Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Visa Waiver Program to be Suspended or Terminated?

Posted on by

EU may require visas from Americans and Canadians: EU source

Reuters: The European Union executive is considering whether to make U.S. and Canadian citizens apply for visas before traveling to the bloc in a move that could raise tensions as Brussels negotiates a free trade pact with Washington.

The European Commission will debate the issue, prompted by U.S. and Canadian refusals to waive their visa requirements for holders of some EU member states’ passports, at a meeting next Tuesday. That is just over a week before U.S. President Barack Obama arrives in Europe on a visit that will include discussions on trade.

“A political debate and decision is obviously needed on such an important issue. But there is a real risk that the EU would move towards visas for the two,” an EU source said.

Washington and Ottawa both demand visas before traveling for Romanians and Bulgarians, whose states joined the EU in 2007. The United States also excludes Croatians, Cypriots and Poles from a visa waiver scheme offered to other EU citizens.

Europe’s Schengen area, comprising 26 states, most of which are in the 28-member EU, has a common visa system. Poland is a member of Schengen, and the other four states are due to join.

Trade negotiations between Brussels and Washington are at a crucial point since both sides believe their transatlantic agreement, known as TTIP, stands a better chance of passing before President Barack Obama leaves the White House in January.

Obama is due to visit Britain before meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a trade fair in Hanover on April 24.

Blah blah blah —>>>

U.S. Visa Waiver Program

DHS: The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in consultation with the State Department, permits citizens of 38 countries[1] to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa.  In return, those 38 countries must permit U.S. citizens and nationals to travel to their countries for a similar length of time without a visa for business or tourism purposes.  Since its inception in 1986, the VWP has evolved into a comprehensive security partnership with many of America’s closest allies.  The VWP utilizes a risk-based, multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals, and other mala fide actors from traveling to the United States. This approach incorporates regular, national-level risk assessments concerning the impact of each program country’s participation in the VWP on U.S. national security and law enforcement interests.  It also includes comprehensive vetting of individual VWP travelers prior to their departure for the United States, upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry, and during any subsequent air travel within the United States.

Economic Benefits

A strong and vibrant economy is essential to our national security. The United States welcomed approximately 20 million VWP travelers in FY 2014 who, according to the Department of Commerce, spent approximately $84 billion on goods and services.  VWP travelers injected nearly $231 million a day into local economies across the country.

Initial and Continuing Designation Requirements

The eligibility requirements for a country’s designation in the VWP are defined in Section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007.  Pursuant to existing statute, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate into the VWP a country that:

  1. Has an annual nonimmigrant visitor visa (i.e., B visa) refusal rate of less than three percent, or a lower average percentage over the previous two fiscal years;
  2. Accepts the repatriation of its citizens, former citizens, and nationals ordered removed from the United States within three weeks of the final order of removal;
  3. Enters into an agreement to report lost and stolen passport information to the United States via INTERPOL or other means designated by the Secretary;
  4. Enters into an agreement with the United States to share terrorism and serious criminal information;
  5. Issues electronic, machine-readable passports with biometric identifiers;
  6. Undergoes a DHS-led evaluation of the effects of the country’s VWP designation on the security, law enforcement, and immigration enforcement interests of the United States; and
  7. Undergoes, in conjunction with the DHS-led evaluation, an independent intelligence assessment produced by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (on behalf of the Director of National Intelligence).

 

Obama Claims a New Power, Illegals Benefit

Posted on by

Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability

Jeffrey/CNS: Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?

Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing “prosecutorial discretion.”

He argues that under this particular type of “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.

“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that “deferred action” does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

“In general,” he says, “only ‘qualified’ aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien ‘qualified.’… Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits.”

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for “earned-benefit programs.”

“A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'” says the solicitor general.

The “secretary” here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

“An alien with deferred action is considered ‘lawfully present’ for these purposes,” says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama’s solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally “deferred action” under the president’s DAPA policy, that alien is not given “lawful immigration status” and can be removed from the country “at any time.” However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be “considered ‘lawfully present'” for purposes of being eligible for “the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs.”

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: “(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama’s DAPA policy “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”

The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation’s immigration laws.

 

Fleecing Taxpayers, $137 Billion

Posted on by

GAO Report: Federal Government Paid $136.7 Billion in Improper Payments

IndependentJournal: The United States federal government spent $136.7 billion in improper payments last year, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

In the report released Wednesday, the GAO outlines how 121 different government programs doled out a record amount of improper payments, according to 22 different agencies.

The report further notes that only three programs accounted for three-fourths of the improper payments:

“While these 121 programs span various agencies across the federal government, improper payment estimates for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit accounted for more than 76 percent of the governmentwide estimate…”

According to the GAO, $32.3 billion, or 23.6 percent, of the improper payments were from other government programs.

Source: GAO

Source: GAO

This is just the latest report of improper payments, which remains an increasing problem. Since 2003, the GAO has reported the cumulative increases, which have risen more than $100 billion in the past 13 years.

The GAO wants to curb the massive streak of improper payments. Their report included specific suggestions:

“[The GAO has] identified various strategies and recommendations that could help to reduce improper payments in these key programs, including requiring states to conduct audits of payments to and by Medicaid managed care organizations.”

The report also claims that efforts are under way to address the various problems, but there is still a long way to go.

“Until the federal government has implemented effective processes to determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and has taken appropriate actions across entities and programs to effectively reduce improper payments, it will not have reasonable assurance that the use of federal funds is adequately safeguarded,” the report noted.

A report was produced in 2014 where millions were paid to federal employees to stay home and not work.

Examiner: The federal government has shelled out more than $700 million in paid leave to more than 57,000 employees who were home from work for time periods stretching from one month to three years, a Government Accountability Office report has found.

In a 62-page report published Monday, the GAO analyzed why so many federal employees were home and getting paid for such long periods of time and they discovered a variety of reasons.

In many cases, employees were home awaiting the outcome of investigations into alleged misconduct and criminal actions. Some racked up paid leave for “physical fitness activities,” and others were away from work seeking professional development. Employees also took paid leave for “recuperation” from overseas work.

Hundreds of federal employees remained at home, collecting a paycheck, for years.

If you are so inclined to go deeper, how about this well researched summary noting the collusion and blurred lines of federal employees working on official time versus union time. Thanks to Capital Research for this one.

Summary: Few Americans are aware that, through their tax dollars, they finance labor unions through a practice known as “official time” or “release time.” The cost to taxpayers is skyrocketing, while—thanks to Obama administration stonewalling—accountability is declining. Fortunately, reformers are working to rein in this costly, corrupt practice.

7 Questions on the Hillary Email Investigation, Only 7?

Posted on by

At least some in Washington DC are asking some questions. What questions do you have? Here is a question…Where are the emails between Hillary and the White House especially Barack Obama?

7 lingering questions in the Clinton email investigation

TheHill: The FBI appears to be entering the home stretch of its investigation into Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton private email server.

Yet even as arrangements are reportedly being made to interview Clinton and her top aides, much remains unclear.

The FBI under Director James Comey refuses to publicly discuss the investigation, as is customary, but critics say the lingering questions show the review is anything but routine and could result in criminal indictments.
Here’s a look at what is still not publicly known.

When will the investigation end?

The FBI’s investigation had dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign since last summer. The longer it goes, the more likely it is to damage to her chances of winning the Democratic nomination and the White House.

Reports indicate that the bureau is sprinting to complete its work so it won’t be seen as meddling in the presidential election.

Still, according to Clinton, the FBI has yet to reach out to her to schedule an interview, despite reports that she and other top aides could soon be brought in for questioning.

“They haven’t,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this weekend. “But, you know, back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”

What law(s) might have been broken?

Top officials at the FBI and Justice Department have refused to discuss what charges — if any — might result from the investigation.

Speculation about the charges has centered on federal statutes prohibiting against removing federal documents, especially 18 U.S.C. § 2071. A portion of that law bars officials from “willfully and unlawfully” concealing, removing or destroying federal records.

Other laws identified by the watchdog group Cause of Action include prohibitions against removing defense-related information “from its proper place of custody” and against removing classified information to keep “at an unauthorized location.”

Critics also say Clinton or her top aides may have violated internal State Department procedures about handling classified information.

Who’s in the crosshairs?

Clinton is the highest-profile name floated as a possible target of the FBI’s probe, but she isn’t alone.

According to Al Jazeera, the FBI is also seeking to interview Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and ex-spokesman Philippe Reines. Questions have also mounted about longtime aide Huma Abedin, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and former State Department official Jake Sullivan, who authored more emails now considered classified on Clinton’s server than anyone else, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

A conservative legal watchdog group has asked for eight people to testify in a separate court case relating to Clinton’s server, including Mills, Abedin, Kennedy and IT official Bryan Pagliano. In that case, a federal judge said current and former State Department officials could be questioned about whether the department willfully circumvented the Freedom of Information Act.

Pagliano, who is believed to have been responsible for setting up the server in Clinton’s Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation with the FBI.

What would the government have to prove to file charges?

Perhaps the biggest question for the bureau is whether there was the intent to “willfully” remove government documents, or whether Clinton’s situation was merely an oversight, as she has claimed.

None of the thousands of emails that Clinton handed over to the State Department were marked as classified, the government has said, but classified information can appear in unmarked emails as well.

Upon entering office, Clinton signed a nondisclosure agreement vowing to protect classified information, whether it is “marked or unmarked.”

Last week, the State Department halted its internal probe of whether 22 emails that have been deemed top secret — the highest level of classification — were classified at the time they were sent. The department said it was deferring to the FBI’s investigation.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, has said the evidence suggests that Clinton knew at least some of the information was sensitive, and yet kept it on her personal server anyway.

“The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind … justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another,” Muksaey wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

How much will the FBI say?

The Justice Department is in a difficult spot, as it is likely to face a political backlash no matter what it decides in the Clinton case.

Many conservatives already doubt that the Obama administration is willing to pursue an indictment connected to the Democratic presidential front-runner. Lack of formal charges might merely be viewed as proof that the process was not above-board.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has pressed for the FBI to release the evidence collected during its investigation once the probe is concluded — regardless of the outcome — to reassure the public that political considerations did not play a role in the Department’s decision.

To avoid concerns about impartiality, Grassley and other prominent Republicans have pressed for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special independent prosecutor to handle the Clinton investigation.

So far, she has denied the request.

Was the server secure?

Clinton’s camp has refused to outline precisely which digital protections she used to safeguard the information on her private server.

Independent cybersecurity analysts have concluded that the server went at least two months without using standard encryption protections that make data inaccessible to hackers.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January said “the odds are pretty high” that foreign spies in China, Russia or Iran would have gotten access to Clinton’s data.

Adm. Michael Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, testified before Congress that, for foreign intelligence agencies, the server “would represent opportunity.”

Clinton only gave about half of the approximately 60,000 emails she sent while secretary of State to the federal government for record keeping. The rest of the messages, she said, were purely personal in nature and were deleted.

The claim set off a firestorm in Washington, with many Republicans and transparency advocates fretting that Clinton and her team had unilaterally decided to delete half of her email correspondence, without affirming with the government that it was truly personal.

It remains unclear whether those messages can be recovered from the server or if they will ever be released.

 

Who are Those Wearing Blue Helmets?

Posted on by

I have been saying for years that those that make up the U.N. Peacekeepers are the worst of the worst that member nations offer up and finally, The New York Times figured it out. I bet that Donald Trump actually meant the United Nations rather than NATO when he spoke about breaking it up or did he?

Armies Used by U.N. Fail Watchdog Group’s Test

NYT: The militaries of the 30 countries that provide the most soldiers and police officers to United Nations peacekeeping operations also are among those most susceptible to corruption, according to a study released Sunday by an anti-corruption monitoring organization.

The organization, Transparency International, known for its annual corruption rankings of governments around the world, said that in its A-to-F grading for the armed forces of the top troop-contributing countries, only Italy scored higher than a D.

Six of the countries — Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Morocco and Togo — received F grades, Transparency International said.

The three countries that contribute the most troops, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and India — which together provide about 25,200 uniformed personnel, roughly a quarter of the total in United Nations peacekeeping operations — also scored poorly in the study’s rankings. Bangladesh and India each received a D, and Ethiopia an E.

The organization cited poor anti-corruption practices and inadequate training as factors in assessing the rankings.

The study comes against a backdrop of new allegations against some peacekeepers. The most recent catalyst for concern has been a growing sex-abuse scandal that has implicated peacekeepers deployed to the Central African Republic, in episodes dating to 2013, many involving children.

Transparency International did not cite any examples of peacekeeper corruption in the study.

United Nations officials did not dispute the findings but said the study did not reflect steps the organization had taken to prevent corruption by peacekeepers.

“There are a full range of audit and independent oversight systems that are in place to protect against such risks once individual units deploy to peacekeeping operations,” Nick Birnback, a spokesman for United Nations peacekeeping, said.

A few years ago there was the genesis of the Syrian civil war, Somalia, Libya and more. This speaks to not only the peacekeepers being criminals and corrupt but the leadership of the United Nations as well. Neither Kofi Annan or Ban Ki Moon have taken the UN up to levels where it becomes meaningful. It is not for lack of intelligence, the UN building in New York is full of international spies and well connected to world leaders, it becomes a lack of will and management.

2012, Ignatius of WaPo in part: The Somalia mess made the United Nations so nervous about intervention that it ignored an appeal a few months later from its own representative in Rwanda that a genocidal massacre was about to begin there.

In January 1994, Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the French Canadian commander of a small force called UNAMIR, cabled New York that the Hutu-led government in Kigali was planning the “extermination” of Tutsis. He concluded his message, “Allons-y.” Let’s go. The United Nations did nothing. Three months later, 800,000 Rwandans were dead.

Annan was running peacekeeping operations at the time, and his deputy cabled the brave Dallaire insisting on “the need to avoid entering into a course of action that might lead to the use of force and unanticipated consequences.” That’s a sorry U.N. chapter, and it’s to Annan’s credit that he tells this and other stories so honestly.

The third debacle was Bosnia. In April 1993, the Security Council demanded that the town of Srebenica, filled with 60,000 Muslim refugees and encircled by Bosnian Serb forces, become a “safe area . . . free from armed attacks.” The refugees waited more than two years for the United Nations to deliver. In July 1995, Gen. Ratko Mladic committed his infamous massacre. A month later, UNPROFOR finally intervened.

When Annan became secretary-general, the United Nations tried to bolster its peacekeeping efforts. It did better in East Timor, Kosovo and Libya in putting some teeth in the concept of a “responsibility to protect.” But the abiding story has been the United Nations’ limitations — in dealing with Iraq, the Palestinian issue, Iran and now Syria.
What to do? Albright and 15 other former foreign ministers just sent a letter to President Vladimir Putin saying they were “gravely disappointed” by Russia’s failure to support the U.N. mission and pleading for action to stop the war in Syria. Albright’s office says that the Russians responded negatively. As the whole of this revealing book demonstrates, there’s got to be a better way to prevent ruinous conflicts.