Mark Steyn: Trump hit a reset button for the world
President Trump’s Syria policy raises concerns
Sen. Paul: We didn’t have the debate, we simply went to war
A look at the intel that led to US strike on Syrian airbase
US Strikes Syria: Chemical attack not the first in Syrian civil war
Marco Rubio: President had legal, moral authority to attack
Israeli PM Netanyahu ‘fully supports’ US strike on Syria
President Trump Orders U.S. Airstrike on Syria
Trump turns on Assad: How will US strikes impact war in Syria? (part 1)
BREAKING! WE’RE AT WAR! TRUMP JUST LAUNCHED A MASSIVE STRIKE AGAINST SYRIA WW3 HAS BEGUN!!!
Issue Analysis: Trump, Assad, Syria, China, North Korea, UN Resolutions, Russia and What’s Next?
President Donald Trump Bombs Syria
Syria Chemical Attack: Push For Ousting Bashar al-Assad
Seymour Hersh: Obama “Cherry-Picked” Intelligence on Syrian Chemical Attack to Justify U.S. Strike
Global Empire – The World According to Seymour Hersh [Part Two]
Global Empire – The World According to Seymour Hersh [Part One]
Turkey’s interests in the Syrian civil war
Saudi Arabia’s role in the Syrian civil war
Why Do Saudi Arabia And Iran Hate Each Other?
TURKEY vs SYRIA Military Power Comparison | Turkish Army VS Syrian Arab Army | 2016
Toxicity of Phosgene with Audio
FSA use poison gas on SAA and Syrian people supplied by Turkey
Gas warfare in the First World War
What is Sarin Gas?
Published on Sep 7, 2013
Hank discusses the chemistry of sarin, the nerve agent that killed more than 1400 people in a chemical weapons attack in Syria.
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: http://dftba.com/artist/52/SciShow
AMERICA’S TOP GENERAL JUST GAVE TRUMP SOMETHING THAT WILL SCARE NORTH KOREA TO DEATH!
Published on Apr 7, 2017
Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | Danny Gold for Liberty Writers reports, Anyone who has been watching the news recently is sure to have heard all about North Korea and their nukes. They also know President Donald Trump is NOT happy about it and he and Mattis are ready to STRIKE BACK!
Why did Donald Trump strike al-Shayrat air base?
The strike on al-Shayrat air base near the western Syrian city of Homs was both a symbolic and a tactical one.
The airfield is not just a valuable military target, it is also the one from which the Syrian government launched its chemical attack on Tuesday.
Shayrat is one of the largest and most active Syrian Air Force bases, which has served as the nerve centre of its missions against rebels in Homs, as well as Palmyra, where government forces have been battling Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
Watch | Donald Trump: Syria strike in ‘vital’ US interest
However, it is believed that the US gave advance warning of the missile strike to Russia, which gave the Syrian military some time to move most of its assets to another base.
The Russians, who intervened militarily on behalf of the Bashar al-Assad regime in October 2015, have aircraft stationed at bases across Syria and the US could not risk accidentally hitting one.
Russia reportedly reinforced the base and built additional runways before beefing up its operations there.
Maj Gen. Igor Konashenkov, Russian defense ministry spokesman, reported on Friday that only 23 of the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles reached the air base.
The raid damaged one of its two runways, according to pictures shared on social media which also showed severe fire damage to other parts of the base.
Rami Adbulrahman, director of UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor said he was told 90 per cent of the base was destroyed and senior airforce commander, Brigadier Khalil Issa Ibrahim, was among the seven reported killed.
Before 2013 the base was used to store chemical weapons but nothing was targeted that could have contained them now.
It was believed there may have been sarin gas stored in one warehouse but that was avoided.
Maj Konashenkov said they destroyed six MiG-23 fighter jets of the Syrian air force which were under repairs, but did not damage other warplanes.
A former pilot who was stationed at Shayrat before he defected said Shayrat could hold up to 45 aircraft and that had they all been hit it would have had a major impact on the Syrian military’s strike capacity.
The mayor of Homs criticised the strikes, saying they only aided terrorists as the base was the main operations centre for carrying out strikes against Isil.
Fares Shehabi, an MP for Aleppo, posted on Twitter: “Trump attacked an airport solely dedicated to fighting ISIS in central Syria and providing aid to besieged civilians in Deir Ezzor.”
Jumping to conclusions; something is not adding up in Idlib chemical weapons attack
By Paul Antonopoulos
BEIRUT, LEBANON (4:47 P.M.) – At least 58 people were killed in a horrific gas attack in the Idlib Governorate this morning. However, even before investigations could be conducted and for evidence to emerge, Federica Mogherini, the Italian politician High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned the Syrian government stating that the “Assad regime bears responsibility for ‘awful’ Syria ‘chemical’ attack.”
The immediate accusation from a high ranking EU official serves a dangerous precedent where public outcry can be made even before the truth surrounding the tragedy can emerge
Merely hours after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhun, supposedly by the Syrian government, holes are beginning to emerge from opposition sources, discrediting the Al-Qaeda affiliated White Helmets claims.
For one, seen in the above picture, the White Helmets are handling the corpses of people without sufficient safety gear, most particularly with the masks mostly used , as well as no gloves. Although this may seem insignificant, understanding the nature of sarin gas that the opposition claim was used, only opens questions.
Within seconds of exposure to sarin, the affects of the gas begins to target the muscle and nervous system. There is an almost immediate release of the bowels and the bladder, and vomiting is induced. When sarin is used in a concentrated area, it has the likelihood of killing thousands of people. Yet, such a dangerous gas, and the White Helmets are treating bodies with little concern to their exposed skin. This has to raise questions.
It also raises the question why a “doctor” in a hospital full of victims of sarin gas has the time to tweet and make video calls. This will probably be dismissed and forgotten however.
It is known that about 250 people from Majdal and Khattab were kidnapped by Al-Qaeda terrorists last week. Local sources have claimed that many of those dead from the chemical weapons were those from Majdal and Khattab.
ALSO READIn Video | ISIS Hunters secure gas fields in east Palmyra
This would suggest that on the eve of upcoming peace negotiations, terrorist forces have once again created a false flag scenario. This bares resemblance to the Ghouta chemical weapons attack in 2013 where the Syrian Army was accused of using the weapons of mass destruction on the day that United Nations Weapon’s Inspectors arrived in Damascus.
Later, in a separate chemical weapon usage allegation, Carla del Ponte, a UN weapons inspector said that there was no evidence that the government had committed the atrocity. This had however not stopped the calls for intervention against the Syrian government, a hope that the militant forces wished to eventuate from their use of chemical weapons against civilians in Khan-al-Assal.
Therefore, it is completely unsurprising that Orient TV has already prepared a “media campaign” to cover the Russian and Syrian airstrikes in Hama countryside against terrorist forces, with the allegations that the airforces have been using chemical weapons. And most telling, there announcement of covering the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, hours before this allegation even emerged…….. Seems like someone forgot to tell him that it would not occur for a few more hours before his tweet.
Meanwhile, pick up trucks have been photographed around bodies of those killed. Again, it must be questioned why there are people around sarin gas without any protective gear, and not affected at all when it can begin attacking the body within seconds? Also, the pick up trucks remain consistent to what local sources have said that many of those dead were kidnapped by Al-Qaeda terrorists from pro-government towns in rural Hama.
ALSO READUpdate from Syrian airbase targeted by US missiles
Also, what is brought into question is where the location of the hose is coming from in the below picture, a dugout carved into the rock. This also suggests that the location is at a White Helmets base where there are dug out hiding spots carved into the mountainside and where they have easy access to equipment, as highlighted by Twitter user Ian Grant.
The army “has not and does not use them, not in the past and not in the future, because it does not have them in the first place,” a military source said.
And this of course begs the question. With the Syrian Army and its allies in a comfortable position in Syria, making advances across the country, and recovering lost points in rural Hama, why would they now resort to using chemical weapons? It is a very simple question with no clear answer. It defies any logic that on the eve of a Syria conference in Brussels and a week before peace negotiations are to resume, that the Syrian government would blatantly use chemical weapons. All evidence suggests this is another false chemical attack allegation made against the government as seen in the Khan-al-Assal 2013 attack where the terrorist groups hoped that former President Obama’s “red-line” would be crossed leading to US-intervention in Syria against the government.
Most telling however, is that most recent report shows that the government does not deny striking Khan Sheikhun. Al-Masdar’s Yusha Yuseef was informed by the Syrian Army that the air force targeted a missile factory in Khan Sheikoun, using Russian-manufactured Su-22 fighter jet to carry out the attack. Most importantly, the Su-22’s bombs are unique and cannot be filled with any chemical substances, which is different than bombs dropped from attack helicopters. Yuseef was then told that the Syrian Air Force did not know there were any chemical substances inside the missile factory in Khan Sheikhoun. It remains to be known whether there actually were chemicals in the missile factory targeted by the airstrikes, or whether the terrorist forces used gas on the kidnapped civilians from the pro-government towns and brought them in the lorry trucks to the site of the airstrikes. Whether they were gassed by the militant forces, or the airstrikes caused a chemical weapon factory to explode, the gruesome deaths of children, seen foaming in the mouth because of the gas, lays in the hands of the terrorists.
ALSO READAutopsies confirm Assad behind chemical attack in southern Idlib: Turkish state media
Therefore, it becomes evident that the area targeted was definitely a terrorist location, where it is known that the White Helmets share operation rooms with terrorist forces like Al-Qaeda as seen after the liberation of eastern Aleppo. Civilians and fighting forces, including Kurdish militias, have all claimed that militant groups that operate in Idlib, Hama and Aleppo countrysides, have used chemical weapons in the past. Therefore, before the war cries begin and the denouncement of the government from high officials in power positions begin, time must be given so that all evidence can emerge. However, this is an important factor that has never existed in the Syrian War, and the terrorist forces continue to hope that Western-intervention against the government will occur, at the cost of the lives of innocent civilians.
London’s Daily Mail in a 2013 article confirmed the existence of an Anglo-American project endorsed by the White House (with the assistance of Qatar) to wage a chemical weapons attack on Syria and place the blame of Bashar Al Assad.
The following Mail Online article was published and subsequently removed. Note the contradictory discourse: “Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al Assad”, “White House gave green light to chemical weapons attack”.
The Pentagon’s Training of “Rebels” (aka Al Qaeda Terrorists) in the Use of Chemical Weapons
CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while also acknowledging that the “rebels” are not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that these “moderate terrorists” affiliated with Al Nusra are trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.
In a twisted logic, the Pentagon’s mandate was to ensure that the rebels aligned with Al Qaeda would not acquire or use WMD, by actually training them in the use of chemical weapons (sounds contradictory):
“The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.
The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added)
screenshot of the CNN article, the original link has been redirected to CNN blogs,
And these are the same terrorists (trained by the Pentagon) who are the alleged target of Washington’s counterterrorism bombing campaign initiated by Obama in August 2014:
“The Pentagon scheme established in 2012 consisted in equipping and training Al Qaeda rebels in the use of chemical weapons, with the support of military contractors hired by the Pentagon, and then holding the Syrian government responsible for using the WMD against the Syrian people.
What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.
This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives, including the Al Nusra Front which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad. The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.
The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives will be used against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.
The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruiting “opposition” terrorist forces, which are now being trained in the use of chemical weapons.” (Michel Chossudovsky, May 8, 2013, minor edit)
During the World War I, a new, deadly type of weapon was used for the first time; toxic gas. Considered uncivilised prior to the war, the development and military usage of poisonous gas grenades was soon called for by the demands of both sides to find a new way to overcome the stalemate of unforeseen trench warfare.
First used at the Second Battle of Ypres on 22 April 1915, cylinders filled with toxic gas soon became one of the most devastating and effective weapons used in the entire Great War, killing more than 90,000 soldiers and injuring about 1.25 million. In this article, we are going to explore the 4 of most deadly chemical weapons ever conceived, their history, usage, and effects on the human beings.
While Germans were releasing the mustard gas in year 1917 near the Belgian city of Ypres for the first time, chemist Frederic Guthrie was most likely turning in his grave. In year 1860, this British professor discovered the mustard gas, and also experienced its toxic effects first-hand for the first time. 57 years later, after its first military usage at Ypres, it got its infamous nickname, Yperite.
In the beginning, Germans planned to use the mustard gas only as a paralyzing agent. However, they soon found out, that when in sufficient concentrations, this gas could be easily lethal to the majority of the enemy soldiers.
Soldiers after the mustard gas attack
Due to its dangerous properties, mustard gas soon became a popular chemical weapon, used in WWII, during the North Yemen Civil War, and even by Saddam Husein in year 1988. Even 150 years after its discovery, antidote is still to be discovered.
Pure mustard gas is colourless, oily liquid at room temperature. When used in its impure form, as warfare agent, it is usually green-brown in color and has an specific odor resembling mustard or garlic, hence the name. Yperite fumes are more than 6 times heavier than air, staying near the ground for several hours, effectively filling and contaminating enemy’s trenches, and killing everyone without proper protection.
Mustard gas shells
Lethal dose for an adult man weighing 160 lbs is approximately 7,5 g of liquid mustard gas, when in contact with his skin for several minutes. However, when used in its gaseous form, lethality greatly depends on its concentration and on the length of exposure. Gas mask is usually not enough to be protected from this gas; it can easily penetrate the skin and kill the victim from inside. It easily passes through most of the clothes, shoes or other materials. For instance, standard rubber gloves could protect the skin for only about ten minutes.
4 or 6 hours after exposure, burning sensation appears in the affected areas, followed by reddening of the skin. After next 16 hours, large blisters appear on the affected skin, subsequently causing severe scarring and sometimes even necrosis. If the eyes were affected, temporary or permanent blindness typically occurs after few days.
Soldier with mustard gas burns
When inhaled, first symptoms start to manifest themselves after several hours, starting with chest pain, bloody coughing and vomiting, followed by muscle spasms. Death usually occurs within 3 days, caused either by lung edema or heart failure.
In year 1812, 22-year old British amateur chemist John Davy syntetized the phosgene gas for the first time. However, it didn’t contain any phosphorus, its name was derived from greek words phos(light) and gennesis(birth). John Davy probably assumed that his invention would be used in a more sensible way, however, on 9.th of December, 88 tons of phosgene were released during the trench warfare in France, killing 69 men and seriously injuring more then 1,200.
U.S. Army phosgene identification poster(WWII)
Germans were satisfied by the results, so they soon started using grenades filled by phosgene in combat. It accounts for more than 60% of all deaths caused by the chemical warfare during the First World War, more than chlorine and mustard gas combined.
During the Second World War, most soldiers were well-prepared for the possible use of this deadly gas, so the casualties were nowhere that high. However, phosgene-filled grenades used during the 1942 Battle of Kerch by Nazi Germany allegedly injured at least 10,000 Soviet soldiers.
British casualties after German phosgene attack
Which deadly properties does this gas possess? At low temperatures, it is a colourless liquid. However, when heated to more than 8 degrees celsius, it evaporates quickly. Its odor has been often described by the survivors as pleasant, similar to newly mown hay or wet grass. After release, it contaminates the area for about 10 minutes, double the time in the winter. When compared to chlorine, phosgene has a major advantage; first symptoms start to manifest themselves after much longer time period, usually after more than five minutes, allowing more phosgene to be inhaled.
After one inhales high concentrations of this lethal gas, his chances of survival are very mild. After few minutes, he is likely to die of suffocation, because phosgene aggresively disrupts the blood-air barrier in the lungs.
Australian soldiers wearing gas masks(WWI)
After inhaling less concentrated phosgene, you might be little bit better off. One hour after exposure, first symptoms include strong burning sensation in pharynx and trachea, severe headache and vomiting, followed by pulmonary edema(swelling and fluid buildup), which often leads to suffocation.
To this day, phosgene remains one of the most dangerous chemical weapons in the world. Although not as deadly as sarin or nerve gas, it is very easy to manufacture; no wonder it’s often used during terrorist attacks. Homemade phosgene grenade can be easily created by exposing a bottle of chloroform to UV-light source for a few days.
If previous two chemicals weren’t dangerous enough, here comes the sarin, often known as the most powerful of all nerve agents.
Sarin was developed back in 1938 by a group of 4 German scientists, Scharder, Ambros, Rudiger and van der Linde, during their research of pesticides. During the WWII, this deadly gas was first used by the Nazi Germany in June 1942. At the end of the war, Germany allegedly possessed more than 10 tons of sarin.
Japanese firemen decontaminating the Tokyo subway after sarin attack
However, it is most famous for being used during the 1995 terrorist attack on the Tokio subway by a Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, killing 13 people and allegedly injuring more than 5,000. It was also used back in August 2013 by al-Assad’s forces in Ghouta, Syria, killing more than 1,700 people.
Sarin belongs to the group of nerve gasses, the deadliest of all toxic gasses used in chemical warfare. It is highly toxic; a single drop of sarin the size of the head of a pin is enough to kill an adult human. In addition, most of the victims usually die few minutes after contamination.
It usually enters the organism via respiration, but it can also penetrate the skin or be ingested. In home temperature, sarin is a colourless liquid without significant odor, similar to water. However, when exposed to higher temperatures, it starts to evaporate, being still odorless. After release, it often remains deadly for more than 24 hours.
Missile filled with sarin containers
Immediately after exposure, first symptoms include strong headaches, increased salivation and lacrimation(secretion of tears), followed by gradual paralysis of the muscles. Death is caused by asphyxiation or heart failure.
According to some sources, Sarin is 500 times more deadly than kyanide, with its lethal dose being only about 800 micrograms. Only 5 tons of sarin, obiviously properly dosed, would be enough to wipe out entire humanity.
This mixture of two herbicides, most famous for its usage in Vietnam War, is not a chemical weapon in the true sense of the word. It was discovered in year 1943 by American botanic Arthur Galston. In year 1951, further research started by the scientific team in the military base of Detrick, Maryland.
Barrel of ”Agent Orange”
During the War of Vietnam, it was widely used for deforestation of the large areas covered by thick jungle, to enable easier and more effective bombing of enemy bases and supply routes. Although designed as herbicide, the Agent Orange also contained large amounts of dioxin, a highly toxic compound, making it one of the most deadly chemical weapons ever deployed.
In years 1962-1971, military operation with codenames ”Ranch Hand” or ”Trail Dust” took place in Southern Vietnam. During this operation, jungles in the region were heavily showered by this herbicide, primarily in the areas of Mekong delta. Mixture was storaged in orange barrels, hence the name ”Agent Orange”. During the operation, more than 20 million gallons of this dangerous chemical were used, destroying large areas of jungle, contaminating air, water and food sources.
Vietnamese babies born with severe birth defects
In high concentrations, dioxin causes severe inflammation of skin, lungs and mucous tissues, sometimes resulting in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary edema, or even death, however, it also affects eyes, liver and kidneys. It is also highly effective carcinogen, known for causing laryngeal and lung cancer.
It is estimated, that the usage of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War led to more than 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with mild to severe birth defects as a result of contamination. Agent Orange alone killed 10 times more people than all other chemical weapons combined.
The Tomahawk missile family consists of a number of subsonic, jet engine-powered missiles designed to attack a variety of surface targets. Although a number of launch platforms have been deployed or envisaged, only sea (both surface ship and submarine) launched variants are currently in service. Tomahawk has a modular design, allowing a wide variety of warhead, guidance, and range capabilities. The Tomahawk project was originally awarded to Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland by the US Navy. James H. Walker led a team of scientists to design and build this new long range missile. The original design, updated with advanced technology, is still used today.
Ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM) and their truck-like launch vehicles were employed at bases in Europe; they were withdrawn from service to comply with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Many of the anti-ship versions were converted into TLAMs at the end of the Cold War. The Block III TLAMs that entered service in 1993 can fly farther and use Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to strike more precisely. Block III TLAM-Cs retain the DSMAC II navigation system, allowing GPS only missions, which allow for rapid mission planning, with some reduced accuracy, DSMAC only missions, which take longer to plan but terminal accuracy is somewhat better, and GPS aided missions which combine both DSMAC II and GPS navigation which provides the greatest accuracy. Block IV TLAMs are completely redesigned with an improved turbofan engine. The F107-402 engine provided the new BLK III with a throttle control, allowing in-flight speed changes. This engine also provided better fuel economy. The Block IV TLAMs have enhanced deep-strike capabilities and are equipped with a real-time targeting system for striking fleeing targets. Additionally, the BLOCK IV missiles have the capabilities to be re-targeted inflight, and the ability to transmit, via satcom, an image immediately prior to impact to assist in determining if the missile was attacking the target and the likely damage from the attack.
UGM-109 Tomahawk missile detonates above a test target, 1986
A major improvement to the Tomahawk is network-centric warfare-capabilities, using data from multiple sensors (aircraft, UAVs, satellites, foot soldiers, tanks, ships) to find its target. It will also be able to send data from its sensors to these platforms. It will be a part of the networked force being implemented by the Pentagon.
Tomahawk Block III introduced in 1993 added time-of-arrival control and navigation through Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC) and jam-resistant GPS, smaller, lighter WDU-36 warhead, engine improvements and extended missile’s range.
Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) takes advantage of a loitering feature in the missile’s flight path and allows commanders to redirect the missile to an alternative target, if required. It can be reprogrammed in-flight to attack predesignated targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to any other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send data about its status back to the commander. It entered service with the US Navy in late 2004. The Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) added the capability for limited mission planning on board the firing unit (FRU).
Tomahawk Block IV introduced in 2006 adds the strike controller which can change the missile in flight to one of 15 preprogrammed alternate targets or redirect it to a new target. This targeting flexibility includes the capability to loiter over the battlefield awaiting a more critical target. The missile can also transmit battle damage indication imagery and missile health and status messages via the two-way satellite data link. Firing platforms now have the capability to plan and execute GPS-only missions. Block IV also has an improved anti-jam GPS receiver for enhanced mission performance. Block IV includes Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS), and Tomahawk Command and Control System (TC2S).
On 16 August 2010, the Navy completed the first live test of the Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS), a new warhead designed to give the Tomahawk the same blast-fragmentation capabilities while introducing enhanced penetration capabilities in a single warhead. In the static test, the warhead detonated and created a hole large enough for the follow-through element to completely penetrate the concrete target. In February 2014, U.S. Central Command sponsored development and testing of the JMEWS, analyzing the ability of the programmable warhead to integrate onto the Block IV Tomahawk, giving the missile bunker buster effects to better penetrate hardened structures.
In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements to attack sea and moving land targets. The new passive radar seeker will pick up the electromagnetic radar signature of a target and follow it, and actively send out a signal to bounce off potential targets before impact to discriminate its legitimacy before impact. Mounting the multi-mode sensor on the missile’s nose would remove fuel space, but company officials believe the Navy would be willing to give up space for the sensor’s new technologies. The previous Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile, retired over a decade earlier, was equipped with inertial guidance and the seeker of the Harpoon missile and there was concern with its ability to clearly discriminate between targets from a long distance, since at the time Navy sensors did not have as much range as the missile itself, which would be more reliable with the new seeker’s passive detection and active millimeter-wave radar. Raytheon estimates adding the new seeker would cost $250,000 per missile. Other upgrades include sea-skim mode – low-altitude flight over water at high subsonic speeds. The first Block IV TLAMs modified with a maritime attack capability will enter service in 2018-2019.
A supersonic version of the Tomahawk is under consideration for development with a ramjet to increase its speed to Mach 3. A limiting factor to this is the dimensions of shipboard launch tubes. Instead of modifying every ship able to carry cruise missiles, the ramjet-powered Tomahawk would still have to fit within a 21-inch diameter and 20-foot long tube.
In October 2015, Raytheon announced the Tomahawk had demonstrated new capabilities in a test launch, using its onboard camera to take a reconnaissance photo and transmit it to fleet headquarters. It then entered a loitering pattern until given new targeting coordinates to strike.
By January 2016, Los Alamos National Laboratory was working on a project to turn unburned fuel left over when a Tomahawk reaches its target into an additional explosive force. To do this, the missile’s JP-10 fuel is turned into a fuel air explosive to combine with oxygen in the air and burn rapidly. The thermobaric explosion of the burning fuel acts, in effect, as an additional warhead and can even be more powerful than the main warhead itself when there is sufficient fuel left in the case of a short range target.
TACTOM(Tactical Tomahawk) is Tomahawk’s modernization program that will incorporate an all-weather-seeker that will complement Tomahawk’s Synthetic Guidance Mode; which uses a high-throughput radio signal to update the missile in flight, giving it new target information as a maritime or land target moves.
For submarine-launched missiles (called UGM-109s), after being ejected by gas pressure (vertically via the VLS) or by water impulse (horizontally via the torpedo tube), the missile exits the water and a solid-fuel booster is ignited for the first few seconds of airborne flight until transition to cruise.
After achieving flight, the missile’s wings are unfolded for lift, the airscoop is exposed and the turbofan engine is employed for cruise flight. Over water, the Tomahawk uses inertial guidance or GPS to follow a preset course; once over land, the missile’s guidance system is aided by terrain contour matching (TERCOM). Terminal guidance is provided by the Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) system or GPS, producing a claimed circular error probable of about 10 meters.
The Tomahawk Weapon System consists of the missile, Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)/Afloat Planning System, and either the Tomahawk Weapon Control System (on surface ships) or Combat Control System (for submarines).
Several versions of control systems have been used, including:
v2 TWCS – Tomahawk Weapon Control System (1983), also known as “green screens,” was based on an old tank computing system.
v3 ATWCS – Advanced Tomahawk Weapon Control System (1994), first Commercial Off the Shelf, uses HP-UX.
v4 TTWCS – Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System, (2003).
v5 TTWCS – Next Generation Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System. (2006)
The TLAM-D contains 166 sub-munitions in 24 canisters: 22 canisters of seven each, and two canisters of six each to conform to the dimensions of the airframe. The sub-munitions are the same type of Combined Effects Munition bomblet used in large quantities by the U.S. Air Force with the CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition. The sub-munitions canisters are dispensed two at a time, one per side. The missile can perform up to five separate target segments which enables it to attack multiple targets. However, in order to achieve a sufficient density of coverage typically all 24 canisters are dispensed sequentially from back to front.
TERCOM – Terrain Contour Matching. A digital representation of an area of terrain is mapped based on digital terrain elevation data or stereo imagery. This map is then inserted into a TLAM mission which is then loaded onto the missile. When the missile is in flight it compares the stored map data with radar altimeter data collected as the missile overflies the map. Based on comparison results the missile’s inertial navigation system is updated and the missile corrects its course. TERCOM was based on, and was a significant improvement on, “Fingerprint,” a technology developed in 1964 for the SLAM.
On July 26, 2014 it was announced that 196 additional Block IV missiles had been purchased.
DSMAC – Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation. A digitized image of an area is mapped and then inserted into a TLAM mission. During the flight the missile will verify that the images that it has stored correlates with the image it sees below itself. Based on comparison results the missile’s inertial navigation system is updated and the missile corrects its course.
On 17 January 1993, 46 Tomahawks were fired at the Zafraniyah Nuclear Fabrication Facility outside Baghdad, in response to Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with UN disarmament inspectors. One missile crashed into the side of the Al Rasheed Hotel, killing two civilians.
On 17 December 2009, two Tomahawk missiles were fired at targets in Yemen. One of the targets was hit by a TLAM-D missile. The target was described as an ‘alleged Al-Qaeda training camp’ in al-Ma’jalah in al-Mahfad a region of the Abyan governorate of Yemen. Amnesty International reported that 55 people were killed in the attack, including 41 civilians (21 children, 14 women, and six men). The US and Yemen governments refused to confirm or deny involvement, but diplomatic cables released as part of United States diplomatic cables leak later confirmed the missile was fired by a US Navy ship.
On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missileswere fired by U.S. and British forces (112 US, 12 British) against at least 20 Libyan targets around Tripoli and Misrata. As of 22 March 2011, 159 UGM-109 were fired by US and UK ships against Libyan targets.
On 13 October 2016 five Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched by USS Nitze at three radar sites in Yemen held by Houthi rebels in response to anti-ship missiles fired at US Navy ships the day before.
On 6 April 2017, 59 Tomahawk missiles were launched from the USS Ross (DDG-71) and USS Porter (DDG-78), targeting Shayrat, a military airfield near Homs, in Syria. The strike was in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashir Al-Assad. Initial reports indicate that the Syrian airbase was ‘almost completely destroyed’ after the US strike.
As of 2015, the United States Navy has a stockpile of around 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles of all variants, with a combined worth of approximately US $2.6 billion.
In 1995 the US agreed to sell 65 Tomahawks to the UK for torpedo-launch from her nuclear attack submarines. The first missiles were acquired and test-fired in November 1998; all Royal Navy fleet submarines are now Tomahawk capable, including the new Astute-class. The Kosovo War in 1999 saw the Swiftsure-class HMS Splendid become the first British submarine to fire the Tomahawk in combat. It has been reported that seventeen of the twenty Tomahawks fired by the British during that conflict hit their targets accurately; the UK subsequently bought 20 more Block III to replenish stocks. The Royal Navy has since fired Tomahawks during the 2000s Afghanistan War, in Operation Telic as the British contribution to the 2003 Iraq War, and during Operation Ellamy in Libya in 2011.
In April 2004, the UK and US governments reached an agreement for the British to buy 64 of the new generation of Tomahawk missile—the Block IV or TacTom missile. It entered service with the Royal Navy on 27 March 2008, three months ahead of schedule. In July 2014 the US approved the sale to the UK of a further 65 submarine-launched Block IV’s at a cost of US$140m including spares and support; as of 2011 the Block III missiles were on Britain’s books at £1.1m and the Block IV at £0.87m including VAT.
The Sylver Vertical Launching System on the new Type 45 destroyer is claimed by its manufacturers to have the capability to fire the Tomahawk, although the A50 launcher carried by the Type 45 is too short for the weapon (the longer A70 silo would be required). Nevertheless, the Type 45 has been designed with weight and space margin for a strike-length Mk41 or Sylver A70 silo to be retrofitted, allowing Type 45 to use the TLAM Block IV if required. The new Type 26 frigates will have strike-length VLS tubes. SYLVER user France is developing MdCN, a version of the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missile that has a shorter range but a higher speed than Tomahawk and can be launched from the SYLVER system.
The Air Force is a former operator of the nuclear-armed version of the Tomahawk, the BGM-109G Gryphon.
The Netherlands (2005) and Spain (2002 and 2005) were interested in acquiring the Tomahawk system, but the orders were later cancelled in 2007 and 2009 respectively.
In 2009 the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States stated that Japan would be concerned if the TLAM-N were retired, but the government of Japan has denied that it had expressed any such view.
It is believed that the SLCM version of the Popeye was developed by Israel after the US Clinton administration refused an Israeli request in 2000 to purchase Tomahawk SLCM’s because of international Missile Technology Control Regime proliferation rules.
As of March 12, 2015 Poland has expressed interest in purchasing long-range Tomahawk missiles for its future submarines.
Story 2: What is Next? United States Led Coalition of Egypt, Jordan, Kurds, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to Destroy Islamic State, Jabhat Al Nustra Front ( al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate), Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists in Syria, Hezbollah, and Bashar al-Assad Syrian Regime –Videos — Military strike comes after Trump previously railed against Syria intervention
What comes next after Syria missile attack
Story 3: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Confirmed 54 Yes — 45 Nos
Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court (C-SPAN)
The Senate Goes “Nuclear”
Mike Pence Reads Final Vote Confirming Neil Gorsuch To Supreme Court | NBC News
Senate Democrats trigger “nuclear option” to curb filibusters
Harry Reid goes Nuclear Pushes Major Senate Filibuster Rules Change
Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
It’s more than just a rule change: The so-called “nuclear option” will fundamentally alter the way the Senate operates – for good.(Casey Capachi/(In Play))
Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.
Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.
The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.
In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.
The main combatants Thursday were the chamber’s two chiefs, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who have clashed for several years over Republican filibusters of Obama’s agenda and nominees.
Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”
McConnell linked the rule change to the methods used to approve Obama’s health-care law solely with Democratic votes. The normally reserved GOP leader paced at his desk during his speech, often turning his back to Democrats to address only his fellow Republicans.
“It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate,” McConnell told reporters, calling the move a Democratic “power grab.”
The clash ended with a vote nearly as partisan as the times — 52 to 48, with all but three Democrats backing the move and every Republican opposing it.
The vote was the culmination of more than 25 years of feuding over nominations, beginning with President Ronald Reagan’s choices for the Supreme Court and including Obama’s picks for obscure federal regulatory agencies. Each side in Thursday’s debate cited its own statistics to state its case.
Democrats said the attempted filibusters of Chuck Hagel during his confirmation hearing to become defense secretary, a first for any nominee to lead the Pentagon — as well as a blockade of picks to head the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — exceeded anything Democrats did when they were in the minority. In addition, Democrats charged that Republicans didn’t even have substantive objections to the D.C. Circuit nominees they filibustered.
After the vote, Obama told reporters at the White House that Republicans had turned nomination fights into a “reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt and noted that “neither party has been blameless for these tactics.” However, he said, “today’s pattern of obstruction . . . just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.”
Republicans countered that they had confirmed 99 percent of Obama’s judicial selections. McConnell accused Democrats of eyeing the D.C. Circuit in an effort to stack the court, which reviews many cases related to federal laws and regulations, to tilt its balance in a liberal direction.
What made the day so historic for senators, former senators and the small collection of parliamentary experts in Washington was the simple majority vote used to execute the changes — a tactic so extreme it is known as the “nuclear option.”
Previous majorities had threatened to upend filibuster rules in this manner, but relying on a simple majority vote had been used only for relatively minor procedural changes to how amendments were handled, never to eliminate the supermajority requirement altogether. Before Thursday, the standard precedent was that major rule changes needed a two-thirds majority. The change was so significant that Reid and his leadership team held a victory party with liberal activists afterward in a room just off the Senate floor.
Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.
Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.
“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”
After the vote, Reid told reporters that his views on the issue had evolved — from eight years ago, when Republicans held the majority and he led the fight to protect the filibuster. He acknowledged that he wouldn’t mind seeing the supermajority requirement abolished for everything but that there were not enough votes in his caucus to support such a move.
Reid first faced pressure on this issue from junior Democrats four years ago, particularly Sen. Jeff Merkley, a former speaker of the Oregon state House, who became the point person for growing the anti-filibuster movement. But Reid repeatedly rejected their effort as too radical.
Even if Republicans want to do away with the filibuster someday, Reid said, Thursday’s move was worth it because the current climate had become too hostile to get anything significant done. Reid said he faced a choice: “Continue like we are or have democracy?”
The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations or to legislation.
Individual senators will still be able to seize the floor for marathon speeches opposing nominees, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did in a nearly 13-hour session in March against the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. But once such speeches end, the majority will be able to confirm nominees without needing bipartisan support.
With the Senate majority very much up for grabs in midterm elections next year, Democrats placed a big bet on maintaining control of the chamber. GOP leaders have suggested that, if given the Senate majority back, they might further strip filibuster rules so they could dismantle Obama’s landmark domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, on a simple majority vote.
In his remarks, McConnell finally turned to Democrats and said that a majority of them had never served in the minority and then lectured the longtime members who knew what it was like to be on the other side.
“The solution to this problem is at the ballot box,” he said. “We look forward to having a great election in 2014.”
Benson: Dem Operatives ‘Got Fired Awfully Quickly’ for Veritas Tape to be Edited
Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was PERSONALLY Involved
Published on Oct 24, 2016
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.
Are you kidding me! Hillary Clinton hires Donald Duck to erupt Donald Trump press conference!
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.
Project Veritas Action Founder James O’Keefe brings you more Hillary shockers.
Impact of Project Veritas videos on the 2016 election
Top Clinton Strategist Discusses Project Veritas Action Videos With George Stephanopoulos
George Stephanopoulos and Eric Trump Discuss Project Veritas Action Videos
Anderson Cooper Calls Project Veritas Action Videos “Damning”
Bob Woodward on the Clinton Foundation: ‘It’s Corrupt’
BREAKING: HILLARY IS DISQUALIFIED! NEW UNDERCOVER VERITAS VIDEO CONVICTS HER OF GROSS FEDERAL CRIMES
BREAKING: HILLARY IS GOING DOWN!
O’KEEFE JUST FILED SUIT AGAINST CLINTON AND THE DNC
WIKILEAKS JUST ASSASSINATED HILLARY: TREASON REVEALED AFTER ONE NATION DONATED HUGE TO THE CLINTONS
WikiLeaks Reveals How Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Coordinates With Super PACs
Wikileaks emails prove illegal coordination between Clinton and her Super PACs
More Truth About The Hillary Clinton Wikileaks Scandal
Trey Gowdy On Hillary’s Treason Email Scandal ‘be in jail’
White House Responds to Project Veritas Action Videos
Judge Jeanine Pirro Goes Off on Project Veritas Video Democrats Inciting Violence at Trump Rally
Donald Trump Mentions Project Veritas Action Videos at Third Presidential Debate
Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud
Wikileaks: Hillary Plans To Implode US Economy
New Wikileaks Confirm Media Rigging Polls For Hillary
Trump Is Leading Hillary In New Polls And New Wikileaks – The Kelly File (FULL SHOW 10/21/2016)
HILLARY WIKILEAKS: Top 10 You Must Know
NEW WIKILEAKS Revelations DEADLY For Hillary Clinton – Hannity (FULL SHOW 10/14/2016)
O’KEEFE COMPLAINT TO FEC CITES DEMS’ ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’
Vote fraud, Trump-rally anarchy linked to Clinton campaign
Citing a Democratic operative’s confirmation of a chain of command that runs directly from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to agents who “execute … on the ground,” the activists at Project Veritas are asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate a “criminal conspiracy.’
The filing of the complaint with the federal agency follows the release earlier this week of two videos in which Democrats explain how they can attempt to change the outcome of the election through apparently fraudulent means, such as having people travel across state lines to vote illegally.
Also now out of work is Bob Creamer, founder and partner of Democracy Partners, and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
Foval credited Creamer with coming up with a number of ideas and strategies to enhance Democrats’ standing among voters.
The new complaint from O’Keefe’s organization explained his journalists “have uncovered a criminal conspiracy where, in the words of Scott Foval, ‘The way that works is: The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays The Foval Group, The Foval group goes and executes … on the ground.’
The complaint states: “This has been done in a manner to evade federal election laws and violating coordinated expenditure rules.”
It is supplemented with pages of evidence.
“The criminal conspiracy involves the knowing and willful creation of coordinated expenditures from prohibited corporate sources. As is detailed numerous times in the Veritas transcript, attached as EXHIBIT A, the supposedly independent speech and actions of third-party groups were directed, controlled, or puppeteered by HFA or the DNC.
“Indeed, the record establishes not just simple violations of the FECA’s coordination provisions, but ongoing knowing and willful evasion of federal election law requirements through a complicated scheme. Because this conspiracy involves large numbers of employees, heightened travel, production, and distribution costs and because of the nationwide scale of the operation, upon information and belief, this triggers criminal penalties.”
One result of the six-month undercover investigation is that “the supposedly spontaneous and independent protests occurring at Donald Trump events nationwide were controlled and directed by Democratic Party operatives.”
“The commission should find reason to believe that Hillary for America and other named respondents have violated 52 U.S.C. [paragraph] 30101, et seq, and conduct an immediate investigation,” the complaint explains. “Because of the weighty public interest at stake here, it should do so within 120 days of the filing of this complaint … the complainants request that the FEC impose sanctions appropriate to these violations and take further action as may be appropriate, including referring the matter to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation.”
Foval explains the subterfuge.
“We can hire any demo that we want. We use the same mechanism to recruit them that we do to make focus groups. … We have to be really careful. Um, because, what we don’t need is for it to show up on CNN that the DNC paid ‘x’ people to … that’s not gonna happen. We need to keep it, you know, I hate to use the Beyonce term, ‘partition,’ but we need to keep the partition. That’s as gay as I’ll get.”
“Where is the FBI, why is the FBI not investigating this?” the former House speaker asked during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, BizPacReview reported. “You have a deliberate willful effort to foment violence, to break up a presidential campaign [and] to intimidate voters.”
The PILF complaint, directed to the office of the general counsel for the FEC in Washington, names Hillary for America, the DNC, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change and others.
“This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV activity … at the request, direction, and approval of the Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National committee in violation of 11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3).”
The activities, the complaint says, “potentially registered persons who were not citizens.” They also illegally coordinated political maneuvers between a candidate’s committee and groups that are supposed to be operating independently, the complaint charges.
That puts them in violation of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the complaint contends.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Twitter, according to the Washington Examiner, that multiple visits to the White House by a “voter fraud operative” merits “a serious criminal investigation.”
Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh said the evidence is worrisome.
“Every Trump rally would feature none of this [violence] unless the Democrats were paying for it. I think it’s a big deal, folks. The media is complicit. They know who these people are. … They’re in on it. They’re part of the game. … None of it’s organic. None of it’s natural. None of it’s real. Every bit of it is bought and paid for.
“[Democrats] can’t leave elections to chance because they know that, despite the way it may look, the majority of Americans would not support them if they knew who they are.”
Foval said he works backward in his thinking. He first speculates how a charge of voter fraud could be proven, and then he manipulates circumstances and events to avoid those tactics.
He talked about bringing voters from one state to another to vote illegally.
Hiring a bus could be used as evidence of conspiracy, he noted, so people would need to drive their own cars, or better yet, rentals.
There also was a discussion about using local addresses for illegal voters.
He said what needs to happen is to “implement the plan on a much bigger scale.”
“You implement a massive change in state legislatures and in Congress. So you aim higher for your goals, and you implement it across every Republican-held state.”
Project Veritas says the actions are “behind-the-scenes shady practices with consequences most Americans have seen on national television at Donald Trump campaign rallies across the country.”
“What the media hasn’t reported is that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee has been directing these activities with, at very best, a very thin veil of plausible deniability.”
Commented Foval at one point, “I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do s—, make no mistake. Over the last 20 years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower. And I put them in a program. Like I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people especially our union guys. A lot of our union guys … they’ll do whatever you want. They’re rock and roll. When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, ‘What do you need?’ And I will say, ‘I need a guy who will do this, this and this.’ And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, ‘Hell yeah, let’s do it.’”
Last week, O’Keefe reported his Twitter account was shut down as he was releasing reports on voter fraud.
In one video he released last week, a Clinton staffer confessed that ripping up voter registration forms – if they are for Republicans – is “fine.”
The video also revealed a sexist atmosphere inside the Clinton campaign in which another staffer boasts he would probably have to “grab a–” twice before he’d even be reprimanded. It underscores the double standard by Democrats who have been critical of the 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump making lewd remarks about women.
In the video, both Wylie Mao, a field organizer for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party of Florida in West Palm Beach, and Trevor Lafauci, a Clinton campaign staffer, agree that ripping up registration forms from Republicans should be “fine.”
“If I rip up completed VR forms, like 20 of them, I think I’ll just get reprimanded. I don’t think I would get fired,” Mao said.
Lafauci, after being told that someone else ripped up Republican registration forms, said, “Yeah, that should be fine.”
When Project Veritas journalists confronted both Mao and Lafauci about the comments they made on camera, they “refused to answer and walked away,” the organization said.
O’Keefe previously released an undercover video of Alan Schulkin, the New York Democratic commissioner of the Board of Elections, confirming there is widespread fraud.
In the video, he is heard disclosing that organizers use buses to haul people from poll to poll to vote.
Sweden has died. Do not allow your country to be next….
Immigrant rape statistics in Sweden
Hungary – Defending Europe’s Borders
Visegrad Alliance – Central Europe Rises
Tribute to the Visegrad Four countries: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Often in the West we hear of “Europeans values”, “Western values”. Those values that are touted as “European” and “Western” by Leftist are anything but. The value of self-hate is a value of the far-left imposed on Europe over the last half-century. Those aren’t our real European values nor representative of our ancient cultures. It is manipulation and deceit to say they are.
Hungarian PM: Mass Migration a Plot to Destroy Christian West
The New Urban Agenda
Agenda 21 – Replacement Migration – United Nations
How the World Will Know if the New Urban Agenda Is Successful
George Soros Owns Hillary Clinton: Why We Need Trump (FULL SHOW)
Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros’ ‘radical’ vision of open-border world
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financier George Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.
The phrase “American exceptionalism” is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”
“We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy,” Mr. Soros wrote.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, he said, “Military power is of limited use in dealing with asymmetric threats such as terrorism.”
The Clinton-Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman. Mr. Soros‘ name comes up nearly 60 times.
The financial and ideological alliance is so complete that after Mr. Soros dined with Mrs. Clinton in 2014 and asked her to attend a liberal group’s fundraiser, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote in an email, “I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy).”
Just as America was tossed — or did we eagerly jump — into the sexual political gutter with Bill and Hillary and Donald, there was other news breaking.At least I thought it was news. But I must warn you: Sex and sexual politics has nothing to do with it.
It’s Hillary Clinton‘s dream of an America without borders, as expressed to investors of a Brazilian bank, in comments leaked by WikiLeaks.
An America without borders, Hillary? How positively George Soros of you, Madam Secretary.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere,” Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.
Here’s the thing about borders. If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country. Americans are beginning to understand this. Europeans understand it now, quite clearly.
Clinton’s dream also includes a Western Hemispheric common market, like the European common market that is dissolving in chaos, fear and debt.
If that is indeed her dream, then she dreams the internationalist dream that would end America. But Americans aren’t talking about this, perhaps because there is no video involving sex and Hollywood and Trump.
I would love to hear Clinton’s explanation. Perhaps she could put it in some proper context.
Or perhaps she was merely telling the Brazilians something they wanted to hear, because they were paying her a good chunk of cash.
And if there is a way for America to maintain sovereignty without borders, Hillary might be just the one to tell us. But the Clinton campaign isn’t commenting. And reporters aren’t really pressing, preoccupied as they are by that vulgar video of a boorish Trump.
Clinton campaign spokesman Robby Mook was on one of the talk shows saying Clinton’s dreams of American open borders didn’t really mean open borders.
Mook said she meant open borders in the context of green energy for all.
Cool. But then what about her dreams of the hemispheric common market and all the people traveling to and fro across the Western Hemisphere?
So I’d like to hear Hillary Clinton tell it.
The way to deal with this would be for Clinton to release the transcripts of all her well-paid speeches, the ones to Wall Street and the one about border dreams to Banco Itau. That’s what Bernie Sanders wanted.
But that’s not happening, just like Donald Trump isn’t releasing his tax returns.
So the Clintonistas are blaming the Russians for the hacking.
It might also be true that if a hacker could hack into Clinton campaign emails, then a hacker might also have hacked into top secret emails she kept on her home brew server in violation of federal law when she was secretary of state.
But I won’t say anything, lest I be denounced as a Russian spy.
That WikiLeaks information was available just before the last Clinton-Trump debate. The moderators could have asked a question about it, but they chose not to.
They did ask about another drop from WikiLeaks, that of Clinton’s belief in holding one public position on policy for the public and another for private consideration by insiders.
Kind of like when she was secretary of state and telling America that the four dead Americans in Benghazi were killed by protesters angry about some video. And then telling her daughter and others, in private emails, that the four were killed in a terrorist attack.
In the debate, Clinton was asked if an official holding a private and a public position could be considered “two-faced.”
She said Abraham Lincoln did it. In a movie.
And now, rather than worry about divisive issues such as borders, we’re consumed by that vulgar Trump video.
Yet back when the Clintons held the White House, back when Bill used the cigar on that intern in the Oval Office, the political left protected him. And they defended Hillary for defending Bill, who had a habit of putting his hands on women when he held office.
Sex was a private matter then. It’s quite a public matter now. But then it was all a private matter, remember?
And so, after a brief bout of impeachment interruptus, the American political establishment welcomed Bill and Hillary back into the establishment fold, where wealth and near absolute power awaited them.
What’s laughable about all this is the Clintonista argument that to cleanse America of the stain of Trump, we must re-install Hillary and Bill back into the same White House that they soiled years ago.
I get all that.
Trump is a boor and Bill Clinton is a boor and Hillary is Hillary — either a loyal spouse or a cunning enabler. And politics is politics, so you’ll hate the one or forgive the other based on your preferences, or shout a pox upon them all.
But having an America with or without borders is also rather important, no?
And someone running for president might want to explain it all, in the proper context of course.
An America without borders? That’s not a dream, that’s a nightmare.
Hillary an enthusiastic supporter of globalist plan for U.S. cities
The United Nations has cooked up a “New Urban Agenda” coming soon to a city near you.
It was unveiled this week in Quito, Ecuador, at the so-called Habitat III conference.
And part of the plan, enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton, calls for unlimited migration across open borders. Migrants displaced by war, failing economies or other hardships will be seen as having “rights” in nations other than their own. Cities are seen as the key battlegrounds and the U.N. conference in Quito had a lot to say about how your city will be expected to embrace migrants of all types, from all regions of the world.
By now most Americans who follow world events are familiar with the U.N’s plan for global governance as envisioned by its “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” approved by some 190 world leaders including President Obama and Pope Francis in September 2015.
This agenda includes 17 goals aimed at ending hunger, wiping out poverty and stamping out global income inequality by “transforming our world” through sweeping changes ostensibly aimed at freeing cross-border “labor mobility,” among other things.
Hillary Clinton, anointed by Obama as his successor, said in a speech to Wall Street bankers she envisions the U.S. as part of a single “hemispheric common market with free trade and open borders,” according to WikiLeaks data dumps.
In another bombshell revealed by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton told Goldman Sachs bankers that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American.” She has also called for a 550-percent increase in the resettlement of Syrian refugees in America – that’s 550 percent more than Obama’s vastly increased level of more than 12,000 resettled in one year.
In short, Hillary’s agenda for cities sounds an awful lot like the U.N.’s agenda for cities as laid out in the New Urban Agenda document approved this week by world leaders in Quito.
Clinton earlier this year announced her $135 billion “breaking every barrier” program to transform America’s cities.
In this plan, she makes 37 pledges promising everything from removal of blight to construction of affordable housing in areas that are currently out of the price range of refugees, immigrants, the chronically unemployed and under-employed. She intends to build on the “successes” of her husband and the Obama administration in using public-private partnerships to transform cities. Obama’s contribution in this area included his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which forces grant-receiving cities to infuse their low-crime suburban areas, deemed “too white,” with subsidized housing marketed to low-income renters.
This fits right in with the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.
“She’s making a pre-announcement here that she’s going to follow the U.N. agenda,” Wood said. “She’s signaling to her fellow globalists that she’s 100 percent on board with their agenda.”
The problem that keeps globalists like Obama and Clinton up at night is how to implement the sweeping changes laid out in the U.N. 2030 Agenda last September at the global sustainability summit in New York.
That’s where Habitat III comes into play. It’s called the U.N. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development or “Habitat III” for short. Its focus is on the world’s cities.
Largest U.N. conference ever
Habitat III was attended by a staggering 50,000 people including more than 200 mayors and another 140 city delegations
The sole purpose of this conference is to approve a 24-page document called the New Urban Agenda.
“The only purpose of the conference is to rubber stamp this document and elevate it and lift it up to the world,” said Wood. “And right now it looks like they are. Everybody. All the nations.”
In this document lies the globalists’ plans for cities. All cities. Big, small, even tiny cities. Every American who lives in a city will at some point see the fruits of the plan the U.N. has in store for the world, says Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement.
The Habitat conference convenes only once every 20 years but when it does, it leaves a trail of anti-capitalist, anti-liberty “global standards” in its wake, says Wood. These are the standards by which the U.N. wants each and every city in the world to be operated. They come packaged as “non-binding” and Congress never approves them.
Yet, somehow, the global standards coming out of the major U.N. conferences always seem to filter down to even the smallest American hamlet. How? Through federal grants. Any city that accepts federal grants will at some point be required to implement the practices that the U.N. has declared “sustainable.”
‘Inclusive’ by design, coercive by default
The buzzword in the New Urban Agenda is “inclusive” or “inclusivity.” This concept has a long history with global elites and technocrats.
The definition of “technocracy” as used by the original technocrats back 1938 was “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” That’s according to The Technocrat magazine.
“They use the word ‘entire’ twice in that definition so I’m really not surprised we see it showing up in these conferences today,” Wood said. “Their intent is to create a net that will catch 100 percent of the people.”
The word “inclusive” or “inclusivity” appear in the New Urban Agenda document no fewer than 36 times.
“There is no exclusion,” Wood says. “If you read the document, you’ll find for instance under item 6a, ‘transformative commitments,’ the statement starts out ‘leave no one behind.’”
That same phrase, leave no one behind, is in the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.
“In fact just about everywhere you go now at the U.N. you’ll find this concept,” Wood said. “It’s a little disturbing.”
Wood says the U.N. is resurrecting an old concept that fizzled in the early days of the technocracy movement. Its time hadn’t arrived yet, back in the 1930s, but now things are different. The world is run by big data and the world is eager to embraced a set of globalized, one-world standards for everything, whether it be Common Core education standards, globalized police standards that Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the U.N. last fall in the form of the Strong Cities Network, or global standards for healthcare, ala Obamacare. You name it, the United Nations wants to standardize it.
The next big hurdle in the race to standardize the world is the issue of immigration.
Point 42 on page 7 of the New Urban Agenda talks about cities providing opportunities for dialogue, “paying particular attention to the potential contributions” of women and children, the elderly and disabled, “refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants, regardless of migration status, and without discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.”
Everyone is welcome
Wood notes that, in America, that would mean exactly what John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, has already said — that anyone with a driver’s license should be allowed to vote.
“This is the way I read it,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal, wanted or unwanted, jihadists or non-jihadists, sick or healthy. If they show up in your country, they must participate in the affairs of that country immediately, whatever country they find themselves in.”
The preamble to the New Urban Agenda says cities are the “key to tackling global challenges.”
“So these people are viewing cities as the key ingredient right now to implementing sustainable development, and they say this battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities.”
And the U.N. document goes on to state that this agenda is “the first step for operationalizing sustainable development in an integrated and coordinated way at the global, national, subnational, and local levels.”
In essence, it’s a roadmap to global governance where American cities will no longer get their direction from elected officials representing them on the city council, or even the state legislature, but the United Nations itself. The local councils will likely not even know that the rules they are following in order to qualify for federal grants are tied to United Nations’ standards for sustainability.
Cities committing to ‘a paradigm shift’
The document talks about cities committing to “a paradigm shift” in the way they “plan, develop and manage urban development.”
“It’s top to bottom,” Wood said. “They’re saying it’s going to be a top-down implementation. But for all the gains that sustainable development have made since 1992, there’s been a complaint that it hasn’t gone fast enough or far enough, and that it’s not inclusive enough, that some pockets have been left out. So, what they’re saying here is that this New Urban Agenda document is really, in their minds, the first step for operationalizing it. First step to making sustainable development completely operational. That’s huge.”
Wallace Henley, a journalist and former aide in the Nixon White House who went on to become a Christian pastor and who has written extensively on globalism, said the U.N. is making a full-on assault against the American system of government, which requires federalism, states’ rights and separation of powers.
“The U.N. is a glaring example of the inevitable course of bureaucracies. Like kudzu in Alabama, a tiny seed will inevitably spread until it controls the whole of a hillside,” Henley, author of “God and Churchhill,” told WND in an email.
And he, like Wood, sees Hillary Clinton in the thick of the battle, fighting on the side of the globalists, not America first.
“The leftist-progressive philosophy is the fertilizer. Agencies sprout and grow, and bring forth policy confabs like Habitat III. The conferences then produce white papers that ultimately become the source of policies,” he said. “It is a leftist-progressivist dream.”
“Sustainability” is a code word for regulatory authority, Henley said, and that is the suffocating vine that chokes out everything else.
“This meshes perfectly with the New Globalism and its dream of a world without borders. Anything can be done in the name of a ‘sustainable’ future, including the ‘humanitarian’ invasion of a sovereign state – but only if its leaders embrace the same left-progressive philosophy as the bureaucracies headquartered in New York. This makes a Hillary Clinton presidency even more foreboding,” he said.
And these “progressives” include many in the Republican Party who are now shilling for Clinton, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Ryan, according to an article by Breitbart’s Julia Hahn, has been working hand in hand with the Clinton campaign for months.
“The true conservative seeks preservation of liberty-nurturing principles, and the sustenance of values that resist the control of the bureaucrats and guarantee freedom from a globalist hegemon in the form of the U.N.,” Henley said
Eric Voegelin’s 1975 book, “From Enlightenment to Revolution,” describes with amazing prescience the “line of progress” according to the revolutionaries who drive what Henley calls the New Globalism, from the local to the global, from the individual to the mass of humanity, from nation-states to a concentrated global power.
“This is the big picture of which Habitat III and its New Urban Agenda is a part.”
The future is urban and nowhere is that more true than in Bangladesh. If current rates of urbanisation continue, the country’s urban population will double by 2035. Around the Bay of Bengal, a mega city would join Dhaka to Chittagong, creating one of the world’s largest conglomerations. Whether that process produces a congested toxic unlivable mess of concrete and steel, or whether it becomes a thriving, connected, wonderful city to live in, is almost entirely down to the political and policy choices we make.
This week a critical meeting in Quito, Ecuador, will look at those critical political and policy choices. The Habitat III conference to adopt a “New Urban Agenda” builds on the Habitat Agenda of Istanbul in 1996 (Habitat II).The new agenda is intended to reinvigorate the global commitment to sustainable urbanisation. The conference is expected to result in a concise, focused, forward-looking and action-oriented outcome document on making cities and human settlements equitable, prosperous, sustainable, just, equal and safe until 2030. By the middle of the century, a majority of the world’s citizens —four out of five people — could be living in towns or cities. Indeed, in the time since the Habitat Agenda was adopted, the world has become majority urban, lending extra urgency to the New Urban Agenda.
Habitat III is one of the first major global conferences to be held after the adoption of two key agreements, last year. Agenda 2030, a new development plan for the world; and a new Climate Change agreement adopted in Paris. It offers a unique opportunity to discuss the important challenge of how cities, towns and villages are planned and managed in a sustainable manner, to meet the new global agenda and climate change goals.
The New Urban Agenda, agreed upon at Habitat III in Quito, will guide the efforts around urbanisation of a wide range of actors — nation states, city and regional leaders, international development funders, UN programmes and civil society — for the next 20 years. Inevitably, this agenda will also lay the groundwork for policies and approaches that will have long lasting impact.
HABITAT I and II
Forty years later, after both Habitat I and II, there is wide consensus that towns’ and cities’ structure, form, and functionality need to change as societies change. Especially, slums and related informal settlements that have become a spontaneous form of urbanisation, consisting of a series of survival strategies by the urban poor, most borne out of poverty and exclusion.
Habitat III represents an opportunity to make concrete the ideals of Habitat II in designing policies, planning urban spaces for all, and providing affordable urban services and utilities through adopting a ‘New Urban Agenda’ this October.
Towards the New Urban Agenda
The core issues of the Habitat II Agenda — adequate housing and sustainable human settlements — remain on the table, as the number of people worldwide living in urban slums continues to grow. There is also an increasing recognition that cities have morphed into mega-regions, urban corridors and city-regions whose economic, social and political geographies defy traditional conceptions of the “city”.
Impact of the agenda
The Agenda will seek to create a mutually reinforcing relationship between urbanisation and development. Several core ideas form the ideological underpinnings of the New Urban Agenda. Democratic development and respect for human rights feature prominently in the draft agreements, as does the relationship between the environment and urbanisation.
The new agenda also places importance on establishing a global monitoring mechanism to track progress on meeting commitments. As an “agenda”, it will provide guidance to nation states, city and regional authorities, civil society, foundations, NGOs, academic researchers and UN agencies. However, this guidance is not binding. This arrangement is different from, for example, the December 2015 climate negotiations in Paris, which resulted in a legally binding agreement.
Let’s take a practical example. The new urban agenda calls for mass transit systems and to cut back our dependence on vehicles. In recent years in Dhaka, our response to traffic congestion has been to build flyovers. This has been compared to an overweight person addressing the need to lose weight by loosening their belt. You feel better at first, but it doesn’t last. The underlying issues are not addressed. The government recently broke ground on metro rail link between Uttara and the airport. With policy choices like this, we can move Dhaka to the fore of the New Urban Agenda.
The New Urban Agenda and Bangladesh
A broad range of actors in Bangladesh were involved in contributing to developing the New Urban Agenda. The Government of Bangladesh, through the Ministry of Housing and Public Works, is engaged in both the Habitat III conference and related academic discussions through various national and international forums.
It is estimated that 60 percent of Bangladesh’s GDP is produced in urban areas. Having laid out an urban vision in the 7th Five-year Plan as “compact, networked, resilient, competitive, and inclusive and smart,” Bangladesh still has considerable work ahead to meet international goals set by the New Urban Agenda. Certainly, in Bangladesh the stakes are high, since it is the third most urbanised nation in South Asia.
The ‘new urban agenda’ will clearly influence policymakers as they consider cities, urbanisation and sustainable development, and set priorities at the national levels. With the global perspectives on managing urbanisation for making cities and human settlements equitable, prosperous, sustainable, just, equal and safe, Bangladesh can finalise the long awaited national urban sector policy. And it can begin drafting a ‘New Urban Agenda’ to tackle the country’s rapid urbanisation in order to maximise the benefits of urbanisation for the people of Bangladesh.
The writers are Acting Country Director of UNDP Bangladesh and Urban Programme Specialist of UNDP Bangladesh.
This article is part of the United Nations University’s Habitat III series featuring research and commentary related to the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, 17–20 October 2016 in Quito, Ecuador.
For the first time in history, a majority of the global population lives in cities. The trend toward urbanisation is continuing, and by mid-century city dwellers are expected to account for two-thirds of the world’s people. Migration accounts for a significant, yet often controversial, part of this urban development. Twenty years ago at the Habitat II conference in Istanbul, urban migration was framed as a problem to be tackled. The focus at the time was on addressing the root causes of rural-to-urban migration and finding ways to minimise population movement to cities. As such, Habitat II did not go far enough to emphasise the positive contributions migrants make to urban life.
The legacy of this framing of urban migration has had lasting impacts that have reinforced the socio-economic and spatial marginalisation of migrants (and subsequent generations) in a number of cities, from Paris to Delhi. In the preparations for Habitat III, to be held in Quito from 17–20 October 2016, an issue paper on migrants and refugees points out that “the generic urbanisation model” over the past decades has “fostered segregation over integration”.
The adoption of the New Urban Agenda in Quito will bring in a new narrative on urban migration that centres on promoting migrants’ inclusion in cities and upholding their rights. States, local authorities, intergovernmental and civil society organisations can use this opportunity to collectively develop urban policies that reflect this narrative. More than half of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, and continuing migration is central to urbanisation processes — both in terms of internal migration (movement within the same country) and of international migration (be it voluntary or forced, bearing in mind that the line between the two is increasingly blurred).
“Migration is clearly an urban phenomenon, and especially so in this time of unprecedented global displacement.”
As the above issue paper notes, some 60% of the world’s refugees (and 80% of internally displaced persons) now live in urban areas rather than in camps. Cities, large and small, are where migrants seek to build their livelihoods, futures, and networks, pursue opportunities, and realise their aspirations.
Migration is thus very clearly an urban phenomenon, and especially so in this time of unprecedented global displacement. Even as states reinforce their borders, with security, fences, and walls, cities are opening themselves up to new arrivals. This is why the New Urban Agenda is so relevant to the global debates that are taking place about migration.
Where states are failing to honour the rights and dignity of migrants and refugees, cities in many parts of the world are acting in concrete ways to receive them, provide them with basic services, and find ways to include them in the everyday fabric of the city (including those without documents). This effort offers potential to transform the discourse and politics of migration by recognising the rich social, cultural, and economic contributions of migrants to urban life, while allowing us to imagine the possibilities for migrants to feel a sense of belonging at an urban level.
In New York City, for example, all migrants — regardless of their status — are eligible for an IDNYC (identification card) giving them access to many services in the city. The municipality of Sao Paulo, meanwhile, has created a municipal migration policy developed in accordance with the principles of human rights and non-discrimination, and drawing upon the voices of migrants through participative consultations. And cities in Germany are making novel uses of urban space and infrastructure to house recent arrivals of migrants and refugees, while volunteer-led projects among urban citizenshave emerged over the past year to foster a culture of welcome that, if cultivated in the long term, can lead to sustained forms of inclusion.
“We must also be aware that not all cities are powerful actors with the freedom to make and implement decisions.”
But lest we romanticise this ideal of welcoming cities, it is important to acknowledge that significant challenges remain for migrants in a number of cities: precarious work; language barriers; difficulties in accessing health, education, and justice; poor environmental health conditions and insecure housing; and discrimination.
We must also be aware that not all cities are powerful actors with the freedom to make and implement decisions. Some municipal governments remain poorly resourced and depend upon restrictive state-level policy directives — the experiences of urban refugees in Bangkok who live in a state of limbo and invisibility is a case in point. This is a reminder of the importance of multi-level governance that connects the grassroots and local levels to the national, regional, and global levels. If migration is well-managed throughout all levels, migrants are more likely to have the resources to sustain their livelihoods and the opportunities to make valuable, enduring, and creative contributions.
The New Urban Agenda is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the need to take a human rights-based approach to migration has thus been recognised, far more than in the past. The draft Agenda includes commitments to support refugees, internally displaced persons, and migrants regardless of their migration status. Yet if the New Urban Agenda is based on a vision of “cities for all”, we need further clarity as to how these lofty statements will translate into practical and implementable projects and policies for social and spatial inclusion that take migration and displacement into consideration.
On this point, the New Urban Agenda remains vague. The points raised during the urban dialogues and thematic consultations in the run-up to Habitat III, which are intended to gather input from diverse stakeholders and citizens in the shaping of the Agenda, call on local and national authorities to include migration as a transversal feature of urban planning, and to promote the civic participation of migrants across urban spaces and institutions.
Indeed, we should see Habitat III as the starting point for developing and implementing inclusive policies and the sharing of good practices on these issues. In this particular moment of time — when the world’s attention is fixed on migration — it is vital that we shape our cities to be inclusive, convivial, and progressive places that embrace cultural pluralism and diversity as a hallmark of sustainable urban development.
Story 1: The People’s Freedom vs. The Elite’s Ruling New World Order Racket — British People Choose Freedom — American People Choose Freedom In November Outing President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan — Get The United Nations Out of United States and The United States Out of United Nations — Breakup The Rackets of The European Union and United Nations! — Dump House Speaker Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton — Elect Trump — Three Cheers For The British People Who Voted For Brexit — Videos
Does the Brexit help Donald Trump?
Brexit Global Reaction: World markets and governments dismayed by anti-EU result
BREXIT THE MOVIE FULL FILM
BREXIT THE MOVIE is a feature-length documentary film to inspire as many people as possible to vote to LEAVE the EU in the June 23rd referendum.
Event Speech: Nigel Lawson Making the Case for Brexit
The Truth About Brexit | UK’s EU Referendum
“Why we must leave the EU” | UK economist and entrepreneur, Jim Mellon, backs Brexit
Economic Lessons from the European Union
The Great Intelligence Squared Brexit Debate
The Great European Refugees and Migrants Debate
Better off together? A conservative case for the European Union
Roger Bootle, Capital Economics, 28 January 2015 – Corporate Wisdom Lecture Series
Roger Bootle Full Interview: Europe is a complete disaster – Britain must leave
What is wrong with Europe? Roger Bootle, Executive Chairman of Capital Economics discusses
Q&A with the audience at Capital Economic’s Annual Conference 2015
BREXIT – Vicky Redwood, Chief UK Economist at Capital Economics discusses.
Economic implications of ‘Brexit’ On-set interview Prof. Yang Jun-sok
Euro area is “dismal failure” and Brexit would be a concern, economist Joseph Stiglitz
Brexit: Liberty Reigns!
Peter SCHIFF – Brexit Is Not The Reason; It’s The Catalyst (after BREXIT)- Episode 176 – JUNE 2016
Jim Rickards weighs in on Brexit
Brexit: Aftermath | Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux
Double Victory: Brexit Win And Free Speech Restored At RNC
Marc Faber Brexit Would be the Best That Could Happen to Britain
An Introduction to Trading Away Your Freedom
Bad Deal for America
What is Free Trade?
Trading Away Your Freedom by Foreign Entanglements
Emerging Ties Between Backers of Trade Mergers & Con-Cons
Will We Be Fooled Again? Stop the TPP!
What We Can Expect If Congress Passes TPP
How Obama’s New Trade Pacts Threaten Our Bill of Rights
Negotiations Launched for US-EU Free Trade Agreement
Stepping Stone to World Government: The FTAA
Nile Gardiner: Great Britain outside of EU will be far more competitive
David Malpass talks Brexit’s impact
Impact of Brexit on U.S. economy, trade
“The Economic Debate Leading into 2016” – Art Laffer
Dr. Arthur Laffer’s 2015 West Virginia Business Summit Presentation
John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
United Nations: One-world tyranny, step by step
UNITED NATIONS is Bringing the NWO 2016 – EBOLA, ISIS, WW3, Martial Law, Police State, Agenda 21…
Changing Our Society to Merge U.S Into New World Order
Trump Insider: Paul Ryan Working For Hillary, Trying To Steal RNC Money
Sarah Palin endorses Paul Ryan’s challenger
COMPLETE INTERVIEW: Chuck Todd Interviewes Paul Ryan On “Meet The Press” (6/19/2016)
Paul Ryan Wants More Moslem Immigrants; 6-14-2016
Wisconsin Congressional Candidate Paul Nehlen on Unseating Rep. Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan’s Betrayal – Michelle Malkin at Paul Nehlen Rally
Paul Nehlen Says Ryan Betrayed Us on TPA/TPP
Paul Ryan’s Betrayal – Paul Nehlen Rally
Paul Nehlen to challenge Speaker of the House for seat in Congress
Paul Nehlen: Paul Ryan ‘Sold His Vote! I Absolutely Believe That’
Our Enemy, The State
Our Enemy the State!
Our Enemy, The State – Albert Jay Nock
George Orwell – A Final Warning
European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations ‘to be morphed into one’ post-Brexit
EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged today.
PUBLISHED: 11:01, Mon, Jun 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:20, Mon, Jun 27, 2016
German Angela Merkel met with European heads today at the EU summit
The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.
Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland – a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism – after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.
Polish politicians say the plans include loss of control of a number of key policy areas
Polish foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski has blasted the plan
The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries – made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia – by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values ??that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the break-up of the EU.
A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.
Opponents of the EU have warned of its ambitions to create a superstate
Britain voted to leave the European Union in an historic referendum last Thursday
Responding to the plot Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski raged: “This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit.”There are deep divides at the heart of the EU at the moment over how to proceed with the project in light of the Brexit vote.
Some figures have cautioned against trying to force through further political integration, warning that to do so against the wishes of the European people will only fuel further Eurosceptic feeling.
This is not a good solution
Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski
A few weeks before the Brexit vote European Council president Donald Tusk warned that European citizens did not share the enthusiasm of some of their leaders for “a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of Euro-Asian unity”.He added: “Increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me to be the best answer to it.”His view was backed up by the leader of the eurozone countries, Dutch politician Jerome Dijsselbloem, who added: “In the eurozone some are pushing for a completion of the monetary union by creating a full political union, a euro area economic government or even a euro budget… to me it is obvious.“We need to strengthen what we have and finish it, but let’s not build more extensions to the European house while it is so unstable.”
Meanwhile Lorenzo Condign, the former director general of Italy’s treasury, has said it is nearly impossible to see Europe opting for more integration at such a time of upheaval.He said: “It seems difficult to imagine that the rest of the EU will close ranks and move in the direction of greater integration quickly. Simply, there is no political will.“Indeed, the risk is exactly the opposite – namely that centrifugal forces will prevail and make integration even more difficult.”But others see the Brexit vote as an opportunity to push ahead with the European elite’s long-cherished dream of creating a United States of Europe.
Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo has called for “more Europe” whilst Italy’s finance minister, Carlo Padoan, is advocating a common budget for the eurozone states.
And Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister, wants to go even further and set up a common eurozone treasury which would oversee the permanent transfer of funds from wealthier northern Europe to shore up Mediterranean economies
Brexit 2.0: Populist Revolt Worldwide Catches Fire as Donald Trump Takes Aim at Globalist Hillary Clinton
by MATTHEW BOYLE 24 Jun 2016
The globalist movement is on the run as the British people on Thursday voted to “Leave” the European Union.
The vote to Brexit—a hard-fought campaign by nationalist populists in the United Kingdom—puts the world elite on their heels, as a similar but bigger and stronger such movement is brewing right here in the United States.
Donald J. Trump, the presumptive 2016 GOP presidential nominee, has run a campaign so far—and since winning the nomination—focused squarely on the exact same issues that the Leave campaigners ran on in the United Kingdom. Uncontrolled migration, out-of-whack trade deals, national sovereignty, popular control of government, and rejection of world elites are what propelled Leave campaigners to a stunning victory in the United Kingdom. Those same issues are what has propelled Trump to a similarly shocking victory over 16 other Republican presidential candidates in the primaries, where he—as Breitbart News has documented—received millions more votes than anyone else who has ever won the GOP nomination has.
They also set the stage for the 2016 general election. Trump has not shown a sign of backing down at all, on any of this, and in his speech earlier in the week laying out the case against Hillary Rodham Clinton—the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, his opponent in November—he set the stage for this battle.
“Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them,” Trump said in his Tuesday address. “We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money.”
Throughout the speech, Trump excoriated Clinton for her ties to the world’s international elite—citing Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash to detail how she and her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, “used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense.”
“She gets rich making you poor,” Trump said of Hillary Clinton, talking directly to the voters.
The matching themes of Trump’s campaign, and the successful Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, are in large part why Trump’s well-timed trip to Scotland—purportedly for opening a golf course with his children, but seemingly because of the Leave success—makes him the captain of an international populist rejection of the world’s elite.
Trump seized the mantle of the movement on Friday morning in Scotland, embracing the populism that has propelled him this far and sustained him even as the most sinister and brutal of attacks come his way from inside his own party and from the other side.
“This is an amazing honor,” Trump said on Friday, almost taking credit for Brexit. After noting Brexit won, and by a bigger margin than pundits, analysts, and prognosticators could have ever predicted, Trump noted that the will of the public is all powerful.
“It’s always the will of the people ultimately that wins out,” Trump said.
As Trump soars back into the United States riding the populist wave on high, he will over the next several months seek to define his general election opponent—Hillary Clinton—correctly as the face of the global elite that the British voters just defeated. The lies, smears, and false alarms that Remain campaigners pushed out as part of a giant misinformation campaign designed to deceive the public into choosing against Leave all failed.
Those same misinformation campaign tactics are coming into focus here in the United States against Trump. High dollar donors are spending millions on attack ads. The mainstream media is inaccurately calling him a racist, a xenophobe, a sexist, and painting a grossly unfair and wrong picture of Trump as a buffoon who has no idea what he’s doing and would be a disaster for the economy and world security. That is the George Soros playbook, the exact same type of campaign the Remain folks in the United Kingdom ran against Leave campaigners.
Perhaps, despite serious concerns over his competence, Leave campaign’s Boris Johnson summed it up best during the BBC debate earlier this week:
At the end of this campaign, I think you’ll agree: There is a very clear choice between those on their side who speak of nothing but fear of the consequences of leaving the EU, and we on our side who offer hope. Between those who have been endlessly rubbishing our country and running it down, and those of us who believe in Britain. They say we can’t do it. We say we can. They say we have no choice but to bow down to Brussels. We say they are woefully underestimating this country and what it can do. If we vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and huge sums of money—10 billion pounds a year net—of our tax raising powers, of our trade policies, and of our whole lawmaking system. The democracy that is the foundation of our prosperity and if we stand up for democracy we will be speaking up for hundreds of millions of people around Europe who agree with us but who currently have no voice. And if we vote Leave and take back control, I believe that this Thursday could be our country’s Independence Day.
Johnson lifted the Independence Day line from Nigel Farage of the U.K. Independence Party—also a Leave campaigner—and an actual leader of the populist movement who has been banging the drum on the issue for 25 years.
Trump struck a similar note in his New York City speech exposing Clinton:
Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out their country. They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people. Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that things can’t change. My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance, and maybe our only chance, to do that change. If we don’t do it now, folks, I don’t know that we’ll ever, ever have another chance. We have to have change, but real change—not Obama change.
What the Leave campaigners did in the United Kingdom—and what Trump is doing here—is taking the moral high ground away from the global elitists. Trump is turning Hillary Clinton into the “no you can’t” candidate, just as Leave campaigners framed the Remain campaigners as those holding Britain back.
The next several months leading up to the United States’ own presidential election are going to be some of the most brutal in U.S. political history. Hillary Clinton and her globalist allies are going to pull out every trick in the book—and more—to protect the face of the world elite. Clinton is their icon, their last hope to maintain control. The mud they will sling at Trump—from the Democratic Party, from Clinton’s campaign itself, and from outside allies like Super PACs and from the media—will be the worst anyone of us on the right has ever seen. But, if Trump can continue framing the election in this light and ride this wave, he could just soar right on through it and above it into the White House.
Populist nationalism has won U.S. House campaigns, U.S. Senate campaigns, and various other smaller ball political battles around the country and around the world. It can even win, as it helped Trump do when he roundly defeated some of the most talented governors and Senators in the primaries — a U.S. presidential primary. What Brexit shows is that populist nationalism can win national general elections, as it just did in the United Kingdom. That has the world elite fearing, and rallying around Clinton as we speak. Now that populist nationalism can win, and has won national general elections, is it only logical that Brexit 2.0 pumps Trump up into the White House? We shall see, come November.
It wasn’t me! Obama shrugs off his humiliating failure to stop Britain quitting Europe by claiming ‘globalization’ was to blame for shock result
White House attempted to calm choppy global waters on Friday brought on by Britain’s spectacular decision to leave the European Union
The president, on the West Coast for a summit and fundraising events, said in a speech he talked Prime Minister David Cameron
He also spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel – they agreed the US and the EU will ‘work closely together in the weeks and months ahead.’
Obama had publicly aligned himself with Prime Minister David Cameron – who is resigning – in the fight to keep the EU intact
In the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton joined Obama on the side of the ‘remain’ campaign and Donald Trump urged Britain to ‘leave’
Vice President Joe Biden was in Ireland, receiving an honorary doctorate; he said in his speech, ‘I must say we had looked for a different outcome’
By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 07:07 EST, 24 June 2016 | UPDATED: 21:02 EST, 24 June 2016
President Barack Obama says he spoke to British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone today, and he is ‘confident’ after their discussion that the United Kingdom ‘is committed to an orderly transition’ out of the European Union.
Obama said that the United States will remain in close contact with Britain, and their economic and financial teams will ‘stay focused on ensuring economic growth and financial stability.’
He also spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he said, and they agreed the US and the EU will also ‘work closely together in the weeks and months ahead.’
‘I do think that yesterday’s vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges that are raised by globalization,’ Obama said in his opening remarks at Stanford University’s annual Global Entrepreneurship Summit.
Obama had publicly aligned himself with Cameron in the fight to keep the EU intact, an unusual intervention in another country’s politics at the invitation of its leader of the moment.
Heattempted to calm choppy global waters on Friday afternoon brought on by Britain’s spectacular decision to leave the EU by promising that the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States would remain the same.
President Barack Obama says he spoke to British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone today, and he is ‘confident’ after their discussion that the United Kingdom ‘is committed to an orderly transition’ out of the European Union
As a result of the vote, Britain’s relationship with the EU will change, Obama assessed at Stanford. ‘One thing that will not change is the special relationship that exists between our two nations.’
The president said in a statement that both the UK and the EU would continue to be ‘indispensable partners’ and touted the former’s involvement in NATO as an example of Western stability in face of tumbling worldwide markets.
‘The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision,’ he said in a statement.
On the West Coast for a summit and fundraising events, Obama did not immediately speak to Cameron on Friday. In the interim, the White House offered no formal declaration of policy as the pound plunged and the stock market crashed abroad.
At Stanford, Obama had little to say about how the vote will affect the United States’ trade partnership with Britain, now that it will soon exit the EU.
It will need to ink a new deal with the United States, he warned in April, and that could take months, and even years.
The referendum result was as much a smack down of the U.S. president as it was the British prime minister, who said this morning that he would resign in October.
‘David has been an outstanding friend and partner on the global stage,’ Obama said today of Cameron, whom he closer with than any other world leader.
Obama said that the United States will remain in close contact with Britain, and their economic and financial teams will ‘stay focused on ensuring economic growth and financial stability’
The U.S. president had publicly aligned himself with Cameron in the fight to keep the EU intact, an unusual intervention in another country’s politics at the invitation of its leader of the moment
Officially in California for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, with two Democratic fundraising events lined up later in the day, the U.S. president waited until the event at Stanford – a speech and discussion with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg – to offer a televised comment on the shocking world event.
Hours after the vote totals poured in the White House issued a statement on Obama’s behalf that asserted, ‘The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy.
‘So too is our relationship with the European Union, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond.’
The chief executive of the United States promised that both parties ‘will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world.’
Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) following news that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union. The Dow Jones industrial average quickly fell nearly 500 points on the news with markets around the globe plunging
How Brexit could affect Americans right now
Britain voted 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the EU on Thursday, shocking the world and electrocuting the financial markets
WHITE HOUSE ON CAMERON CALL
President Obama spoke by phone today with Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom to discuss the outcome of yesterday’s referendum on membership in the European Union, in which a majority of British voters expressed their desire to leave the EU.
The President assured Prime Minister Cameron that, in spite of the outcome, the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, along with the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO, remain vital cornerstones of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy.
The President also expressed his regret at the Prime Minister’s decision to step aside following a leadership transition and noted that the Prime Minister has been a trusted partner and friend, whose counsel and shared dedication to democratic values, the special relationship, and the Transatlantic community are highly valued.
The President also observed that the EU, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond, will remain an indispensable partner of the United States.
The President and Prime Minister concurred that they are confident that the United Kingdom and the EU will negotiate a productive way forward to ensure financial stability, continued trade and investment, and the mutual prosperity they bring.
Britain voted 52 percent to 48 percent to leave the EU on Thursday, shocking the world and electrocuting the financial markets.
Vice President Joe Biden was in Ireland on Friday, receiving an honorary doctorate from Trinity College Dublin.
‘I must say we had looked for a different outcome. We would have preferred a different outcome,’ he said in his speech, ‘but the United States has a long-standing friendship with the United Kingdom and that very special bond will endure.’
Biden added, ‘We fully respect the decision they have made.’
Obama warned at at a joint news conference with Cameron in April that the UK would be sent to ‘the back of the queue’ if it voted to leave the 28-nation arrangement and go its own way.
‘Maybe some point down the line, there might be a UK-U.S. trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon,’ Obama said, ‘because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.’
The US president added, ‘The UK is going to be in the back of the queue — not because we don’t have a special relationship — but because, given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.
Obama justified his toiling with the EU by casting the possible Brexit as a US security matter.
‘What happens in Europe is going to have an impact here,’ he said at the news conference at No. 10. ‘And what happens in Europe is going to have an impact in the United States.’
Like Obama, Hillary Clinton, the next Democratic nominee, had urged Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU. She echoed again echoed Obama in a statement – released after the White House had finally spoken – that said, ‘We respect the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made’
Obama warned at at a joint news conference with Cameron in April that the UK would be sent to ‘the back of the queue’ if it voted to leave the 28-nation arrangement and go its own way
Obama telling BBC Britain should stay in EU back in 2015
GOP leaders and presumptive Republican Donald Trump blasted Obama’s meddling as ‘inappropriate.’
‘He came in and really tried to convince people to stay, and I thought it was inappropriate,’ said Trump, who threw his lot in with the ‘leave’ faction. ‘And I actually think that his recommendation perhaps caused it to fail.’
At a press conference that officially marked the reopening of his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, Trump said Obama is ‘constantly dictating to the world what they should do.
WHITE HOUSE ON MERKEL CALL
The President spoke today by phone with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany regarding the British people’s decision to leave the European Union.
Both said they regretted the decision but respected the will of the British people.
The two leaders agreed that the economic and financial teams of the G-7 partners will coordinate closely to ensure all are focused on financial stability and economic growth.
The President and the Chancellor affirmed that Germany and the EU will remain indispensable partners of the United States.
The leaders also noted that they looked forward to the opportunity to underscore the strength and enduring bond of transatlantic ties at the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, July 8-9.
‘The world doesn’t listen to him, obviously. You can see that from the vote.’
Trump promised the country’s closest ally that if he succeeds Obama, he’ll quickly negotiate a new trade deal with Britain.
‘That wouldn’t happen with me. They’ll always be at the front of the line,’ he said in reference to Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ comment in April.
Trump said, ‘They’ve been great allies. I was very surprised when I heard President Obama say that.’
The U.S. presidential election is in November. The sitting president does not leave office until two and a half months later.
Like Obama, Hillary Clinton, the next Democratic nominee, had urged Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU.
She again echoed Obama in a statement today – released after the White House had finally spoken – that said, ‘We respect the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made.’
‘Our first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America. We also have to make clear America’s steadfast commitment to the special relationship with Britain and the transatlantic alliance with Europe.
Clinton said in the written statement: ‘This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests. It also underscores the need for us to pull together to solve our challenges as a country, not tear each other down.’
FULL WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON BREXIT
The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision. The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is enduring, and the United Kingdom’s membership in NATO remains a vital cornerstone of U.S. foreign, security, and economic policy.
So too is our relationship with the European Union, which has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond.
The United Kingdom and the European Union will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world.
Trump blasted Obama today: ‘He came in and really tried to convince people to stay, and I thought it was inappropriate,’ said Trump, who threw his lot in with the ‘leave’ faction. ‘And I actually think that his recommendation perhaps caused it to fail’
Previously, Jake Sullivan, her senior policy adviser, said she supported Cameron and Obama’s position.
‘Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU,’ he told the Observer in April, a day after the Obama-Cameron presser.
Trump used it as a cudgel against her on Friday. He said, ‘She’s always misread everything…She’s misread this.’
‘The only reason she did it is because Obama wanted it,’ he said. Clinton ‘doubled down’ on what Obama said ‘and she did the same thing.’
‘And obviously, for the 219th time, they were wrong. They’re always wrong. And that’s the problem with them.’
House Speaker Paul Ryan refused on Thursday to get involved in the Brexit debate UK voters made their decision.
‘I’m going to do exactly what the president did not do and not weigh in on this, and send the signal to our great friends and allies in Britain that we stand with them regardless of what decision they make,’ Ryan said.
The GOP leader said today in a statement, ‘I respect the decision made by the people of the United Kingdom. The UK is an indispensable ally of the United States, and that special relationship is unaffected by this vote.’
They Got It Wrong: Swarms of Global Chatterers Misread Brexit
By Mark Niquette mniquette
A global cohort said before Thursday’s Brexit vote that Britain was unlikely to pull out of the European Union, the post-World War II international project that brought an unprecedented era of prosperity and peace. Yet some were led astray by the belief that free trade’s money and material goods outweighed nationalism and the tug of nostalgia.
Among those who were wrong about Brexit before the vote:
Conservative U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron called the referendum, presumably confident he would win. He lost, and he’s now resigning.
“Brits don’t quit,” Cameron said in an impassioned plea on Tuesday to voters to support remaining in the EU. “We get involved, we take a lead, we make a difference, we get things done.”
The Brits quit.
Opinion polls on Brexit were all over the place; the theoretical lead had changed hands dozens of times since September, although “leave” never reached 50 percent support. Still, betting odds put the chance of remaining at 90 percent as the polls closed on Thursday. Ladbrokes was offering 4-to-1 on a leave vote, according to The Guardian.
Even though most players in the market were actually backing leave, more money was bet on remain by the affluent, who were generally behind staying, Matthew Shaddick, head of political betting at Ladbrokes, wrote in a blog post. Bookies are trying to make money, not help people forecast results, so the vote worked out fine for Ladbrokes, he said.
“Is this just one of the inevitable, normal occasions where an outsider wins, or a fatal blow to the idea of betting markets as being a useful forecasting tool?” Shaddick said. “Maybe unsurprisingly, I tend to think the former, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have to reflect on all of their potential flaws and decide how we best interpret them in the future.”
The Chattering Class
The London-based Political Studies Association surveyed members, journalists, academics and pollsters from May 24 to June 2. Every group got it wrong.
Overall, 87 percent of respondents said Britain was more likely to stay in the EU, 5 percent said it was likely to leave, and 8 percent said both sides had an exactly equal chance.
The predicted probability of Britain voting to leave the EU: academics, 38 percent; pollsters, 33 percent; journalists, 32 percent; other, 38 percent; mean, 38 percent.
“Any ‘expert’ who makes a prediction at this stage, and within the context of the current volatility of politics in the U.K. and abroad, ain’t no expert!” one respondent said, according to a June 3 report.
Matt Qvortrup, professor of political science at Coventry University and author of two books about referendums, analyzed all 49 plebiscites on EU-related issues since 1972. He calculated that Britain would narrowly vote to remain, based on the U.K.’s levels of economic growth, inflation, and the number of years spent in office by the government.
“The indications and predictions based on previous referendums still suggest that the United Kingdom will stay in the European Union,” Qvortrup wrote in a blog posting in April. “But the margin will be very close indeed, and neither side will be able to claim a decisive victory.”
Societe Generale SA saw the risk of Brexit at 45 percent, according to analysts including Brian Hilliard, its chief U.K. economist. The risks of Brexit had diminished, though, according to betting odds and the polls, strategist Jason Simpson wrote in a May 20 note.
Barclays Plc analysts had said the baseline scenario was that the U.K. wouldn’t leave, and Nomura saw only about a 25 percent likelihood the U.K. would quit, analysts said in a May 11 note. Credit Suisse Group AG expected the U.K. to stay, analysts including Neville Hall wrote in a May 19 research note.
Even “superforecasters” got it wrong.
The consultancy Good Judgment Inc. regularly convenes a group of 150 people around the world with track records of successful predictions to prognosticate on various issues of the day. The aggregated probability estimates from the panel showed just a 24 percent chance of U.K. voters deciding to leave, according to a posting on Twitter on Thursday.
“I would say, ‘Expect the status quo’ reasonably confidently,” one of the forecasting panel, Michael Story, said last month.
UK ‘Leave’ vote deflates hopes for U.S.-EU trade deal
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Britain’s looming exit from the European Union is another huge setback for negotiations on a massive U.S.-EU free trade deal that were already stalled by deeply entrenched differences and growing anti-trade sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic.
The historic divorce launched by Thursday’s vote will almost certainly further delay substantial progress in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks as the remaining 27 EU states sort out their own new relationship with Britain, trade experts said on Friday.
With French and German officials increasingly voicing skepticism about TTIP’s chances for success, the United Kingdom’s departure from the deal could sink hopes of a deal before President Barack Obama leaves office in January.
“This is yet another reason why TTIP will likely be postponed,” said Heather Conley, European program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington.
“But to be honest, TTIP isn’t going anywhere, I believe, before 2018 at the earliest,” she said.
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement on Friday that he was evaluating the UK decision’s impact on TTIP, but would continue to engage with both European and UK counterparts.
“The importance of trade and investment is indisputable in our relationships with both the European Union and the United Kingdom,” Froman said. “The economic and strategic rationale for T-TIP remains strong.”
TTIP negotiators are still expected to meet in Brussels in mid-July as scheduled, but those talks were aimed at focusing on less controversial issues while leaving the thorniest disagreements for U.S. and EU political leaders to resolve. And it is unclear when Britain will launch formal separation proceedings, which will take at least two years.
But analysts said both sides have been reluctant to put their best offers on the table with a new U.S. president due to take office in January and French and German leadership elections nearing in 2017.
The Brexit also will preoccupy EU officials in coming months as they launch their own negotiations with London over the future terms of UK-EU trade, and sort out their post-Brexit priorities, said Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, director of the European Centre for International Political Economy, a Brussels-based think tank.
Britain’s departure could leave U.S. negotiators facing a European side that is more dug-in on some issues, said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank in Washington.
“As the UK is part of the coalition of liberal trading economies in the EU, the U.S. is losing one of the more like-minded countries from the group in Brussels sitting on the other side of the negotiating table,” said Bown, a former World Bank economist.
However, Lee-Makiyama, who also sees little chance of a deal before 2018, said Britain’s departure could eliminate one source of disagreement because the UK has insisted on a financial services chapter in the trade deal.
“The only real proponent of banking regulation in TTIP is the UK. Germany and France are probably willing to let it go,” he said. “It still leaves about 20 outstanding issues at nearly the same level of difficulty.”
The TTIP negotiations, which started three years ago, have unable to settle major differences over agriculture, where the EU side has shown little willingness to alter food safety rules that prohibit American beef raised with hormones or genetically modified foods, or open its closely guarded geographical food naming rules, such as for Asiago and feta cheeses.
European negotiators have complained that the United States has offered too little to open up its vast federal, state and local government procurement markets to European vendors with “Buy American” preferences in place.
Europe also wants access to key U.S. sectors such as maritime transport and aviation, while American negotiators have been frustrated over lack of access to some 200 European sectors ranging from healthcare to education.
The two sides also are far apart on how to resolve disputes. The U.S. side favors a traditional binding arbitration approach, while the Europeans want a court-like system that allows for appeals.
More progress has been made on harmonizing regulations for things like car seat belt anchors, clothes labeling and pharmaceutical inspections.
(Additional reporting by Phil Blenkinsop in Brussels; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)
Brexit: Britain Votes with Trump, against Hillary, Obama
by JOEL B. POLLAK
British voters chose to “leave” the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.
Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.
Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.
Obama’s advice may have pushed some voters to “leave.” In April, he warned British voters they would be at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S. if they left the EU. Some, like Andrew Roberts, took offense, writing in the Wall Street Journal:
Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.
Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?
Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?
Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.
Hillary Clinton also backed a “remain” vote in April, with a senior policy adviser issuing a statement on her behalf:
Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.
Trump, who happens to be in Scotland to open a golf resort, promised in May that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”
PUBLISHED: 02:24 EST, 24 June 2016 | UPDATED: 09:40 EST, 24 June 2016
As dawn broke over a shocked Brussels, a group of European MEPs warned that last night’s astonishing Brexit vote will cause the EU to ‘crumble to pieces’ within the next five years.
Their statement came as Britain voted to leave the EU, contrary to all projections by pollsters, to the bewilderment of the Eurocrats in Brussels.
‘This is the beginning of the end for the EU,’ Peter Lundgren, an MEP from the far-Right Sweden Democrat party, told MailOnline. ‘So many other countries will follow the UK. Europe will fall.’
Shattering: European MEPs warned that last night’s astonishing Brexit vote will cause the EU to ‘crumble to pieces’ within the next five years
Resign: An emotional David Cameron resigning this morning as Samantha Cameron looks on, as Brussels scrambled to make sense of Britain’s decision to exit and MEPs warned Europe will crumble
European Council President Donald Tusk prepares to address a media conference at the EU Council building in Brussels today
Message for Britain: Graffiti on a wall in at a Deutsche Post location at Hallisches Ufer in Berlin after the shock Brexit result
Far right: Today French far-Right leader Marine le Pen changed her twitter symbol to the Union Jack in a sign of how Brexit will increase support for the far-Right in France
Now France needs its own referendum too, says Marine Le Pen
The Eurosceptic MEPs from Sweden, Germany, Italy and France said a number of governments will now be under intense pressure to hold referendums of their own, and try to renegotiate their own individual deals.
This, they said, will lead to a ‘domino effect’ in the wake of Britain’s trailblazing and unprecedented decision to leave the EU.
‘The EU cannot survive. It is too undemocratic, corruption is too high, the Eurocrats’ ambition is too much, there is too much money in the gravy train. ‘It makes ordinary people raving mad.
‘It’s just a matter of time,’ Lundgren said. ‘Britain has set a precedent. Other member states will follow and the whole thing will fall apart. It will happen very soon.’
Overnight, as it became apparent that Britain was turning against the EU establishment, Brussels Eurocrats gradually left the bars around the parliament building and went home to bed.
Several British apparatchiks were concerned about their livelihood, with one telling MailOnline that he was expecting ‘to be on the scrapheap in the morning’.
The Commission and European Parliament buildings remained deserted, but a number of lights burned on the upper floors as a small number of desperate bureaucrats tried to lay the groundwork for a response to the most momentous event in the Union’s history.
Last night’s extraordinary vote was a reflection of the support for Eurosceptic parties that has been steadily growing across Europe in recent years, including for the populist and far-Right movements.
The Sweden Democrats – which started as a white supremacist party before sanitising its image – became the country’s third-largest party in 2014, and topped opinion polls last year.
Donald Tusk determined to keep EU unity after Brexit
Italy, Holland, Austria and other countries also have significant Eurosceptic followings, forming a wave of cynicism towards the EU and its cosseted elites
Collapse: MEPs Marco Zanni and Peter Lundgren claimed today that the European Union will now crumble
Panic: European Parliament President Martin Schultz, right, meets with presidents of political parties at the European Parliament in Brussels today amid deep shock over the Brexit result
European Council President Donald Tusk briefs the media after Britain voted to leave the European Union. Meanwhile Beatrix von Storch, right, said it was only a matter of time before the European Project fell apart
HOW BREXIT CONTAGION COULD SPREAD
SWEDEN: Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Swedes wish to stay in the EU. However, when considering a Europe without Britain, surveys produce a very different result, with at least one poll showing more Swedes determined to enact a ‘Swexit’.
FRANCE: On Tuesday, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Front National, called for a French referendum modelled on the British vote. ‘I would vote for Brexit, even if I think that France has 1,000 more reasons to leave than the UK,’ she said, referring to the EU as ‘decaying’.
With French elections approaching, the issue is likely to become more contentious than ever.
ITALY: Earlier this month, the populist Five Star movement vowed it would demand a referendum on membership of the Euro, which would lead to a full-scale vote on EU membership.
Beppe Grillo, the party’s leader, said: ‘The mere fact that a country like Great Britain is holding a referendum on whether to leave the EU signals the failure of the EU.’
NETHERLANDS: According to the latest polls, most voters are in favour of a referendum on EU membership, with far-Right politicians like Geert Wilders agitating for a ‘Nexit’. In the aftermath of the Brexit decision, his will be a difficult demand for the Dutch government to ignore.
In France, the Front National is now finishing first in elections, and in Germany, Alternative Für Deutschland has more than 20,000 members.
Italy, Holland, Austria and other countries also have significant Eurosceptic followings, forming a wave of cynicism towards the EU and its cosseted elites.
Britain’s vote to leave will be seen as a huge boost for the Eurosceptics and populists, who have long argued that the Brussels elite are out of touch with the will of the people. Among them are inevitably a number of far-Right parties.
‘Our support is growing all over Europe,’ Lundgren said. ‘The EU cannot survive. It is too undemocratic, corruption is too high, the Eurocrats’ ambition is too much, there is too much money in the gravy train.
‘It makes ordinary people raving mad. People are gradually realising what’s going on. Britain has now started the process, and Europe will be fully dismantled by another country.’
Jeppe Koford, a mainstream Danish politician who leads the Social Democrats in the European Parliament, admitted that the EU was in dire straits but thought it was ‘too early to make that judgment’.
He said: ‘It’s not the UK referendum that could make Europe fall apart. It’s the lack of solutions to problems, whether its low wages, high unemployment or the terrorist threat,’ he said.
‘These are the main drivers of disintegration, if we’re not strong enough.’
But Beatrix von Storch, an MEP from Germany’s Alternative Für Deutschland, argued that Britain’s stunning decision would ‘start a process that can’t be stopped’, and had turned the EU upside down.
‘Let’s not forget that even those who voted to remain didn’t like the EU much,’ she said. ‘Remain campaigners kept repeating “the EU is not perfect”. They didn’t passionately believe in it, they have just been scared into supporting it.
‘Cameron’s renegotiation was going towards the Eurosceptic side, showing that even the people who are too scared to vote to leave the EU want less of it.’
German political parties give their views on the UK Leave vote
MEPs predict Brexit is the ‘beginning of the end’ and several countries will follow suit and hold a referendum, including Sweden, Germany and Italy
Cash crash: The FTSE opened 8 per cent down today as traders ran in fright from the shock Brexit result. Above, a trader sits in front of his screens, one which displays the rate of the British pound which drops against the US dollar
The EU’s failure to find solutions to the economic crisis, migration crisis and security crisis have all been blamed for the growing mistrust in Brussels
This, she said, reflected a Europe-wide disaffection with the EU that is growing year by year. ‘The process of the end has begun,’ she said. ‘Something has been started in Europe, and it cannot be stopped. Once one country is out, Europe will fall.’
Lundgren and von Storch are part of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy bloc, a populist grouping in the European Parliament containing many Ukip MEPs, including Nigel Farage.
Their analysis was questioned by the anti-extremism expert Vidhya Ramalingham, fellow at the German Institute on Radicalisation and De-Radicalisation Studies and Director of Moonshot CVE.
‘It’s an apocalyptic scenario which may not come about,’ she said. ‘It plays into the narrative that they are trying to promote. It’s fear mongering.’
She argued that the assumption that Europe would fall in response to Brexit was simply a way to sow division inside the EU. ‘It suits the Eurosceptic parties to make as much of it as possible,’ she said. ‘But the EU is stronger than that.’
Vote Leave supporters celebrate as a landslide victory in Sunderland points to final result – a win for Brexit
Cheers: Brexit supporters can’t contain their excitement as Britain votes Leave and triggers calls for a wave of similar referendums across Europe
Shock: The Remain camp is distraught as Brexit voters outnumber Remain by more than a million
But Marco Zanni, an Italian MEP from the Five Star movement who is also a member of the bloc, said that there were good reasons to predict the downfall of the EU.
He told MailOnline that the EU is facing ‘three crises at once’: the economic crisis, which has seen a bailout of Greece and deleterious growth across southern European countries; the migration crisis, which has caused the de facto suspension of the Schengen arrangement; and the security crisis, in which major attacks in Brussels and Paris have claimed hundreds of lives.
‘In each and every case, the EU is showing that it cannot solve these problems. It simply does not have the solutions, and people are getting fed up with it,’ he said.
‘In Italy, polls show disaffection with the EU skyrocketing. The majority is still in favour, but it is close to 50-50.
‘Italians are already agitating for a referendum. Last year, two hundred thousand Italians signed a petition demanding a referendum on our membership of the Euro, but it wasn’t granted.
‘The British referendum has given Italians an ambition to have a referendum as well.
‘There will be too much tension to hold the EU together. ‘It will collapse within the next 10 years.’
In France, the far-right National Front celebrated a Brexit ‘Victory’ and said it threatened the disintegration of the entire European project.
Marine Le Pen, the National Front (FN) leader, said the historic European Union vote was a clear indication the 28-nation bloc was ‘decaying’.
Calling for a referendum in her own country, and anticipating other exits across the EU, she said: ‘Victory for liberty!
‘As I’ve asked for many years, it is now necessary to have the same referendum in France and in the European Union.’
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, another member of the Le Pen dynasty and an FN MP, also tweeted ‘Victory!’
What now: MEPs said disaffection with the EU was ‘skyrocketing’
The Le Pens, including the convicted racist and anti-Semite MEP and party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, are fiercely anti-Europe.
They view an end to the EU as the best way of implementing their anti-immigration and anti-globalisation agenda.
Other parties in France, including the governing Socialists, were overwhelmingly shocked and saddened by the result.
President Francois Hollande had made it clear that a leave vote was ‘irreversible’, and that there will now be ‘extremely serious consequences’ for the UK.
Under the headline ‘The Immediate consequences for Britons’, L’Express said the millions who visit France from the UK every year would now need a visa.
Holidays on the continent will also be ‘more expensive’, and expats including retired people living in France will see agreements on their health treatment and other benefits scrapped.
Thousands of French people living and working in the UK will be reassessing their futures, along with Britons based in France.
L’Express also warned of more ‘frontiers going up’ around Europe, including one between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Newspapers like Le Monde, meanwhile, highlighted ‘the collapse of Sterling’ and ‘panic in the markets’.
It described a ‘deeply divided’ Britain, with ‘large differences between the old and the young’.
Le Monde adds: ‘The focus on immigration, which has risen sharply, could accentuate the fractures in a country, also marked by a widening gap in wealth between the poor and the wealthy.’
Le Point also warned of a ‘domino effect’, saying the ‘terrible blow to the European project and the prime minister, David Cameron’ would have lasting negative effects.
Eva Joly, the French MEP, said the ‘jump into the dark’ by Britain, and a time of ‘great sadness’ for everyone in Europe.
Brexit Comes to America: Ryan Challenger Mounts Immigration Billboard
by JULIA HAHN 24 Jun 2016
Following last night’s historic Brexit vote, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s primary challenger, Wisconsin businessman Paul Nehlen, seems to have taken a page from the playbook of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) with the launch of a new billboard campaign.
On Friday morning, Nehlen’s campaign went live with a new billboard in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin that is reminiscent of the distinctive UKIP-style campaign.
The ad reads: “Radical Islam Kills Americans. Vote YES for Immigration Control. Vote NO for Paul Ryan.”
The billboard then directs viewers to Nehlen’s campaign website, ElectNehlen.com.
UKIP’s national billboard campaign is distinctive for its clear, straight-forward manner of describing the effects of large-scale migration and its impact on workers and Western culture.
“This is the first of many billboards our campaign will be launching to inform the voters about what’s at stake on August 9th,” Nehlen told Breitbart.
As Nehlen’s billboard suggests, Paul Ryan has a two-decade long history of pushing for open border immigration policies – including his 2015 effort to fund President Obama’s expansion to the U.S. refugee resettlement operation.
In speeches, Ryan has made the case for policies that would effectively dissolve U.S. borders — declaring that the U.S. “is more than [its] borders.” Ryan has even articulated his support for implementing an immigration system similar to the open borders policy of the European Union — calling for “an economic-based immigration system where… labor and supply can meet each other so we can help fuel our economy and create jobs.”
The phrase “labor supply and demand can meet each other,” is a centerpiece of open borders thought. Under this global, one-world theory, any willing employer should be able to hire any willing worker regardless of what country he or she lives in. This view, that America is an “idea” and not a “nation,” sees borders as an obstacle to commerce.
With regards to Islamic migration, Ryan’s controversial omnibus spending bill funded U.S. visas for nearly 300,000 (permanent and temporary) Muslim migrants in a single year.
While polling data shows that the Republican electorate overwhelmingly backs proposals to temporarily pause Muslim migration, Ryan has rejected such proposals.
He has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of making any cuts to Muslim migration— insisting that “that’s not who we are,” and that such a proposal is “not reflective of our principles.”
However, Ryan has not explained how importing hundreds of thousands of migrants from nations that hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America benefits the United States or helps to protect our Western values.
Indeed, as a result of large-scale Muslim migration, the U.S. has imported several practices and values that are antithetical to Western principles.
For instance, Muslim migration has put half a million U.S. girls and women at risk of suffering the barbaric and misogynistic practice of Female Genital Mutilation, according to Equality Now.
Aayan Hirsi Ali has also observed that Islamic “honor violence” has become increasingly prevalent in the United States as a result of “a significant increase in the number of people moving to the United States from countries with high-honor violence rates —notably Somalia… as well as Iraq.”
A 2011 study by the Tahirih Justice Center titled, “Forced Marriage in Immigrant Communities in the United States” found that in the U.S. there are “as many as 3,000 known or suspected cases of [forced marriage],” identified by survey respondents in recent years.
The high rate of Islamic migration has also posed challenges to national security. As CBS has reported, “The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis [which] is sometimes called ‘Little Mogadishu’” given that it is the “center of the nation’s largest concentration of Somalis,” has become a “fertile ground for Islamic terrorist groups recruiting new fighters.”
As the Minneapolis Star Tribune has reported, a Congressional report found that “Minnesota leads the nation in would-be ISIL terrorists from U.S.”
Moreover, evidence has shown that the recent Orlando terrorist attack, in which the son of Afghan migrants targeted the LGBT community and slaughtered 49 people in a gay nightclub, was motivated by anti-Western ideology that was imported from foreign nations rather than “homegrown.”
As Andrew McCarthy has explained, “The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars.”
McCarthy explains that “the mandate that homosexuals be killed” comes from Sharia – not ISIS. “This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed,” McCarthy writes. “[With the Orlando terror attack] we have gotten another glimpse of radicalization, which is not “homegrown” but rather fueled by a foreign, anti-American, anti-liberty ideology.”
According to Pew, nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99 percent) support sharia law as official law. Between 2001 and 2014, the U.S. permanently resettled more than 40,000 migrants from Afghanistan on green cards.
Additionally, between 2001 and 2014, the U.S. permanently resettled 674,920 migrants from nations where gays can be executed, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This figure does not include the total number of migrants the U.S. has permanently resettled from Muslim nations during that time, which is nearly 1.7 million.
The current rate of U.S. immigration is record high. Every day the U.S. admits enough net immigrants to fill an overcrowded, metropolitan high school. Every month the U.S. imports a population of immigrants that is larger than the occupancy of Lambeau Field, where the Green Bay Packers play.
Since Wisconsin voters sent Paul Ryan to Washington, the U.S. has imported a population of immigrants that is nearly three times larger than the entire population of Wisconsin.
In seven years time – unless Congress takes action to curb U.S. visa distributions – the foreign-born share of the U.S. population will reach an all-time high. In the 1920s, the last time the foreign-born share of the population reached a record high, then-President Calvin Coolidge hit the pause button for roughly fifty years, producing an era of explosive wage growth and allowing immigrants already in the country to assimilate.
Paul Ryan, however, has made clear that he does not wish to curb immigration, but instead has pushed legislation that would substantially increase immigration.
According to Pew polling data, 92 percent of the GOP electorate — and 83 percent of the American electorate as a whole — is opposed to such an agenda and wants to see immigration levels frozen or reduced. Ryan represents only a minuscule seven percent of the GOP electorate that wants to increase migration rates.
As NumbersUSA president Roy Beck has explained, “Open borders is in his [Paul Ryan’s] ideological DNA … He’s an ideologue and has spent his whole life working for ideologues. Open borders seeps out of every pore of his being … Ryan is the heart and soul of crony capitalism.”
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL 05/06/16 03:09 PM EDT Updated 05/06/16 05:35 PM EDT
When House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday he wasn’t ready to support Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, his Wisconsin primary opponent saw an opening.
Following the Trump campaign’s lash-out on Friday, Paul Nehlen seized that opening, suggesting he will do what Ryan won’t: support Trump.
Story Continued Below
“If Mr. Trump is the nominee, I will support that decision, because it will have been the will of the voters that got him there,” the Republican challenging Ryan for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District seat in the state’s August primary said in a statement.
Nehlen is seeking to gain an edge in the primary against Ryan, who won his 2014 primary by nearly 90 percentage points. This time around, the Trump campaign and allies have aggressively attacked the House speaker and Republican National Convention chair, with Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson intimating that Ryan is unfit for his role if he can’t support the presumptive nominee.
But on Friday when Chuck Todd asked Pierson on “Meet the Press” if Trump would prefer to see Ryan remain speaker, she said “absolutely.” She said she had been stating her own opinion and not Trump’s.
“Mr. Trump is not out to get anyone here,” Pierson said. She also said that Trump would not back Nehlan even if Ryan refused to support him.
Trump himself called out Ryan in a tweet for claiming Trump “inherited” the Republican Party, highlighting that voters catapulted him atop the GOP ticket.
“Paul Ryan said that I inherited something very special, the Republican Party. Wrong, I didn’t inherit it, I won it with millions of voters!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
The nuance of his tweet speaks to the rift between mainstream Republicans and the polarizing, unconventional candidate who has risen to become the face of the party.
“Paul Ryan is right at the head of a small group of party elites who continue to tell the American people they know better,” Nehlen said. “He’s demonstrated that he’s not the unifier he claims. If he were a unifier, he would look for ways to work with the candidate that the American people have chosen in state after state.”
Nehlen argued that, despite Ryan’s calls for unity, his actions show he’s divisive, adding that Ryan isn’t supportive of Trump and wasn’t supportive of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, either.
“It’s clear that he’s right out in front of the establishment’s #OnlyMe team. The people have spoken,” he said. “But Paul Ryan somehow thinks that the People are incompetent and that GOP elites should step in and guide them. The last time I checked, we lived in a representative republic. Paul Ryan seems to think we’re living in an oligarchy.”
Ryan said the onus is on Trump to unify the different wings of the party, a view Pierson pushed back on and Nehlen affirmed.
“Paul Ryan needs to be a — he’s the leader right now,” Pierson said. “We’re told Donald Trump is only the presumptive nominee. He’s not the nominee until 1,237. So really it’s incumbent on Paul Ryan to help bring unity to the party.”
Ryan’s office announced Friday afternoon that Ryan, Trump and Priebus will meet in Washington on Thursday of next week.
Nehlen’s move could give his campaign a boost, although Trump’s anti-establishment appeal in Wisconsin’s presidential primary wasn’t enough for the billionaire to win the state — or Ryan’s district, which was carried by Ted Cruz.
Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin endorsed Nehlen’s congressional campaign in April and will host a fundraiser for him in Wisconsin on May 27. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/paul-nehlen-support-donald-trump-paul-ryan-222908#ixzz4CbZe0Rzx