Archive | July 13, 2017

Impeachment Resolution against President Donald J. Trump. H. RES. 438*

Impeachment Resolution against President Donald J. Trump. H. RES. 438*

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

An impeachment motion against President Donald John Trump was introduced on July 12 in the US House of Representatives by Rep Brad Sherman (D-CA) and  Rep Al Green (D-TX).

Brad Sherman


The Article of Impeachment (H. Res. 438) against President Donald J. Trump points to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. 

According to Rep. Brad Sherman, “the Article is based on Article 1, dealing with “Obstruction of Justice,” which was passed by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote on July 27, 1974, regarding Richard M. Nixon.”

Sherman accuses Trump of “obstructing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election”.

Article H RES. 438 calls for the removal of President Trump from office.

According to reports: “The effort is likely to stall in the Republican-controlled congress…” (Al Jazeera).

There is no indication at this stage that Republicans would support an Impeachment procedure.

Read Sherman’s statement below, he refers to a resolution which will put Mike Pence into the White House.

“I served with Mike Pence in Congress for twelve years and I disagree with him on just about everything. I never dreamed I would author a measure that would put him in the White House” 

The “Russia Probe” is central to the Impeachment procedure: one does not go without the other.

Moreover, reference to the Donald Trump Jr. encounter with a Russian lawyer (which borders on ridicule) is being used as a justification. According to Rep.Sherman: “Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia.” The NYT candidly states without a shred of evidence that the Russian lawyer is “connected the Russian government” intimating that she is a stooge of the Kremlin.

Below is the statement of  Rep. Brad Sherman

I am pleased that Congressman Al Green (D-TX) has joined me in filing Articles of Impeachment against Donald J. Trump. We now begin the effort to force the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Obstruction of Justice and Russian interference in our election.

Recent disclosures by Donald Trump Jr. indicate that Trump’s campaign was eager to receive assistance from Russia. It now seems likely that the President had something to hide when he tried to curtail the investigation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the wider Russian probe. I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director James Comey constitute Obstruction of Justice.

Every day Democrats, Republicans, and the entire world are shocked by the latest example of America’s amateur President. Ignorance accompanied by a refusal to learn. Lack of impulse control, accompanied by a refusal to have his staff control his impulses. We’re no longer surprised by any action, no matter how far below the dignity of the office—and no matter how dangerous to the country.

But the Constitution does not provide for the removal of a President for impulsive, ignorant incompetence. It does provide for the removal of a President for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

As the investigations move forward, additional evidence supporting additional Articles of Impeachment may emerge. However, as to Obstruction of Justice, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(3), the evidence we have is sufficient to move forward now. And the national interest requires that we do so.

Introducing Articles of Impeachment will have two possible outcomes. First, I have slight hope it will inspire an ‘intervention’ in the White House. If Impeachment is real, if they actually see Articles, perhaps we will see incompetency replaced by care. Perhaps uncontrollable impulses will be controlled. And perhaps the danger our nation faces will be ameliorated.

Second, and more likely, filing Articles of Impeachment is the first step on a very long road. But if the impulsive incompetency continues, then eventually—many, many months from now—Republicans will join the impeachment effort.

I author Articles of Impeachment not to change our national policy. I served with Mike Pence in Congress for twelve years and I disagree with him on just about everything. I never dreamed I would author a measure that would put him in the White House. I am introducing Articles of Impeachment to begin a long process to protect our country from abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and impulsive, ignorant incompetence.”​ Brad Sherman (emphasis added)

The Article (H. R. 438) concludes with the following statement:

Full text of  Article of Impeachment (H. Res. 438)

For further details click Rep. Brad Sherman’s Congressional website


Related Topics:

Articles of Impeachment in Pipeline for Trump*

Articles of Impeachment Filed against Obama*

Why Is the Pope against Trump and Putin Forming an Alliance*

Trump’s First Budget Not Looking Good for Citizens*

The REAL Reason Trump Fired Comey

Rights Group Sues Trump Admin for Legal Explanation of Syria Missile Strike*

Private Prisons Rooted In Slavery Make A Comeback Under Trump*

Trump Authorizes the Pentagon to Manage Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria*

Tens of Thousands March Across U.S. Demanding Donald Trump Release His Tax Returns*

Trump Wastes over $94mn in Taxpayer’s Money on Ineffective Syrian Airstrikes*

World War 3: Trump Begins Paying His Penance to Rothschilds*

Indigenous and Environmental Groups Sue Trump over Keystone XL*

Trump Son-In-Law to Oversee White House Office to Revamp Govt*

Trump is Filling Top Pentagon and Homeland Security Positions With Defense Contractors*

Will Deep State Agenda Replace Trump with Pence*

Three Secret Trump Picks to Take Down Latin America’s Left*

Trump To Continue Bankrupting The U.S. Through Foreign Wars*

Trump’s Latest Executive Order Means More Criminalization of Protests*

Trump Sends Secret FBI Task Force to Stage False Flag, Blame Vets at Standing Rock*

Leaked Trump Presidential Memo Would Free U.S. Companies to Buy Conflict Minerals from Central African Warlords*


Canada to Provide a Whopping $241.5mn for Overseas Abortions, Contraception*

Canada to Provide a Whopping $241.5mn for Overseas Abortions, Contraception*

By Lianne Laurence

The Justin Trudeau Liberals will pour $241.5 million into providing and promoting contraception and abortion in developing nations — particularly in Africa — as part of their commitment to securing global access to “sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau made the announcement on Tuesday during the Family Planning Summit in London, England.

The money is part of the $650 million the Liberals pledged in March to promote global access to “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” as well the $840 million they’ve earmarked “for humanitarian assistance in response to the crises in Iraq and Syria,” according to a Liberal backgrounder.

About 65% of the $241.5 million targets Africa.

The backgrounder, entitled “Canada’s leadership on sexual and reproductive health and rights,” details that the Liberals will dole out money over five years to veteran abortion promoters.

These include the United Nations Population Fund, Marie Stopes, International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the World Bank.

The UNPF receives $45 million to provide “reproductive health and family planning services” in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan along with humanitarian aid.

The IPPF gets $5 million to promote abortion and provide contraception in South Sudan; Marie Stopes Tanzania $15 million to do the same in Tanzania; the Clinton Health Access Initiative $20 million to “improve access” to sexual and reproductive health choices through an “innovative approach” in Nigeria.

Pathfinder International gets $15 million to “support family planning and abortion services” in Mozambique, where abortion was legalized in December 2014.

Other African nations targeted are Ghana, Benin, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burkina Faso.

But African pro-life advocates are slamming the Liberals for “arrogance,” “hypocrisy,” and “cultural colonialism.”

The Liberal government, by offering what Africans neither want nor need, shows its hunger to inherit the infamous throne of the ‘world abortion champions’ which the United States has abdicated,” Archbishop Emmanuel Badejo of Oyo, Nigeria, told LifeSiteNews in an email.

Communications director for the African bishops, Badejo excoriated the Trudeau government for “hypocrisy” in “pushing an imperialist agenda that undermine religious and cultural sensibilities and demean the cherished African respect for the life of the unborn.”

That was echoed by Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of the U.K,-based Culture of Life Africa.

“This new breed of Western leaders who want to impose an abortion-friendly ideology, if you will, by all means in Africa, one thing about them that they all have in common is that they are not listening to us,” she told LifeSiteNews.

“Most of the African cultures across the different African countries consider abortion the destruction of human life, consider abortion as a way of death,” she said.

Moreover, Canada’s money will do a lot of damage in Africa when organizations such as Marie Stopes use it to lobby for abortion, Ekeocha said.

“In Africa, where there is a lot of corruption, some of it might go into bribery.”

And that will “involve terrible things,” Ekeocha said, because the “very fabric of that society is being shredded, put under pressure, first of all, by this kind of money, but also being shredded at the end of the day — by the time the money goes into buying favours, buying traditional rulers, buying community leaders, buying parliamentarians.”

The Liberals’ promotion of the sexual and reproductive rights agenda is “also terrible for the image of Canada,” hitherto highly regarded in Africa as “one of the few developed countries that was not a colonial master.”

Now under the Liberals, Canada in 2017 is “becoming a massive colonial master” as leader of what Ekeocha describes as the “neo-colonial” movement of the “reproductive rights agenda.”

Canada is not only “going and throwing all this money, it’s also trying to inspire other Western nations to do likewise,” she said.

“Even in their speeches, when you listen to them, you see that it’s kind of a clarion call, ‘we’re putting 650 million, what can you do, what would you do’,” she said.

“They’re looking at other countries, and winking at other Western countries.”

The Trudeau government “has put itself right at the forefront of this unfortunate movement that is trying to colonize an Africa that has been decolonized a long ago,” Ekeocha said.

“But they are trying to colonize it in the worst way ever, they’re trying to colonize us culturally and ideologically.”


Related Topics:

African Pro-life Activist Schools BBC Anchor for Using ‘colonial talk’ to Push Contraception on Africa*

African Woman Schools U.N. Delegate on Why Pushing Abortion is ‘neo-colonialism’*

Bill Gates: We Must Depopulate Africa to Save Europe*

Abortions Banned in Russian City for 1 Day in memory of Biblical ‘massacre of innocents’*

European Parliament Abortion Campaign Seeks to Indoctrinate Children*

Canada’s Bishops blast Trudeau: $650M Global Abortion Fund as ‘cultural imperialism,’ ‘exploits women’*

VIDEO: Bioethics, Eugenics and the “after-birth abortion” of newborns

Knowledge of Life*

Cuban Officials Visit Syrian Military Hospital, Offer Support*

Cuban Officials Visit Syrian Military Hospital, Offer Support*

Syrian Arab Army members patrol a liberated area. | Photo: Reuters


Syria and Cuba “are in the same trench fighting against imperialism and Zionism,” said hospital director Brigadier General Ghassan Haddad.

A delegation of the Cuban embassy in Syria, led by business manager Pablo Ginarte, visited the Yussef Azmeh military hospital in the Mezzeh neighborhood of Damascus, Syria on Thursday.

Hospital director Brigadier General Ghassan Haddad said that despite Western sanctions, military hospitals in Syria remain operational. He explained that numerous injured people were treated at the hospital between 2013 and 2015, adding that seven cases of military personnel injured by chemical attacks and toxic gases perpetrated by terrorist groups around Damascus were also treated.

“For Syrians, it is World War III,” said Haddad, who spent four years receiving medical training at Charing Cross Hospital in London.

He also lamented how depressed he felt when he saw several young men whose bones were destroyed by bombs and bullets from heavy weaponry.

One of those wounded by a bomb, 20-year-old Ali Ibrahim, recalled that he and seven other soldiers attempted to defuse a bomb in a Damascus building during heavy fighting. However, the bomb “blew up and one of us was killed and all the others wounded.”

During his tour of the Yussef Azmeh military hospital, the Cuban representatives met with medical personnel and wounded patients, including 25 soldiers in the recent fighting in Ein Tarma, near Damascus.

Haddad explained that Syria and Cuba “are in the same trench fighting against imperialism and Zionism.”

Cuba is renowned for having one of the world’s best healthcare systems, high-quality doctors and training and prevention programs. Medical programs initiated by the Cuban government as part of the country’s internationalist medical program, which includes disaster relief and disease prevention, have also been beneficial for countless others outside of the island.

Despite being crippled by decades of U.S. economic sanctions, the socialist-run island has sent thousands of medical professionals to foreign countries and has helped to train more than 80,000 doctors across the world for free.


Related Topics:

Cuba Delivers Vaccines against Meningitis to Syrian People*

Cuba Rejects U.S.-Style Neo-liberalism*

Cuba Ready to Provide All Needed Medicines for Syria*

Cuban Medical Internationalism*

Latest British Gas Tactics – “You WILL have a Smart Meter”*

Latest British Gas Tactics – “You WILL have a Smart Meter”*

Sadler’s letter – “This isn’t a customer choice… they’re a benefit to our customers … It’s a government initiative…”

Yesterday we received some concerning correspondence from a British Gas customer which suggests that British Gas’s Smart Metering policy has changed and that it will now force customers to have its controversial new Smart Meters.

In a letter sent by British Gas Customer Relations Team representative, Kate Sadler, the customer was told:

“Every single one of our [British Gas] customers is going to have a Smart Meter installed.  This isn’t a customer choice, as we’re replacing all our meters with Smart Meters… We’re installing these meters across our whole customer base as they’re a benefit to our customers… It’s a government initiative… Unfortunately I’m unable to stop this from happening just for you, as as I’ve mentioned above all our customers will be having these installed.”

Sadler’s comments suggest that British Gas is now prepared to force its customers into having Smart Meters irrespective of their wishes, and to ignore the Government’s promises of customers having the right to refuse them.  The letter makes no mention of the fact that all energy consumers (as per the U.K.’s Electricity and Gas Acts*) have the right to have their own, non-Smart Meters installed, and even contradicts assurances given by British Gas’s Smart Metering Managing Director, Stuart Rolland, just two days before this latest letter.

Rolland’s letter – “you do not have to have one if you don’t want one”.


Responding to another customer who had served British Gas with formal Notice of Non-Consent for Smart Meter Installation through our website, Rolland explicitly concedes that:

“… you do not have to have a smart meter if you do not want one; we will remove your details from our rollout programme.”

Given the evident contrast in the letters which were sent by two different people within British Gas, we cannot be clear as to whether there is a level of breakdown within British Gas Smart Metering policy enforcement or whether the company is now ready to force customers into accepting Smart Meters irrespective of their wishes.

* Your right to have your own (non-Smart) Energy Meter installed:

In 1986 and then in 1989, the U.K.’s Gas and Electricity Acts were respectively brought into being.  Amongst other provisions, these Acts enshrined statutory provisions allowing energy consumers to have their own gas and electricity meters installed on their property.

To explain specifically in relation to electricity, for example, Schedule 7 of the Electricity Act 1989,ss.1(2) &(2A) outlines the following:

[(2) If the [authorised supplier] agrees, the meter may be provided by the customer [(who may provide a meter which belongs to him or is made available otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made by the supplier)]; but otherwise it shall be provided by the [authorised supplier] [(who may provide a meter which belongs to him or to any person other than the customer)].
(2A) [An authorised supplier] may refuse to allow one of his customers to provide a meter only if there are reasonable grounds for his refusal.] [You can check the UK Association of Meter Operator’s website for more information.]

Our interpretation of this provision is that, so long as one’s own choice of non-smart/analogue meter complies with regulations and the supplier has no reasonable grounds for saying otherwise, and any in situ Smart Meters can be sent back to the supplier.  The only reasonable grounds for the supplier refusing this request that we can envisage would be if the meter is not compliant with safety or accuracy regulation.  The issue of whether your own meter is “smart” or not seems irrelevant, and would certainly appear to have nothing to do with the Government’s “No Backward Step” policy which we have written about here.


Related Topics:

New 5G Cell Towers and Smart Meters to Increase Microwave Radiation – Invade Privacy, Destroy Health*

Smart Meters Can Overbill By Up To 582 Percent Higher Than Actual Consumption*

Ontario Pulls Plug on 36,000 Rural ‘Smart’ Meters*

Citizens of Dominican Republic Disconnect and Return Smart Meters*

Smart Grid Deployment Across the U.S.*

Conned into Smart Meters, Conned out of Your Health

Electricity Prices Fall into Negatives as Germany’s Renewable Energy Boom Occurs*

Thousands Set to Die of Fuel Poverty this Winter, while Tories Makes a Killing from U.K.’s Energy Supply*

Armed U.S. immigration Officers to Be Stationed in U.K. Airports*

Armed U.S. immigration Officers to Be Stationed in U.K. Airports*

This latest move by the U.S. is being sold to unwitting British holiday makers and business travelers as a “solution to long immigration queues at U.S. airports.” 

Under the new scheme, airlines would be forced to foot the bill for U.S. security personnel and their families to live in the U.K. They plan to pay for this by simply passing the extra costs onto passengers travelling from Britain to the U.S. In other words: air travel may have become more expensive for Brits heading to the US.

It’s not clear exactly why U.S. officers have to be armed in U.K. airports. Not surprisingly, few U.K. media outlets bothered to even question that aspect of the story.

Will the British government end up accepting this aggressive move by the U.S? If so, will it be a dangerous precedent?

By Chris Pleasance

Armed U.S. immigration officers could be stationed at airports in the U.K. under plans being discussed between the White House and Westminster.

Under the plans British passengers would have their visa paperwork checked before boarding flights, allowing them to skip some queues after arriving in America.

But there are fears it could drive up the price of tickets as it remains unclear who will foot the bill for immigration officers to live in this country.

Both Manchester and Edinburgh Airport are said to be eager to join the scheme.

Heathrow bosses are believed to have turned the idea down because the obstacles involved in bringing immigration officers to this country are insurmountable.

Meanwhile Gatwick declared that it has ‘no plans’ to participate in the scheme.

Home Office officials confirmed that the plans were being discussed. While it would be up to each airport to negotiate a different process with US authorities, the scheme would need overall approval by the government.

The U.S. already has special immigration checks in six countries around the world, with more than 600 law enforcement officers are stationed at 15 locations.

Pre-clearance operations in Dublin and Shannon in Ireland opened in 2008.

An industry insider told the Press Association that the U.S. was very keen for pre-clearing and it is unlikely that the question of whether officers are armed would be a deal-breaker.

The source said: ‘They are much more concerned about having pre-clearing granted than they are about having their officers walking around like in the U.S.

‘The real challenge is who’s going to pay. The U.S. wants airports to pay for it; airports will say ‘that’s fine’ but then increase charges to airlines.

‘I would imagine airlines would pass on some of that additional cost to flight users,’ he added.

He said if airlines were not prepared to foot the bill then the plan may not happen.


Related Topics:

At these 3 British Airports, a U.S. Spy Agency Decides Who can Travel*

#Staygrounded Action In London Makes Airports New Focal Point for Social Justice*

Black Lives Matter U.K; Shut Down ‘Elite’ London Airport*

Former Israeli Intel Operatives Run Security at Brussels Airport*

Muhammad Ali’s Son on Airport Profiling: ‘I’m Not American?’*

U.S.-born NASA Employee Detained at Airport, Forced to Hand over Phone and Pin Code*