More Details for The Pro-Russia, Pro Assange Crowd

Is Sean Hannity getting something wrong here with his support of Congressman Rohrabacher and Julian Assange? If Assange is on the right side of the debate, why has he been held up in the protection of the Ecuador Embassy in Britain? Assange is working diligently to get out of his isolation and wants a seat at the White House press pool….yet he is also a financial crook too.

The FBI warned Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., in 2012 that Russian spies were attempting to recruit him as an “agent of influence,” according to a new report.

Rohrabacher was made aware of Moscow’s attempts during a meeting with an FBI agent in a secure room at the Capitol. Rohrabacher was made aware of Moscow’s attempts during a meeting with an FBI agent in a secure room at the Capitol.

Law enforcement did not believe Rohrabacher was working with or paid by the Russians, but feared he was targeted, a former U.S. official told the New York Times.

The California Republican said the meeting with the agent focused on contact he had with a person of the Russian Foreign Ministry. “They were telling me he had something to do with some kind of Russian intelligence,” Rohrabacher said.

The GOP lawmaker said the FBI agent warned him that Russia “looked at me as someone who could be influenced.”

Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., who both served on the House Intelligence Committee, were also at the meeting.

Rohrabacher has been a staunch defender of Russia for years, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., joked last year about Rohrabacher’s closeness to Moscow in a recording leaked to the Washington Post this week.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy said. The majority leader said Wednesday he was making a joke.

The FBI is currently investigating ties between President Trump’s associates and Russia. Reporters have also documented previously undisclosed meetings between those with ties to Trump and Russians.

Rohrabacher, though, has defended Trump and tried to lessen the possibility that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

“Did they try to influence our election? We have tried to influence their elections and everybody’s elections,” Rohrabacher told the Los Angeles Times in March. “The American people are being fed information that would lead them to believe that we need to be in a warlike stance when it comes to Russia.”

( a long but important read) Now for Mike Pompeo at CIA regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks:

Director Pompeo Delivers Remarks at CSIS

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

April 13, 2017/ CIA


Good afternoon, it is a great pleasure to be here at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, home to some of the sharpest minds that Washington has to offer. I am honored to deliver my first public remarks as CIA Director at such a distinguished institution.

Let me start today by telling you a story.

He was a bright, well-educated young man. He was described as industrious, intelligent, and likeable, if inclined toward impulsiveness and impatience.

At some point, he became disillusioned with intelligence work and angry at his government. He left government and decided to devote himself to what he regarded as public advocacy—exposing the intelligence officers and operations he had sworn to keep secret.

He appealed to Agency employees to send him “leads, tips, suggestions.” He wrote in a widely circulated bulletin: “We are particularly anxious to receive, anonymously if you desire, copies of US diplomatic lists and US Embassy staff.”

That man was Philip Agee, one of the founding members of the magazine Counterspy, which in its first issue in 1973 called for the exposure of CIA undercover operatives overseas. In its September 1974 issue, Counterspy publicly identified Richard Welch as the CIA Chief of Station in Athens. Later, Richard’s home address and phone number were outed in the press in Greece.

In December 1975, Richard and his wife were returning home from a Christmas party in Athens. When he got out of his car to open the gate in front of his house, Richard Welch was assassinated by a Greek terrorist cell. At the time of his death, Richard was the highest-ranking CIA officer killed in the line of duty.

Richard led a rich and honorable life, one that is celebrated with a star on the Agency’s Memorial Wall. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery and remains dearly remembered by his family and colleagues.

Meanwhile, Agee propped up his dwindling celebrity with an occasional stunt, including a Playboy interview. He eventually settled down as the privileged guest of an authoritarian regime—one that would have put him in front of a firing squad without a second thought had he betrayed their secrets as he betrayed ours.

Today, there are still plenty of Philip Agees in the world, and the harm they inflict on U.S. institutions and personnel is just as serious today as it was back then.

They don’t all come from the Intelligence Community, share the same background, or use precisely the same tactics as Agee, but they are certainly his soulmates.

Like him, they choose to see themselves in a romantic light—as heroes above the law, saviors of our free and open society. They cling to this fiction, even though their disclosures often inflict irreparable harm on both individuals and democratic governments, pleasing despots along the way.

The one thing they don’t share with Agee is the need for a publisher. All they require now is a smart phone and internet access. In today’s digital environment, they can disseminate stolen US secrets instantly around the globe to terrorists, dictators, hackers and anyone else seeking to do us harm.

* * * *

Our nation’s first line of defense against complicated and fast-moving threats like these is the US Intelligence Community. I feel deeply privileged—and still a bit amazed—that as CIA Director, I get to be a part of this great group of men and women. I’m the son of a machinist from Orange County, California. I had never been east of the Mississippi until college, spending most of my summers working on the family farm in Winfield, Kansas.

To be entrusted with leading the greatest intelligence organization in the world is something that I still can’t wrap my head around. And just as I did at West Point, I feel that I stand on the shoulders of giants, atop a long tradition of courage, ingenuity, and dedication.

After I was nominated for this post by President Trump, I talked with nearly every living former CIA Director. They spoke of the need to call things as you see them, and of the apolitical nature of the job. Above all, they spoke of their admiration and respect for our workforce. From what I’ve seen so far, they were spot on in their assessment.

* * * *

I am today surrounded by talented and committed patriots. These are men and women who signed up for a life of discretion and impact—for a career in service to their country.

These officers have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have signed secrecy agreements. They quietly go about their work and try not to get too worked up over the headlines, including the fanciful notion that they spy on their fellow citizens via microwave ovens. But they are not at liberty to stand up to these false narratives and explain our mission to the American people.

Fortunately, I am. In my first meeting with CIA’s workforce, I promised that I would serve them and the American people—both at home and abroad—with the same passion and vigor that I displayed as a tank platoon leader in the Army, a business owner in Kansas, and a Congressman representing my constituents back home.

That is the reason I chose to speak here today.

As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence documents posted online. In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures.

But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be ignored. There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements of CIA and of the broader Intelligence Community. And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these voices—ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy—gain a gravity they do not deserve.

It is time to call these voices out. The men and women of CIA deserve a real defense. And the American people deserve a clear explanation of what their Central Intelligence Agency does on their behalf.

* * * *

First and foremost, we are an intelligence organization that engages in foreign espionage. We steal secrets from foreign adversaries, hostile entities, and terrorist organizations. We analyze this intelligence so that our government can better understand the adversaries we face in a challenging and dangerous world.

And we make no apologies for doing so. It’s hard stuff and we go at it hard.

Because when it comes to overseas threats, CIA is aggressive in our pursuit of the information we need to help safeguard our country. We utilize the whole toolkit at our disposal, fully employing the authorities and capabilities that Congress, the courts, and the Executive Branch have deemed lawful and appropriate, and consistent with our American ideals.

We do these things because it’s our job. It’s what we signed up to do. And if we didn’t, we’d have a tough time justifying our budget to the American taxpayer.

One of the few heartening things to come out of the disclosures debate is the realization that much of America does understand the important role we play. As the CEO of a security research firm recently noted, CIA appears to be doing “exactly what we pay them to do—exploit specific targets with limited attacks to support our national interests.”

Our mission is simple in concept yet difficult in practice. We work to provide the best information possible to the President and his administration so that they can advance our national interests and protect our country.

It is a mission that CIA has carried out for years, quietly and effectively. Our accomplishments generally remain classified, but a few special ones are known to the world.

For example, CIA has been a crucial player in the global campaign against nuclear proliferation. We’ve helped unravel the nuclear smuggling network used by A.Q. Khan, assisted in exposing a covert nuclear facility in Syria, and gathered intelligence—with the help of our liaison partners—that persuaded Libya to abandon its nuclear program.

CIA has also been at the cutting edge of incredible technological innovation throughout our history. We led efforts to develop the U-2 aircraft and orbiting satellites—endeavors that allowed us to surveil activities in rival states that were otherwise closed to us.

We’ve pushed back the boundaries of the possible in ways that have benefitted both the security and welfare of the American public. For example, when we needed long-lasting power sources for certain operational missions, in the 1960s our scientists helped to develop the lithium-ion battery—technology that ultimately has powered pacemakers and cell phones alike. More recently, CIA investment in a technology venture in 2003 led to the development of what we know today as Google Earth.

My first few months on the job have only reaffirmed for me that this innovative spirit is very much alive and well at CIA.

* * * *

So I’d now like to make clear what CIA doesn’t do. We are a foreign intelligence agency. We focus on collecting information about foreign governments, foreign terrorist organizations, and the like—not Americans. A number of specific rules keep us centered on that mission and protect the privacy of our fellow Americans. To take just one important example, CIA is legally prohibited from spying on people through electronic surveillance in the United States. We’re not tapping anyone’s phone in Wichita.

I know there will always be skeptics. We need to build trust with them. But I also know firsthand, from what I saw as a member of a Congressional oversight committee and from what I see now as Director, that CIA takes its legal restrictions and responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. We have stringent regulations, an engaged and robust Office of the General Counsel, and an empowered and independent Office of Inspector General to make sure of that.

Moreover, regardless of what you see on the silver screen, we do not pursue covert action on a whim without approval or accountability. There is a comprehensive process that starts with the President and consists of many levels of legal and policy review and reexamination. Let me assure you: When it comes to covert action, there is oversight and accountability every step of the way.

I inherited an Agency that has a real appreciation for the law and for the Constitution. Despite fictional depictions meant to sell books or box-office tickets, we are not an untethered or rogue agency. So yes, while we have some truly awesome capabilities at our disposal, our officers do not operate in areas or against targets that are rightfully and legally off-limits to us.

At our core, we are an organization committed to uncovering the truth and getting it right. We devote ourselves to perfecting our tradecraft. We work hard to maintain truly global coverage, operating in austere, far-flung areas that demand both expeditionary capabilities and spirit. We spend hours upon hours collecting information, and poring over reports and data. We experiment and innovate so we can dominate our adversaries in both the physical and cyber realms.

And sure—we also admit to making mistakes. In fact, because CIA is accountable to the free and open society we help defend, the times in which we have failed to live up to the high standards our fellow citizens expect of us have been catalogued over the years, even by our own government. These mistakes are public, to an extent that I doubt any other nation could ever match. But it is always our intention—and duty—to get it right.

* * * *

And that is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling. Because while we do our best to quietly collect information on those who pose very real threats to our country, individuals such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves. As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security.

WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.

It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.

Now, for those of you who read the editorial page of the Washington Post—and I have a feeling that many of you in this room do—yesterday you would have seen a piece of sophistry penned by Mr. Assange. You would have read a convoluted mass of words wherein Assange compared himself to Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of legitimate news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. One can only imagine the absurd comparisons that the original draft contained.

Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America through the early years of the Cold War.

No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.

We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.

They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments—which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant.

Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous.

When Snowden absconded to the comfortable clutches of Russian intelligence, his treachery directly harmed a wide range of US intelligence and military operations. Despite what he claims, he is no whistleblower. True whistleblowers use the well-established and discreet processes in place to voice grievances; they do not put American lives at risk.

In fact, a colleague of ours at NSA recently explained that more than a thousand foreign targets—people, groups, organizations—more than a thousand of them changed or tried to change how they communicated as a result of the Snowden disclosures. That number is staggering.

And the bottom line is that it became harder for us in the Intelligence Community to keep Americans safe. It became harder to monitor the communications of terrorist organizations that are bent on bringing bloodshed to our shores. Snowden’s disclosures helped these groups find ways to hide themselves in the crowded digital forest.

Even in those cases where we were able to regain our ability to collect, the damage was already done. We work in a business with budgetary and time constraints. The effort to earn back access that we previously possessed meant that we had less time to look for new threats.

As for Assange, his actions have attracted a devoted following among some of our most determined enemies. Following a recent WikiLeaks disclosure, an al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula member posted a comment online thanking WikiLeaks for providing a means to fight America in a way that AQAP had not previously envisioned.

AQAP represents one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country and the world. It is a group that is devoted not only to bringing down civilian passenger planes, but our way of life as well. That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of reprehensible.

Have no doubt that the disclosures in recent years caused harm—great harm—to our nation’s security, and they will continue to do so over the long term. They threaten the trust we’ve developed with our foreign partners when trust is a crucial currency among allies. They risk damaging morale for the good officers of the Intelligence Community who take the high road every day. And I can’t stress enough how these disclosures have severely hindered our ability to keep all Americans safe.

No, Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom. They have pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice. They may have believed that, but they are wrong.

Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value. He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He is a fraud—a coward hiding behind a screen.

And in Kansas, we know something about false Wizards.

But I’m not the only one who knows what Assange really is. Even those who often benefit from Assange’s leaks have called him out for his overblown statements. The Intercept, which in the past has gleefully reported on unauthorized disclosures, accused WikiLeaks in late March of “stretching the facts” in its comments about CIA. In the same article, the Intercept added that the documents were “not worth the concern WikiLeaks generated by its public comments.”

* * * *

So we face a crucial question: What can we do about this? What can and should CIA, the United States, and our allies do about the unprecedented challenge posed by these hostile non-state intelligence agencies?

While there is no quick fix—no foolproof cure—there are steps that we can take to undercut the danger. First, it is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons.

Second, there are steps that we have to take at home—in fact, this is a process we’ve already started. We’ve got to strengthen our own systems; we’ve got to improve internal mechanisms that help us in our counterintelligence mission. All of us in the Intelligence Community had a wake-up call after Snowden’s treachery. Unfortunately, the threat has not abated.

I can’t go into great detail, but the steps we take can’t be static. Our approach to security has to be constantly evolving. We need to be as clever and innovative as the enemies we face. They won’t relent, and neither will we.

We can never truly eliminate the threat but we can mitigate and manage it. This relies on agility and on dynamic “defense in depth.” It depends on a fundamental change in how we address digital problems, understanding that best practices have to evolve in real time. It is a long-term project but the strides we have taken—particularly the rapid and tireless response of our Directorate of Digital Innovation—give us grounds for optimism.

Third, we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.

And finally—and perhaps most importantly—we need to deepen the trust between the Intelligence Community and the citizens we strive to protect.

At CIA, I can assure you that we are committed to earning that trust every day. We know we can never take it for granted. We must continue to be as open as possible with the American people so that our society can reach informed judgments on striking the proper balance between individual privacy and national security.

As CIA Director, it is my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and defend national security. And as somebody who practiced law, built businesses, and ran for public office to represent my neighbors and fellow citizens, I fully understand why nobody should have to blindly place their trust in government.

Granted, the intelligence arena can never be as transparent as other parts of government. Secrecy is essential to us because we have hardworking officers and foreign agents in harm’s way, doing dangerous work on behalf of our country.

But even if we can’t share everything with the people, we can share it with the President they elected and with the overseers they sent to Congress. Having served on the committee myself, I am a CIA Director who fully understands the imperative of oversight. Doing right by the American people is as important to me as carrying out our Agency’s mission. And I will hold our officers to the same standard.

But remember, these officers grew up loving this country and the ideals it represents. They are Americans just like you, devoted to their jobs, trying to do their best.

The men and women I work with at Langley are patriots, and I am honored to lead them. They have my trust. They have my faith. And as long as I’m lucky enough to have the best job in the world, I promise you that CIA will be tireless in our mission to keep our country safe and, yes, to get it right.

Thank you all very much.

Trump Makes Official a Cyber Command

In a statement, Trump said the unit would be ranked at the level of Unified Combatant Command focused on cyberspace operations. Cyber Command’s elevation reflects a push to strengthen U.S. capabilities to interfere with the military programs of adversaries such as North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and Islamic State’s ability to recruit, inspire and direct attacks, three U.S. intelligence officials said this month, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The Pentagon did not specify how long the elevation process would take.

Current and former officials said a leading candidate to head U.S. Cyber Command was Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville, currently director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. More here.

There has not only been resistance to this, but it appears one or more agencies are launching their own cyber departments.

The State Department quietly established a new office earlier this year within its Diplomatic Security Service to safeguard against and respond to cybersecurity threats.

The State Department officially launched the new office, called the Cyber and Technology Security (CTS) directorate, on May 28, a department official confirmed. The establishment of the directorate was first reported by Federal News Radio last week.

However:

 

At the direction of the president, the Defense Department today initiated the process to elevate U.S. Cyber Command to a unified combatant command.

“This new unified combatant command will strengthen our cyberspace operations and create more opportunities to improve our nation’s defense,” President Donald J. Trump said in a written statement.

The elevation of the command demonstrates the increased U.S. resolve against cyberspace threats and will help reassure allies and partners and deter adversaries, the statement said.  The elevation also will help to streamline command and control of time-sensitive cyberspace operations by consolidating them under a single commander with authorities commensurate with the importance of those operations and will ensure that critical cyberspace operations are adequately funded, the statement said.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is examining the possibility of separating U.S. Cyber Command from the National Security Agency, and is to announce his recommendations at a later date.

Growing Mission

The decision to elevate U.S. Cyber Command is consistent with Mattis’ recommendation and the requirements of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Kenneth P. Rapuano, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and global security, told reporters at the Pentagon today.

“The decision is a welcome and necessary one that ensures that the nation is best positioned to address the increasing threats in cyberspace,” he added.

Cybercom’s elevation from its previous subunified command status demonstrates the growing centrality of cyberspace to U.S. national security, Rapuano said, adding that the move signals the U.S. resolve to “embrace the changing nature of warfare and maintain U.S. military superiority across all domains and phases of conflict.”

Cybercom was established in 2009 in response to a clear need to match and exceed enemies seeking to use the cyber realm to attack the United States and its allies. The command is based at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, with the National Security Agency. Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers is the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency director. The president has directed Mattis to recommend a commander for U.S. Cyber Command, and Rogers for now remains in the dual-hatted role, Rapuano said.

More Strategic Role

Since its establishment, Cybercom has grown significantly, consistent with DoD’s cyber strategy and reflective of major increases in investments in capabilities and infrastructure, Rapuano said. The command reached full operational capability Oct. 31, 2010, but it is still growing and evolving. The command is concentrating on building its Cyber Mission Force, which should be complete by the end of fiscal year 2018, he said.

The force is expected to consist of almost 6,200 personnel organized into 133 teams. All of the teams have already reached initial operational capability, and many are actively conducting operations. The force incorporates reserve component personnel and leverages key cyber talent from the civilian sector.

“This decision means that Cyber Command will play an even more strategic role in synchronizing cyber forces and training,  conducting and coordinating military cyberspace operations, and advocating for and prioritizing cyber investments within the department,”  Rapuano said.

Cybercom already has been performing many responsibilities of a unified combatant command. The elevation also raises the stature of the commander of Cyber Command to a peer level with the other unified combatant command commanders, allowing the Cybercom commander to report directly to the secretary of defense, Rapuano pointed out.

The new command will be the central point of contact for resources for the department’s operations in the cyber domain and will serve to synchronize cyber forces under a single manager. The commander will also ensure U.S. forces will be interoperable.

“This decision is a significant step in the department’s continued efforts to build its cyber capabilities, enabling Cyber Command to provide real, meaningful capabilities as a command on par with the other geographic and functional combat commands,” Rapuano said.

Useful Facts/Background for Antifa and Communist Movement

In part from the BBC: Antifa’s roots go back almost as far as Nazis

Much like the far-right, Antifa members around the world comprise a patchwork of groups, though the most active appear to be based in the US, the UK (under the name Anti-Fascist Action) and Germany (Antifaschistische Aktion).

The German movement was founded in 1932 to provide a militant far-left group to counter the fast-rising Nazi party.

They were disbanded in 1933 after Hitler took control of parliament and resurrected in the 1980s as a response to neo-Nazism after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

*** The BBC actually did us a favor with this reminder, however, lets go further shall we?

The America Heroes Channel ran a program last night titled The Hitler Apocalypse in which for a fleeting moment there was a particular building in the show. As you read below, you should take some notes on the positions of mayors, governors and other lawmakers in Washington DC, regarding exactly where their loyalty is planted. Removing monuments, stopping speech, allowing violent protests and rallies and having law enforcement stand idle rather protecting exacerbates the chaos, that will be with us on Main Street for a long while.

"Karl-Liebknecht-Haus, the KPD's headquarters from 1926 to 1933 Notice that large sign on the building with the flag? Look familiar?

Antifa Flag Comes Directly From The German Communist Party In 1932

Media will tell you this new movement and the old one was a far right movement, while others will tell you it is far left. Sheesh….

***

Going back to an interview in part published in 2009:

In the UK, we hear a lot about a strong autonomous Antifa movement in Germany. Could you give us a bit of an idea how this has come about?

The autonomous Antifa is part of the radical left movement which developed following 1968. After the protests of the early 1970s had faded, the radical left seemed to be in a dead-end. A large part of the left occupied itself with the debate over the armed struggle of the RAF and other armed groups, as well as with their conditions of imprisonment. Another part organized in orthodox communist splinter groups. Although strong in numbers, by the early 1980s both approaches had lost contact to societal discourse and struggles. More here.

Photo

Hitler was ideologically opposed to communism but realised that the KPD did represent a real threat to the Nazis prior to January 1933. The KPD was the largest communist movement outside of the USSR and during the mid to late 1920’s had sort to develop closer ties to the USSR. Probably the most famous leader the KPD had was Ernst Thälmann who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1933 and shot in 1944, after 11 years in solitary confinement, on the direct orders of Hitler.

Prior to the March 1933 election, the KPD had made steady gains in the national elections. However, the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933 and the Reichstag Fire of February 1933 and the consequences surrounding the fire, spelt the end of any political influence that the KPD might have had. The Reichstag Fire was blamed on the KPD and in the immediate aftermath of the fire, KPD leaders were rounded up and were among the first people to be put into the newly created Dachau concentration camp, which was just outside of Munich. After the Enabling Act was passed in March 1933, it was very dangerous for anyone to openly espouse their support for the KPD and the influence of the party swiftly dwindled. Some KPD members fled to the USSR while others spent years in hiding. More here.

***

The KPD (Communist Party) was formed from the Spartacus Union that had led a revolt against the Weimar government in January 1919. It was very closely allied to Moscow and it refused to co-operate, in any way, with the parties that supported Weimar. They were especially hostile to the SPD. This refusal to support Democratic parties went as far as allying with the Nazis (their sworn enemies) in Reichstag votes. This was in order to further destabilize the Republic.

*** So we have communists, socialists, marxists all in the mix and none of it is compatible with standing U.S. law or founding documents of protection for Americans. Just in case you need more on the antifa movement in the United States and they national chatter among those in solidarity, go to this Twitter account, that is if you can stomach the whole thing. By the way that is the Beverly Hills antifa Twitter account…hello Hollywood.

To round out the discussion on the Neo-Nazi side of the conflict, perhaps a reminder is in order and here is a timeline for context and truth.

The Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the Communist Control Act’s constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act “outlawing” the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century.

The law is here: AN ACT

To outlaw the Communist Party, to prohibit members of Communist organizations from serving in certain representative capacities, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ”Communist Control Act of 1954”.

 

 

Is Your Teenager a Money Mule for Gangs?

The lure begins in Facebook

It is a growing phenomenon not only in the United States but in Europe. If your teenager does end up being a money mule and gets arrested then you could need to contact lawyers like this firm in Hudson County, NJ. Are you watching your teenagers or are parents encouraging this?

In south Texas, Mexican cartels often use teenagers – many just middle school-aged – to smuggle drugs. The cartels entice kids in impoverished Texas border towns into trafficking huge loads of marijuana or cocaine by promising quick cash. Then of course they leave them hanging when they’re caught by Border Patrol or local law enforcement. Teens end up doing serious time in south Texas juvenile detention centers. And when they finally get out, they leave with criminal records that make it even harder to find jobs in depressed areas of the Rio Grande Valley.

The story of Elias, a Falfurrias teen, isn’t all that unusual.

Elias’ uncle made it sound easy: just hop in the car, drive it from point A to point B, and get rewarded with $6,000 in cash. To sweeten the deal, if he made it, he got to keep the car – a quick little Chevy pick-up with a Camaro engine. Elias was 14 years-old, still too young to even qualify for his learner’s permit.
“Alright. I drove the truck from here in [Falfurrias] to Corpus, to a strip club,” Elias says. “The first time I did, I made it. I liked the money, I was young. My dad had just died. I was struggling with my mom. We never had a car; we never had nothing badass. It sucks, you know? So that’s what I got into,”

Mexican cartels are increasingly leaning on south Texas teenagers like Elias to handle their smuggling work north of the border. It’s an area that is, by far, the busiest stretch of border in the U.S. for the passage of drugs.

Cartels recruit teens through family members or friends and use them as drivers for cars loaded down with hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds of drugs. For many boys along the border, it feels like an offer they can’t refuse, paying them at a lucrative per pound rate of between $10 and $50, according to 79th Judicial District Attorney Carlos Garcia.

“It’s definitely the money,” Garcia says. “They can make a lot of money in a short period of time. There’s not a lot of opportunities, especially in rural communities. Usually the opportunities find them. Once somebody’s been in the business for several years, maybe they’ve already aged out or they’re not juveniles anymore, but they’ll go and try to recruit some to come in.”

Using juveniles carries advantages for cartels, Garcia says.

“They’re going to look for where there’s the least amount of risk. When the juvenile’s involved, everything’s going to stop. Law enforcement knows – there are specific rules that keep them from talking to this juvenile,” he says.

The connections between cartels and juveniles aren’t new. In a particularly striking example, two Laredo teens became prolific assassins for the Zeta cartel in the mid-2000s. Dan Slater published a book last September about them titled “Wolf Boys.”

“The way I’d seen the cartel wars depicted in the media was through the stories of the cartel bosses, the people we see on the front of The New York Times. The Chapo Guzmáns… The more I learned about the drug war, the more I learned those stories really had nothing at all to do with the reality of the drug war. The reality was more about young men, and often boys, slaughtering each other,” Slater says.

Remedies have been few and far between. In 2012 Eagle Pass opened the Border Hope Restorative Justice Center, intended specifically for kids recruited into the drug trade. But the state shut down the center a year later and the juvenile probation officer who spearheaded the initiative resigned last year amid pressure.

Meanwhile, the problem persists.

The cartels bribe Border Patrol agents to get drugs across the Rio Grande, then turn to Texas teens like Elias to act as mules to get the drugs through the major inland checkpoints and into urban areas upstate. Elias knew he was a small pawn in this big web, but a pawn that made really good money – too good he says for him to pass up.

“I shouldn’t have been doing what I was doing, but to be honest, around here that’s all there is. I kept moving [expletive deleted] for my uncle,” Elias says. “I was 14 years-old. I moved out of my mom’s house. I was giving her $1,000 a week. I was doing good. [Expletive deleted] still going to school. I had my dumbass friends who were dropped out selling for me,” he says.

A few months into his work for the cartel, Elias was introduced to synthetic marijuana, also known as spice or K2. It’s a drug that’s rapidly growing in popularity among America’s poor because of its relative cheapness and potency. Elias had more money than he knew what to do with, and started smoking his supply. He would only sober up when his uncle told him he had another job for him. Then things got even worse. He saw blue and red lights as he was taking a load to Corpus.

“That time they lit me up here in Fal,” he says. “I had my truck. I wasn’t going to stop. I took off. I figured – it was just the Border Patrol. I had always ran from Border Patrol. By the time I came through the backroads of Fal, I had state troopers on me… I lost them going into San Diego. I burned them [expletive deleted]. They caught me again in SD coming out the other side going to Freer. I was trying to go Beeville to hide out in the hills. I flipped over on the curves. I just grabbed the [expletive deleted] and started running into the monte. I broke my leg. They found me sooner or later. I was just on the floor. The vato said, ‘We found you because you had a white trail following you.’”

The cops caught Elias with several hundred pounds of cocaine and some K2. If he hadn’t run, he might have been OK. Brooks County Sheriff Benny Martinez says that often when kids get caught at the checkpoint, officers treat them with “soft-hands,” seizing the drugs and letting the boys go. But Elias did run, and so he was sent to serve time in the juvenile center in San Diego.

That’s one place Texas sends kids caught and charged with a felony-level drug crimes in south Texas.

“To manipulate a child to do it is very easy,” says Lionel Ibarra, who is in charge of the San Diego Juvenile Detention Center. “They paint a real beautiful picture to these kids, and they fall in the trap. How can you tell a kid you need to go find a job at McDonald’s for $8.50 [per hour] when they can make $850 dealing drugs in the same hour?”

The San Diego Juvenile Detention Center has 22 beds. They’re often full.

“You see these kids that are so – they have so much of a future ahead of them,” Ibarra says. “And all of a sudden they turn the wrong way, and it’s downhill after that. Especially in a little community like ours. In a little community like this, everybody knows everybody.”

The other place teens in south Texas are sent for felony drug crimes is the Starr County Juvenile Detention Center in Rio Grande City. Doralisa Saenz oversees the 12 beds and in the basement of the Starr County courthouse.

“Before we used to have several kids from Mexico that would get caught on this side,” Saenz says. “That is on the decrease. But we’ve seen they’ve used local kids to smuggle drugs.”

Saenz and Garcia agree that relaxed punishment from local district attorneys for juveniles involved in smuggling is in part driving the increase. But the teens that do get involved still face consequences.

“Law enforcement can still see your juvenile record at any time in your life,” Saenz says. “We’ve had kids come back and say, ‘This is affecting me for financial aid. For little jobs.’ Local Whataburger, HEB, do criminal background checks. It affects them. They carry that for a while.”

I met former Kleberg County judge Pete de la Garza at a Mexican restaurant in Riviera, 30 miles east of Falfurrias. He’s now the main juvenile defender in Falfurrias and has defended kids as young as 11. He’s pushed hard to keep kids out of juvenile centers, which he calls just a smaller version of prison. He says reforms are badly needed.

“It all boils down to money,” de la Garza says. “And money is what the state of Texas doesn’t have. We need more juvenile centers, we need more bootcamps. We need a lot of places they can get psychological help. There are so many that a lot of times they slip through the cracks. You send them to a psychologist – the psychologist will take to them maybe three times – and that’s it.”

Elias had a rough time in the San Diego Detention Center. And since his release, he’s been struggling to stay straight. He got kicked out of school for fighting his principal and is trying to get a GED. His girlfriend also got pregnant and had a son. The week before I met him he says she took all of his belongings, and their nine-month-old son, and vanished.

“For my son I’ve been trying to stay out of trouble, but I haven’t been able to see my son or nothing,” he says. “I’ve been going back to what I was doing before. [expletive deleted], it’s extra hard. I [expletive deleted] went and applied everywhere. Walmart told me straight up: you have a clear history. So they wouldn’t hire me. [expletive deleted]. I’ve even gotten clean for jobs. Piss clean and everything. It’s [expletive deleted] hard to get a job, it really is. You can’t find [expletive deleted] around here. I would love to be able to get what I can for my son. To do for my family. And just can’t. I’ve tried so hard. And it just doesn’t happen. It’s not as easy as it sounds.”

He’s learned the hard way that the easy way to make money in the Rio Grande Valley, isn’t that easy after all.

Gangs force thousands of teens to become ‘money mules’

Youngsters have been approached with violent threats if they did not consent, say police

The number of young people targeted by criminals to be “money mules” – people who let their bank accounts be used to launder money – has doubled, according to a fraud prevention service.

Cifas, which aims at reducing financial crime in the UK, said that the number of “misuse of facility” frauds involving those under 21 years of age, has risen sharply.

There were 4,222 cases in the first half of 2017, compared with 2,143 in the first part of 2916, the fraud prevention service said.

It also reported that 65 per cent of the 17,040 incidents in the UK in the first six months of 2017 were committed by those under 30.

This type of fraud normally sees an individual allowing their bank account to be used in transferring money, according to Cifas, making it more difficult for authorities to monitor.

The organisation has also called for children to receive fraud education in the national curriculum.

“We are trying to prevent young people from getting involved in something that could end up being quite damaging,” said Sandra Peaston, Cifas, assistant director. “Not just the repercussions of laundering money but getting involved in organised crime can get very nasty.”

Ms Peaston added that criminals were advertising on social media, offering cash if youngsters allow them to use their bank accounts.

The Metropolitan Police has sent out warnings to parents through London schools after worries that school children are being approached outside school gates. There have been several cases recorded outside of London according to The Times.

Youngsters have been approached with violent threats if they did not consent, say police.

Parents were warned to talk to their children so they are on alert concerning these money laundering schemes, as they may not be aware that this is a criminal offence and could damage their credit status in the future.

Operation Falcon, the Met police’s fraud department sent out a letter explaining how youngsters are lured in. “This is either done by force or for a financial incentive. We need your support to help educate young people around this issue.

Bank accounts are private and must only be used by the account holder. Any misuse could not only be criminal but could cause serious credit issues for the account holder.”

Children as young as 13 now have bank accounts, said Detective Chief Inspector Gay Miles, and they now have “access to money that they didn’t have before.”

DreamHost/DistruptJ20 Warrant is an Outrage

The warrant is here.

The response delivered from DreamHost to the Justice Department is 60 pages and found here.

What is this Justice Department and Judge thinking? Of note, Jeff Sessions was not sworn in as Attorney General until February 9th. The warrant was signed off by John W, Borchert who was assigned to the Criminal Division’s Fraud Division.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is aiding DreamHost as noted in this extensive blog post.

DreamHost is fighting DoJ request for 1.3M IP addresses of visitors to anti-Trump protest site

Web hosting service DreamHost is fighting a Department of Justice demand to scoop up all the IP addresses of visitors to an anti-Trump website. The website in question, disruptj20.org, organized participants of political protests against the current U.S. administration.

Blogging about its objections to the warrant yesterday, DreamHost’s general counsel describes it as “a highly untargeted demand that chills free association and the right of free speech afforded by the Constitution”.

DreamHost says it has not been able to see the affidavit pertaining to the warrant as those records are sealed. The search warrant can be found here.

In the warrant the DoJ demands that DreamHost hand over 1.3 million visitor IP addresses to the disruptj20.org website, along with contact information, email content, and photos of thousands of people.

“That information could be used to identify any individuals who used this site to exercise and express political speech protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment. That should be enough to set alarm bells off in anyone’s mind,” argues DreamHost.

“This is, in our opinion, a strong example of investigatory overreach and a clear abuse of government authority.”

The latest developments in what has been a months-long disagreement already, are that DreamHost has now filed arguments in opposition of the DoJ demand.

Its counsel will be attending a court hearing on the matter on August 18 in Washington, D.C.

DreamHost initially challenged the government to narrow the scope of the warrant but says instead the DoJ filed a motion in the Washington, D.C. Superior Court asking for an order to compel it to produce the records.

Also blogging about the issue yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation accuses D.C. prosecutors of using “unconstitutional methods” to pursue their investigation into the J20 protests, aka the day President Trump was inaugurated.

“In just one example of the staggering overbreadth of the search warrant, it would require DreamHost to turn over the IP logs of all visitors to the [disruptj20.org] site. Millions of visitors — activists, reporters, or you (if you clicked on the link) — would have records of their visits turned over to the government. The warrant also sought production of all emails associated with the account and unpublished content, like draft blog posts and photos,” the EFF writes.

“No plausible explanation exists for a search warrant of this breadth, other than to cast a digital dragnet as broadly as possible. But the Fourth Amendment was designed to prohibit fishing expeditions like this. Those concerns are especially relevant here, where DOJ is investigating a website that served as a hub for the planning and exercise of First Amendment-protected activities.”