“On “Implementation Day,” which is anticipated to arrive sometime in early/mid-2016, Iran will be unshackled from the preponderance of the sanctions regime that halved its oil exports, crashed the value of its currency, and cost the country tens of billions — at least — in lost revenues and additional costs over the course of the past five years. The United Nations Security Council measures, which served as a platform for most of the actions undertaken by the rest of the world against Iran, will vanish with a few notable exceptions pertaining to conventional arms and ballistic missiles.”
“The sense of affront at the appearance of rewarding Tehran after decades of bad behavior is magnified by the irony that Washington is being forced to cede the most effective instrument in its policy toolbox, at the very moment when its efficacy has finally been confirmed, even as some of the most strategically relevant aspects of the Iranian challenge remain unabated.”
Under the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, $150 billion would go to a single regime that has been a state sponsor of terrorism for the entire 36 years of its existence.
The Iran deal, in five years, will actually lift a ban on sending Iran conventional weapons, including (in eight years) intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States. But Iran is already wasting no time buying weapons and producing weapons on its own.
When Obama leaves office, he may think that any catastrophe the Iran deal causes will not “technically” be his, but the next president’s. But it is his. It’s as if someone is lighting a long fuse and will then say he was not near the dynamite when it went off. Any explosions that result from this huge military and financial payday to Iran will, and should, be known as “Obama’s war.”
The border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico must be made secure.
There is no shortage of compelling reasons why this must happen, and the sooner the better, but today, given the lunacy of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States and the globalist goals of politicians from both political parties, particularly the Democratic Party leadership, rational and reasonable thought processes have been supplanted by greed, corruption and cowardice- fear of upsetting party leaders or fear of alienating deep-pocketed campaign contributors.
Indeed, it is irrational for any leader in the United States to refuse to take whatever measures must be taken to protect America and Americans from the rampant violence, corruption and potential for terrorists to traverse that highly porous border into the United States.
Yet this is precisely the situation that exists today in the United States.
Therefore, today we will consider some of the more compelling facts that demand that, for once and for all, the U.S./Mexican border be secured.
First of all, given the unstable and volatile situation in the Middle East, particularly Syria and U.S.-led military strikes in Syria, undoubtedly Iran and radical Islamists would like to be able to carry out terror attacks within the borders of the United States.
Iran and radical Islamists have a significant presence in Latin America, therefore, all that separates them from us is the U.S./Mexican border.
Khan is a citizen of Pakistan who had established himself as a permanent resident in Brazil and then smuggled numerous illegal aliens from the Middle East into the United States through Mexico. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,
Foreign national extradited and pleads guilty to human smuggling conspiracy.
That Khan first became a resident of Brazil prior to beginning his smuggling operation is of particular concern.
Terror training camps run by Hamas and Hezbollah are to be found in the Tri-Border region of Brazil (where Brazil abuts with Argentina and Paraguay). While there was no specific mention of Khan making use of those camps, given the nature of his crimes, this is a very real and troubling possibility.
It is also entirely possible that members of ISIS and al-Qaeda are present in those terror training camps.
Khan is hardly the only alien smuggler who was operating in Latin America and has ties to the Middle East.
In addition to the nexus between Brazil and radical Islamic training camps, Iran routinely flies its Quds Forces, also known as “Shock Troops” into Caracas Venezuela. They are not present in the the Western hemisphere for vacation.
In addition to the threats posed by Middle Eastern terrorists operating in Latin America, we need to also consider the deteriorating situation to be found in Mexico where it has been reported that last year more than 29,000 people were murdered.
As fighting between drug trafficking groups drives up violence in Mexico to record levels, a new study released on Wednesday measures the economic impact in 2017 at $249 billion in losses — close to 21 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
Authors of the study presented at the University of San Diego say that focusing on homicides alone fails to address the broad range of factors that drive the violence, and affect the well being of Mexicans on a multitude of levels.
To bring down the violence will mean addressing issues such as corruption and the weak rule of law, the study states.
* * *
With more than 29,000 murders, last year was Mexico’s most violent year on record, “with the peacefulness in Mexico deteriorating by 10.7 percent,” states the institute’s study, the fifth in a series of annual reports focusing on Mexico.
The study found that the economic impact violence in 2017 “amongst the highest in the world.” The total economic impact of violence “was seven times higher than the education budget in 2017,” according to the report. “A one percent decline in the economic impact of violence would equal the federal government’s investment in activities related to science, technology and innovation last year.”
In an effort to somehow paint a less pessimistic and alarming image of the level of violence in Mexico, the report concluded with the following:
In spite of public perceptions, “Mexico’s violence is ‘average’ for the Western Hemisphere,” according to the USD study, with homicide rates well below those of smaller countries, including Belize, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, and Venezuela.
This is no comfort to be found in that last quote. A caravan of citizens of Honduras making its way north through Mexico and headed for the United States, prompted President Trump to deploy National Guard troops along the southern border to augment the U.S. Border Patrol in non-law enforcement capacity- providing support for the Border Patrol as was reported in an April 4, 2018 USA Today report, Trump keeps focus on caravan of Honduran asylum seekers headed to U.S.
It appears that the caravan of Hondurans is being egged on by the government of Honduras, consider that The Arizona Republic reported on April 12, 2018:
Although many migrants traveling in the caravan have decided to remain in Mexico, many still plan to continue on to the U.S. border and apply for asylum, especially the large number of women and children, and a small group of about 25 gay and transgender migrants.
The Honduran ambassador to Mexico, dressed in a suit, tie and dress shoes, joined the migrants in a 9-mile walk from the Honduran embassy in the Condesa neighborhood of Mexico City to the Casa de Peregrino near the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexican news media reported.
Given the totality of circumstances, the potential exists that criminals such as members of MS-13 and other such violent gangs and members of drug cartels may well infiltrate this and other such caravans.
In point of fact, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that terrorists from the Middle East might also seize the opportunity to infiltrate large-scale smuggling groups to gain entry into the United States, not unlike terrorists in Europe infiltrated refugee flows.
Furthermore, as we have seen in the past, the potential exists that aliens who seek asylum in the United States might actually be such criminals and/or terrorists.
This very topic was the focus of a November 21, 2013 Washington Times news report, Mexican drug cartels exploit asylum system by claiming ‘credible fear.’
The report quoted Bob Goodlatte, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:
“It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican.
“Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their country,” he said. “However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves.”
Concerns about the lack of integrity to this system were the focus of two House Judiciary Committee hearings conducted as a result of Chairman Goodlatte’s concerns.
Of course while one of the hearings focused on how asylum abuse was overwhelming our borders, in reality, asylum abuse is overwhelming the entire immigration system throughout the entire United States of America.
Furthermore, this is not simply a matter of “asylum abuse” but of immigration fraud.
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
Those concerns are very much as relevant today as they were at the time of those hearings and at the time that the 9/11 Commission reported its findings.
What more needs to happen before our “leaders” finally act to secure that dangerous border?
Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue.
“That cache was brought to the port of Oakland aboard a ship owned by Chinese government-owned China Ocean Shipping Co. (Cosco), the same company that is caught in a bitter geopolitical dispute involving the Port of Long Beach.”
What is the FBI and the DOJ really covering up?…Besides all of the following…Sessions knows…
Obama and Clinton and many others needed cover because of the………
Brought to U by the numerous uses of Shey butter.
“Why Attorney General Sessions must act now, not later”
By Fred Gedrich –
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced that he tasked the Department of Justice’s inspector general to investigate alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by some DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials.
His action was prompted by allegations that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) orders — which allowed U.S. intelligence agencies to surveil and/or served as the impetus for others to publicly unmask through leaks some American citizens associated with the Trump campaign, transition and presidency — was obtained under false pretenses and may have served as a basis for Robert Mueller’s special counsel appointment. The probe of these allegations should be done by a special counsel, not the DOJ IG, and here is why.
If DOJ seeks to determine whether FISA may have been improperly used by U.S. government officials, it will need to expand the scope of the investigation far beyond the DOJ and FBI boundary established by the attorney general.
The person assigned to lead this investigation should be tasked with interviewing and obtaining and analyzing information from certain officials who worked or work at the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies, the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, Perkins-Coie law firm, British ex-spy Christopher Steele and his Russian sources and others believed to have played varying roles in paying for, developing and disseminating questionable information used by DOJ and FBI to obtain FISC orders.
The IG Act of1978, as amended, does not give the DOJ IG the authority to perform such an expansive investigation. It mostly allows that office to only investigate matters concerning DOJ and FBI persons (including contractors and grantees) and programs. The DOJ IG can’t: Convene a grand jury to compel witness testimony from inside and outside government, prosecute crimes, interview people who have left DOJ and FBI and independently investigate matters deemed by the attorney general or deputy attorney general as preserving national security interests or protecting ongoing criminal investigations.
The FISA of 1978, as amended, prescribes procedures on how the act should be used. It requires the government to obtain permission from a FISC judge to surveil communications on domestic soil for national security reasons.
The FISC, also established in 1978, along with judges appointed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, makes decisions as to whether to approve wiretaps, data collection and government requests regarding monitoring suspected terrorists and spies. DOJ and the FBI must provide documentary evidence in an application to FISCjudges to support court-authorized criminal or counterintelligence warrants.
Any misuse of FISA, such as providing tainted evidence or excluding materially important information to FISC judges who issue these warrants, would cast serious doubt on the validity of any investigation, prosecution and conviction emanating from the abuse.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence memos, a Senate Judiciary Committee chairman criminal referral and other revelations suggest that DOJ and the FBI may have indeed used tainted evidence or excluded materially significant information from the affidavits presented to FISC judges such as the payment source of the unverified Steele dossier and the author’s credibility. The question before Mr. Sessions is what to do about apparent material deficiencies in the FISA applications. Here are three suggestions:
One, appoint a special counsel — 28 Code of Federal Regulations 600.1 specifies the three criteria for the DOJ appointment of a special counsel. They are when the attorney general or someone acting in his behalf determines that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted; when a DOJ conflict of interest is present (i.e., DOJ investigating itself) and when it’s in the public interest.
Pending AG or DAG determination, the key elements for a special counsel appointment exist for this matter. Moreover, the chairmen of the House Oversight and Government Reform, House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary committees (Reps. Trey Gowdy, Bob Goodlatte, and Sen. Chuck Grassley) and other members of Congress have formally requested the attorney general to do it.
Two, urge the special counsel to use the services of the DOJ IG and his staff in the probe. That office has a wealth of corporate knowledge about DOJ and the FISA process, and IG Act, a high degree of independence from DOJ. It also has some 135 agents and 39 attorneys on staff to assist. And its investigation regarding certain actions by DOJ and FBI officials in advance of the 2016 presidential election resulted in the firing of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and transfer of several other notable DOJ and FBI officials.
Three, develop a special counsel tasking which clearly defines the scope of work to be done during the probe. The tasking, among other things, should include a determination if anyone in the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign and DNC, DOJ and FBI, or elsewhere illegally used the FISA process to:
(1) weaponize U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on the Republican Party’s presidential candidate and his associates; (2) use the Perkins-Coie law firm to disguise the use of campaign funds directed to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele and others to do opposition research on Trump and his associates during and after the campaign, (3) intentionally leak the names of Trump associates caught up in FISA surveillance to the press; and (4) approve and submit FISA applications to FISC judges under false pretenses by purposely withholding materially important information from the FISC judges; and (5) fatally poison Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.
The time for the attorney general to act is now. Those among us who have participated in federal criminal investigations know that it’s crucial to immediately obtain relevant documentary and testimonial evidence before it is destroyed, altered or coordinated. Most importantly, the American people have a right to know whether those entrusted with maintaining a high degree of integrity throughout the justice system, government and presidential electoral process acted legally and have met their public responsibilities.
Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst. He served in the U.S. departments of State and Defense.
Chief of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, David Laufman resigns for personal reasons.
What is the DOJ and FBI hiding?
To find out maybe We the People should take a class from this well paid “expert” that has so many contacts here and abroad.
WHAT IS AN EXPORT?
Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.
How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.
Certain job-related technical data is subject to U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR §§730-774) which regulate the export of “dual-use” items. These items include goods and related technology, including technical data and technical assistance, which are designed for commercial purposes, but which could have military applications, such as computers, aircraft, and pathogens. In order for certain foreign nationals to access this technology/data, companies must apply for and be issued a deemed export license from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Any foreign national is subject to deemed export regulations except a foreign national who (1) is granted U.S. Permanent Resident status, as demonstrated by the issuance of a permanent resident visa (i.e., Green Card); or (2) is granted U.S. citizenship; or (3) is granted status as a protected person (i.e., Asylee or Refugee) under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3).
From 02 08 2018
From our friends at The Daily Caller:
DOJ Official Who Worked On Clinton, Russia Investigations Steps Down For Personal Reasons
By Chuck Ross
The Department of Justice official who interviewed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as part of the investigation into her emails is leaving the agency, he announced on Wednesday.
“I am getting aggravated at Laufman,” Strzok wrote in one March 23, 2016, text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
“But he’s literally doing nothing other than sitting in on the big interviews,” he said in another dated April 9, 2016.
The timing of Laufman’s decision is sure to raise questions because of a Justice Department inspector general’s forthcoming report about the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Strzok’s texts were discovered during the court of that investigation.
“It’s tough to leave a mission this compelling and an institution as exceptional as the Department of Justice. But I know that prosecutors and agents will continue to bring to their work precisely what the American people should expect: a fierce and relentless commitment to protect the national security of the United States,” Laufman told The Post in a statement.