Genesis of U.S. Immigration Crisis

Well, we can for sure say that the Democrats side with the Communists, Marxists and Revolutionaries.

Hat tip to Glenn Beck and my buddy Ami Horowitz for the great foot work and investigations to determine where this illegal insurgency is really coming from. Beck pulled out his chalkboard again and his presentation is a good one.

So, while these democrats are not students of history while others have very short memories, there is a longer history to all of this immigration crisis. You see, a few years ago, I read a book titled From the Shadows, written by former CIA Director Robert Gates. Gates was also the Secretary of Defense as part of his long government service resume. He wrote that book in 1996. A particular page stayed in my memory and I did a search in my Book Nook today to find it.

Okay is there more? Yes.There are so many moving parts to the legacy immigration crisis today. Who is to blame? Too many it seems. But for context read on, history does repeat itself.

Going back to an article/summary from 2006, how did we get to this cockamamie asylum policy? It goes to a crisis that was born in 1980.

Citation: The year 1980 marked the opening of a decade of public controversy over U.S. refugee policy unprecedented since World War II. Large-scale migration to the United States from Central America began, as hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Nicaraguans fled north from civil war, repression, and economic devastation. That same year, in the last months of the Carter administration, the U.S. Congress passed the Refugee Act, a humanitarian law intended to expand eligibility for political asylum in the United States.

The Refugee Act brought U.S. law into line with international human rights standards, specifically the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The United States had ratified the Protocol in 1968, thus becoming bound by the Convention’s provisions. While the previous law recognized only refugees from Communism, the Refugee Act was modeled on the convention’s non-ideological standard of a “well-founded fear of persecution.”

The coincidence of the Central American exodus with the passage of the Refugee Act set the stage for a decade-long controversy that ultimately involved thousands of Americans. The protagonists in the controversy included, on one side, immigrants’ rights lawyers, liberal members of Congress, religious activists, and the refugees themselves. On the other side were President Reagan and his administration, the State Department, the Department of Justice (including the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)), and conservative members of Congress. The first group invoked international human rights and humanitarian and religious principles, while the Reagan administration’s arguments centered on national security and the global fight against Communism.

The public debate took place in a number of arenas and with several sets of participants. The federal courts were the venue for class-action cases contesting systemic INS violations of refugee rights, as well as for the criminal prosecution of religious humanitarians.

Unprecedented numbers of Americans became involved through their churches and synagogues, which proclaimed themselves “sanctuaries,” as well as in bar association efforts to provide pro bono representation to Salvadorans and Guatemalans. Throughout the decade, in hundreds of individual immigration hearings, lawyers for asylum applicants and INS lawyers waged a low-intensity struggle over the nature of the conflict in Central America and the rights of individual Central Americans to asylum status.

In Congress, members debated the war and laws aimed at helping Central Americans rejected as refugees. The refugees themselves became a voice in the U.S. public debate. They formed their own community assistance groups and advocacy centers, which worked with lawyers, religious groups, and the movement against United States involvement in Central America.

Cold War by Proxy and Human Rights in Central America

In El Salvador and Guatemala, civil war had been years in the making, as oligarchies supported by corrupt military leaders repressed large sectors of the rural population. In Nicaragua, the socialist revolutionary Frente Sandinista had ousted the brutal right-wing dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979. The civil war in El Salvador increased in intensity in early 1980. Government-supported assassins gunned down Archbishop Oscar Romero at the altar shortly after he had publicly ordered Salvadoran soldiers to stop killing civilians. In December 1980, four U.S. churchwomen were assassinated in El Salvador, an act of brutality that brought the violence “home” to the U.S. public.

The administration of President Ronald Reagan, who came to power in January 1981, saw these civil wars as theaters in the Cold War. In both El Salvador and Guatemala, the United States intervened on the side of those governments, which were fighting Marxist-led popular movements. In Nicaragua, however, the United States supported the contra rebels against the socialist Sandinista government.

During much of the early 1980s, international human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International and Americas Watch — later part of Human Rights Watch) regularly reported high levels of repression in El Salvador and Guatemala, with the vast majority of human rights violations committed by military and government-supported paramilitary forces.

In El Salvador, the military and death squads were responsible for thousands of disappearances and murders of union leaders, community leaders, and suspected guerilla sympathizers, including priests and nuns. In Guatemala, the army’s counter-insurgency campaign focused on indigenous communities, resulting in thousands of disappearances, murders, and forced displacements.

The Intersection of Foreign Policy and Asylum Policy

It is estimated that between 1981 and 1990, almost one million Salvadorans and Guatemalans fled repression at home and made the dangerous journey across Mexico, entering the United States clandestinely. Thousands traveled undetected to major cities such as Washington, DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New York, and Chicago. However, thousands were also detained at or near the Mexico-U.S. border.

The Reagan administration regarded policy toward Central American migrants as part of its overall strategy in the region. Congress had imposed a ban on foreign assistance to governments that committed gross violations of human rights, thus compelling the administration to deny Salvadoran and Guatemalan government complicity in atrocities. Immigration law allowed the attorney general and INS officials wide discretion regarding bond, work authorization, and conditions of detention for asylum seekers, while immigration judges received individual “opinion letters” from the State Department regarding each asylum application. Thus the administration’s foreign policy strongly influenced asylum decisions for Central Americans.

Characterizing the Salvadorans and Guatemalans as “economic migrants,” the Reagan administration denied that the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments had violated human rights. As a result, approval rates for Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum cases were under three percent in 1984. In the same year, the approval rate for Iranians was 60 percent, 40 percent for Afghans fleeing the Soviet invasion, and 32 percent for Poles.

The Justice Department and INS actively discouraged Salvadorans and Guatemalans from applying for political asylum. Salvadorans and Guatemalans arrested near the Mexico-U.S. border were herded into crowded detention centers and pressured to agree to “voluntarily return” to their countries of origin. Thousands were deported without ever having the opportunity to receive legal advice or be informed of the possibility of applying for refugee status. Considering the widely reported human rights violations in El Salvador and Guatemala, the treatment of these migrants constituted a violation of U.S. obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

As word of the conditions in Central America and the plight of the refugees began to come to public attention in the early 1980s, three sectors began to work in opposition to the de facto “no asylum” policy: the religious sector, attorneys, and the refugees themselves.

Although a number of Congressmen and women were influenced by the position of religious organizations, the administration thwarted their efforts. In 1983, 89 members of Congress requested that the attorney general and Department of State grant “Extended Voluntary Departure” to Salvadorans who had fled the war. The administration denied their request, stating such a grant would only serve as a “magnet” for more unauthorized Salvadorans in addition to the hundreds of thousands already present. In the late 1980s, the House of Representatives passed several bills to suspend the deportation of Salvadorans, but none passed the Senate.

The Sanctuary Movement

The network of religious congregations that became known as the Sanctuary Movement started with a Presbyterian church and a Quaker meeting in Tucson, Arizona. These two congregations began legal and humanitarian assistance to Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees in 1980.

When, after two years, none of the refugees they assisted had been granted political asylum, Rev. John Fife of Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson announced — on the anniversary of the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero — that his church would openly defy INS and become a “sanctuary” for Central Americans. The Arizona congregations were soon joined by networks of religious congregations and activists in Northern California, South Texas, and Chicago.

At the Sanctuary Movement’s height in the mid 1980s, over 150 congregations openly defied the government, publicly sponsoring and supporting undocumented Salvadoran or Guatemalan refugee families. Another 1,000 local Christian and Jewish congregations, several major Protestant denominations, the Conservative and Reform Jewish associations, and several Catholic orders all endorsed the concept and practice of sanctuary. Sanctuary workers coordinated with activists in Mexico to smuggle Salvadorans and Guatemalans over the border and across the country. Assistance provided to refugees included bail and legal representation, as well as food, medical care, and employment.

The defense of the Salvadorans and Guatemalans marked a new use of international human rights norms by U.S. activists. Citing the Nuremberg principles of personal accountability developed in the post-World War II Nazi tribunals, religious activists claimed a legal precedent to justify their violation of U.S. laws against alien smuggling. Other activists claimed that their actions were justified by the religious and moral principles of the 19th-century U.S. abolitionist movement, referring to their activities as a new “Underground Railroad.” Many U.S. religious leaders involved in the Sanctuary Movement had prior experience in the 1960s civil disobedience campaigns against racial segregation in the American South.

The Department of Justice responded by initiating criminal prosecutions against two activists in Texas in 1984, followed by a 71-count criminal conspiracy indictment against 16 U.S. and Mexican religious activists announced in Arizona in January 1985. The Texas trials resulted in split verdicts, one conviction and one acquittal.

The Arizona trial became a major focus of organizing and publicity for the Sanctuary Movement, attracting a stellar team of volunteer criminal defense attorneys. Although the Department of Justice maintained the case was an ordinary alien-smuggling prosecution, the general counsel of INS attended sessions of the lengthy trial.

Despite the judge’s order barring the defense from presenting evidence of conditions in El Salvador or Guatemala, the Sanctuary Movement managed to turn the publicity surrounding the trial into an indictment of the Reagan administration’s war in Central America and its treatment of the refugees. All the Arizona defendants were convicted, but none were sentenced to jail time. After the Arizona trials, the movement continued to attract more congregations.

The Department of Justice did not bring any more criminal indictments of sanctuary activists after the Texas and Arizona cases.

The Lawyers

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, from the Rio Grande Valley to San Diego, local lawyers and religious activists set up new legal services projects to help detained refugees. In Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Chicago, and other cities, existing nonprofit legal services projects and lawyers in private practice started representing individual refugees. Pro bono panels put together by local and national bar groups — including the National Lawyers Guild Immigration Project, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the American Bar Association — supplemented their work.

Through coordinated strategies in individual cases, these lawyers began to address detention conditions as well as develop the new case law of the Refugee Act. In California and Texas, civil rights lawyers filed class-action cases to establish basic due process rights. While some of the cases (regarding work authorization, translation assistance, and transfer of detainees between facilities) were not successful, other decisions established national standards for the treatment of detained Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum seekers.

The refugees and their lawyers faced enormous challenges in asylum hearings, as the required opinion letters from the Department of State, which greatly influenced immigration judges, uniformly denied the existence of human rights violations in El Salvador and Guatemala. However, in some cases, attorneys won important victories before the Board of Immigration Appeals and in the federal circuit courts that established precedents helpful to all asylum applicants. Other efforts, such as an attempt to establish that all Salvadoran civilian young men were a social group persecuted by the government, were less successful.

Finally, a group of lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other organizations brought a major, national class-action case on behalf of religious organizations, legal services projects, and Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees, claiming that the administration’s wholesale denial of political asylum claims and prosecutions of those who assisted refugees violated their constitutional, statutory, and internationally recognized human rights.

In the case, known as American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, the federal courts had dismissed religious organizations’ claims. However, in 1991 the U.S. District Court in San Francisco approved a settlement that allowed the reopening of denied political asylum claims and late applications by refugees who had been afraid to apply. The decision also granted class members work authorization and protection from deportation.

The settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the government (by that time the Bush administration) included language stating that government decisions on political asylum cases would not be influenced by foreign policy considerations.

The Refugees

In many cities, Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees formed mutual assistance organizations. Projects such as Casa Guatemala, Casa El Salvador, Comite El Salvador, and others gave the community the ability to get legal advice and information about conditions back home as well as to learn about local health care and food assistance. These groups also worked with local lawyers’ organizations and religious and antiwar activists, who assisted in decisions regarding class-action litigation and supported individual asylum applicants.

Over 20 years later, a number of these immigrant-led projects, including Centro Presente in Boston, Centro Romero in Chicago, and El Rescate in Los Angeles, still exist as full-service, nonprofit legal and community services centers. Many of the leaders of these efforts remain active in the immigrants’ rights movement, as well as in other social justice projects in the United States, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Congress

In 1990, after its earlier frustrations to address the Central American asylum seekers, Congress finally passed legislation allowing the president to grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to certain groups in need of a temporary safe haven. The first TPS legislation contained one provision (never codified as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act) explicitly designating Salvadorans for TPS.

Through the early 1990s, Salvadoran and Guatemalans who had arrived in the 1980s were able to stay in the country under a series of discretionary measures and under the terms of the 1991 settlement in the American Baptist Churches litigation. It was not until the late 1990s that their status was finally settled in a legislative agreement with the supporters of the anti-Sandinista Nicaraguans. The passage of the 1997 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act finally allowed Salvadorans and Guatemalans protected under the American Baptist Churches settlement to apply for permanent residence.

Conclusion

What spurred the activism of the Sanctuary Movement and Central American refugees and their lawyers was the manner in which the Reagan administration linked the fate of individual asylum seekers to its foreign policy interests. Today, the use of immigration enforcement as a “magic bullet” for national security concerns requires close examination by the U.S. public.

Immigrant communities, members of Congress, policy analysts, religious leaders, and legal experts must determine whether the human rights of individual immigrants and asylum seekers are being trampled in a rush to create a public perception of effective security.

The development of a stronger anti-immigrant grassroots movement in certain areas of the country presents new challenges. Similarly, restrictions on access to the federal courts for review of certain immigration decisions create new obstacles for advocates to overcome. However, at the same time, immigrant-led organizations and immigrants’ rights coalitions have become more sophisticated in their lobbying and public education efforts.

The proimmigrant religious sector (particularly the Catholic Church) is vocal once again, as humanitarian assistance to the undocumented may be criminalized in proposed legislation. Whether the current decade will end with even limited victories for the human rights of immigrants is as yet unknown.

 

 

The Vatican, KINO and our Southern Border Incursions

Primer: Callista Gingrich is the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Given the crisis at our Southern border and the relationship Newt has with the Trump White House, imagine the conversations regarding the Pope’s constant call for no walls and global Catholic charities working against U.S. law enforcement. Yikes… and….it seems the Catholic Church in the United States has no use for Callista, Newt or President Trump. If you need some proof on that, click here.

The other part of the Primer:

President Obama’s Executive Action: In November, the Jesuits of the United States, Jesuit Refugee Services/USA, and the Kino Border Initiative issued a statement welcoming President Obama’s executive action to end the legislative gridlock and place pressure on Congress to make immigration reform a priority. The President’s order will provide temporary stays of deportation to as many as five million undocumented migrants who live in fear of discovery and separation from their families, but there are another 6 million undocumented immigrants whose situations are unaddressed by the order. To read the complete statement from the Jesuits of the United States, JRS/USA, and the KBI, please see: http://www.jesuit.org/news-detail?TN=NEWS-20141121032132.

Image result for kino border priest details of this photo

But KINO? Yes…and add in Georgetown University. Really? uh huh….just last year…

A collaboration between Campus Ministry and the Alternative Breaks Program of the Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, and Service at Georgetown University, MAGIS: Kino Border Immersion is a weeklong trip during which participants will focus on building relationships of solidarity with the poor, growing in awareness of social justice issues, appreciating the convergence of learning, faith, and justice, and developing skills of reflection on one’s experience at the US/Mexico border.

Magis: Kino Border Immersion (KBI) strives to build participants’ understanding of immigration and the surrounding issues. Through interactions with a wide range of stakeholders in the Arizona border region, participants will learn about the structures that shape migration and gain a firsthand look at different sides and stages of the issue. By engaging in dialogue with migrants, faith leaders, workers, service providers, and law enforcement, we will attempt to humanize the issue and escape limiting stereotypes and misconceptions. The Jesuit values of interreligious understanding, faith and justice, community in diversity, and contemplation in action will guide our efforts to understand the motivations for migration, the experience of migration, and the challenges faced by migrants in the United States. Ultimately, KBI aims to facilitate a sustained commitment to education, activism, and solidarity with the migrant justice movement in our communities on the Hilltop, in DC, and around the country.

During our stay in and around Tucson, we will:

*Meet and live with families from San Miguel Cristo Rey High School, which serves many immigrant families in the economically depressed south side of Tucson
*Join the members of the Jesuit-run Kino Border Initiative as they serve migrants on the border
*Engage with various groups working with Migrants and Border related issues, including the Sierra Club
*Meet members of the border patrol and local law enforcement
*Visit with churches and faith-based communities committed to serving undocumented migrants at the border

Created in 2008, the Kino mission is to ‘break down barriers, provide direct assistance to migrants and dictate conditions for refugees with an annual budget of $700,000 per year but that does not include all chapters, other Catholic organizations or money from the Vatican.

And now for the Kino Border Initiative:

Based on both sides of the border in Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, KBI accompanies migrants to travel north to reach the United States. There was recently a dinner where a migrant named Sevilla shared his success story from Honduras to the United States merely escaping gang violence.

Sevilla first greeted the audience in broken English then recounted his journey in Spanish allowing a translator to fill in the gaps for those who needed it. He expressed gratitude for being able to leave Honduras and that God helped him on the journey through Mexico where he underwent “many nights without sleeping, many days without eating, but thanks to God everything turned out OK,” he said. He did encounter some volunteers who gave him food along the way, however.

Another hardship: a ride on the famous “Beast” train through Mexico due to the presence of the cartels in that country and having no other choice of transportation. Riding on this network of trains has proved to be very dangerous to migrants. When he arrived in Nogales, Sevilla said he was very dirty and “really tired,” breaking into English which evoked laughter from the audience and might also have released some tension.

“But I here, now,” said Sevilla, with the audience breaking into applause.

When in Nogales, Sevilla heard from a friend of the KBI dining room, called the “Comedor” and he went there very tired and hungry. “But they gave me hope, which was very important for me,” said Sevilla through the translator.

KBI assisted Sevilla in his process of seeking asylum in the United States with legal help, a bond payment and a sponsor family. He stated the KBI is not just a group in Mexico but “it’s all of you,” referring to the attendees. “Thank you for saving life,” said Sevilla in broken English and then in Spanish.

Lisa and David Grant were his “life savers.” They sponsored Sevilla, then 24, during his asylum process into the United States.

“He has been such a blessing to our lives. He’s really taught us a lot about, honestly our faith,” Lisa said.

She pointed out an example that when Sevilla won his asylum case to legally stay in the U.S., she said the he was so lucky. Sevilla dismissed the notion of luck, instead pointing upward.

Also during the evening, four members of the Missionary Sisters of the Eucharist were presented with the Pope Francis award from the organization, for their dedicated service to the people served by the initiative.

“I see what they’re carrying, I see what’s inside them. I see the fear that they’re experiencing as they flee,” reflected KBI’s executive director Jesuit Father Sean Carroll during the dinner. “I see the hunger and the thirst that they’ve experienced along the way. I see their uncertainty about what’s next about the asylum process, about whether they can find safety and support.

Fr. Fred Adamson, vicar general of the diocese, spoke of the human effort just to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter.

“At the heart of it, the Kino Border Initiative is to be the face of Christ, to really be the compassion, the care, the love in a real way at the border,” said Fr. Adamson. More here.

 

 

 

Border Patrol Collapsing, but 20,000 Caravan Forming Now

Yes and that newest caravan is in Honduras now and it is estimated to be 20,000 strong. Caravans get largest as they move north. Border Patrol has sounded the alarm and so has DHS. Anyone left in Honduras?

Trump Threatens Honduras Foreign Aid Over - One News Page ...

By the way, the United States via all government agencies gave Honduras $180,977,214 in foreign aid in 2017. The money is designated for local governance, counter-narcotics programs, reading programs, treaties, violence prevention, human rights and the justice system…..ever wonder where Congress is on this or an Inspector General? (click that link, it is interactive)

‘Mother of all migrants’ caravans’ is forming up in Honduras: interior secretary

Numbers could go higher than 20,000

A massive cohort of prospective migrants dubbed the “mother of all caravans” is forming in Honduras, the federal interior secretary said today.

“We are aware that a new caravan is forming in Honduras that they’re calling the mother of all caravans . . . and which could be [made up of] more than 20,000 people,” Olga Sánchez Cordero said.

She didn’t offer any details about when the caravan might leave Honduras to start the journey towards Mexico and on to the United States’ southern border.

The interior secretary told reporters that migration and specifically the formation of the huge caravan was a central issue in talks she held yesterday with United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen in Miami, Florida.

Sánchez said Nielsen told her that United States authorities returned at least 76,000 migrants to their countries of origin in February and expect to deport more than 90,000 this month and a total of 900,000 by the end of the year.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that Nielsen and Sánchez “discussed ways the U.S. and Mexico can work together to address irregular migration and the record levels of illegal entries at the U.S. southern border.”

Thousands of migrants fleeing poverty and violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have entered Mexico at the southern border since late last year as part of several large caravans.

Despite the federal government issuing more than 10,000 humanitarian visas that allow migrants to live and work in Mexico for up to 12 months, most caravan members have chosen to travel to the United States border to seek asylum.

Yet another migrant caravan made up of around 2,500 Central Americans and Cubans is currently traveling through Chiapas after leaving Tapachula last weekend.

Caravan members walk long distances through Mexico in often hot conditions but also try to hitch rides to reach towns on the well-trodden migrant route more quickly.

Sánchez said today that there is evidence that criminal groups are transporting migrants from Tapachula to the northern border in trucks and charging each person thousands of dollars for the service.

Interior Secretary Sánchez.

Interior Secretary Sánchez.

“. . . Imagine the size, the dimension of this migration flow, which is sometimes human trafficking by organized crime, the business of this trafficking . . . is several billion dollars,” she said.

“. . . Each migrant represents between US $2,000 and $6,000 for them . . .” Sánchez added.

The interior secretary said that authorities will seek to better patrol the entire 1,020-kilometer stretch of the southern border in order to contain flows of people entering Mexico illegally. She pointed out that there are 370 illegal entry points and just 12 official ones.

However, Sánchez said there won’t be any move to militarize the border.

Instead, migration checkpoints manned by Federal Police and Civil Protection personnel will be set up on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to halt migrants who have entered Mexico illegally.

“. . . We have to make a response because there cannot continue to be hundreds of thousands of migrants passing through Mexico and arriving at the northern border,” Sánchez said.

She added that as part of the strategy to curb migration the government will no longer issue long-term humanitarian visas.

Irineo Mujica, a member of a migrant advocacy group that accompanies migrants as they travel through Mexico, said Mexico had stopped granting humanitarian visas “to comply with the expectations of [United States President Donald] Trump.”

However, Sánchez said Mexico itself is struggling to cope with so many migrants currently in the country, pointing out that there is an overwhelming number of asylum seekers in shelters in northern border cities.

Due to the United States government’s introduction of a “metering” system that limits the number of asylum requests immigration authorities will hear on a daily basis, migrants face long waits in border cities, many of which have high rates of violent crime.

Even after they have filed claims for asylum, there is no guarantee that migrants will be allowed to wait in the United States for their cases to be heard at immigration courts – as was previously the case – due to the introduction and subsequent expansion of the so-called “Remain in Mexico” plan.

The Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (SRE) said earlier this month that “the Mexican government doesn’t agree with this unilateral measure implemented by United States authorities” but continues to receive people anyway for “humanitarian reasons.”

Mexico and the United States agreed in December to cooperate on a US $35.6-billion development plan in southern Mexico and Central America to curb migration but critics pointed out that most of the U.S. funding is not new as it will be allocated from existing aid programs.

Secretary Nielsen traveled to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, today to meet with officials from that country as well as Guatemala and El Salvador.

The DHS said Nielsen and Northern Triangle security ministers have been working on “a first-of-its-kind memorandum of cooperation – or ‘regional compact’” – that “focuses on stemming the migration crisis at its source, including preventing the formation of new migrant caravans that set out to reach the United States.”

Qatar Operations all Over the United States

File:Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani with Obamas.jpg ...

Back in 2014, I wrote about Qatar, sounding the alarm due to the very close relationship between Hamad bin Thamer al Thani and Barack Obama. In fact when Obama showed up to West Point for a speech and graduation, the son of al Thani was in that graduating class. Wut you say?

Obama: US will work to up support for Syria rebels | The ...

I wrote again about Qatar in 2017  funding Hamas in Gaza. A few months later, I published an item about Qatar hiring lobbying organizations in DC, that other part of the swamp. Then there was the piece about Qatar buying off teachers and American education.

It continues as Qatar has an investment fund worth an estimated $260 billion. The forecast is to spend $35 billion in the United States and they are well underway.

Since, 2015, Qatar spent $8 billion in a Manhattan West real estate project that is mixed use located very near Penn Station. While Qatar is buying off lawyers and lobbyists in DC, even the very buildings are part of the Qatari real estate portfolio including the CityCenterDC. Oh yeah, remember former AG Eric Holder? Well he is of the law firm Covington & Burling. The law firm has a lucrative consulting contract with Qatar. In fact, Covington & Burling has an office in Doha. Perhaps because Qatar owns CityCenter in DC, they needed a tenant, they got one…Covington & Burling.

The spending continues. The Qatar Investment Authority has committed another $45 billion to be spent in Europe and the United States. The operations in the United States include more real estate, technology and U.S. exchanges. They already completed a deal buying Gigamon, Inc., which is a networking software company. That deal was worth a mere $1.6 billion.

Qatar has been funding terrorism for decades hence the reason several countries have terminated relationships with Qatar including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even the Maldives. But have they really cut ties? No. Is Qatar still funding terrorism? Yes. Hamas enjoys Qatari money as Hamas is currently lobbying rockets into Israel. Oh yeah, remember Jamal Khashoggi? As he was on the payroll of the Washington Post, which was just a cover, Khashoggi was a long-term member of the Muslim Brotherhood which has a headquarters facility in Qatar. If anyone paid attention, the Washington Post admitted the Qatari Foundation shaped news stories the paper published, directed by Khashoggi. Simply put, Qatar enjoys a great reach into U.S. media as Khashoggi was a Qatari intelligence asset.

Khashoggi was handled on behalf of the Qataris by former U.S. foreign service officer Maggie Mitchell Salem, an executive at the Qatar Foundation International. In WhatsApp messages that, as Salem explained in a tweet, she shared with the Post, she urged him “to take a harder line against the Saudi government.” In brief, she used Khashoggi’s byline to run an anti-Saudi campaign through the Washington Post. The Qatar Foundation International did not respond by press time to an email asking whether Qatari officials directed Salem to assist Khashoggi or if any were aware she was assisting him.

Why was the murder of Khashoggi such a big deal in reality? Because of the robust connective tissue in Washington DC of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, competing money and objectives, meaning lobbying. Remember too that Khashoggi was NOT a U.S. citizen or a green cardholder. He was in our country under an 0-1 visa, granted to people with ‘extraordinary ability’ and owned an apartment in Virginia.

Living outside of DC, we dont see how that hidden international machines work in DC….above describes much of it. In case you need more, enjoy this video.

Hat tip to the Securities Studies Group:

BLOOD MONEY: How Qatar Bought Off the Entire DC Establishment

Where did Some of Venezuela’s Gold Show up?

Uganda?

Remember that Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro is a virtual puppet of Cuba. Going back years, during the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution, Chavez hosted President Yoweri Museveni, then president of Uganda. Cuba was known over the years to give scholarships to Ugandans. The relationship is long and deep.

Then as recently as February of 2019, the Kampala is allegedly investigating that top Venezuelan politicians are using Ugandan passports to smuggle key people out of Venezuela into China and possibly other countries that stand with the Maduro regime.

Further, Venezuela attempted to removed some of their gold reserves parked in Britain, worth an estimated $1.2 billion, were denied at the behest of the United States. The 8 tons gold residing in Venezuela was in fact removed this past February to an unknown location. However, in 2018, at least 23 tonnes of mined gold was transported from Venezuela to Turkey by plane.

Maduro is attempting to sell gold on the international market to pay for basic needs for his country’s elite. Last February, an Abu Dhabi company known as Noor Capital bought 3 tons of Venezuelan gold. Since oil production in Venezuela has dropped significantly and sales on the global market have dropped, gold is the next avenue to generate immediate funds.

Venezuela Gold Reserves

Venezuela Gold Reserves

China and Russia are looking for exclusive oil deals from Venezuela due to the US sanctions. In fact, PDVSA, the Venezuelan oil operation is opening an office in Russia.

Ugandan authorities are investigating unexplained imports of 7.4 tonnes of gold worth US$300 million that is suspected of originating with President Maduro’s regime in Venezuela.

goldAnalysts claim Uganda is a gold smuggling hub (Photo: Agnico-Eagle, CC-Zero)The investigation is centred on African Gold Refinery (AGR), the country’s largest refinery, Reuters reported on Wednesday. AGR confirmed that the gold arrived from South America but rejected claims of smuggling.

“All our transactions are legal and well documented,” the company said in a statement to OCCRP, dismissing the allegations as “fake news.”

Fred Enanga, a spokesman for Uganda’s police, told Reuters that AGR received two shipments of 3.8 and 3.6 tonnes at the beginning of March however neither passed through official customs entry points.

Police raided AGR premises on March 7 but found the lighter batch had disappeared.

Flights this month from Caracas to Entebbe have raised suspicions that Nicolas Maduro’s government is smuggling gold out of the country and selling it to traders in Africa and the Middle East in an attempt to prop up its sanctions-hit economy.

An airline source told The Times that a European charter company was contracted to fly four tonnes of gold from Caracas to Entebbe early this year.

The Venezuelan opposition previously claimed a jet owned by Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza transported gold to Greece. Alexis Tsipras, Greece’s prime minister, is one of the few European leaders still supporting Maduro.

Venezuela’s ambassador to Greece, Freddy Fernández, denied the reports.

“It is foolish to believe that the Venezuelan foreign minister himself was taking the gold out of the country. The story is part of a concerted attack against our country,” he told the Greek news outlet Efimerida ton Syntakton.

Investigators are looking to establish where the gold came from, who owns it and how it was shipped into the country, he said.

Uganda has become a regional smuggling hub for gold with corruption and widespread mismanagement proving profitable for officials and international investors, a report from Global Witness claims.

AGR was accused of facilitating gold smuggling from conflict regions in the Democratic Republic of Congo in an investigation by The Sentry, an African financial investigations organization co-founded by actor George Clooney.

AGR Chief Executive Officer, Alain Goetz denied the accusations, calling it “yet another pathetic attempt to destroy the much-needed reforms and changes needed in the African gold industry.”