Category Archives: Industry Jobs Oil Economics

Judge Smacks DoJ on Illegal Detention Centers

Posted on by

Detention centers are located in several states and in Texas, ICE just released hundreds of illegals as did Arizona. Detentions centers can only hold the immigrants for 60 days unless a court hears their case. Almost none of the illegals have their paperwork processed due to volume much less even appear in court.

For a map of ICE published detention centers, click here. Thousands upon thousands are immediately transferred out to contracted organizations mostly operating as religious organizations but that is actually a front operation.

From the ICE website:

ERO enforces the nation’s immigration laws in a fair and effective manner. It identifies and apprehends removable aliens, detains these individuals when necessary and removes illegal aliens from the United States.

ERO prioritizes the apprehension, arrest and removal of convicted criminals, those who pose a threat to national security, fugitives and recent border entrants. Individuals seeking asylum also work with ERO.

ERO transports removable aliens from point to point, manages aliens in custody or in an alternative to detention program, provides access to legal resources and representatives of advocacy groups and removes individuals from the United States who have been ordered to be deported.

Meanwhile, the DoJ and DHS know full well that the edict from the White House is itself illegal.

Associated Press, Los Angeles:

Judge: US violates agreement in detention of immigrant kids

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice’s current system of detaining children with their mothers after they’ve crossed the U.S.-Mexico border violates an 18-year-old court settlement.

The decision Friday by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in California is a victory for the immigrant rights lawyers who brought the case, but its immediate implications for detainees were not yet clear. The ruling upholds a tentative decision Gee made in April, and comes a week after the two sides told her that they failed to reach a new settlement agreement as she’d asked for.

The 1997 settlement at issue bars immigrant children from being held in unlicensed, secure facilities. Gee found that settlement covered all children in the custody of federal immigration officials, even those being held with a parent.

Peter Schey, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and one of the attorneys who brought the suit, said federal officials “know they’re in violation of the law.”

“They are holding children in unsafe facilities, it’s that simple,” Schey said in an email to The Associated Press. “It’s intolerable, it’s in humane, and it needs to end, and end sooner rather than later.”

Justice Department attorneys did not immediately reply to late-night messages seeking comment on the ruling.

The new lawsuit was brought on by new major detention centers for women and children in Texas that are overseen by the U.S. government but are managed by private prison operators. Together they have recently held more than 2,000 women and children between them after a surge of tens of thousands of immigrants from Central America, most of them mothers with children, many of whom claimed they were fleeing gang and domestic violence back home.

The Justice Department had argued it was necessary to modify the settlement and use detention to try to deter more immigrants from coming to the border after last year’s surge and it was an important way to keep families together while their immigration cases were being reviewed, but the judge rejected that argument in Friday’s decision.

Gee said the Department of Justice has 90 days to show cause why it should not change its policies in according with her ruling.

But since the tentative ruling in April, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has vowed to make the facilities more child-friendly and provide better oversight.

Naturalized Citizens can Omit the Pledge to America Per Obama

Posted on by

What say you America? No requirement of loyalty to the United States of America. ‘We the People OF the United States’ has no meaning anymore.

Under this edict by Barack Obama, El Chapo Guzman and Osama bin Ladin would be accepted as a U.S. citizen. Under this scenario, how does anyone take the oath to join the military?

Obama: New citizens can skip pledge to take up arms and defend the U.S.

Washington Examiner:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Tuesday said it will no longer require incoming U.S. citizens to pledge that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” or “perform noncombatant service” in the Armed Forces as part of the naturalization process.

Those lines are in the Oath of Allegiance that people recite as they become U.S. citizens. But USCIS said people “may” be able to exclude those phrases for reasons related to religion or if they have a conscientious objection.

USCIS said people with certain religious training or with a “deeply held moral or ethical code” may not have to say the phrases as they are naturalized.

The agency said people don’t have to belong to a specific church or religion to use this exemption, and may attest to U.S. officials administering the oath that they have these beliefs.

USCIS said it would take “feedback” on this policy change through August 4, 2015.

The current naturalization oath reads as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

 

 

True to Form, Obama/Kerry Made a Side Deals with Iran

Posted on by

Shocked?

The IAEA Board of Governors report on Iran and the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty information of May 2015

Text in part from Congressman Pompeo:

Two side deals made between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public. One agreement covers the inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the second details how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran Truth: Congressmen Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas issued a press release today in which they outlined aspects of the Iran deal which are being kept secret from the public and even the U.S. congress which will soon vote on whether or not to approve the deal.

Pompeo and Cotton met with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on Friday. During this meeting, it was disclosed that two undisclosed side deals are part of the greater agreement between Iran and the IAEA.

The first regards inspections of Iran’s Parchin military complex. The second has to do with the military aspect of Iran’s nuclear program.

From the press release:

“According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military complex – one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran – and how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA.  This means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal.”

The American public has not been given all the facts on the Iran deal, nor has congress. This is not only distressing but a violation:

“Even under the woefully inadequate Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the Obama administration is required to provide the U.S. Congress with all nuclear agreement documents, including all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”

Both Pompeo and Cotton are U.S. military veterans.  Each of them included a personal statement in the press release:

Pompeo said: “This agreement is the worst of backroom deals. In addition to allowing Iran to keep its nuclear program, missile program, American hostages, and terrorist network, the Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex. Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.

“The failure to disclose the content of these side agreements begs the question, ‘What is the Obama administration hiding?’ Even members of Congress who are sympathetic to this deal cannot and must not accept a deal we aren’t even aware of. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and demand to see the complete deal.”

Cotton said: “In failing to secure the disclosure of these secret side deals, the Obama administration is asking Congress and the American people to trust, but not verify.  What we cannot do is trust the terror-sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime that governs Iran and that has been deceiving the world on its nuclear weapons work for years.  Congress’s evaluation of this deal must be based on hard facts and full information.  That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny.”

Iran Agreement Celebrated by WH, What Others are Doing

Posted on by

While no one has paid much attention beyond Obama spiking the football, it is important to keep a keen eye on those countries affected and the other secret maneuvers the White House is still doing.

1. The National Security Council, the White House and the State Department have delivered the JPOA already to the United Nations before Congress received it, much less can debate it.

2. Those pesky inspections that likely will not happen at all, they certainly wont happen by ANY U.S. personnel. Iran has banned U.S. Inspectors.

3. An Iranian police chief has now been put in charge of Yemen with the West’s approval.

4. There are several additional parts to the JPOA that are under negotiation now, so a full understanding of the whole agreement cannot even be accessed nor achieved.

5. The deal with Iran includes elements to destroy Israel’s ability to defend itself.

6. Saudi Arabia made a decision to NOT wait until Iran get their big cash payload, they are moving ahead in matters with Yemen, Syria and offensive measures with Iran.

7. The White House is now meeting with Saudi Arabia and Israel to re-gen the relationship. A Saudi envoy is in Washington DC for talks and Secretary of Defense has been dispatched to Israel.

8. There are talks to provide Israel with the B-52 bombers and the Bunker Busters have already been upgraded and delivered.

9. Investigations are underway to determine what Iran will buy and stockpile with respect to their missile inventory given that concession.

10. Due to unforeseen future actions by Iran, the Pentagon has war-planners determining all military responses against Iran.

11. Several concerned countries have offered alternative plans to the signed Iran P5+1 deal yet they are being dismissed and or rejected, spelling out larger allied separation from the United States.

12. Future Middle East unrest and attacks are forecasted.

13. Russia is fully empowered with the Iran deal but may have to take a short term financial hit on oil prices.

14. Bashir al Assad of Syria remains in power, gets a financial boost from Iran and the civil war in Syria continues.

15. Allies are at odds over the Iran deal as noted by the clash between the UK and Israel.

16. The arms race in the Middle East has begun such that it includes missiles and purchasing nuclear weapons.

17. The continued divided between the White House and Congress is now permanently broken where Joe Biden has been dispatched to sell it.

18. The Iran lobby money and operations will escalate in Washington DC.

19. By Iran receiving billions, the plotting of future terrorism around the globe is probable.

20. Iran is already threatening those who opposed the deal.

21. Iran is now open for global business and Europe is delighted where they will fund additional aggressions by a rogue country leaving the United States to track covert money, agreements and relationships.

22. Iran and Cuba human rights abuses will continue to be noticed and checked yet will go without consequence.

 

Iran JPOA Titled Executive Agreement Not Treaty

Posted on by

Full text of the Iran deal is here.

Official the Joint Plan of Action with Iran is now complete with several items considered just housekeeping matters are still to be worked out. The Parchin plant MAY have allowed inspections while the other locations are off limits. The Fordo plant continues the enrichment work and Bashir al Assad is dancing at Disney. (sarcasm)

It is unclear if the UK Parliament or France votes on the JPOA but it is likely to occur. China and Russia stand with Iran especially on the arms embargo and sanction relief side.

Israel is sounding the alarms for security not only for Israel but for America and Europe.

Lifted sanctions include these individuals:

Embedded image permalink

 

For the full text of the JPOA, click here.

By at Bloomberg:

As the Senate wraps up debate this week on Iran legislation, expect to hear a lot about “hardliners.”

The Senate’s alleged hardliners have tried to add conditions to a nuclear deal the U.S. is currently negotiating with Iranian moderates, but there is little chance the senators will succeed. The majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is expected to call for an end to debate on their meddling amendments.

According to a certain school of thought, all of this is a good thing. Our hardliners, say cheerleaders for the Iran negotiations, empower Iran’s hardliners, who are also wary of a deal.

President Obama views the politics of the Iran deal in these terms himself. Back in March when Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans sent a letter to Iran’s leaders, reminding them that any deal signed with Obama could be reversed by Congress or future presidents, the president played the hardliner card: “I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran.”

There is definitely a political logic to pinning this “hardliner” label on the senators. The White House can artfully shift the conversation away from the contents of the deal it is negotiating. Instead the debate is framed as the Americans and Iranians who seek peace (moderates) versus those in both nations who want war (hardliners).

It’s simple, but deceptive. This tactic understates the power of Iran’s hardliners and dramatically overstates the power of U.S. hardliners.

In Iran, the people inside the system who are negotiating a deal, such as Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, must take the agreement to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for approval. In Iran, the hardliner approves the deal.

In the U.S. system it’s the other way around. Senators like Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz support amendments that would set new conditions before lifting Congressional sanctions on Iran. But there are not enough votes in the Senate to overturn an Obama veto on the legislation if these amendments are attached. In other words, Obama frames the conversation in the U.S., because he has the power to ignore his hardliners whereas Zarif is obliged to placate his.

Then there is the substance of the amendments themselves. Democrats and Republicans have derided certain Republicans’ amendments to the bill as “poison pills,” aimed at making a deal with Iran impossible. But these amendments would require Iran to end its war against its neighbors, release U.S. citizens who have been jailed and recognize the right of the world’s only Jewish state to exist. Outside the context of Iran negotiations, these are hardly radical views. Obama has expressed support for these positions himself.

Compare those demands with those of the Iranian hardliners. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces on Sunday reiterated the red line that no military installations would be accessible for international inspections. This would pose a problem, given that the U.S. and other great powers have agreed to allow Iran to keep most of its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for tough inspections. The Iranian hardliners appear to be putting back in play something Obama’s team believed was already agreed.

The most important distinction between Iran’s hardliners and America’s hardliners however is their political legitimacy. Iran’s people have supported reform, but nonetheless the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and domestic spy agency have tightened the grip on power despite elections when reformers won the presidency.

Contrast their ascent with the plight of Iran’s moderates: In 1997, Iranians elected a reformer president, Mohammed Khatami, who promised to open up Iran’s political system. But throughout his presidency he was unable to stop the arrests of student activists or the shuttering of opposition newspapers. By the end of Khatami’s presidency, some of his closest advisers were tried in public for charges tantamount to treason. In 2013, Iranians elected Hassan Rouhani, who ran as a reformer even though under Khatami he had overseen crackdowns on reformers. Rouhani has not freed the leaders of the 2009 green movement from house arrest or most of the activists who protested elections in 2009.

When Obama talks about his Iran negotiations, he glosses over all of this. He emphasizes instead that Rouhani has a mandate to negotiate and that he is taking advantage of this diplomatic window.

Obama had threatened to veto legislation that would give Congress a chance to review, but not modify, any agreement the administration reaches with Iran and five other world powers. Now the president says he will sign the legislation, but only if it doesn’t include the kinds of amendments favored by the so-called hardliners. After all, those amendments are unacceptable to the hardliners who actually have sway — in Iran.