Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Brexit: Not So Fast - Supreme Court Rules Parliament Must Give Article 50 Approval




Brexit: Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead



Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing - although this is expected to happen in time for the government's 31 March deadline. 
But the court ruled the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies did not need a say.
Brexit Secretary David Davis will make a statement to MPs at 12:30 GMT.
During the Supreme Court hearing, campaigners argued that denying the UK Parliament a vote was undemocratic and a breach of long-standing constitutional principles.
They said that triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - getting formal exit negotiations with the EU under way - would mean overturning existing UK law, so MPs and peers should decide.
But the government argued that, under the Royal Prerogative (powers handed to the government by the Crown), it could make this move without the need to consult Parliament.
And it said that MPs had voted overwhelmingly to put the issue in the hands of the British people when they backed the calling of last June's referendum on Brexit.

Reading out the judgement, Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said: "By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so."
He added: "Withdrawal effects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law, as well as changing legal rights.
"The UK's constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by Parliament."
The court also rejected, unanimously, arguments that the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly should get to vote on Article 50 before it is triggered.

Outside the court, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the government was "disappointed" but would "comply" and do "all that is necessary" to implement the court's judgement.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict - triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today's ruling does nothing to change that."
In his statement to MPs later Brexit Secretary David Davis is expected to give more details on the plans to bring forward a Bill to Parliament.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a leading Leave campaigner, tweeted: "Supreme Court has spoken. Now Parliament must deliver will of the people - we will trigger A50 by end of March. Forward we go!"



The government must consult Parliament in order to invoke Article 50 and take Britain out of the European Union, the Supreme Court has ruled.
That means Parliament must take a vote on whether to invoke Article 50, which triggers the process to take Britain out of the EU, before Prime Minister Theresa May, can do so.

May had originally set a timetable to invoke Article 50 in March, but it remains to be seen whether that deadline will now be moved.
However, the judges ruled that the devolved parliaments in Cardiff, Edinburgh, and Belfast do not need to be consulted in order for the prime minister to proceed.
The Supreme Court decision was taken by a majority of eight judges, while three sided with the government.
Delivering the verdict, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, said: “In broad terms, Article 50 provides that a country wishing to leave the EU must give a notice in accordance with its own constitutional requirements and that the EU treaties shall cease to apply to that country within two years.”
Noting that the ruling had no bearing on the decision to leave the EU, nor the timetable for such an event, Lord Neuberger said that the issue was only whether the government could trigger Article 50 without first consulting Parliament.
In that respect, the judges had found that “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliament authorising that course”.
The ruling does not overturn the result of the referendum in June, in which the majority of Brits voted to leave the EU, but merely determines the path the government must take towards achieving that end.


'SOS' Movement Begins (Stop Operation Soros), Trump Calls Egypt's El-Sissi - Offers Support, Obama Gave $221 Million To Palestinians In Last Hours




Stop Operation Soros (SOS): Massive Movement To Overthrow George Soros Explodes In Macedonia




A major new initiative called Stop Operation Soros (SOS), a movement dedicated to stopping the evil machinations of Nazi collaborator billionaire George Soros, has taken off in Macedonia.


The SOS founders called on citizens around the world to “fight against one-mindedness in the civil sector, which is devised and led by George Soros.” The movement has been set up to expose the ‘subversive activities of all of George Soros’s organizations. Hungary has also taken to steps to clamp down on Soros funded organizations by banning them from the country.


RT, 19 Jan 2017 15:36
A new initiative, Stop Operation Soros (SOS), dedicated to countering the influence of American billionaire activist George Soros, has been launched in Macedonia.

In a press conference on Tuesday, the founders of the group called on all “free-minded citizens,” regardless of ethnicity or religion, to join them in the “fight against one-mindedness in the civil sector, which is devised and led by George Soros,” the Vecer newspaper reported. The movement says it will first focus on uncovering ‘subversive’ activities by Soros-funded NGOs.

According to Nikola Srbov, a columnist for pro-government news portal Kurir and co-founder of SOS, Soros-funded NGOs have monopolized civil society in Macedonia and used their position to suppress dissenting views.
“We’ve witnessed the takeover of the entire civil sector and its abuse and instrumentalization to meet the goals of one political party. That is unacceptable and goes beyond the principles of civic organizing,” Srbov said at the press conference.

“The Open Society Foundation, operating under the Soros umbrella, used its funding and personnel to support violent processes in Macedonia. It has monopolized the civil society sector, pushing outside any organization which disagrees with the Soros ideology,” he stated.

Another co-founder, Cvetin Cilimanov, editor-in-chief of the state-run MIA news agency, accused Soros’s Open Society Foundations of undermining Macedonian sovereignty by working not only with the opposition center-left SDSM party, but also with outside interests. By cooperating with foreign embassies and organizations such as USAID, Cilimanov believes Soros-backed groups have interfered in the political process of Macedonia.
“This is unacceptable and has largely contributed to a feeling in the public that the traditional relations of partnership Macedonia enjoyed with some countries are being undermined,” Cilimanov told journalists.
A third founder of the initiative and editor-in-chief of the Republika news portal, Nenad Mircevski, declared that the group would work towards the “de-Soros-ization” of Macedonia, echoing a speech made by former prime minister and leader of the ruling VMRO-DPMNE party Nikola Gruevski in December. In the speech, Gruevski accused foreign powers and Soros-backed organizations of meddling in Macedonian politics.

Soros and his foundations have come under scrutiny elsewhere as well. In an interview with the internet portal 888.hu in December, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that 2017 would bring about “the extrusion of George Soros and the forces symbolized by him.” 

Orban has accused Soros of undermining European borders and values by helping facilitate the flow of refugees and asylum seekers from the Middle East and elsewhere. During a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything), WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange also blasted the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, funded by Soros, for focusing “exclusively on negative stories about Russia and former Soviet states.”



Egypt’s presidency said Monday that US President Donald Trump spoke with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who expressed hope for a “new push” in bilateral relations under Trump’s administration.
The statement said that the newly-inaugurated Trump called el-Sissi on Monday and “expressed his appreciation for the difficulties Egypt bears in its war against terrorism.”
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday that Trump was committed to providing military assistance to Egypt.
“The president committed to continuing military assistance to Egypt and working with Egypt to ensure that assistance most effectively supports the Egyptian military’s fight against terrorism,” Spicer said.

Trump “underscored the United States remains committed to the bilateral relationship, which helped both countries overcome challenges in the region for decades,” he said.




The Associated Press reported Monday that former President Barack Obama released $221 million in U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority on the morning of Friday, January 20 — just hours before he was to leave office.
Republicans have increasingly called for blocking or canceling funding to the Palestinian Authority, not only because of unilateral diplomatic moves toward statehood, but also because of increasing evidence that funds are used to incite violence and provide financial rewards to terrorists.

The Palestinian Authority reportedly provides compensation to the families of terrorist prisoners incarcerated in Israeli prisons, as well as to those who have killed themselves in attacks on Israeli civilians. The total amount allocated by the Palestinian Authority budget for “the Care for the Families of the Martyrs” was reportedly about $175 million in 2016, and an additional $140 million was reportedly allocated for payments to prisoners and former prisoners.



















Monday, January 23, 2017

The MSM vs The People




Negative Trump Coverage Is Long-Term Threat to His Presidency


[This title is somewhat deceiving because the article is far more than the tension between Trump and the media...read on...]




The largest issue is whether the relationship between Trump and the media can continue this way and for how long. An article at State of the Nation maintains that the mainstream media must be shut down because it is not going to change:



Truly, if ever there was a treasonous and deadly enemy of the American people, it is the entire Mainstream Media (MSM).  …  The writing is now on the wall:  The current corporate Mainstream Media cannot peacefully coexist with the American Republic.
The Mainstream Media has proven itself determined to subvert democratic institutions wherever they can cynically manipulate them for the benefit of the ruling elites.  The Mainstream Media has committed numerous acts of high treason, abetted the genocide and forced displacement of indigenous peoples around the world, and employed yellow journalism to explicitly goad the American people into unprovoked wars of aggression.
The Mainstream Media has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not act in the best interest of the American people, and often acts to their great detriment.



The article goes over a number of different topics and discusses ways the mainstream media may not be telling the truth about any of them. It says for instance that chemtrails haven’t been properly reported on and that the reports that have been made don’t tell the truth.
It calls 9/11 the “greatest coverup in history” but then quickly moves on to various assassinations that it also believe have not been properly reported including that of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, John Lennon, Marilyn Monroe, and many others.
There’s more. “The Mainstream Media, at the very least, has covered up the true facts surrounding the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Virginia Tech massacre, the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, the San Bernardino shootings, among numerous other government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks and black operations.”


The article stated that it is not the mainstream media that alone is in charge of the larger propaganda effort. Instead, interlocking directorships create a monolithic global complex that is inextricably interconnected to the World Shadow Government.”

The main point of the article is that the media ought to be shut down entirely – the mainstream media not the alternative media.


How this is suppose to be done is not clear however and to take down the mainstream media you would also have to take down such related elements as Google and Facebook.
An alternative way to deal with this problem is to remove the advantages held by the mainstream media. You would do this by removing the corporate advantages given to it by the federal court.
We’ve mentioned them in the past. They have to do with corporate personhood, intellectual property rights, central banking and corporate regulation, among other issues.
Without these props, none of which were available for any length of time before the Civil War, the corporate media would collapse along with its parent companies. The artificial, fascist bigness of corporate America would be done away with.
In its place there would rise up once more a plethora of smaller entities, many with a libertarian bent. The situation would be somewhat analogous to the way the alternative press is structured today.
Admittedly, nothing like this is being contemplated at the moment but if things get bad enough … who knows.
Even a quick review of front page Google headlines presents the problem clearly:

Trump leaves world diplomats down and out – CNN-3 hours ago
Women’s March on Washington overshadows Trump’s first full day – The Guardian-Jan 21, 2017
Trump’s motorcade surrounded by screaming protesters – Daily Mail-Jan 21, 2017
Violence flares in Washington during Trump inauguration – International-Reuters-Jan 20, 2017
Trump’s Attack on the Press Shows Why Protests Are Necessary – Opinion-The New Yorker-Jan 22, 2017
Trump rejects new lawsuit over foreign payments to his firms – Reuters-16 minutes ago
Lawsuit to call for ban on payments to Trump firms from foreign powers – The Guardian-9 hours ago
Foreign Payments to Trump Firms Violate Constitution, Suit Will Claim – Highly Cited-New York Times-17 hours ago
Ethics Experts File Lawsuit Saying Trump’s Overseas Interests – International-NPR-3 hours ago

Conclusion: The point here is that the alternative press does not have a chance to reach Google’s front page, while the mainstream media is almost uniformly critical. Unless the mainstream press is somehow blunted, Trump will not have an easy time with this sort of coordinated negativity.




Meet The Anti-Semite Who Organized The 'Women's March On Washington', In France, Once Powerful Socialists Stand Little Chance Of Winning Election



The Anti-Semite Who Organized the 'Women's March on Washington'




It would be interesting to know how many of the useful idiots donning “pussy hats” at Saturday's massive “Women's March on Washington” had any idea—or even cared to know—who the principal organizers of the event were. The answer is undoubtedly close to zero, since the purpose of the entire charade—like all leftist charades—was merely to give the participants an opportunity to publicly signal their own moral superiority while smearing—as racists and fascists—anyone who doesn't accept socialism, identity politics, and perpetual grievance mongering as the ultimate expressions of the American Dream. But for those who actually have an aversion to mindless indoctrination, the facts will be rather disturbing.

A leading organizer of the Women's March was the Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York. This group was founded shortly after 9/11—not to condemn the attacks, of course, but rather, to lament “the heightened sense of fear and the acts of blatant discrimination aimed at [the Muslim] community” in the racist wasteland known as America. On the premise that all government efforts to forestall additional terrorism constituted Nazi-like fascism, Sarsour and her organization played a central role in pressuring the New York Police Department to terminate its secret surveillance of the many Muslim groups and mosques suspected of promoting jihadism.


An outspoken critic of Israel, Sarsour avvidly supports the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that uses various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and lawsuits to advance the Hamas agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state. 

Vis-a-vis the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, Sarsour favors a one-state solution where an Arab majority and a Jewish minority would live together within the borders of a single country. She made clear her opposition to Israel's existence as a Jewish state when she tweeted in October 2012 that “nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

Speaking of creepy realtives, Sarsour’s husband, Maher Judeh, mourned the 1998 death of the Hamas “master terrorists” Adel and Imad Awadallah; he praised the heroism of a Palestinian Authority police officer who had carried out a shooting attack at a checkpoint in Israel; he has expressed support for the terrorist organization Fatah; and he has lauded the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization.

In October 2011, Linda Sarsour, who holds free-market economics in low regard, expressed, on behalf of “Muslim New Yorkers,” “solidarity and support” for the pro-communist Occupy Wall Street movement. In 2011as well, the Obama Administration honored Sarsour as a “champion of change.” Not surprisingly, Sarsour visited the White House on at least seven different occasions during her beloved president's tenure.

In November 2012 in Baltimore, Sarsour—ever eager to peddle her woeful tale of Islamic victimhood—spoke at a Muslim Public Affairs Council conference titled “Facing Race: Xenophobic Hate Crimes.” This is the same Council that views the murderous Jew-haters of Hezbollah as members of “a liberation movement” that is “fighting for freedom.”








Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told senior ministers he is lifting restrictions on settlement building in East Jerusalem, a statement said on Sunday, immediately after the city's municipal government approved permits for the building of hundreds of new homes in the area.
"There is no longer a need to coordinate construction in the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. We can build where we want and as much as we want," the statement quoted Netanyahu as saying, adding that he also intended to allow the start of building in the West Bank.
"My vision is to enact sovereignty over all the settlements," the statement also said, pointing to Netanyahu's apparent bid to win greater support from settlers and appeal to a right-wing coalition partner.
Netanyahu told the ministers of the move at a meeting where they also decided unanimously to postpone discussing a bill proposing the Israeli annexation of the West Bank settlement of Maale Adumim, home to 40,000 Israelis near Jerusalem.
A brief statement issued after the discussion by the ministerial forum known as the Security Cabinet, said work on the bill would be delayed until after Netanyahu meets the new U.S. President, Donald Trump.
Netanyahu held his first phone conversation with the president on Sunday, saying afterwards that the conversation had been "very warm" and that he had been invited to a meeting with Trump in Washington in February.









France is among the world’s most storied welfare states, the historic province of the 35-hour workweek and, now, “the right to disconnect” from work emails after leaving the office.
For decades, the country has been home to one of Europe’s strongest Socialist parties, which managed to shape policy even when technically out of power. But as France prepares for its 2017 election — a contest widely expected to shape the course of a troubled Europe — a jarring reality has emerged.

Quite simply, the Socialists have almost no chance of winning, according to nearly every major public opinion poll. Even more so, they are increasingly unlikely to qualify for even the second and final round of the presidential election, to be held in early May.


As the once-indomitable power of the center-left wanes across the Western world — in the Europe of Brexit and in the United States of Donald Trump — it looks as though France, its age-old bedrock, may follow suit.

On Sunday, French voters went to the polls in the first round of elections to choose which two of the seven candidates running they want to lead the center-left come late April and early May. In first and second place came Benoît Hamon, a former education minister, and Manuel Valls, the former prime minister of François Hollande, France’s current Socialist president and the most unpopular on record in the country’s modern history.

One of the two will be chosen in a second-round vote next Sunday.
But after that, the climb gets much steeper.
First is the threat from Emmanuel Macron, an increasingly popular former finance minister who defected from the current Socialist administration to launch an independent and more centrist campaign.
Second is the specter of the center-right François Fillon and the Marine Le Pen, both of whom are expected to make the final round of the presidential election in May.

For the first time, Le Pen has polled ahead of Fillon, suggesting what for decades has been unthinkable: that the National Front, France’s far-right populist party of xenophobia and economic protectionism, could actually win a national election.


The National Front, once a pariah party, has become the linchpin of a pan-European coalition of far-right parties. On Saturday, Le Pen spoke at a summit of other nationalist leaders in Koblenz, Germany — a gathering that also included Geert Wilders, the leader of the anti-Islam Dutch Freedom Party, and Frauke Petry, a joint leader of the Alternative for Germany party, one of whose other leaders drew headlines last week for attacking Holocaust atonement.
“In 2016, the Anglo-Saxon world woke up,” Le Pen said at the conference. In “2017, I am sure, the people of continental Europe will wake up.”
In France, Socialists have begun to worry that her prediction will come true. In the final days before Sunday’s vote, even some of the leftist candidates seemed to have considered their primary a fool’s errand in a changing country.

The reasons for the surprising demise of the Socialist Party in France are manifold.
For starters, Hollande is staggeringly unpopular. He has struggled with relatively high and constant unemployment and a wave of terrorist violence that has killed 230 in the past two years.
Hollande decided in December not to run for reelection. This is the first time in a primary that a ruling leftist party is not represented by its incumbent president.
But analysts see the fall of the Socialists as part of a deeper trend away from a perceived establishment, which in France has long been dominated by the center-left. The same dissatisfaction with the realities of an increasingly globalized economy that fueled much of the Brexit campaign — and the Trump campaign — has begun to see an enemy in the French left.
“There is a general crisis in social democracy,” said Gérard Grunberg, a renowned historian of the French left at Sciences Po in Paris. “And it’s become more and more difficult to show why it matters, what its values are, against the evolution of financial capitalism and globalization. What’s come back is anti-liberalism, reaction.”
In the throes of these significant external challenges, Grunberg said, there is virtually no unity on the center-left to sway voters away from the extremes on either end of the political spectrum.
“The party is no longer a community,” he said.



British Prime Minister Theresa May will learn on Tuesday whether parliament must agree to the triggering of Britain's exit from the European Union, potentially giving lawmakers who oppose her plans a chance to amend or hinder her Brexit vision.
The UK Supreme Court will give its ruling at 9:30 a.m. (0930 GMT) in a landmark case on whether May can use executive powers known as known as "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks.
Challengers, led by investment manager Gina Miller and backed by the Scottish government and others, say May must first get lawmakers' approval as leaving the EU will strip Britons of rights they were granted by parliament.
That view was backed by London's High Court, prompting the government to appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the land.
The case has attracted huge attention from markets, with investors hoping parliament will temper moves towards a "hard Brexit", and it has again brought to the fore some of the ugly divisions among Britons produced by last June's referendum.
Brexit supporters have cast the legal battle as an attempt by a pro-EU establishment to thwart the referendum result after Britons voted by 52-48 percent to leave the EU, with judges denounced as "enemies of the people" and Miller receiving death threats and a torrent of online abuse.