Category Archives: Failed foreign policy

Judge Hanen Orders Top DHS Brass to Texas

Posted on by

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen is NOT pleased with the Department of Homeland Security over lies, non-compliance and obstruction.

For some background:

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Hartnett could not explain why multiple DOJ lawyers — herself included — told the court multiple times over two and a half months that DHS would not be accepting requests for deferred action under the challenged order until mid February. She implausibly claimed that the legal team thought the injunction request did not apply to the expansion of DACA under the president’s November order — despite the clear words of the states’ initial filings and explicit statements made in court. It seems clear what Hanen thinks happened:

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing, I took it to heart. I was made to look like an idiot,” Hanen told Hartnett. “I believed your word that nothing would happen. . . . Like an idiot, I believed that.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415795/did-doj-lie-judge-hanen-editors

Dated July 7, 2015:

Judge Hanen has ordered Secretary Jeh Johnson; Gil Kerlikowske, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Kevin McAleenan, Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, Sarah Saldana, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Leon Rodriguez, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to his courtroom to answer for their non-response to his order.

Reading the order issued by Judge Hanen, it proves his tolerance has been exploited by all the agencies above. Hat tip to Josh Blackman.

§

ORDER
This Court held a hearing on June 23, 2015, at which time both parties indicated that they are making progress toward a resolution of discovery requests made by the Plaintiffs with regard to the Government’s belated revelation that it had implemented portions of the November 20, 2014DHS Memorandum prior to the February 18, 2015 start date provided to Plaintiffs and the Court by defense counsel. Given the fact that counsel for both sides indicated that progress has been made and have requested more time to reach an agreement, this Court granted the parties additional timeto seek a resolution of these pending issues. The parties are to file a status report with the Courtdescribing any agreement reached on Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and any resolution with regard to the approximately 108,800 individuals who were granted benefits pursuant to the 2014 DHSMemorandum between the date of that Memorandum and this Court’s injunction. The parties haveuntil July 31, 2015, to file that status report. The Court will resolve any and all questions regardingfuture discovery and/or sanctions once it reviews the parties’ report.This, however, does not resolve the issue as to the approximately 2,000 individuals that weregiven various benefits in violation of this Court’s order after the injunction was issued. The Courtwas first apprised by the Government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this Court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions—violations which have not yet been fixed. This Court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidentaland not done purposefully to violate this Court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regard to its “efforts” to rectify this situation. The Government promised this Court on May 7, 2015, that “immediate steps” were being taken toremedy the violations of the injunction. [
See
Doc. No. 247]. Yet, as of June 23, 2015—some sixweeks after making that representation—the situation had not been rectified. With that in mind, theCourt hereby sets a hearing for August 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Each individual Defendant mustattend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. In additionto the individual Defendants, the Government shall bring all relevant witnesses on this topic as theCourt will not continue this matter to a later date. The Government has conceded that it has directlyviolated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior. That is unacceptable and,as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional. To be clear, thisCourt expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Complianceas to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance.If the Government remedies this situation and comes into compliance with this Court’sinjunction by July 31, 2015, it shall include a summary of that situation in the July 31, 2015 reportto the Court. If the Court is satisfied with the Government’s representations, it will cancel theAugust 19, 2015 hearing. Otherwise, the Court intends to utilize all available powers to compel compliance.
2  
This Court began its last hearing by explaining its reluctance to sanction any party or attorney. If nothing else, sanctions bog both the parties and the Court down on side issues thatdetract their attention from the real focus: the merits and resolution of the case. Nevertheless, noreasonable person could possibly consider a direct violation of an injunction a side issue. Furthermore, at some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct intocompliance, one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate. If these violationshave not been corrected by the end of this month, absent very compelling evidence, which this Courtwill be glad to consider, the only logical conclusion is that the Government needs a stronger motivation to comply with lawful court orders. Neither side should interpret this Court’s personal preference to not sanction lawyers or parties as an indication that it will merely acquiesce to a party’s unlawful conduct.Signed this 7th  day of July, 2015. ________________________________ Andrew S. HanenUnited States District Judge
3
 

 

Hamas, Qatar and the Sinai, Terror Attacks

Posted on by

Of particular note, U.S. Central Command has a satellite location in Qatar. Qatar is the location of the Taliban 5 released in exchange for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl and Qatar is the ‘go-to’ country that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton launched as the official Middle East diplomacy interlocutor. Corruption reigns in Qatar. The United States policy under Barack Obama is dealing with the devil.

 

From Reuters:

Israel says Islamic State’s Sinai assault aimed to help Hamas get arms

Israel accused Hamas on Tuesday of supporting last week’s assaults by Islamic State affiliates on Egyptian forces in the Sinai in hope of freeing up arms smuggling to the Gaza Strip.

The remarks followed Israeli allegations that Hamas members provided training and medical treatment for the Sinai insurgents – charges dismissed by the Palestinian Islamist group as a bid to further fray its troubled ties with Cairo.

Egypt said more than 100 insurgents and 17 of its soldiers were killed in Wednesday’s simultaneous assaults, carried out against military checkpoints around the North Sinai towns of Sheikh Zuweid and Rafah. Islamic State’s Egypt affiliate, Sinai Province, took credit for the attacks.

Rafah straddles the border between Egypt and Gaza and had long seen smuggling to the Hamas-controlled enclave. But Cairo has been cracking down on such activity and deems Hamas a threat to Egyptian interests.

An Israeli intelligence colonel responsible for monitoring the borders with Egypt and Gaza said on Tuesday that Hamas, short of weaponry after its war against Israel last year, supported the Sinai assaults with the “objective of opening up a conduit” for renewed smuggling. More here.

Reports Prove Qatar is a sponsor of terror.

From the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

On July 2, the Egyptian El Balad channel reported statements by Egyptian security experts that the explosives used to assassinate Prosecutor-General Hisham Barakat were delivered to Egypt through the Qatari embassy’s diplomatic mail. Meanwhile, the Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab al-Youm openly accused Qatar of being behind the attack. In a July 5 report, the newspaper claimed Qatar had funded the terror attack by the Islamic State’s Ansar Beit al-Maqdis against Egyptian army units in Sinai; it also allegedly had brought terror operatives from Syria, Iraq, and Libya to Sinai, where they had undergone training for the attack.

The report also claimed that Qatar had coordinated the media coverage of the Sinai onslaught in the Arab and international media. For example, Al Jazeera, which broadcasts from Doha and is funded by the Qatari government, provided direct coverage of the offensive against the Egyptian army from the moment it began that day at seven in the morning, and highlighted the raising of the black flags of Islamic State in the town of Sheikh Zuweid.

These reports are substantiated by the rising tension between Egypt and Qatar in recent days. Two days after last week’s attacks in Egypt, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry appointed Mohamed Awad — previously its ambassador to Qatar — to the post of Egyptian consul-general in Mumbai while leaving the Egyptian embassy in Doha without an ambassador. The Egyptian ambassador to Qatar was recalled in January 2014 to protest “Qatar’s interference in Egypt’s internal affairs” and since then had waited in Cairo to be reassigned. Egyptian commentators view this step as Egypt signaling its displeasure to Qatar, as well as the fact that Egyptian security officials are aware of Qatar’s involvement in the recent terror incidents. Although Qatar issued a condemnation of the Egyptian prosecutor-general’s assassination, Egyptians have dismissed Qatar’s statement as a standard denunciation and no more than lip service.

Sanctuary Cities, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Posted on by

Let’s get real, this is a funded ‘shut up’ program.

We often refer to them as illegal immigrants and are slammed for using the word illegal, but the Department of Justice itself uses the term ‘criminal’ when referring to foreign nationals in America unlawfully.

Imagine a system that complies with the 9/11 Commission recommendations that every lawmaker in Washington signed on to such that ICE or Border Patrol would follow the law and confusion and collusion would not permeate across governments that invite deadly disasters.

The most recent deadly event of an illegal foreign national in America occurred in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, one of hundreds in America.  The man, now arrested gave his confession and reason for being in the United States and killing the woman. Barack Obama himself advised the California governor to advance and approved the Trust Act. It essentially eliminates the ‘hold requests in jails.

In 2012, Barack Obama changed the rules for immigration causing confusion, legal warfare and fast but hidden changes in enforcing law.

Last year there was the largest insurgency of illegals coming across our southern border in many years and that cause a chain reaction across several government agencies including the Center for Disease Control.

From Judicial Watch there were emails obtained.

CDC Official Calls Obama Worst President, Amateur, Marxist After Influx of Illegal Alien Minors

JULY 02, 2015

Following the influx of illegal immigrant minors from Central America, an official at the federal agency charged with protecting public health describes Barack Obama as “the worst pres we have ever had,” an “amateur” and “Marxist,” according to internal emails obtained by Judicial Watch.

JW got the records as part of an investigation into the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) activation of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to deal with the barrage of illegal alien minors last summer. Tens of thousands of Central Americans came into the United States through the Mexican border and contagious diseases—many considered to be eradicated in the U.S.—became a tremendous concern. The CDC, which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), responded by opening an emergency facility designed to monitor and coordinate response activities to eminent public health threats.

Yet, when it comes to destinations of illegals, they head to sanctuary cities and while some locations are overflowing, new locations are added, creating a country within a country, all paid for by the Department of Justice.

The program is in fact called STATE CRIMINAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM and what is even more terrifying up to 850 U.S. cities received grant money for the program, far beyond the number of cities officials will admit to. In 2010, $400 million dollars in grants was provided under this program.

If you dare, click here for the volume of grant money dispersed by the DoJ when it comes to ‘criminal’ alien assistance.

The real costs of SCAAP is not adequate to support state and local governments resulting in several cities working to get out of the program due to the financial burdens.

As a sample year, a 2010 report is here for how cities get grant money for subsidies.

While the blame game is now underway to point fingers at mayors, or sheriffs or ICE, the real blame goes directly to the Department of Justice, contrary to what the White House reveals as republicans are at fault for not passing immigration reform.

Directly from the Department of Justice:

State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)

Private Powerbrokers Bankrolled Iran Diplomacy

Posted on by

Thomas Pickering, an anti-Israel steward of progressive bent was designated by Hillary Clinton to head up the task of the Accountability Review Board report to investigate the Benghazi deadly attack.

Being a powerbroker with lots of money, an agenda and the quest to create expanded business opportunity with the enemy is what the Iran Project is about.

Iran has been an rogue country for decades and a state sponsor of terror, yet to some that does not matter even when American have been killed. Shameful.

The deal being negotiated with Iran by the P5+1 comes down to lifting sanctions, funding and missiles. Through this the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is about to being even richer than the $8 billion in their control now. Does that even sound remotely acceptable?

Click here for the Iran Project summary and review the signatories.

Cunning Diplomacy Bubbles to the Surface

How Freelance Diplomacy Bankrolled by Rockefellers Has Paved the Way for an Iran Deal

Bloomberg:

Cutting a nuclear deal with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be the easy part for President Obama, who must then persuade both houses of Congress to sign off on the pact. Republicans and many Democrats abhor the idea of lifting sanctions and readmitting oil-rich Iran to the global economy until it disavows all nuclear research and stops meddling through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Advocating for an Iran truce is a loose coalition of peace groups, think tanks, and former high-ranking U.S. diplomats bound together by millions of dollars given by the Rockefeller family through its $870 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The philanthropy, which is run by a board split between family members and outsiders, has spent $4.3 million since 2003 promoting a nuclear pact with Iran, chiefly through the New York-based Iran Project, a nonprofit led by former U.S. diplomats. For more than a decade they’ve conducted a dialogue with well-placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, now Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator. The Americans routinely briefed officials in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, including William Burns, Obama’s former deputy secretary of state. Burns hammered out much of an interim nuclear agreement in secret 2013 talks with his Iranian counterparts that paved the way for the current summit in Vienna, where Secretary of State John Kerry leads the U.S. delegation.

The Rockefellers’ Iran foray began in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks. Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, convened a board retreat at the Rockefellers’ Pocantico Center in Westchester, just north of New York City, to consider new approaches to the Islamic world at a time when the U.S. was focused on the threat from al-Qaeda. One invited speaker was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian-American professor at George Washington University. “He got me thinking more and more about Iran, its geostrategic importance and its relationship to the Sunni world,” says Heintz.

The Rockefeller fund decided to create the Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S., a nonprofit that promotes the UN’s work then headed by William Luers, a career diplomat who served as ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia. Luers made contact with Zarif through Iran’s mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering, who served as Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to Israel and George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN, and Frank G. Wisner, who served as Reagan’s ambassador to Egypt and whose father was a high-ranking officer in the Office of Strategic Services and then in the CIA. “Each of us came from a special place on the compass,” Wisner says.

With encouragement from the Bush administration, says Heintz, the trio developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, the Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties. It was hosted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute at a small hotel outside Stockholm. The Iranians came armed with talking points, Heintz says, and the meetings were stiff and unproductive. The initial goal of developing a road map to restoring relations between Washington and Tehran, along the lines of Nixon’s 1972 Shanghai Communique preceding U.S.-China relations, proved elusive, according to Pickering. After every meeting, Heintz says, Iran Project leaders would brief staffers at the State Department or White House, including Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of state. “As we had no contacts at all with Iran at the time, their insights were very valuable,” says R. Nicholas Burns, who served as under secretary of state for political affairs under Bush.

The secret meetings in European capitals were suspended after Mahmoud Ahmedinejad won Iran’s presidency in 2005. But the group’s relationship with Zarif proved key in helping to jump-start negotiations after he was made foreign minister in 2013 by Rouhani, the newly elected president. A State Department official says the administration welcomes back-channel efforts like the Iran Project’s because “it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible.”

The Iran Project kept an eye on public opinion from the start. Among those invited to its events in New York was Robert Silvers, editor of the New York Review of Books, who found them “helpful in framing ideas for a workable nuclear treaty,” he says. The ideas floated at the meetings included letting the Iranians keep a limited capacity for enriching uranium to save face. “But everyone knew that a huge amount depended on how far the Iranians would go.” Silvers published multiple essays detailing the proposals by Pickering and Jessica Mathews, another Iran Project participant who preceded William Burns as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Iran Project’s briefing papers have provided a counterweight to criticism from pro-Israel groups, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, opposed to a deal.

For Wisner, breaking bread with Iranians exorcised a few ghosts. He was on Secretary of State Cyrus Vance’s senior staff during the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis in 1979 and knew diplomats held at the embassy. “I lived that,” he says. He also remembers listening to his dad planning the military coup that removed Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, from power in 1953 and replaced him with the U.S.-backed shah, Reza Pahlavi. “They don’t trust us, and we don’t trust them,” says Wisner. He says his father’s role in the Mosaddegh coup didn’t come up in any of the Iran Project meetings. “The Iranians, like us, have made a major political decision to engage,” he says.

The Rockefeller fund has given about $3.3 million to the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based disarmament group that has spent $4 million since 2010 to promote a deal with Iran and shepherded the peace groups and think tanks it supports to back Obama. “We’re trying to leverage our investments to play on our strengths,” says Joseph Cirincione, its president.

On June 23, when the New York Times ran an op-ed, “The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw,” Ploughshares coordinated its grantees’ responses to the claim that the deal would leave Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon within three months. The Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan group established in 1971, published a rebuttal on its daily blog, which other Ploughshares-affiliated groups sent to their contacts in Congress. “The pro-deal side has done a very good job systematically co-opting what used to be the arms control community and transforming it into an absolutist, antiwar movement,” says Omri Ceren, senior adviser for strategy for the Israel Project, a nonprofit that opposes a deal. “Sometimes, if your goal is stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, you have to make the hard decision to take military action, or at least signal you’re willing to.” Cirincione says that mistakes the rationale behind the Iran Project. “Iran is the boulder in the road,” he says. “You have to resolve this issue to get to the rest of the nonproliferation agenda. That’s why we’re doing this.”

 

Thirteen Miles Away, Those are Russian Bombers

Posted on by

The US Air Force reportedly scrambled fighter jets to intercept two pairs of Russian bombers that flew off the coast of California and Alaska on July 4.

The first incident occurred off the coast of Alaska, forcing the Air Force to send two F-22 jets from their base in Alaska to intercept two Tupolev Tu-95 long-range nuclear bombers, Fox News reports, citing US defense officials.

The second incident happened off the central coast of California, where another pair of Tu-95 Bear bombers were intercepted by two F-15 jets.

A defense official said that neither pair of Russian bombers entered US airspace–12 nautical miles off the coast.

Such incidents are not an uncommon occurrence between Russia and the United States.

A US Air Force reconnaissance aircraft encountered with a Russian fighter jet over the Black Sea in May, American military officials said last month.

According to officials, the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet, flying at high speed, flew alongside the US RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft at the same altitude, and shadowed the plane before leaving the area.

Also in May, the Russian military deployed Su-24 jets to ward off The US Navy destroyer USS Ross in the Black Sea after it was found heading into Russia’s territorial waters, according to several Russian media outlets.

The number of flights by Russian bombers over the US Air Defense Identification Zone doubled last year from their norm, according to data from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD.

Congressional hawks see the moves as a veiled message by Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Putin is KGB’ing Barack Obama:

While the two leaders have not had any communications since February, Putin allegedly reached out to the White House first in a phone call and then in a written communication.

Ultimatums abound, but who is listening.

Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have reason to be disappointed after their telephone conversation on June 25.

It was the first direct communication between these leaders since February, and both the Kremlin and the White House reported that the conversation ranged over the Ukraine crisis, the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and the NATO buildup in Eastern Europe, as well as the impending conclusion of the talks with Iran over suspect nuclear weapons.

Putin initiated the exchange, but Obama did all of the asserting and exhorting that, in the end, came to a standoff in all the threatened regions. Chiefly, Obama is said to have insisted upon actions by Putin without offering anything in exchange. Obama’s conduct, according to Kremlin informants, was a premeditated performance of ultimatum.

Demands and provocations

First, Obama pressed Putin with the claim that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula.

The White House reported Obama’s remarks in terms of last February’s Minsk agreement between the so-called Normandy Four, Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia: “President Obama reiterated the need for Russia to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements, including the removal of all Russian troops and equipment from Ukrainian territory.”

At no point before or after that agreement has the Kremlin acknowledged there are Russian troops or weapon systems inside Ukraine in support of the Donbass separatists. There is no language in the agreement saying that there exist Russian armed forces in Ukraine to be withdrawn. There is mention of “foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries.” Since then, the U.S. has deployed both military units and military equipment into Ukraine in support of the Kiev government. Kiev claims it has deployed 60,000 troops along the Donbass cease-fire line. The U.S., Great Britain and Canada speak of sending trainers for the elite national guard units (though not the neo-fascist Azov Battalion).

Obama’s remarks to Putin about Ukraine took the form of a diktat. From the Russian point of view, Obama sounded peculiarly unrealistic. There was the suggestion of desperation in Obama’s demands in order to create a foreign policy legacy despite the disorder in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

Obama also demanded that Russia support the pending deal between the P5+1 powers — the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany — and Iran over Tehran’s suspected secret nuclear weapons program. Russia, a party to the negotiations, has not voiced its opinion of a deal yet to be concluded. Obama told Putin that Russia must go along with the deal because this is what the international community demands.

Read more details here.