U.S. is Presently Under 31 National Emergency Orders

Posted on February 14, 2019February 14, 2019 by Denise Simon

Of particular note is during the peaceful transfer of power from Obama to Trump, Obama told Trump the number one threat to the United States and her interests is North Korea. Notice that Obama never made any declaration regarding North Korea. Notice too that under Obama, the Sinaola Cartel, the narco terror organization that killed thousands in Mexico and many in the United States was not part of any declaration. But….Obama did declare a national emergency due to the socialist revolution in Venezuela and hence that has caused 3 million Venezuelans to flee.

Oh yeah….nothing from Obama either regarding Islamic State and Syria or Iraq…..or Russia considering Moscow’s intrusion into our 2016 election systems…..

***

According to the Federal Register, 58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.

And 31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect, as listed in the Federal Register.

Here’s a list of the presidents who declared still ongoing national emergencies.

President Jimmy Carter

Nov 14, 1979: The National Emergency With Respect to Iran, in response to the Iran hostage crisis.

President Bill Clinton

Nov 14, 1994: The National Emergency With Respect to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, that combined two previous national emergencies focused on weapons of mass destruction.

Jan. 2, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process placed economic sanctions in response to the Jerusalem bombing.

March 15, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources was an effort to prevent potential deals between oil companies.

October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.

March 1, 1996: The National Emergency With Respect to Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba was after civilian planes were shot down near Cuba

November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.

President George W. Bush

June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia

Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.

Sept 14, 2001: The National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Sept 23, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism was in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.

May 22, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest was issued following the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

May 11, 2004: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria was in response to Syria supporting terrorist activity in Iraq.

June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.

Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.

Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.

June 26, 2008: The National Emergency With Respect to Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea cited the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material. President Trump renewed this June 22, 2018 citing the “existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.”

President Barack Obama

April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.

February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).

May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.

March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.

April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.

May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.

March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.

April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.

Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.

President Donald Trump

Dec 20, 2017: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption imposed sanctions on the Myanmar general for his role persecuting Rohingya Muslims.

Sept 12, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election attempted to prevent any meddling with the 2018 midterm elections amid the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Nov 27, 2018: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua was declared by President Trump in response to violence and the Ortega regime’s “systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” that constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

DHS Spending Bill IS FULL of Nasty Things

Posted on February 14, 2019February 14, 2019 by Denise Simon

The bill is here if you choose to read it.

Image result for dhs funding border wall

1. The bill has language in that actually restricts who can do immigration sweeps and deportations.

2. That 55 miles of alleged construction has many caveats to it including approvals or denials by the land-owners for any kinds of barriers. Further, there is an historic church and a butterfly sanctuary that is restricted from any barrier construction.

3. There is NO money for an additional 750 Border Patrol agents and there is NO money for 2000 more ICE agents.

4. Any construction of a border wall cannot use any of the prototypes offered to the Federal government.

5. The bill would prohibit DHS from detaining or deporting a sponsor, potential sponsor, or household member of an unaccompanied minor based on information shared with HHS. (this means that all unaccompanied themselves their own sanctuary).

6. Detention for up to 100,000 illegals would require other options including wearing ankle bracelets or simply using a phone. This means essentially detention centers could be rendered obsolete.

7. A larger or perhaps a separate oversight committee/team will be established to manage all ICE activities.

8. There is a cap to immigrant beds at 45,274.

Meanwhile, it seems while unaccompanied children and the agencies that deal with them have full amnesty. So, Trump is declaring a national emergency. What does that mean?

Making this declaration out of a ‘fake emergency’ as the democrats like to label it does give the democrats the precedent to do the same with regard to climate change and or gun violence.

In December of 2017, Trump signed an Executive Order.

On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect beyond December 20, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption.

*** When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

***

SUBCHAPTER IV—ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF PRESIDENT

§1641. Accountability and reporting requirements of President

(a) Maintenance of file and index of Presidential orders, rules and regulations during national emergency

When the President declares a national emergency, or Congress declares war, the President shall be responsible for maintaining a file and index of all significant orders of the President, including Executive orders and proclamations, and each Executive agency shall maintain a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during such emergency or war issued pursuant to such declarations.

(b) Presidential orders, rules and regulations; transmittal to Congress

All such significant orders of the President, including Executive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where appropriate.

(c) Expenditures during national emergency; Presidential reports to Congress

When the President declares a national emergency or Congress declares war, the President shall transmit to Congress, within ninety days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration. Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such expenditures.

(Pub. L. 94–412, title IV, §401, Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1257.)

SUBCHAPTER V—APPLICATION TO POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ACTIONS TAKEN THEREUNDER

§1651. Other laws, powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder; Congressional studies

(a) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder:

(1) Chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41;

(2) Section 3727(a)–(e)(1) of title 31;

(3) Section 6305 of title 41;

(4) Public Law 85–804 (Act of Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 972; 50 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);

(5) Section 2304(a)(1) ¹ of title 10; ²

(b) Each committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate having jurisdiction with respect to any provision of law referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall make a complete study and investigation concerning that provision of law and make a report, including any recommendations and proposed revisions such committee may have, to its respective House of Congress within two hundred and seventy days after September 14, 1976.

(Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §502, Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258; Pub. L. 95–223, title I, §101(d), Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1625; Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §507(b), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2919; Pub. L. 105–362, title IX, §901(r)(2), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3291; Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, §1062(o)(1), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2652.)

*** Given the text of this Executive Order as case can be made that it applies to the crisis at the Southern border. The president does have the power and authority to amend that order or to annex it to be more exact to include the matter specifically at the border and other areas including visa overstays, a port of entry emergency due to fentanyl and other opioids, where 70,000 people a year die from overdoses.

Frankly, Trump should order an increase in funding to DEA to aid Border Patrol and ICE and install narco-training and drug use education in all public schools and universities.

Data Proves Chicago Most Corrupt City

Posted on February 13, 2019February 13, 2019 by Denise Simon

Not like we did not already know that but actually it is worse than you think. This report comes from the University of Illinois at Chicago….ruh roh. Remember that Chicago and Los Angeles mayors are Democrats….oh yeah….Barack Obama lists Chicago as his hometown…but he never really goes there and there is corruption all over his presidential library too.

Chicago alderman convicted of corruption - Chicago Tribune

With matters like the conspiracy of the Olympics in Chicago and the whole Tony Rezko thing…the beat goes on…..

Oh yeah, just for fun, you may want to read up on Operation Greylord, corruption in the Cook County judicial system…..

Along with Chicago, Los Angeles topped the list of the most public corruption convictions in America, based on the number of federal corruption convictions between 1976 and 2017. Chicago had 1,731 convictions during that time period, while the Central District of California had 1,534. The Manhattan area had 1,327 and Miami had 1,165, according to the report. Washington, D.C. had 1,159.

Drawing information from the Department of Justice, the report shows 25 public figures were convicted of charges tied to corruption in 2017 in the City of Chicago and the northern third of Illinois. 2017 was the most recent year for which the DOJ data was available, the report says.

More than 30 Chicago City Council members have been tied to corruption cases since the 1970’s, with Ald. Edward Burke (14^th) becoming the latest Chicago politician to make headlines after being charged with one count of attempted extortion on Thursday, Jan. 3 for allegedly trying to use his power on the City Council to solicit business for his private law firm.

The charge against Burke, Chicago’s most powerful and longest-running City Council member, comes on the heels of two FBI raids carried out in his offices late last year. After serving the city’s Southwest Side for 50 years, the charge puts Burke on the ever-growing list of disgraced city officials.

Although Chicago accounts for 82 percent of the state’s public corruption convictions, according to the report, federal corruption is a statewide problem.

Statewide, Illinois ranked–on a per capita basis–as the third most corrupt state in America. In 2017, the state had 34 convictions for public corruption.

California, Florida, New York and Texas all had more public convictions than Illinois, but those states have much larger populations so they ranked lower on a per capita basis.

***

In a February 5^th, 2018, an article in the New York Times, the newspaper included Chicago among “Four of America’s largest cities (that) are under the dark clouds of major federal corruption investigations. Residents, politicians, and power brokers in all of them are holding their breath, waiting for signs of how deeply their civic cultures will be shaken.” The Times article, written by Richard Fausset, Monica Davey and Tim Arango, states that the investigations in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia raise questions about “whether there can be any lasting cure for the chronic corruption.

Read the report(s) here.

Gov. Newsom Stops California High Speed Rail

Posted on February 13, 2019February 13, 2019 by Denise Simon

It started in 2008, where the Republicans were against it but the Democrats were for it.

California high-speed rail: A train to nowhere without a ...

The whole project was underway and President Obama ponied up Federal dollars for the project, like $3.8 billion which Governor Newsom refuses to pay back to ‘Donald Trump’. Hummm, it is not President Trump’s money, it belongs to the U.S. taxpayer. Hello…border wall?

It is important to note that the California Governor canceled the high speed rail over the voters of California under Proposition 1A.

The whole mess from the beginning was full of corruption and much of that fraud sits on the desk of California Attorney General Becerra. Swell….

Remember, the first Federal installment occurred under the Obama regime with a $2.5 billion investment under that pesky American Recovery and Reinvestment Act….$2.5 billion to be exact.

But after spending $3 billion of the fed’s money and $7.8 billion from California bond sales and revenue from the state’s infamous cap-and-trade taxes, Cal HSR has failed to lay a mile of track over the initial 32-mile section of flat San Joaquin Valley farmland.

Rather than demand the money back from Tutor-Perini/Zachry/Parsons, its project and construction manager (PCM), Cal HSR recently voted to extend the term of the contract by 6 months and to raise the price from $34.2 million to $40.2 million, an 18 percent bump.

The move is even more extraordinary given that Cal HSR admits that the professional service contract was “based on qualifications of PCM and its 25 staffing resources, as opposed to low bid.” That means Tutor-Perini/Zachry/Parsons employees, even if they worked exclusively on Cal HSR, are each being paid an average of $240,000 for the next six months of work.

Cal HSR told the Fresno Bee that the delays were due to extended environmental impact reviews and the protracted pace of acquiring 822 parcels of mostly farmland, either through negotiated purchase or suing under eminent domain. More details here.

With a price tag so far of $77 billion, Governor Newsom is somewhat equivocating on the whole thing. Seems there is no plan on paper or a timetable. Further, there are all kinds of lawsuits when it comes to environmental impact, evaluations and where if any, a rail system would continue in that state. California with the funding of the high speed rail also committed at the same time to electrifying commuter lines from San Jose to San Francisco as well as modernizing community development and station planning. This is a state that has a major homeless problem not to mention housing issues mostly due to land use restrictions and Silicon Valley employment.

The Lima Group vs. Maduro

Posted on February 11, 2019February 11, 2019 by Denise Simon

It is a matter of time that Maduro flees somewhere and likely with stolen money of which it appears the U.S. Treasury and the Swift Banking System is watching carefully. The United States is listing those rogue companies and countries and people evade sanctions and are helping Maduro move money for various reasons, money that belongs to Venezuela and to her people. Keep a watchful eye of South Africa, Russia, Cuba, Turkey, Syria and Iran. More punitive sanctions may be bubbling to the surface.

Contrary to many democrats, it was not President Trump that began is Venezuelan revolution or the eventual ouster of Maduro. In fact, it was The Lima Group joined by the Organization of American States.

PressTV-Mexico urges Lima Group not to meddle in Venezuela ...

Back in January of 2019:

Thirteen members of the Lima Group of nations said they will not recognize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate leader of his nation when he takes office on Thursday for a new six-year term, threatening to ratchet up sanctions and international pressure.

Foreign ministers from the Lima Group said they will not recognize the presidency of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro when he begins a new six-year term on Jan. 10. Missing from Friday’s group statement was Mexico, a founding member of the bloc of 14 nations.

In a statement issued Friday in Peru, the foreign ministers of the bloc said that Venezuela’s snap presidential elections on May 20, which led to Maduro’s disputed victory, did not “provide the guarantees or meet the international standards necessary for a free, just and transparent process.”

The group also said it would bar Venezuelan officials from traveling to their nations and might impose financial sanctions — including barring those officials from using the local banking system.

The Lima Group said Maduro should hand over the reins of government to the opposition-controlled National Assembly, the only branch of government it recognizes as legitimate.

Maduro, who came to power in 2013 after the death of his mentor Hugo Chávez, is unlikely to be moved by the new round of condemnation. He often accuses Washington and its allies in the region — particularly Colombia — of trying to topple his “socialist revolution” and waging an “economic war” against the once wealthy but now struggling nation. In recent years, more than 3 million people have fled Venezuela due to hunger, violence and political turmoil.

The countries that signed Friday’s statement are: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and St. Lucia.

No one is more current or has a more cogent assessment of Venezuela that Senator Marco Rubio. The Heritage Foundation hosted the Senator for his view, facts and summary of events in Venezuela.