Showing posts with label executive order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive order. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

These 35 Minerals Are Absolutely Critical To U.S. Security

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge



What do cobalt, uranium, helium, titanium, and fluorspar have in common?


As Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins points out, according to the U.S. government, these are all minerals that are deemed critical to both the economic and national security of the country.


The draft list of 35 critical minerals was released on February 16, 2018 as the result of President Trump’s Executive Order 13817, which asked the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Secretary of Defense to publish a list of mineral commodities that are vital to U.S. interests.


Under the Executive Order, a critical mineral is defined as:


A non-fuel mineral or mineral material essential to the economic and national security of the United States, the supply chain of which is vulnerable to disruption…


The list includes minerals that are important for defense, economic, and industrial purposes – and it keys in especially on minerals that are not produced in substantial quantities domestically.



Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist



Of course, some of these minerals could belong in multiple categories: for example, vanadium is used as a steel and titanium alloy strengthener, but also in rechargeable vanadium flow batteries.


That said, the important commonality to note for all of these minerals is their crucial link to the U.S. economy and national security.


PREPARING FOR THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO


Imagine the hypothetical impact of a lack of uranium for nuclear plants, a hampered ability to create high-strength steel and superalloys for the U.S. military, or if U.S. auto manufacturers had limited access to aluminum, steel, PGMs, and battery metals.


The challenge, as U.S. federal authorities realize, is that many of these raw materials are produced in limited amounts domestically. In fact, according to the USGS, the country sources at least 31 of the aforementioned materials chiefly through imports.


While it is unlikely that these supply chains would ever be disrupted, it’s never a bad idea to prepare for the worst-case scenario.

Monday, January 15, 2018

Ex-CIA Officer: Deep State Is ‘TERRIFIED’ Of Trump And ‘Want Him TAKEN OUT’

kevinshipp


Kevin Shipp, a former top CIA officer, says that Donald Trump is rattling the deep state to the point that they’ve demanded the media to just blatantly attack him. On top of that, they are so terrified of the president that the deep state wants Trump taken out.


“Donald Trump is questioning the Deep State and the shadow government,” Shipp says in an interview with USAWatchdog‘s Greg Hunter. “He’s rocking that place left and right. The news media is terrified of that. Their editors are telling them to attack him just like they are attacking him from the inside. It’s just dirty pool because they want him taken out.”


Of course, that isn’t all Shipp had to say about Trump’s attack on the deep state. The very people that have been attacking Donald Trump are now feeling the Trump counter-attack, and they are terrified.



President Trump’s December Executive Order on “Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption” is a major way Trump is turning the tables on the people trying to take him down. Shipp says, “Donald Trump, very wisely, starts out calling it a ‘threat to U.S. national security.’” That one term brings in the U.S. military, the U.S. intelligence agencies, domestic law enforcement, and the whole U.S. law enforcement into enforcing these laws. The amazing thing about the Executive Order is now it extends to foreign persons, foreign organizations and even foreign government officials. So, this is a national security threat, which means it includes anyone inside the United States or outside the United States.”


Shipp also says this is the biggest deep state coup attempt since JFK. Shipp also says that it’s important to differentiate between the shadow government and the deep state. “I differentiate between the ‘Deep State’ and the shadow government. The shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that they act even without the knowledge of Congress,” Shipp says. “There are many things that they do with impunity. Then there is the ‘Deep State,’ which is the military industrial complex, all of the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power, and greed that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen.  So, they are connected, but they are really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be exposed.  If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization.”


But there is some silver lining in all of this. Shipp also says that it’s going to be difficult to “take Trump out” because he’s got not only the secret service but private personnel guarding over him. He’s one of the best and most protected presidents ever.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

“Not Going To Risk A Shutdown Over Anything”: Democrats Get Trump And GOP to Abandon Border Wall

trump-wall3


This article was written by Michael Snyder and originally published at the Economic Collapse Blog.


Editor’s Comment: It all boils down to politics; there’s the politics of the campaign, and then there’s the real politics of Washington deal making and budgets. Who knows if there will ever be a border wall, or if a better arrangement could be made. What is clear is that the American people can try again and again to get a government that will do its bidding, but there was a higher bidder a long time ago.


The Democrats Get Trump And The Republicans To Fold, And That Means There NEVER Will Be A Border Wall


by Michael Snyder


Well, that didn’t take long.  Yesterday I reported that the Democrats were threatening to force a government shutdown if money for a border wall was included in the bill to fund the government, and one day later Donald Trump has unconditionally surrendered.  Despite all of Trump’s promises, a border wall isn’t going to happen at this time, but of course he is pledging to “try again” in September.  But will anything change for the Democrats between now and September?  Of course not.  The Democrats will continue to use these same tactics whenever funding for a border wall comes up, and because Republicans always end up backing down on the most controversial issues that means that there never will be a border wall.


Do you know why the Democrats always get virtually everything that they want?


It is because they have a backbone.


They would have been willing to force a government shutdown that could have lasted for many months just to make sure not a single penny of taxpayer money was allocated for a border wall.


I certainly don’t agree with their principles, but at least the Democrats are willing to stand up for them.


On the other hand, Trump is showing that he is willing to flip flop on just about anything once he meets the least bit of resistance.


And if Trump is willing to give up on his number one campaign promise so easily, what else will he be willing to give up on?  The Huffington Post has compiled an excellent timeline of Trump’s border wall promises right here.  As you can see, he was very bold while he was campaigning, but now according to NBC News he has essentially thrown in the towel on a border wall less than 100 days into his presidency…



President Donald Trump has indicated that he’s willing to back away from his demand that a government funding bill include money to build a wall on the Southern border, a move that could help clear the way for Congress to avoid a shutdown.


A senior administration official tells NBC News that the president is open to obtaining funding for the border wall in the regular appropriations process for 2018 later this year instead of insisting it be included as part of the large spending bill to keep the government’s lights on past this week.



Of course we are being told that building the wall is still “an important priority” for Trump and that the administration will try again in September.  The following comes from Bloomberg…



“Building that wall and having it funded remains an important priority to him but we also know that that can happen later this year and into next year, and in the interim you see other smart technology and other resources and tools being used toward border security,” Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway said on Fox News on Tuesday.



But why in the world would the Democrats change their minds and give him funding for a border wall in a few months when they are so vehemently against it right now?


I have to say that I agree with Rush Limbaugh on this one…



“The Democrats seem to have successfully used this stupid, silly threat of a government shutdown to get their way,” Limbaugh said Tuesday, in one of his first major rebukes of the president. “What Trump is saying is if we need to get this done, then I’ll delay the spending on the wall until September. And it’s just a measly billion dollars.”


He continued: “Trump, I’m sure, does not ever think he caves on anything. But outward appearances are what they are. And the bottom line is that if he is willing to withdraw a demand of his for a measly billion dollars for the wall because the Democrats are threatening a shutdown, then the Democrats will have just learned that this threat works on Trump, too, not just all the other Republicans.”



Of course Trump and the Republicans have caved in on defunding Planned Parenthood too.


Actually I don’t think that they ever intended to put up much of a fight.


This is another battle that the Democrats would have been willing to shut down the government indefinitely to win.  They are completely united in their support for Planned Parenthood, and they would have been willing to risk the greatest governmental crisis in U.S. history to get their way.


So even though the Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats are winning on big issue after big issue because they back up their convictions with courage.


Yes, there are potentially other ways that the Republicans could sneak the defunding of Planned Parenthood into various pieces of legislation, but because enough Republican members of Congress are “squishy” on this issue it isn’t likely to ever actually happen.


I have said it before, and I will say it again.  If Planned Parenthood was going to ever be defunded, now was the time.


Since the Republicans have chosen not to even put up a fight, that is a very, very ominous sign for our nation.


Just like every single one of the Democrats, any Republican that votes for any bill that includes funding for Planned Parenthood or that signs such a bill is going to be partially responsible for the blood of the countless number of babies that Planned Parenthood slaughters each year.


Unfortunately, most of these gutless Republican politicians seem unwilling to stand up for much of anything these days.  In fact, one Republican member of Congress has openly stated that she is “not going to risk a shutdown over anything”…



Republicans will also be content: many members of the GOP had indicated they would be satisfied with a spending bill that included money for means of strengthening security along the border other than a wall. “Border security’s the main issue—whether that includes a wall or technology, drones, or repairing what we have,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.) said Monday evening. Ms. Capito said she wasn’t interested in risking a shutdown over the border wall.


“I’m not going to risk a shutdown over anything,” she said.



So the Democrats are going to use the threat of a government shutdown to get their way on these big issues year after year until Republicans finally grow some spines and decide to stand up for themselves.


This article was written by Michael Snyder and originally published at the Economic Collapse Blog.



Friday, March 31, 2017

Obama operatives in the EPA plant Trump attack in press release for executive order


Obvious purposeful action labeled a "mistake"






(INTELLIHUB) — The Environmental Protection Agency apologized Thursday after “mistakenly” releasing a press release that attacked the president over an executive order that removes many of the Obama-era climate change policies.


In the release, the EPA not only allowed a direct attack from a Democrat to be included, they misattributed the negative statement as one coming from a Republican.


As The Hill reported, “In the release, the EPA included quotes praising Trump’s Tuesday order to start undoing former President Barack Obama’s climate actions, but it misattributed a negative statement to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).”


“With this Executive Order, President Trump has chosen to recklessly bury his head in the sand. Walking away from the Clean Power Plan and other climate initiatives, including critical resiliency projects is not just irresponsible — it’s irrational,” the release quoted Capito as saying.


“Today’s executive order calls into question America’s credibility and our commitment to tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our lifetime.”


“However, that statement actually came from Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a harsh critic of Trump’s environmental agenda,” continued The Hill article before going on to note that in reality Capito had praised the Trump executive order.


Keep in mind that this so-called mistake comes amid a major rift between Obama holdovers in the EPA and the leaders appointed by President Trump. Many of the holdovers are seeing their years long work get destroyed before their eyes and apparently are not willing to go down without a fight.


Consider this. The EPA later released an update version that did not include the quote attacking Trump while claiming that the reason for the error was due to a draft of the press release accidentally being published.


This is downright laughable when you acknowledge the fact that the only way anti-Trump quotes would be in a draft for a press release about his own executive order would be if Obama era operatives had put them there in the first place!


This is yet another example of elements within the government openly plotting and working against the elected president. And, as Barack Obama’s former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas recently admitted, this sabotage started long before Donald Trump ever took office.


Alex Thomas is an opinion journalist and editor for Intellihub News. He was a founding member of what later became Intellihub.com and an integral part of the team that destroyed the mainstream media blockade on Bilderberg in 2012. You can contact him here.

Featured Image: DonkeyHotey/Fickr

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.




Thursday, March 16, 2017

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights…



SHADOW GOVERNMENT UPDATE–

Barack Obama paid a surprise visit to Honolulu, Hawaii on Monday just days before US District Court Judge Derrick Watson, who presides in Honolulu, ruled against President Trump’s temporary refugee ban from terror states.


(snip)


Via Pat Dollard and the Star Advertiser:



Coming off a string of high-profile meetings, former President Barack Obama made an unannounced return to Hawaii Monday.



Just three months removed from his last official holiday visit as president, Obama was spotted dining at Buzz’s Lanikai Monday night.



Local Democrats tried “their best to keep it under wraps the whole day.”


Then on Wednesday President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban was put on hold by US District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu, Hawaii after hearing arguments that the executive order discriminates on the basis of nationality.


Judge Watson believes Somalis and Yemenis have the same constitutional rights as American citizens.


UPDATE: Also — the judge, one Judge Watson, managed to produce a 43-page decision within two hours of the case being filed. Speedy guy, huh!

The Gateway Pundit




If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution
against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Watch Ret. U.S. Marine ask single most important question ever




(INTELLIHUB) — What if you knew for a fact that foreigners from a random country listed in President Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban would capture, torture, and possibly kill you for illegal entry into their country?


Would you still feel good about letting those very same people, in turn, enter our country, the United States of America just because liberals say sanctuary cities are good?


One retired U.S. Marine Steve Gerns, who is also a private security contractor (PSC), asked a similar question in a YouTube video and the response was colossal.


In fact, the video garnered over 44 million views in one day and all of the unexpected exposure from it forced Gerns’ employer, as a precaution, to ship Gerns out of Iraq where he was undergoing an assignment.


In his video Gerns talked about asking local Iraqis the following question:



As an American, if I went out of town right now would I be welcome?



According to the man, without skipping a beat the Iraqis immediately responded, ‘You would not be welcome.’


The locals then let Gerns know that he would not only be unwelcome but that he would likely be tortured and beheaded if he was inside the country without papers.


“This is the local populace that would do this,” the man said.


“If this is the way some of these cultures feel […] why would you be so nieve to believe that if they came to the United States that they would do anything different then they would do right here in their own country?”


Gerns appeared on Sean Hannity’s show to give the details.


Gerns told Hannity that the culture is “good at manipulation.”


©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.


Featured Image: Brooke Binkowski/Flickr






Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Trump’s Drug War to ‘Help Police’ Only Puts More Cops in Danger, Enriches Cartels

Just after swearing in Alabama drug warrior Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, President Trump signed three new executive orders to pursue a ‘law and order’ agenda. One order seeks to protect police from violence, setting up a prelude to mandatory minimum sentencing and expanded definitions of crime.


Although 2016 violent police deaths are up from the previous year, the general trend is down considerably. As we reported in 2015, killings of police spiked during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, and again in the late 1960s as drug prohibition ramped up. From there, killings of police have steadily declined, with recent years being almost the safest ever for cops.


Image Credit: Vox.com

The other two executive orders seek to: 1) reduce crime, especially “illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and violent crime,” and, 2) direct a review of the Threat Mitigation Working Group so it can focus on international drug cartels. Mexican cartels will undoubtedly be the prime target.


The ceremonious orders, underscored with false claims about rising crime and murder rates, would lead one to believe we are in the midst of an epidemic. But the reality is that crime rates — and especially the murder rate — are at near historic lows. Also, several studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than people born in the U.S.


murderImage Soruce: Vox.com

We don’t really know yet how team Trump will carry out the orders, but we do know they are not guided by the facts. The ‘law and order’ ideology – a throwback to the Nixon strategy of capturing white fear by harping on inner city and immigrant crime – has long been an obsession with Trump and Sessions.


Regarding the war on drugs, Trump gets points for saying he thinks states should be able to legalize cannabis. Sessions, however, is a rabid drug warrior who relies on falsehoods spouted by the DEA to justify his archaic thoughts on cannabis.


Although legal weed states may be left alone, from the executive orders it appears the general War on Drugs is about to see a major escalation – to the delight of the prison industry and law enforcement engaged in policing for profit.



READ MORE:  Crowd-funded Film on Police Accountability Wins Top Honor at SXSW Film Festival



Ramping up the drug war, which has done nothing to reduce drug supply or use, would be a disaster that serves no purpose other than empowering the police state. This approach would demonstrate a complete ignorance of history, economics and evolution.



Where there is demand, there will be supply. If there is no legal market, there will be a black market.


The absurdity of prohibition should have been realized after the alcohol prohibition experiment, but federal and state government nonetheless set their sights on other drugs. We know drug prohibition was not based on regard for the health of American people, but was instead the product of racism, suppression of political dissent, and corporations erasing competition.


The drug war only worsens drug epidemics. The latest example is fentanyl, which is more potent than heroin but cheaper to produce. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid developed by the pharmaceutical industry, is now a popular product from Mexican drug cartels and is becoming more deadly than heroin.


In Portugal, where all drugs have been decriminalized for 16 years, problem users are more likely to seek out care and police are less likely to bother them. Overdose deaths have decreased dramatically, drug use is down, and far more people are in treatment programs.


The drug war breeds crime, degrades the health of communities, destroys opportunities with lifelong felony raps, and tears apart families by putting parents in jail. The drug war allows cops to steal property through civil asset forfeiture and kill countless people – especially minorities – every year.


The war on drugs is a war on people.


Under prohibition, where one drug organization is taken down, another pops up to satisfy the demand. The flow of drugs within the U.S. has never been staunched, despite law enforcement spending a trillion dollars over the decades of prohibition. On the macro scale, after the U.S. began its massive anti-drug campaign in Colombia, the drug trade simply moved to Mexico.



READ MORE:  WATCH: Police Do Nothing as Trump Supporters are Beaten Right in Front of Them



The drug war only makes drug traffickers smarter. As U.S. drug enforcement battled one type of delivery vehicle, such as fishing boats, traffickers turned to cigar boats and then narco-submarines. At the Mexican border, drugs are hidden in cars, taped to human ‘mules,’ brought through tunnels and launched with catapults. The efforts of law enforcement only serve as a ‘filter effect,’ which breeds super-traffickers who can beat the system – not unlike the predator-prey evolutionary arms race in nature.


The drug war brings massive corruption to government agencies. In the past ten years, almost 200 Department of Homeland Security employees and contractors have taken almost $15 million in bribes, and that is only what investigators could find. Corrupt agents have “illegally sold green cards and other immigration documents, have entered law enforcement databases and given sensitive information to drug cartels.”



And there is the infamous episode during the 1980s where the CIA was supporting Nicaraguan rebels who were smuggling tons of cocaine into the U.S., making millions while creating a crack-cocaine epidemic in minority communities. The U.S. government denies that it authorized the smuggling, but to claim that it was unaware of these activities is beyond absurd.


Under prohibition, drug traffickers get more willing and able to carry out violence on a massive scale, as seen in the horrendous torture and murders of the Mexican drug cartels. In a black market, violence is a major tactic to disrupt competitors and increase market share of products in high demand.


All of this exists because of the War on Drugs. Escalating the drug war will not reverse these phenomena.


There is, however, stark evidence that ending the war on drugs would end the supremacy of drug cartels. As U.S. states have legalized cannabis, the amount of cannabis seized by federal, state and local officers has fallen – 37 percent since 2011.



READ MORE:  88-yo Woman Defends Home from Cops Who Went to Wrong House, So She Was Assaulted & Arrested



In predictable fashion, cartels have responded by pushing bigger quantities of more dangerous drugs, namely cocaine, meth, heroin and fentanyl.


To truly put drug cartels out of business, the only way is to decriminalize drugs. At the same time, people would be able to procure products through a safe and legal market. Those suffering with addiction could find treatment without fear of being thrown in a cage.


Instead of reducing supply and demand, “the international drug trade appears to be more profitable and efficient than ever before” – generating about $350 billion annually worldwide. Cocaine and heroin have gotten stronger and less expensive.


No amount of militarized policing and assaults on civil liberties will stop drug trafficking.


By stoking fear about non-existent crime epidemics, Trump is rationalizing his power grab while directing outrage at immigrants or ‘outgroups’ – a fundamental pillar of authoritarianism. Trump is taking a page from the playbook of Richard Nixon, who used the phrase ‘law and order’ to go after minorities and antiwar dissenters.


During the campaign, Trump suggested raising mandatory minimum sentences to fight the opioid epidemic, and called for stop-and-frisk policing – which doesn’t work and ends up targeting minorities – to be revived and increased.





Jails will certainly be fuller, but experts have concluded that mass incarceration – which costs the U.S. $182 billion a year – has very little effect on crime. Jailing 500,000 people for drug-related crimes results in a $40 billion a year of lost productivity. Research also shows that aggressive policing strategies result in more crime, as community distrust runs rampant.


If these executive orders turn into anything more than political grandstanding, the American people will suffer. We cannot afford the escalation of a miserable war on drugs that is nothing more than a war on people.

Trump Moves to Deregulate Wall Street

Trump Moves to Deregulate Wall Street | wall-street | Banks Economy & Business Politics Trump (image: AP/Seth Wenig)

His February 3 executive order addressed deregulation of America’s financial system, largely operating ad libitum already – a symbolic action on his part. Congressional legislation is required to repeal or change so-called Dodd-Frank financial reform.


Obama’s measure was a scam, doing far more harm than good, virtually nothing to curb abusive practices. Lobbyists and lawyers representing Wall Street wrote the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, assuring dirty business as usual.


The measure capitulated to Wall Street, empowering the Street’s owned and operated Fed to enforce oversight, instead of an independent regulatory agency with teeth to act for the general welfare.



It replaced bailouts with bail-ins during the next financial crisis, taxing depositors by expropriating a portion of their savings to recapitalize insolvent banks, making savers bear the burden of financial crisis conditions, instead of institutions causing it.


It hugely empowered Wall Street, facilitating the growth of giant banks to far greater size and dominance than during pre-2008 crisis conditions. At the same time, community banks and credit unions were devastated.


A 2015  Harvard Kennedy School study, titled “The State and Fate of Community Banking” showed how Dodd-Frank advantaged Wall Street over Main Street – the opposite of what Obama claimed it would do.


It escalated the decline of community banks and credit unions. State National Bank of Big Spring (Texas) experienced the problem firsthand, its president Jim Purcell saying:



“Dodd-Frank systematically favors big banks over community banks, and that bias poses a serious threat to the banking relationships that community banks, Main Street businesses and other folks have fostered for a century.”



The so-called Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) is a scam. It did little to curb practices responsible for 2008 financial crisis conditions. Elizabeth Warren ran it from September 2010 – August 2011.


Dodd-Frank was a boon to Wall Street, the bain of community banking, forcing many hundreds of local institutions out of business.


In July 2015, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R. TX), House Financial Services Committee chairman minced no words, saying:



Dodd-Frank “made us less financially stable. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the big banks are bigger and the small banks are fewer. But because  Washington can control a handful of big established firms much easier than many small and zealous competitors, this is likely an intended consequence of the Act. Dodd-Frank concentrates greater assets in fewer institutions. It codifies into law ‘Too Big to Fail.’ “



In January 2014, former financial regulator, white collar crime expert William Black blasted JP Morgan Chase, America’s largest bank, saying its “CEO Jamie Dimon presided over the largest financial crime spree in world history…in the range of 15 major felonies that either the United States investigators (or foreign governments) found…”


It’s not just JP Morgan, Black explained. It’s the entire financial system. Black’s updated book is titled “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.”


On Friday, Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer called Dodd-Frank “disastrous policy.” True enough, but claiming it’s “crippling” the economy is political hyperbole.


Before signing his EO, Trump said “(w)e expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money.”



“They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank. So we’ll be talking about that in terms of the banking industry.”



Quantitative easing added enormous amounts of liquidity to capital markets. Wall Street used it to consolidate to greater size, for market speculation, for stock buybacks, and huge bonuses to top executives.


There’s plenty of money around. It’s just a matter of how financial giants choose to use it. Eliminating or changing Dodd-Frank won’t alter how they operate, profoundly against the public interest.


Below is the text of Trump’s EO:


CORE PRINCIPLES FOR REGULATING
THE UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEM


By the power vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of my Administration to regulate the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the following principles of regulation, which shall be known as the Core Principles:


(a) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;


(b) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;

(c) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry;


(d) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets;


(e) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings;


(g) restore public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework.


Sec. 2. Directive to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and shall report to the President within 120 days of the date of this order (and periodically thereafter) on the extent to which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies promote the Core Principles and what actions have been taken, and are currently being taken, to promote and support the Core Principles.


That report, and all subsequent reports, shall identify any laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies that inhibit Federal regulation of the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the Core Principles.


Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:


(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or


(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.


(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.


(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


DONALD J. TRUMP

Thursday, February 9, 2017

White House fires back at immigration order critics with list of terror arrests



White House fires back at immigration order critics with list of terror arrests







The White House moved Wednesday to counter critics who claim President Trump’s travel ban goes too far, circulating a list of terror cases involving suspects who came to the U.S. from the seven countries in question.


The list, obtained by Fox News, gave 24 examples of refugees and other immigrants from Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Libya who have been arrested on terror-related charges; most have been convicted.


Those seven, mostly Muslim countries were singled out in Trump’s executive order, which suspended immigration for 90 days from those nations.


The document of terror arrests appears to be, in part, a rebuke to Seattle U.S. District Judge James Robart who, in questioning a Justice Department lawyer last week about the number of post-9/11 arrests of foreign nationals from those countries, incorrectly asserted: “Let me tell you … The answer to that is none, as best I can tell.”


Robart halted the rollout of the executive order. The case is now before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Justice Department lawyers are arguing for the restoration of the measure.


The White House document itself names 10 individuals from Somalia, six from Iraq, one from Yemen, two from Sudan, two from Iran, two from Libya and one from Syria. The cases span the last eight years, and include most recently a case in June in which two Somali refugees were jailed for conspiring to commit murder in Syria on behalf of ISIS.


It also includes a case from March of last year, where a Yemeni native who became a U.S. citizen was sentenced to 22 years in prison for attempting to provide “material support” to ISIS and planning to shoot and kill members of the U.S. military who had returned from Iraq.


Read more at Fox News


John Roberts and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.


Photo credit: CNBC.com




Secret List of 24 Refugees Charged with Terrorism Revealed by Trump Administration




H/T Matt Bracken


Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

In New Executive Order, Trump Plans To Send ISIS Detainees To Guantanamo

February 8, 2017   |   admintam




(ZHE) The Trump Administration is preparing an executive order that would direct the Pentagon to bring future Islamic State detainees to Guantánamo Bay prison, despite warnings from national security officials and legal scholars that doing so risks undermining what increasinly appears as an “illegal” war launched by Obama to combat the terrorist organization (which many have accused of being directly and indirectly created by Saudi Arabia and the US itself).


According to the NYT which obtained a draft of the order (see below), White House officials “have spelled out their thinking about a new detainee policy in an evolving series of drafts of an executive order being circulated among national security officials for comment.




While previous versions have shown that the draft has undergone many changes – including dropping language about reviving C.I.A. prisons – the plan to add Islamic State detainees to the Guantánamo population has remained constant.  The latest version of the draft, which circulated this week, would direct Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to use Guantánamo to detain suspected members of “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, including individuals and networks associated with the Islamic State.”



The White House has kept similar language in the draft order despite warnings from career government national security officials that carrying out its plan would give federal judges an opportunity to reject the executive branch’s theory that the war against the Islamic State is legal, even though Congress never explicitly authorized it. The issue could arise when reviewing an inevitable habeas corpus lawsuit filed by an ISIS detainee.




The Obama administration first argued in late summer 2014 that the Islamic State was part of the existing armed conflict that Congress authorized in 2001 against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But while the Islamic State got its start as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq a decade ago, that theory is disputed because the two groups later split and went to war with each other. By pushing forward with the ISIS detention provision, legal experts challenge that Trump could undo the very basis of the unwritten US war against ISIS:


“It raises huge legal risks,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former senior Justice Department official in the Bush administration. “If a judge says the Sept. 11 authorization does not cover such a detention, it would not only make that detention unlawful, it would weaken the legal basis for the entire war against the Islamic State.”


Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor who worked at the Pentagon during the Obama administration, also chimed in and said there were other reasons bringing an Islamic State detainee to Guantánamo for indefinite detention, as opposed to prosecuting him in civilian court, might raise problems: Foreign allies, he said, might refuse to turn over prisoners or assist in detention operations if that was the administration’s goal.




But even if that turns out not to be the case, he said, the legal risks of bringing a suspected member of the Islamic State, sometimes referred to as ISIL, are “very serious.”



“If I were in the administration, I would advise that bringing ISIL fighters to Guantánamo raises too many legal risks,” he said. “If a court finds the 2001 statute does not apply to ISIL because of the extraordinarily remote links between ISIL and the original Al Qaeda, then it would put into legal jeopardy the executive branch’s basis for lethal operations as well as detention operations.”



Ironically, if Goldsmith and Goodman are right, it would be yet another case of Trump getting blamed and punished for errors accumulated during the Obama administration. Here is a brief timeline why, from the NYT:



In the 2012 version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, Congress bolstered the government’s power to imprison suspected members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces by authorizing such detentions without reference to the Sept. 11 attacks. But while it has provided funds for military operations against the Islamic State, it has never explicitly authorized combat or detention operations against it.



In summer 2014, when the group swept out of Syria and began rapidly conquering swaths of Iraq, Mr. Obama launched a bombing campaign to curtail its advances. At the time, he put forth the theory that the group’s early ties to Al Qaeda were sufficient to bring it under the Sept. 11 war authorization without new action from Congress.



Nevertheless, in 2015, the Obama administration asked Congress to enact an authorization for use of military force against the Islamic State. Lawmakers disagreed about whether it should place limits on the use of ground forces or impose an expiration date, and Congress never acted on the proposal. Congress has continued to give no sign that it has the will or the consensus to explicitly authorize war on the Islamic State.



Last year, an army captain sued Mr. Obama, arguing that the war was illegal because Congress had not authorized it. A Federal District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit without ruling on the legal merits, saying the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case.



Ultimately, the risk is that any Islamic State detainee at Guantánamo would have legal standing to get a court to rule on the question of whether the group is legitimately part of the war against Al Qaeda, thus collapsing Obama’s nearly three year old war against ISIS which was never legally sanctioned.


The full order as released by the NYT is below:


Trump Draft Executive Order on Detention And by zerohedge on Scribd




This article (In New Executive Order, Trump Plans To Send ISIS Detainees To Guantanamo) by Tyler Durden originally appeared on ZeroHedge.com and was used with permission. Tune in! Anti-Media Radio airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Leaked Executive Order Reveals Trump Crackdown On Immigrant Welfare

February 1, 2017   |   admintam




(ZHE) Seemingly following the proposals of Bill Clinton (and Ron Paul), The Washington Post reports that a leaked document shows the Trump administration is planning to crackdown on current, and would-be, immigrants who are likely to require public assistance.


After Bill Clinton received a standing ovation for suggesting a crackdown on immigrant welfare…




“We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws”



“Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country…




Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers…




That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes…



It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it.”



And following Ron Paul’s advice this week that the solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear:



Remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.



The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.



The Washington Post reports that The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.



A second draft order under consideration calls for a substantial shake up in the system through which the United States administers immigrant and nonimmigrant visas overall, with the aim of tightly controlling who enters the country, and who can enter the workforce, and to reduce the social services burden on U.S. taxpayers.



The drafts are circulating among administration officials, and it is unclear whether President Trump has decided to move forward with them or when he might sign them if he does decide to put them in place.



While Trump’s immigration ban last week focused on national security and preventing terrorism, the new draft orders would be focused on Trump’s campaign promises to protect American workers and to create jobs, immediately restricting the flow of immigrants and temporary laborers into the U.S. workforce.



The administration has blamed immigrants who end up receiving U.S. social services for eating up federal resources, and it has said immigrant workers contribute to unemployment among Americans who were born in the United States.



“Our country’s immigration laws are designed to protect American taxpayers and promote immigrant self sufficiency. Yet households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use Federal means-tested public benefits,” reads one draft order obtained by The Post, titled “Executive Order on Protecting Taxpayer Resources by Ensuring Our Immigration Laws Promote Accountability and Responsibility.” The draft order provides no evidence to support the claim that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare benefits, and there is no consensus among experts about immigration’s impact on such benefits or American jobs.



WaPo goes on to note that the administration would be seeking to “deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge” and develop standards for “determining” whether an immigrant can be deported after five years if that person receives a certain amount of public assistance, including Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.



The second order, titled “Executive Order on Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs” calls for “eliminating” the “jobs magnet” that is driving illegal immigration to the United States, according to a copy obtained by The Post.



The order would rescind any work visa provisions for foreign nationals found not to be in “the national interest” or in violation of U.S. immigration laws.



Economists are divided on the extent to which illegal immigration impacts wages, but generally find that immigration is good for the economy, including the immigration of low-skilled workers.



“The unlawful employment of aliens has had a devastating impact on the wages and jobs of American workers, especially low-skilled, teenage, and African American and Hispanic workers,” the draft order says.



But the CATO Institute claims “when you compare poor immigrants to poor natives, poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare, and when they do, the dollar value of the benefits they use is lower,” and The Migration Policy Institute claims that “refugee men are employed at a higher rate than their U.S.-born peers.”



Bear in mind this is WaPo unsubstantiated reports and The White House would not confirm or deny the authenticity of the orders, and White House officials did not respond to requests for comment about the drafts on Monday and Tuesday.



This article (Leaked Executive Order Reveals Trump Crackdown On Immigrant Welfare) by Tyler Durden originally appeared on ZeroHedge.com and was used with permission. Tune in! Anti-Media Radio airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and What You’re Not Being Told About Trump’s Travel Ban

January 31, 2017   |   Alice Salles




(ANTIMEDIA) President Donald Trump’s decision to bar nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days prompted one of the largest protests America has seen since anti-Iraq war sentiment compelled thousands to hit U.S. streets in 2003.


Moved by the ban’s inclusion of green card holders who were suddenly left stranded at U.S. airports, protesters flooded airports nationwide, demanding U.S. officials let foreigners who were lawful residents in. On Sunday evening, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly declared “the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest,” making the “lawful permanent residence status” of foreign nationals “a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.”



While many have pointed out that the precedent that allowed Trump to impose the 90-day ban came from a bill signed into law by President Barack Obama, known as the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, others pointed out the list’s omission of countries such as Saudi Arabia, “home of 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks.” But while these same publications claim these countries were spared because of Trump’s business ties, countries listed in the current ban mirror the list of countries present in the bill signed into law by Obama. So why did both Obama and Trump choose to spare travelers from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates from extra scrutiny?


The answer may lie somewhere in the past, long before both Obama and Trump were considering running for president.



U.S. presidents are often judged by how the economy fares during their terms, leading many to take credit for sudden upticks while others blame everybody else for downfalls.



In a carefully written piece from 2014, founder, president, and Executive Director of the Carl Menger Center Paul-Martin Foss explains that in 1971, when President Richard Nixon “[closed] the gold window,” unilaterally canceling the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, Saudi Arabia entered the picture.


Striking a deal with the Saudi Kingdom, Nixon established the oil-rich nation as its partner. From then on, Saudi Arabia became the “anchor of the petrodollar system,” making the kingdom’s demise unthinkable if the dollar were to remain a reserve currency.


Fearing the dollar would lose its value due to his economic policies regarding gold reserves, Nixon made the Saudis promise to “denominate oil sales in dollars” in exchange for America’s endless military protection. Being one of the world’s top oil producers and exporters, Saudi Arabia’s promise meant that foreign nations “seeking to purchase oil on international markets needed to purchase dollars and maintain dollar reserves.” By establishing a demand for the dollar “as an international reserve currency that counteracted the desire of countries to move away from the dollar due to the [U.S.] government’s inflationary policies of the 1960s and 1970s,” Nixon was able to protect the value of the U.S. dollar despite the obliteration of the only system that had kept the currency strong all through the years: the gold standard.



Since then, this relationship has kept the U.S. dollar relatively strong despite the U.S. Federal Reserve’s follies, which have accelerated inflation. This adds an extra burden on the poor, who have continued to see the purchasing power of their cash decline over the decades. But who cares about the poor when the U.S. government can keep printing more money without worrying about having the currency lose its power?


Over the years, other oil-rich nations joined the pact, with Gulf Arab countries like the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait maintaining large dollar reserves.


According to a 2016 Bloomberg article, Saudi Arabia still holds $289 billion of U.S. Treasury debt. But aside from that, Foss continues in his piece, “the estimated sizes of the Arab countries’ sovereign wealth funds” totals almost $2.5 trillion. These wealth funds invest their oil revenues across the globe, holding America in a special place in their hearts.


As America’s top U.S. military hardware purchaser, Saudi Arabia also helps keep the U.S. dollar strong through a vibrant war market while benefitting from the 1971 deal with President Nixon.



As a new president takes office, we can only guess what the learning process might look like. We’re not sure who approached Obama to let him know of the U.S. special relationship with the Saudi royals. We’re also not sure how this happened under Trump. All we know is that under Obama’s watch, the Saudis purchased $115 billion worth of weapons from America, totaling “more than any previous administration and were intended to replenish arsenal after war in Yemen.”


In the Yemen files, the database “of more than 500 documents from the United States embassy in Sana’a, Yemen” released by WikiLeaks, the staff at the whistleblower hub writes that “Yemen is of significant strategic interest as [the country] controls a narrow choke-point to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal through which 11% of the world’s petroleum passes each day.” With Saudi Arabia seeking to “control a port in Yemen to avoid the potential constriction of its oil shipments by by Iran along the Strait of Hormuz or by countries, which can control its other oil shipment path along the Red Sea,” it’s suddenly clear why America has been so invested in the Yemen war. The U.S. government must keep the promise made by President Nixon if it wants to keep the dollar strong without reforming or putting an end to the Federal Reserve’s grip on the U.S. dollar.


President Trump has only been in office for a little over a week, and he’s already following the lead of his predecessors.


Understanding the background of the special relationship between America and Saudi Arabia gives us an idea of why economic policies of the past are so entwined with wars being waged today — and why Saudi Arabia and others were left out of the list of countries under the watch of the U.S. government under Obama and Trump.


As over seven million people starve to death in Yemen while America presses on, aiding its number one partner in the region. But this is not because they care about the war itself, but because American presidents care about the strength of the dollar — at least, that’s what it looks like once you analyze the background of this special relationship.


Without oil-rich nations using the U.S. dollar to trade their product — and without the gold standard — there’s nothing keeping the dollar’s worth from crashing. And if that occurs, world markets would feel the boom with only America truly hurting since its currency would lose its worth, boosting other world powers.


Will there ever be a president who will challenge that? If so, reform should start first by ending the Federal Reserve.



This article (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and What You’re Not Being Told About Trump’s Travel Ban) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alice Salles and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Protesters gather in Portland over temporary travel ban

PORTLAND, Ore. (INTELLIHUB) — Hundreds of protesters with the group Unite Oregon and several other groups gathered downtown to speak out against President Trump’s temporary travel ban which bars the arrival of refugees from a few select countries.


Over 900 people RSVPed on a Facebook page for the group and many of them showed up to in support of immigrant and refugee rights.


Protesters gathered at Terry Schrunk Plaza, across from Portland City Hall, and chanted, “Down with Trump! — Boo! Boo! Down with hate! — Boo, Boo.”


Nancy Hawk, co. executive dir. of the group Basic Rights Oregon is, according to her own words, “a queer Muslim [and a] daughter of immigrants.”


Hawk told the crowd, “Every part of my identity feels under attack from this Administration” and said that Trump’s “executive order will not make us safe.”


Hawk also mentioned the Québec attack in which five people were killed and several others were wounded.


“What are we doing as a nation,” Hawk questioned.


“We want the United States to be a place of refuge.”


Hawk compared Trump’s executive order to the “Chinese Exclusion Act” and got cheers from the crowd.


Another protester who identified himself as Kyle said:


“We are in unprecedented times.”


A few protesters held up signs which read:


“No Ban, No Wall.”



©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Image: Lorie Shaull/Flickr





Comment Policy: Threats of violence, foul language, bullying, and spam will not be tolerated and may be flagged.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Trump Executive Order: For Every New Regulation, Two Must Be Revoked

January 30, 2017   |   admintam




(ZHE) President Trump has signed an executive action to revoke two regulations for every one enacted, or as officials told AP, that they are naming the new directive a “one in, two out” plan. Federal agencies will need to revoke two regulations for every new regulation they request, and the White House will review the proposal, according to administration officials.


The order sets a budget of $0 for new regulations in 2017 and the administration will set a regulation budget each year, the official said on customary condition of anonymity. Military and national security regulations are exempt.



“This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control,” Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of small business owners.


Trump’s latest executive action will prepare a process for the White House to set an annual cap on the cost of new regulations, a senior official told reporters ahead of the signing. For the rest of fiscal 2017, that cap on new regulations would be $0, the official said on customary condition of anonymity.




Here are the key highlights in the order compiled by Axios, as per the text released by the White House:



  • Whenever an agency proposes a new regulation, it has to identify “at least two” previous regulations to be repealed.

  • For all new regulations, “the total incremental cost … shall be no greater than zero.”

  • If there are new costs, they have to be offset by eliminating costs in “at least two prior regulations.”

  • The process will be directed by Mick Mulvaney, who’s set to become the next director of the Office of Management and Budget.

  • If a new regulation wasn’t already listed on the “Unified Regulatory Agenda” — a list of rules in the works — it can’t be issued, “unless otherwise required by law” or unless Mulvaney says it’s OK.

  • The limit applies to fiscal year 2017, which is already underway.

As Reuters adds, major regulations are typically reviewed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before they are issued. That review will continue under this new measure, but agencies will also have to identify what two regulations will be repealed to offset the costs of any new rule. The new order does not require that the repeal of the two regulations be done simultaneously with the release of additional rules, the official said.


“This vests tremendous power and responsibility in the OMB director to ensure the president’s direction in how we manage this across the government,” the official said.


This means that Trump’s pick to lead the OMB, budget hawk Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, will have critical say on any US regulatory spending and “pork” going forward.



This article (Trump Executive Order: For Every New Regulation, Two Must Be Revoked) by Tyler Durden originally appeared on ZeroHedge.com and was used with permission. Tune in! Anti-Media Radio airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.

Mexican Official Threatens to Combat President Trump By “Unleashing Drug Cartels”


drug-cartel-killings


There will be war in the streets, or at least there could be.


The strong armed tactics against Mexico are not making officials happy south of the border.


Now, with an executive order facilitating the deportation of illegal immigrants – and especially those who have committed criminal offenses – as well as building a wall on the border, President Trump has many Mexicans up in arms.


Jorge Castañeda Gutman, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs in Mexico, took things a step further during an interview on CNN with Fareed Zakaria when he suggested that Mexico’s previous cooperation with the U.S. in curbing the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants could end.


Instead, the cartels could be essentially unleashed upon the U.S. – retribution for tough policies on Mexico and other immigrant-producing countries in the Latin American world.


These astonishing words could open up an economic gang war against the U.S. –  very irresponsible words that reveal just how connected Mexico’s leadership is with the violent drug cartels who operate from their territories:



Mexico has a lot of negotiating chips in this matter, Fareed, but it also has measures we could take in other areas. For example, the drugs that come through Mexico from South America, or the drugs that are produced here in Mexico all go to the United States. This is not our problem. We have been cooperating with the United States for many years on these issues because they’ve asked us to and because we have a friendly, trustful relationship. If that relationship disappears, the reasons for cooperation also disappear.



The implications are astoundingly clear – Mexico would consider exporting chaos and violence into the United States as a form of payback for immigration restrictions and controls against the instability that the southern border has brought to the country for decades.




Out of bitterness or desperation, or a mix of both, Mexico’s finest would apparently weaponize their most brutal elements and deliberately send them North to sow chaos – only proving the reasons for controlling the border and reigning in the deterioration of the U.S. standard of living that has been going on for such a long time now.


Though no one would win, things could get pretty ugly…


Drug cartels and Mexican gangs have killed an estimated 40,000 people over the past decade in Mexico alone, as well as plenty of people on the U.S. side as well. Beheadings, etc. have gripped headlines and terrified the population.


The collusion of the Mexican government has worsened the problem, and the largest issues continue to explode. Why exactly shouldn’t President Trump attempt to stop this insane violence and deadly trafficking?


Here’s the full interview:



Trump’s moves against immigration, et al. have the other side in a tail spin – and now it may be war of one kind or another.


Clearly, they will play dirty.






Read more:


Mass Deportations Loom: 7 Ways To Get Kicked Out Of America If You Are Here Illegally


“And Just Like That NAFTA May Be Over” – Mexico Cancels White House Meeting Following Trump’s “Wall Ultimatum”


LEAKED: Read The Full Draft Of Trump Executive Order Restricting Muslim Entry Into USA: Total Ban On Syrian Refugees, Biometric Tracking Systems, More…



Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Advanced Tactical Gas Mask

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post






Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 529 people
Date: January 30th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com


Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.