Someone void of integrity.

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable
Bannon, who’s now ensconced in the West Wing as President Donald Trump’s closest adviser, has been portrayed as Trump’s main ideas guy. But in interviews, speeches and writing — and especially in his embrace of Strauss and Howe — he has made clear that he is, first and foremost, an apocalypticist.

In Bannon’s view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

“What we are witnessing,” Bannon told The Washington Post last month, “is the birth of a new political order.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp

The Four-War Problem: The Trump Administration Tips Its Hand in Asia

Americans Are Having Doubts About Trump’s Agenda: Poll

February 8, 2017 - Most American Voters Disagree With Trump On Key Issues, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Keep Climate Protections, Obamacare, But No Wall

American voters say President Donald Trump should not cut regulations on businesses and say 2-1 he should not cut regulations to combat climate change; he should not repeal Obamacare and he should not build a wall on the border with Mexico or restart the Keystone XL or the Dakota Access pipelines, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

In one area of agreement, voters support 60 - 31 percent "renegotiating major trade deals with other countries, even if it means paying more for the products you buy," the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

Voters also support 89 - 9 percent increasing federal spending for roads, bridges, mass transit and other infrastructure.

But voters oppose 59 - 38 percent building a wall along the border with Mexico. Opposition to the wall rises to 63 - 35 percent if the U.S. has to pay for it.

A total of 72 percent of American voters are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about climate change. Only 17 percent of voters say the U.S. is "doing enough to address climate change," while 18 percent say the U.S. is "doing too much," and 59 percent think "more needs to be done to address climate change."

"A litany of calls to 'hold your horses, Mr. President.' Americans want President Donald Trump to keep the regulatory reins on business, and voters call for a full stop to laying new pipelines full of oil," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"They are against taking the knife to Obamacare and opposed to lifting environmental regulations.

"And that wall? Forget about it."

American voters approve 50 - 30 percent of President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Voters say 56 - 33 percent that U.S. Senate Republicans were wrong to prevent for 10 months a vote on President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. But these same voters say 65 - 25 percent that Senate Democrats should allow a vote on the new Gorsuch nomination.

President Trump should not support efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, American voters say 50 - 46 percent.

Voter attitudes on other issues are:
⦁ Oppose 50 - 40 percent restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines;
⦁ 50 percent support more government regulation of financial institutions while 37 percent say increased regulation hurts the economy;
⦁ Oppose 49 - 39 percent removing regulations on businesses and corporations;
⦁ Oppose 61 - 29 percent removing specific regulations intended to combat climate change.
Voters also say 79 - 13 percent that Trump should defend all of America's NATO allies.

American voters do not believe, 61 - 28 percent, that three to five million non-citizens voted in the 2016 presidential election. The biggest problem in presidential elections is voter suppression, 33 percent of voters say, while 30 percent say voter fraud is the biggest problem and 29 percent point to outside interference.

Prejudice in America

A total of 75 percent of voters think prejudice against minority groups is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem in the U.S.

A total of 49 percent of voters think prejudice against Jewish people is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem, while 47 percent say it is "not so serious" or "not at all serious."

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2428

Finally Democracy at work. No Donald you do not have absolute power.

I don't know why the yanks are so bitter about Trump like it or not you voted him in get used to it. When he visits us for his Royal meet up that's all it will be. he will not be allowed to speak in our Parliament or house of lords.

No need to say to much, yet Americans still wonder why...

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2 ... since-ww2/

Greatest (BULLY) in the world. Lots of issues within your own borders, but always looking to butt into others business.

Lone Star wrote:

marjamlew wrote:

newtovillagelife wrote:From the outside looking in we see a people that is very scared all the time. Why would the boy with the most toys feel so insecure. Sad really.

And the terrorists have won! The wall builders and Muslim immigration haters are scared, little afraid folk. They have been terrorised by the terrorists to react as they have. Gotta feel pity for those who want to hide behind rocks but it takes all kinds to make up the masses.

Here's a list of some more countries for you to bash over their concern about Muslim migration. This should keep you busy for quite some time. Now you have at least 11 to focus upon.

- UK
- Belgium
- Germany
- Greece
- Poland
- Italy
- Hungary
- France
- Austria
- Spain

A new study on European attitudes toward Muslim migration has revealed that 55 per cent of Europeans in ten different countries want a halt to migration from majority Muslim nations. The study was carried out by Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and surveyed European attitudes to Muslim migration.

The 10,000 people surveyed were asked whether they agreed with the statement, “All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped”.

In 8 of the 10 countries, a majority in those countries wanted a ban on Muslim immigrants. Spain and the UK recorded the lowest number in favor of a ban (47% and 41% respectively), but even those two countries had higher numbers that were in favor of "to ban". Poland and Austria had the highest resistance to Muslim migration (71% and 65% respectively). Hungary and Belgium were tied at 64%.

In NONE of the 10 countries was disagreement to ban recorded at higher than 32%. The average disagreement with the statement was 20%.

The report notes that 33% of those polled, who supported the ban, considered themselves to be left wing.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/com ... mmigration

Hate away, haters.

Your a Bad Man. You forgot Australia from your list. WE don't want them, but for some strange reason the Government does Pressure from the UN maybe

The numbers from Australia released today;

Q: A Muslim Ban - In favour 44%, opposed 45%, not committed 11%.

The world is getting smaller, the population of the world is growing , increasing immigration is a FACT. Just look at the number of farang here in Thailand as an example. Im sure it has grown significantly in the 15 years i have been here.
To limit immigration based on religion will only create division and hatred. I personally know professional muslim people who are really nice people and a pleasure to call friends, i also know white anglo saxons who i would not trust with a dog. There are good and bad in every race. I even know nice Americans !!

I get a kick out of expats, some of whom are all in favor of less immigration back in their home countries, who feel the locals treat them as second class.....whether it's the police, immigration, banks, or just the common farmer. Can't get a job, can't own land, can't understand the school system, feel slighted at hospitals asking for upfront payments, feel like they're paying 25 baht for their cucumbers while the locals are paying 20. Living here, I like to think, has made me a wiser person.......having a better understanding of what taxes back in my home country pay for, better understanding of what real corruption is, better understanding of why the US system of government - for all its faults - has lasted as long as it has, and that the green we see on the other side of the fence is more often a sense of perception rather than reality.

Whoa... before we go all localeeze on this subject which by the way you have to pay and qualify for as you are not a refugee, there are according to the Pew Research Center in 2015 there were 50 Muslim-majority countries in the planet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world), so excluding those countries where the bulk of refugees are coming from that leaves forty odd Muslim countries. However, the European attitudes study as far as I know does not include any Muslim countries. I'd very much like a study of what Muslim countries think on the subject, well ones things for sure the Muslim countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council that include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates steadfastly refuse to accept any Syrian refugees.

So, if the West is so hated by Muslims how come these people want in? Maybe the the Gulf Cooperation Council countries know something we don't..! And yes I understand this is an emotive subject and it a many sided coin, however, nations that have previously taken in Muslim immigrants have finally had enough and have either begun deporting them in high numbers as in Sweden, Finland, and Norway or shutting down the borders to any more as in Lebanon and Jordan.

There are other countries in the world that already knew that taking in Muslims will only lead to rape, violence and terror and so have taken in zero refugees. Before any of you cry "Islamophobia!" or "Bigotry!" let me suggest that they first read the list and notice that among them are Muslim countries themselves. Their leaders are just not as stupid as ours and know that terrorists will definitely sneak in.So here for your reading pleasure is a List of 13 Countries Smart Enough to Refuse to Take in Muslim Refugees:
Lebanon
Shut her borders to Syrians in June of 2014.
Jordan
Shut her borders to refugees in August 2014.
Saudi Arabia
Did not and will not take a single refugee because of a threat to her safety, as terrorists could be hiding within.
Bahrain
Ditto.
United Arab Emirates
Ditto.
Qatar
Ditto.
Kuwait
Ditto.
Oman
Ditto.
Poland
After the Paris attacks, Poland said, Wait a minute. Forget about taking in refugees.
Turkey
Turkey has ended its open door policy of admitting Syrian refugees.
Hungary
Hungarian soldiers last autumn sealed her border with barbed wire.
Egypt
By refusing to issue visas, Egypt effectively closes it borders to Syrian refugees.
Slovakia
Slovakia is OK taking in Syrians - as long as they're not Muslim.

Aardvark wrote:Your a Bad Man. You forgot Australia from your list. WE don't want them, but for some strange reason the Government does Pressure from the UN maybe

I realize that many Aussies are against it as well, but Australia wasn't part of that survey. It was countries within Europe.

skinner wrote:To limit immigration based on religion will only create division and hatred.

Agree.

The Executive Order didn't even mention religion. Only 7 countries. Have you bothered to read it?

Well a few US judges feel there was intent to discriminate on the basis of religon. 3-0.

newtovillagelife wrote:Well a few US judges feel there was intent to discriminate on the basis of religon. 3-0.

If you really want to learn and educate yourself about the federal republic in the United States, read up on the reversal rate of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Their opinions have been reversed by the Supreme Court over 75% of the time.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9th-c ... eme-court/

"No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling. The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible. Seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the commander in chief. There is a reason we elect the commander in chief and do not elect federal judges." - Trey Gowdy (SC)

What these three justices usually do in the 9th Circuit is what we in America call "judicial activism". They allow their personal feelings about a case to influence them above and beyond the law.

The three branches of government have clear responsibilities and duties under the US Constitution. One that the President has is the authority to regulate immigration as he sees fit. Someone may not agree with the content of the order, but the President has the authority to write the order and have it carried out.

What this 9th Circuit is saying in effect by their ruling is that the courts can open a new immigration route for foreigners that would bypass ALL the federal agencies whose job it is in their sole authority to approve or decline foreigners’ immigration or entry into the US. The 9th Circuit has rewritten the Constitution to place the security of the nation in the hands of the courts, who have no access to actionable intelligence.

If the 9th Circuit's ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, the declaration would allow overseas foreigners -- including all hostile to the US -- to hire lawyers to persuade judges to grant them visas, residency permits and eventually citizenship. That courtroom route would bypass denials or approvals from the elected President’s administration and its subordinate agencies, including the intelligence, law-enforcement and national security agencies.

In practice, the justices have created a right, which they have no authority to do, to allow foreigners to sue the federal government when they’re denied entry. That new dreamed-up right, when pressed by many migrants, will ensure that some gain entry to the United States despite opposition from the voters and their chosen government.

There are several other issues with this ruling that will be reasons for overturning it.

1. In order to sue, the party suing must have "standing". That means they must be affected and "irreparably harmed" by the actions that they are seeking to stop. The suits were filed by two states, not individuals claiming they were irreparably harmed. Those two states do not have "standing".

Washington State does not have “standing” to sue on behalf of its residents because they have suffered no "actual harm" from Trump's order.

In order to sustain a lawsuit, the plaintiffs must demonstrate their alleged injury is direct and real, not merely hypothetical. The harm must be imminent and irreparable, not speculative.

2. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security. And yes, they can even be barred based on religion.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Congress and the president have “plenary power” to regulate immigration. For more than a century, the high court has consistently upheld such authority and rejected constitutional challenges to presidential action banning entire groups of foreigners. Even the 9th Circuit has endorsed this legal principle, but for Trump, they reverse themselves.

So when you applauded democracy winning in an earlier post, it was actually the opposite. Voters and their chosen government want something stopped that could be a danger to them, but the court allows it to occur anyway. That's not democracy. That's legislating from the bench.

We'll see how it plays out, but this is far from over.

If Drump is going to place a ban, place it on Saudi, UAE, Pakistan also...that would at least make sense.

so it doesn't make sense to review procedures for the seven listed countries that originally were included in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015? You don't see that Iran being a State sponsor of Terrorism (per our State Department) and Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan having large Jihadist elements in the form of ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Al Shabbab or other unaffiliated groups might bear a closer look when their nationals apply either for a visa or refugee status to move to the States?

Not sure what you said, but if it clarifies their reasoning for the ban, then maybe you should forward it to the three judges.

Michael Flynn, one of the conspiracy theory nutjobs and bigots that Trump has surrounded himself with has quit.....

From BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38965557

Michael Flynn: Trump's national security adviser quits

Donald Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn has resigned over his contacts with Russia, the White House has announced.

Mr Flynn is alleged to have discussed US sanctions with the Russian ambassador before Mr Trump took office.

He is said to have misled officials about the conversation.

Earlier, US media reported that the Justice Department had warned the White House about the contacts late last month.

They said that Mr Flynn might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

Senior Democrats had called for Mr Flynn to be fired.

It is illegal for private citizens to conduct US diplomacy, and the calls happened late last year before Mr Flynn was appointed to the administration.

In his letter of resignation, Mr Flynn said he had "inadvertently briefed the vice-president-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador".

A White House statement said Lt Gen Joseph Keith Kellogg had been appointed as interim replacement.

Mr Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, initially denied having discussed sanctions with the ambassador, and Vice-President Mike Pence publicly denied the allegations on his behalf.

However, Mr Flynn later told the White House they may have been discussed.

From inauguration to full-blown scandal punctuated by a high-level resignation in 24 days. That simply has to be some kind of record.


Analysis: Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

Donald Trump never does anything small. If his administration is going to have a political crisis, why waste any time?

From the day he was announced as Mr Trump's national security adviser, there were concerns about Michael Flynn's questionable contacts with Russia both before and after November's election.

The ground crumbled beneath his feet only recently, however, after revelations that his conversation with a Russian ambassador included talk of US-imposed sanctions. The mortal blow came late on Monday, with reports that Obama-era government officials had warned the Trump White House about the details of these calls in January.

Now Mr Flynn has been cut loose, but that may not be enough to staunch the bleeding.

Congressional Democrats - and perhaps some Republicans - will want to find out who was informed about Mr Flynn's contradictory stories and why nothing was done earlier. How far up the chain of command does it go?

All of this has some observers dusting off language from the mother of all presidential scandals, Watergate.

What did the president know, and when did he know it?