Category Archives: government fraud spending collusion

Iran Denies U.S. Travel Visas

Posted on by

Oh, but wait to whom exactly? Investors? Nah…to members of Congress…..uh huh But we normalized relations right?

Iran Denies Travel Visas to U.S. Lawmakers

Congressman sought to observe Iranian elections

FreeBeacon: Iran has denied travel documents to three U.S. lawmakers who sought to observe the country’s Friday elections and ensure that they were carried out fairly, according to information provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Iranian regime delayed for weeks and ultimately ignored multiple visa requests by three House lawmakers who sought permission to travel to the country in order to monitor the elections held last Friday. Observers say the elections ushered in another crop of hardline, anti-American officials.

The congressmen, including Reps. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), and Frank LoBiondo (R., N.J.), personally delivered their visa applications to the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington, D.C., several weeks ago.

The lawmakers sought to observe the recent elections, as well as visit the country’s nuclear sites and meet with American hostages currently being held in Iran. While at the embassy, they provided Iranian diplomats with a list of their priorities for the visit.

The Iranian government failed to respond to these requests despite assurances from officials that the matter would be dealt with in a timely fashion. Iran has yet to explain why it did not respond to the congressmen.

Pompeo and the other lawmakers said Iran’s behavior indicates that it has something to hide from the United States and that the country cannot be trusted to uphold promises made under the recent nuclear agreement. They also criticized the Obama administration for not advocating on their behalf.

“Our straightforward and sincere visa applications have been met with mockery and delay from Iran, revealing this regime’s desire to hide from the American public,” Pompeo, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence, told the Free Beacon on Monday. “I am hopeful that the next U.S. president will critically examine the utility of President Obama’s nuclear deal and put America’s interests ahead of political legacy.”

Pompeo further described Friday’s election in Iran as a “sham” that served to enable the country’s hardline government.

“Because the fanatical Ayatollah holds ultimate power, February 26 was more of a selection of the next group of radicals by the current radicals, than a true election by the people,” he said. “Iranian state television has declared a national victory for the hardliners—politicians who declared that Israelis ‘aren’t human’ and who called for the execution of the pro-democracy Green Movement leaders were selected.”

Early election results indicate the hardliner candidates dominated the election, in part because most moderates were disqualified from participating in advance.

Iran’s Guardian Council, which is controlled by the Supreme Leader, is believed to have disqualified around 60 percent of the potential candidates, including around 99 percent of those viewed as reformists.

“The bulk of the disqualified candidates represent comparatively pragmatic elements of the ruling elite,” Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explained in a policy briefing last week. “On the other hand, most of the approved contenders are radical revolutionaries—devotees of the supreme leader with close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It is mathematically impossible for the less-hardline factions to win at the ballot box.”

“As a result, those supposed ‘moderates’ who were approved have been forced to round off their party lists with hardline candidates,” Ghasseminejad said.

LoBiondo and Zelden said that Iran’s refusal to grant them travel documents is a sign that the country is not seeking to boost ties with the U.S. as a result of the nuclear deal.

“In this supposed ‘new era of openness and cooperation,’ it is disappointing—but not surprising—that our request to visit Iran and monitor these elections was met with a closed door,” said LoBiondo, chair of the House’s CIA subcommittee.

“Furthermore, with the implementation of the nuclear deal and with Americans still detained in Tehran, it is perplexing why the Obama administration refuses to advocate on behalf of our official Congressional visit to Iran on such critical national security issues.”

“It’s unfortunate that Iran has not yet granted our request for visas to observe Iran’s election and for other productive purposes. The American people and rest of the free world still deserve first hand confirmation of what present day reality is in Iran. I look forward to Iran showing that it is a partner in peace by issuing our visas so that we can meet with Iranian leadership, visit nuclear sites, and meet with American hostages,” said Zeldin, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

*** Western corporations have been doing business in Iran for decades despite sanctions, especially so since 2013;

US-listed companies doing business in Iran: $540 million in revenue and counting

QZ: Economic sanctions on Iran have been getting tougher in recent years, and the United States tightened the screws a little more last summer with the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (PDF).
One unusual aspect of that law is that it started requiring companies traded on US stock exchanges to disclose more about the business they’re doing with Iran, and the Securities and Exchange Commission created the clunkily named IRANNOTICE filing to help them do it.
Companies were already beginning to disclose more about their ties to Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries non grata (at least in US eyes) under pressure from the SEC. Now they must be systematic about it—and disclose gross revenue and net profits wherever possible.
Quartz’s partial tally: more than $540 million in gross revenue and $15.5 million in profits for US-listed companies from their business with Iran in 2012—and that’s just from 30 or so large companies that have made the disclosures since mid-February.
The numbers underscore the difficulty of maintaining tight sanctions in a global economy. But they also hide a lot of nuance and variation.
Companies based outside the US accounted for 99% of the revenue and three-quarters of the profit. (They made the disclosures because they list shares or American Depository Receipts on US markets.)
In fact, a big chunk of the total came from one company: $414 million in revenue for Statoil ASA, the Norwegian oil and gas company, from Statoil’s contracts with the National Iranian Oil Co.
Statoil also said it has terminated its agreements with Iran, abandoned it licenses there, and “will not make any investments in Iran under present circumstances.”
That’s a common refrain in the disclosures we saw: Many, though not all, of the disclosed transactions reflected companies wrapping up old business en route to cutting most or all ties with the Islamic republic. Typically, the transactions hadn’t been prohibited before the new rules kicked in.
Among the other noteworthy disclosures:
ING Groep said it collected €58 million in revenue and €395,000 in profits from repayment of old loans and a collection of frozen Iranian bank accounts. (Of course, in June, ING also settled allegations by the US Treasury and federal prosecutors that it hid transactions with Cuba and helped finance some sales to Iran, by agreeing to pay $619 million in penalties. It if keeps its nose clean for 18 months, the prosecutors will drop their charges.)
The biggest disclosure by a US company came from auto-parts maker TRW Automotive Holdings, which said it collected $8.3 million in revenue and $377,000 in profits from non-US subsidiaries that “sold products to customers that could be affiliated with, or deemed to be acting on behalf of, the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization” — one of the Iranian entities on the federal government’s massive list.
Under broad rules defining corporate “affiliates,” TRW’s transactions forced investor Blackstone Group to file its own disclosure. And Carlyle Group disclosed that a European portfolio company, Applus Servicios Technologicos, collected €1.19 million in revenue (and €200,000 in profits) from Iranian customers “that could be affiliated with the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization.” Similarly, Hertz had to report that a French affiliate of investor Clayton, Dubilier & Rice had received €2.5 million in payments from Iranian interests to an account at Bank Melli last year. And Apollo Global Management disclosed that portfolio company LyondellBasell Industries (Apollo funds owned 19.6%) reported collecting €4.2 million in revenue and €2.4 million in profit last year from Iranian entities.
Thomson Reuters reported $2.4 million in revenue and $426,000 in profits from selling news and intellectual-property and financial data to Iran-linked entities.


Other big Iran-related disclosures included GlaxoSmithKline at £19.7 million in revenue and £2.8 million in profits, and AstraZeneca at $14 million in revenue and $6 million in profits, both through distributors. Glaxo said that, after a review of the business, it “intends to supply only products of high medical/public health need (as determined using criteria set by the World Health Organization) from its Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines businesses.” AstraZeneca says it has a US license to do some business with Iran, but so far has sold only drugs from outside the US to distributors there.
Amusingly, at least for observers, there doesn’t seem to be a lower threshold to the disclosure requirement. So Dell, the Texas computer company, disclosed a whopping £106.13 ($169.90 at the time) in revenue from Iran, collected by a United Kingdom subsidiary to Quest Software, which Dell said last year it would acquire. The fees were paid by a unit of Bank Melli, which the US government links to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, for maintenance licenses on software that helps search email and other communications. Drafting Dell’s 374-word disclosure probably cost the company more than the licenses brought in. (Dell says it canceled the service contract and won’t do further business with Bank Melli.)
Other picayune disclosures include Hyatt Hotels, which said the Park Hyatt Hamburg collected $9,300 for 33 room nights under a preferred-rate arrangement with Europaeisch-Iranische Handelsbank, which is on the US Treasury’s Blocked Persons List. And CME Group said it received $3,150 in revenue for selling market data to Iran’s Government Trading Group and a European subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company.

Wall Street to Clinton Foundation: $40 Million

Posted on by

For what exactly? A question likely to never fully be answered…Unless we get the rest of ‘those’ emails.

Clinton Foundation Discloses $40 Million in Wall Street Donations

Hillary Clinton is facing more questions about her close ties to Wall Street financial institutions. Last week, the New York Times urged Clinton to release transcripts of her highly-compensated speeches to Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs.

Breitbart: The paid speeches are just a slim chapter of her relationship with financial titans. According to Clinton Foundation records, Wall Street financial institutions have donated around $40 million to the eponymous family foundation.

As a non-profit, the Clinton Foundation isn’t legally required to disclose its donors or contributions. The Foundation has publicly disclosed some contributions on its website. It only provides ranges for contributions, e.g. $1-5 million, and doesn’t detail when the contribution was made or for what purpose, if any.

Here’s the chart of contributions from Wall Street to the Clinton Foundation.

Four major Wall Street institutions stand out; Barclays, Barclays Capitol, Goldman Sachs and Citi. Each are listed as given between $1 million and $5 million to the Foundation. Citigroup, UBS, Banc of California and Bank of America are listed as giving up to $1 million to the Foundation.

All together, contributions from readily identifiable Wall Street institutions to the Foundation total somewhere between $11 million and $41 million in contributions. If we assume the donations fall in the middle of the ranges disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, the contributions would total just under $30 million.

As with most things involving the Clintons, the devil is in the details. This total of contributions does not include those made by individuals with strong Wall Street ties. It also does not necessarily represent the total amounts contributed to the Foundation from those donors listed. It only accounts for the donations which the Foundation has chosen to disclose.

The failure of the Foundation to include any information on the timing of the donations is especially worrisome. In terms of donor relationships, there is a real difference between a one-time gift of $1 million and an ongoing gift of $200,000 for 5 straight years. The total dollar amount may be the same, but an ongoing gift usually requires a more substantive relationship between the Foundation and the donor.

There is, of course, an added dimension to the timing issue with the Clintons. During the life of the Foundation, Hillary Clinton has been a US Senator, Secretary of State and two-time candidate for President.

When the Clinton Foundation discloses that the “Friends of Saudi Arabia” contributed $1-5 million, it begs the obvious question of when that donation was made. The specific date of that donation is particularly important, given Clinton’s considerable focus on the Middle East while she was Secretary of State.

It is also important to note that these contributions are completely seperate from the paid speeches made by Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2013 alone, Hillary earned just over $3 million in paid speeches to financial firms and institutions.

These contributions, obviously, also don’t include direct contributions made by Wall Street institutions and individuals to either of Clinton’s Presidential campaigns.

In a recent Democrat debate, Clinton’s sole challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) challenged her, “Can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions…And when they are providing speaking fees to individuals?”

He should have added that Wall Street has showered Clinton’s family foundation with millions in contributions.

Wall Street, and the financial industry generally, is not simply a special interest contributing to Clinton’s political ambitions. It is woven into the very fabric of the Clinton’s lives. It fuels her politial ambitions, provides employment to Bill and Hillary through generous speaking fees, and it underwrites a significant amount of the work undertaken by the family’s Clinton Foundation.

If the Clintons were any closer to Wall Street and financial firms, they would probably have to file SEC disclosures. They could very well be the first American family with their own Dodd-Frank regulation.

 

 

SecDef on Gitmo and Detainees Too Dangerous

Posted on by

A partial closing? An Executive Order to overrule the law and Congress? There are no more enemy combatants anywhere in the world? Where would a new president send enemy combatants? What about the next Secretary of Defense?

Thoughts?

Ash Carter: There Are Gitmo Detainees so Dangerous That it Is Not Safe to Transfer Them

FreeBeacon: Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters on Monday there are detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison who are so dangerous that it would not be safe to transfer them outside the care of the United States.

Carter and President Obama have drawn up a plan to move many of the remaining 91 detainees into the custody of foreign governments. Detainees not cleared for transfer overseas—those who Carter describes as too dangerous to go elsewhere—would be moved stateside in an effort to close the detention facility.

Moving Detainees From Gitmo To U.S. Is Reckless and Dangerous

February 23, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) issued the following statement on the President’s plan to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and relocate some of the most dangerous detainees into the United States:

“President Obama is once again proving his willingness to set aside the rule of law to pursue his own reckless agenda no matter the consequences for the American people. The plan announced today would take detainees deemed too dangerous to transfer to other countries and bring them right into our own backyards. It risks the lives and safety of American citizens and it’s not what the people expect of our commander-in-chief.”

“The administration has already let nearly 150 detainees go free, only to see many of them return to terrorist groups and rejoin the fight against us. Instead of focusing on finding new homes for terrorists, the President should refocus his efforts on winning the War on Terror and bringing an end to the extremist groups seeking to do us harm.”

 

 

Carter made his comment while holding a press briefing at the Pentagon along with Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A reporter asked Carter if the United States is thinking of transferring the Guantanamo Bay naval base back to the Cuban government, which he denied while drawing a distinction between the naval base and the detention facility.

“The base is separate from the detention facility,” Carter said in response. “The base is in a strategic location. We’ve had it for a long time. It’s important to us, and we intend to hold onto it.”

Carter then turned his attention to the detention center within the naval base, which he said is the specific focus of the Obama administration’ closure plan.

“With respect to the detention facility at [Guantanamo], which is what the president was speaking about last week … there are people in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility whom it is not safe to transfer to any other—they have to stay in U.S. detention,” Carter said. “Safety is the top priority for me, the chairman, and for the president.”

Carter then said that because some detainees are too dangerous to release, there needs to be an alternate facility in the U.S. for these individuals to go if Guantanamo is closed, which is at the heart of Obama’s proposal.

The Pentagon is reportedly looking at send prisoners to either the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colo., the military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, or the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

One problem for the administration, however, is that it is currently illegal to move Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil. Carter said at Monday’s briefing that Congress must change the law for the closure plan to go into effect.

“[Obama’s Guantanamo plan] can’t be done unless Congress acts, which means Congress has to support the idea that it would be good to move this facility and the detainees to the United States … it’s good if it can be done, but it can’t be done under current law. The law would have to be changed. That’s the reason we would put the proposal in front of Congress,” Carter said.

This may prove difficult for the administration, as a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress disapprove of closing Guantanamo and transferring detainees to the U.S.

Carter reaffirmed his support for the president’s plan, citing its fiscal benefits—U.S. officials say it would save the government between $65 million and $85 million per year—and benefits for U.S. military personnel charged with duty at Guantanamo. He said the plan is good “on balance” and that he does not want to pass the Guantanamo issue to the next president and Defense Secretary if possible.

The president has long maintained that Guantanamo should be closed because the detention facility is not in keeping with American values and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

Those who want Guantanamo to remain open argue that the facility is necessary to hold enemy combatants who are members of jihadist groups like al Qaeda to keep them off the battlefield and gather intelligence. They cite the reportedly exceptional treatment detainees receive at the facility, which military leaders have detailed to reporters, as well as experts who say that Guantanamo plays a minimal role in jihadist propaganda.

The recidivism rate for Guantanamo detainees who are released and return to terrorist activity is about 30 percent, according to experts.

A recent example that garnered attention was Ibrahim al Qosi, a former aide to Osama bin Laden who was sent to Guantanamo in 2002 and released 10 years later. Al Qosi resurfaced this month as a senior member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group’s most dangerous branch.

When asked about al Qosi’s return to jihadist activity at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week, Secretary of State John Kerry lamented that “he’s not supposed to be doing that.”

It is important to understand the term enemy combatant, lawful and unlawful as defined the Geneva Convention. You can read the 10 items here.

 

 

 

CAIR -1 FBI-0

Posted on by

Go to the FBI website and see for yourself.  Violent extremism is a politically correct phrase…..a dangerous one.

New FBI Counter Extremism Site Fails to Mention Islamism

The FBI altered its website ‘Don’t Be a Puppet’ after pressure from the Muslim-Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

ClarionProject: The FBI has launched a new website to counter extremism, but it has been stripped of references to Islamist extremism or Islam.

Titled “Don’t be a Puppet,” the site tries to deconstruct some of the motivating factors that lead people into extremism. It’s aimed for use in high schools or other programs for teenagers.

The website was originally slated to launch in November 2015, but did not, following criticisms from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). At the time, CAIR expressed concerns about a new FBI “countering violent extremism” (CVE) online program that would make teachers an extension of law enforcement and may stigmatize and increase bullying of Muslim students.”

Several community organizations told The New York Times they thought the website “focuses almost entirely on Islamic extremism.”

The site was then put on hold, eventually launching in February 2016.

There is no reason why a site that targets the specific roots of Islamist terrorism and tackles the ideology openly should increase the bullying of Muslim students. On the contrary, if the site’s explanation properly separates the theocratic totalitarian political ideology of Islamism

IslamismGlossary Item

The interpretation of Islam as a governmental system in which strict Sharia law must be enforced; synonymous with Political Islam.

from the religion of Islam in general, then it should have the opposite impact – calming fears about Muslims by painting an accurate picture about what is going on.

The updated version of the site includes only vague generalities about different types of “violent extremism.” CAIR had lobbied the FBI to change the content of the game, which the agency seems to have done.

The types of extremism listed incude:

  • White Supremacy Extremists
  • Environmental Extremists
  • Militia Extremists
  • Religious Extremists
  • Anarchist Extremists

“It’s the FBI’s primary responsibility—working with its many partners—to protect the nation from attacks by violent extremists,” the website’s introduction states. “One important way to do that is to keep young people—the future of our country—from embracing violent extremist ideologies in the first place.”

“This website is designed to help do just that. Built by the FBI in consultation with community leaders and other partners, it uses a series of interactive materials to educate teens on the destructive nature of violent extremism and to encourage them to think critically about its messages and goals.”

Although the website mentions specific terrorist attacks including 9/11 as being carried out by al-Qaeda, it failed to name the specific ideology driving Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide.

Without a clear explanation of the ideology behind Islamist terrorism, the FBI presents the problem as solely one of violence, in sharp contrast to the reality of the many non-violent Islamist groups which are working towards their ambitions of a global Islamist caliphate

CaliphateGlossary Item

An Islamic State where Sharia is the basis of governance; usually used in reference to past Islamic empires in the Middle East.

through political means. Foremost among these is the Muslim Brotherhood, one branch of which is the terrorist organization Hamas.

The Council on American Islamic Relations is facing a possible ban in the U.S. after legislation to ban Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim BrotherhoodGlossary Item

A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.

entities in America as terrorist organizations passed the House Judiciary Committee. CAIR is listed as one of three US Muslim Brotherhood entities.

A mountain of documentation shows that CAIR’s role in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. Two of CAIR’s founders were present at a secret meeting in 1993 that was wiretapped by the FBI where they were instructed to deceive American audiences.

“War is deception,” they said at the meeting.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood, Then, Now and Hillary

Posted on by

Wonder if Hillary or Anne Patterson received and read the full Great Britain document on the investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood? The scrubbed UK investigation report is here.

Misguided diplomacy at the White House and the U.S. State department is mission objectives and investment over terror facts and names, of this there is no dispute.

 

Hillary Emails: State Discussed ‘Cooperating,’ ‘Increased Investment’ With Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Government

TEL AVIV – 1,500 pages of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails provide insight into the level of support the U.S. was considering in 2012 for Egypt’s newly elected Muslim Brotherhood government.

Breitbart: On August 30, 2012, Robert D. Hormats, the under-secretary of state for economic affairs, wrote to Clinton’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan to update him on a meeting he held with .

Shater was later sentenced to life imprisonment and then to death for multiple alleged crimes, including inciting violence and financial improprieties.

The email reveals Hormats and other U.S. diplomats discussed  methods of cooperation with Shater, including an increase in American direct foreign investment.

Hormats wrote:

Anne Patterson, Bill Taylor, and I met with Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Supreme Guide Khairat al-Shater. He discussed broad principles of economic development based on 100 large infrastructure projects (over a billion dollars each) as part of Morsi’s Nadah (Renaissance Plan) Plan; ways of cooperating with the US to obtain support for these projects and for SMEs; and his hope for an IMF agreement and increased foreign direct investment from the US, the West, and the Arab world. He also noted that it was a priority for the GOE to build a true democratic system based on human rights and the rule of law.

Patterson, the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt at the time, was known for her repeated engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood. Taylor was the U.S. Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions; that is, the U.S. envoy to the new leadership that emerged in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring.

Hormats’ meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood were not secret. But the emails reveal the scope of his discussions with the group about possible future investment.

In September 2012, the New York Timesreported that Hormats had led a delegation of businesses to Egypt to discuss possible private investment.

That same month, the State Department published a document that received little news media attention. It revealed that in August and September 2012, “Hormats visited Egypt to negotiate possible bilateral debt relief,”but the document did not provide further details.

After the toppling of Egypt’s longtime president Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi served as president from June 30, 2012 to July 3, 2013, when he was removed from office amidst widespread protests and a military coup. After Mubarak was removed from office, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in assistance to bolster Egypt’s transition to democracy.

Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta each visited Cairo and met with Morsi during his tenure as president.

The meeting that Hormats describes in the email took place while the U.S. was negotiating an aid package to help relieve Egypt’s debt crisis amid concerns from U.S. lawmakers about funding the Muslim Brotherhood.

The email was sent a week and a half before protesters besieged the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012, the same day the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi came under attack.

Following the attacks, Obama stated of Morsi’s government, “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

***

Back in November of 2015, Senator Cruz was leading a charge in the Senate to list the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization. The Muslim Brotherhood is part of several proven terror organizations. Going back to 2014, Saudi Arabia joined the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in withdrawing its ambassadors from Qatar, which it sees as an important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

in 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron ordered an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization and the results were conclusive they were, however due to internal pressure from Islamists all over Europe and especially the UK, Cameron pulled the report.