Due to Date Lines, Lies and Immunity Proven on Hillary’s Server

Posted on September 16, 2016September 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

It is looking much worse for how the FBI led this investigation while Director Comey has moved on, sorta:

Asked whether he knew if Clinton’s attorneys saw classified information, Comey said he did not know the answer.

Chaffetz was more certain. “It has to be yes, director,” he said. “You came across 110 and they said they went through all of them.”

Comey referred Chaffetz to his statement Tuesday in which he said Clinton’s attorneys sorted the emails for classified information using headers and search terms.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Comey said, repeating, “Yes.”

Chaffetz asked, “What do you think her intent was?”

“I think that was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the State Department,” Comey responded. “I think it would be a very tall order in that circumstance, if I don’t see the evidence to make a case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.” More here from Politico.

Judicial Watch: New State Department Documents Reveal Top Agency Officials Raised Questions about Clinton Emails in Early August 2013

‘Finally, John, you mentioned yesterday requests for Secretary Clinton’s emails; may I get copies.’ – Margaret Grafeld, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Global Information Services to John Hackett, Deputy Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, August 7, 2013

Documents Reveal that in Early August 2013, State had 17 Freedom of Information Requests relating to requests for Clinton correspondence

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 113 pages of new State Department documents, revealing that in early August 2013, top State Department officials raised questions about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails and the number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking information about them.

According to the newly obtained emails, in August 2013, State Department officials were aware of 17 FOIA requests relating to requests for Clinton correspondence, including four that “specifically mention Emails or Email accounts.” Despite the large number of FOIA requests and growing concern among top agency officials, the State Department did not formally request that the former secretary of state produce the emails on the clintonemail.com server until October 2014.

Included among the 17 FOIA requests was a Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records pertaining to possible conflicts of interest between the actions taken by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s activities. The lawsuit produced 276 pages of internal State Department records revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.” The records also show Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009. The lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)) was filed on May 28, 2013.

In a 2014 joint expose with the Washington Examiner Judicial Watch’s Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison reported:

[F]ormer President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released … in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one.

The new State Department documents records were obtained by Judicial Watch under court order in a March 2016, FOIA lawsuit against the agency for all records “about the processing of a December 2012 FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington [CREW]” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:16-cv-00574)).In December 2012, CREW filed a FOIA request with the Department of State for “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton.” In May 2013, the agency responded that “no records responsive to your request were located.” Earlier this year, the State Department Office of Inspector General concluded that the “no records response” sent in response to this request was “inaccurate and incomplete.”

According to the newly obtained records, by early August 2013, top State Department officials raised questions about FOIA requests seeking information related to the Clinton emails:

From: Grafeld, Margaret P

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:47 AM

To: Walter, Sheryl; Hackett, John

Subject: Fw: IPS significant FOIA Report

… Finally, John, you mentioned yesterday requests for Secretary Clinton’s emails; may I get copies, pls and thx.

[Margaret Grafeld was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Information Services. Sheryl Walter was the State Department Director, Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services. John Hackett was the Deputy Director, Office of Information Programs and Services.]

From: Walter, Sheryl L

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:51 AM

To: Hermesman, Geoffrey F [and others]

Subject: FW: IPS Significant FOIA Report

… Geoff, can you get a copy of all requests related to Clinton’s emails?

[Geoffrey Hermesman was a State Department program analyst.]

From: Hermesman, Geoffrey F

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 12:54 PM

To: Sheryl Walter [and others]

Subject: RE: IPS significant FOIA Report

A search of the F2 database identified 17 FOIA cases that contain Clinton in the subject line and can be further construed as requests for correspondence between the Secretary and other individuals and/or organizations. Of these, four specifically mention Emails or Email accounts.

From: Finnegan, Karen M

Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 4:10 PM

To: Walter, Sheryl L [and others]

Subject: RE: IPS Significant FOIA Report

Sheryl: To follow-up on my early response, Cristina is handling the Judicial Watch case, CA No. 2013-772 (DDC) (J. Kollar-Kotelly), that seeks access to all communications (including e-mail) between the Department and President Clinton and/or his foundation regarding clearing his speeches [Redacted]

[Karen Finnegan was division chief of the State Department’s freedom of information program.]

Last month, Judicial Watch released 10 pages of Department records that included an email sent by State Department spokesman Brock Johnson alerting Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then Chief of Staff, that a “significant” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request had been made for records showing the number of email accounts used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“These new emails suggest that the Obama State Department knew about the Clinton email problem at least three years but covered it up,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Any criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal must include officials in the Obama administration.”

###

LawNewz: The New York Times first reported on Combetta’s immunity deal in an article published late Thursday evening. The article states Combetta’s actions with respect to his work on the Clinton email server were referenced in the FBI investigation summary released on September 2 — but his name was redacted.

According to the FBI investigation summary, Combetta appears to be the individual who deleted Clinton’s email archives from the PRN systems in late March 2015. The FBI also uncovered evidence of a work ticket referencing a conference call between PRN and Clinton’s attorneys on March 31, 2015, but Combetta was advised by PRN lawyers not to answer questions about the conference call, citing attorney-client privilege.

During his second interview with the FBI in May 2016, Combetta told investigators that he deleted the emails in late March 2015 after recalling an order from Clinton’s team in December 2014 to delete all of the emails that may still exist. He referred to this recollection as an “oh shit” moment and decided to delete the emails, all the while knowing the preservation order existed. Combetta also told investigators he used the BleachBit program tool, ensuring the emails could not be recovered by investigators or anyone else.

However, during his previous interview in February 2016, he told investigators that the December 2014 deletion order played no role in his decision to delete the emails.

Despite lying to investigators, Combetta reportedly received immunity from prosecution.

Before Combetta’s identity or immunity deal was reported, the Denver Post published an editorial calling the circumstances surrounding the deletion of the emails a “hard-to-believe shocker that ought to give reasonable people pause.” PRN is a Colorado based company.

The timing of the deletion is important because it was done after Congress requested Clinton retain all of the emails that still existed. On Tuesday, Congressman Jason Chaffetz asked the Department of Justice to conduct an obstruction of justice investigation into the deletion of the emails.

However, if reports of the immunity deal are true, it seems unlikely that any sort of obstruction of justice investigation case can go forward. Combetta would seemingly be protected from prosecution.

That seems to be the conclusion of the Clinton campaign, at least according to what spokesman Brian Fallon told the newspaper. Fallon said all of this had already been “thoroughly examined by the F.B.I. prior to its decision to close out this case.”

He added, “As the F.B.I.’s report notes, neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.”

Did Jeh Johnson Pay $500,000 to Head DHS?

Posted on September 16, 2016September 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

Was it one of the Islamic organizations supportive of Barack Obama that funneled the money for Jeh Johnson to pass on to the DNC that allowed Jeh Johnson to assume his Secretary role at DHS? There is no proof, but the question needs to be asked. Mr. Johnson was invited and accepted a role in a recent ISNA Convention directly after the DNC convention.

Click here for the video. Also mentioned in this event were Jesse Jackson and Senator Dick Durbin. This is not the first rodeo for Jeh Johnson when it comes to solidarity with Islamic groups as noted here, where he spoke at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center. As a reminder, the ADAMS Center:

MIM: Mohammed Magid’s failure to condemn the attacks on America could be because his boss and benefactor, ADAMS chairman Ahmed Tontonji is:

“… an Iraqi-born citizen of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and a key target of Operation Green Quest. Totonji was also named as a defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by more than 600 relatives of people who died in the 9/11 attacks
He acted as a co-founder and officer of the Saudi-founded/Saudi-funded (and now defunct) SAAR Trust. Additionally, he served as Vice President of the Safa Group and the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT).Officials have linked the non-profit IIIT to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda (…)

***

CJR: The Executives of the ADAMS Center are very closely aligned with CAIR National. CAIR Executives often flip flop and join one another’s terrorist supporting organization. The ADAMS Center and CAIR National have previously been investigated and/or raided by the FBI. Why would the FBI recruit from Islamic terror organzations for sensitive positions, such as FBI Special Agents and FBI Analysts. The positions require a Top Secret clearance.

The answer is there is no good reason to recruit from terrorist organizations and supporters of terrorist. FBI Special Agent Amylynn Errera, Washington Field Office sent the email to Farooq Syed, ADAMS Center. Farooq then forwarded the email about FBI positions to members of their internal group of supporters. I was provided a copy by a source.

The FBI sends these job opening to Islamic terror supporters, yet I would make a multi-million dollar bet that no one from the Tea Party, ACT For America, and dozens of other conservative groups are provided an up front notice of sensitive job positions in the FBI. There are good people within the FBI, but the majority are not properly trained in regards to Islamic terrorism issues. Then there are some who knowingly have relationships with organizations that pose a threat to our national security.

The ADAMS Center has previously been raided for their support of terrorism (RAID ON ADAMS CENTER). I encourage readers to contact Special Agent Amylynn Errera and ask her why Islamic terror supporters (per the FBI’s own allegations) are being recruited for TOP SECRET positions within the FBI. Her contact information is at the bottom of the email she sent to the ADAMS Center. More here.

****

In terms of the Counterjihad movement, the corruption of the American administration creates several problems. If high posts are for sale, they might not be occupied by the best people. Worse, though, they might be bought by the wrong people. The sale of high offices allows a means of influence on our government that is not accountable to the people, especially given that it was handled secretly — and by a political party, not a formal branch of government.

For example, consider the case of Department of Homeland Security czar Jeh Johnson. Johnson is a career public servant. Yet he was able to come up with over half a million dollars in cash to donate to the DNC — and then “feigned disbelief” when he got the job of leading the Homeland Security agency.

How has he used this post? Oddly enough, we were just talking about that the other day. Johnson decided to appear at the conference of a known Muslim Brotherhood front organization, while “fully aware” of its terrorist ties.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said.

While there, he shared a stage with a Holocaust denier and a known leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nor was this the only occasion on which he has made moves amenable to the Brotherhood. In June, he testified before Congress admitting that his agency had scrubbed references to Islam from counter-terror materials that they produced. He claimed to have “no idea”how that happened.

Earlier in June, Johnson downplayed the role of a radical Islamist community in the Pulse nightclub shootings. He said that shooter Omar Mateen “was ‘self-radicalized’ without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.” Yet it turned out that Mateen had ties to a known radical imam, one who had served as a bodyguard for the “blind sheikh” who carried out the first World Trade Center attacks. Perhaps it was worth considering that Mateen might have targeted the gay nightclub in part because of the harsh language his mentor used towards “f****ts” in America, and Islam’s duty towards them?

To be clear, we at CounterJihad have no idea where Jeh Johnson got all that money. We have no evidence establishing a causal relationship between the inexplicably large donation from a career public servant and his subsequent support of Brotherhood outlets, or the Brotherhood’s agenda. We cannot even be certain that the documents establishing the donation are themselves fully genuine. We have to be suspicious of them at first face, given that they passed through the hands of pro-Russian actors. More details here.

Obama is Begging Health Insurers to Save Obamacare

Posted on September 16, 2016September 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

Congress has said no. There are countless lawsuits advancing in the judicial system and enrollment is failing. It cant be saved and 2017 will be the year of reckoning. Perhaps this is a good time for a reminder, not ONE single Republican voted for the law. Where are the media interviews now and where is Nancy Pelosi?

****

Obama steps in to save Obamacare

With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, the administration is redoubling pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law.

Politico: Deep into the final year of his presidency, Barack Obama is working behind the scenes to secure Obamacare’s legacy, struggling to bolster a program whose ultimate success or failure will likely be determined by his successor.

With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, Obama and his administration are redoubling their pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law and pushing uninsured Americans — especially younger ones — to sign up for coverage. The administration is nervously preparing for its final Obamacare open-enrollment season just a week before Election Day, amid a cascade of headlines about rising premiums, fleeing insurers and narrowing insurance options.

On Monday, Obama met face to face at the White House with leading insurance executives, asking for their continued commitment to the health law despite its recent spate of difficulties. Insurers have come to the White House periodically as the law has rolled out; this time the president made a direct plea for their ongoing support. They in turn pressed their case for steps the administration can still take to strengthen the Obamacare markets.

Notably absent were two of the national insurers that have already bailed on most Obamacare marketplaces — Aetna and UnitedHealth Group.

“We know that this progress has not been without challenges,” Obama wrote this week to each insurer selling Obamacare plans. “Most new enterprises have growing pains and opportunities for improvement. The Marketplace, while strong, is no exception. Time and experience will help drive that improvement, as will constructive policy changes.”

Meanwhile, the administration is taking steps on its own to prevent the marketplaces from collapsing. That includes redoubling efforts to reach out to younger potential Obamacare customers, who have proven particularly challenging to attract in large enough numbers to sustain a high-functioning insurance market. The administration hopes the bully pulpit can bolster that outreach: The president will host a “Millennial Outreach and Engagement Summit” later this month at the White House. And for the first time, the administration will be reaching out directly to individuals who paid a fine last year for not having coverage. HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell was on the Hill Thursday updating anxious Democrats about the administration’s efforts to fortify the program.

In a concession to insurers, the administration has also recently taken steps to tighten the enrollment rules to prevent people from gaming Obamacare’s coverage system. Insurers have complained that some customers have been signing up in “special enrollment periods” when they get sick and then dumping coverage once they’ve been treated. Insurers warn the abuse of the rules — designed to help people in special, limited circumstances — is driving up premiums for all Obamacare customers.

Insurers at Monday’s meeting reiterated their concerns about those enrollment issues, according to three insurance officials at the meeting. Burwell and White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett were among administration officials who attended.

“They are definitely moving in the right direction,” said Mario Molina, CEO of Molina Healthcare. “I think the industry’s concern is how quickly they move on these things.”

Martin Hickey, CEO of New Mexico Health Connections, was similarly enthusiastic about the summit with Obama.

“He sincerely seemed to be listening, and I think that gave a lot of comfort to people in the room,” Hickey said. “We all left feeling hopeful that he and the secretary and their staffs would do what they can to address the issues brought up. I honestly felt optimistic.”

But six years after passage of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the litany of woes afflicting the Obamacare marketplaces is formidable. Enrollment has plateaued at half of what was projected. Three major insurers have largely quit, citing big losses. Double-digit rate hikes are the norm for plans across the country. And roughly one in five Americans may find just one insurer selling plans in their area when they shop for 2017 coverage.

Despite all those problems, the administration still has a compelling case to make for the law’s achievements and for fixing it rather than scrapping it.

On Tuesday, the Census Bureau announced that the uninsured rate last year dipped to 9.1 percent, down more than 4 percentage points since 2013. Nearly 13 million fewer Americans were uninsured last year than prior to the full implementation of Obamacare.

Initial data from the CDC suggests that the uninsured rate has kept right on dropping into this year, to a historic low of 8.6 percent.

In addition, the Obama administration no longer faces the ugly prospect that no insurers will be selling plans in Pinal County, Ariz. The threat of that county becoming an Obamacare ghost town was lifted last week when Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona announced that it would sell plans in the county.

But the progress on coverage expansion hasn’t convinced Republicans that the law is sustainable. Most Republicans, including presidential nominee Donald Trump, continue to call for full repeal of the law, which was passed entirely with Democratic votes. That’s made any discussion around legislative fixes to bolster Obamacare a nonstarter.

That unyielding stance has proven potent politically: Republicans have won control of both chambers of Congress in part by demonizing Obamacare. And there’s no chance their stance will change before Election Day. Obamacare’s recent woes have only amped up the apocalyptic rhetoric from Republicans.

“Obamacare is unraveling at an alarming rate,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the HELP Committee, on the Senate floor Wednesday. “There’s no excuse for having a failing insurance market where taxpayers are paying most of the bill.”

A hearing this week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee provided another platform for Republicans to bash Obamacare.

“Premium are off the charts,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who chairs the committee. “Competition has dramatically declined. All in all the everyday patient is left paying more for fewer choices.”

But Democrats countered that Republicans have done everything possible to sabotage Obamacare, holding dozens of repeal votes and hearings to highlight the law’s shortcomings. They stressed that any legislation as complex as the Affordable Care Act is inevitably going to require legislative fixes.

“It’s time to stop having this kabuki dance over and over again, and it’s time to figure out how we can fix the Affordable Care Act,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt stressed similar points during testimony before the committee.

“Undertaking fundamental change is rarely easy,” Slavitt said. “Our mantra is to continually learn and adjust.”

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) scoffed at the idea that Republicans should work to salvage the law. “I remember the victory dance that you guys performed after passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote,” McCain said at a hearing on Thursday. “Now the chickens have come home to roost.”

Without any cooperation from Congress, the administration’s ability to fortify the Obamacare markets remains limited. Of course, the law’s namesake is soon to be a lame duck. That raises at least the possibility that the political gridlock that has existed since Obamacare’s passage could finally ease.

“We’re just hoping that we can get to some practicality come January,” said Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.

UNGA: Challenges Transcend Borders and National Sovereignties

Posted on September 16, 2016September 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

Anyone remember Brexit? People across the globe are speaking out and the vote in Britain to get out of a union and regain sovereignty is a message. It is not being heard and such is the case at the United Nations General Assembly.

Borderless….policy by global leaders is promoting this, while citizens are demanding otherwise. Have you taken a moment to look at our domestic universities where classes are filled with foreign students? Have you look at how intertwined governments are with each other’s economies? When one government financially aides another to keep it from a tailspin, major strings are attached and ethical behavior and compliance with law is dismissed.

Have you seen this hashtag? #UN4RefugeesMigrants It is the newest in vogue talking point and condition globally. To view how borderless the West is becoming, click here to see the topics of discussions planned at the United Nations.

The newest mission is to control the oceans and John Kerry is leading the way. Who owns those oceans and the sea life?

The Secretary of State sees the future of the seas as a global threat equal to world conflicts.

So, back to the United Nations and how the above and much more are being covered and delivered. Chilling conditions as noted below:

President Obama is hosting the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees, alongside co-hosts Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, Jordan, Mexico and Sweden, which will appeal to governments to pledge significant new commitments on refugees. While the Leaders’ Summit will focus on refugees, not migrants, the General Assembly High-Level Summit will address large movements of both. See the full program here.

Then we have Europe:

The European Union at the United Nations

“Stronger partnerships are the building blocks of our foreign policy. All today’s challenges
transcend borders and national sovereignties. None of us, alone, can carry the weight of the
world on its shoulders.”

High Representative/ Vice-President Federica Mogherini at the UN Security Council 6 June 2016

The EU’s commitment to effective multilateralism, with the UN at its core, is a central element of its external action. The Lisbon Treaty provides that “The Union … shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.” (Article 21-1 TEU) and that “The Union …shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to (…) preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.” (Art. 21-2)

Multilateralism is also one of the core principles and priorities in the new EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy. To respond successfully to global crises, threats and challenges, the international community needs an efficient multilateral system, founded on universal rules and values. The United Nations is both: a key EU partner and an indispensable global forum for tackling global challenges, within the overall framework of the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The EU thus works closely both with the UN and in the UN.

“Without global norms and the means to enforce them, peace and security, prosperity and democracy – our vital interests – are at risk. Guided by the values on which it is founded, the EU is committed to a global order based on international law, including the principles of the UN Charter. The EU will strive for a strong UN as the bedrock of the multilateral rules-based order, and develop globally coordinated responses with international and regional organisations, states and non-state actors.”

– EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy –

Working closely with the UN Secretariat and the various UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes, the EU has established a strong relationship with the UN. Cooperation takes place across a broad range of areas: development, human rights, climate change, peace building, crisis management, disarmament and non-proliferation, humanitarian assistance, fighting corruption and crime, addressing global health concerns, managing migratory flows and labour issues.

The UN General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the UN. The added value of the EU is to coordinate among its 28 Member States to present a unified position.

In 2011, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/65/276 upgrading the observer status allow the EU to present common positions, make interventions, present proposals and participate in the general debate each September. As an observer with enhanced status, enabling EU representatives to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states in the UN. Since then it is also the President of the European Council who delivers the EU statement in the General debate, and no longer the rotating Presidency, bringing EU representation in New York in line with Lisbon Treaty provisions. The EU has obtained a special “full participant” status in a number of important UN conferences.

The Council of the European Union adopted the EU priorities at the United Nations at the 71st United Nations General Assembly on 18 July 2016. The coming year will be focused on consolidation and implementation of the agreements reached in the past year. These include the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, the Addis Ababa action agenda of the third international conference on financing for development and the Paris climate agreement.

The EU coordinates its voting within the General Assembly’s six main committees and other bodies and agencies such as the Economic and Social Council. To this end, more than 1300 internal EU coordination meetings are held at the UN in New York alone to develop a common EU stance and speak with one voice. Article 34 of the EU Treaty also stipulates that EU members on the Security Council must act in concert and foster the interests of the EU. In 2015, the EU delivered more than 220 statements at the UN in New York, including 31 at the Security Council.

Global Security Provider

The EU has a wide range of tools available to prevent and solve crises in close cooperation with international and regional partners. For this reason, the High Representative provides regular updates to theSecurity Council and the EU is often invited to address issues of common concern, such as the fight against terrorism. Regular UN Security Council meetings on UN-EU cooperation in maintaining international peace and security are testimony to the importance both place on it.

“In our conflictual world, where power is scattered and diffuse, global peace and security only stands a chance if our nations and our regions are united. Our European Union will always come back to the United Nations, to the core of the international multilateral system, to the stubborn idea of a cooperative world order.”

HRVP briefing to UNSC 6 June 2016

The Security Council endorsed the relationship with the EU in 2014 when it adopted a presidential statement on cooperation between the EU and the UN.

Major contributor

Collectively, the EU and its Member States are the single largest financial contributor to the UN system. The sum of the contributions of the 28 EU Member States amounts to 30.38% of the UN regular budget and 33.17% of the UN peacekeeping budgets. In addition, the EU and its Member States also provide about one-half of all the voluntary contributions to UN funds and programmes. The European Commission alone contributed more than $1.5 billion to support UN external assistance programmes and projects in 2014. The European Union and its Member States retained their place as the world’s largest aid donor in 2014, according to OECD figures. In 2014, EuropeAid’s financial contributions to the UN exceeded €983 million, with the most funding going to UNDP (40%), UNICEF (18%), FAO (12%), UNRWA (10%), and WFP (8%). In 2015, ECHO (European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection) provided €514 million (an increase from €452 in 2014) to UN agencies, funds and programmes, including €207 million to WFP, €127 million to UNHCR and €108 million to UNICEF.

UN Reform and Increased Efficiency

Effective multilateralism requires an effective United Nations at its core. The EU supports the reform of the UN system, including its bodies and organs, to ensure it is fit to address the complex, multi-sectoral challenges we face today. This should include comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council as well as revitalisation of the work of the General Assembly. The EU supports the notion that the United Nations must be ‘fit for purpose’ as well as increasingly effective and efficient, including to support successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

In America: What Exactly is a Refugee?

Posted on September 15, 2016September 15, 2016 by Denise Simon

DHS Officials Admit They Have Not Used ‘Deception Detection Technologies’ to Screen Visa Applicants, Refugees

MRCTV: At a House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday titled “Shutting Down Terrorist Pathways into America,” officials at the Department of Homeland Security admitted they have not explored the use of “deception detection technology” for screening refugees and other visa applicants despite a law signed last year directing the agency to do so.

Migrant surge poses challenge for U.S.: Who’s a refugee, who isn’t?

WASHINGTON

Ordonez/McClatchy: U.S. Border Patrol agents will apprehend more family members entering the United States along the Southwest border this fiscal year than they did in 2014, when a massive surge of Central Americans found the Obama administration detaining thousands of mothers and their children.

Newly released U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics show that while overall apprehension numbers are down from two years ago, the number of family members being apprehended will almost certainly surpass the total of two years ago.

Both family apprehensions and detentions of unaccompanied children have shown dramatic increases over last year’s totals – with family detentions nearly doubling and the number children traveling without parents increasing 52 percent.

Those increases raise serious questions about the Obama administration’s strategy to curb the flow through a combination of immigration enforcement and humanitarian assistance.

“It has been a failure, because people are still coming,” said Amy Fischer, the policy director for the Texas-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.

Many migrants from Central America cite violence in their homelands as the reason for seeking refuge in the United States. The Obama administration has created a variety of programs, including aid to Central American governments, to try to tamp down that violence. The administration acknowledged over the summer that efforts have been “insufficient to address the number of people who may have legitimate refugee claims.”

A total of 68,445 family members were apprehended in 2014, when a surge of Salvadoran, Honduran and Guatemalan mothers and children fleeing violence and poverty raced into the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

This year, with one month left in the fiscal year, more than 68,080 family members have been apprehended. With apprehensions averaging 6,189 a month, the annual total is certain to be a record. No month this year has seen fewer than 3,000 family members detained. In August, Border Patrol agents apprehended 9,359 family members, the highest yet of the year.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are three of the most violent countries in the world.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned last October that women from Central America would continue to flee their countries because of the escalating tide of violence, including domestic violence and rape, fueled by sophisticated transnational gangs.

The number of Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States has grown nearly eightfold in the last six years. Mexico, Canada, Nicaragua and Costa Rica also have seen an increase in Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans seeking refugee status, according to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.

Federal officials have an obligation under national and international law to protect the vulnerable. The challenge is determining who qualifies as a bona fide refugee and who has come for family or economic reasons.

The surge has exacerbated an already long backlog of hundreds of thousands who are awaiting cases in immigration court. To receive asylum in the United States, applicants must prove they have well-founded fears of persecution because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” These cases can take years to resolve.

Homeland Security officials said they continued to monitor migration trends and were working aggressively to “deter unauthorized migration, while ensuring that those with legitimate humanitarian claims are afforded the opportunity to seek protection.”

The White House reached an agreement with Costa Rica in July to host up to 200 Central American refugee applicants while the United States assessed their asylum claims. It was part of a larger package of measures put in place to protect migrants that included expanding the number of people who can apply to the U.S. refugee program for children. The administration also worked with Congress to secure $750 million to help El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras fight poverty and violence as well as reform their governments.

President Barack Obama has authorized spending up to $70 million to meet the “unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs related to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.”

But Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has made it clear that deportations of Central Americans will continue despite recognition of the crisis.

“As long as we have border security and as long as our borders are not open borders,” Johnson told reporters last month. “We have to be consistent with our priorities.” Mo re here.