Middle East has decided it can no longer rely on America

Editor’s Note – In a stunning development, one obviously prompted by tensions between the US and the gulf oil states, many Sunni states were represented in Kuwait at a summit that focused on mutual defense because of the rise of Iran’s attempts at regional hegemony. The Middle East has decided it can no longer rely on America.

The timing was also important as Iran actually walked out of talks with the US and the west as reported Friday Alakhbar English:

Iran has quit nuclear talks with world powers, accusing Washington on Friday of going against the spirit of a landmark agreement reached last month by expanding its sanctions blacklist.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the major powers in the talks, both played down the suspension and said talks were expected to resume soon.

But Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi said the US move went against the spirit of the deal struck in Geneva under which the powers undertook to impose no further sanctions for six months in exchange for Iran curbing its controversial nuclear activities.

In addition to creating their own joint military command, they called for interlopers, the rival foreign militias in Syria to leave the theater:

Gulf Arab states demanded foreign militias quit Syria and said President Bashar al-Assad must have no future role Wednesday, in a declaration his Iran- and Hezbollah-backed regime denounced as meddling. Wrapping up a two-day annual summit in Kuwait City, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s leaders welcomed what they described as the new Iranian government’s shift to a positive policy toward the six-nation bloc.

The GCC leaders also approved the formation of a joint military command, but postponed a decision on a proposed union. Adopting a firm stance on Syria, the GCC “strongly condemned the continued genocide that Assad’s regime is committing against the Syrian people using heavy and chemical weapons.” It called “for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria,” in a clear reference to Iran-backed Shiite militias from Iraq and Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement which are supporting Assad’s troops against Sunni-led rebels. (Read more at Arab Times.)

Once again we see more evidence that the foreign policy of the Obama Administration and Secretary of State John Kerry has been an abject failure regarding Iran and Syria. John Kerry can play it down and use appeasing words, but he has been ‘punked’ once again. It must be asked again, what is Obama’s actual policy on any aspect of the Middle East?

Israeli/Palestinian talks – failure; Syria ‘red line’ – failure; Iran nuclear program/sanctions talks – failure; supporting the MB in Egypt – failure; reset with Russia – failure; failure after failure, and it reaches beyond to Afghanistan, China, and North Korea to name but a few. In fact, his foreign policy, and that of his last two Secretaries of State and UN Ambassadors – abject failures.

America is now less than a ‘paper tiger! Please read on:

Gulf nations to create joint military command

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab neighbors wrapped up a summit meeting in Kuwait on Wednesday by agreeing to establish a joint military command, paving the way for tighter security coordination even as their regional rival Iran pursues outreach efforts in the wake of its interim nuclear deal.

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council also agreed to lay the foundations for a joint Gulf police force and a strategic studies academy, according to a summary of the group’s closing statement carried by the official Kuwait News Agency.Gulf Nations Summit

Taken together, the initiatives suggest that the U.S.-allied Gulf states are seeking to do more to ensure their collective security amid the prospect of warmer relations between Iran and the West. The Islamic Republic agreed last month to freeze parts of its nuclear program in exchange for some relief from Western economic sanctions.

Many in the Gulf remain wary of Tehran’s intentions. Saudi Arabia in particular sees a stronger Iran as a threat to its own influence, and it and other Gulf states are major backers of the rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose government is backed by Iran.

The Gulf states have nonetheless voiced at times cautious support for the nuclear deal — a theme they reiterated as a bloc in Wednesday’s closing statement. They also welcomed Iran’s “new approach” toward the GCC and expressed hope that it would lead to “concrete steps in order to reflect positively on peace, security and stability of the region.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel traveled to the Gulf in recent days to reassure longstanding Arab allies. He made clear that the interim nuclear deal does not mean that Washington thinks the security threat posed by Iran is over.

Hagel also outlined steps to increase security cooperation in the Gulf region, where the U.S. deploys tens of thousands of air, land and sea forces, and opened the door to sales of missile defense and other weapons systems to the GCC as a bloc.

His tour followed visits by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last week to four of the six Gulf nations in an effort to improve ties.

It was not immediately clear when the proposed Gulf military command and joint police force would be formed, how they would be structured or what the extent of their mandates would be.

The summit’s closing statement said a joint defense council would “take necessary measures to put this agreement into effect,” while the joint police force “will boost security and help expand security and anti-terror cooperation and coordination among member states,” according to the Kuwaiti news agency.

The GCC includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Saudi Arabia is the bloc’s largest economy and traditionally sets the political tone for the region. It has pushed for a closer union among the six nations, and led a Gulf military force that deployed in support of Bahrain’s monarchy in March 2011 when it faced down a Shiite-led uprising in the tiny island kingdom.

Riyadh’s push for greater unity has met resistance, however. Oman’s minister responsible for foreign affairs, Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, announced over the weekend at a security conference in Bahrain that his nation would not participate in any formal union among the Gulf monarchies.

"Lie of the Year" – Politifact Gets One Correct

Editor’s Note – Lie of the Year – what a turnaround. The Politfact website has been telling the world that those of us who warned America that the ObamaCare law was going to have very disastrous effects on all of us has had to eat their own words. They correctly did so by declaring Obama to have uttered the “lie of the year”.

However, it should be noted that it was uttered annually since 2009. So does that make it the lie of each the previous four years as well? Remember these whoopers? They kind of pale in comparison now don’t they:

lie-of-the-year

Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’

By Angie Drobnic Holan – PolitiFact

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system.

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep.

So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.

Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.  Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.

For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice. (PolitiFact first announced its selection on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.)Lie of the Year

For four of the past five years, PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year has revolved around the health care law, which has been subject to more erroneous attacks than any other piece of legislation PolitiFact has fact-checked.

Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.

Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.

The debate about the health care law rages on, but friends and foes of Obamacare have found one slice of common ground: The president’s “you can keep it” claim has been a real hit to his credibility.

Why the cancellations happened

How did we get to this point?

The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called “grandfathering,” which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.

The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.

Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” when seeking re-election last year.

In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True, which means the statement is partially correct and partially wrong. We noted that while the law took pains to leave some parts of the insurance market alone, people were not guaranteed to keep insurance through thick and thin. It was likely that some private insurers would continue to force people to switch plans, and that trend might even accelerate.

In the final months of 2013, several critical elements of the health care law were being enacted, and media attention was at its height. Healthcare.gov made its debut on Oct. 1. It didn’t take long for the media, the public and Obama’s own team to realize the website was a technological mess, freezing out customers and generally not working.

Also on Oct. 1, insurers started sending out cancellation letters for 2014.

No one knows exactly how many people got notices, because the health insurance market is largely private and highly fragmented. Analysts estimated the number at about 4 million (and potentially higher), out of a total insured population of about 262 million.

That was less than 2 percent, but there was no shortage of powerful anecdotes about canceled coverage.

One example: PBS Newshour interviewed a woman from Washington, D.C., who was a supporter of the health care law and found her policy canceled. New policies had significantly higher rates. She told Newshour that the only thing the new policy covered that her old one didn’t was maternity care and pediatric services. And she was 58.

“The chance of me having a child at this age is zero. So, you know, I ask the president, why do I have to pay an additional $5,000 a year for maternity coverage that I will never, ever need?” asked Deborah Persico.

The administration’s botched response

Initially, Obama and his team didn’t budge.

First, they tried to shift blame to insurers. “FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans,” said Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to Obama, on Oct. 28.

PolitiFact rated her statement False. The restrictions on grandfathering were part of the law, and they were driving cancellations.

Then, they tried to change the subject. “It’s important to remember both before the ACA was ever even a gleam in anybody’s eye, let alone passed into law, that insurance companies were doing this all the time, especially in the individual market because it was lightly regulated and the incentives were so skewed,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But what really set everyone off was when Obama tried to rewrite his slogan, telling political supporters on Nov. 4, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

Pants on Fire! PolitiFact counted 37 times when he’d included no caveats, such as a high-profile speechto the American Medical Association in 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Even Obama’s staunchest allies cried foul.

On Nov. 6, columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune wrote that the public “was entitled to hear the unvarnished truth, not spin, from their president about what they were about to face. I don’t feel good about calling out Obama’s whopper, because I support most of his policies and programs. But in this instance, he would have to be delusional to think he was telling the truth.”

The next day, Obama apologized during a lengthy interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

“We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he said.

Political fist-fight

The reaction from conservative talk shows was withering. On Nov. 11, Sean Hannity put Obama’s statements up there with President Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook,” and President Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

On the liberal network MSNBC, Joy-Ann Reid said the Obama administration’s intention was to fight off attacks like the ones that scuttled Clinton’s health proposals in the early 1990s.

“That’s why the administration boiled it down to that, if you like your health care, you can keep it. Big mistake, but it was a mistake that I think came a little bit out of the lesson” of the Clinton years, she said Nov. 12.

Two days later, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi defended Obama’s statement as accurate and blamed insurance companies. “Did I ever tell my constituents that, if they like their plan, they could keep it? I would have, if I’d ever met anybody who liked his or her plan, but that was not my experience,” she said.

Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.

In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. “There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” he said. “It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.  We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.”

It is too soon to say what the lasting impact of “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” will be.

The president’s favorability ratings have tumbled in recent weeks.

Pew Research/USA Today poll conducted Dec. 3-8 found the percentage of people viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points over the course of the year, from 30 percent to 45 percent.

Much depends on the law’s continuing implementation and other events during Obama’s final three years in office, said Larry Sabato, a political scientist who runs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Still, Obama has work to do to win back public trust, Sabato said.

“A whole series of presidents developed credibility gaps, because people didn’t trust what they were saying anymore. And that’s Obama’s real problem,” he said. “Once you lose the trust of a substantial part of the American public, how do you get it back?”

Patton – The Stark Truth behind the CIA’s ‘Colossal Flop’

By Kerry Patton – SOFREP

According to a dramatic December 8, 2013 article in the LA Times, the CIA’s anti-terrorism program was such a “colossal flop” that the critical program designed to place spies in positions to learn the most about terrorist networks is being cut.

The program runs outside normal CIA channels as do the agents. They are not the typical embassy employees or others sent abroad with diplomatic immunities to cover them. These people are the ones who lack official status: the “NOCs”, which stands for “non official cover.’ These are the real spies who risk imprisonment, torture and death if they are caught.CIA Collossal Flop

The article judges the entire NOC program and, though it reveals many problems that may make some NOCs less effective than they should be, several could have and should have been recognized when the program really took off after 9-11, and have been remedied simply by the passage of time.

For example, it takes at least five years for a person to learn a language such as Arabic or Farsi. It may take ten years or more for a NOC to insinuate himself into a terrorist group and even longer for someone to get access to planned terrorist attacks and figure out how to communicate – in the absence of emails and cell phones – their intelligence material to their CIA handlers. That there hasn’t been a massive success since 9-11 in places such as Iran should be a surprise to no one. And it is not a reason to cut the NOC program.

But one of the biggest problems wasn’t touched upon is the ongoing conflict inside the CIA between those in the field – the operators and handlers – and the bureaucrats who sit comfortably in their offices and risk nothing more than having to drink a latte at the wrong temperature.

The world of covert operators has almost disappeared because good people are driven from that service. More will continue to drop out as they become aware of the travails they face after their service. America’s best and brightest won’t make the personal sacrifices necessary to perform covert intelligence operations when they are afraid of becoming the one sacrificed to bureaucratic games and congressional nonsense after their service.

For many years, the CIA has undergone dramatic cultural shifts within.

Analysts far outnumber operators, as do contractors, academics and think tank “experts.” Where once stood a CIA “tribe” united in service to our nation, the CIA is now more like a cacophony of fiefdoms in constant rivalry.

The CIA’s sole purpose is to gather intelligence. Now, it’s purpose seems to be to feed the fiefdoms enough to keep them all actively in competition with each other. To revive an old concept the NOCs – the spies still out in the cold – are getting the short end of the stick. That is a fact that is now and will continue to damage our nation’s security.

It is not a well-known fact that non-official cover operatives are not always employees of the CIA. Not all NOCs are on the “official” CIA payroll.

These types of NOCs are actual “assets.” They may be referred to as “agents” depending upon the generation the person is from. (The terminology between “agents” and “assets” is really just a matter of semantics.)

Some of these “assets” or “agents” are officially employed by the US government while others are non-official. Beyond payroll aspects, “official” NOCs are identified, categorized, and filed under a unique system that is also traceable in the CIA Index—a database of all CIA human and business assets.

What happens when someone misplaces, accidently destroys, or simply never fills out appropriate documentation for operatives working on behalf of the CIA—serving as an actual NOC? This is the ultimate in plausible deniability.

Plausible deniability is the name of the game when it comes to the spy world. Files, if they are ever created, may leave absolutely zero proof of operational capacity. Of course, the CIA is not the only federal organization having issues with maintaining records.

It is a well-known fact that the Department of Defense has horrible record keeping skills. There are many cases of folks who left the military with an honorable discharge. Sometimes when they receive their Form DD 214, though, half of their career is omitted. More often than not this is caused by human error, but there are times when this is done intentionally—especially for those who work for DOD and are tasked to perform key missions in the clandestine or covert world. Operators for Intelligence Support Activity (ISA), DEVGRU, or CAG are some examples of this.

So how do people maintain their credibility if they have no verification to support their claims? There is only one way for a CIA operative to protect himself from future political lynching. I was told once by a very smart man who supervised me while I served on active duty to, “always maintain a copy of everything you do or receive.” Illegal? Maybe. Improper? Pretty likely. Necessary to survive an attack on your credibility? Absolutely.

Maintaining a copy of everything you do or receive is a lot more difficult than some might imagine—especially for those who toil in the bowels of the covert world.

The clandestine world demands a very secretive and often lonely lifestyle. No one ever knows the truth. This includes an operative’s family. The operator himself may not know the complete truth. The spouse may never know what an operator has done for the government or the secret life he/she has been hiding all for years.

With unprecedented rifts that sometimes occur inside the CIA and the Intelligence Community, how does an operator protect him/herself when attacked by other disgruntled former employees or retirees who want to remain relevant?

Due to current laws, the US Intelligence Community requires total secrecy of its employees even after an employee leaves or retires. Handlers, as they are referred to, are not authorized to be publicly revealed. Methods of payments and paymasters cannot be exposed. Specific forms of identification through the numerical system cannot be revealed. The list goes on and on, and in truth, there is no possible way for many of these assets/agents to counter any form of “stolen valor” accusation when confronted.

Verifying military service and records is easy. Verifying intelligence service is complex and sometimes impossible. We owe it to our assets – agents, NOCs and the rest – to require those who would reveal them, rake them over the coals in newspapers or pillory them in congressional hearings to understand the burdens the intelligence people carry with them throughout their lives.

_____________

Kerry Patton is author of several military/spy thrillers which can be found at his Amazon Author Page.

DHS Hires Uber-Leftist Immigration Lawyers

Editor’s Note – Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America, and we see he has – for the worse, but he is looking to leave his mark long after he leaves. He is therefore hiring uber-liberals by the truckload into permanent employment. “Faithfully execute the laws…?”

These are not people who will be changed under new management; they are in for life. This time its lawyers for DHS and the methods for hiring were highly suspect. Read the details here:

Amnesty Incorporated: DHS Hires Activist Immigration Lawyers

by J. Christian Adams – PJ Media

Despite the sequester, the Department of Homeland Security has just completed a hiring blitz of attorneys to oversee and manage immigration litigation.  Almost all of these new civil service attorney hires hail from an activist pro-amnesty and pro-asylum background.  Sources within the Department of Homeland Security report that the process for hiring these new career civil service lawyers was unconventional and was conducted by an Obama political appointee within DHS.

Is justice blind? Not likely at DHS anymore!
Is justice blind? Not likely at DHS anymore!

The new attorneys have activist backgrounds with a variety of pro-amnesty groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Advancement Project, and open borders groups funded by the Tides Foundation.

PJ Media previously reported on attorney hires within the Justice Department Civil Rights Division in the Every Single One series.  That series demonstrated that every single attorney hire had a leftist or Democrat activist pedigree. The Department of Justice Inspector General criticized those DOJ hiring procedures as producing ideological outcomes.  PJ Media only obtained the resumes of DOJ hires after this publication was forced to sue Eric Holder in federal court under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, sources inside DHS have provided PJ Media with the employment history and pro-amnesty backgrounds of the newly hired lawyers who will be enforcing federal immigration laws.

The ideological histories of these new DHS lawyers undermine confidence that the federal government will vigorously enforce federal laws, notwithstanding any congressional “mandates” to do so.

These lawyers were hired through unconventional means by former DHS chief counsel for Citizen and Immigration Services Stephen Legomsky.  Sources at DHS report that when Legomsky was hired by Secretary Janet Napalitano’s Department, he was not even an active member of any bar association.  After resigning in October 2013, Legomsky is now a professor of law at Washington University.  His scholarship is most notable for its hostility toward barriers to entry for foreigners coming to the United States.

Here are the backgrounds of the new lawyers hired at the DHS in the recent hiring blitz:

  • Kristy Blumeyer-Martinez is a new attorney in the DHS Office of the Chief Counsel. Prior to joining OCC, Kristy served as law clerk to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in San Antonio, Texas, and RAICES in San Antonio, Texas. In law school, she also clerked with the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic and Sacramento Child Advocates/Children’s Law Center. She also worked at American Gateways, Refugee Services of Texas, and Caritas of Austin.
  • Esther Cantor was hired into the refugee and asylum law division as an associate counsel at DHS headquarters in Washington, D.C.. She participated in the Immigration Clinic and volunteered with the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, an open borders organization.
  • Nicole Flores is a new DHS lawyer in Chicago. She graduated from Harvard Law School, where she worked at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic and served as the co-president of the Harvard Immigration Project, an organization dedicated to ensuring foreigners get to stay in the United States. She was also a legal intern at the leftist open borders organization LatinoJustice-PRLDEF. According to DHS sources, there she worked on project to badger businesses who implemented  English-only rules in the work place.  Before law school, she was a volunteer activist at a “workers’ rights” organization in Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Erin Fricker is a new DHS lawyer formerly employed by Lutheran Social Services of New England, where she was a staff attorney representing detained foreigners attempting to stay in the United States.  While in law school, Erin participated in the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Project as an immigration clinic student.
  • New DHS lawyer Elizabeth Grossman established her Obama-era ideological bona fides by serving on the executive board for the University of Michigan Law School chapter of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a leftist law school student group.

    'Rule of Law' has become 'Rule of Man'
    ‘Rule of Law’ has become ‘Rule of Man’
  • Elizabeth Gunter’s resume includes a stint in the Obama-era DOJ Attorney General’s Honor Program after graduating from Washington University, the same law school where Legomsky, the person doing the hiring at DHS, was a professor while Gunter was a student.
  • Cindy Heidelberg comes from the same Holder-era Attorney General’s Honor Program, after a long activist background with open borders groups.  Cynthia graduated from Georgetown Law in 2011, earning a J.D. with a certificate in “Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies.” During law school, she interned at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Project, the ACLU National Prison Project, and the AARP Litigation Foundation.
  • Celia Hicks is a new lawyer with the Litigation and National Security Coordination Division in Washington, DC. She served as Protection Fellow for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and previously worked for the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council, an organization notoriously hostile to Border Patrol agents.
  • New DHS lawyer Leila Higgins previously worked as a student attorney in the Immigrant Justice Clinic at her law school.  This organization, according to its website, represents “immigrants on cutting-edge asylum claims based on gender and sexual orientation.”
  • Lawyer Stephanie Hummel previously worked at the ABA Center for Human Rights in Washington, as well as the pro-amnestyImmigration Law Project, and Legal Services of Eastern Missouri in St. Louis, Missouri. In 2008, she spent time in Cairo studying Arabic. In law school, Hummel won a CALI Award for “Representation of Non-US Citizens in Immigration Court Proceedings.”
  • Before joining DHS, attorney Jennifer Lee was an advocate for illegal aliens obtaining in-state tuition at public universities, though she naturally called them “undocumented immigrants.”  Lee also worked at the Legal Aid Justice Center, a organization which advised illegals “what to do in the event of a raid.”
  • Katelyn Love is now a DHS lawyer in Washington, D.C. She once worked at Lutheran Family Services, where she represented foreigners in their attempts to stay in the United States. Katelyn spent her junior year of college in Morocco studying “formal and colloquial” Arabic.
  • New DHS lawyer Maura Ooi previously worked in militantly activist roles with militantly activist open borders organizations such as the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.  Also, prior to joining DHS, Ooi penned a report for the leftist National Immigration Law Center bashing DHS. Titled “DHS Proposes Fantasy Remedies to Cure Fundamental Flaws in the Secure Communities Program” (emphasis mine), Ooi complained about efforts to fingerprint captured illegal aliens.  Without collecting biometric data such as fingerprints, deported illegal aliens may repeatedly return to the United States and their prior illegal entries would remain unknown.
  • Reena Parikh also worked at the American University Immigrant Justice Clinic, where she represented foreigners in removal proceedings.  She also worked as a legal intern at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a group knee-deep in trying to ease immigration laws.
  • If you were starting to think that Stephen Legomsky only hired young women to be DHS lawyers, meet new DHS lawyer Steven Plastrik.  What Plastrik lacks in femininity, he makes up for with a deep commitment to making sure foreigners get to stay in the United States.  He prepared asylum applications at Freedom House and on behalf of other organizations.
  • New DHS lawyer Liza Shah just completed a stint with the George Soros-funded Advancement Project working to ensure felons get the right to vote in Virginia (with the tragic and politically suicidal aid of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell).  As a law student, Shah naturally helped in litigation to keep foreigners in the United States.
  • Before becoming a DHS lawyer, Connie Yao worked at the Tides Foundation-funded East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, where she assisted individuals with asylum applications. At Cornell Law, she participated in the Advocacy for LGBT Communities Clinic.
  • Amisha Sharma is on the board of directors of her local Planned Parenthood when she isn’t busy as a newly hired DHS lawyer.  She also worked at the ACLU.  She received a dual degree in religious studies and women’s and gender studies from Louisiana State University. At Fordham Law, she was on the board of “Law Students for Reproductive Justice,” worked at the “Center for Reproductive Rights” and volunteered for the “Planned Parenthood of New York City’s Activist Council.”
  • Catlin Shay has a history of aiding foreigners seeking to remain in the United States as well as activism against laws prohibiting felons from voting.  She wrote “Free But No Liberty: How Florida Contravenes the Voting Rights Act by Preventing Persons Previously Convicted of Felonies from Voting,” and advocated a position wholly rejected by federal courts.
  • Cara Shewchuk once worked at the pro-amnesty National Immigration Law Center and the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, providing free legal help to illegal aliens.
  • Melanie Siders worked for the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network prior to her time as a DHS lawyer.
  • Lindsay Smith is a graduate of Smith College and Michigan Law, where she was “a Jenny Runkles scholar” for her commitment to public interest law and “diversity.”  She also worked at the open borders, pro-amnesty group Americans for Immigrant Justice.
  • Prior to joining DHS, Shahna Esber was an “Immigration Law Fellow” at the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, where she helped foreigners stay in the United States. She also worked with the Immigration Center for Women and Children, an organization “proud to assist immigrant youth applying for Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”
  • DHS lawyer Bria DeSalvo graduated from Georgetown University Law Center “with a certificate in Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies. ” In law school, DeSalvo volunteered for the CAIR coalition.
  • DHS lawyer Jessika Croizat served as a union organizer for AFSCME before deciding to attend law school.
  • Before his job as an attorney at DHS, Michael Celone was a Hill staffer for Democrats.  He worked with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) helping prepare research to attack the Bush Justice Department regarding the firing of political appointees who were serving as United States attorneys.  He also worked for Democrat Rep. Jim Langevin from Rhode Island. He also authored an article revealingly titled “Undocumented and Unprotected: Solutions for Protecting the Health of America’s Undocumented Mexican Migrant Workers.”

If you are an attorney with a background in enforcing immigration law as opposed to representing foreigners attempting to stay in the United States, don’t expect to be hired by DHS during the Obama administration.  And based on this recent batch of hires, if you are a male with a background in immigration enforcement, forget about it.