What is the Syria Strategy from the West?

Posted on April 16, 2018April 16, 2018 by Denise Simon

In the days ahead, it appears that Russia and the rogue friends they keep will respond to the West likely by a obscure cyber war. Take personal caution with your financial activity.

The other warning is news reports for are specific assassination attempts covered to look as suicide. While we heard about the poison assassination attempt in Salisbury, England of Skripal and his daughter, the United States had it’s own successful assassination in 2015 of Mikhail Lesin in Washington DC. Additionally, the UK had two another successful wet jobs as it is called going back to 20o6 and 2010. Those victims were Alexander Litvinenko and Gareth Williams who worked for GCHQ

There are many other hit operations that happened in Russia including the recent death of Maxim Borodin.

photo

There are an estimated 250+ journalists that have been killed since the fall of the Soviet Union.

So, it is now declared that the United Nations quit counting the dead from the Syria civil war since the number has officially exceeded 500,000. What is disgusting however is, we sorta care about the dead but the methods no longer matter unless chemical weapons are used. How nuts is that? So, France, Britain and the United States respond to the most recent attack –> Russia says Syria 'gas attack' caused by terrorist weapons ... photo

check – round one of airstrikes

check – round two of airstrikes

Let’s give credit where credit is due. By John Hannah

First, U.S. President Donald Trump set a red line and enforced it. He warned that the large-scale use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would trigger a U.S. attack. When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed that red line a year ago, Trump responded with 59 cruise missiles that took out about 20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft. A year later, Trump has acted again after Assad chose to challenge him a second time. This attack was twice as big and hit multiple targets, including what U.S. defense officials called the “heart” of Syria’s chemical weapons program, substantially degrading Assad’s ability to produce the deadly agents.

That ain’t peanuts. No, there’s no guarantee it will end Assad’s use of chemical weapons — in which case Trump and his military have made clear that they’ll strike again, almost certainly harder than the time before. And no, nothing that happened Friday night will, in isolation, alter the trajectory of Syria’s bloody civil war. But the effective deployment of U.S. power in defense of a universal norm barring the use of some of the world’s worst weapons against innocent men, women, and children is nevertheless to be applauded — limited an objective as it may be. Also to be praised is the possible emergence of a commander in chief whose threats to use force need to be taken seriously by U.S. adversaries. Once established, this kind of credibility (while no panacea) can be a powerful instrument in the U.S. foreign-policy arsenal. Once lost, it is hard to recover, and the consequences can be severe. For evidence, just see the post-2013 results, from Crimea to Syria.

A second important virtue of Friday night’s attack was its multilateral character. With barely a week’s notice, Britain, France, and the United States, the three most powerful militaries of the trans-Atlantic alliance, all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, seamlessly operated on the seas and in the skies of the Middle East to defend their common interests and values against a murderous Russian and Iranian client. What’s the worth of that kind of unity, coordination, and seriousness of purpose? It’s hard to quantify precisely. But anyone who’s ever toiled as a practitioner in the national security space knows, deep in their bones, that it matters — a lot. And it especially matters in the case of a U.S. president who has too often unfairly — and, to my mind, dangerously — discounted the value of Europe, the West, and the post-World War II system of institutions and alliances that his predecessors built. In that power and righteousness of the world’s leading liberal democracies acting in concert, there’s a significant value-added that no mere counting of ships, planes, and missiles can adequately capture. Kudos to the president and his team for their skill in mounting this posse. It’s an important framework that they hopefully will continue to invest in to confront the multitude of urgent international challenges now staring us in the face.

A few other related observations: Say what you will about the wisdom of some of the president’s public messaging last week, but once he made clear that he again would act to enforce his red line, U.S. adversaries took him deadly seriously. Russian ships dispersed from port. Syria abandoned its own air bases and rushed to co-locate its aircraft near Russian military assets. And Iranian-backed fighters, including Hezbollah forces, allegedly vacated certain positions and went to ground for fear of a possible U.S. strike. Again, the fact that the United States’ worst adversaries appear to take Trump’s threats with the seriousness they deserve is a very good thing, a genuine national security asset that needs to be husbanded, reinforced, and carefully but systematically exploited going forward. But hopefully last week’s experience also serves as a reminder to the president of the deep wisdom inherent in the criticism that he’s long leveled at his predecessors: Don’t telegraph your military punch.

Another observation: There was much nervous hand-wringing before the strike about a possible U.S.-Russia confrontation. Rightly so. No one wants World War III to break out over Syria. All prudent and appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate those risks. But in some circles, the hyping of the concern threatened to become absolutely paralyzing, a justification (or excuse) for doing nothing in the face of Assad’s abominable use of weapons of mass destruction.

In the end, of course, for all their chest thumping, the Russians did next to nothing as Western planes and missiles flew under their noses to strike a client that they’ve expended significant resources to save.

Just as the Israelis, for their part, have conducted nearly 100 strikes against Russia’s Iranian, Hezbollah, and Syrian allies with barely more than a clenched fist from Moscow. The fact is that for all the firepower they may have assembled in Syria, and for all the success they’ve enjoyed carpet-bombing defenseless civilian populations and poorly equipped Islamist radicals, Russian forces are severely overmatched — both in terms of quality and quantity — by what the United States and its allies can bring to bear in any head-to-head confrontation in the eastern Mediterranean. Putin knows it. So does his military. That reality of the actual balance of power — not only militarily, but economically and diplomatically as well — is always worth keeping in mind.

On their own, the Syrians and their Iranian allies were virtually defenseless against the U.S.-led strike. The best they had was a flurry of unguided missiles haphazardly fired after the mission’s designated targets had been turned to smoldering ruins. Of course, it was only a few years ago (well before the Russians intervened with their advanced S-400 surface-to-air batteries) that senior U.S. officials were pointing to the dangers of Assad’s air defenses as an excuse for not acting to protect Syrian civilians from being systematically terrorized by barrel bombs, indiscriminate artillery fire, and Scud missiles. Let’s hope that the overwhelming success of this attack puts the reality of that threat into somewhat better perspective for U.S. military planners — while also serving as a powerful reminder not just to Assad, but to Iran and other adversaries as well, of the extreme vulnerability they potentially face at the hands of U.S. air power and weaponry.

My criticisms of the U.S. strike? It was clearly at the lowest end of the options presented the president. As suggested by some of what I’ve said above, Trump was too risk-averse. Even with the president telegraphing that a strike was coming, the universe of targets that the United States could have attacked — while still minimizing collateral damage and the threat of great-power escalation — was far larger than what it ended up hitting. Trump could have done much more to degrade the Assad regime’s overall capability to wage war against its own people. The United States could have sent far more powerful messages to the Syrian government’s key military and intelligence power nodes of the risks they run to their own survival through mindless obedience to Assad’s genocidal criminality. Ditto the Russians and Iranians, and the realization that their failure to reign in the most psychotic tendencies of their client could substantially raise the costs and burdens of their Syrian venture if they’re not careful.

In short, everything the United States wanted to do with the strike — hold Assad accountable, re-establish deterrence against the use of chemical weapons, send a message to the Russians and Iranians about the price to be paid for failing to control their client, and move toward a credible political settlement — could have been done more effectively, at acceptable risk, with a significantly larger strike.

More fundamentally, I have deep concerns about what appears to be the president’s emerging strategy in Syria. It amounts to defeating the Islamic State, deterring the use of chemical weapons, and then withdrawing U.S. forces as quickly as possible from eastern Syria. As for the more strategically significant menace posed to vital U.S. interests by an aspiring Iranian hegemon seeking to dominate the Middle East’s northern tier, drive the United States out of the region, and destroy Israel, the administration’s strategy is not particularly compelling. As best as one can tell from the president’s recent statements — including the one he made on Friday night announcing the Syria strike — it amounts to encouraging some combination of regional allies (and perhaps Russia) to fill the vacuum the United States leaves behind.

That kind of abdication of U.S. leadership rarely works out well. Leveraging U.S. power to demand greater burden-sharing from partners who have even more at stake than the United States does? Definitely. Less effective: When the United States washes its hands of a problem with deep implications for U.S. national security in vague hope that other parties — smaller, weaker, more deeply conflicted and strategically myopic than the United States is — will organically rise to the occasion and mobilize a virtuous coalition that takes care of business and keeps at bay the country’s most vicious adversaries.

The president is right, of course: The Middle East is a deeply troubled place. There are no great victories to be won there. There is no glory to be gained. Just worst disasters to be avoided, threats contained, and important national interests preserved. Yes it is imperative that the United States does so smartly, prudently, by, with and, through local partners and multilateral coalitions, using all instruments of national power, and in a way that sustains the understanding and support of the American people. But do so the country must. Packing its bags and vacating the playing field to the likes of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah is escapism masquerading as strategy. Trump’s important response to the Syrian chemical weapons attack last week is evidence that he may still be capable of grasping that unforgiving reality. He should be encouraged to build on it.

John Hannah

Russia’s Response to the West, Cyber War

Posted on April 16, 2018April 16, 2018 by Denise Simon

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the United Kingdom’s (UK) National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) released a joint Technical Alert (TA) about malicious cyber activity carried out by the Russian Government. The U.S. Government refers to malicious cyber activity by the Russian government as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

NCCIC encourages users and administrators to review the GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity page, which links to TA18-106A – Russian State-Sponsored Cyber Actors Targeting Network Infrastructure Devices, for more information.

*** photo

Senator Tom Cotton: Our nation’s communications networks benefit us in ways unimaginable at the start of the digital age. But a potential danger lurks: hidden “backdoors” in network equipment. A hostile foreign power could use these backdoors to spy on Americans or attack our critical infrastructure by injecting viruses or launching denial-of-service attacks. These backdoors can be designed into routers, switches, and virtually any other type of telecommunications equipment that, together, make up our networks.

This highlights the importance of our networks’ supply chain—that is, the process by which telecommunications equipment is manufactured, sold, distributed, and installed. Whether the threat involves hacking into our nation’s communications networks or conducting industrial or political espionage at the behest of a foreign government, the integrity of the supply chain has worried U.S. government officials for years.

In 2012, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan report on the national security threats posed by certain foreign manufacturers. This past year, Congress barred the Department of Defense from buying certain equipment and services from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE on account of concerns about those companies’ connections to that country’s government. And Congress recently banned all federal agencies from using products or services made by Kaspersky Lab, a company with alleged ties to the Russian government.

We’re committed to protecting our national security, and this proposal is a prudent step to accomplish that goal.

But the supply-chain threat persists. Just this February, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified about “the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don’t share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks.” These risks include the ability to “maliciously modify or steal information” and “conduct undetected espionage.” As the supply chain for our networks increasingly stretches beyond U.S. borders, this danger has become all too real.

Given the national security risks, we believe it’s time for more concerted federal action. Among other things, that means making sure that our government doesn’t make the problem worse by spending the American people’s money on products and services from any company that poses a national security threat to our communications networks.

The Federal Communications Commission is a good place to start. It regulates America’s communications networks. And it administers the Universal Service Fund, an almost $9 billion-per-year program designed to ensure that all Americans have access to phone and broadband services. The money in the Fund comes from fees paid by the American people on their phone bills. About $4.7 billion annually is spent expanding high-speed Internet access in rural communities; $2.7 billion helps connect schools and libraries to the Internet; $1.3 billion assists in making phone and broadband services more affordable to low-income Americans; and about $300 million supports communications services for rural health-care facilities. These are important programs. But there’s no reason one dime of this funding should go to suppliers that raise national security concerns. There are plenty of other providers we can use to help bridge the digital divide.

That’s why the FCC will vote on April 17 on Chairman Pai’s recent proposal to bar the use of universal service funding to buy equipment or services from any company that poses a national security threat to the integrity of our communications networks or the communications supply chain. If approved, the proposal would also seek public input on how we should identify suspect firms and which types of telecommunications equipment or services should fall within the prohibition. Everyone concerned about this issue will have a chance to weigh in.

Bottom line: We’re committed to protecting our national security, and this proposal is a prudent step to accomplish that goal. The FCC, Congress, and all government agencies must work together to safeguard the integrity of our communications supply chain. We strongly urge the full Commission to approve this proposal and for other agencies to follow the lead.

What the Heck? Dept of Interior has Rookie IT People or What?

Posted on April 5, 2018April 5, 2018 by Denise Simon

Is this a joke? Those computers had/have malware installed that was never detected even after that major OPM hack that forced the mainframes to communicate with Russia…..yes RUSSIA. So, here comes that Inspector General audit report. We are bleeding data, even classified data….So we have tech companies and social media operations that are not protecting or safeguarding our data, now for sure we have government that cant do it either…..

There was a hearing though…..ahem

Federal Data Breach Reveals Weaknesses Of U.S ... photo

In part from the audit report: This memorandum transmits the findings of our evaluation of the U.S . Department

of the Interior’ s incident response program. We found that the Office of the Chief

Information Officer had not fully implemented the capabilities recommended by

National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in its incident detection

and response program.

We make 23 recommendations to help the Department improve its incident response

program , so it can promptly detect and full y contain cyber threats to maintain the

availability, confidentiality, and integrity of Department and bureau computer

systems and data.

In response to our draft report, the Department concurred with all recommendations

and provided target dates and officials responsible for implementation.

We consider all 23 recommendations resolved but not implemented.

We will forward the recommendations to the Office of Policy, Management and

Budget for tracking and implementation. We understand that some of these recommendations may require significant investment in cyber security infrastructure

as well as the recruitment of additional staff, but the intended timeframe to implement

these recommendations remains a concern.

Five recommendations will not be addressed for more than 5 years, and four recommendations will not be addressed for more than 3 years.

In the interim, the Department should consider additional temporary or partial solutions.

Specifically, we found that the Department:

• Was not fully prepared to respond to incidents

• Did not promptly detect or fully analyze security incidents

• Did not fully contain or completely eradicate active cyber threats

• Did not continuously improve its incident response capabilities by

learning from prior incidents

You can find the full report/audit here.

Three years after Chinese hackers stole security clearance files and other sensitive personal information of some 22 million U.S. federal employees, cyber-defenses at the Department of Interior, which hosted White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) servers targeted in the theft, were still unable to detect “some of the most basic threats” inside Interior’s computer networks — including malware actively trying to make contact with Russia.

In a 16-month examination of Interior’s ability to detect and respond to cyber-threats, evaluators from the department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) also discovered that Interior’s technicians simply did not implement a sweeping array of mandatory, government-wide defensive measures ordered up after the disastrous OPM hack, didn’t investigate blocked intrusion attempts, and left “multiple” compromised computers on their network “for months at a time,” according to a redacted OIG report issued in March.

Ultra-sensitive security clearance files have since been moved to the Defense Department, but, among other things, the OIG report noted that:

● sensitive data at Interior could be taken out of the department’s networks “without detection.”

● network logs showed that a computer at the U.S. Geological Survey, an Interior bureau, was regularly trying to communicate with computers in Russia. The messages were blocked, but “the USGS facilities staff did not analyze the alerts.”

● dangerous or inappropriate behavior by network users — including the downloading of pornography and watching pirated videos on Russian and Ukrainian websites — was not investigated.

● computers discovered to be infected with malware were scrubbed as soon as possible and put back into use—meaning little or no effort went into examining the scope and nature of any such threats to the broader network. This happened, the OIG team noted, with one intruder they discovered themselves.

● simulated intrusions or ransomware attacks created by the examiners were carried out with increasing blatancy without a response—in the case of ransomware, for nearly a month

● After the devastating OPM hack, which was discovered in April 2015, the department didn’t even publish a lessons-learned plan for its staffers based on the disaster. The OIG inspectors reported that Interior started to draft an “incident response plan” that month to deal with future intrusions, but “did not publish it until August 2017”— two months after the OIG team had finished their lengthy fieldwork.

● Distressingly, the report also notes that the department’s cybersecurity operations team was not privy to a list of Interior’s so-called “high-value IT assets” prepared by the Chief Information Officer, “due to its sensitive nature.” More here.

Go Facebook Go and Take Android with You

Posted on April 5, 2018April 5, 2018 by Denise Simon

Primer: Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Does this only apply to the Federal government or State government?

Humm read on….

The Mark Zuckerberg apology tour continues. There was the 87 million compromised accounts where privacy was ignored. Then there was the fact that Facebook employees track communications in the private message feature. But why would Facebook contact hospitals asking for patient information? Sheesh, really?

Facebook asked hospitals for anonymized data about their patients for a proposed research project, CNBC reported on Thursday.

The social media platform reportedly intended to compare the data, which included prescription information and illnesses, with its own data that it collected from users, in order to flag users that may need hospital care.

The proposal was paused after Facebook revealed that Cambridge Analytica improperly took data from 50 million of its users’ profiles, and reportedly never made it beyond initial planning stages.

“This work has not progressed past the planning phase, and we have not received, shared, or analyzed anyone’s data,” a Facebook spokesperson told CNBC.

The social media company discussed its plan with organizations including Stanford Medical School and American College of Cardiology.

The data the company would have collected would have been completely anonymous and only available for medical research, according to the report.

Cathleen Gates, the interim CEO of the American College of Cardiology, said in a statement provided to CNBC that Facebook’s proposed data project could help medical research.

“As part of its mission to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the American College of Cardiology has been engaged in discussions with Facebook around the use of anonymized Facebook data, coupled with anonymized ACC data, to further scientific research on the ways social media can aid in the prevention and treatment of heart disease—the #1 cause of death in the world,” she said.

News of the proposed medical data collection comes amid scrutiny over how a British research firm hired by the Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica, improperly took user data through Facebook.

Controversy over matter has sparked an outcry about Facebook’s data collection and privacy practices.

Lawmakers have been particularly vocal on the issue. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is set to testify before them on Capitol Hill in hearing on Tuesday and Wednesday during Senate and House hearings about data privacy.

*** Gonna be some interesting hearings on The Hill right? Perhaps Android should be included….

A software developer — who didn’t want to be identified — told News.com.au the social media giant should be the least of our worries, saying Android apps available on Google Play are often “saturated by spyware.”

“Google has given apps a wide open ‘side-door’ to collect personal info to all apps if users simply download and accept the listed permissions,” he said. “Of course, if you notice, the permissions are actually hard to find and Google downplays what they can do.”

He pointed to third-party keyboards as an example.

“Third-party keyboards not only have access to all dangerous permissions, but they also have access to all keystrokes — including account names and passwords,” he said.

We’ve already seen evidence of this blowing up in recent months.

In December, the popular virtual keyboard app AI.type leaked the personal data of over 31 million customers online.

Security researchers at the Kromtech Security Center said the server wasn’t password-protected, allowing anyone to access the company’s massive database.

The app stated that any text entered on its keyboard stays “encrypted and private.”

But researchers found users must allow “Full Access” to all of their data stored on the iPhone, including all keyboard data.

This meant the app would theoretically have access to all your secure usernames and passwords.

photo

“If you look at all the top Android keyboards and look at their requested permissions, it is alarming,” the developer said. “They often can run at start-up, prevent the device from sleeping, and have access to an extensive amount of a user’s personal data.

“They can send encrypted data anywhere in the world without scrutiny.”

A ZDNet investigation into AI.type found the company kept complete records on the device’s IMSI and IMEI number, the device’s make and model, its screen resolution, and the device’s specific Android version.

It also included the user’s phone number, the name of their mobile phone provider, and in some cases their IP address and internet provider.

As the app developer said, third-party keyboards can access the highest level of Android permissions, including personal data like passwords and credit card numbers.

According to ZDNet, one table contained more than 8.6 million entries of text that had been entered using the keyboard, which included phone numbers, email addresses and corresponding passwords, and web search terms.

It found that — for apps that contained a paid and free version, the latter was more concerning; a free version would be more likely to collect data than the paid, which the company would use to monetize with advertising.

“Other keyboards have also been found to have been collecting unsettling data, while none have been removed from Google Play,” he said.

Both the free and paid versions of AI.type are still available on Google Play.

“What is most disturbing to me is that Google apparently blindly ignores this problem, and has built in this open ‘side door’ to facilitate their won apps that collect lots of data on us. If they shut this down, they would shut down their own intrusive apps.”

‘Trading privacy for profits’

Cybersecurity expert, professor Nigel Phair, from the University of Canberra in Australia, shared several of these concerns.

He said it’s surprisingly difficult to log out of a Google service, which explains how they can store your data consecutively over many years.

“What concerns me most is that we’re not making informed decisions,” he told News.com.au. “We get free email, free apps, free directions … but people aren’t consciously making informed consent. It’s not just Google. Apple [does] the same thing.”

But he said Android users were particularly at risk. “If you go into the Facebook app on your Android device and look at the permissions, it’s broader than that of Apple devices, and can include text messages and phone calls. Android is a completely uncurated, open-sourced platform.”

This explains why Android phones were the subject of Facebook’s recent phone-scraping scandal.

So how is it that apps logging your keyboard entries and other data haven’t been shut down yet?

Phair stressed that it comes down to the open permissions laid out in the terms and conditions — which, let’s face it, very few people read. The sheer impracticality of doing so may well be the apps’ strategy.

“There’s nothing illegal about collecting data,” said Phair. “Take Facebook. By signing up, you’re basically agreeing to the terms and conditions, which are basically ‘we can do whatever we want with your data.’ That’s the get-out-of-jail-free card. If you’re going to use our servers, we’re going to collect and sell your data to third-party affiliates.”

In a recent interview, Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook’s current problems were partly because the company was so focused on connecting people during its first decade and that it didn’t pay enough attention to potential consequences around privacy.

Last week, technical consultant and web developer Dylan Curran posted a thread on Google and Facebook’s data storing that quickly went viral.

Curran posted photos of the personal data collected by Google (which users are able to download). The file was 5.5 gigabytes — the equivalent of about three million Word documents.

He said it included “every email I’ve ever sent, that’s been sent to me, including the ones I deleted or were categorized as spam.”

“Every image I’ve ever searched for and saved, every location I’ve searched for or clicked on, every news article I’ve ever searched for or read, and EVERY SINGLE Google search I’ve made since 2009.”

He found Google was storing his location every time he turned on his phone, his search history (even if he deleted this), every app and extension he used, his YouTube history, calendar, hangout sessions and the music he listened to.

Spooky stuff.

INDEED!

Immigration, Migrant, Refugee, Asylum Law Clean-up Required

Posted on April 4, 2018April 4, 2018 by Denise Simon

Okay, let us start with ‘catch and release’. Actually under GW Bush and Michael Certoff, it was a policy of ‘catch and return’. That is until many home countries refused to take back their citizens. During that time, the United States had to have detention facilities to house these people until their case(s) could be worked through the varied systems. Then the left decided there needed to be a lawsuit on the whole detention thing. Yup, it went to the Supreme Court and the decision was a time limit of 6 months of detention and then the case had to be resolved. Well, there were not enough judges, so ‘catch and release’ was tried, hoping they would show up to court….well 80% did not show up. Catch and release now remains.

Now we continue to hear new labels applied to people entering the United States by various methods including across the borders, by air and by ship. In fact more enter by air than any other means and overstay the visa. So, advertisement float around the world and especially in Central and South America on who to contact to get to the United States, how much it costs, what to do, what to say, what to have. Yup, advertisements and sadly that does include our diplomatic posts and embassies in regions of conflict(s). The buzzword today is ‘asylum’. Here is the rub on that…

People applying for asylum must first apply after they are provided an alien status and must prove why they cannot be returned to their home country. Over the years, that process has become twisted an no real proof or approval of the application is necessary especially in states where it is well known there are humanitarian issues. It should also be understood that asylum status is NOT a forever status as conditions can change, thus making it favorable for return to the home country. If that still proves impossible, coordination can be made with other countries that are not of origin to accept these people. President Clinton in 1994 when it came to Haitian and Cuban refugees, he worked a deal to have many go to Suriname, Grenada, Barbados and St. Lucia. Further, he did a remarkable and clever thing, for those wanting to get out of their failed home state, he held hearings for their cases in their home country or aboard ships, such that they would not enter the U.S. in the first place.

The United States has about a 16 year waiting list for cases to get through the immigration court process, that is if and when people do show up.

Now for the international pressures of refugees like from Honduras, Guatemala, Syria, Libya or Iran. The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. That DOES not force the United States to accept any refugee. It is time for the United States to make an annex condition stating a new and updated policy with regard to foreign nationals and refugees.

Check this: The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208) made substantial changes to the asylum process: establishing expedited removal proceedings; codifying many regulatory changes; adding time limits on filing claims; and limiting judicial review in certain circumstances, but it did not alter the numerical limits on asylee adjustments. Okay, so we need a quota system perhaps, well we have quota systems, so we need one that is law and enforced.

While we are at it, we need updated and concise cogent definitions of asylum. It cannot just be the word fear….that does not work or apply anymore. Heck people are borrowing children to fabricate a family and claim fear if forced to return…who is lying to who? Ever wonder why these people dont apply to Mexico, Peru, or Sri Lanka for refugee or asylum status? Just being snarky….Read more details here.

Now let us take a sample country like Honduras.

According to the State Department website, Honduras has some of the highest favorabilty ratings to the United States in the Western hemisphere. Sheesh they should…why?

Several of our federal agencies give big money to Honduras like the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. Then we have this agency that I watch constantly, The Millennium Challenge. Just in 2013 alone, that MCC gave Honduras $15.6 million to improve public financial management and to create more effective and transparent public-private partnerships. What the heck does that mean? Trade between the United States and Honduras in 2015 was $10 billion.

Now, USAID gives money to Honduras, along with climate change money and military subsidies….oh yeah, did you know we have full control of our own air base in Honduras that we kinda share with the Honduran military? We have an estimated 700-1000 military personnel assigned to Soto Cano Air Base, of which our troops were living in air conditioned huts until about two years ago until we built condos for them….this time with running water.

DVIDS - Images - 231st Citizen-Airmen travel to Honduras ...

So, what does our military even do in Honduras? Counter-narcotics….oh wait …isn’t that the reason all these Hondurans are leaving due to violent drug operations? We also do medical stuff like pediatric nutrition and dentisty via our military at Soto Cano, as well as weather prediction, fire protection and aircraft maintenance. From time to time we do patrol(s).

10 Countries With The Highest Murder Rates In The World photo

So, ask yourself, if the United States was not located in Honduras, or if USSCOM via Joint Task Bravo was not in Honduras for the last 35 years…what state would that state be in today? Well, in 2011, we should remember Operation Castaway. That was the Honduras version of Operation Fast and Furious. Ah yes, we do have FBI and ATF in Honduras even as recently as 2017 where trafficking weapons from places like North Carolina flows in and out of Honduras.

Perhaps is it time we fix the real problems in these home countries with the money we do send there under our management and begin to stop failed nations like Honduras and the exodus problem causing our homeland problems.

Definitions, policies, laws and agreements need to be cleaned up for sure, country by country, document by document, agency by agency.