Is the world watching the Fourth Reich being born?

Remembering the lessons of Germany.......

Remember when German bureaucrats and defence personnel decided to agree that their oath of allegiance was to Chancellor of Germany and Führer Adolf Hitler and not to their country or the Bundestag?

Is something similar happening in the U.S.A. today?

It wasn't until the sixth restraining order was imposed by a federal judge that the Trump Administration fully complied, as is evidenced by these reports.

DHS Statement On Compliance With Court Orders And The President's Executive Order

Release Date: January 29, 2017

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON - Upon issuance of the court orders yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immediately began taking steps to comply with the orders. Concurrently, the Department of Homeland Security continues to work with our partners in the Departments of Justice and State to implement President Trump's executive order on protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.

We are committed to ensuring that all individuals affected by the executive orders, including those affected by the court orders, are being provided all rights afforded under the law.  We are also working closely with airline partners to prevent travelers who would not be granted entry under the executive orders from boarding international flights to the U.S. Therefore, we do not anticipate that further individuals traveling by air to the United States will be affected.

As Secretary Kelly previously stated, in applying the provisions of the president's executive order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest. Accordingly, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. We are and will continue to enforce President Trump's executive order humanely and with professionalism. DHS will continue to protect the homeland.

# # #

Rep. Don Beyer ‏@RepDonBeyer  24 hours ago

We have a constitutional crisis today. Four Members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away.

Christopher Hayes ‏@chrislhayes  Jan 30

This is stunning. The executive branch is straight up defying a court order right now.

Christopher Hayes added,

Damon Silvers @DamonSilvers

Attys at Dulles with a fed court order entitling them to see detainees told by CBP "it's not going to happen" Attys seeking contempt order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division, AZIZ et al v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; WAYNE BIONDI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Port Director of the Area Port of Washington Dulles, and EIGHT UNNAMED CBP AGENTS AT DULLES AIRPORT, 30 January 2017:

1. Pursuant to an Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2016, the U.S. government banned entry into the United States by all non-citizens from seven listed countries, subject to an undefined waiver process. This ban, when first promulgated, included individuals on immigrant visas and returning lawful permanent residents.

2. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides no way to legally effectuate such a ban against this category of immigrants. As a result, upon information and belief, Department of Homeland Security officials have been effectuating the ban by bullying these arriving immigrants into “voluntarily” relinquishing their claims to lawful permanent residence into the United States.

3. On information and belief, respondents (through their agents and employees) lied to immigrants arriving after the Executive Order was signed, falsely telling them that if they did not sign a relinquishment of their legal rights, they would be formally ordered removed from the United States, which would bring legal consequences including a five-year bar for reentry to the United States. Because respondents knew that there was no valid, legal basis to remove these individuals from the United States, these were material, false representations.

4. Throughout this time, respondents denied arriving immigrants access to legal counsel.

5. On information and belief, these acts occurred nationwide, including but not limited to Washington-Dulles International Airport. During the first 24 to 48 hours that the ban was in place, Customs & Border Protection reports that it denied entry to at least 109 individuals. Many of these individuals were unlawfully compelled to “voluntarily” renounce their U.S. immigration status.

Trump himself remains defiant in the face of the federal court order in State of Washington et al v Donald J Trump et al and continues to rail the U.S. judicial system:

One can almost see down the road to where this is leading.

At first the people who supported Donald Trump's election will enthusiastically and uncritically support his actions as U.S. President.

Although some will blindly remain fervent adherents of the Cult of Donald, many will become quietly concerned when these actions begin to impinge on their daily lives.

By the time he plunges America into a severe financial crisis or a war these same people will become alarmed and begin to look more closely at what state agencies and public institutions have become under the Trump regime – but by then they will be too afraid to speak out.

After I finished writing the paragraphs above I came across an article in Jurist which with more elegance and erudition canvasses the same subject, so I've included an excerpt here.

First they came for the Muslims.................

Professor David M. Crane writing in Jurist on 3 February 2017 - First It's the Muslims: An Evolution to Dictatorship:

The intellectual elite of Germany and much of the middle class at first stood back, amused, embarrassed, disbelieving that this proud nation of culture, of tolerance, of openness would elect this small little man who ranted and raved about a great German nation, a Reich that would last a thousand years. They could not believe that he would last long politically and stood aside in the early years thinking that the political system in place would cause his demise. By the time they realized the shift of almost complete power to one man had actually happened, it was too late. They had only one choice: swear allegiance or leave. Some left when they still could, but most stayed and accepted their national fate.

I have faced down dictators most of my professional life. To understand my adversary I have studied the twentieth century's dictators, how they came to power, their psyche, and their methods of destroying their own citizens. There are patterns, similarities, regarding despots, dictators, and thugs who rise to and hold power in their countries. Their track record is horrific with the destruction of over 95 million human beings at the hands of these dictators in the last century.

Understanding the similar conduct of largely ordinary men rising to absolute power can help us in many ways: from investigating and prosecuting them for violations of domestic and international crimes, identifying those politicians or political movements trending toward despotism, to prevention and counter measures to blunt their move to power. Liberal democracies today need to understand the past, the present trends, to protect our futures. The consideration of these traits are instructive today in the United States and elsewhere.

So what are those similarities among despots and dictators? First in a country where a dictator comes to power, there is an anger towards the establishment, a long term disappointment and lack of trust in their government. They use this loss of faith in the centralized government to start building a political base to gain power. Dictators want to "drain the swamp," to clean house, to start over.

Second, the rising dictator uses fear to shift that frustration away from their policies to what is called "a boogey man." Dictators for a century all used a "boogey man" to focus their citizenry away from their absolute power to a threat outside the country. The Three Pashas in Turkey blamed the Christian Armenians for the loss of the Ottoman Empire; Adolf Hitler blamed the Jews for weakening Germany; Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung focused on Western capitalism; and the Ayatollah of Iran blamed the Great Satan of America for their economic problems. Outsiders who were different, who had a different religion became an internal and external threat and were either accounted for and interned or deported. Those who sought admission to their country were banned for who or what they were.

Third, dictators view the press as their enemy and initially seek to limit press access to their regimes, then ban or control the press entirely. They consider the press an enemy of the state and take appropriate action. The liberal press is blamed for factual distortions. The dictator declares they are not using real facts and fashion their own truths, what you would call today "alternative facts." Joseph Goebbels stated that "if you lie to the people long enough, they will believe it as the truth." In a dictatorship the truth is the first casualty.

Fourth, a dictator surrounds himself (yes, they are all men) with only those people who tell him what he wants to hear, not what he needs to hear. The truth becomes dangerous to the government and to those who know it. The dictator does not want to know the truth, they fear the truth and those who work with and for the dictator fear knowing and telling them the truth. They could lose their influence, power, jobs, even their lives, as well as their family's lives if they are truthful. It's a downward paranoid spiral.

Fifth, the dictators of the twentieth century also suffered from some type of psychological disease or defect. From paranoia, schizophrenia, depression, and narcissism these men slipped farther and farther away from reality the longer they stayed in power. A perfect illustration is when Joseph Stalin fell dying on the floor in his bedroom and laid there for fourteen hours, the doctors and handlers were too afraid to declare him dead in fear of the repercussions of even saying, let alone knowing that he had died.

Sixth, dictators over time consider the law only as a guide, to be broken, modified, or ignored. The longer in power the more they feel they are above the law and take action according to their own whims. A political cult develops around them. They become above all men. Society is what the dictator says it is. The national identity becomes the dictator. Where once government workers or members of the armed forces swore allegiance to the law, they now must swear allegiance to the dictator himself without question. The refusal to do so is expulsion or death.

In the United States we now have a President who fits several of these traits and has acted accordingly — all within two short weeks as President. The surprising thing is how easily he has been able to do this without any institutional resistance. America is not used to someone of this caliber. We sit back stunned, cowed, or in quiet glee as this new President begins to "make America great again." Is he becoming America's first "dictator"? This remains to be seen.

Our only counter to this "new type" of President is the Constitution of the United States. The founders of this nation contemplated a Trump and put in the necessary checks and balances to ensure that America did not create a king or dictator. The power was reserved to the people, us; and all those elected answer to that people, not the other way around. The other two branches of government will be critical to our republic with this power grabbing new President. They must do their constitutional duty and pay heed to the law and to the people to counter his seeking absolute power.

David M. Crane is a Professor of Law at the Syracuse University College of Law. He is the former Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2002-2005. He is also the founder of Impunity Watch, the Syrian Accountability Project and the IamSyria Campaign.

Doomsday Clock: three Democrats attempt to bell the cat

An attempt in the U.S. House of Representatives to limit President Tantrump’s access to nuclear weapons:

Introduced in House (09/27/2016)

Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016

This bill prohibits the President from using the Armed Forces to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.

"First-use nuclear strike" means a nuclear weapons attack against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or a U.S. ally.

Sponsored by: Ted Lieu, District 33 California

Co-sponsored by: James McGovern, District 2 Massachusetts and Raul M. Grijalva, District 3 Arizona

TEXT

114th CONGRESS 2d Session

H.R 6179

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 27, 2016

Mr. Ted Lieu of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

---

A BILL

To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

(2) The framers of the Constitution understood that the monumental decision to go to war, which can result in massive death and the destruction of civilized society, must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.

(3) As stated by section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541), “the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.

(4) Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from retaliatory nuclear strikes.

(5) By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.

(6) A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.

(b) Declaration Of Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that no first-use nuclear strike should be conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONDUCT OF FIRST-USE NUCLEAR STRIKES.

(a) Prohibition.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not use the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.

(b) First-Use Nuclear Strike Defined.—In this section, the term “first-use nuclear strike” means an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or an ally of the United States.

Trump to build The Wall and start roundup and gaoling of undocumented immigrants in the face of strong resistance

The Guardian, 26 January 2017:

An executive order on “sanctuary cities” signed by Donald Trump on Wednesday has placed in the crosshairs over 400 cities and counties that offer some form of safe haven to America’s 11 million undocumented migrants.

These localities include some of the largest, most progressive metropolises in the United States, many of which have already begun preparations to fight one of Trump’s most aggressive campaign pledges– to force compliance with federal immigration agencies in a bid to ramp up deportations. The beginnings of that pledge have now been formalised by executive action within Trump’s first week in office.

The order issued on Wednesday claims these jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law” causing “immeasurable harm to the American people”, and instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to explore which cities could be in violation of federal law and ways of stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grant money, which amounts to billions of dollars across many different federal departments.

The order also instructs the US attorney general to explore “appropriate enforcement action” against any local government agency it deems to be in violation of a broad federal law that encourages – but does not compel – communication between local authorities and the DHS.

Trump’s mandate also issues an extraordinary instruction to the DHS to publish a weekly list of so-called “criminal actions” committed by undocumented migrants and publicly announce which jurisdictions had previously “ignored or otherwise failed” to detain the accused individuals.

The City and County of San Francisco is suing President Trump, the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Acting Attorney General alleging that the Executive order of 25 January 2017 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that In blatant disregard of the law, the President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities into abandoning what are known as “Sanctuary City” laws and policies.

On 31 January 2017 the City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated:

The president’s executive order is not only unconstitutional, it’s un-American…. That is why we must stand up and oppose it. We are a nation of immigrants and a land of laws. We must be the ‘guardians of our democracy’ that President Obama urged us all to be in his farewell address.....

This lawsuit is not a step I take lightly…..But it is one that is necessary to defend the people of this city, this state and this country from the wild overreach of a president whose words and actions have thus far shown little respect for our Constitution or the rule of law. This country was founded on the principle that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to do its job for it, like carrying out immigration policy.  I am defending that bedrock American principle today.....

The Trump administration falsely believes that sanctuary cities harbor criminals and make communities unsafe.  To the contrary, any persons who is booked in San Francisco has their fingerprints sent to the federal government. If the federal government has a criminal warrant for that person, San Francisco complies with that.  Moreover, sanctuary cities have less crime, fewer people in poverty and lower unemployment than other counties, according to a recent study by Tom K. Wong, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary jurisdictions compared to non-sanctuary counties, according to Wong’s findings in a report for the Center for American Progress. 

On 3 February 2017 The Globe and Mail reported:

Tom Cochran, the chief executive of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said he has never seen an atmosphere like this in his four decades at the organization, not even in the waning days of the Nixon administration. “It’s totally different from anything we’ve ever seen,” he said.

Mr. Cochran said his group is pushing back against Mr. Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities, both in public and in private. He has requested a meeting with the new Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, who has much of the responsibility for implementing the sanctuary cities order. Mr. Cochran intends to bring city police chiefs to the meeting to explain why they feel fostering trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement is important for public safety.

Some cities are disputing that the Trump definition of a "sanctuary city" applies to them.

BACKGROUND

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, 25 January 2017

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, 25 January 2017

The Trump Regime is such a weird mix of Mein Kampf meets Hollywood

Bully boy Donald J. Trump's political manoeuvres since taking office are such a weird mixture of Hitler's 'How to create a New World Order' playbook and the satirical script of the 1997 movie "Wag The Dog" that it is beginning to feel that he is capable of even the unimaginable……

Meme produced with
http://hepwori.github.io/execorder/ 

"A lie, is a lie, is a lie!"

America’s dilemma writ large on Facebook, 22 January 2017 :

Dan Rather 14 hrs

These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

When you have a spokesperson for the president of the United States wrap up a lie in the Orwellian phrase "alternative facts”…

When you have a press secretary in his first appearance before the White House reporters threaten, bully, lie, and then walk out of the briefing room without the cajones to answer a single question…

When you have a President stand before the stars of the fallen CIA agents and boast about the size of his crowds (lies) and how great his authoritarian inaugural speech was….

These are not normal times.

The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before.

What can we do? We can all step up and say simply and without equivocation. "A lie, is a lie, is a lie!" And if someone won't say it, those of us who know that there is such a thing as the truth must do whatever is in our power to diminish the liar's malignant reach into our society.

There is one group of people who can do a lot - very quickly. And that is Republicans in Congress. Without their support, Donald Trump's presidency will falter. So here is what I think everyone in the press must do. If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?" If they dodge and weave, keep with the follow ups. And if they refuse to give a satisfactory answer, end the interview.

Facts and the truth are not partisan. They are the bedrock of our democracy. And you are either with them, with us, with our Constitution, our history, and the future of our nation, or you are against it. Everyone must answer that question.

312k Likes 15k Comments 164k Shares

Definitions of some of the terms used in the media to describe Donald J. Trump and/or his words and actions 

lie - a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood; something intended or serving to convey a false impression

dishonest - not honest; disposed to lie cheat or steal; proceeding from or exhibiting a lack of honesty; fraudulent

fraudulent - given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest

misleading - to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray; to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgement

[Paul Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1971, Encyclopedic World Dictionary, editors Hanks, P & Potter S]

Trump's assault on open and transparent democratic principals has begun.....

Boston Globe, 24 January 2017:

The Trump administration has instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants.

Emails sent to EPA staff since President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday and reviewed by The Associated Press detailed the specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency’s social media accounts.

The Trump administration has also ordered a ‘‘temporary suspension’’ of all new business activities at the department, including issuing task orders or work assignments to EPA contractors. The orders are expected to have a significant and immediate impact on EPA activities nationwide.

The EPA did not respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment Monday or Tuesday.

The Huffington Post, 24 January 2017:

The Huffington Post also received a message that was reportedly sent to staff Monday that seems to cover the current agency guidance on talking to the press in general, not just about the directive on grants. The memo states that the agency is imposing tight controls on external communication, including press releases, blog posts, social media and content on the agency website.

(”Beach team” refers to staffers for the new administration working at the various agencies while new leadership is put in place; “OPA” most likely refers to the “Office of Public Affairs.”)

The Guardian, 26 January 2017:

The Trump administration is mandating that any studies or data from scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public.

The communications director for Donald Trump’s transition team at the EPA, Doug Ericksen, said on Wednesday the review also extends to content on the federal agency’s website, including details of scientific evidence showing that the Earth’s climate is warming and manmade carbon emissions are to blame.

Former EPA staffers said on Wednesday the restrictions imposed under Trump far exceed the practices of past administrations…..

The EPA’s 14-page scientific integrity document, enacted during the Obama administration, describes how scientific studies were to be conducted and reviewed in the agency. It said scientific studies should eventually be communicated to the public, the media and Congress “uncompromised by political or other interference”.

The scientific integrity document expressly “prohibits managers and other agency leadership from intimidating or coercing scientists to alter scientific data, findings or professional opinions or inappropriately influencing scientific advisory boards”. It provides ways for employees who know the science to disagree with scientific reports and policies and offers them some whistleblower protection.

*Image found on Twitter - possibly a Lerner graphic

The American Resistance has many faces - this is just one of them

ACLU PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 28 January 201... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/337805663/ACLU-PETITION-FOR-WRIT-OF-HABEAS-CORPUS-AND-COMPLAINT-FOR-DECLARATORY-AND-INJUNCTIVE-RELIEF-28-January-2017

One of the temporary restraining orders granted 28 January 2017:

The Economist, 29 January 2017:

In her brief and unequivocal ruling on the evening of January 28th, Ms Donnelly wrote that Mr Alshawi and Mr Darweesh “have a strong likelihood of success” in showing that their deportation would violate their rights to due process and equal protection. There is “imminent danger”, she wrote, that “there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders and other individuals from nations” targeted by Mr Trump’s executive order, should it be fully implemented. Ms Donnelly thus “enjoined and restrained” the government from deporting refugees or “any other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen legally authorised to enter the United States”.

The ruling, along with similar non-removal orders from judges in Virginia and Seattle, means that nobody who was told they didn’t belong in America when they arrived on January 27th can be deported—for now—though there were reports from several cities on the night of January 28th that customs officials were disregarding the judges' orders and arranging for individuals to be sent home. It also bears reminding that these rulings are stays, not final determinations. Further judicial hearings in February will determine if the stays should be lifted. And the rulings do not come close to erasing Mr Trump’s executive order; the ban remains in effect for refugees and others who were planning to come to America in the coming days, weeks and months.

Another temporary restraining order can be found here.

America is leaderless in 2017

Donald John Trump was not hiding his light under a bushel until after the presidential inauguration.

When during the Republican Party preselection process and then the long national presidential election campaign Trump kept telling the world how smart he was I’m sure there were those who secretly hoped this was so and, that the content of his stump speeches, his social media rants and very limited vocabulary were in combination simply a ploy aimed at the lowest denominator on the voter spectrum.

Unfortunately for those sanguine souls President Trump’s inauguration speech on 20 January 2017, his address to the Central Intelligence Agency the next day, as well as his inflating of swearing-in ceremony crowd size before sending his press secretary out to lie on his behalf, will have dashed theses hopes.

Donald Trump remains exactly as he always presented himself and now America has a predatory oaf as its 45^th president.

One so intellectually lightweight, wilfully ignorant, boastful, bigoted, paranoid, vengeful, erratic and work-shy, that effectively the United States of America is a nation which is leaderless as it goes forward.

Who will fill the vacuum is anyone’s guess.

Will it be his immediate family framing policy and making decisions for him to strut before the cameras? Will it be his newly installed far-right captain’s picks in the White House administration running the country in spite of Trump’s inadequacies? Or will it be a combination of family members, captain's picks and Congress racing around putting out political fires as Trump uncontrollably rampages across the economic and social landscape?

The future is unknowable until it becomes the present and by then it may be too late for America.

* Netflix image found on Twitter

When Twitter becomes a lethal weapon

A U.S. District Court’s response to Twitter being used to deliver a strobe effect video to a known epileptic…..

Rule 202 Order_signed 12.19.16_copy by Kurt Eichenwald on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/334699195/Rule-202-Order-signed-12-19-16-copy

A Collector's Item: "@POTUS hasn't tweeted yet"

A genuine rarity at 4:33 am Sydney Time - a Trump Twitter account with no tweets 😉

UPDATE

The crowd in that Twiitter account banner? 

Not from Trump's 20 January 2017 inauguration - not even from any of the rallies he held during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

No, it happens to be a Getty image from Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration, taken down from Trump's @POTUS once social media had noticed.

Want to know who the world can blame for what is occurring in America today?

Today at noon Washington DC time (4am Saturday 21 January Sydney time) this profoundly ignorant man, Donald John Trump, will be sworn in as 45^th President of the United States of America.

Business Insider, 8 November 2016

This is occurring because one month previously on 19 December 2016 the U.S. Electoral College¹ met to confirm Donald Trump by vote as the President², despite Trump losing the popular vote at the 8 November presidential election by over 2.8 million votes.

Electoral College places are allotted to states proportionate to each state's population, each place can only be filled by a person resident congressional district in that state and a person is barred from a place at the college if he/she holds an office of profit or trust in that state. Members generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our [U.S.] history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Trump won by threading a needle in the Electoral College, carrying four large states by one percentage point or less: Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Winning the Electoral College vote by 304 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227. According to CNN seven "faithless" electors voted for other candidates, costing Trump two votes and Clinton four.

Fair Vote states that these seven electors were Democratic electors David Bright (ME - Bernie Sanders), Muhammad Abdurrahman (MN - Bernie Sanders), Michael Baca (CO - John Kasich), Esther John (WA - Colin Powell), Levi Guerra (WA - Colin Powell), Bret Chiafalo (WA - Colin Powell), Robert Satiacum (WA - Faith Spotted Eagle), David Mulinix (HI - Bernie Sanders) and two Republican electors Chris Suprun (TX - John Kasich) and Bill Greene (TX - Ron Paul).

Members of the U.S. Electoral College indicating Democratic or Republican (GOP) affiliation, according to a 19 December 2016 Politico provisional list³:

ALABAMA (GOP)
1. Frank Burt, Jr. Appears to hold an office of profit in the state of Alabama
2. Will Sellers
3. Jim Wilson Appears to hold an elected office of in the state of Alabama
4. Tim Wadsworth
5. Elbert Peters
6. Mary Sue McClurkin
7. Bob Cusanelli
8. Perry Hooper Jr.
9. Grady Thornton

ALASKA (GOP)
10. Sean Parnell
11. Jacqueline Tupou
12. Carolyn Leman

ARIZONA (GOP)
13. Bruce Ash
14. Walter Begay
15. Sharon Giese
16. Robert Graham
17. Alberto Gutier
18. Jerry Hayden
19. Carole Joyce
20. Jane Lynch
21. Foster Morgan
22. James O'Connor
23. Edward Robson

ARKANSAS (GOP)
24. Jonelle Fulmer
25. Jonathan Barnett
26. Keith Gibson No registered voter of that name in Arkansas
27. Sharon Wright
28. Tommy Land Does not appear to live in Congressional District he is representing
29. John Nabholz

CALIFORNIA (DEM)
30. Dustin Reed
31. John Ryan
32. Faith Garamendi
33. Kathleen Scott
34. Timothy Farley
35. Analea Patterson
36. Janine Bera
37. Denise Wells
38. Mark Headley
39. Susan Eggman
40. James Donahue
41. Christine Pelosi
42. Saundra Andrews
43. Mark Olbert
44. Donna Ireland
45. Steven Diebert
46. Steve Spinner
47. Celine Purcell
48. Javier Gonzalez
49. Vinzenz Koller
50. Ana Huerta
51. Stephen Natoli
52. Andres Ramos
53. Gail Teton-Landis
54. Natalie Fortman
55. Shawn Terris
56. David Warmuth
57. Laurence Zakson
58. Nury Martinez
59. Sheldon Malchicoff
60. Cathy Morris
61. Benjamin Cardenas
62. Edward Buck
63. Olivia Reyes-Becerra
64. Robert Torres
65. Priscilla Richardson
66. Gwen Moore
67. Jacki Cisneros
68. John MacMurray
69. Marie Torres
70. Jane Block
71. Andrew Krakoff
72. Karen Waters
73. Dorothy Vann
74. Sandra Aduna
75. Gregory Willenborg
76. Carmen Perez
77. Raymond Cordova
78. Francine Busby
79. Patrick Drinan
80. Christine Kehoe
81. Katherine Lyon
82. Shirley Weber
83. Eileen Feinstein Mariano
84. Laphonza Butler

COLORADO (DEM)
85. Terry Phillips
86. Mary Beth Corsentino
87. Jerad Sutton
88. Robert Nemanich
89. Amy Drayer
90. Ann Knollman
91. Sen. Rollie Heath
92. Hon. Polly Baca
93. Micheal Baca

CONNECTICUT (DEM)
94. Barbara Gordon
95. Ellen Nurse
96. Edward Piazza
97. Tyisha Walker
98. Christopher Rosario
99. Robert Godfrey
100. Steven Jones

DELAWARE (DEM)
101. Lynn Fuller
102. Lydia York
103. Linda Cavanaugh

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (DEM)
104. Anita Bonds
105. Jack Evans
106. Franklin Garcia

FLORIDA (GOP)
107. Ade Aderibigbe
108. Larry Ahern Appears to hold elected office in Florida
109. Brian Ballard
110. Kristy Banks
111. Michael Barnett
112. LizBeth Benacquisto Appears to hold elected office in Florida
113. Robin Bernstein
114. Pam Bondi Appears to hold elected office in Florida
115. John Browning Appears to hold an office of profit in Florida
116. Sharon Day
117. Dena DeCamp
118. Nick D
119. Jeremy Evans
120. John Falconetti 
121. Peter Feaman
122. Kat Gates-Skipper
123. Joe Gruters Appears to hold elected office in Florida
124. Debbie Hannifan
125. Blaise Ingoglia Appears to hold elected office in Florida
126. Tony Ledbetter
127. Mike Moberley
128. Susan Moore
129. Joe Negron Appears to hold elected office in Florida
130. Clint Pate Appears to hold an office of profit in Florida
131. Ray Rodrigues Appears to hold elected office in Florida
132. Carlos Trujillo Appears to hold elected office in Florida
133. Robert Watkins
134. Susie Wiles
135. Christian Ziegler

GEORGIA
136. Bruce Allen Azevedo
137. Brian K Burdette Appears to hold an office of profit in Georgia
138. Lott Harris Dill
139. John David Elliott
140. James Randolph Evans
141. Bobbie D. Frantz
142. Linda D. Herren
143. Rachel Blackstone Little
144. Deborah M. McCord
145. Michael Neil McNeely
146. Mary L. Padgett
147. Neil L. Pruitt
148. Joshua Kirk Shook
149. Frank B. Strickland
150. Baoky Nguyen Vu (resigned, will be replaced by alternate)
151. John B. White

HAWAII (DEM)
152. John Bickel
153. Janice Bond
154. Marie (Dolly) Strazar
155. David Mulinix

IDAHO (GOP) All 4 votes irregularly given
156. Jennifer Locke
157. Melinda Smyser
158. Layne Bangerter
159. Caleb Lakey

ILLINOIS (DEM)*
160. Toni Preckwinkle
161. Carrie Austin
162. Silvana Tabares
163. Jesus "Chuy" Garcia
164. Pam Cullerton
165. Nancy Shepardson
166. Vera Davis
167. William Marovitz
168. Barbara Flynn Currie
169. John R. Daley
170. Michelle Mussman
171. Lauren Beth Gash
172. Kevin Duffy Blackburn
173. Jerry Costello
174. Carol Ammons
175. Mark Guethle
176. Flint Taylor
177. John Nelson
178. Don Johnston
179. Shirley McCoombs

INDIANA (GOP) All 11 votes irregularly given
180. Stephanie Beckley
181. Kevin Steen
182. Kelly Mitchell
183. Daniel Bortner
184. Laura Campbell
185. Jeff Cardwell
186. Donald Hayes
187. Randall Kirkpatrick
188. Edwin Simcox
189. Ethan Manning
190. Chuck Williams Does not appear to live in the Congressional District he represents

IOWA (GOP)
191. James Whitmer
192. Don Kass
193. Dylan Keller
194. Alan Braun
195. Kurt Brown
196. Polly Granzow

KANSAS (GOP) All 6 votes irregularly given
197. Ashley J. McMillan
198. Helen Van Etten
199. Mark Kahrs Appears to hold an elected office in Kansas
200. Ron Estes
201. Clayton L. Barker
202. Kelly Arnold

KENTUCKY (GOP)
203. Jim Skaggs
204. David Disponett
205. Robert Duncan
206. Michael Carter
207. Scott Lasley
208. Walter Reichert
209. Mary Singleton
210. Troy Sheldon

LOUISIANA (GOP)
211. Chris D. Trahan Does not appear to live in the Congressional District he represents
212. Lloyd A. Harsch
213. Charles L “Charlie” Buckels
214. Louis R. Avallone
215. Kay Kellogg Katz
216. Lennie H. Rhys
217. Garrett C. Monti
218. Steven “Scott “ Wilfong

MAINE (3 D, 1 R)
219. Diane Denk
220. David Bright
221. Sam Shapiro
222. Richard Bennett (R)

MARYLAND (DEM)
223. Lesley Israel
224. Robert Leonard
225. Lillian Holmes
226. Salome Peters
227. Hagner Mister
228. Claudia Martin
229. Courtney Watson
230. Karen Britto
231. Susan Ness
232. Wayne Rogers

MASSACHUSETTS (DEM)
233. Nazda Alam
234. Mary Gail Cokkinias
235. Marie Turley
236. Dori Dean
237. Donna Smith
238. Cheryl Cumings
239. Marc Pacheco
240. Curtis Lemay
241. Jason Palitsch
242. Paul Yorkis
243. Parwez Wahid

MICHIGAN (GOP) All 16 votes irregularly given
244. John Haggard
245. Jack Holmes Does not appear to live in Michigan
246. Kelly Mitchell
247. Judy Rapanos
248. Henry Hatter
249. Robert Weitt
250. Wyckham Seelig
251. Ross Ensign
252. Michael Banerian
253. Brian Fairbrother
254. Ken Crider
255. Mary Vaughn
256. Jim Rhoades
257. William Rauwerdink
258. Hank Fuhs
259. Joseph Guzman

MINNESOTA (Dem)
260. Fred Knudson
261. Roger Gehrke
262. Marge Hoffa
263. Raymond Hess
264. Muhammed Abdurrahman
265. Betsy O’Berry
266. Mike Wammer
267. Mary Murphy
268. Jules Goldstein
269. Sherrie Pugh

MISSISSIPPI (GOP)
270. Ann Hebert
271. Joe F. Sanderson Jr.
272. Bradley R. White
273. J. Kelley Williams
274. William G. Yates Jr.
275. Wirt A. Yerger, Jr.

MISSOURI (GOP)
276. Tim Dreste
277. Janice DeWeese
278. Hector Maldonado
279. Sherry Kuttenkuler
280. Casey Crawford
281. Tom Brown
282. Cherry Warren
283. Scott Clark
284. Al Rotskoff
285. Susie Johnson

MONTANA (GOP)
286. Thelma Baker
287. Nancy Ballance
288. Dennis Scranton

NEBRASKA (GOP) All 5 votes irregularly given
289. Phil Berlin
290. John Dinkel
291. Chuck Conrad
292. Craig Safranek
293. Paul Burger

NEVADA (Dem)
294. Dayananda Prabhu Rachakonda
295. Larry Jackson
296. Joetta Brown
297. Paul Catha II
298. Greg Gardella
299. Teresa Benitez-Thompson

NEW HAMPSHIRE (Dem)
300. Bev Hollingworth
301. Terie Norelli
302. Carol Shea Porter
303. Dudley Dudley

NEW JERSEY (Dem)
304. Alaa R Abdelaziz
305. Tahsina Ahmed
306. Anthony Cureton
307. Lizette Delgado-Polanco
308. Edward Farmer
309. Christopher D. James
310. Leroy J Jones Jr
311. Retha R Onitiri
312. Marlene Prieto
313. Ronald G Rios
314. Hetty M Rosenstein
315. Kelly Stewart Maer
316. Mary Ann Wardlow
317. Heriberta Loretta Winters

NEW MEXICO (DEM)
318. Lorraine Spradling
319. Edward Torres
320. Noyola Archibeque
321. John Padilla
322. Roxanne Allen

NEW YORK (DEM)
323. William J. Clinton
324. Andrew M. Cuomo
325. Kathy C. Hochul
326. Thomas P. DiNapoli
327. Eric T. Schneiderman
328. Carl E. Heastie
329. Andrea Stewart-Cousins
330. Bill de Blasio
331. Letitia A. James
332. Scott M. Stringer
333. Melissa Mark-Viverito
334. Byron W. Brown
335. Christine C. Quinn
336. Basil A. Smikle, Jr.
337. Melissa Sklarz
338. Mario F. Cilento
339. Rhonda Weingarten
340. George K. Gresham
341. Daniel F. Donohue
342. Stuart H. Appelbaum
343. Gary S. LaBarbera
344. Lovely A. Warren
345. Stephanie A. Miner
346. Katherine M. Sheehan
347. Anastasia M. Somoza
348. Sandra Ung
349. Ruben Diaz, Jr.
350. Hazel L. Ingram
351. Rachel D. Gold

NORTH CAROLINA (GOP)
352. Linda Harper Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
353. Charles Staley Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
354. Karen Kozel Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
355. Martha Jenkins
356. Celeste Stanley
357. Donald Webb Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
358. Robert Muller
359. Jennifer Dunbar
360. Andrea Arterburn
361. Glenn Pinckney Sr. Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
362. Mark Delk
363. David Speight  Does not appear to live in Congressional District he represents
364. Ann Sullivan Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
365. Lee Green
366. David Smuski

NORTH DAKOTA (GOP)
367. Duane Mutch
368. John Olson
369. Ronald Carlisle

OHIO (GOP) All 18 votes irregularly given
370. Alex Triantafilou
371. Mary Anne Christie
372. Cory Schottenstein
373. Jim Dicke II
374. Cheryl Blakely
375. Marilyn Ashcraft
376. Christina Hagan
377. Richard Jones
378. Tom Coyne
379. Judy Westbrock
380. Ralph King
381. Leonard Hubert
382. Tracey Winbush
383. James Wert
384. Brian Schottenstein
385. Curt Braden
386. LeeAnn Johnson
387. Ed Crawford

OKLAHOMA (GOP)
388. David Oldham
389. Teresa Turner
390. Mark Thomas
391. Bobby Cleveland
392. Laurie Beth
393. Charlie Potts
394. George Wiland

OREGON (DEM)
395. Frank James Dixon
396. Karen A. Packer
397. Austin Folnagy
398. Leon H. Coleman
399. Harry W. "Sam" Sappington III
400. Timothy Norman Powers Rowan
401. Laura Gillpatrick

PENNSYLVANIA (GOP) All 20 votes irregularly given
402. Robert Asher
403. Mary Barket
404. Robert Bozzuto
405. Theodore Christian
406. Michael Downing
407. Margaret Ferraro
408. Robert Gleason
409. Christopher Gleason
410. Joyce Haas
411. Ash Khare
412. James McErlane
413. Elstina Pickett
414. Patricia Poprik
415. Andrew Reilly
416. Carol Sides
417. Glora “Lee” Snover
418. Richard Stewart
419. Lawrence Tabas
420. Christine Toretti
421. Carolyn “Bunny” Welsh

RHODE ISLAND (DEM)

422. Clay Pell
423. Grace Diaz
424. L. Susan Weiner
425. Frank J. Montanaro

SOUTH CAROLINA (GOP)
426. Glenn McCall
427. Matt Moore
428. Terry Hardesty
429. Jim Ulmer
430. Brenda Bedenbaugh
431. Bill Conley
432. Shery Smith
433. Moye Graham
434. Jerry Rovner

SOUTH DAKOTA (GOP)
435. Dennis Daugaard
436. Matt Michels
437. Marty Jackley

TENNESSEE (GOP)
438. Joey Jacobs
439. Beth Scott Clayton Amos
440. Jason Mumpower
441. Susan Mills
442. Liz Holiway
443. Lynne Davis
444. Tom Lawless
445. Mike Callahan
446. Pat Allen
447. Shannon Hanes
448. Drew Daniel

TEXAS (GOP)
449. Marty Rhymes Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
450. Thomas Moon
451. Carol Sewell
452. John Harper
453. Sherrill Lenz
454. Nicholas Ciggelakis
455. William Hickman
456. Landon Estay
457. Rex Lamb
458. Rosemary Edwards
459. Matt Stringer
460. Shellie Surles
461. Melissa Juett Kalka
462. Kenneth Clark
463. Sandara Cararas
464. David Thackston
465. Robert Bruce
466. Marjorie Forster Does not appear to live in Congressional District she represents
467. Scott Mann
468. Marian Stanko
469. Curtis Nelson
470. Tina Gibson
471. Kendell Muenzler
472. Alexander Kim
473. Virginia Able
474. John Dillard
475. Thomas Knight
476. Marian Knowlton
477. Rex Teter
478. Stephen (Chris) Suprun Jr.
479. Jon Jewett
480. Susan Fischer
481. Loren Byers
482. William Lawrence Greene
483. Mary Lou Erben
484. Art Sisneros
485. Candace Noble
486. Fred Farias

UTAH (GOP)
487. Peter Greathouse
488. Jeremy Jenkins
489. Kris Kimball
490. Cherilyn Eagar
491. Chia-Chi Teng
492. Richard Snelgrove

VERMONT (DEM)
493. Peter Shumlin
494. Martha Allen
495. Tim Jerman

VIRGINIA (DEM)
496. James O’Connor
497. Vivian Paige
498. Delegate Lashrecse Aird
499. Bethany Johnston Rowland
500. Jasper Hendricks
501. Deb Fitzgerald
502. Harold Boyd
503. Ginny Peter
504. Jeanette Sarver
505. Kathy Stewart Shupe
506. Keith Scarborough
507. Susan Rowland
508. Terry Frye

WASHINGTON (DEM)
509. Varisha Khan
510. Bret Chiafolo
511. Ryleigh Ivey
512. Levi Guerra
513. Phillip Tyler
514. Julie Johnson
515. Chris Porter
516. Dan Carpita
517. Esther John
518. Eric Herde
519. Robert Satiacum
520. Elizabeth Caldwell

WEST VIRGINIA (GOP)
521. Ron Foster
522. Patrick Morrisey
523. Ann Urling
524. Mac Warner
525. Bill Cole

WISCONSIN (GOP) All 10 votes irregularly given
526. Steve King
527. Mary Buestrin
528. Kim Travis
529. Kim Babler
530. Brian Westrate
531. Brad Courtney
532. Kathy Kiernan
533. Dan Feyen
534. Jim Miller
535. Bill Berglund

WYOMING (GOP) All 3 votes irregularly given
536. Karl Allred
537. Bonnie Foster
538. Teresa Richards

1. The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.

Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.

The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.

Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.

After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials, the Office of the Federal Register and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Congress in the Electoral College process.

The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process.

Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. See the key dates for the 2016 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election. [https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html]

2. The date for officially counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election.

3. Annotations in red reflect part of the contents of ELECTORAL VOTE OBJECTION PACKET, 4 January 2017.