Translate

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

UK: NO MORE WEEKEND "CHANGING OF THE GUARD" CEREMONIES DUE TO FEARS OF JIHAD ATTACKS

 
UK: NO MORE WEEKEND "CHANGING OF THE GUARD" CEREMONIES DUE TO FEARS OF JIHAD ATTACKS
BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
"Windsor Castle has cancelled Changing the Guard ceremonies amid fears of a terror attack after devastating incidents in Berlin and Nice last year.
The longstanding tradition will no longer take place on Saturdays due to concerns over the possibility that jihadists could target the thousands of tourists who gather to enjoy the show.
A tragic example of civilizational jihad: the weekend ceremony that draws the most tourists, a ceremony representative of British culture and history, is nixed because of the terror that was cast into the hearts of the disbelievers by jihadists within. The Changing of the Guard is said to be “one of the highlights of a visit to Windsor Castle.”

“Changing the Guard weekend ceremonies AXED amid fears of a Berlin-style TERROR ATTACK”, by Harry Walker, Express, January 29, 2017:
Two major truck attacks have shaken Europe over the past year.
In December, 12 people were murdered and 50 injured after a terrorist ploughed a truck through a busy Christmas market in Berlin at high speed.
And in July, 86 people were brutally killed and hundreds more hurt after a cowardly jihadi drove a lorry into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice.
Thames Valley Police ordered top military officials to alter the ceremonial timetable avoid the busiest times in the week in the wake of the Berlin attack.
Troops will now only perform the ceremony on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Security has also been ramped up, with armed police checkpoints and road closures.
But the precautions have been blasted by local residents and traders over concerns they will lose money if the ceremonies are scrapped entirely.
Mother-of-two Polly Miller, 37, said: “Families won’t be able to go during the week because of school and work commitments.
“I think you are going to get a generation of disengaged British people……
 

OPPOSITION GROWS TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS TAKEOVER

OPPOSITION GROWS TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS TAKEOVER
BY KURT HYDE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
The Obama administration’s DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced on January 6 that he had determined that U.S. elections “should be designated as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector.” Johnson’s statement went on to say:
By “election infrastructure,” we mean storage facilities, polling places, and centralized vote tabulations locations used to support the election process, and information and communications technology to include voter registration databases, voting machines, and other systems to manage the election process and report and display results on behalf of state and local governments.
In other words, DHS would assert its authority over virtually all aspects of elections. The memo also had assurances that this would not be a federal takeover, but the cosmetic assurances contradict the memo’s wording, particularly the self-declared, open-ended definition of what would comprise the election infrastructure. Also fueling the fires of concern is the history of federal takeovers. Federal takeovers in the past have been replete with soothing statements saying they are not takeovers during the initial phases.

Within days, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) issued a statement describing DHS’s announcement as “legally and historically unprecedented, raising many questions and concerns.” NASS’s statement went on to say:
State and local autonomy over elections is our greatest asset against malicious cyberattacks and manipulation. Our decentralized, low-connectivity electoral process is inherently designed to withstand such threats.
Further reaction by state election officials has been overwhelmingly in opposition to this federal takeover. Numerous posts on the website electionline.org indicate widespread opposition by Secretaries of State and other voting officials, both Republican and Democrat.
The opposition to this attempted federal power grab is gratifying to those who oppose encroachment by the federal government into what is clearly the domain of the states. Particularly gratifying is the statement explaining that decentralization of the electoral processes and low levels of electronic connectivity are actually security strengths in our elections. These statements by NASS are a welcome dose of electoral sanity compared to recent advocacies for Internet voting and secure transmission of precinct vote counts, both of which increase centralization and electronic connectivity.
The New American has published numerous articles with criticisms of Internet voting and, in reporting from Iowa at last year’s Republican presidential caucuses, questioned the wisdom of secure transmission of precinct results:
While no one should be upset with quick and accurate reporting, there is no reason given why this app should work “securely.” Why should publicly disseminated information be transmitted securely? If everyone has a right to know this information, why should it be secured? The answer is, it shouldn’t.
There is a possibility that this growing opposition may lead to a resolution against the power grab at next month’s NASS Winter Conference in Washington, D.C.
But one argument that is missing from the debate is constitutionality. This attempted federal action is blatantly unconstitutional. Apologists for federal intervention in state elections have quoted Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such Regulations except for the Place of Chusing Senators.
Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 59, addressed the intent of this provision in the U.S. Constitution. It does allow for Congress to alter state election laws, but as Hamilton explained, this was primarily to ensure the states would hold elections for federal offices thereby ensuring there would not be a coalition of states over-powering the Congress by failing to elect Congressmen :
But with regard to the federal House of Representatives, there is intended to be a general election of members once in two years. If the State legislatures were to be invested with an exclusive power of regulating these elections, every period of making them would be a delicate crisis in the national situation, which might issue in a dissolution of the Union, if the leaders of a few of the most important States should have entered into a previous conspiracy to prevent an election.
Hamilton further explained that the power to alter state election laws was not intended to allow the federal government to stretch it so far as to allow Congress to pass laws making the federal government the regulator of state elections:
Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?
Hopefully, the opposition to this attempted federal takeover of elections will not only be stopped, but will lead to eventually dismantling such unconstitutional federal bureaucracies as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which are currently assuming regulatory authority over state elections.

ROBERT SPENCER: MUSLIM IMMIGRATION'S EFFECT ON CHRISTMAS IN THE WEST

ROBERT SPENCER: MUSLIM IMMIGRATION'S EFFECT ON CHRISTMAS IN THE WEST 
 Published on Jan 30, 2017
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses why Christmas 2016 was so tense and heavily guarded in Europe and North America, and why Christmas 2017 could be even worse. This has direct bearing on President Trump's immigration policies.
 

CATHOLICS TURN AGAINST SATANIC POPE FRANCIS~ASK TRUMP TO PROBE SOROS-OBAMA-CLINTON CONSPIRACY AT VATICAN

CATHOLICS TURN AGAINST SATANIC POPE FRANCIS 
CATHOLICS ASK TRUMP TO PROBE 
SOROS-OBAMA-CLINTON CONSPIRACY AT VATICAN 
BY WILLIAM F. JASPER 
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Did billionaire speculator George Soros, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and Obama/Clinton adviser John Podesta conspire to overthrow the conservative Pope Benedict XVI and replace him with a radical, Pope Francis? Did they use America’s intelligence agencies, and our nation’s diplomatic machinery, political muscle, and financial power to coerce and blackmail “regime change” in the Roman Catholic Church?
Far from being some wild conspiracy theory, there is sound prima facie evidence to indicate that this is a serious effort to expose a political scandal of the highest order, involving flagrant, criminal abuse of power at the top levels of the U.S. government. A group of respected Catholic lay leaders have sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to launch an official investigation into the activities of the above mentioned individuals (and others) who appear to have been involved in this alleged Vatican coup. They cite eight specific questions they seek to have answered concerning suspect events that led to the resignation of Pope Benedict, the first such papal abdication in 700 years.
“Specifically, we have reason to believe that a Vatican ‘regime change’ was engineered by the Obama administration,” say the petitioners, in their January 20 letter to President Trump. The five signatories to the letter, first published in the Catholic newspaper/weblog, The Remnant, are: Lieutenant Colonel David L. Sonnier, US Army (Retired); Michael J. Matt, editor of The Remnant: Christopher A. Ferrara, author, attorney, and president of the American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.; Chris Jackson, Catholics4Trump.com; and, Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren.
“We were alarmed to discover,” their letter notes, “that, during the third year of the first term of the Obama administration your previous opponent, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other government officials with whom she associated proposed a Catholic ‘revolution’ in which the final demise of what was left of the Catholic Church in America would be realized.” The letter includes footnote links that take the reader to documents and news stories underscoring their charges and pointed questions. It first directs attention to the Soros-Clinton-Podesta e-mails disclosed last year by WikiLeaks, in which Podesta and other “progressives” discussed ending the “middle ages dictatorship” in the Catholic Church. Regarding the e-mails in question, The New American reported last October:
Podesta, a longtime Clinton adviser/confidante and hand-picked top activist for left-wing funder George Soros, revealed in a 2011 e-mail that he and other activists were working to effect a “Catholic Spring” revolution within the Catholic Church, an obvious reference to the disastrous “Arab Spring” coups organized that same year by the Obama-Clinton-Soros team that destabilized the Middle East and brought radical Islamist regimes and terrorist groups to power in the region. The Podesta e-mail is a response to another Soros-funded radical — Sandy Newman, founder of the “progressive” Voices for Progress. Newman had written to Podesta seeking advice on the best way to “plant the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church, which he described as a “middle ages [sic] dictatorship.” The issue that appeared to be the cause of Newman’s e-mail was opposition by U.S. Catholic Bishops to the federally mandated contraceptive coverage in ObamaCare.
In their letter to President Trump, the concerned Catholics write: “Approximately a year after this e-mail discussion, which was never intended to be made public, we find that Pope Benedict XVI abdicated under highly unusual circumstances and was replaced by a pope whose apparent mission is to provide a spiritual component to the radical ideological agenda of the international left.  The Pontificate of Pope Francis has subsequently called into question its own legitimacy on a multitude of occasions.”
“We remain puzzled by the behavior of this ideologically charged Pope, whose mission seems to be one of advancing secular agendas of the left rather than guiding the Catholic Church in Her sacred mission,” they say, expressing the thoughts, undoubtedly, of innumerable Catholics worldwide. “It is simply not the proper role of a Pope to be involved in politics to the point that he is considered to be the leader of the international left.”
The Catholic quintet began their missive to President Trump with the famous quote attributed to French historian Alexis de Tocqueville: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
“While we share your stated goal for America,” they write, “we believe that the path to ‘greatness’ is for America to be ‘good’ again, to paraphrase de Tocqueville. We understand that good character cannot be forced on people, but the opportunity to live our lives as good Catholics has been made increasingly difficult by what appears to be a collusion between a hostile United States government and a pope who seems to hold as much ill will towards followers of perennial Catholic teachings as he seems to hold toward yourself.”
They continue:
With all of this in mind, and wishing the best for our country as well as for Catholics worldwide, we believe it to be the responsibility of loyal and informed United States Catholics to petition you to authorize an investigation into the following questions:
- To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
- What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
- Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?
- International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict. Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this?
- Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence?
- What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?
- What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?
- What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may be currently residing in United States territory?
It is likely that very few Americans, including American Catholics, are aware of these matters, in the slightest degree. Although the WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Snowden revelations have made most of this planet’s inhabitants aware that the NSA routinely (and illegally) has scooped up billions of phone calls, e-mails, and text messages, very little media coverage has focused on the revelations concerning the NSA spying on Pope Benedict and the cardinals of the conclave that elected Pope Francis in 2013 (see here and here).
Architects of Subversion
What about the secret “Cardinal Danneels Mafia” referred to above? According to the Catholic blogspot Rorate Caeli, “The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the fruit of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years at St. Gall in Switzerland." That is the claim of Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, the authors of a recently published authorized biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who refer to the group of cardinals and bishops as the "Mafia-club."
Cardinal Danneels himself, in a video recorded for the book, admits to taking part in the secret club of cardinals that were in opposition to Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict). He refers to it as “a Mafia club whose name was St. Gall.” In addition to Danneels, this “Mafia club” reportedly included Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, German cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian cardinal Achille Silvestrini, Britain’s Cardinal Basil Hume, and other liberal-left churchmen. Cardinal Danneels, a Belgian, has long been viewed as a key subversive in the Church prelature for undermining traditional Catholic teaching against abortion, homosexuality, and “gay marriage,” as well as for his efforts to protect pedophiles in the clergy.
One name not mentioned in the recent letter of concerned Catholics to President Trump, but certain to surface as a key culprit in any substantive investigation, is former chairman of Goldman Sachs International Peter Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland, an Insider’s Insider among the globalist banking establishment, was brought in to help “reform” the Vatican Bank, which was akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.
Like Joseph Biden, Jerry Brown, and Nancy Pelosi, Sutherland is a prominent political figure who is regularly described in media accounts as a “practicing Catholic,” which means he wears his religion when it is expedient to do so. As attorney general of Ireland, Sutherland helped to scuttle that Catholic country’s legal restrictions on abortion and favored the “LGBT rights” movement. He has served as a commissioner of the European Union and  headed the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Here are some of his other globalist credentials, as previously in The New American:
• He is a regular attendee and former Steering Committee member of the ultra-secretive, ultra-elite Bilderberg Group;
• he was European chairman of the Trilateral Commission;
• he is past chairman of British Petroleum (BP);
• he is honorary president of the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN), one of the principal corporatist insider organizations promoting EU-U.S. merger through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP);
• as a top Eurocrat, he played a lead role in destroying national sovereignty by replacing national currencies (and national monetary control) with the euro, as well as engineering the “borderless Europe,” which the current migrant crisis is now proving to have been so destructive.
For the past decade, as the United Nations special representative for International Migration, Sutherland has been a key architect, along with with George Soros, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other globalists of the global scheme that has flooded Europe with the disastrous tsunami of Muslim migrants. (Their plans, which called for a similar migration deluge for the United States, got started under President Obama, but have been scuttled by the election of President Trump.)
The investigation that the concerned Catholics are requesting of President Trump should be of interest to more than just Catholics. Peter Sutherland, George Soros, and the world government movement they represent will, if successful, wreak unimaginable havoc and devastation upon the entire planet. The investigation — and prosecutions — cannot begin too soon.

Related articles:
George Soros: The “God” Who Should Be Jailed
Democracy Alliance: Soros Billionaires Club for Revolution
Foundations: Cutting Off the Toxic Funding Flow
Clinton Campaign’s anti-Catholic E-mails: Will Catholic Voters React?
Hacked Docs Expose Soros-Obama-UN Refugee Invasion Network
Insider: EU-U.S. Must Take More Refugees, Get Rid of Sovereignty
Soros and CFR Exploit Refugee Crisis for New World Order
Refugee Crisis: Using Chaos to Build Power
Trading Away Their Oaths (TPN Transatlantic Policy Network)

Monday, January 30, 2017

TRUMP READIES PEN TO REVERSE OBAMA'S ANTI GUN EXECUTIVE ORDERS

TRUMP READIES PEN TO REVERSE OBAMA'S 
ANTI GUN EXECUTIVE ORDERS 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
President Trump Readies Pen to Reverse Anti-gun Executive Orders
Gun Owners of America
   Gun Owners of America
Washington, DC -(Ammoland.com)- In one of the first pro-gun actions of his administration, President Donald Trump is expected to shortly move to revoke Barack Obama’s illegal actions to effectively outlaw gun collecting.
Obama’s anti-gun “executive action” was announced on January 6, 2016 — in the wake of Obama’s unsuccessful attempt to scapegoat law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a Muslim terrorist in San Bernardino.
Obama’s action was implemented as a “clarification” because he knew that his lawless moves could never pass muster under the rule-making procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Under Obama’s now-moribund “clarification,” a gun owner could have been imprisoned for up to five years and fined $250,000 for “only one or two [firearms] transactions,” according to a White House fact sheet.
Note that, under Clinton, tens of thousands of licensees lost their licenses because they didn’t have “brick-or-mortar” stores.

Now, in a Clinton/Obama Mutt-and-Jeff routine, Obama proposed to imprison hobbyists who didn’t have licenses because the government refused to issue licenses to them.

Hence, a hobbyist who bought a firearm one day and sold it the next day at a profit could go to prison for five years. Obviously, the intent was to create such a cloud of ambiguity that gun owners would refrain from constitutionally protected activity (private firearms sales), for fear that they would run afoul of Obama’s amorphous rules.
Tragically, in some cases, Obama’s unlawful actions had exactly the intended effect.
But, thanks to President Donald Trump, Obama’s unlawful action will soon be repealed — as one of the priority actions of the incoming administration.
Gun Owners of America is optimistic that this is only the first in a series of Trump actions overturning illegal Obama actions.

We are also asking for Trump administration action:

  • Removing the U.S. from the Anti-Gun UN Arms Trade Treaty;
  • Repealing bullet and gun import bans going from Obama back to George H. W. Bush’s semi-auto import ban;
  • Repealing the suspension of health privacy laws with respect to gun owners;
  • Repealing executive actions encouraging doctors to inquire about gun ownership and to enter this information into a federal health database;
  • Restoring gun rights for 257,000 law-abiding veterans;
  • Repealing Obama’s efforts to strip Social Security recipients of their guns, merely because a guardian processes their checks.
There is an old joke that goes: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? Answer: A good start.”
The work of restoring the Second Amendment to its God-given status has only just begun.
But the important thing is that it has begun.
Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Chairman
About Gun Owners of America (GOA)
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul.
Visit: www.gunowners.org to Join.

VIDEO: ROBERT SPENCER ON HAMAS LINKED "CAIR'S" HUSSAM AYLOUSH LONGING FOR INFIDEL DEATHS

VIDEO: ROBERT SPENCER ON HAMAS LINKED "CAIR'S" HUSSAM AYLOUSH LONGING FOR INFIDEL DEATHS 
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 In this new video, I discuss a recent controversial and immediately 
retracted statement by Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush, letting his 
mask slip and longing for more deaths after a Russian plane crashed.
 

TRUMP BANS CANADIAN-BRITISH DUAL CITIZENS FROM 7 MUSLIM COUNTRIES FROM U.S.

TRUMP BANS CANADIAN-BRITISH DUAL CITIZENS FROM 7 MUSLIM COUNTRIES FROM U.S.
BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Says the Toronto Star:
U.S. President Donald Trump’s new executive order has created mass confusion around the world.
Trump’s “America first” policy is a decisive rejection of the mess that Angela Merkel and other European leaders have created in Europe. But the same cannot be said for Canada. Trudeau’s reaction:
On Twitter, Trudeau posted photos of himself greeting Syrian refugees, adding the words “#WelcomeToCanada.”
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,”
Trump’s order also applies to Britain. While it led to uproar from British MP’s, Prime Minister Theresa May surprisingly commented: “The United States is responsible for the United States’s policy on refugees.” In fact, she “refused twice to publicly condemn Mr Trump’s ban on refugees from those seven countries earlier in the day during a press conference in Turkey.”
Although May has expressed open support for Sharia courts in Britain despite their shocking abuses, she has also made it clear that she is reserved on flinging open the doors of the UK completely. Some of her stated views:
She warned that “millions” of people wanted to migrate to the UK.
She said Britain should focus on aid rather than helping refugees who had travelled to Europe.
She argued that immigrants could make society less “cohesive”.
She blamed immigrants for pressures on public services.
She blamed unemployment, the housing crisis, and under-investment in schools on immigration.
She claimed EU immigration was “unbalanced” and “unsustainable” – and that the rules had to change.
She suggested asylum seekers should not even be allowed into Britain before their claims were assessed.

“Trump bans Canadian dual citizens from 7 Muslim-majority countries from U.S.”, Toronto Star, by Daniel Dale, January 28, 2017:
WASHINGTON—Canadian citizens who are also citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries have been banned from entering the United States by President Donald Trump in a massive break from the traditional free flow of travelers between citizens of the two countries.
The countries targeted by Trump’s 90-day ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Tens of thousands of Canadians have dual citizenship in one of them.
Trump’s Friday order even bars entry to the U.S. by permanent residents with “green cards” who are also citizens of one of the countries. That means, for example, that an Iranian-Canadian green card holder who makes her home in Chicago cannot come to Canada to visit her parents and then cross back over the U.S. border.
The order has created mass confusion around the world as governments, businesses and ordinary people attempted to decipher just what Trump meant. It is still not exactly clear. After the Homeland Security Department said green card holders would be banned, a Trump official told U.S. outlets that they could be approved on a “case-by-case basis” and would have to check in with a government official before leaving each time.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his ministers had not commented directly on the order as of Saturday at 5 p.m. On Twitter, Trudeau posted photos of himself greeting Syrian refugees, adding the words “#WelcomeToCanada.”
“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,” Trudeau wrote.
Follow
Justin Trudeau
@JustinTrudeau
To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada
3:20 PM – 28 Jan 2017
The order has resulted in travelers with visas to enter America being turned away from their flights and detained at U.S. airports upon landing. One of the people detained, according to multiple U.S. news reports, worked as an interpreter for the U.S. military in Iraq.
Air Canada, WestJet and Porter Airlines are no longer letting people carrying passports from the seven countries board flights to the U.S. All three are waiving their cancellation fees.
The order is a modified version of the “total” ban on Muslim entry that Trump proposed during his campaign. It was greeted with dismay, horror and panic by Canadians from the affected countries…..
“British passport holders in US entry battle as Donald Trump bans travelers from seven Muslim countries and court rules those who arrived with visas can stay”, by Ben Riley-Smith, UK Telegraph, January 28, 2017:
British citizens traveling to America on UK passports will be blocked from entering if they have dual-citizenship with countries targeted in Donald Trump’s refugees banned.
The US State Department said that Britons with dual nationality with the countries Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen will be stopped at the American border for the next 90 days.
The revelation, which broke late on Saturday night, sent Downing Street scrambling for a response and has triggered uproar from MPs.
Politicians said tens of thousands of Britons could be caught up in the border chaos as Mr Trump’s new immigration rules impact on holidays and business trips.
It was unclear last night whether Theresa May was aware the rules change was going to affect Britons despite spending hours meeting Mr Trump and his top staff in the White House on Friday.
The US State Department said: “Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or non-immigrant visa.
“Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or non-immigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.”
Mrs. May had refused twice to publicly condemn Mr Trump’s ban on refugees from those seven countries earlier in the day during a press conference in Turkey….

MERKEL TELLS TRUMP THAT THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IS NO EXCUSE FOR BANNING MUSLIM MIGRANTS

MERKEL TELLS TRUMP THAT THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IS NO EXCUSE 
FOR BANNING MUSLIM MIGRANTS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Trump’s executive order isn’t really a ban on Muslims entering. It is a temporary halt on immigration from seven jihad terror hotspots. But that is too much for Merkel, who would rather see her citizens murdered in jihad attacks than stop the Muslim migrant influx, even though there is an unknowable number of jihadis among the migrants. The Berlin truck jihad massacre was not enough for Merkel. And she will see much, much more.

“Merkel says fight against terrorism no excuse for U.S. entry ban,” by Andrea Shalal and Andreas Rinke, Reuters, January 29, 2017:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told U.S. President Donald Trump that the global fight against terrorism was no excuse for banning refugees or people from Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, her spokesman said on Sunday.
Steffen Seibert said Merkel had expressed her concerns to Trump during a telephone call on Saturday and reminded him that the Geneva Conventions require the international community to take in war refugees on humanitarian grounds.
“She is convinced that even the necessary, decisive battle against terrorism does not justify putting people of a specific background or faith under general suspicion,” he said.
Seibert said the German government regrets the U.S. entry travel ban, would review the consequences for German citizens with dual nationalities, and would “represent their interests, if needed, vis a vis our U.S. partners”.
The German and Dutch foreign ministers issued a joint statement on Sunday saying they were pressing U.S. authorities to determine what the order meant for their dual nationals.
“We are determined to protect the rights of our citizens and will take rapid action within the European Union about the steps that are now needed,” Germany’s Sigmar Gabriel and his Dutch counterpart Bert Koenders said.
Trump ordered on Friday a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily banned travelers from Syria and six other mainly Muslim countries.
Seibert’s comments were the first indication of discord over the issue between Merkel and Trump, who had highlighted common interests such as strengthening NATO and combating Islamist militancy in a joint statement after their 45-minute phone call.
Thomas Oppermann, who heads the parliamentary faction of the Social Democrats, the junior partner in Merkel’s right-center coalition, called Trump’s order “inhumane and foolhardy” and said it would result in significant damage to the U.S. economy.
“The order contradicts everything that makes up the United States’ good reputation as a country of immigration,” he told Die Welt newspaper. “No one should be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.”…

U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DENOUNCES TRUMP'S PLAN TO FAVOR REFUGEES FROM PERSECUTED RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS DENOUNCES TRUMP'S PLAN TO FAVOR REFUGEES FROM PERSECUTED RELIGIOUS MINORITIES
 "The USCCB may have a monetary interest here. This corrupt and authoritarian fraternity received $79,590,512 in 2014 alone — that’s right, nearly 80 million dollars — from the federal government for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund."

BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
“‘We believe in assisting all, regardless of their religious beliefs,’ said Bishop Joe S. Vásquez, the chairman of the committee on migration for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”
That sounds very high-minded until one realizes that the Trump plan is to favor refugees who are fleeing being persecuted for their religious beliefs. This includes Christians, Yazidis, and other non-Muslims. The USCCB, by opposing this, is essentially calling upon Trump to admit people among whom will be the persecutors as well as the persecuted.
The USCCB may have a monetary interest here. This corrupt and authoritarian fraternity received $79,590,512 in 2014 alone — that’s right, nearly 80 million dollars — from the federal government for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“Christian Leaders Denounce Trump’s Plan to Favor Christian Immigrants,” by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, January 29, 2017:
…Now Mr. Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to rescue Christians who are suffering. The executive order he signed on Friday gives preference to refugees who belong to a religious minority in their country, and have been persecuted for their religion. The president detailed his intentions during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday, saying his administration is giving priority to Christians because they had suffered “more so” than others, “so we are going to help them.”
But if Mr. Trump had hoped for Christian leaders to break out in cheers, that is, for the most part, not what he has heard so far. A broad array of clergy members has strongly denounced Mr. Trump’s order as discriminatory, misguided and inhumane. Outrage has also come from some of the evangelical, Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant leaders who represent the churches most active in trying to aid persecuted Christians.
By giving preference to Christians over Muslims, religious leaders have said the executive order pits one faith against another. By barring any refugees from entering the United States for nearly four months, it leaves people to suffer longer in camps, and prevents families from reuniting. Also, many religious leaders have said that putting an indefinite freeze on refugees from Syria, and cutting the total number of refugees admitted this year by 60,000, shuts the door to those most in need.
“We believe in assisting all, regardless of their religious beliefs,” said Bishop Joe S. Vásquez, the chairman of the committee on migration for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Jen Smyers, the director of policy and advocacy for the immigration and refugee program of Church World Service, a ministry affiliated with dozens of Christian denominations, called Friday a “shameful day” in America’s history….


IMPORTANCE OF TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER MIGHT NOT BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD FOR GENERATIONS

 
IMPORTANCE OF TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER MIGHT NOT BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD FOR GENERATIONS 
BY BRIAN THOMAS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 
Separating ourselves from the hysteria over Trump’s Executive Order on immigration, this is the crucial paragraph if you want to understand what Trump’s Administration is doing (full text of the statement here). At the end of this article I’ll explain it line by line.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
As we find ourselves at the end of the first week of the Trump era, we see this weekend’s screaming press outrage over Trump’s Executive Order and the complete shock that he’s enacting one of the core planks of his campaign. For some reason people have been conditioned to believe that promises made by politicians during election campaigns will all be broken.
There’s only one thing that’s happened this weekend which anyone should be mildly concerned about; it has to do with reports of Green Card holders having issues at airports. It’s reasonably clear from the text of the order that this shouldn’t be happening; either the reports are false or rogue elements in the Immigration Service are deliberately being overzealous to cause public issues. David French at National Review has a very good article on the hysterical overreaction:
However, there are reports that the ban is being applied even to green-card holders. This is madness. The plain language of the order doesn’t apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S., and green-card holders have been through round after round of vetting and security checks. The administration should intervene, immediately, to stop misapplication. If, however, the Trump administration continues to apply the order to legal permanent residents, it should indeed be condemned.
The press have gone into a meltdown over the immediate clamping down on movements of people from seven specific countries. Interestingly, the only country mentioned by name in the order is Syria. Seth Frantzman also noticed this and dug a millimetre deeper than the entire rest of the press:
Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq”. Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban”? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.
The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last few years as countries of concern. In February 2016, “the Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.” It noted “the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.” [read the rest]
Central to what the press and the usual grievance mongers (CAIR, ACLU, ADL and the usual alphabet soup of far left groups) are doing is to draw a false analogy between refugees from the Middle East today and Jews who tried to flee the genocide of the Nazis. Signing the order on International Holocaust Memorial day (and making a mistake by not specifically mentioning Jews) ensured that the press would jump on this bandwagon. This is done with carefully constructed (sometimes faked) photographs, especially of children. Dead child on a beach and dazed child in a hospital: I don’t even need to include photos, these are etched into your heads.
Back when I wrote about this in September 2015, I pointed out the enormity of this false equivalence.
So I was just wondering if I could ask something of all those people quick to claim that Syrian refugees are the new 1930’s Jews.
UNHCR persons of concern refugee numberFor those Jews who managed to escape Nazi Germany, where were the refugee camps, like the ones in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan today hosting 4,088,099 registered refugees (6th Sept). Because I’ve never heard anyone mention them. I’m sure a lot of Jews must have been saved in those camps.
As far as I know, in 1939 there were precisely zero Jewish countries and zero safe and secure refugee camps. I suspect if there had been a Jewish country or even a refugee camp it would have taken in some refugees. Worse: the major nations of the world, especially Britain, blocked Jews from reaching safety and sent them back to be murdered by Hitler.
Interestingly, the UNHCR “Persons of concern” website where I got my numbers from doesn’t seem to be working right now, so I can’t check for new numbers. The main number still stands: there were no refugee camps for Jews in 1939 and there are today many millions of Muslim refugees in (relatively) safe camps across the Middle East.
What has changed since I wrote that post is the seething societal problems currently ripping apart Europe. Every European nation that has accepted refugees is going through huge internal upheavals. I scarcely need to enumerate the problems, ranging from mass groping all the way up to huge mass casualty terror attacks in Nice, Berlin, Paris and elsewhere. Additionally, also since I wrote about the false equivalence, the UK voted to leave Europe and controlling immigration was one of the big factors in that.
Again, David French from National Review:
But don’t tell CNN’s chief national security correspondent, who last night tweeted this:

False. False. False. Religious considerations are by law part of refugee policy. And it is entirely reasonable to give preference (though not exclusivity) to members of minority religions. Finally, you can read the entire executive order from start to finish, reread it, then read it again, and you will not find a Muslim ban. It’s not there. Nowhere. At its most draconian, it temporarily halts entry from jihadist regions. In other words, Trump’s executive order is a dramatic climb-down from his worst campaign rhetoric.
So I’ll come back to the very first paragraph I showed you. That is the one that indicates what this new administration is actually thinking. And I believe it indicates that they know exactly what they’re doing. This isn’t something they put together in a week; this is evidence of their entire thinking on Islam and the defence of the west.
They’re going to treat Islam as a hostile political ideology. That is what has been needed for decades. It is the reversal of the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine set in place by Bush on September 17, 2001.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.
That statement should, quite rightly, strike terror into the hearts of anyone looking to promote Islamic law above the United States’ existing constitution. That is made even more explicit with the next sentence:
The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.
This would apply to a communist overthrow of the United States (I guess), but the only real threat on the global stage today is the ideology of Islamic supremacy.
In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
If you read that paragraph and immediately think #MuslimBan, then you’re bringing your own impressions of Islam. The text doesn’t mention Islam, but we all know that the leading ideology that sanctions bigotry, hatred, violence against women, and oppression is not Buddhism.
This section, again without mentioning Islam or Muslims, arrives at the heart of the problem. Islamic values always lead to intolerance. Islam’s guiding texts are all fundamentally devoted to separating the world between believers and non-believers. All of our liberal freedoms and our equality stem from a Judeo-Christian belief that all men are created in the image of God and are equal before equitable laws. That is not at the heart of Islam.
That same Islamic ideology led 56 member states of the UN to ignore the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replace it with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which opens with:
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
The idea that God made Islam the best nation is not a statement of equality. It is a supremacist statement. The Constitution of the United States doesn’t and obviously shouldn’t begin with “God made White America the Best Nation”. Every Islamic nation considers Islam to be superior to any other ideology.
That is what we are dealing with: 56 nation states and millions of indoctrinated followers who are religiously compelled (with a depth of fervor the godless left can no longer comprehend) bound to profess the supremacy of their civilization, whilst anyone with open eyes knows the United States Constitution is one of the greatest acts of foundational liberal freedom in history.
America is an astonishing social experiment. If it continues to open its borders, it will be overrun like Europe by those who desire its destruction, and could quite literally sink back into darkness. Whilst being so harshly condemned by those whose freedoms they are safeguarding so determinedly, Trump’s team, in its first week, has put out a document the importance of which might not be fully understood for generations.