claiming he was carrying out a deliberate vehicular attack, in contradiction to numerous eyewitness reports and video evidence that attested his car spun out of control only after Israeli police opened fired on him.

Some 5,000 Palestinian and Jewish citizens joined the march Saturday night, travelling from Jerusalem and across Israel to protest the demolitions and the Israeli state’s discriminatory policies against Palestinian citizens in general.

Members of a local committee from Umm al-Hiran also participated, with at least four busloads of Palestinian and Jewish citizens from the Negev arriving to join the rally.

Demonstrators raised posters in Arabic and Hebrew, including the slogans:

 “When the government is against the people, the people will be against the government,”

“Enough of the government’s racism…we demand equality,”

“Jewish and Arabs together, we fight fascism.”


Related Topics:

Greater Israel and the Tale of Two Temples*

For Greater Israel: Israeli Legal Jurisdiction to be Extended to Judea and Samaria*

For Greater Israel: 3,200 acres of Palestinian Land Near Jerusalem*

Inside the Hotbed of Israeli Settler Terrorism*

Israel Starts Demolition of Homes in the their Illegal Occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights*

Israel Weaponizes it’s Rape Culture against Palestinians*

Evict 120 Bedouins from their own Land and Build a Trash Dump Instead*

Another Bedouin Community Razed to the Ground, Leave Children without Water in High Temperatures*

West Bank: Israeli Military Destroys Bedouin Village

An honest Israeli Jew tells the Real Truth about Israel

Israel: Thou Shalt Not Drink Water

Netanyahu halts Israeli Funding of 5 U.N. Bodies in Revenge for Settlement Freeze Demand*

Netanyahu Now under two Criminal Investigations*

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Message to Water Protectors and Allies*

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Message to Water Protectors and Allies*

By Levi Rickert

With the impending spring thaw, several efforts are underway to cleanup and ultimately clear the encampments where thousands of water protectors have camped to show solidarity and resistance to the Dakota Access pipeline. The encampments are in a flood plain and will be under water when the thaw happens.

During times of change, rumours become rampant. Rumours often sow discord among those who have good intentions.

Yesterday, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe released the following message to help keep calm among all concerned:

Water Protectors and Allies,

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and our movement as a whole are in a phase of transition and growth. The encampments brought global attention to our struggle, and now we face the task of carrying that momentum forward as we work to defeat this pipeline and other projects that deny the rights of indigenous people.

We cannot let media and social media divide us. We have always been transparent in our messages and actions; it is unfortunate when certain media take messages out of context. We must remain focused on our goals. The movement is bigger than just the tribe. It is bigger than the Chairman, or any individual. We should all be working together to protect the tenets of the movement.

One of the key tenets of any movement is being considerate about how we treat the community in which we bring our voices and respect the places where we are visitors. The community of Cannonball has every right to choose how it wants people to help them. We are still focused on defeating DAPL on all fronts.

We want to stress that we are cleaning the camps, not clearing them. We do not support or endorse any “raids.” We have not asked for law enforcement to assist in clearing camps and in fact have repeatedly told them there will be no forcible removal.

We have never stopped fighting the pipeline. There have never been any negotiations. Rumours and conspiracy theories abound in any movement as powerful as this; we cannot let media and other governments manipulate our statements and actions into a narrative counter to the truth. We cannot fall into the traps of divide and conquer—that is how we lost so much before, and Standing Rock will not let that happen again. Together we rise.

We ask our allies to be grounded in prayer in all that you do. We will prevail.


Related Topics:

Call on Feds to Consult with Tribes, Follow the Rule of Law before Moving Forward on Oil Pipeline*

Jury Finds Eight #NoDAPL Protectors Guilty*

Jury Refuses to Convict Activist for Shutting Down Pipeline*

Seattle Council Votes to Divest Billions from Wells Fargo over DAPL Support*

U.S. Army Corps Told to Clear Way for DAPL Construction*

Jewish Members of Trump Administration Might Explain a Few Things*

U.S. Veterans to Return to Standing Rock after Trump Move to Continue with DAPL*

Public Comment on DAPL is Now Open*

Two Major Pipelines Spill the Same Week Trump Advances KXL, DAPL*

Trump Signing Executive Order Forcing Continuation of DAPL and Keystone XL*

Standing Rock Council Approves Order to Evacuate Demonstrators*

U.S. Cop Stops Innocent Woman for Walking, Demands to See her ‘Papers’*

U.S. Cop Stops Innocent Woman for Walking, Demands to See her ‘Papers’*

By Jack Burns

As the xenophobic police state takes its grip on America, police are now stopping innocent citizens and demanding their papers — because terrorism.

In the wake of President Trump’s announcement to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, places where federal immigration laws are not enforced, one story coming out of Bel Air, Maryland is getting national attention. Bel Air, MD is approximately 90% White, with a spattering of races and nationalities making up the remaining 10%. Resident Aravinda Pillalamarri, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India, says she found out the hard way how her neighbors feel about her presence in the neighborhood and how police treat people of colour — in a modern day xenophobic police state.

“Ihre Papiere, Bitte!”

That phrase often brought shudders to the people who heard it in the 1930s and ’40s. It is German for “Your papers, please,” and its sinister nostalgia is once again making a comeback.

Pillalamarri says she was simply enjoying a nice walk, just steps away from her home, when law enforcement officers arrived and began questioning her. When she explained that she lived nearby and was merely out for a walk, the officer on scene told her he’d received a call supposedly reporting a suspicious person. Pillalamarri replied to the officer with a question of her own, asking if it was a crime to be,

“Walking while brown?”

When a supervisor arrived and began to question her more aggressively, she was informed that she “was under criminal investigation.” As The Free Thought Project has consistently reported, the officers then followed their modus operandi in asking Pillalamarri for her state-issued identification. Producing none, she was then questioned as to why she was not in possession of an ID card. That’s when officers asked her a question that admittedly disturbed her. They questioned,

“Why don’t you have ID?” and,

“Are you here illegally?”

According to the Baltimore Sun,

“Pillalamarri, 47, has lived in Bel Air for more than 30 years and is a U.S. citizen. Her parents came to America from India when she was a baby. She went to Bel Air High School. She walks in her neighborhood nearly every day.”

The thought that someone would look at her outward appearance and conclude she is someone to be seen in a suspicious light was disturbing to her.

Instead of filing a lawsuit, and taking her case to court, potentially suing for racial profiling, she went to the Bel Air Board of Town Commissioners meeting to voice her concerns.

“Only when the supervisor asked ‘are you here illegally’ did my sense of colour, and of being unequal, come forth, and my interest in my civil rights take a back seat to get out of the situation safely,” she told the board.

“Public safety does not need to come at the cost of civil rights,” she implored.

“I am sharing this incident here not to ask anyone here to find fault or take sides. We are all on the same side and can use this as an opportunity to learn and improve. The responsibility to uphold civil rights is one that all of us share, and we need to do our part and also expect the police to do their part.”

Bel Air Police Chief Charles Moore told reporters,

“If there isn’t one, there will be,” when asked about his department’s policy of questioning the immigration status of individuals.

“That’s not a concern of ours,” Moore said, adding,

“That’s just not the proper protocol that I would take. And my officers, from what I’ve seen from their performance, I don’t see that from them either.”

Pillalamarri was detained while her name was checked through the police database. She was afterward allowed to go on her way. But the incident now serves to highlight the problem of racial profiling, the expectation by police that residents carry identification at all times, and the reaction of the ethnic majority (Whites) to ethnic minorities engaged in their daily dealings.

First and foremost, no citizen should be questioned by police because police receive a phone call of a suspicious person in a neighbourhood. Neither should police feel compelled to investigate such calls. Someone is only a suspect when and if they’ve committed a crime.

Your neighbours are not suspects simply for walking down a neighbourhood street. And, police have to understand that asking someone for identification without suspecting that individual of having committed a crime, is plain and simple harassment — not to mention a dangerous and slippery slope.

If Pillalamarri had not complied with officer questions, had attempted to walk away without answering, or had run away out of fear, the headline to this story might be very different, as TFTP has reported.

All too often, encounters with police leave innocent people insulted, injured, imprisoned, or worse. As we have consistently reported, anything less than 100% compliance with officer commands seems to give the police a false sense of entitlement to invalidate a person’s rights and assault, kidnap, or cage said individuals.

That’s what has to change in America. Residents should not be threatened with having a gun pointed at their heads simply because they choose not to comply with officers’ questioning. Neither should they be subjected to being tasered simply because an officer just got a new one and wants to try it out.

The policy of 100% compliance must stop, along with this apparently new policy of harassing brown people.

Pillalamarri should have felt empowered to be able to continue walking along the sidewalk without being compelled to answer ANY of the responding officers’ questions. She has a right to remain silent. She also has a right to liberty, which means she has a right to continue on her way. She has a right to liberty, to feel free to walk away from police at any point.

Unfortunately, in the police state, which is what America is quickly becoming, citizens are too afraid to exercise those rights out of fear they’ll be thrown to the ground, handcuffed, or beaten for not complying.


Related Topics:

DHS Suspends Trump’s Travel Ban, Reverses Visa Cancelation; Vows to Fight*

First of Its Kind Study Shows 55,400 People Hospitalized/Killed by U.S. Cops in a Single Year*

Teenage Girl Admits Making up Migrant Rape Claim That Outraged Germany*

10,000 Kids Missing in E.U. as Criminals ‘exploit’ Migrant Flow*

Native American Council offers Amnesty to 220 million Undocumented Whites*

Giving Thanks for a Nation of Migrants, Refugees, and Immigrants*

The Western Migrants Fleeing to the South and Destroying It*