COPIED:

FULL TEXT OF THE ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE EKITI STATE GOVERNOR, MR AYODELE FAYOSE DURING A MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF THE MIYETTI ALLAH CATTLE BREEDERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA TODAY, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2016.
I welcome you to this meeting, which is in furtherance to our quest to find a lasting solution to the menace of herdsmen and safeguard the lives and properties of all residents of Ekiti State.
Interestingly, I am wearing two caps today because I am addressing you both as the governor and also as a cattle farmer. Many of you might be unaware that I also rear cattle like you. I have 83 cows too and I have told the person taking care of them that if he goes against the law and any of them is seized, he will be responsible.
Like I have maintained, I do not have anything against the Fulanis or any tribe in Nigeria. It is on record that during my first term, I appointed a man from Malunfashi as a Special Adviser. This term too, I appointed Musa Kanga into the Pilgrims Welfare Board, a Igboman is a councillor in Ward 10 and Ado Local Government.
Rather, my concern as a governor and custodian of the popular mandate of Ekiti State is to protect the lives and properties of all residents of the State, irrespective of their tribe, religion and political party.
It is in pursuit of this vital responsibility of government that we have chosen to control cattle grazing in Ekiti State and it is being done in other civilised countries of the world. Or are cattle breeders leading their cattle across city centres and major roads, with the cows defecating everywhere in cities like London, New York, Paris, or even Accra in Ghana and Mecca in Saudi Arabia?
Let me therefore reiterate that there is no going back on the total enforcement of the Prohibition of Cattle and other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti State Law, 2016, which came into force on August 29, 2016. It is a law that all residents of Ekiti State must obey.
A situation where herdsmen go about with arms is not acceptable to us here in Ekiti and herdsmen found with arms will be arrested and charged with terrorism.
If we are encouraging our people to embrace farming by giving lands to them to farm through the creation of Land Banks in the 16 Local Councils, and many of them have borrowed money to invest in farming, when these farmlands being cultivated with borrowed funds are destroyed by herdsmen, who are also engaged in their own form of farming, how do we get others to embrace farming?
In Oke Ako-Ekiti last May, two persons were killed, people’s wives raped by those hiding under the guise of rearing cattle and I expected then that leaders of the Miyetti Allah will show greater concern, but that never happened.
I was therefore miffed when I read in the newspapers that the Miyetti Allah threatened a reprisal attack on the government and people of Ekiti State and I, as the one the people elected to provide them must not shy away from that responsibility of protecting the people against any aggressor.
When I heard that you were coming to invade our land, we were also prepared for you people because I am not one of the governors that are afraid of anyone.
Some people, because of politics took leaders of Miyetti Allah in Abuja to the Presidential Villa and I ask them, is Ekiti the same as Abuja? Is Senator Babafemi Ojudu who met Miyetti Allah in the Villa in Abuja the governor of Ekiti State? Did he take any step when his own people were attacked and killed?
As I speak to you today, I am reiterating that Ekiti people and all residents of the State will be protected with everything within my power. That is my duty as a governor and I will perform it without fear or favour.
I however appreciate the fact that you have now seen reasons that you should cooperate with the government to enforce the anti-grazing law. I am glad that you have now realised that strict compliance with the law is in the interest of all of us.
On the claim that the Ekiti Grazing Enforcement Marshals were shooting cows, let me state here that it is a white lie from those whose interest is bitter politics.
As cattle farmers, which I am one, we must realise that we are not different from other farmers. We are not also different from other businessmen who own business premises where they transact their businesses. If fish farmers are providing their own ponds and poultry farmers building their own pens, while also buying feed for their animals, there is no reason we as cattle farmers should not also provide our own ranch and feed our cows without encroaching on other people’s farmlands and properties.
Therefore, you have a duty to join in the crusade to free our State from the menace of herdsmen. You must expose those hiding under cattle grazing to perpetrate crimes like armed robbery, murder, rape and wilful destruction of people’s properties.
It was in view of this new approach that I directed the suspension of activities of the Ekiti Grazing Enforcement Marshals (EGEM) till today, so as to enable the free movement of your cattle to designated ranches in the State and I am sure that must have been done.
Today, I am giving cattle farmers in the State 14 days to register with traditional rulers in the communities where they are operating while the traditional rulers will forward the registered herdsmen to the State government.
Once again, I thank you for your support and as your governor, I make bold to say expressly that even as cattle farmers, it is my duty to protect your lives and properties and no matter the situation, I will never shy away from this responsibility.
Thank you.

FBI CONFIRMS HILLARY GAVE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS! THIS IS TREASON 101, PUNISHMENT: DEATH

USA POLITICS TODAY| Hillary Clinton has not only betrayed the Democrats she has betrayed the entire country. The FBI now has announced that they are “99% sure” that at least 5 foreign intelligence agencies were able to hack into Clinton’s private server and acquire items of national security.

AT LEAST FIVE?!

This is absolutely ridiculous. She should be in jail for letting even one foreign person have access to classified information. This all happened because she was trying to cover her a** by keeping her files and emails on a private server that she controlled, in order to keep any unwanted eyes that might catch her completely oblivious to all of her criminal activities.

For all we know this was a giant scheme for her to sell national security secrets for money like Bill Clinton sold pardons for donations to funnel money into the Clinton Foundation.




Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted at all. There is no way on earth that we can trust someone that has lost our nations secrets to at least five of our enemies!

This is not the sign of a leader. This is the sign of a incompetent imbecile that shouldn’t be allowed to even know her own secrets because she might lose those too!

Lou Dobbs just spoke on the issue:

Lou Dobbs: Investigators are now, as I said to you at the outset, 99% sure that as many as five foreign intelligence agencies were able to hack into the Clinton email server.


Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted at all and that is exactly why she should be both in prison and not in the running to be President of the United States!

Donald Trump wouldn’t share our nations secrets with our enemies! He would get our enemies secrets instead!

Please share this before Hillary Clinton tries to cover it up forever!

NBC Busted with Hillary Victory Results 6 Days Before Election
By Proud Conservative
Posted on November 3, 2016

We have been saying for months that this election is going to be rigged and Donald Trump has been telling America the exact same thing. What you are about to see below proves, once again, the fix is in for Hillary.

NBC has been caught posting election results showing a Hillary victory 6 days before the election. The entire thing is broken down on video below.

Kit Daniels reports, “Political activists discovered a hidden web site for WRCB out of Chattanooga, Tenn. showing election results with Hillary Clinton securing 343 electoral votes and 42% of the popular vote.”

“The web site originated from the FTP server of WorldNow, a media software company that provides real-time data – such as election results – and other media assets to local news stations.” It’s important to note that WorldNow does NOT have employees that did this. World Now is a software as a service, so an NBC insider did this

Pls how can one add friends from his facebook account

The Fix Is In: NBC Affiliate Accidentally Posts Election Results A Week Early: Hillary Wins Presidency 42% to Trump’s 40%
Mac Slavo
November 2nd, 2016
SHTFplan.com

ttanooga, Tennessee has inadvertently posted election night results. The results page appears to be similar to what mainstream news networks display on election night, including Presidential and Congressional results, the popular vote count, electoral votes, and percentage of precincts reporting.

The page, a screen shot of which has been sourced from internet archive site The Wayback Machine, is posted below and shows totals for the upcoming Presidential race. It announces Hillary Clinton as the winner.

As Jim Stone notes, the page was pulled directly from the WorldNow.com content management platform utilized by major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox and appears to be a non-public staging area for news and election results.

Though the results information appears on an FTP server at WorldNow.com, media companies like NBC’s WRCB TV utilize the platform, also know as “Frankly,” to power their news content. This can be verified directly a the WRCB web site by scrolling to the very bottom of the page footer which notes that it is, “Powered By Frankly.”

In addition to national results, Jim Stone has identified another page at the WorldNow.com FTP server that appears to show the State-By-State Presidential election results. This page is also accessible in archive format at WayBack Machine with a line by line breakdown available at Stone’s website.

Of interest is that the State-By-State results indicate a Hillary Clinton win in states like Texas (42% to 40%), Florida (44% to 40%) and Pennsylvania (44% to 40%) which have all been identified as states Clinton must steal to win the election.

Do these latest election “results” confirm that the fix is in and the vote is rigged?

If so, then we are no longer looking at an election where our votes will count, but rather, a selection where the winner is determined by those who count the votes.

Brexit plans in disarray as high court rules parliament must have its say

Government to appeal after judges say article 50 cannot be triggered without MPs’ backing – a major blow to Theresa May

Help fund our journalism by becoming a Guardian Supporter
An EU flag is seen near the Houses of Parliament.
The challengers maintained that parliamentary approval and legislation was required for such a fundamental change. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA

Owen Bowcott and Jessica Elgot

Thursday 3 November 2016 15.42 GMT
Last modified on Thursday 3 November 2016 19.02 GMT

it alone has the power to trigger Brexit by notifying Brussels of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union, the high court has ruled.

The judgment (pdf), delivered by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is likely to slow the pace of Britain’s departure from the EU and is a huge setback for Theresa May, who had insisted the government alone would decide when to trigger the process.

The lord chief justice said that “the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”.
Moving forward from the high court’s article 50 ruling
Letters: It is highly likely that parliament will vote to leave, but at least the decision will have been reached in something close to a proper process
Read more

A government spokesman said ministers would appeal to the supreme court against the decision. The hearing will take place on 7-8 December.
Live High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50 - as it happened
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including the high court ruling on whether parliament should get a vote on triggering article 50
Read more

Thomas said: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the 1972 European Communities Act to support it. In the judgment of the court, the argument is contrary both to the language used by parliament in the 1972 act, and to the fundamental principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers.”

Unless overturned on appeal at the supreme court, the ruling threatens to plunge the government’s plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people” who voted by a clear majority to leave the EU in the June referendum.

But Thomas declared: “The government does not have power under the crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”

Liam Fox: government ‘disappointed’ with article 50 ruling

The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, said the government was disappointed by the high court decision but added that “the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum”.

The Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said he was angered by the decision. “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand … I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.”
Will the article 50 ruling stop Brexit? Our panel responds
Jonathan Freedland, Anand Menon, Dreda Say Mitchell, Schona Jolly, Tim Farron, David Lammy
Read more

The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he was delighted by the ruling. “Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to parliament, before such a vote is held,” he said.

By handing responsibility for initiating Brexit over to MPs, the three senior judges – Thomas, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – have ventured on to constitutionally untested ground.

The legal dispute focused on article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which says any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – an undefined term that has allowed both sides to pursue rival interpretations.

The decision may undermine the prime minister’s authority in conducting negotiations with other EU states in the run-up to the UK’s withdrawal.

Victorious Gina Miller reacts to article 50 ruling: ‘This case was about process, not politics’ – video

Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the case, said: “It was the right decision because we were dealing with the sovereignty of parliament. It was not about winning or losing. It was about what was right. Now we can move forward with legal certainty.”

Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser and the other lead claimant, said: “Today’s judgment is a victory for everyone who believes in the supremacy of our parliament and the rule of law. I have never challenged the result of the referendum – in fact I voted for Brexit for the sole reason that I wanted power to be returned from Europe to the British parliament. But I did not think it was right for the government then just to bypass parliament and try to take away my legal rights without consulting parliament first.”
Analysis High court Brexit ruling: what does it all mean?
The high court has decided the government does not have the power to trigger article 50 without consulting parliament, so what happens now?
Read more

John Halford, the solicitor at Bindmans who represented the People’s Challenge group, said: “The oversight, control and democratic accountability needed for decisions on Brexit have to match the consequences of those decisions for UK citizens. That is why our constitution empowers parliament, not the government, to take decisions.”

John Shaw, chair of the organisation Fair Deal for Expats, said: “This is superb news. We were convinced that our case was just. We’re delighted that the court agrees with us. There now needs to be a proper debate about how the rights of expats will be protected.”

The three judges’ ruling was unanimous. It stated: “By making and unmaking treaties the crown [ie the government] creates legal effects on the plane of international law, but in doing so it does not and cannot change domestic law. It cannot without the intervention of parliament confer rights on individuals or deprive individuals of rights.”

At one point the judgment dismisses arguments deployed by lawyers for the government – about whether rights within the EU were conferred by act of parliament or international treaty – as being “divorced from reality”.

The judges said: “The reality is that parliament knew and intended that enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 would provide the foundation acquisition by British citizens of rights under EU law which they could enforce in other member states.

They added that “the claimants are entitled to say that it would be surprising if they could be removed simply through action by the crown under its prerogative powers”.

They concluded: “In our judgment, the clear and necessary implication from these provisions taken separately and cumulatively is that parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and that this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the crown in exercise of its prerogative powers.”

Part of the judges’ reasoning was based on legal precedents dating back to the 13th century, in particular the Case of Proclamations. That case involved merchants who were prevented from working in London by proclamation of Henry IV which was found to be in breach of a parliamentary act dating back to 1297. Parliament triumphed and the crown had to withdraw its ban.

Producing in-depth, thoughtful, well-reported journalism is difficult and expensive - but supporting us isn’t. If you value the the Guardian’s coverage of Brexit, please help to fund our journalism by becoming a Guardian Supporter

As a Biafra am very happy to be here,Good morning everyone

Tuesday 18 October 2016 by Davywavy
Man who demanded sovereignty of Parliament outraged by sovereignty of Parliament

Man angry at parliamentary sovereignty

A man who voted for the sovereignty of Parliament is utterly outraged by Parliament wanting to vote on stuff this afternoon.

Simon Williams, whose primary motivation for voting to leave the European Union was to establish the primacy of Parliament over external influence, is hopping mad that Parliament actually would like a say in the process of that departure.

A ruling that both the Houses of Commons and Lords will get a vote on the terms of departure from the EU resulted in Simon’s face turning purple and a succession of intemperate rants in capital letters on several popular Internet sites.

“I voted for Parliament to be able to act unhindered by people telling them what to do, and make decisions that they think will benefit the people of this country,” he told us.

“So why the **** aren’t they doing what I tell them and making decisions I agree with?

“If they put a foot out of line, well, those elected representatives in Westminster don’t understand democracy, that’s for sure.”

When told of Mr Williams’ anger, a Parliamentary spokesman said that if he didn’t like the decisions his elected representatives were making, he should be reminded that they were in the majority and if he couldn’t accept that then he probably doesn’t understand democracy.

Brexit court defeat for UK government

3 November 2016
From the section UK Politics

Share
Media caption Brexit challenger Gina Miller: "This result is about all our futures"

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

As it unfolded: Article 50 court ruling
Kuenssberg: Will this mean early election?
Gina Miller: The woman behind the Brexit challenge
The High Court's judgement in full
Brexit: All you need to know
Court ruling: Your questions answered

The prime minister's spokeswoman said she would be calling President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker to say she intended to stick to her March 2017 deadline for triggering Article 50.

Amid suggestions that she might try to call an early general election, she added that Mrs May believed "there shouldn't be an election until 2020 and that remains her view".

A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the government says it has no intention of letting the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out".

Brexit Secretary David Davis said he presumed the court ruling meant an act of Parliament would be required to trigger Article 50 - so would be subject to approval by both MPs and peers.

But the government was going to contest that view in an appeal, and said the referendum was held only following "a six-to-one vote in the Commons to give the decision to the British people".

"The people are the ones Parliament represents - 17.4m of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to leave the European Union. We are going to deliver on that mandate in the best way possible for the British national interest," he told the BBC.
Media caption David Davis: The British people are sovereign

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the court ruling could mean potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles but said a majority of MPs would be likely to vote for Article 50 - despite having backed the Remain campaign - as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.

Analysis - BBC political correspondent Eleanor Garnier

It is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the result creates a nightmare scenario for the government.

Theresa May had said she wanted to start Brexit talks before the end of March next year but this ruling has thrown the prime minister's timetable up in the air.

Campaigners who brought the case insist it was about "process not politics", but behind the doors of No 10 there will now be serious head-scratching about what the government's next steps should be.

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

Of course, it will be immensely difficult to satisfy and get agreement from all those MPs who voted to remain. Could an early general election be on the cards after all?

Investment manager Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court that the government should make the "wise decision of not appealing".

She said: "The result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures."

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people".

But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.

They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.

Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord Thomas said: "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue."
Media captionNigel Farage says he is worried Brexit will be watered down after the High Court ruling

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve told the BBC he believed there was time for the government to get legislation through Parliament before the end of March, should they lose the appeal.

He added: "It will certainly allow the opportunity to debate the issues surrounding Brexit but it is worth bearing in mind that it's a bit difficult to fetter the government as to what it should do after Article 50 is triggered because actually, what the government can deliver ... is entirely dependent on the negotiating position of the 27 other member states... So you can't really order the government to stay in the single market because that may not be something that the government can deliver."

Reacting to the ruling, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons the government was "disappointed" but remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".
What the ruling says

It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle
Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union
Allowing MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal at the end of the negotiations would not amount to parliamentary approval because once Article 50 is triggered there is no way that the UK will not leave the EU, and in doing so existing laws will be changed
David Davis points out that MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view

But UKIP's Mr Farage said: "We are heading for a half Brexit."

He added: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand... I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

Labour leader Mr Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit."

But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

Addressing suggestions that Mrs May could call a general election before 2020 - when the next election is scheduled to take place under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act - Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "If you're asking me do I think today's judgement makes a general election more likely than it was yesterday, I think the answer to that is probably yes."

The UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union in a referendum on 23 June.

The EU's other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.