A newly released study of the electoral preferences of members of the French military and the gendarmes has demonstrated an increasing tendency to support national populist Marine Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (RN) or National Rally party.
An Ifop study which was conducted for the Jean Jaurès Foundation, examined communes with large amounts of soldiers living there compared to the average population and discovered that some, like Mailly-le-Camp, saw 50.4 percent voting for National Rally in this year’s European Parliament election, according to a report from Le Figaro.
The commune in Suippes where members of the French 40th Artillery regiment reside also had many more people voting for the National Rally with 45.5 percent support in 2019’s European election.
Additionally, the study examined locations with polling sites in urban areas close to gendarme barracks. Again, it was discovered that these locations had higher percentages of voters for Marine Le Pen and the RN than other parts of the city where polling sites were located.
In the town of Hyères in southern France, the difference between the gendarme vote for the National Rally and the city average was over 20 percent. In Toulouse and Dijon, the difference was 17.4 percent.
France’s police force has strongly supported Le Pen for years now. A 2017 Ifop study carried out just before the first round of presidential elections estimated that about 51 percent of gendarmes were likely to vote for Le Pen.
Although large numbers of rank and file police officers support Le Pen and her party, in 2017 the police union ‘Alliance’ made it clear that they were not backing. They also urged other police officers not to back the nationalist-populist politician for president.
But despite the call from the top, many officers mentioned at the time that they would go ahead and vote for Le Pen and the RN anyway.
Over the last weekend, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that there are “no indications” that Iran is willing to change its “malign behavior” as the Iranian regime continues to act aggressively on the world stage.
“In the end, the Iranians, the regime, has to make a decision that it wants to behave like a normal nation,” Pompeo told reporters during a press conference with Ecuadorian President Lenín Moreno. “And if they do that, we’re prepared to negotiate across a broad spectrum of issues with no preconditions and I hope that they will do that.”
Pompeo added that the U.S. has tried to de-escalate the situation and create the space for negotiations, but added that “we have seen no indications that the Iranians are prepared to fundamentally change the direction of their nation, to do the things we’ve asked them to do with their nuclear program, their missile program, their malign behavior around the world.”
Seizure of UK Oil Tanker
The secretary of state’s remarks came one day after Iran seized a British-flagged oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Senior Iranian officials said that the seizure of the Stena Impero as well as the brief detainment of a second UK-flagged vessel were a “reciprocal” measure for the July 4 seizure of an Iranian tanker by British Royal Marines off the island of Gibraltar.
That official statement was in stark contrast to the message that was put out by the state-run news agency IRNA which claimed the British vessel was seized because it had “rammed an Iranian fishing boat.”
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said last week that he had spoken with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, and “it’s clear from talking to him and also statements made by Iran that they see this as a tit-for-tat situation … Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Hunt said the Iranian tanker that Britain had captured, the Grace1, was in clear violation of the European Union sanctions imposed on Iran, by carrying oil to Syria, making its detention in the waters of a Gibraltar, which is a British territory, perfectly legal.
On the other hand, “The Stena Impero was seized in Omani waters in clear contravention of international law,” Hunt said. “It was then forced to sail into Iran. This is totally and utterly unacceptable…”
“Our priority continues to be to find a way to de-escalate the situation,” the foreign secretary went on. ” … But, we need to see due process happening in Iran as well. We need to see the illegal seizing of a British-flagged vessel reversed, we need that ship released, and we continue to be very concerned about the safety and welfare of the 23 crew members.”
Maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz has deteriorated in recent weeks after six attacks on oil tankers that the U.S. has blamed on Iran – an allegation the Tehran government denies. The U.S. pulled out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal last year and has imposed waves of economic sanctions on Tehran as part of an effort to curb Iranian aggression in the region.
President Trump said Friday that Iran is “nothing but trouble” shortly after the news broke of the seized tankers, though he remained hopeful the standoff will work out “very nicely.”
Trump added, Iran “is showing their true colors” by seizing the tankers and that it’s in “big trouble right now” due to the crushing sanctions imposed by the U.S.
Pompeo on Saturday said the administration holds out hope that Tehran will come to the negotiating table and further escalation of tensions can be avoided.
Schools in the U.K. will somehow need to find around 420,000 extra school places over the next ten years, thanks – at least in part – to a large baby boom among migrant mothers.
The Department of Education’s newest projections suggest that although “Direct immigration of pupils born outside the U.K. has a very small effect on the school-age population” in comparison to the birth rate, the birth rate “is in turn affected by any increase in the number of children born to non-U.K. born women (who overall tend to have higher fertility rates).”
A report which explains the fundamental methodology of the new figures describes that “Changes in the population who are of school age is largely driven by an increase in the birth rate rather than direct immigration,” but “that birth rate is in turn affected by any increase in the number of children born to non-UK born women (compared to those born to U.K.-born women).”
The government report also states, “The number of children born to non-U.K. born women increased by around 75 percent between 2002 and 2013 (the years in which many children currently in schools were born).” Writers of the report seem to attempt to downplay the significance of these figures by proposing that “this was a period of increased births generally.”
Some individuals like Neil Anderson, the executive director of Migration Watch U.K., seemed to suggest that the Department of Education was downplaying the extent of the problem, telling journalists at Breitbart that “Thousands of schools in England are bursting at the seams in the wake of the population boom, four-fifths of which has been driven since 2001 by massive levels of immigration.”
Mr. Anderson went on to tell journalists that it was apparent that “The net arrival of 250,000 people per year cannot but have a huge impact on school capacity.”
He added that it was “high time the Government started to deal with the problem by delivering on their promise to reduce immigration.”
In front of the last three election cycles, the Conservatives have promised the British people to reduce the net flow of non-E.U. immigration – the only kind of immigration that the U.K. government can actually control en masse – “from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands”
But over the years, Tory Party promises have continually proved to be empty. In fact, migration levels have now reached a 15-year high.
For a long time now many have suspected that the Conservatives are secretly opposed to reducing immigration.
In an editorial piece he wrote for the Evening Standard, former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne had this to say: None of [the Cabinet’s] senior members supports the pledge [to drastically reduce net immigration] in private and all would be glad to see the back of something that has caused the Conservative Party such public grief.”
When the Internet went public 30 years ago, its key purpose was to help people access and share information.
“The World Wide Web project merges the techniques of information retrieval and hypertext to make an easy but powerful global information system,” wrote Internet creator Tim Berner-Lee.
The Internet was always intended to facilitate the free exchange of information and ideas. Before Tim decided on the name “World Wide Web,” he considered titles such as “The Mine of Information” and “The Information Mesh.”
While the Internet has long since evolved past its original purpose, the World Wide Web continues to function as an invaluable source of information for the public. And while the government has long shied away from regulating that source, the public is now demanding the government step in to stop Big Tech’s censorship of conservative thought.
While the media has long since abandoned objective reporting for partisan reporting, all one must to do learn the other side of the story is switch the television from CNN to Fox.
It doesn’t work the same way online, where search engines and social media sites can push conservative stories out of view without consequence.
Roughly 66% of Americans get their news through social media.
“By almost any measure the giant tech companies today are larger, and more powerful, than Standard Oil was when it was broken up,” says Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R). “And if we have tech companies using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech, I think that raises real antitrust issues.”
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows social media companies to remove any content they consider “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
But based on court rulings, Section 230 is giving social media companies the power to remove users and content for any reason.
Critics argue that sites like Facebook and Twitter should not be covered by Section 230 because they are not behaving as neutral forums.
“Both Facebook and Twitter are currently considered to be open ‘publishers’ under Section 230…which exempts them from legal liability for the content posted on their websites,” explains conservative magazine Human Events. “However, it’s hard to argue that they are acting merely as bystanding ‘publishers’ when they are in fact operating as the exact opposite – promoting the ideas, posts, and people they agree with by allowing them to be viewed on their platforms and censoring the ideas, posts, and people with whom they do not agree.”
Conservatives’ fight with Big Tech exploded in 2016 when social media companies were accused of filtering content related to the presidential election.
A key example is Google, which was caught prioritizing negative search results for Donald Trump and prioritizing positive search results for Hillary Clinton. Last month, an investigation by the Daily Caller revealed a Google “blacklist” that keeps ‘inappropriate’ content from appearing in special search features. The blacklist includes conservative websites Breitbart, American Spectator, and The Gateway Pundit.
This sort of speech suppression is the ultimate fall from grace for the World Wide Web, which should be doing its best to preserve the First Amendment.
As Daily Caller contributor Alex Sears explains, conservatives are faced with a seemingly unsolvable problem: “How do we, as conservatives, handle a group of corporations – whose rules we agreed to – who are now stepping on our right to free speech?”
Of the few solutions to be presented, most favor a big government approach that is out of line with conservative principles. That leaves us with an impossible choice: Do we argue for zero regulation (thus paving the way for increased hate content and pornography) or do we swallow the pill and submit to terms and conditions that threaten freedom of speech?
Mr. Sears has an idea that falls somewhere in the middle.
Social media companies rely on their users to generate profit, so it makes sense for those users to be compensated. What Sears has proposed is legislation that requires tech companies to compensate individuals who are banned from their platforms.
“Any person who is banned from a platform must be paid whatever money that platform made from their activity, and the banned user must also be provided with a list of places their data was sold,” writes Sears.
In May, Facebook expelled conservative users Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Paul Nehlen.
“Reports are true. I have been banned by Facebook,” tweeted Watson, a right-leaning YouTube personality. “Was given no reason. I broke none of their rules. In an authoritarian society controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged.”
The same month, Twitter banned a handful of conservatives including actor James Woods.
“How is it that James Woods is currently being banned on Twitter, but Jim Carrey is not? It’s certainly not any standard based on “hate,” wrote Senator Cruz. “Carrey’s latest Twitter ‘art’ shows Bill Barr drowning in a sea of vomit…How ‘bout we let everybody speak and the People decide?”
Under Sears’s proposal, Watson and Woods would receive compensation based on the money generated by their activity on Facebook and Twitter.
“This legislation would circumvent any terms document and give users more insight into the money-making aspect of social media,” explains Sears. “It would also allow companies to continue banning users but at a tangible cost.”
Sears’s proposal is bipartisan by its very nature and would likely kick-start a campaign to introduce better solutions. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.
The UK’s most senior diplomat in the US stepped down following a very public row with Donald Trump.
Kim Darroch’s resignation came on the heels of some very choice words the President had for not only him, but Prime Minister Theresa May.
After leaked official cables found Darroch referring to Trump as “inept” and worse, Trump said on Tuesday, July 9, that Prime Minister Theresa May was “foolish” in her handling of Brexit, and he doubled down on the feud with Darroch, calling the Ambassador “wacky,” “stupid” and a “pompous fool.”
“The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy. He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was handled,” the President tweeted.
Darroch Calls It Quits
Announcing his resignation in a letter, Sir Kim wrote:
“Since the leak of official documents from this Embassy, there has been a great deal of speculation surrounding my position and the duration of my remaining term as ambassador. I want to put an end to that speculation.
The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.
Although my posting is not due to end until the end of this year, I believe in the current circumstances the responsible course is to allow the appointment of a new ambassador.”
Originally, the British government stood by Darroch. When the leaks first surfaced, a spokesman said that “We have made clear to the U.S. how unfortunate this leak is” and that “the selective extracts leaked do not reflect the closeness of, and the esteem in which we hold, the relationship.” Adding, “At the same time we have also underlined the importance of ambassadors being able to provide honest, unvarnished assessments of the politics in their country.”
However, as the feud seemed to escalate and tensions grow between our two countries, Darroch’s hand was forced into resigning. However, Prime Minister Theresa May said she felt it was a “matter of regret” that Darroch resigned.
Ever have your phone or line tapped? Do you ever feel like you are being watched? Evidence shows that there is something very eerie and strange going on in our solar system based on our conventional knowledge. Subjects like these usually get swept under the rug then shrouded by a thick smoke screen emitted in order to divert public interest. Recently, scientists have reported picking up strange radio signals broadcast from beyond the Earth. This is nothing new. This has been going on for over 100 years. These radio signals are believed to be produced from an intelligent source foreign to human technology. This strange source has been classified as The Black Knight Satellite.
The Black Knight Satellite is reported to be 13,000 years old or older. It is said to be the reason why the U.S. started its space race in the first place. The metallurgy of this object is unknown. The creator of this object is unknown, which also means that we don’t know who or what may have created it. The purpose of this satellite is an enigma as well; but, there are some popular theories on why it may be here.
What are the implications or ramifications if this satellite is the product of alien technology? This subject is well worth investigating even if The Black Knight Satellite is a product of ancient human ingenuity without even considering that it might be of extra-terrestrial origin. NASA is in full denial however but are aware of this phenomenon. The Black Knight Satellite is in a polar orbit around the earth. This is a very important point to mention because satellites formed by nature do not have polar orbits but rather equatorial orbits.
According to Bob Fugera of Brooktrails, CA USA on special assignment for UFO Planet, the theory of The Black Knight Satellite started in 1899 with Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla, a Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist, discovered the signal but couldn’t decipher it. One night Tesla observed an electrical action which was deemed an intelligent signal. It continued to repeat itself. He believed he was communication with ET’s. He was criticized heavily when he published a letter with the Red Cross about his findings and what this could imply. Apparently, writing letters to the Red Cross was a thing back when. The signal was repeated periodically with a clear suggestion of number and order. Tesla was struck by fear when he began to realize that this intelligence might well be malevolent.
Again, in 1920 the signal was picked up by some college students via a Ham radio but they also could not figure out what it was. On January 28, 1920, The London paper The Daily Mail published a story where Guglielmo Marconi, creator of Marconi’s Law and known for his pioneering work in long-distance radio transmission, where he said he picked up some signals from far away in space that would be impossible to decipher. Ham radio operators around the world were soon picking up these same signals.
It wasn’t until 1927 when the echo transmission technology was able to triangulate a transmission point of 6200 miles in orbit. In 1957 the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and witnessed the satellite orbiting the moon.
The Dark Fence US Defense Program used 50-meter wide transmission receivers to survey the atmosphere. Upon placement of the receivers, they picked up two signals immediately. Then, in the ensuing days, they received several more signals. This information was then in 1960 made top secret by President Dwight Eisenhower. You know, the same president that gave the historical speech upon him leaving the office about the Military Industrial Complex.
In 1973, a Scottish man by the name of Duncan Lunnen deciphered the signal. The cipher is said to go as follows:
- Our home is a double star system Epsilon Gouda
- We live on the sixth planet of seven counting outward from the sun
- We have six planets one moon
- Four planets have three moons
- First and third planets both have one moon
- Our probe is orbiting your moon
The Black Knight Satellite is estimated to be about ten tons in weight. Since its orbit is polar it is considered to be an observation satellite. We use polar orbits when mapping the earth due to the perspective it renders which gives credence to why an intelligent life form would utilize a polar orbit for an observation satellite.
Is The Black Knight Satellite a product of ancient human technology or extraterrestrial alien intelligence? What would drive an advanced civilization to leave an object such as this orbiting in such an allusive manner around our moon and planet? Is someone or something trying to tell us something? The Black Knight Satellite brings a whole new meaning to “Eye In The Sky.”
A Nigerian national who first arrived in the United States on a student visa has been charged with the murder of 23-year-old University of Utah student Mackenzie Lueck.
Ayoola Adisa Ajayi, a 31-year-old native-born Nigerian, was formally charged this week for the murder of Mackenzie Lueck in Salt Lake City, Utah on June 17th after she had just come back from California where she had traveled to attend her grandmother’s funeral.
Following her arrival from the Salt Lake City Airport, Lueck was reportedly last seen after she had been dropped off at Hatch Park at 3 AM by a Lyft driver. When the Lyft driver had been cleared from any involvement in the disappearance and murder of Lueck, police were immediately drawn to Ajayi after discovering phone and social media messages between him and Lueck. On top of that, the two were at the same park at the time of Lueck’s disappearance.
Upon questioning Ajayi, Police suspicions were further aroused when he initially denied knowing Lueck.
After having been missing for 11 days, the charred remains of the 23-year-old university student were discovered by Salt Lake City police last week following a search of Ayoola Ajayi’s residence. Ajayi was subsequently charged with aggravated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and desecration of a body.
According to reports, neighbors affirmed that they had witnessed the 31-year-old Nigerian burning something in his backyard on June 17th and June 18th.
Law enforcement officials have since confirmed to journalists that Ajayi first entered the United States from Nigeria in 2009, on a student visa. The visa type he received is known by immigration officials as the F-1 visa. Officials from the University of Utah have told members of the media that he attended the university from 2009 to 2017, but never graduated with a degree.
In 2014, after remaining in the country on the F-1 visa and marrying an American citizen, Ajayi modified his immigration status to become a “lawful permanent resident,” or a green card holder.
After Ayayi had adjusted his status as an immigrant, he then applied to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. by claiming he had served in the American military in 2015. However, records indicate that the Nigerian immigrant never provided any evidence to support the assertion that he had served in the military.
According to a report from the Salt Lake Tribune, Ajayi had no previous criminal history but was investigated by police in 2014 for a rape accusation against him. Police, however, discontinued the investigation after the alleged victim decided she didn’t want to press charges.
Ajayi has been ordered by a judge to be held without bail while he awaits his trial.
After days of speculation — and optimistic statements by the two leaders — President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met and shook hands on Sunday June 30, at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea.
It was their first face-to-face meeting since an ill-fated summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February, and the first time a sitting US President stepped across the DMZ to the North Korean side.
President Trump arrived at the DMZ shortly before 2 a.m. Eastern US time, accompanied by South Korean President Moon Jae-in. They were shown awaiting Kim’s arrival, along with South Korean military members and other officials.
But before the meeting with Kim was expected to begin, Trump met with some military members and others and was expected to review some relics from the Korean War era.
“We’re with you all the way,” Trump told the service members, who included both US troops stationed in South Korea as well as South Korean forces.
Finally around 2:40 a.m. ET, the two leaders spotted one another from a short distance apart, then walked toward one another. They met, shook hands, and then briefly walked across the border into North Korea before crossing back to the DMZ.
A Historic Step
“I was proud to step over the line,” Trump told Kim later, inside the Freedom House on the South Korea side, according to the Associated Press. “It is a great day for the world.”
Trump crossing over onto the North Korean side was a historic “first step” both literally and figuratively. Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to step foot inside the Hermit Kingdom, and hopefully this exchange also represents a “first step” in getting Kim back to the negotiating table on denuclearization.
According to the Associated Press, Kim appeared pleased by the meeting.
“I believe this is an expression of his willingness to eliminate all the unfortunate past and open a new future,” Kim said of Trump, according to the AP. He added that he was “surprised” when Trump extended the invitation on Saturday.
Earlier, while taking in the view from Observation Post Ouellette at the DMZ before meeting with Kim, Trump told reporters that there has been “tremendous” improvement in U.S.-North Korea relations since the first summit with Kim in Singapore last June.
Later, Trump said he would invite Kim to visit the U.S., and possibly the White House.
“I would invite him right now,” Trump said, according to the AP.
Kim, speaking through a translator, said he would invite Trump to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, “at the right time.”
The Italian Council of Ministers – the principal executive organ of the Italian government – has authorized a new security degree drawn up by national populist interior minister Matteo Salvini that will restrict the activities of NGOs responsible for transporting illegal migrants into the country.
According to a report from Il Giornale, new provisions will grant the Italian government the authority to seize sea vessels from ‘civil society groups’ which breach government sanctions or that try to illegally enter Italy’s territorial waters with illegal migrants on-board.
One portion of the security decree will provide intelligence and police services with more freedom to use wiretaps and undercover operatives to fight illegal human trafficking into Italy.
Article One of the new security decree explicitly states that the Interior Minister now has the authority to “restrict or prohibit the entry, transit or parking of ships in the territorial sea, except in the case of military ships or ships in non-commercial government service, for reasons of public security and order.”
Apart from having their boats seized, captains who disregard the decree will face fines of 10,000 to 50,000 euros.
The authorization of this new security decree marks a significant step in the fight against illegal human traffickers and the migrant transporting NGOs who have aided them for years with impunity.
In fact, Pia Klemp, a German migrant transport vessel captain, is currently facing trial in Italy for her alleged collaboration with human traffickers. If she’s convicted, she could be faced with up to 20 years in prison.
Another portion of the new legislation enacts tougher penalties for individuals who assault police officers during political demonstrations. When asked about this section, Salvini explained: “I do not think that freedom of thought passes through instruments such as firecrackers, bats, and sticks.”
The new decree comes after the country’s 2018 migration and security decree which got rid the humanitarian residency permit and invested several million euros into funding deportations of illegal migrants.
Last year’s legislation addressed problems associated with far-left and Roma squatters and opened up the option to revoke Italian citizenship from convicted terrorists.
But the Italian government isn’t the only one in Europe taking meaningful measures to put an end to mass migration into the continent from the third world.
Last year in February, the Hungarian government also announced new legislation – called the Stop Soros bill – that would make it possible to imprison NGOs and individuals who help to facilitate illegal migration.
Currently, that legislation is in the midst of the standard process of public debate.
President Trump on Thursday night approved of limited air strikes against Iran in retaliation for the unmanned surveillance drone that was shot down in the Gulf of Oman – an area adjacent to the geostrategic oil chokepoint the Strait of Hormuz – in what Washington claims were international waters. For reasons that are still unclear, Trump called off the strike as planes and ships were being maneuvered into position for the strike.
Reports from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times cited a number of senior government officials, and mentioned that President Trump was ready to strike a number of Iranian targets, including its’ radar system and surface-to-air missile sites. Fortunately, however, he ultimately gave the order to stand down.
Had the president failed to change his initial course of action, the world would have witnessed the most significant escalation between the U.S. and Iran in decades. Such an escalation could easily degenerate into a nightmarish World War III scenario.
According to a Reuters report, a senior administration official said the American warplanes were in the air and Navy sea vessels were placed in position for a retaliatory attack when orders came from the top to stand down. No weapons were fired.
Strikes were planned to take place in the early hours of the morning so as minimize harm to civilians and the military. It’s still unclear as to whether the Trump administration will decide to strike at a later date.
If Trump had gone ahead with the strike, it would have marked the third attack ordered in the Middle East region during his presidency. In Syria, two missile strikes have been ordered by Trump – one in 2017 and another in 2018.
As of right now, it’s still unclear as to whether Trump simply changed his mind, or whether he and his military advisors were moving forward with another strategy.
After tensions between Washington and Tehran rose to new levels after two oil tankers were attacked in the Persian Gulf, Russia, China, and major European allies of the U.S. have called on all sides involved to show restraint.
The U.S. and its European allies remain divided over the issue of Iran.
France, Britain, and Germany have all made efforts to keep the nuclear deal with Iran intact and viable, but Trump hasn’t been so amicable. He pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018. Since then tensions between Washington and Tehran have steadily risen, reaching a high point last night.