us ag logo

Hawaii Judge Thumbs Nose at Attorney General Sessions

You probably heard on the news over the weekend that the Department of Justice sought clarification from Obama’s friend, Judge Derrick Watson, in Hawaii and asked if he really meant to include a stop order on the President’s 120-day moratorium on refugee admissions and the FY17 ceiling reduction when he was aiming at the travel freeze.

Imam Ismail Elshikh

The travel issue and the refugee admissions issue are two separate things. For the time being, take the so-called ‘travel ban’ from six countries out of your mind. It is not the main subject of this blog or what I want to try to make clear to readers (and the lazy, ignorant press).

BTW: A co-plaintiff in the case is Imam Ismail Elshikh. Question: Is he even a U.S. citizen? The story is here at a very unusual blog that I had never heard of.

The confusion comes from the fact that the first judge on the original order left the refugee admissions pause and ceiling portion of the EO intact and so did the Maryland judge last week.

It appears that Judge Derrick Watson believes he has the authority to set the ceiling for refugee admissions each year.

He emphatically does not have that authority.  He can’t make the Department of State resume overseas processing of refugees. He can’t make the Administration and Congress spend money on refugees.

The President has the explicit power in the Refugee Act of 1980 to set the CEILING (as we said here). In most years the President (Bush and Obama) has been well under the CEILING!

As I have said recently, the big mistake the Trump team made was putting the refugee pause into an Executive Order.

They have the power to slow the flow and stay under a proposed CEILING without an explicit order.  The only thing I can see that they should have done (maybe they did it) was to notify the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that they were lowering the ceiling.  However, the original act only gave Congress the power to ‘consult’ not stop the President. (In 1980, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter put a lot of power in the President’s hands when it comes to refugee admissions!)

If the controversy continues, more taxpaying Americans will be educated!

That said, there could be a silver lining.  The Trump State Department can keep the flow low (or at zero) for months to come, and because the refugee ceiling is in Watson’s case (a case that surely will now work its way through the courts), the subject of the US Refugee Admissions Program will continue to be in the national news.  Thus more and more Americans will be learning the facts about what they have been paying for since 1980!

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch

As for the contractors (see list below), they would have been better off just shutting up and taking the 120-day (16 week) pause because 7 weeks have already passed since the original EO was announced on January 28th and they would be on their way through the slowdown.

Before you read the latest news about the Judge sticking by his original decision last week, see what refugee advocate and longtime expert Bill Frelick (Human Rights Watch) said in November after Trump was elected and the refugee industry went in to shell-shock:

“In the U.S., there’s not a quota that has to be filled. The U.S. has a budgeted amount of money to do refugee resettlement, but there’s no requirement that the U.S. resettle a single refugee, and there’s no legal obligation to do it.”

Here is one of many stories (this one at Fox News) this morning about Judge Watson telling the DOJ—no way, not changing a thing!

The federal judge in Hawaii who halted President Trump’s new, revised travel ban denied the administration’s request for him to limit the scope of his ruling Sunday so that the United States can immediately stop taking in refugees worldwide.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s order that prevents travelers from six mostly-Muslim countries entering the U.S. and suspends the United States’ worldwide refugee program.

Justice Department attorneys argued in a motion Friday that Watson’s temporary restraining order was essentially based on the argument that the ban appears to unconstitutionally target Muslims.

They questioned whether his ruling was limited to the part of Trump’s March 6 executive order that temporarily bans visas to travel from the six countries into the U.S., and not to the temporary refugee ban.

Watson responded Sunday by saying there was nothing unclear about the scope of his order and that the ruling remains unchanged.

More here.

As I said above, keep it up! The more public controversy surrounding the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program the better because then more American taxpayers will be educated!
For a laugh, don’t miss the news that Hawaii has taken only a tiny number of refugees for the last 14 years!

*** Here (below) are the nine major federal refugee contractors who now will see their budgets slashed (because they are largely funded by you, the taxpayer).  They know this judge is on thin ice on the President’s power to determine the number of refugees being admitted to the US.

Are they hoping that Watson can bully his way through and singlehandedly re-write the Refugee Act of 1980 turning a ceiling in to a target/goal—something the refugee industry has wanted for a long time!

By the way, for new readers, you need to know that your local resettlement agency will be a subcontractor of one of the nine fake charities that monopolize the federal refugee contracting system listed here:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Britain will ban electronic devices on flights from six Middle Eastern nations amid terror threat

Federal refugee grants to special ethnic groups “to promote community organizing”

Montana: Bill to Ban Foreign Laws Including Sharia Passes in House Jdiciary

trump obama spying

VIDEO REPORT: Documents Show Obama Surveilled Entire Trump Family For 8 Years

The Alex Jones Channel reports, “A new release of documents now shows that Donald Trump was completely correct about him being surveilled by Barack Obama.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

NSA Documents Prove Government Spying on Trump and Trump Tower for Years

Comey confirms FBI is probing links between Team Trump and Russia

FBI director: ‘No information’ to support Trump wiretapping claims

Suspense builds over FBI director hearing

Trump Provides Teachable Moments for Liberals

EDITORS NOTE: Please help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show

extortion-17 revised

VIDEO: President Trump must direct an Investigation into the shoot down of Extortion 17

Ninety-six days after the death of Osama bin Laden by SEAL Team Six, an old Vietnam era Army Reserve helicopter, call sign “Extortion 17,” was shot down in the Wardak Province, Tangi River Valley, Afghanistan on Aug 6, 2011. On board the Chinook CH-47D were 15 members of SEAL Team Six, 15 SEAL Team Six Support personnel, 1 Bomb Dog, 7 unidentified members of the Afghan National Army, and 1 unidentified Afghani interpreter.

died on extortion 17

The fallen heroes on Extortion 17

Currently, all autopsy reports are being held and sealed by the U.S. military. Three autopsies have been acquired by our private investigators revealing that there were bullets found in the bodies of one U.S. Navy Seal Team Six member and one U.S. Special Operations Support serviceman. The Autopsy reports list these deaths as homicides.

Two of the autopsy reports state the bullets, “recovered at autopsy were not retained because they are of no evidentiary value” and the bullets were subsequently thrown away.

How did America’s most elite warriors truly die?

To learn more about events surrounding the shoot down of Extortion 17 please click here.

RELATED VIDEO: Ninty-six days after the death of Osama bin Laden by SEAL Team Six, an old Vietnam era Army Reserve helicopter, call sign “Extortion 17,” was shot down in the Wardak Province, Tangi River Valley, Afghanistan on Aug 6, 2011. On board the Chinook CH-47D were 15 members of SEAL Team Six, 15 SEAL Team Six Support personnel, 1 Bomb Dog, 7 unidentified members of the Afghan National Army, and 1 unidentified Afghani interpreter.

Currently, all autopsy reports are being held and sealed by the US military. Three autopsies have been acquired by our private investigators revealing that there were bullets found in the bodies of one US Navy Seal Team Six member and one US Special Operations Support serviceman. The Autopsy reports list these deaths as homicides. Two of the autopsy reports state the bullets, “recovered at autopsy were not retained because they are of no evidentiary value” and the bullets were subsequently thrown away. How did America’s most elite warriors truly die.

hijab woman orange eye

What Is Canada Doing Celebrating Hijab Day?

  • The outrage is that Hijab Solidarity Day will be taking place under the auspices of the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. It is not the role of a democratic government to celebrate religious symbols or to help religions proselytize.
  • The government’s acceptance of an Ottawa Hijab Solidarity Day amounts to accepting a radical legal system that is completely contrary to Canada’s democratic values, and crosses the line that separates Church and State. Endorsing the hijab is endorsing the first step of an extremist ideology that leads to and condones honor killings, female genital mutilation (FGM) and the oppression of women.
  • In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani Muslim living in Toronto, was strangled to death by her father. Her crime was that, as a free woman in Canada, she chose not to wear a hijab. In another case in Canada, in 2012, four Muslim women were murdered by their own family for refusing to wear a hijab and preferring Western clothing.

On, February 1, 2017, Canada held public events celebrating the hijab, Islam’s physical repression of women.

The City for All Women Initiative (CAWI) organization, backed by the City Council of Ottawa, is hosting the Ottawa Hijab Solidarity Day celebration, also called “Walking with Our Muslims Sisters,” at City Hall. According to CAWI, the main purpose of this event is to encourage non-Muslim women to wear a hijab to understand life as a Muslim woman.

The outrage is that such an event will be taking place under the auspices of the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Under Islamic Shari’a law, the hijab is an expression of the suppression of women and is used as a tool to persecute women by their male counterparts.

For many secular and former Muslim women, the hijab is anything but a symbol of freedom. The hijab serves as a physical daily reminder that they, women, are second-class citizens in the eyes of Islam.

Proponents of the hijab threw me into an Iranian prison for 18 months when I was 16, for protesting Islamic extremism. My family and I were forced to flee; we finally found refuge in Canada.

I have since worked to expose the truth about the Shari’a-guided regime of Iran, as well as advocating for the emancipation of minorities and women.

While critics of CAWI’s event, including myself, have been wrongfully characterized as “Islamophobes,” this could not be further from the truth. A woman in Canada has the right to wear what she chooses — but why celebrate the hijab, any more than the crucifix or a skullcap? It is not the place of government to do that.

In Iran, where I was born, women are slowly beginning to stand up against the regime’s Shari’a-minded repression. One group, My Stealthy Freedom, describes itself as “an online social movement where Iranian women share photos of themselves without wearing the hijab.”

The fact that Muslim women in Iran go to such dangerous lengths, risking arrest and even death, to take a stand against their own religion’s oppression is in itself a significant act.

Forcing women to wear a hijab is not unique to Iran. In Afghanistan and some parts of Saudi Arabia, women face beatings, fines and even worse outcomes for showing their hair. In 2002, in Saudi Arabia, “religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress… the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Islam.” Fifteen girls died in the fire and more than 50 others were injured.

In a practice inaugurated by Muslims, purdah, women are shut away from society, literally imprisoned by their own families.

While one may assume that the persecution of Muslim women by Muslims does not take place within Canada’s borders, facts state otherwise. In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani Muslim living in Toronto, was strangled to death by her father. Her crime was that, as a free woman in Canada, she chose not to wear a hijab.

In another case in Canada, in 2012, Afghan-born Mohammad Shafia, his wife and their son were found guilty for the honor killing of the Shafia’s three daughters – Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13 — as well as Mohammad’s second wife, Rona Mohammad Amir, 50. All four women were murdered by their own family for refusing to wear a hijab and preferring Western clothing.

In 2007, Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old Pakistani Muslim living in Toronto, was strangled to death by her father. Her crime was that, as a free woman in Canada, she chose not to wear a hijab.

The municipal government’s acceptance of an Ottawa Hijab Day amounts to accepting a radical legal system that is completely contrary to Canada’s democratic values, and crosses the line that separates Church and State. Endorsing the wearing of the hijab is endorsing the first step of an extremist ideology that leads to and condones honor killings, female genital mutilation (FGM) and the oppression of women.

When this author wrote an open letter written to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, by way of response, his spokesman told the Ottawa Sun that the mayor will not intervene “in this difference of opinion between this individual and the event organizers” since the event “conforms with relevant policies… It is not my role to tell people what they should wear.” And it is not the role of a democratic government to celebrate religious symbols or to help religions proselytize.

Perhaps the Ottawa government would like to hold celebrations for “Ottawa Crucifix Solidarity Day,” “Ottawa Kippah Day” and “Ottawa Parsi Turban Day”?

The City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, seriously needs to reconsider its support for CAWI’s event.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Gatestone Institute website and has been updated. Please follow Shabnam Assadollahi on Twitter© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

hillary bill clinton

Hillary’s ‘Libyan legacy’ still responsible for invasion of Europe as Italy panics

Invasion of Europe news….

I’m not going to let you all forget that it was Hillary and her girls who were responsible for the overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar Ghaddafi that resulted in the opening of the flood gates from Africa to Europe for tens of thousands of mostly economic migrants from the heart of Africa to countries like Italy geographically on the frontline of the invasion.

Left to right – Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power

Even Obama didn’t have the stomach for the slaughter of Ghaddafi.  I followed the whole sorry tale from its earliest days here at RRW.

Of course the Europeans made that fatal mistake in the earliest days of the invasion by not turning back (using safe methods) the first boats that were launched from the Libyan coast. Now they rescue each one sending a signal to people smugglers to keep ’em coming!

Susan Rice, Hillary and Samantha Power. Hillary admitted that in 2011 Obama was reluctant to follow Europe’s lead and get involved in Libya, but that she marshaled the forces (including Susan Rice and Samantha Power) to persuade Obama to help overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Ultimately, she said, it was the President’s decision thereby tossing blame back on Obama when the results of her actions have proven so disastrous.

Here is the latest news from Middle East Monitor:

hillary-clinton-benghazi-phone-transcripts-696x364Italy panics as North Africa migrants surge

Italy will host a meeting between European and North African countries next week in a bid to strengthen support for an agreement it struck with Libya to fight people smuggling as migrant arrivals surge.

The prime minister of the UN-backed government in Tripoli, Fayez Al-Seraj, will meet with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and interior ministers from eight European countries including Germany and France on Monday.

Last month, Italy pledged money, training and equipment to help Libya fight people smugglers, a deal that was endorsed by European Union member states.

But Libya is still far from stable. Two governments are vying for power – in Tobruk to the east and Tripoli to the west – and the country remains mired in factional fighting and lawlessness.

The authorities in eastern Libya have rejected the deal struck between Rome and Tripoli.

“I’m not so naive as to not understand the situation there,” Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti told reporters. “But we cannot remain immobile and wait for the country to stabilise.”

He said the Libya agreement and next week’s meeting were not just “talk”, but strategic steps toward managing mass migration to Europe.

So far this year more than 16,000 migrants – a 36 per cent increase on the same period last year – have been rescued at sea and brought to Italy after Libya-based people smugglers piled them onto flimsy boats.

Don’t miss Hillary cackling about her success in killing Gaddafi. She looks like an absolute loon here:

Another version of Hillary’s looney laugh, is here. Don’t you think it might be too early for her to come out of the woods!

Our archives on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ are here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

If SD governor willing to do this, why not take next step, join the Tennessee States’ rights case?

MONTANA: Never too soon to make sure Islamic ‘sharia’ law doesn’t creep into your state as it has in others

The Hijab’s Progression To Symbol Of Political Oppression

Sterling Heights mosque

Michigan Mosque Delayed as Local Community Files Lawsuit

For background see our earlier post, here. And, take note that the Obama U.S. Attorney who sided with the mosque builders was one of those asked to resign by President Trump a few days ago.

From Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily (Christians who escaped persecution in Iraq are fighting back!):

The saga of the 21,000-square-foot mega-mosque in Sterling Heights, Michigan, is not over yet.

The mayor and city council voted Feb. 21 to settle a lawsuit by a Shiite Muslim group and allow it to build a mosque in a residential neighborhood populated largely by Chaldean Christian refugees who escaped Islamic persecution in Iraq.

Nahren Anweya

A companion suit against the city by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice alleging the city had denied the mosque a permit based on “anti-Muslim” sentiments in the community was also settled at the Feb. 21 meeting, paving the way for the mosque to start construction.

But the counter-lawsuit filed Monday argues that city officials were actually favoring the Shiite Muslims of neighboring Madison Heights while ignoring the wishes of its own citizens who were overwhelmingly against the mosque.

If built, the American Islamic Community Center, or AICC, will become the third mosque in Sterling Heights.

Second DOJ-imposed win for Muslims in less than year

It was the second bitter mosque battle in Southeastern Michigan in less than a year.

Obama’s DOJ forced a madrassa on Pittsfield Township, near Ann Arbor, and that town had to pay out $1.7 million to the mosque while sending township employees to be trained on how not to discriminate against Muslims.

After the contentious Feb. 21 meeting in Sterling Heights in which the mayor ordered police to empty the city-hall chambers before the council took a vote on the mosque deal, WND reported that the Chaldean Christians were upset and talking about a counter-lawsuit.

On Monday, they acted. They had Ann Arbor-based American Freedom Law Center, or AFLC, file a civil rights suit on their behalf against the city and Mayor Michael C. Taylor, alleging violations of state and federal law.

“The mayor and the corrupted personal interests behind him have outraged a community which is comprised of the largest minority Assyrian/Chaldean Christians from Iraq,” said Nahren Anweya, spokeswoman for the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians in Sterling Heights. “This minority group consists of more than four generations of refugees and genocide victims under radical Islam.”

Nahren Anweya, “This minority group consists of more than four generations of refugees and genocide victims under radical Islam.”

CAIR crows and threatens:

Dawud Walid, CAIR Michigan.

When the city agreed to settle the suit and allow the mosque to be built, the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, said the victory for the mosque should teach Michigan cities a lesson.

“We hope that this settlement, along with last year’s settlement in Pittsfield Township regarding a previously blocked Islamic school project, sends a strong message to city governments in Michigan seeking to deny zoning of religious institutions simply because they are led by Muslims,” said CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid.

An attorney for the AICC mosque, Azzam Elder, threatened to “monitor” local residents he felt were Islamophobic.

“Moving forward, we’re very concerned about some of what you’ve seen at the public hearings with some of the residents,” Elder told the Detroit News. “We’ll be monitoring what we feel (could be) potential hate groups.”

Hohmann’s story is very thorough.  I have only snipped a small portion of it, go here to learn more.

Besides the lawsuit, I’m thinking that the citizens there might follow the Rutland model and work very hard to remove (at the ballot box!) the elected officials who caved!

One of the great and lasting legacies of a naive federal refugee program is that the US State Department and its contractors have placed Middle Eastern groups who have been in conflict for centuries in close proximity to each other in American cities assuming, we can only presume, that their religious conflicts will melt away in the great (mythical?) American melting pot.

Learn more about CAIR Michigan’s Dawud Walid here: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2438/dawud-walid-unhinged#

RELATED ARTICLE: Michigan: Muslims fear “undercover” Christian missionaries in Dearborn coffee shop

M-103

Canadian poll: Only 14% like anti-Islamophobia motion M-103

Very good news is coming out of Canada, despite the forcefulness of the “anti-Islamophobia agenda” and the slackness of Liberal immigration policy, which has led to unvetted asylum seekers streaming into Canada from the U.S.

A new poll out by Forum Research reveals that only 14% of people support M-103, the anti-discrimination motion put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that singles out so-called Islamophobia.

Another poll has shown that 74 percent of Canadians want to see a “Canadian values” screening test for immigrants.

Any truly reformist Muslim should reject “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives, which are an element of the stealth Islamization of the West. Canada’s anti-Islamophobia motion M-103 is a follow-up to another motion, e-411, which was passed in parliament in October. E-411 “suggests that attributing terrorism to Islam is Islamophobia.” It stated:

We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

No one should be making declarations in the Canadian parliament about who represents Islam. Motion e-411 omits discussion of Muslim Brotherhood strategies for the Islamization of the West via peaceful means. For instance, Dr. Ewis El Nagar’s preaching that the Islamic ruling on slave girls was not abrogated would not appear to place him into the category of “extremist individuals” as defined by e-411, yet preaching such Sharia doctrines clearly is calling for violation of Western laws.

Liberal MP Raj Grewal revealed an ominous intention of the “anti-Islamophobia” motion during the M-103 parliamentary debate of February 15, 2017:

“One of the most important things about the motion that Canadians should understand is that it encourages a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws.”

“Propose laws.” Part of the argument in support of M-103 was that it was not in the form of a bill, but Grewal has now clearly stated that it is intended to guide attitudes and help in formulating policies that lead to legislation.

Western nations should not be allowing the imposition of religious edicts upon its citizens. The “Islamophobia” scheme of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to silence the freedom of speech in the West and impose Sharia blasphemy laws is no secret.

“Nobody likes M-103, new data reveals”, by Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, March 13, 2017:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is crying “Islamophobia” after his government ministers weren’t allowed to campaign in the Netherlands over the weekend in support of his bid to expand his presidential powers.

It’s just another reminder of why this vaguely defined buzzword should never be officially recognized by Western governments.

Thankfully, the vast majority of Canadians also see it this way. A new poll out by Forum Research reveals that only 14% of people support M-103, the anti-discrimination motion put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that singles out so-called Islamophobia.

Most respondents want to see some sort of change to the wording that brings it in line with suggestions made by Conservative MPs to either mention all religions or none. When broken down by political support, even 71% of Liberals are against the motion’s wording.

Nobody seems to like M-103. And you can’t blame them.

The main argument I’ve made against it is that the term is ripe for abuse. In many countries, “Islamophobia” is criminalized, used to punish apostates or critics of Islam.

Every year, Canada welcomes tens of thousands of people from these countries. While many are coming to escape such nonsense, others will be acclimatized to a broadly-defined “Islamophobia” and support its aggressive application here.

Erdogan’s use of the term is nowhere near as robust as how some Middle Eastern countries employ it.

But it’s still troubling given the context. Turkey has become increasingly Islamist in recent years. Since Erdogan first became prime minister over a decade ago, the federal religious affairs directorate has greatly expanded its budget and overseen the construction of 10,000 new mosques.

While the headscarf was once banned in the public service, it’s now encouraged and even worn by women for career advancement. The Economist notes the governing party has a “subtle but relentless Islamising influence”.

Last summer’s coup, if it had been successful, would have likely put an end to this religious encroachment. Previous coups, like the most recent in 1997, had similar goals.

Instead, Erdogan is now consolidating and expanding his powers. Government ministers are flying around Europe to cities with significant dual national populations, who are eligible to vote in next month’s constitutional referendum, to hold pro-Erdogan rallies. This understandably makes European politicians a tad bit nervous.

The Netherlands incident is far from the first time Erdogan has cried the “I” word. Last year he told CNN he supported “an official declaration that Islamophobia is a crime against humanity”. And right after Brexit he said it was Islamophobia that was keeping Turkey out of the EU.

A couple of weeks ago, German police conducted raids on the homes of four Muslim clerics who were accused of spying on behalf of the government. Religion was only a peripheral component in the police action, yet that didn’t stop the head of Turkey’s religious affairs directorate from denouncing it as “Islamophobia-based hatred.”

Make no mistake about it: There is a correlation between Erdogan’s stance against alleged Islamophobia and his power play to expand Turkey’s Islamist agenda. And it’s not a pleasant one.

Islamophobia is weaponized language and, whether this was Khalid’s intention or not, Canada’s legislators are being asking to give it a stamp of approval.

One of the biggest arguments the motion’s enablers push forward is that M-103 is no big deal because it’s just a motion. Yes and no. It does call for a committee study that creates a pathway to legislation……

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I shot the police’: Text message sent by ‘Radicalised Muslim’ who shot at cops before grabbing an officer’s gun at Paris Orly airport and being killed

Paris: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” slits throats of father and son, cops search for motive

Quebec imam says Islamic ruling allowing slave girls is still in force

“You are the future of Europe”: Erdogan urges Turks in EU to have at least 5 kids

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

merkle

Germany spent more than $21 BILLION on refugees in 2016 — crisis outstrips state budgets

Yet still Merkel refuses to change course, and wants to bring in still more Muslim migrants. She seems to be hell-bent on the destruction of Germany. She must be voted out, or she will achieve her goal.

“Germany ‘spent more than €20bn on refugees in 2016’ as crisis outstrips state budgets”, by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, March 10, 2017:

German states spent more than €20bn (£17.5bn) on refugees in 2016, government figures have indicated as Angela Merkel continues to come under pressure for her policy on migration.

Statistics seen by The Independent for the states of Bavaria, Schleswig-Holstein, Hesse and Berlin show that the cost of housing and integrating asylum seekers has far outstripped official predictions.

The Bundestag’s statistics service has listed a total spend of over €7bn (£6bn) for those four states alone in 2016, meaning the nationwide figure is likely to be far higher.

Johannes Singhammer, Vice President of the German parliament, told Die Welt: “[The figures] show that if the costs are added up for all federal states, around €23bn (£20bn) has probably been spent on migrants and refugees in 2016.”

The four states recorded have taken around a third of asylum seekers currently living in Germany, where more than a million have arrived since the start of the refugee crisis in 2015.

Berlin set aside €685m (£600m) for accommodation, unaccompanied minors, integration programmes, healthcare, language lessons and other projects but spent around €1.3bn (£1.1bn) in total – almost double the budget.

The state of Bavaria spent €3.3bn (£2.9bn), Hesse €1.6bn (£1.4bn) and Schleswig-Holstein €783.7m (£685.9m).

A spokesperson for the Bundestag’s statistics authority said a complete report would be made public when other states had calculated their spending.

An official survey conducted in December 2015 predicted that federal states would spend €17bn (£15bn) on dealing with the refugee crisis in the following year but with a huge backlog of asylum claims and difficulties with deportation, costs have spiralled beyond expectations.

Germany’s government has drawn up a new package of refugee funding for state authorities, as well as plunging money into new housing construction to prevent migrants sleeping in emergency accommodation like school gymnasiums and military barracks.

Despite the huge financial cost of the ongoing crisis, Germany’s federal government announced a budget surplus of €6.2bn (£5.4bn) last year.

The unprecedented number of refugees arriving in 2015 generated a huge backlog of claims that civil servants are still working to clear, with more than 430,000 cases outstanding at the start of 2017.

Thomas de Maizière, the German interior minister, said about 55,000 migrants returned home voluntarily, compared with 35,000 in 2015, while another 25,000 were forcibly deported….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Sebastian Gorka

Democrat Witch-hunt: Target Dr. Sebastian Gorka Deputy Assistant to President Trump

The Forward and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) endeavored to impugn the reputation of Deputy Assistant to President Trump Sebastian Gorka over the matter of his wearing a Hungarian medal issued by the regime of Hungarian Regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, a known anti-Semite. Instead their comeuppance by a critic of the Administration in a Tablet Magazine rebuttal and by this writer.

Here were The Forward allegations

The Forward reported the allegations of Perperdine Law School professor Bruce Einhorn, a former Immigration Law Judge and Office of Special investigations:

“The elite order, known as the Vitézi Rend, was established as a loyalist group by Admiral Miklos Horthy, who ruled Hungary as a staunch nationalist from 1920 to October 1944. A self-confessed anti-Semite, Horthy imposed restrictive Jewish laws prior to World War II and collaborated with Hitler during the conflict. His cooperation with the Nazi regime included the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews into Nazi hands.

Gorka’s membership in the organization — if these Vitézi Rend leaders are correct, and if Gorka did not disclose this when he entered the United States as an immigrant — could have implications for his immigration status. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual specifies that members of the Vitézi Rend “are presumed to be inadmissible” to the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Gorka — who Vitézi Rend leaders say took a lifelong oath of loyalty to their group — did not respond to multiple emails sent to his work and personal accounts, asking whether he is a member of the Vitézi Rend and, if so, whether he disclosed this on his immigration application and on his application to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2012. The White House also did not respond to a request for comment.

But Bruce Einhorn, a retired immigration judge who now teaches nationality law at Pepperdine University, said of this, “His silence speaks volumes.”

The group to which Gorka reportedly belongs is a reconstitution of the original group on the State Department list, which was banned in Hungary until the fall of Communism in 1989.

There are now two organizations in Hungary that claim to be the heirs of the original Vitézi Rend, with Gorka, according to fellow members, belonging to the so-called “Historical Vitézi Rend.” Though it is not known to engage in violence, the Historical Vitézi Rend upholds all the nationalist and oftentimes racial principles of the original group as established by Horthy.

Einhorn said these nuances did not relieve Gorka of the obligation, if he’s a member, to disclose his affiliation when applying for his visa or his citizenship.

“This is a group that advocates racialist nativism,” said Einhorn. If Gorka did not disclose his affiliation with it, he said, this would constitute “failure to disclose a material fact,” which could undermine the validity of both his immigration status and claim to citizenship.

The Tablet rebuttal and Gorka Statement

Liel Leibowitz in a Tablet Magazine article rebutted these salacious arguments by Forward and Professor Einhorn. See: “Tale of Trump Advisor’s Alleged Nazi Ties Unravels”:

Gorka himself told me that the allegations are flat-out false.

“I have never been a member of the Vitez Rend. I have never taken an oath of loyalty to the Vitez Rend. Since childhood, I have occasionally worn my father’s medal and used the ‘v.’ initial to honor his struggle against totalitarianism.” It’s a perfectly plausible explanation, and you’d have to be of a very specific mindset to still pursue allegations of Nazi affiliation.

Why didn’t Gorka simply tell this to The Forward? A source close to the White House, who was briefed on how the administration treated this story, explained things a little more to me.

“These guys genuinely believed that the allegations were so blatantly false and so aggressively poorly-sourced, that no responsible journalist would ever publish them,” the source told me on the phone. “Is Seb Gorka, whose family literally bears the scars of anti-fascist fights, a secret Nazi cultist? Come on now.”

If you’ve been following the Gorka story—the Forward’s accusation is hardly the first attempt to portray the aide as a bona fide Nazi—here’s what you know. Gorka’s father, Paul, was a dedicated member of the anti-Communist underground, and had risked his life to organize the Hungarian resistance and deliver vital information about the Soviets to western intelligence agencies, including the MI6. He was eventually arrested, badly tortured, spent two years in solitary confinement and some more in forced labor in the coal mines before eventually escaping to England.

Understandably, Gorka Jr. was deeply moved by his father’s dedication. It’s why, for example, he wore his father’s Vitézi Rend medal to President Trump’s inauguration. You may find this kind of devotion to be overly doting or even creepy, but if you’re being honest, the story here is simple and in some ways touching.

Sadly, that seems lost on my friends and colleagues at the Forward. Such unreason isn’t just bad for journalism—the Forward’s piece leaps from intimations of Nazism to suggestions that Gorka may be at risk of having his citizenship revoked—but also bad for democracy. I’ve been, and remain, a critic of the Trump Administration, but all criticism is meaningless unless it adheres to reason, refuses rank rumors, and focuses on substance rather than on slinging mud. Let’s all take a deep breath. The White House is no more overrun with Nazis as with secret Russian spies. To suggest otherwise is to further flame the kind of hysteria that, traditionally, has led to social unrest and delivered no good news to the Jews.”

Our rebuttal to the Forward

Having interviewed Dr. Gorka both during the former Lisa Benson Show and recently on 1330 AM WEBY Your Turn with colleague Mike Bates, published in the New English Review, we got to know about his parents’ courageous resistance to the Hungarian Communist Regime, and in his late father Paul’s case imprisonment, torture and release by resistance fighters during the 1956 Hungarian Revolt, before escaping to Britain as refugees.

They were too young during World War II to be involved with any Hungarian fascist movements especially, the notorious Arrow Cross.

Moreover, the hereditary medal that Dr. Gorka wears was given to his father by a Hungarian exile group for his resistance efforts against the Hungarian Communist regime.

We did some research about the medal he wears and at least one published source said that it may also have been awarded to Hungarian Jews for noteworthy service to Hungary.

Dr. Gorka to our direct knowledge is a supporter of Israel. In response to a question this writer posed to him during our interview on the importance of Israel as an ally in support of U.S. National Security interests in the Middle East, he responded: “There is no greater partner of the United States in the Middle East..Israel, as a beacon of democracy and stability in the Middle East is our closest friend in the region and the President has been explicit in that again and again. So it would be difficult to overestimate just how important Israel is not only to America’s interest in the region but also to the broader stability of the Middle East.” See: “The Trump Administration Views on Radical Islamic Jihadism: an interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President.”

We trust that like such previous false accusation against this valued immigrant and Trump Advisor that it will wither away with the disinfectant of truth.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberals Are So Desperate To Take Down Trump They’re Paying Thousands For Fake Docs

saudi-deputy-crown-prince-and-Trump

Saudi prince hails Trump as ‘strong President’ in fight against ‘dangerous’ Iran

“Saudi Arabia had viewed with unease the administration of US President Barack Obama, whom they felt considered Riyadh’s alliance with Washington less important than negotiating the Iran nuclear deal….The deputy crown prince viewed the nuclear deal as “very dangerous,” the senior adviser said, adding that both leaders had identical views on “the danger of Iran’s regional expansionist activities.”

Obama’s close and highly suspicious dealings with Iran include, in addition to the Iranian deal, as much as $33.6 billion in secret payments facilitated by the Obama administration, according to testimony provided before Congress. The Free Beacon also reported that the Obama Administration surrendered over $10 billion in gold, cash and other assets to Iran since 2013.

A senior adviser to Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman praised the meeting in a statement:

the meeting today restored issues to their right path and form a big change in relations between both countries in political, military, security and economic issues.

That glowing optimism may need to be toned down. Iran has earned its reputation as a rogue state, but Saudi Arabia is problematic too. Reports of a Saudi Arabia/Islamic State alliance have been ongoing, despite the so-called Saudi “friendship” with the West.

In 2010, Saudi Arabia was identified as “the single biggest contributor to the funding of Islamic extremism” and was said to be “unwilling to cut off the money supply.” Even Hillary Clinton, who — according to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — has accepted Saudi donations, said “in a secret memorandum that donors in the kingdom still ‘constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide’ and that ‘it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.’”

“SAUDI PRINCE: TRUMP A ‘STRONG PRESIDENT’ IN FIGHT AGAINST DANGEROUS IRAN”, Reuters, March 15, 2017:

WASHINGTON – Saudi Arabia hailed a “historical turning point” in US-Saudi relations after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman highlighted the two leaders’ shared view that Iran posed a regional security threat.

The meeting on Tuesday appeared to signal a meeting of the minds on many issues between Trump and Prince Mohammed, in a marked difference from Riyadh’s often fraught relationship with the Obama administration, especially in the wake of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“This meeting is considered a historical turning point in relations between both countries and which had passed through a period of divergence of views on many issues,” a senior adviser to Prince Mohammed said in a statement.

“But the meeting today restored issues to their right path and form a big change in relations between both countries in political, military, security and economic issues,” the adviser said.

Saudi Arabia had viewed with unease the administration of US President Barack Obama, whom they felt considered Riyadh’s alliance with Washington less important than negotiating the Iran nuclear deal.

Riyadh and other Gulf allies see in Trump a strong president who will shore up Washington’s role as their main strategic partner and help contain Riyadh’s adversary Iran in a region central to US security and energy interests, regional analysts said.

The deputy crown prince viewed the nuclear deal as “very dangerous,” the senior adviser said, adding that both leaders had identical views on “the danger of Iran’s regional expansionist activities.” The White House has said the deal was not in the best interest of the United States.

Iran denies interference in Arab countries.

PRAISE FOR TRUMP

The meeting was the first since Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration with the prince, who is leading the kingdom’s efforts to revive state finances by diversifying the economy away from a reliance on falling crude oil revenues.

Under the plan, which seeks to promote the private sector and make state-owned companies more efficient, Riyadh plans to sell up to 5 percent of state oil giant Saudi Aramco in what is expected to be the world’s biggest initial public offering.

The two leaders, who discussed opportunities for US companies to invest in Saudi Arabia, kicked off their talks in the Oval Office posing for a picture in front of journalists.

US Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, chief of staff Reince Priebus and strategist Steve Bannon were also present at the Oval Office meeting with Prince Mohammed.

The meeting also appeared to illustrate support for some of the most contentious issues that Trump has faced since taking office on Jan. 20.

On a travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries, the adviser said Prince Mohammed did not regard it as one that was aimed at “Muslim countries or Islam.”

Earlier this month Trump signed a revised executive order on banning citizens from Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Libya from traveling to the United States but removed Iraq from the list, after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the court

Trump’s travel ban has come under criticism for targeting citizens of several mainly Muslim countries. The senior adviser said Prince Mohammed “expressed his satisfaction after the meeting on the positive position and clarifications he heard from President Trump on his views on Islam.”

The senior adviser said the leaders discussed the “successful Saudi experience of setting up a border protection system” on the Saudi-Iraq border which has prevented smuggling.

Trump has vowed to start work quickly on the barrier along the nearly 2,000-mile US-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigrants and drugs from crossing to the north….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban

Former jihadist turned Christian evangelist warns of educational jihad against West

Judge Derrick Watson

Hawaii Judge Places Restraining Order on President’s Refugee Pause EO

Unless I find a definitive article about what exactly the judge in Hawaii ruled on the Trump Executive Order in the next couple of hours (I have a doc appt.), here is one news story from the AP (thanks to reader Theodore).

Judge Derrick Watson.

Also, according to several news sources discussing other pending cases, including Fox Newsone argument in the Maryland case is absolutely nuts.  I worry that judges ruling on the cases have no idea about what the US Refugee Act of 1980 says or how the program has been administered for 37 years!

Story “One Unelected Leftist Judge in Hawaii Decided Security for the Entire NationIt makes me want to scream!

The line that I see while searching just now, that is being spread by many news sources, is this one:

“The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it’s against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.”

We are assuming that comes from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society suit we reported here. The true gist of their argument is that they, the federal resettlement contractors, were expecting more paying “clients” and had built their budgets around the per head payment they were expecting with the unrealistic 110,000 refugees Obama said would come in the year he no longer was president!

For the umpteenth time, that 110,000 that Obama set last fall is a CEILING that the Administration says it will not surpass, it is not a goal!

And, that 110,000 was the highest Obama had ever set in his presidency.  Trump has the absolute authority to reduce the ceiling, but more importantly he can bring in any number under whatever he set, or whatever Obama set!

Forget the EO!

President Trump has all the authority he needs to not import any more refugees this entire year (I’m not sure that his team even knows that he has no legal obligation to bring in even 50,000!).

As of this morning, we have admitted 38,106 refugees this fiscal year (2017) via Wrapsnet.  783 refugees arrived in the ten day period from the announcement of this EO and today when the “moratorium” was to go in to effect.

I repeat!  The President does not have to call it a moratorium or include it in this EO. He can simply stop processing new refugees abroad with no further explanation!

President George W. Bush had 4 years under 50,000! His lowest year was 39,554.  Even Obama had two years under 60,000 and well below the ceiling!  See here.

Now look at this chart (below) very carefully.   When I found it at Wrapsnet, the last year, 2016, was not complete.  Know that we brought in just short of the 85,000 ceiling (a rare occurrence).

The federal refugee resettlement contractors have long wanted the president’s ‘determination’ each year to be a GOAL (a target) not a CEILING! But, the law says it is a ceiling. Look at the column for CEILING and the column for the number actually admitted!

What do you see?  Rarely does the number admitted reach the CEILING.

In FY2006, they were 28,777 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2007, they were 21,718 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2008, they were 19,809 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2009, they were 5,346 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2010, they were 6,689 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama?
In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”?

Obama got closer to the lowered CEILING over the next few years.

You get my drift!

Be sure to note that Obama never set a ceiling as high as 110,000 in all his previous years as president. That 110,000 was set in the final months of his final year! The average admissions over the years shown here is around 65,000. I could not find the chart that includes the last month of FY16, but we admitted only a few refugees short of the 85,000 ceiling because the Administration was hell-bent to get in thousands of Syrians.

I’m begging ignorant and lazy reporters to get the facts!

And, I am sure you are scared as heck, as I am, to see judges making decisions based on sheer ignorance of the law.

See my post from last Friday about how Hawaii hypocrites! have “welcomed” only a tiny number of refugees over the years—none from Africa and only 5 (total) from two Muslim countries.

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What 2 Obama Judges Got Wrong in Striking Down Travel Executive Order

California judge seeks to prevent immigration arrests inside state courts

Refuting, once again, the big lie about 18-24 months of vetting!

CIA

VIDEOS: Why We’re Being Watched by Kelly Wright

Wikileaks has just published over 8,000 files they say were leaked from the CIA, explaining how the CIA developed the capacity to spy on you through your phone, your computer, and even your television. And Wikileaks’s Julian Assange claims these “Vault 7” documents are just one percent of all the CIA documents they have.

The media will be combing through these for weeks or months, so now is a perfect moment for us to reconsider the role of privacy, transparency, and limited government in a free society.

We’ve put together a quick list of the six best Learn Liberty resources on government spying and whistleblowing to help inform this discussion.

1. War Is Why We’re Being Watched

Why is the US government spying on its citizens in the first place? Professor Abby Hall Blanco says that expansive state snooping at home is actually the result of America’s military interventionism abroad:

2. Is Privacy the Price of Security?

Yes, you may think, the government is snooping on us, but it’s doing that to keep us safe!

That’s the most common justification for sweeping and intrusive surveillance, so we held a debate between two experts to get right to the heart of it. Moderated by TK Coleman, this debate between Professor Ronald Sievert and Cindy Cohn, the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was inspired in part by the revelations about NSA surveillance leaked by Edward Snowden in June 2013.

3. Freedom Requires Whistleblowers

People are already drawing parallels between the Snowden leaks and the Vault 7 revelations. If the leaks are indeed coming from a Snowden-like whistleblower, that will once again raise the issue of government prosecution of people who reveal classified information to the public.

Professor James Otteson argues that a free society requires a transparent government, and whistleblowers play a key role in creating that accountability. Otteson also sounds a warning that should resonate with many Americans today:

Maybe you’re not concerned about the invasions of privacy that the federal government agencies are engaging in because you think, “Well, I haven’t done anything wrong. What do I have to fear?” Maybe you think, “I like and support this president. I voted for him.”

But what about the next president?  The powers that we let the government have under one president are the same powers that the next president will have too.

What if the next president is one you don’t support? He, too, will have all the power that you were willing to give the president you now support.”

4. Encryption Is a Human Rights Issue

Documents from Vault 7 suggest that the CIA has been so stymied by encrypted-messaging apps, such as Signal and Whatsapp, that it has resorted to taking over entire smartphones to read messages before they are sent.

That turns out to be a costly, targeted, and time-consuming business that doesn’t allow for mass data collection. But for decades, government officials have tried to require tech companies to give the government a backdoor into their encryption. In “Encryption Is a Human Rights Issue,” Amul Kalia argues that protecting encryption from government is essential to our safety and freedom.

5. The Police Know Where You Live

It turns out that it’s not just spy agencies that have access to detailed information about your life. Ordinary police officers have it, too, and they often face little supervision or accountability. As Cassie Whalen explains, “Across the United States, police officers abuse their access to confidential databases to look up information on neighbors, love interests, politicians, and others who had no connection to a criminal investigation.”

Surveillance is a serious issue at every level of government.

6. Understanding NSA Surveillance

If you’re ready to take your learning to the next level, check out our complete video course on mass government surveillance with Professor Elizabeth Foley. In it, you’ll learn what you need to know to make sense of the NSA scandal in particular and mass surveillance in general.

Reprinted from Learn Liberty.

Kelly Wright

Kelly Wright

Kelly Wright is an Online Programs Coordinator at the Institute for Humane Studies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Deterrence and Human Nature

Vault-7-CIA

WTH?! 1984 is Here to Stay – Proof is Vault 7

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo…

This article is addressed to the public in general, but especially the media, i.e., journalists who should know better but don’t.

Last week, WikiLeaks released classified documents relating to CIA-funded surveillance programs and techniques.  Under the code-name Vault 7, Julian Assange’s organization has so far disclosed only a small fraction (1%) of the total documents, which they claim to be the “largest intelligence publication in history.”  The “Year 0” release contains 7,818 web pages and 943 attachments.  (You can view the entire Vault 7 ‘Year 0’ collection here.  For a good overview of what Vault 7 consists of and some potential implications, follow this link.)

Some of the more sensational activities documented in Vault 7 explain how the CIA has retained, through electronic and programming loopholes and proprietary technology, an ability to remotely activate a variety of personal electronic devices, enabling them to – for example – listen to private conversations within earshot of your smartphones microphone.  Ostensibly, this is also true for cameras (e.g., on your smartphone phone, laptop, iPad, on your television).

For many Americans, this news comes as an unwelcome surprise.  Before we continue, let’s pause and examine whether the public outcry is justified.

You’re being listened to, recorded, and watched – and have been for a while

1984 is not fiction, it’s fact.  Electronic surveillance (or ELINT, electronic intelligence) is nothing new – it’s old.  Phone and all other transmission lines have been wiretapped for decades at least.  America, and our enemies and allies alike, spy on each other literally constantly.  You shouldn’t be surprised.  All governments surveil their domestic population for a variety of lawful, well-intentioned, and important reasons.  For example, to combat organized crime, the drug trade, and also counter-terrorism.

If you were born after 1950, wiretapping has been pervasive (yet likely unnoticed, in the background) for your entire life.  Unless you’re a criminal (or just plain paranoid), it’s highly unlikely these methods were ever of personal concern to you.  It’s totally unlikely that the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. ever bothered to listen to, much less analyze your chit chat.  The extent to which the average person’s  phone calls, emails, or internet usage, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. are scrutinized is in the form of metadata, i.e. global data used to determine norms, from which aberrations of interest can be identified and selected for further analysis.

There’s far too much data generated daily for even an army of intelligence analysts to review in any detail.

You get what you pay for (and even more)

“An army” is not an exaggeration.  Let’s take a look at some figures related to Vault 7 and, more broadly, the entire intelligence community.

Please note that the figures below are estimates, as exact figures are classified.*

NSA

  • Budget: $18.0 billion
  • Employees: 35,000 – 55,000
  • Salary (dependent on position): $60,000 – $115,000

CIA

  • Budget: $14.7 billion
  • Employees: 21,575
  • Salary: $100,000

National Intelligence Program (NIP) and Military Intelligence Program (MIP) Budgets

  • Total National Intelligence Program Budget (2016): $53.9 billion
  • Total Military Intelligence Program Budget (2016): $17.9 billion
  • Total Intelligence Budget: $71.8 billion

* All figures as-of 2016 or as current as possible.

With all of that money and all of those people, what does the public think they should do?  The security of the nation relies on the ability to discreetly collect accurate information by all means available, many which seem futuristic.  With $25.3 billion per year (2013) spent on data collection alone, we can expect and should demand that the CIA and NSA develop novel and sophisticated technological tools, and use them at their – legal – discretion.

Capability vs. Usage

A word should be said to differentiate between capability and usage.  Vault 7 proves that the CIA has the ability to electronically surveil anyone they wish to.  However, so far there is no proof that these programs are widely and systematically abused to target the innocent.  There are numerous legal protections in place that protect the public, such as the need for court warrants and the FISA court itself.  Again, the average member of the innocent public will never be affected by government surveillance.

Private Sector Cooperation and Investment

Of course, the CIA and NSA don’t work in a cocoon.  Their international counterparts are linked via programs such as CRUCIBLE, ECHELON, Perseus, TREMOR, UMBRAGE etc.  There is also a significant involvement in private sector, to the point of active investment in emerging HAL 3000-type technologies.

Enter In-Q-Tel, established in 1999, at the peak of the dot-com boom.  (Maybe “global warming” pundit Al Gore really did invent the internet after all?  After all, who knows?)

Officially, independent from the CIA, In-Q-Tel “invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology.”  Think “Q,” the techie character from James Bond.

Founded by a former Lockheed Martin executive, the portfolio of this company reads like an encyclopedia of modern information technology.  Consider: they’re behind companies/technologies such as Google Earth, Palantir Technologies (Peter Thiel’s company), automatic language translation, geospatial imaging, virtual reality, search engines and malware protection, and many, many others.

Studying an organization like In-Q-Tel, it is easy to see how high tech military and intelligence investment helps drive technological progress.

Assange’s Offer

Recently, FBI Director James Comey was quoted as saying there is “no such thing as absolute privacy in America.”

Noting the considerable outcry by the public at these revelations, Julian Assange has offered to work with hardware manufacturers and software companies to address bug fixes and shortcomings outlined in Vault 7.

For all Assange’s critics, and there are many, this move is telling of his motivations: like thousands of other privacy advocates, he genuinely believes in real privacy.  He acts out of personal conviction, without greed, and is totally apolitical.

Conclusion?

This may come as a surprise to our readers, but the leaking, release, and dissemination of Vault 7 should be viewed in a positive light.  While the leaking of this classified information does pose many risks and questions, now that it is available for public scrutiny, why not look on the bright side?

We now have incontrovertible proof that the United States and closest allies have the tools to not only fight, but decisively defeat, our various enemies.  The intelligence community should deploy these tools to their maximum potential against all those who seek to do us great harm and destroy us.

We possess the technical and imaginative abilities to achieve victory and should aim for total surrender.  Time to take off the gloves!

Waiting for the next chapter of this unfinished technical/political saga…

geert wilders at protest january 23rd

Did Geert Wilders Win by Losing?

geert wilders party logoGeert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) lost in the March 15, 2017 elections to Mark Rutte of the conservative Freedom and Democracy VVD, who will be asked by King Willem to form a new ruling coalition government.

Rutte’s VVD won 32 seats, while Wilders’ PVV won 22 seats in the 150 seat lower house of the Hague parliament, the tweeder kamer.

While the PVV won second position in the general election results there is a razor thin margin over third place Christian Democrats (CD) which might change in the final vote tally. Wilders did win the port city of Rotterdam despite its Muslim mayor. Moreover the Dutch Labor Party (PDVA) took a shellacking.

Wilders touts that he won more votes than in 2012, while Rutte’s VVD lost 9 seats; 32 versus 41.

Wilders indicated he might join a coalition government headed by Rutte if asked. Rutte was fairly adamant during the campaign that he and other center parties would not invite Wilders and PVV. Wilders loss today ensures that a Rutte led government would remain in the EU. Wilders had proposed a NExit from the EU.

Rutte’s victory reflected his move to some of the nationalist and anti Muslim immigration positions of Wilders. That figured in his ousting one Turkish cabinet minister and denying the Foreign minister from holding rallies in the Netherlands seeking Dutch Turkish votes in a national referendum that wound confer executive powers on Turkish autocrat President Erdogan. Erdogan had accused Rutte of acting like “Nazi remnants” that the latter strenuously condemned.

Some analysts we had posted on thought that Wilders losing the Dutch Premiership may still have won reflected in the shift by Rutte and other parties to some of Wilders’ more nationalist and Dutch values views. Further, Wilders might have some leverage as Rutte is unlikely to enlist the vanquished Labor Party in order to reach the required 76 seats plurality to form a ruling coalition.

Hence the formation of the new government under Rutte’s third term as PM could take a while.

RELATED ARTICLES:

European Populism Not ‘Going Away’ Despite Dutch Election Result

Dutch Elections: Pyrrhic Victory As Mainstream Party Clings to Power

eiffel-tower-at-dawn-paris

JUST RELEASED: Troubled Dawn of the 21st Century

troubled dawn book coverA a chronicle from the turning point September 28-30 2000 to Gaza withdrawal and beyond January 2006.

“…a new world order is taking shape before our eyes. Will it be a world faithful to democratic values, and huddled under the umbrella of American military might, or a world delivered up to the logic of blackmail: we can do this to you because you don’t know how much we suffer and you can’t hit back at us because if you do we’ll send the whole world down the tubes. What is happening to Israelis today will happen to every one of us tomorrow.” – Troubled Dawn, April 2002

July 2000.

The Oslo Process reaches a dead end with the failure of the Camp David talks. What did you know about Islam then? September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon’s “provocative” visit to the Temple mount triggers riots in Israel. Two days later, an international blood libel, the “killing” of Mohamed Al Dura, breaks the taboo against genocidal Jew hatred. Did you know the scene was staged?

Al Aqsa Intifada! “Suicide bombers” go on a killing spree in Israel. In fact, they were martyrdom operations committed by shahids. The French called them kamikaze.

The floodgates opened, spewing murderous rhetoric and thuggish antisemitic violence worldwide. We were told peace process, national liberation, two-state-solution, and the Palestinian plight. Who knew that 9/11 was on the horizon? Did we understand why Israel and, by extension, the Jews were held responsible for endless atrocities committed against us? Accused of disproportionate force? What did I know about the history of jihad conquest?

American, Jewish, consecrated to the art of the novel, living in Paris since 1972, I found myself in the European heart of that upheaval. I set aside my literary research and focused on the 3-dimensional international novel unfolding before my eyes.

Troubled Dawn is the writer’s notebook I opened at that tipping point in contemporary history, my learning curve, a bildungsroman, a singular account of events as they unfolded. No retrospective reconstitution could ever convey the dramatic suspense of those years.

Perplexed, wounded, horrified by the power of the media and self-appointed experts to hone public opinion into a destructive weapon I forged my own tools to understand and resist those hostile forces. Hundreds of pages of notebook entries published here for the first time, interspersed with my earliest articles, trace my itinerary from an alarmed citizen to an internationally recognized journalist.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may order Troubled Dawn of the 21st Century by clicking here.