Mediaboss Marketing

Media playback is unsupported on your device

US President Donald Trump will make a three-day state visit to the UK from 3 to 5 June, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The president and First Lady Melania Trump will be guests of the Queen and attend a ceremony in Portsmouth to mark 75 years since the D-Day landings.

He will also have official talks with the prime minister at Downing Street.

Mr Trump previously met the Queen at Windsor Castle when he came to the UK in July 2018 on a working visit.

The White House said the upcoming trip would reaffirm the "steadfast and special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom".

The president was promised a state visit by Prime Minister Theresa May after he was elected in 2016 - but no date was set.

Mrs May said June's state visit was an "opportunity to strengthen our already close relationship in areas such as trade, investment, security and defence, and to discuss how we can build on these ties in the years ahead".

But shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry voiced concerns about the visit, saying: "It beggars belief that on the very same day Donald Trump is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Theresa May is pressing ahead with her plans to honour him with a state visit to the UK."

Representatives of other countries invited to the Portsmouth event on 5 June include those from Canada, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Greece, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Portsmouth was one of the key embarkation points for many of the landing craft on D-Day, when, during World War Two, Allied forces invaded Nazi-occupied France marking the beginning of the end for Adolf Hitler's domination of Europe.

The June gathering on Southsea Common will involve live performances, military displays and tributes to the Allied troops who fought in Normandy, including at least 11 Royal Navy vessels in the Solent and a flypast of 26 RAF aircraft.

After leaving the UK, Mr Trump and his wife will travel to France for a series of D-Day anniversary events on 6 June itself.

The president's last visit to the UK - when he had talks with Mrs May at Chequers before heading to Scotland, where he owns the Turnberry golf course - was marked by demonstrations.

In London, thousands of people took to the streets to voice their concerns.

And in Scotland, people showed their displeasure, both in Edinburgh and at Turnberry.

The National Police Chiefs' Council estimated that the police operation for the president's 2018 visit cost nearly 18m.

It said 10,000 officers from across the country were needed to cover the occasion.

The campaigners behind the 2018 protests - the Stop Trump Coalition and Stand Up To Trump - have vowed to mobilise "huge numbers" once again in response to the visit.

Shaista Aziz from the Stop Trump Coalition criticised the US president's "politics of hate and bigotry", while Sabby Dhalu from Stand Up To Trump called for people to "take to the streets and say clearly that Donald Trump is not welcome here".

But Sarah Elliott, chair of Republicans Abroad, denied that President Trump courted the support of racists, telling the BBC he won in many areas that had elected Barack Obama twice. "He spoke to the people and what they wanted to hear," she said.

A spokeswoman for Commons Speaker John Bercow said a request for Mr Trump to address Parliament - an event often associated with a state visit - would be "considered in the usual way", but did not say whether a request had yet been received.

Mr Bercow - who, as Speaker, has the power to veto who addresses Parliament - previously said he would be "strongly opposed" to Mr Trump addressing the Houses of Parliament during a state visit.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said Mr Trump avoided London on his last visit and made it clear he did not particularly want to come to the capital if he was going to face protests.

However, our correspondent said a key part of a state visit is the procession down the Mall in front of Buckingham Palace and it is thought protesters will gather there - not a first for a state visit.

Once inside Buckingham Palace, it is expected the Queen will host a banquet for around 150 guests in Mr Trump's honour.

The Queen has hosted two previous state visits from US presidents - George W Bush in November 2003, and Barack Obama in May 2011.

A state visit is a formal visit by a head of state and is normally at the invitation of the Queen, who acts on advice from the government.

State visits are grand occasions, but they are not just ceremonial affairs. They have political purpose and are used by the government of the day to further what it sees as Britain's national interests.

Once the location and dates are confirmed, the government, the visiting government and the royal household will agree on a detailed schedule.

The Queen acts as the official host for the duration of the trip, and visitors usually stay at either Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.

There is usually a state banquet, and a visit to - and speeches at - the Houses of Parliament may be included. The Speaker of the House of Commons is one of three "key holders" to Westminster Hall, and as such, effectively holds a veto over who addresses Parliament.

The Queen usually receives one or two heads of state a year. She has hosted 112 state visits since becoming monarch in 1952.

The last state visit to the UK was in October, when King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands came for two days.

The official website of the Queen and the Royal Family has a full list of all state visits since then, including details of how the ceremonies unfold.

View post:
Donald Trump's state visit to the UK set for 3 June - BBC News

But just as liberals are invoking the founding fathers to press for impeachment, more moderate Democrats, whose districts will most likely control who is in the majority after next years elections, are doing the same to urge caution.

I believe, ultimately, what the founders created for us in our democracy is clear: When you disagree with someones approach or believe he or she is abusing the Constitution, you vote them out, said Representative Josh Gottheimer, a centrist Democrat from New Jersey. You could impeach them, if it merits it, or you can beat them with better ideas and a better approach.

The founders left the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors the criteria for impeachment, along with more specific offenses like treason and bribery open to interpretation. And the report from Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, did not provide clear guidance.

The challenge is that the Mueller investigation did a data dump onto the American public and Congress, and the data dump suggests obstruction of justice, which would satisfy the requirement of high crimes and misdemeanors, said Timothy Naftali, a New York University historian and an author of the recent book Impeachment: An American History. But the prosecutors didnt say it, and the Justice Department isnt saying it. And so its up to Congress to decide.

Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylvania, has been thrown back to her days as a teenager watching the Watergate hearings and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon unfold. She said she wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about the Mueller report.

If were just looking at the facts, then we have the same facts that led to the impeachment of Richard Nixon in terms of obstruction of justice, misleading the public, hiding evidence and suggesting the creation of false evidence, said Ms. Scanlon, the vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee.

But, she added, there is also a political calculation. What are the politics of initiating an impeachment if the Republican-led majority in the Senate doesnt believe that this type of conduct warrants impeachment?

More here:
Divided on Impeaching Trump, Democrats Wrestle With Duty and ...

In California, illegal immigration is a serious issue. Since California has a large coastline and shares a border with Mexico, for illegals California presents an easy point of access into the United States. Although Californias borders and sea ports receive quite a lot of security support, the sheer size of the states borders make it possible for illegal immigration to occur.

There are many reasons why illegal immigration in California is considered a serious issue. While California welcomes immigration, illegal immigration poses a serious threat. Illegal immigrants are not carefully vetted the way that legal immigrants are for potential diseases, criminal records, and other issues which may pose a threat to California residents. Since illegals enter California without speaking to authorities, they sometimes enter with criminal records, criminal intent, and illnesses which can be passed on to residents. As well, some people who speak out against illegal immigration in California note that illegal immigrants entering California often need to commit illegal acts such as working illegally in order to stay within the country.

Illegal immigrants also place a financial burden upon the state. According to some reports, there were more than 2.9 million illegal immigrants in California in 2009. Legal immigrants and residents of California pay taxes in order to support social programs which they use. However, illegal immigrants do use the public school system, emergency rooms, and other public services without paying taxes. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration costs of California more than $10 billion annually. In addition, many experts on immigration point out that illegal immigrants may remove jobs and lower working conditions for legal residents and legal workers within the state and across the country.

Those who argue for illegal immigrant reform and amnesty sometimes point out that illegal immigrants actually often perform jobs that legal immigrants and residents do not wish to perform. Undocumented workers take on hard and low-paying jobs, such as picking fruit, and cleaning jobs which are difficult to fill at low wages with documented workers. Some experts argue that offering amnesty to some or all illegal immigrants in California would help safeguard California wages and would help protect both undocumented workers and residents of the state. Both sides of the California immigration debate have tried to come up with solutions to illegal immigration California issues but so far no catch-all solution exists. For illegals, California is still a plausible place to enter the country and for legal residents of the state illegal immigration continues to be a difficult and expensive problem.

CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE U.S. IMMIGRATION NEWS

Original post:
Illegal Immigration in California | US Immigration News

Basrah, Iraq:June 2011

I learn on Friday that our small World Bank energy team has received permission and security clearance to visit a production site within Iraqs giant Rumaila Oil field southwest of the city the next afternoon.I am very excited about the visit.Rumaila is considered to be the fourth largest oil field in the world and produces over 1 million barrels of oil daily from several production batteries.

That night in the UK compound on the Basrah COB (Contingency Operating Base), our planning for Saturdays field trips is cut short by a siren announcing an incoming rocket attack.I scurry to my bomb-proof pod and have bolted the heavily reinforced door just as I hear the thud-thud of ordnance landing. The attack was not directed at our space and was very short-lived.Nonetheless, it motivates me to properly use the body armor that has been assigned to me for the next day.

As planned, on Saturday I attend a short mission security briefing which details our route and my responsibilities should an incident occur. That afternoon, our convoy of four specially equipped vehicles begins an hourlong trek to the production zone along what I believe to be Highway 6. This is the road to Kuwait made famous by operation Desert Storm in 1990.Skeletons of burned-out military vehicles still appear periodically along the edges of what otherwise is a flat and desolate 30 kilometers of divided highway.

We proceed through a small, but heavily guarded checkpoint operated by the Iraqi state oil company police.On the roads surface, we are now about a mile directly above the oil giant.It is hot and I find my own body armor to be uncomfortably restrictive.Ahead I see smoke on the horizon.As we approach, it appears as if the earth has caught fire. Gas and high volatility liquids that have not been captured and combined with the crude oil production are being burned into the atmosphere.Called gas flares, some are so close to the road, I can hear their thunder from inside our protected vehicle and can almost feel their heat.The smell is bad, the waste enormous, and the environmental impact appalling.

In its attempt to rapidly increase its production of crude oil, Iraq is flaring an estimated 9 billion cubic meters of associated gas this year, ranking it among the top five flaring nations in the world. The gas currently flared in this country is enough to fuel all of Iraqs electric power needs, most of which is unmet or generated by heavy fuel and crude oils.

Ironically, that morning, our group toured the Hartha Power Station that was being re-commissioned in Basrah with World Bank assistance to help remedy the chronic shortage of power in Iraq. On this day, one of four units is operating but being run on crude oil even though it is connected to a natural gas pipeline system which could be used to capture and transport the gas being flared.

Our party stops at the production offices of a major oil company that has been contracted to reactivate part of the field.I learn from them that the truth is more complicated than it might appear.Under current law and regulation, flaring is a permitted practice.By contract, oil field operators are not compensated in any way for gas produced in association with crude oil.However, operators are encouraged to produce as much crude oil as possible, and thus are perversely ``incentivized to increase flaring. This operator indicates a willingness to invest in flare reduction facilities, but only if their reactivation contract is renegotiated.

On my way back to Basrah, I contemplate the situation further. It is not hard to estimate the dollars involved in these decisions and I rapidly pound the numbers out on my BlackBerry. In another place, at another time, the environmental and economic incentives to end flaring would be most compelling, but I am frustrated to compute that here and now, flare reduction has low priority.The savings from shifting from liquid fuels to gas for Iraqs power generation is estimated at several billion dollars per year, but this benefit is less than one weeks increase in revenues from targeted incremental crude oil sales.

As our convoy re-enters the safety of the operating base, I wonder how such an evident problem has avoided an obvious solution.Would it be possible to broker a solution between the various interests of state and private oil companies and government Ministries? Might Iraqs recent entry into the World Banks Global Gas Flaring Reduction Public-Private Partnership be the avenue to develop multiple wins (operational, cost, and environmental) solution?

The GGFR is a voluntary partnership of industry and government organizations which seek to put an end to unnecessary flaring worldwide.Global flaring is currently estimated at over 130 billion cubic meters annually adding 360 million tons of CO2 emissions.However lessons learned from the GGFR experience when properly conveyed and implemented can lead to reduced flaring.The partnership recently marked a milestone with satellite data estimating a 9 percent drop in gas flaring world-wide in 2010.The decline is equal to taking six million cars off the road.

As I recall the events of the previous month, I am convinced that with a proper mix of regulation and incentives, the World Bank and the GGFR in cooperation with its partners in Iraq can overcome the barriers that currently prevent the capture and use of flared gas in country.

It is my hope that in the not-too-distant future the flares will be out, and the lights on in more homes across Iraq.

Read the original here:
My encounter with gas flares in Iraq | Development in a ...

Still, it came as a little bit of a surprise last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that a weeks worth of cellphone location data records were protected by the Fourth Amendment, despite being stored by a third-party cellphone provider, because an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements. (The court did leave open the possibility that it might be legal for the government to see location data for a shorter period than a week).

In many ways, the Carpenter ruling was a victory for privacy advocates and signaled the Supreme Courts willingness to rein in third-party doctrine a little bit in an era when almost all of our communications are handled by intermediary companies. But it was also a stark reminder of how much our Fourth Amendment protections depend on what we and, more important, what our judges legitimately expect in terms of privacy.

Some Supreme Court justices have been roundly (and often deservedly) mocked for their ignorance about basic everyday technologies, such as text messages and email. But one advantage to having an older, less tech-savvy judiciary is that their ideas about privacy were formed during an earlier era when it might well have been reasonable to expect that the police would not be able to obtain a weeks worth of detailed location information about you.

In United States v. Jones, decided in 2012, the court ruled that a warrant was required to collect someones location data using a GPS device attached to his car. The majority ruling held that the Fourth Amendment applied because it protected the car from being tampered with, but in a concurring opinion Justice Samuel Alito argued that it was actually the location data not the car that deserved Fourth Amendment protection. By way of explanation, he wrote, Societys expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not and indeed, in the main, simply could not secretly monitor and catalog movement of an individuals car for a very long period.

For many people, especially those of us who grew up with ubiquitous location-tracking devices, to say nothing of ubiquitous large-scale data breaches, that is no longer our expectation. Does that mean we lose our Fourth Amendment protections for the information we no longer expect to be secret?

In March, the Senate confirmed Allison Rushings nomination as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. At 36, she became the youngest federal judge in the country. In many ways, a younger and presumably more tech-savvy judiciary is a good thing for deciding cases that revolve around modern technologies. But at the same time, the Supreme Court and other courts have been reluctant to erode the Fourth Amendments protections for data like location information because it seems reasonable to them that people would expect that material to be private. They themselves expect it to be private. As that expectation shifts with a younger judiciary, then so too may those protections.

Today, our ideas about what is and what should be private are changing fast. As we routinely hand over more and more information about ourselves, our communications, our locations and our activities to tech companies, predicating our legal privacy protections on what we expect, rather than what we think people deserve or have a right to, is deeply problematic.

Follow this link:
Opinion | Losing Our Fourth Amendment Data Protection - The ...