Category Archives: common core education

Hillary’s Collusion and Favors via Ecuador

Posted on by

Paying to play goes from the Senate to the State Department. Video here.

MIAMI — The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials.

The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.

It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador.

The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.

The Obama administration has allowed the family’s patriarchs, Roberto and William Isaías, to remain in the United States, refusing to extradite them to Ecuador. The two brothers were sentenced in absentia in 2012 to eight years in prison, accused of running their bank into the ground and then presenting false balance sheets to profit from bailout funds. In a highly politicized case, Ecuador says the fraud cost the country $400 million.

The family’s affairs have rankled Ecuador and strained relations with the United States at a time when the two nations are also at odds over another international fugitive: Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, who has taken refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

But while scrutiny has typically focused on whether the family’s generous campaign donations have helped its patriarchs avoid extradition, the unorthodox help given to Ms. Isaías, the daughter of Roberto, has received little attention.

In the spring of 2011, Ms. Isaías, a television executive, was in a difficult situation.

Her father and uncle were Ecuadorean fugitives living in Miami, but she was barred from entering the United States after she brought maids into the country under false visa pretenses and left them at her parents’ Miami home while she traveled.

“Alien smuggling” is what American consular officials in Ecuador called it.

American diplomats began enforcing the ban against Ms. Isaías, blocking her from coming to Miami for a job with a communications strategist who had raised up to $500,000 for President Obama.

What happened next illustrates the kind of access and influence available to people with vast amounts of money.

A Senator’s Assistance 

For more than a year, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and his staff engaged in a relentless effort to help Ms. Isaías, urging senior government officials, including Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, to waive the ban. The senator’s assistance came even though Ms. Isaías’s family, a major donor to him and other American politicians, does not live in his state.

The Obama administration then reversed its decision and gave Ms. Isaías the waiver she needed to come to the United States — just as tens of thousands of dollars in donations from the family poured into Mr. Obama’s campaign coffers.

An email from Mr. Menendez’s office sharing the good news was dated May 15, 2012, one day after, campaign finance records show, Ms. Isaías’s mother gave $40,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, which provided donations to the president and other Democrats.

“In my old profession as a prosecutor, timelines mean a lot,” said Ken Boehm, a former Pennsylvania prosecutor who is chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog. “When a donation happens and then something else happens, like the favor, as long as they are very, very close, that really paints a story.”

In 2012, the Isaías family donated about $100,000 to the Obama Victory Fund. Campaign finance records show that their most generous donations came just before a request to the administration.

Ms. Isaías’s mother, María Mercedes, had recently donated $30,000 to the Senate campaign committee that Mr. Menendez led when she turned to him for help in her daughter’s case. At least two members of Mr. Menendez’s staff worked with Ms. Isaías and her father, as well as lawyers and other congressional offices, to argue that she had been unfairly denied entry into the United States.

Over the course of the next year, as various members of the Isaías family donated to Mr. Menendez’s re-election campaign, the senator and his staff repeatedly made calls, sent emails and wrote letters about Ms. Isaías’s case to Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mills, the consulate in Ecuador, and the departments of State and Homeland Security.

After months of resistance from State Department offices in Ecuador and Washington, the senator lobbied Ms. Mills himself, and the ban against Ms. Isaías was eventually overturned.

Mr. Menendez’s office acknowledged going to bat for Ms. Isaías, but insisted that the advocacy was not motivated by money.

“Our office handled this case no differently than we have thousands of other immigration-related requests over the years, and to suggest that somehow the senator’s longstanding and principled beliefs on immigration have been compromised is just plain absurd,” said Patricia Enright, the senator’s spokeswoman.

Ms. Enright said Mr. Menendez’s office worked on the case because Ms. Isaías had previously been allowed to travel to the United States six times despite the ban, and the decision to suddenly enforce it seemed arbitrary and wrong. She said the senator routinely acted on cases he got from across the nation.

In the Isaías case, the senator wrote seven letters for various members of the family, including four on April 2, 2012, alone.

Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, lobbied on behalf of Estefanía Isaías, though she is not a constituent. Mel Evans/Associated Press

A month after succeeding in Ms. Isaías’s case, Mr. Menendez sent another letter to the head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to waive a ban on her sister, María — who had also been deemed an immigrant smuggler because she had brought maids into the United States and left them with her parents while she traveled abroad.

As that letter went out, their mother gave $20,000 more to the Obama Victory Fund.

Immigration officials forwarded the senator’s inquiries to Homeland Security Investigations, the immigration bureau’s investigative arm. Officials there noticed that the Isaías family had made several donations to the senator, and informed the F.B.I. in Miami.

Agents with Homeland Security Investigations are working to have the Isaías brothers deported. The Ecuadorean government has repeatedly requested that the men be extradited, but Washington has declined, saying that the extradition request was poorly prepared and did not meet legal standards. The criminal case in Ecuador was also marred by irregularities.

Support on Capitol Hill

The Isaías brothers consider themselves political exiles unfairly attacked by the Ecuadorean government and have garnered support on Capitol Hill, where sentiment against Ecuador’s leftist president runs strong.

But the case involving Estefanía could prove awkward for Mrs. Clinton, who was in charge of the State Department at the time high-ranking officials overruled the agency’s ban on Ms. Isaías for immigration fraud, and whose office made calls on the matter

Alfredo J. Balsera, the Obama fund-raiser whose firm, Balsera Communications, sponsored Ms. Isaías’s visa, was featured recently in USA Today as a prominent Latino fund-raiser backing Mrs. Clinton for president in 2016.

Mr. Balsera declined repeated requests to explain what work Ms. Isaías had done for his company, which has close ties to the Obama administration. To stay in the country under her three-year visa, Ms. Isaías would have to remain employed by Balsera Communications, request a change of immigration status or get another employer to sponsor her.

The company website does not list her as one of its 12 employees, though it has biographies and photos of even junior account executives, and news releases were issued when others were hired. Ms. Isaías’s name has not been mentioned on the company’s blog, Facebook page or Twitter timeline, and she is not present in any of the dozens of photographs posted on social media sites of company outings, parties, and professional and social events.

David A. Duckenfield, a partner at the company who is now on leave for a position as deputy assistant secretary of public affairs at the State Department, said Ms. Isaías worked for the firm but declined to comment further. Another senior executive at the firm said she must work outside the office because he had never heard of her.

Cheryl Mills, who was former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief of staff. Michael Buckner/Getty Images for J/P Haitian Relief Organization and Cinema for Peace

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton and her chief of staff, Ms. Mills, denied any special treatment for Ms. Isaías. Although Ms. Mills is unlikely to serve in any official capacity on a potential 2016 presidential campaign, she would undoubtedly be a strong behind-the-scenes presence and one of a small number of longtime advisers whom Mrs. Clinton would rely on for advice.

“There are rigorous processes in place for matters such as these, and they were followed,” said the spokesman, Nick Merrill. “Nothing more, nothing less.”

A White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, declined to comment, saying that visas are issued free from political interference by other federal agencies.

‘Not His Constituents’

Linda Jewell, the American ambassador in Quito, Ecuador, from 2005 to 2008, when Ms. Isaías’s immigration fraud was detected, said the intervention in Ms. Isaías’s case was far from routine.

“Such close and detailed involvement by a congressional office in an individual visa case would be quite unusual, especially for an applicant who is not a constituent of the member of Congress,” Ms. Jewell said after reviewing emails and documents related to the case. “This example of inquiry is substantially beyond the usual level of interest.”

Others have expressed concern. When Mr. Menendez’s office reached out to Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to get him to write a letter on Ms. Isaías’s behalf, his office refused.

The office “discovered from the State Department that there were some red flags associated with the individual in question, and we took no further action,” said Mr. Nelson’s spokesman, Dan McLaughlin.

Mr. Boehm, the former Pennsylvania prosecutor, said Senate ethics rules allowed members of Congress to reach out to the administration on behalf of a constituent. “Members of Congress do a lot for their constituents,” Mr. Boehm said.

“These folks are not his constituents,” he added, referring to Mr. Menendez.

The Isaías family did not return several requests for comment. Ms. Isaías did not respond to emails and messages left at her home in Miami. Her lawyer, Roy J. Barquet, did not respond to phone and email messages.

In an interview this year, Roberto Isaías said the family’s donations were targeted to members of Congress who fight for human rights and freedom of speech in Latin America. He said he had met Mr. Menendez once or twice. “If you go to his website,” Mr. Isaías said, “it says, ‘If you have an immigration problem, call me.’ ”

The senator’s website does offer such casework assistance, under a category titled “Services for New Jerseyans.”

Executive Orders vs. Executive Memorandums

Posted on by

Law versus and order versus a memo….are they all legal? Can the Supreme Court challenge White House written edicts to cabinet secretaries or is this expanding presidential authority outside the scope of the Constitution?

For more on the debate and the difference in executive actions click here.

***

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He’s used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he’s used his executive power less than other presidents. “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.

He’s already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He’s also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he’s the first to use them more often than executive orders.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he’s had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, ‘He can’t be abusing his executive authority; he’s hardly using any orders,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. “But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power.”

So even as he’s quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies, Obama and his allies have claimed he’s been more restrained in his use of that power.

In a Senate floor speech in July, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years.”

The White House would not comment on how it uses memoranda and executive orders but has previously said Obama’s executive actions “advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility.”

“There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did,” said Jay Carney, then the White House press secretary, in February.

Carney, while critical of Bush’s executive actions, also said it wasn’t the number of executive actions that was important but rather “the quality and the type.”

“It is funny to hear Republicans get upset about the suggestion that the president might use legally available authorities to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility, when obviously they supported a president who used executive authorities quite widely,” he said.

While executive orders have become a kind of Washington shorthand for unilateral presidential action, presidential memoranda have gone largely unexamined. And yet memoranda are often as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders. For example:

• In his State of the Union Address in January, Obama proposed a new retirement savings account for low-income workers called a MyRA. The next week, he issued a presidential memorandum to the Treasury Department instructing it to develop a pilot program.

• In April, Obama directed the Department of Labor to collect salary data from federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor whether they’re paying women and minorities fairly.

• In June, Obama told the Department of Education to allow certain borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% of income.

They can also be controversial.

AVOIDING ‘IMPERIAL OVERREACH’

Obama issued three presidential memoranda after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago. They ordered federal law enforcement agencies to trace any firearm that’s part of a federal investigation, expanded the data available to the national background check system, and instructed federal agencies to conduct research into the causes and possible solutions to gun violence.

Two more recent memos directed the administration to coordinate an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system — a move that congressional Republicans say exceeded his authority. Of the dozens of steps Obama announced as part of his immigration plan last month, none was accomplished by executive order.

Executive orders are numbered — the most recent, Executive Order 13683, modified three previous executive orders. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify.

Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders.

Indeed, many of Obama’s memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order.

• In 1970, President Nixon issued an executive order on unneeded federal properties. Forty years later, Obama issued a similar policy by memorandum.

• President George W. Bush established the Bob Hope American Patriot Award by executive order in 2003. Obama created the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Diplomacy by memorandum in 2012.

• President Bush issued Executive Order 13392 in 2005, directing agencies to report on their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. On his week in office, Obama directed the attorney general to revisit those reports — but did so in a memorandum.

“If you look at some of the titles of memoranda recently, they do look like and mirror executive orders,” Lowande said.

The difference may be one of political messaging, he said. An “executive order,” he said, “immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of ‘imperial overreach.'” Memorandum sounds less threatening.

Though they’re just getting attention from some presidential scholars, White House insiders have known about the power of memoranda for some time. In a footnote to her 1999 article in the Harvard Law Review, former Clinton associate White House counsel Elena Kagan — now an Obama appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court — said scholars focused too much on executive orders rather than presidential memoranda.

Kagan said Clinton considered memoranda “a central part of his governing strategy,” using them to spur agencies to write regulations restricting tobacco advertising to children, allowing unemployment insurance for paid family leave and requiring agencies to collect racial profiling data.

“The memoranda became, ever increasingly over the course of eight years, Clinton’s primary means, self-consciously undertaken, both of setting an administrative agenda that reflected and advanced his policy and political preferences and of ensuring the execution of this program,” Kagan wrote.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Presidential scholar Phillip Cooper calls presidential memoranda “executive orders by another name, and yet unique.”

The law does not define the difference between an executive order and a memorandum, but it does say that the president should publish in the Federal Register executive orders and other documents that “have general applicability and legal effect.”

“Something that’s in a presidential memorandum in one administration might be captured in an executive order in another,” said Jim Hemphill, the special assistant to the director for the government’s legal notice publication. “There’s no guidance that says, ‘Mr. President, here’s what needs to be in an executive order.’ ”

There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a “citation of authority,” saying what law it’s based on. Memoranda have no such requirement.

Obama, like other presidents, has used memoranda for more routine operations of the executive branch, delegating certain mundane tasks to subordinates. About half of the memoranda published on the White House website are deemed so inconsequential that they’re not counted as memoranda in the Federal Register.

Sometimes, there are subtle differences. President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10789 in 1958 giving emergency contracting authority to the Department of Defense and other Cabinet departments. President Bush added other departments in 2001 and 2003, but he and Obama both used memoranda to give temporary authority to the U.S. Agency for International Development to respond to crises in Iraq and western Africa.

When the president determines the order of succession in a Cabinet-level department — that is, who would take over in the case of the death or resignation of the secretary — he does so by executive order. For other agencies, he uses a memorandum.

Both executive orders and memoranda can vary in importance. One executive order this year changed the name of the National Security Staff to the National Security Council Staff. Both instruments have been used to delegate routine tasks to other federal officials.

‘THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT’

Whatever they’re called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.

The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there’s no difference between the two. “It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner,” said a 2000 memo from Acting Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss to the Clinton White House. He cited a 1945 opinion that said a letter from President Franklin Roosevelt carried the same weight as an executive order.

The Office of Legal Counsel signs off on the legality of executive orders and memoranda. During the first year of Obama’s presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel asked Congress for a 14.5% budget increase, justifying its request in part by noting “the large number of executive orders and presidential memoranda that has been issued.”

Other classifications of presidential orders carry similar weight. Obama has issued at least 28 presidential policy directives in the area of national security. In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year, a federal court ruled that these, too, are “the functional equivalent of an executive order.”

Even the White House sometimes gets tripped up on the distinction. Explaining Obama’s memoranda on immigration last month, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president would happily “tear up his own executive order” if Congress passes an immigration bill.

Obama had issued no such executive order. Earnest later corrected himself. “I must have misspoke. I meant executive actions. So I apologize,” he said.

Behind The Playbooks for Domestic Protests

Posted on by

When in 2012, the Republican National Committee put out an intelligence report to be on the look out for Lisa Fifthian, the homework has already been completed. When an intelligence report lists one or more names, there are others and many you should know by now.

There are playbooks that are used for training nationally regardless of the event that stirs and inspired protests. None of this is especially new but it predicts events as we have seen in Ferguson, Missouri, Oakland, California, Boston, Massachusetts, Washington, DC, and New York.

The manuals by Lisa Fifthian leads to violence and goes back many many years. Lisa has been active going back to the 1970’s. Yet since 1999, she has been very busy cultivating nefarious friends and scheduling protests.

Since the successful Shut-Down of the World Trade Organization, WTO  in Seattle in 1999, Lisa has worked extensively in the Global Justice movement. Lisa provided trainings and was actively involved in WTO and helped found the Continental Direct Action Network afterwards.  Lisa organized against the WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico, 2003, where the talks also collapsed. She played a coordinating role at the Republican and Democratic Conventions in 2000 and 2004 with her primary focus on the 2000 Democratic Convention in LA and the 2004 Republican Convention in New York City.

Lisa led nonviolent direct action trainings and helped facilitate the street actions at the IMF/World Bank meetings in Washington DC (2000, 2001, 2002), Prague (2000) and Ottawa (2002). She helped organize against the World Economic Forum in New York (2002) and at the FTAA Summit in Quebec (2001) and in Miami (2003). Lisa has organized at the G8 Summits in Genoa, Italy (2001), Calgary, Canada (2002), Evian, Switzerland (2003) Brunswick, Georgia, USA (2004), Gleneagles, Scotland (2005) and most recently in Heilingdamm, Germany (2007) and Sapporo, Japan (2008). In 2003, Lisa spent several weeks in Palestine, working with the International Solidarity Movement acting as a human shield for Palestinians in Jenin and Nablus and to prevent the demolition of homes.

Lisa has also worked for environmental justice in Texas supporting Save Our Springs Alliance, helping to found the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance in 2002, which has grown to over 40 groups in Central Texas and working with the Environmental Support Center to bring over 12 EJ grants to Texas groups.

Lisa has been active in trying to end the most recent war in Iraq, serving on United for Peace and Justice’s national steering committee since 2003 and organizing protests in New York, Washington DC, Austin and Houston, TX.   In 2005, Lisa provided direct support to Cindy Sheehan at Camp Casey in the ditch in Crawford, TX helping to coordinate daily activities and actions.  Lisa then coordinated the Bring Them Home Now Tour, consisting of 3 caravans that led to over 200 events in 52 cities in 28 states in 25 days.

Remember the teachers union protests in Chicago?  Who organized the Ferguson protests and provided training?

What about that ‘Green’ agenda that began in Wisconsin as we see with this headline: Wisconsin becomes a hotbed of Green electorates

Don’t forget the Green Czar, Van Jones that went to work in the White House under Barack Obama and when outed by Glenn Beck, he tendered his immediate resignation and left in the middle of the night.

So, let’s look at Lisa’s tools. Without shame, one title of her work is ‘Tools for Organizers, Activists, Educators and Other Hell-Raisers.

Two other organizations that subscribe to Lisa’s work, her training platform and her calendar of activities are the ACLU and the Ruckus Society. The manual for the Ruckus Society is here and the ACLU has a manual as well, found here.

Just in case you are not convinced, perhaps a once secret document explains more.  Published by the New York Times:

SECRET
27 February 2004
Key Findings
MILITANT ACTIVIST ARRESTED IN PBMN; SUBJECT FOUND IN POSSESSION OF BOMB-MAKING INSTRUCTIONS AS WELL AS RNC RELATED LITERATURE o Names specific political and logistical targets for terrorism and makes reference to upcoming RNC. o Refers to Times Square as “The next ground zero.”
ACTIVIST GROUP PLANNING MARCH FROM BOSTON TO NEW YORK CITY o March to be comprised of both anti DNC and RNC activist groups. o Group claimed to have already contacted leaders of groups currently organizing protests in Boston and New York City.
INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT GAINING SUPPORT FOR MARCH 20rn WEST COAST ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION; PROMINENT MEMBER OF ISM ALIGNING HIMSELF WITH ANARCHIST GROUP
o ISM organizers anticipate substantial support and participation in March 20th anti- war demonstration in San Francisco.
o Jaggi Singh, a prominent member of the ISM, has reportedly been aligning himself with an anarchist prisoner rights group.
PROMINENT ACTIVISTS WHO WILL BE PRESENT IN NEW YORK CITY DURNIG THE AUGUST 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
o Lisa Fithian (Continental Direct Action Network) will reportedly be present in New York City during the RNC to provide support for arrested protestors.

 

The question becomes where is the FBI? Calculating the costs of increased law enforcement as well as damage to property remains a growing number.

Hey Gruber, Read This

Posted on by

This week Jonathan Gruber was a witness in an Oversight hearing where he refused to answer questions regarding his compensation from several sources for his expert financial and economic consultations regarding the Affordable Care Act.

While being coached by his lawyer and likely several others to be contrite over his offensive views on the stupidity of voters regarding the implications of corruption and criticisms, Gruber was told to fall on the sword to save the Democrats who voted for the law. The Democrats during the hearing, were happy to pin blame exclusively on Gruber saving their own credibility while still endorsing a failed law.

Enter Congressman Darrel Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who carried out his threat from the hearing to subpoena Gruber.

Issa Subpoenas ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber

December 12, 2014

Last night, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., subpoenaed ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber for all documents and communications with federal, state, or local government employees related to aspects of his work on the President’s health care law.

“As one of the architects of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber is in a unique position to shed light on the ‘lack of transparency’ surrounding the passage of the President’s health care law, however he has so far been unwilling to fully comply with the Oversight Committee’s repeated requests,” Chairman Issa said in a statement. “This week, Dr. Gruber repeatedly refused to answer several key questions, including the amount of taxpayer funds he received for his work on ObamaCare. The American people deserve not just an apology, but a full accounting, which Dr. Gruber must provide.”

On Tuesday, Dr. Gruber testified before the Committee about his role in developing the President’s health care law.   During the hearing, Dr. Gruber received bipartisan criticism for boasting in 2012 that ObamaCare passed because of a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner also testified at the hearing about the inflated ObamaCare enrollment numbers CMS reported in September and November 2014.

The subpoena schedule is as follows:

1. All documents and communications to or from any federal, state, or local government employee, including, but not limited to, any document or communication referring or relating to the Affordable Care Act or federal and state health care exchanges.

2. All documents and communications referring or relating to funding, for research or otherwise, from any federal, state, or local government agency, including, but not limited to, any contract(s) with a federal, state, or local government agency.

3. All documents and communications referring or relating to work product produced to any federal, state, or local government agency, for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the results of any and all economic models or simulations.

Gruber clearly views his own world of policy as a place of idealism and integrity. Politics, in contrast, is a realm where “lack of transparency” and “mislabeling” are sad necessities to persuade low-information voters to pursue their own interests. Purposely employing such tactics in an academic paper, for example, would be a scandal (and presumably a firing offense) at Gruber’s Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But liberal academics expect politicians to have greater cunning and lower standards. In fact, academics depend upon the rougher talents of politicians to turn their ideas into reality.

Know Someone That Went Missing? Check North Korea

Posted on by

The decision by a U.N. General Assembly committee to condemn North Korea for crimes against humanity this week is historic. It could well lead to North Korean leaders facing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), forcing them to confront the numerous accusations made against their isolated regime.

There is still a long way to go, however. The resolution must pass the Security Council, where Russia and China — two important allies of North Korea — hold veto power. Also, the ICC itself has struggled with problems of legitimacy since it was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes.

Even so, North Korea seems worried, and after Tuesday’s decision it offered a belligerent warning that it would conduct further nuclear tests. The reaction reflects a broader trend: In the past few months, the country has used crude insults and a curious charm offensive to try to deflect the U.N. criticism of its human rights offenses. At one point, it even released a list of the alleged U.S. human rights abuses, in a clear moment of “Whataboutism.”

***

It gets worse:

Inside the Ring: North Korean document alleges Kim role in kidnapping program to create spies

By Bill Gertz

A secret North Korean document obtained by Western intelligence states the late dictator Kim Jong-Il conceived and directed a program to kidnap foreigners and bring them back to his communist country to force them to become spies against their home countries, The Washington Times has learned.

Diplomatic sources familiar with the discovery, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the recently obtained document for the first time provides details on how and why Kim, who died in 2012, directed a covert spy unit in the 1970s called the Investigation Department that kidnapped foreign nationals and brought them to North Korea.

The Investigative Department, part of the ruling communist Korean Workers Party Central Committee, carried out several dozen selective kidnappings and used the abducted foreigners for training its intelligence operatives, and to be dispatched overseas in foreign spy operations and propaganda activities, including film production, the document indicates.

The document, believed to have been produced within the past several years as part of a historical archive, is regarded by authorities as a classified North Korean government report, the sources said.

It is considered authoritative because of its origin and the importance within the North Korean system of precisely recording the words of supreme leaders, they added.

One source familiar with the document said there are no indications the report is a forgery.

According to translated portions obtained by Inside the Ring, Kim met with the chief of the Investigation Department, which is known by its Korean acronym “Josabu,” on Sept. 29, 1977, and Oct. 7, 1977. During the meeting he spelled out plans to use people from overseas in intelligence work.

Kim, who was succeeded in power by his son Kim Jong Un, told the intelligence chief and a group of party officials that forcibly training foreign nationals in their 20s for five to seven years in North Korea would produce valuable intelligence agents who would be useful until the age of 60, the document stated.

He then ordered spy teams dispatched to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe to secretly lure young men and women into supporting the regime. A special focus was placed on targeting attractive women.

Kim stated that targets of those brought to North Korea should include people who were loners or orphans. The abductions were to be carried out secretly using methods that could not be traced to Pyongyang’s agents, according to the document.

Among those kidnapped by the North Koreans after the 1977 orders was 13-year-old Japanese schoolgirl Megumi Yakota, who disappeared from Japan in 1977. She was taken to North Korea where she spent the rest of her life in captivity, and, according to the North Korean government, eventually died in the communist state.

On Aug. 25, 1977, Kim then ordered the Investigation Department to set up a covert Hong Kong unit devoted to inviting South Korean film actresses and the offspring of high-ranking South Korean officials to visit Hong Kong, the document states.

The objective of the covert group was to befriend selected people as targets and use them to obtain invitations to South Korea, where North Korean agents could produce films under cover.

That appears to be the motive behind the kidnapping in 1978 of South Korean actress Choi Eun-hee and her director husband Shin Sang-ok. The couple was taken to North Korea where it was hoped they would help the regime produce propaganda films. They escaped in 1986 during a visit to Vienna.

In October 1978, according to the document, Kim ordered his intelligence operatives to persuade the abducted foreign nationals to settle in North Korea. The Investigative Department arranged for the abductees to live in special guest houses where it was hoped they would reside comfortably, in contrast to the harsh living conditions faced by most North Koreans.

The kidnappings have long been known, but Kim’s role in the program has been unclear.

On Sept. 17, 2002, after then-Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi met Kim in Pyongyang, the North Korean leader admitted that his intelligence services has carried out the abduction of 11 Japanese. The admission and apology was part of a bid to obtain Japanese aid.

But according to North Korea’s official statement at the time, Pyongyang asserted the kidnappings were carried out without Kim’s knowledge or approval.

The recently-obtained document contradicts that statement.

Ambassador Jang Il Hun, deputy chief of North Korea’s mission to the United Nations, denied the late leader was involved in the kidnapping operations.

“The abduction of Japanese nationals in 1970s was an act of individual heroism conducted by some people in the intelligence community who sought fame and reputation by such acts,” Mr. Jang told Inside the Ring.

Mr. Jang said the rogue operatives were motivated by “indignation” over Japan’s refusal to apologize for abuses during Tokyo’s rule over the Korean peninsula in the early 1900s.

“In no way was the government of the DPRK involved in the abduction case, to say nothing of our respected Supreme Leader Chairman Kim Jong Il,” he said in a statement, using the acronym for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “This is the truth.”

Mr. Jang added that “we had so many Koreans who were repatriated from Japan, there was no need for our government to use the Japanese nationals for any government purpose.”

The total number of foreigners abducted during the intelligence operations of the 1970s and 1980s is not known but has been estimated to be several dozen people. They included nationals from China, Malaysia, Lebanon, France and Italy, in addition to those from Japan and South Korea.

In Japan, the government has elevated the issue of resolving past cases of at least 17 missing Japanese to a national priority.

Talks between Japanese and North Korean officials on the issue were held in October, and Japan earlier agreed to lift some sanctions on Pyongyang if the regime fully investigates outstanding cases of the missing nationals.

Bruce Bechtol, a North Korea specialist formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he doubts the North will investigate the cases of the missing.

“The whole idea of an ‘investigation’ is a sham,” Mr. Bechtol, a professor at Angelo State University, said in an email.

“The North Koreans obviously kidnapped several Japanese nationals,” he said. “Now I believe the debate in the North Korean ruling infrastructure will be whether or not to execute them and send the remains back, or to simply send those who are still alive back. Of course, all of this will depend on how much money the Japanese government offers to the government of the DPRK.”

Disclosures in the document bolsters the findings of a United Nations human rights report based on testimony of defectors and issued in February. The U.N. report found widespread “crimes against humanity” committed by the North Korean regime, including abductions linked to the country’s supreme leader.

North Korea “used its land, naval and intelligence forces to conduct abductions and arrests,” the report said. “Operations were approved at the level of the supreme leader. The vast majority of victims were forcibly disappeared to gain labor and other skills for the state.”

The issue of North Korea’s human rights abuses was discussed in a letter signed by 10 nations’ representatives on the 15-member U.N. Security Council last week. The letter urged the council to include the issue on its agenda. China and Russia in the past have vetoed measures for council meetings that were opposed by North Korea.

The U.N. General Assembly will vote later this month on a resolution that calls for referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court over the rights abuses.

Further evidence of North Korean interest in western films also surfaced recently. Hackers using techniques linked to North Korean cyberattacks on South Korea hacked Sony Pictures networks and stole large amounts of data, Reuters reported last week.

The cyberattack was carried out Nov. 24 and came one month before the release of Sony’s film “The Interview,” a comedy that has two American journalists tasked by the CIA to kill current leader Kim Jong Un. North Korea has said release of the film would be an “act of war.”