Few words could be more apposite to the tactics of the Remainers. On Thursday morning, after the High Court ruled that the Government cannot use the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50, Gina Miller – the woman behind the case – stood outside the Royal Courts of Justice and tried to prove Abraham Lincoln wrong. With a straight face she said that the case had nothing to do with the EU. “This is about process, not politics.” And she’s not alone. Almost to a man and woman the Remainers have told us that all they have been trying to do is right a wrong. That it’s a simple matter of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty being re-established and the fact they are all Remainers is irrelevant. They really do think you can fool all of the people all of the time. Because in the real world the case was brought by people who had only one motive: to screw up this first stage of Brexit. It had almost nothing to do with process and everything to do with politics. And it’s not going to stop here. There is almost nothing the Remainers won’t do to try to keep us in. If that means showing contempt towards the result of the referendum – well, they won’t bat an eyelid. The entire history of the EU shows that whenever a referendum goes against them the Eurofanatics ignore it and demand another one. Which is of course exactly what some – such as Owen Smith, the Labour MP who was beaten out of sight by Jeremy Corbyn this summer – are now saying, arguing that any deal done by the Government should be subject to another referendum. For others there’s no need even to hold a second referendum. They want simply to ignore the referendum and let Parliament put the kybosh on Brexit. Most won’t admit to this because they know that it’s toxic. But some, such as Labour MP David Lammy, are open about their contempt for the electorate. Mr Lammy said that when Parliament decides on Article 50: “I will be voting in what I believe to be the interests of the country – which I think all MPs will take on board – and will absolutely not be voting to trigger Article 50.” This is the crux of the matter because the real issue isn’t whether or not Parliament should have a vote. The real issue is how Parliament will vote. Be clear about what many of the Remainer MPs want: to stop Brexit. And remember that a clear majority of MPs backed Remain in June. They speak about parliamentary sovereignty (which, incidentally, can only be reestablished if we leave the EU). But that’s a fig leaf. What they are really concerned with is finding whatever ways they can to stop Brexit. Let me tell you what is coming next. When MPs have to vote on triggering Article 50 they will come up with some entirely spurious but supposedly democratic reason why they have to vote No. It’s got nothing to do with not honouring the referendum result, they’ll tell us. How could you even think that?! No, it’s because… blah blah blah. On and on it will go. Every time the issue is discussed they will come up with supposedly plausible reasons to do with democracy and fairness that mean they have no choice, they’ll say, but to vote No. In reality they will have only one motive: stopping Brexit. Their hope and plan is that the longer any decisions are delayed the more chance there is of a change of mood. And they will do their damnedest to create that change of mood. So in parallel they will use their powers to try to ensure we have the worst possible deal so that they can re-argue the referendum debate when the deal is done. We are seeing this already with Hilary Benn, the Remainer chair of the new House of Commons select committee on Brexit, demanding that the Government reveals its negotiation stance – and so hand a huge advantage to Brussels. But they are playing with fire. The will of the people has been clearly expressed. The referendum was unambiguous. There is no wriggle room. Brexit must mean Brexit. If it doesn’t – if Remain MPs use their powers to frustrate the will of the people – then they will provoke one of the greatest constitutional crises since the Civil War. Thu, March 2, 2017 Parliament will be defying the people over the result of a referendum that Parliament itself called. But the constitutional crisis may be the least of it. It is a truism of modern politics that voters are disengaged – that their faith in the political class and political institutions is collapsing. In the US that is reflected in Donald Trump’s ascendancy. In France, Marine Le Pen owes her rise to a similar trend. We have a proud tradition that has always pushed extremists and rabble-rousers to the edges. If, however, our politicians were to show that they do not merely fail to connect with voters but are actively contemptuous of them, it is difficult to see how we could avoid disaster. To say there would be anger would barely come close. Not only would our political system be on the point of collapse there would be riots. And it would be a political crisis entirely of the Remainers’ making. These are worrying times. It is not just Brexit that is imperilled by their behaviour. It is our entire political system. Answer: marshall
Susan Rice has a unique gift to make the news every time she speaks. Instead of looking in the mirror and considering her ill-advised statements about the cause of terrorism and a deserter’s supposedly meritorious record, this time she blames the backlash on the intersection of race and gender. In short, she claims she is being attacked because she is a black woman. In reality, she is being attacked because she is a ridiculous partisan hack, whose disconnect from basic facts and ability to repeat the most ridiculous spin and talking points from the Obama administration is as ridiculous as it is stunning. If we measured political ability by a person’s capacity to say laughable talking points with a straight face, Susan Rice has to be the politician of the century. She first made the news when she commented on the 2012 attacks in Libya that killed the US ambassador and 3 other Americans. Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails (the ones that weren’t illegally deleted of course), revealed that she told multiple people almost immediately that the events in Libya were terrorist attacks. But in public, Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows to claim they attacked in response to a video even though it was plainly obvious to anybody watching that there was more to the attack than a video. The next time she resurfaced she tried to defend Bowe Bergdahl, an army soldier captured by the Taliban. When the Obama administration secured his release Susan Rice again went on morning talk shows. This time she said he served with “ honor and distinction.” But this was completely outrageous because most of his comrades said he defected to the enemy and the army court martialed him for desertion. The trade also sparked a significant debate over the wisdom in trading one (subpar) soldier for five terrorists. Now she has resurfaced again. Her name has entered the conversation in regards to the so-called Russian hacking of the election. Among all of the arguing, Susan Rice admitted to being one of the individuals that unmasked figures in the Trump campaign. Unlike the hysteria over little more than innuendo linking the Trump campaign with Russia, unmasking can be a serious crime. As a result she has been the subject of intense disagreement and scrutiny. Despite regularly sticking her foot in her mouth and repeating talking points that have tenuous connections to reality, she now blames much of the backlash on racism and sexism. An independent prosecutor will investigate the matter and all related issues. Until then, I’m marveling at the utter ineptness of Susan Rice. She supplies so many howling and guffaw inducing talking points but does it with such sincerity and a straight face that I almost wish she would be in the news every day. To have a partisan hack that is willing to spy on their political enemies and fall on their sword must be important for Obama and Clinton. But she also supplies her own daggers every time she speaks. Answer: marshall
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - California is now officially a "sanctuary state" after Governor Brown signed controversial State Senate Bill 54 which limits local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. SB 54, called the California Values Act, was hard fought in the state legislature on its way to the Governor's desk over the issue of public safety versus protecting people living in California illegally. SB 54 protects jail inmates from being held in custody until immigration agents can come and pick them up regardless of their immigration status. The California State Sheriff's Association strongly opposed SB 54 saying, among other things, it protects so-called non-violent offenders including gang members, drug dealers and sex offenders from deportation. SB 54 also protects illegal immigrants from deportation while at public schools, hospitals and courts. "Today I am very pleased to announce the governor of the great State of California, Governor Jerry Brown, signed Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act", said Democrat Senator Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles who introduced SB 54 earlier this year in response to the Trump Administration's immigration policies, "our President is pursuing biased law enforcement policies based on the principles of white supremacy." In a written statement after signing SB 54 into law Thursday, Governor Brown said the California Values Act "does not prevent or prohibit ICE or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way. This protects public safety and ensures that hard working people who contribute to the state are respected." The Trump Administration has been threatening to withhold federal funds from states that declare themselves as sanctuaries. The California Values Act takes effect January 1, 2018. Answer: not
A couple of weeks ago, after the row over Trump "fat-shaming" Alicia Machado, I suggested the Republican candidate lay off our weight. Now, and I can hardly believe I'm having to write this, I suggest he lay off our vaginas. The day after a video tape emerged in which he suggested he could have any woman he wants because he's a star and so could just "grab them by the pussy", Mr Trump is in a whole ocean of hot political water. Enough, quite possibly, to sink any chance he had of winning the White House. Why this tape - and not the myriad other controversies that have dogged him in recent weeks? First, analyse what he actually says. There is something particularly sexist, I'd say abusive, about this recording. Read this excerpt: "When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." "Whatever you want," the interviewer says. "Grab 'em by the pussy, you can do anything," Trump replies." It's the way Mr Trump reveals that he sees women as a piece of sexual meat, something he wants, grabs, discards that is so damning. Surveys (US government and UN) suggest one in five American women are the victim of rape or attempted rape and a staggering 83% of girls suffer sexual harassment at school. Mr Trump is not guilty of either of those but his language is exactly the kind of language that encourages men and boys to feel it's okay to abuse women. There is a violence in the phrases "grab 'em by the pussy" and "you can do anything" that any victim of abuse would recognise and that most women would find sickening. To dismiss the tape as mere "locker room banter" and imply that the people who are offended are making an unnecessary fuss, or to say, as he did in his bizarre overnight apology tape, that this is just a distraction, compounds his problem. But this tape doesn't just offend women, judging from the reaction in the Republican party - it has offended a lot of men too. Whether those men will now withdraw their endorsements of him is yet to be seen. Mr Trump has denigrated people before. His comments about Muslims and Mexicans have arguably been equally grotesque and many, including some Republicans, have suggested they disqualified him for the presidency too. Not everyone in America, however, knows a Muslim or a Mexican. Most people, and most voters, do have wives, mothers, sisters or daughters and that's why this tape touches a nerve, with both sexes, in a way his previous remarks haven't. Powerful men using their position to get sex is nothing new, even in the White House. JFK and Bill Clinton paved that path. Today some of Trump's supporters are making the case that anyone who voted for Bill Clinton has no right to be offended by Donald Trump. I've been critical of Mr Clinton's treatment of women, and of Mrs Clinton's role in shielding him, but those supporters are missing the point. In 2016, don't we all want more from our leaders than another man who feels getting sex from whoever they want, whenever they want is simply one of the perks of power? For my two daughters, I know I do. How Mr Trump manages the fallout from this isn't clear. He doesn't like apologising. Indeed, he has bragged about never doing so. Yet overnight he did release a video statement in which he said: "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologise." In the tape he then goes on to attack both Clintons' records. So on Sunday night, when he debates with Hillary Clinton for the second time, will he raise the issue of Bill Clinton's affairs and Hillary's role in discrediting the women involved, or will he keep quiet about sex altogether? In the past Mr Trump has not been able to resist lashing out when he's under attack. So, whatever his advisers may caution, I suspect we will see more of that in St Louis on Sunday night. Answer: marshall
A Muslim man was shocked to have his request for a judge to acknowledge Sharia law denied in court. Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi, a Minnesota taxi driver, was killed in a car accident. Following his passing, legal proceedings began to determine a settlement for his spouse or surviving family. A wrongful death suit was filed, in which Ombabi's estate was rewarded $183,000 to go to his wife. Ombabi's brother, Hasameldin Ibrahim Imbabi, subsequently disputed the ruling on the grounds that the money should be distributed to his family in accordance with Sharia law. One of the specifics of that argument was that the men should receive "twice the share of the female." "[The brother] further asserts that “the principles of the private international law should have been applied from the beginning since the law of all parties (the decedent, his widow and decedent[‘s] next of kin) is the Islamic Law and they are all Muslims and follow the specifics of the religion.” … [The brother’s] main assertion of error appears to be that the district court should have applied Sudanese Islamic law instead of Minnesota law when distributing the wrongful-death settlement proceeds…. [He] also asserts that the district court erred by refusing to honor a legal declaration issued by the Sudanese Family Court in Khartoum regarding distribution of the wrongful-death settlement proceeds under Sudanese Islamic law," court documents stated, the Washington Post reported. The judge, however, denied the man's argument due to lack of legal representation and specious arguments. Many reader applauded the judge's decision to reject Sharia law. "Muslim man has no grounds to stand on with that, Sharia Law has NO place in this country ... these people need to get it through their thick skull that the US Constitution which is law of our land and Sharia Law does not and cannot co-exist in our land!" one Newsiosity reader commented on the site's Facebook page. "Welcome to America. If you want to immigrate here and live here then follow our laws and rules. "When in Rome Do as the Romans Do " You are in our country .. respect the laws here or go back to your original country. This an example of what is totally wrong with this country now Everyone who comes here wants America to accommodate them and expect us to change . Not happening," another added. Answer: not
Linda Gibbs died on 31 August aged 70. She was told her cancer diagnosis was terminal on 14 July. Hours after receiving the news, she was called by someone claiming to be from her telephone provider who told her a direct debit payment had failed. She gave them her bank details and PIN number and was told someone would come and collect her card to sort the payment out. A woman arrived at her home in Nuneaton and collected the card, which was then used to buy thousands of pounds worth of jewellery. Warwickshire Police have released photographs of a woman they want to interview in connection with the investigation, who, they say, may have been wearing a wig at the time the pictures were taken. Mrs Gibbs' daughter, Anita Foxley, said: "My mum was very vulnerable after being told she had terminal cancer and to be targeted by these people is unforgivable. The extra stress this put on her life in her last days was unbearable. "When they targeted her... she must have been at the lowest point that she's ever been at... I imagine that they preyed on that. Obviously they must have been very convincing, and mum must have trusted them," she added. "I would really like to see justice served on the woman who came to my mum's door that day." Kevin Knight, of Warwickshire Police, said: "These types of heartless criminals regularly prey on the most vulnerable members of the community and in this case they have targeted someone who had just received the most awful news. "You can only imagine the impact this had on the final weeks of Mrs Gibbs' life and the anger it continues to cause her family. We believe the woman in these photos has information that will be vital to our enquiries. Please bear in mind that she might be wearing a wig," he added. Answer: not
She’s young, attractive, articulate, conservative, and black! Candace Owens is surely the worst nightmare of the hard-Left wing of the Democrat party. For decades, those folks have taken the black vote for granted. Now blacks are waking up, and that could spell doom for Democrats — hence their “interest” in Latino-Americans, especially illegal immigrants. In the 2-minute video above, hear Candace’s advice and warning for Latinos — namely, don’t be scammed by Democrats the way that America’s blacks have been. Check out her longer speech too (below) given to the Conservative College Student Action Summit in January, 2018. She explains clearly how Democrats are eyeing illegal immigrants as the most promising new voting livestock for their Big-Government-Dependency Plantation. Owens’ message isn’t new, but her youth and style makes her among the best to reach America’s young people, no matter what identity group the Democrats assign them to. Thomas Sowell is fantastic, but he cannot reach young people the way Owens can. Via WFP Answer: marshall
Original report: Web hosting company GoDaddy is booting the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, over an inflammatory post about the woman killed in the deadly car attack on people protesting a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. According to CBS News, GoDaddy announced the move after receiving complaints about an article on the site that made derogatory comments about Charlottesville victim Heather Heyer's appearance and views. "We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy tweeted from its verified account. We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service. Hours later, a post appeared on the Daily Stormer claiming that hacking group Anonymous had taken control of the site and would shut it down within 24 hours. "THIS SITE IS NOW UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANONYMOUS," the post read. "WE HAVE TAKEN THIS SITE IN THE NAME OF HEATHER HEYER A VICTIM OF WHITE SUPREMACIST TERRORISM." Anonymous tweeted that it had "no confirmation" that its hackers were involved and suggested that the Daily Stormer was behind the stunt. We have no confirmation that "Anonymous" is involved yet. Looks more like a DS stunt. Wonder if they are having issues finding a new host. https://t.co/ikXXRBfC5p Anonymous later added, "To be clear, we're saying they weren't hacked. This is DS lying in an attempt to play victim to their audience later." To be clear, we're saying they weren't hacked. This is DS lying in an attempt to play victim to their audience later. © 2018 Cox Media Group. Answer: not
North Korea must denuclearise the peninsula amid World War 3 scares, Counsellor to the President, Kellyanne Conway has warned. Speaking to Fox News, Donald Trump’s top aide said: “Well the President’s position, our position on North Korea has never changed. “He continues to apply maximum pressure.” Ms Conway added that the United States is “very happy” to see a more unified effort against Kim Jong-un’s regime. She said: “North Korea must denuclearise the peninsula region and we’re very happy that there seems to be a more unified international effort in this regard, in that pursuit. “You see the United Nations resolution on December 22, very recently, you see the previous resolutions unanimously in support of the United States position with respect to North Korea." Mr Trump’s aide added that North Korea is a threat to the entire world, not just the US. She said: “This is key because this President has made clear from the beginning and constantly throughout the first year of his presidency that a nuclearised North Korea is not just a danger and a threat to America, and to any freedom and democracy loving people, but to the entire world and the world is responding.” It comes after President Trump threatened North Korea with his "much bigger and more powerful" nuclear button following menacing undertones in Kim Jong-un's speech on New Year's Day. Mr Trump wrote on Twitter: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' "Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger &amp; more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" North Korea has been fanning fears of World War 3 by refusing to heed calls for denuclearisation – with leader Kim engaging President Trump in an escalating war of words. But Kim appeared to offer an olive branch to neighbouring South Korea – a close US ally – by suggesting North Korea could use the 2018 Winter Olympics to organise diplomatic talks with Seoul to defuse tensions with the international community. Answer:
not