Category Archives: Industry Jobs Oil Economics

Foundation is Really Hillary’s War-Chest

Posted on by

The Clinton’s Massive War Chest Disguised As a Charity’

by TOM DEWEESE March 19, 2015

Many Americans believe Bill Clinton has spent his years away from the White House simply enjoying the good life of an ex-president. He gets a full security team; travel expense around the world; a cool presidential library equipped with full living quarters; the best tables at the fanciest eating establishments; huge speaking fees to share his own two cents worth of opinion on any given issue; he gets to show his face on television as an appointed spokesman for the latest disaster relief project; and sometimes even gets to represent the United States at some international meeting.

A fun life, certainly. But such a description in no way represents the reality of Bill Clinton’s true impact on the world since leaving the White House.

In truth, Bill Clinton has been a very busy boy, continuing to carry out the global agenda he orchestrated from the White House, and he’s doing it with funds equal to those of the GNP of a small nation. The mission for Clinton’s activities is “Global interdependence.” The other way to say it is “Global Governance,” UN style. Bill is all over the world, creating programs and policy, many times working directly with foreign governments, to bring about a one world government – at the expense of the sovereign nation he once headed.

The agenda includes promoting the fear tactics of Global Warming, resulting in the creation of programs that force governments to impose massive cut backs on energy use. The result, higher energy costs and energy shortages. Worse, such policies are actually hurting the poor in undeveloped nations where Sustainable Development (the policy for which global warming lies were created). That’s because Sustainablists actually put pressure on global corporations and financial institutions to refuse development projects in some poor nations, denying them infrastructure and energy, forcing a future of mud huts and dirty water. Such is the compassion and dedication of Bill Clinton.

Clinton is perpetrating this global blackmail through his William J. Clinton Foundation, headquartered in Little Rock, AK. Amazingly, the foundation is fueled by a $140 million annual budget. More amazing is who is giving him that money in support of his globalist plans. The actual financial report filed with the IRS is 3,200 pages long. The government only requires that a non-profit organization list those who have given $5,000 or more. So, if Clinton had been required to list all supporters, there would have been many more pages.

The biggest contributor to Clinton’s globalist war chest was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which tossed in a hefty $25 million- plus. But that wasn’t all the wealthiest man in the world provided for Clinton’s promotion of top-down government control. He also made sure that his company, Microsoft, tossed in another $250,000 – $500,000. Google was counted in for that same category, and so was Cisco.

Some other big hitters in the $10 million – $25 million category were the Government of Norway and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The State of Qatar gave somewhere between $1 million and $5 million, as did the State of Kuwait. What a perk it is to be a former president who was able to do favors for other countries before leaving office.

Of course there are the usual suspects: The Ford Foundation threw in over $100,000; as did the United Nations Foundation (don’t they raise funds for their own programming? Why are they donating to another foundation?); The Soros Foundation threw in over half a million; as did Steven Spielberg, Proctor and Gamble, and Pfizer. The Rockefeller Foundation handed in somewhere between $1 million and $5 million. Barbra Streisand assured at least another night in one of Bill’s bedrooms with a hefty donation of over a million.

Here’s one you working men and women will find interesting: The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers shelled out between $100,000 and $250,000 of workers dues. And for all of you Wal-Mart minimum wage workers, rather than give you a raise, your bosses dumped between $1 million and $5 million through the Wal-Mart Foundation. Do you like to play golf? The PGA Tour gave Clinton $50,000 plus.

But here is the kicker! Perhaps you remember a little crisis in 2008 in the economy for which a trillion dollars of taxpayer money was rushed into the hands of financial institutions that were “too big to fail!” Watch these numbers: Merrill Lynch and Company Foundation – $100,000 plus; Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc – $100,000 plus; Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. – $50,000 plus; Bank of America Foundation – $500,000 plus; Citi Foundation $1 million plus, General Motors Corporation – $50,000 plus. And for all of you who lost your homes when your mortgage company failed – this one is for you – Freddie Mac – the government agency that so badly handled its duties that it had to be rescued with your tax dollars in an emergency — $50,000 plus.

All gave money to Bill Clinton in 2009 to promote global governance — while the world’s economy was collapsing. It’s good to be king!

What DOES Congress Know About the Iran Deal?

Posted on by

Breaking: Appears that the Iran deal now has a green light to continue with a caveat, get rid of some of the centrifuges. Now the question becomes, will Congress get a vote on this?

Chairman Royce of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made a stellar opening remark today opening the testimony and exchange with the witnesses that include Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Acting Under Secretary Adam Szubin. It seems that the items in the talks led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman along with the rest of the P5+1 are worse than we know and in fact are quite chilling. Imagine what we don’t know.

From Chairman Royce: (video included)

We’ll hear the Administration’s case today. But it’s critical that the Administration hears our bipartisan concerns. Deputy Secretary Blinken, this is your first appearance before this Committee. I congratulate you on your position, and wish you well. After the hearing, I trust you will be in touch with Secretary Kerry, Under Secretary Sherman, and the others at the negotiating table to report the Committee’s views. This is important.
This Committee has been at the forefront of examining the threat of a nuclear Iran. Much of the pressure that brought Tehran to the table was put in place by Congress over the objections of the Executive Branch – whether Republican or Democrat. And we’d have more pressure on Iran today if the Administration hadn’t pressured the Senate to sit on the Royce-Engel sanctions bill this Committee produced and passed in 2013.
Congress is proud of this role. And we want to see the Administration get a lasting and meaningful agreement. But unfortunately, the Administration’s negotiating strategy has been more about managing proliferation than preventing it.
Case in point: Iran’s uranium enrichment program, the key technology needed to developing a nuclear bomb. Reportedly, the Administration would be agreeable to leaving much of Iran’s enrichment capacity in place for a decade. If Congress will be asked to “roll-back” its sanctions on Iran – which will certainly fund its terrorist activities – there must be a substantial “roll-back” of Iran’s nuclear program.
And consider that international inspectors report that Iran has still not revealed its past bomb work – despite its commitment to do so. The IAEA is still concerned about signs of Iran’s military-related activities; including designing a nuclear payload for a missile. Iran hasn’t even begun to address these concerns. Last fall, over 350 Members wrote to the Secretary of State expressing deep concerns about this lack of cooperation. How can we expect Iran to uphold an agreement when they are not meeting their current commitments? Indeed, we were not surprised to see Iran continue to illicitly procure nuclear technology during these negotiations. Or that Tehran was caught testing a more advanced centrifuge that would help produce bomb material quicker. This was certainly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the interim agreement. Iran’s deception is all the more reason that the Administration should obtain zero-notice, anywhere, anytime inspections on Iran’s declared and undeclared facilities.
There is also the fact that limits placed on Iran’s nuclear program as part of the final agreement now being negotiated will expire. That means, the “final” agreement is just another interim step, with the real final step being Iran treated as “any other” non-nuclear weapon state under the Non- Proliferation Treaty – licensing it to pursue industrial scale enrichment.
With a deep history of deception, covert procurement, and clandestine facilities, Iran is not “any other” country, to be conceded an industrial scale nuclear program. Any meaningful agreement must keep restrictions in place for decades – as over 360 Members of Congress – including every Member of this Committee – are demanding in a letter to the President.
Meanwhile, Iran is intensifying its destructive role in the region. Tehran is propping up Assad in Syria, while its proxy Hezbollah threatens Israel. Iranian-backed Shia militia are killing hopes for a unified, stable Iraq. And last month, an Iranian-backed militia displaced the government in Yemen, a key counterterrorism partner. Many of our allies and partners see Iran pocketing an advantageous nuclear agreement and ramping up its aggression in the region.


This Committee is prepared to evaluate any agreement to determine if it is in the long-term national security interests of the United States and our allies. Indeed, as Secretary Kerry testified not long ago, any agreement will have to “pass muster with Congress.” Yet that commitment has been muddied by the Administration’s insistence in recent weeks that Congress not play a role. That’s not right. Congress built the sanctions structure that brought Iran to the table. And if the President moves to dismantle it, we will have a say.
I now turn to the Ranking Member.

Blinken’s remarks are here. Could the Iranian sanctions be lifted immediately? Seems that is part of the most recent talks.

Iran deal would reportedly ease sanctions immediately, allow nuclear enrichment

International sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy for years would be immediately eased and the Islamic Republic could continue to enrich uranium under the terms of a deal being hammered out in Geneva between Tehran and six world powers, according to a report Thursday.

Citing a draft that would serve as a framework for a 10-year deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, The Associated Press reported that Iran would be allowed to operate 6,000 enrichment centrifuges it claims are for peaceful purposes — while getting immediate relief from international economic sanctions.

U.S. lawmakers skeptical of Iran’s true intentions raised fresh concerns about the deal in a letter Thursday to the White House.

“Iran’s role in fomenting instability in the region — not to mention Iran’s horrendous repression at home — demonstrates the risks of negotiating with a partner we cannot trust,” stated the letter, whose signatories included majorities of both parties.

“I wouldn’t trust these people with a spare electron.”- Former US Amassador to the UN John Bolton
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki denied that there is a draft report circulating among the parties holding talks. The U.S. and the five other world powers, who also include Great Britain, France, Russia and China, have been negotiating with Iranian officials under a self-imposed March 31 deadline, with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif doing most of the heavy lifting. The deal would be aimed at unshackling Iran from United Nations economic sanctions put in place in 2006 while giving the international community the ability to ensure the hard-line regime is not building a nuclear weapons stockpile.

Any March framework agreement is unlikely to constrain Iran’s missile program, which the U.S. believes could ultimately be designed to deliver nuclear warheads. Diplomats say that as the talks move to deadline, the Iranians continue to insist that missile curbs are not up for discussion. The deal would likely leave in place a ban on other nations transferring missile technology to Iran, however.

Separate U.S. sanctions would be phased out as part of a deal, although U.S. lawmakers have vowed to block such a move and also dispute the White House’s ability to enter into a binding deal with Iran.

U.S. Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for a hearing with top Obama administration officials from the State and Treasury departments to hear testimony on the negotiations.

Following the March 31 deadline, the parties would have until sometime in June to agree on all of the details.

Iran’s nuclear program has been under international scrutiny for a dozen years, since the regime blocked UN inspectors from verifying Iran was abiding by international mandates regarding its alleged nuclear weapons program.

It is not clear how many centrifuges — the machines that enrich uranium for possible weaponization — Iran now operates. Estimates have been as high as 20,000. The U.S. believes reducing the number of centrifuges will forestall by a decade or more Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said simply regulating the number of centrifuges is not enough to restrict supply, because better technology can increase production from each machine. More importantly, Bolton said, there is no reason to trust the Iranian regime, which traces its rise to power to the 1979 attack on the U.S. Embassy and which routinely calls for attacks on Israel and America.

“When they sign the deal, that will be the beginning of new negotiations, because Iran will violate the agreement before the ink is dry and then we’ll be back at the table,” Bolton said. “I wouldn’t trust these people with a spare electron.”

In addition to reducing the number of centrifuges, the deal would commit Iran to accepting rigorous monitoring of its nuclear program. A planned heavy water reactor would be re-engineered to produce much less plutonium than originally envisioned, relieving concerns that it could be an alternative pathway to a bomb.

For Iran, any deal granting sanctions relief would immediately boost the economy, which is especially hurting due to the bottoming out of oil prices.

Frank Gaffney, of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, said the sanctions are the only leverage the West has against Iran, and surrendering it up-front makes what is being reported a bad deal.

“We cannot trust the Iranians to do anything other than to pursue what they have been pursuing for decades, a nuclear weapons program, secretly and in the open,” Gaffney said.

If Iran violates its end of the bargain, reinstating sanctions that resulted from arduous diplomatic wrangling will prove impossible, he said.

“There isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell you would get the Chinese and Russians back on board,” Gaffney said. “This is a permanent unraveling of the sanctions.”

Washington believes it can extend the time Tehran would need to produce a nuclear weapon to at least a year for the 10 years it is under the moratorium. Right now, Iran would require only two to three months to amass enough materiel if it covertly seeks to make a nuclear bomb. Among U.S. allies, France is the most adamant about stretching out the duration of the deal. A European official familiar with the French position told the AP it wants a 25-year time-span.

Any agreement faces fierce opposition from the U.S. Congress as well as close American allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, which believe the Obama administration has conceded too much. After the deal expires, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level or volume it wants.

Svengali (Obama) and Cuba, Broken Talks

Posted on by

It was just last week that the United States issued another round of sanctions on Venezuela. This is due in part because Venezuela, under the dictator Maduro has been collaborating with Iran on their nuclear program. What is worse is the most recent round of talks between the United Sates and Cuba normalizing relations broke off suddenly and without any readout as to why. Shortly after the abrupt session, Raul Castro of Cuba arrived in Caracas, Venezuela to show continued solidarity with Maduro. Maduro has claimed several times in recent weeks that the United States is creating hostilities in Venezuela and the military is poised to take on America.

There have been years of ill-will with good reason, clicking here will give some evidence to that history.

Enter an escalating showdown.

Opening of embassy in Cuba sets up showdown over U.S. ambassador

The recent announcement that the United States and Cuba plan to restore full diplomatic relations April 10th is setting up a battle between President Barack Obama and Congress over whom – if anyone – will be the communist island’s first ambassador in over 50 years.

The ambassador issue has been one of most divisive topics inside the Washington Beltway since Obama announced last December that the U.S. and Cuba were working on restoring relations – with the president pushing ahead with plans as anti-Castro lawmakers in Congress threaten to block the appointment of any ambassador to Havana. The question that remains to be answered is: When the U.S. and Cuba officially restore diplomatic ties next month, will the newly reopened embassy have an ambassador in the office?

The answer: Yes, no and sort of.

While lawmakers opposed to loosening Washington’s strict stance toward the communist island,  such as New Jersey’s Sen. Robert Menendez and Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio, are likely to put a halt to any quick approval of an ambassador in Havana, the embassy will still have a chief of the mission – just as the current U.S. Interests Section in the country does. Except now this post will come with all the weight and power that an ambassador does, minus the title.

“The chief of mission will have expanded powers and be able to have better access to members of the Cuban government more than they were in the past,” Geoff Thale, the program director of the Washington Office on Latin America, told Fox News Latino.

The current chief of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, is expected to keep his post at least until the end of the Obama administration. But whoever is nominated to be ambassador to Cuba will face a tough uphill battle in a Republican-controlled Congress already smarting from Obama overstepping them on issues such as immigration and nuclear diplomacy.

As soon as Obama announced that the U.S. and Cuba would normalize relations, Rubio said he would block a proposed American ambassador in Havana. In January, Menendez added that while Congress can do little to prevent the Obama administration from shifting the existing interests section in Cuba into an embassy, what Congress can do is refuse to confirm an ambassador.

“All these things the president is doing unilaterally,” Susan K. Purcell, the director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami, told Fox News Latino. “It’s understandable that Congress feels slighted and ignored.”

Purcell added: “There are significant numbers of senators who are not so sure that we should be pursuing the normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba at all.”

Congressional concerns aside, however, the Obama administration and the Castro government appear to be going full steam ahead in restoring diplomatic relations and a major part of that is revamping their embassies in the respective countries.

A six-story, concrete and glass structure just off Havana’s famed Malecón esplanade, the U.S. Interest Section was the former U.S. embassy and has been minimally staffed since the U.S. embargo soured relations between the countries in 1961.

With the restoration of ties, both sides are hopeful of lifting caps on Cuban and U.S. diplomatic staff and limits on their movements outside Havana and Washington – two talking points currently being discussed. Currently, Cuban consular staff cannot leave the Washington Beltway without State Department permission and U.S. consular staff cannot leave Havana without permission from Cuban officials.

The normalization of relations would also allow the U.S. to renovate the aging building and have U.S. security posted around the building, replacing Cuban police. And in maybe the most symbolic move, the U.S. government would want to put up a new sign on the building – directly across from Havana’s José Martí Anti-Imperialist Plaza.

One area where the U.S. would like to bump up its presence in the country is in expanding its regional security office on the island.

For decades, Cuban authorities have worked hand-in-hand with their U.S. counterparts to alert them to everything from fast boats carrying drugs to the remote islands between the two countries to tanker ships covertly trafficking cocaine to Europe. But the U.S. would like to make it easier for American officials to work with Cuban authorities to track down criminals fleeing to Cuba to escape charges such as Medicaid fraud and kidnapping.

“Right now it’s a very complicated process that requires approval from high-up, you can’t just schedule a meeting for next Tuesday,” Thale said. “The new changes could ease the diplomatic paperwork.”

The U.S. and Cuba held their first round of talks in Havana in January and the second round was held in Washington last month. While the first rounds each lasted a day and saw negotiators routinely issuing updates on progress, this week’s is being held without a finishing date or any scheduled statements to the press

The United Nations, Obama and Israel

Posted on by

Out of lack of leadership and a strategy in dealing with the historical divide between the White House and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama took a petulant posture this week and wants to defer to the United Nations when dealing with the Arabs and Palestinians in Israel. Truth be know, the Arabs and Palestinians in Israel can and do live a grand existence in Israel at the cost of Israelis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu declared before the Tuesday election in which he prevailed there will be no two state solution in Israel. Peace talks have taken place for decades to no avail when Israel has made countless concessions to only have thousands rockets fired at them and then in Jerusalem, conflicts are a daily events. Kudos to Netanyahu but why would Obama run to the United Nations? Israel began to receive recognition with the Sykes Picot Agreement. Jews were able to return to the land ratified by the United Nations between 1945-1948.  Today, there is nothing ‘united about the UN and worse it has a history of scandals.

The United Nations has a Security Council, it has an International Court of Justice, it has a division titled International Peace and Security, it has a Counter-terrorism wing, it has a Human Rights Council and most of all it has a nefarious department called UNRWA. That is especially key as it is the United Nations Relief and Work for Palestinian Refugees. Simply put, the Palestinians get their own section of protection at the UN, when in fact the Palestinians are classically at the core on hostilities and unrest in Israel.

You are challenged to do your own research of the scandals at the United Nations, yet what may be easier….watch the documentary UNme.

Further: In 2004, former ambassador to the UN Dore Gold published a book called Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos. The book criticized what it called the organization’s moral relativism in the face of (and occasional support of)[1] genocide and terrorism that occurred between the moral clarity of its founding period and the present day. While the UN during its founding period was limited to those nations that declared war on at least one of the Axis powers of World War II, and thus were capable of taking a stand against evil, the modern United Nations has, according to Gold, become diluted to the point where only 75 of the 184 member states during the time of the book’s publication “were free democracies, according to Freedom House.”He further claimed that this had the effect of tipping the scales of the UN so that the organization as a whole was more amenable to the requirements of dictatorships.
Charles de Gaulle of France criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin (“the thingamabob”), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help in maintaining world peace, preferring that the UN direct defense treaties between countries.

So, it is even reasonable that Barack Obama should turn over the secure destiny of Israel to the United Nations? Should corrupt global United Nations representatives be the ‘go-to’ people when it comes to Israel’s future or that of say Rwanda, Sudan or Haiti?

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay

The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats.

The move follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive re-election Tuesday after the incumbent publicly abandoned his commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state — the basis of more than 20 years of U.S. diplomatic efforts — and promised to continue the construction of settlements on occupied territory. The development also reflects deepening pessimism over the prospect of U.S.-brokered negotiations delivering peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Shortly before this week’s election, the United States informed its diplomatic partners that it would hold off any moves in the U.N. Security Council designed to put Israel on the spot at the United Nations in the event that Netanyahu’s challenger, Isaac Herzog, won the election. But U.S. officials signaled a willingness to consider a U.N. resolution in the event that Netanyahu was re-elected and formed a coalition government opposed to peace talks. The United States has not yet circulated a draft, but diplomats say Washington has set some red lines and is unwilling to agree to set a fixed deadline for political talks to conclude.

“The more the new government veers to the right the more likely you will see something in New York,” said a Western diplomat.

Netanyahu’s government will likely be made up of right-wing and Orthodox parties adamantly opposed to making concessions to Palestinians. According to a statement from Netanyahu’s office, the Israeli leader has already consulted with party leaders he plans to add to his coalition, including Naftali Bennett of the pro-settlement Jewish Home party, Avigdor Lieberman of the far-right nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, and leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties.

On Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki did not rule out the possibility of the United States supporting a U.N. resolution on Israel-Palestine.

“We’re currently evaluating our approach. We’re not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action,” she told reporters.

For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations have resisted a role for the U.N. Security Council in dealing with the Middle East crisis. They have argued consistently that an enduring peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. Israeli leaders have also strongly opposed giving the world body a greater role in bringing about a deal.

However, the prospect of direct negotiations appeared to evaporate with Netanyahu’s pre-election declaration that he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state. The comment completely reversed the Israeli leader’s previous support for an independent Palestine as part of a permanent peace deal between the two sides.

The deliberations over the future of the U.S. diplomatic efforts are playing out just weeks before the Palestinians are scheduled to join the International Criminal Court, a move that is certain to heighten diplomatic tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. On Wednesday, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s top diplomat in the United States told Foreign Policy the Palestinians would move forward with plans to use the ICC to try to hold Israel accountable for alleged war crimes during last summer’s war in Gaza. (Israel says it worked hard to avoid civilian casualties, of which there were many, and blames Hamas militants for taking shelter in populated areas.)

“The fact that we have a government in Israel publicly opposing a two-state solution just reinforces our position that this conflict must be handled by the international community,” Maen Rashid Areikat said.

Ilan Goldenberg, a former member of the Obama administration’s Mideast peace team, told FP that Washington might be inclined to support a Security Council resolution backing a two-state solution as an alternative to the Palestinian effort to hold Israel accountable at the ICC.

“If it was done, it could protect Israel from a worse outcome,” he said.

Under this scenario, the United States would seek guarantees from the international community to hold off on ICC activity in exchange for a Security Council resolution outlining international standards for a final peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“The Israelis will probably resist and say this is a bad idea, but they could also be convinced that this is better than the alternative,” said Goldenberg.

The window for this type of U.N. initiative is small. U.S. officials are unlikely to act during the contentious Iran negotiations, which are set to end in late June, Goldenberg said. But the administration will not want to wait until the 2016 presidential race kicks into high gear, as any Democratic nominee would likely advise the White House against upsetting the party’s influential pro-Israel supporters.

“Don’t expect anything to move until the summer,” said Goldenberg.

European and Arab governments, including France and the Palestinians, will likely want to move more quickly at the United Nations.

The Palestinians had been pressing the U.N. Security Council for months last year to adopt a resolution demanding that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian lands within three years. But the United States vetoed the Palestinian initiative. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power called it “unbalanced” because it failed to take into consideration Israel’s security concerns.

But France, which is seeking a broader diplomatic role in the Middle East, had also been pushing for a separate resolution, which calls for the resumption of political talks between Israelis and Palestinians in order to conclude a comprehensive peace settlement. In December, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Paris and other European governments that the United States would block the resolution if it were put to a vote before the Israeli election.

But one European diplomat said that there was “a broad understanding” at the time “that this was something that could be revisited post-election.” So far, U.S. talks with European allies have taken place in Washington and other capitals. There have been no substantive talks in New York among Security Council members.

France, however, recently renewed its appeal to the United States to consider taking up the issue before the council, according to diplomats familiar with the matter.

The United States, according to the diplomats, gave no firm commitment. But the administration indicated that it was willing to consider action in the council once a coalition government is put into place.

“I think they probably just want to see how it pans out,” said one U.N.-based diplomat. “But certainly the message we got back in December was that they might be able to show more flexibility after the election.”

Security Council diplomats say there remain significant differences between the U.S. approach and that of France. “There are discrepancies between the U.S. and European positions but I think they will bridge them soon,” said an Arab diplomat. “The key elements are the same: a framework for a peaceful solution that leads to the establishment of a Palestinian state … plus guarantees for Israel’s long-term security.” The United States is unlikely to hit Israel or the Palestinians with punitive measures if they fail to comply.

During a recent meeting of U.S. and European officials in Washington, a senior State Department official said the United States was considering a draft resolution at the Security Council but that no decision had been made.

Of course, two other options lie before the Obama administration with regard to the Israel-Palestine issue: continuing to reflexively back Israel at the United Nations, and simply enduring the widespread criticism of the international community, or raising the pressure on Jerusalem by abstaining from a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

In 2011, the United States vetoed a resolution demanding that Israel’s settlement activity cease immediately — even though it was in line with U.S. policy. The measure was sponsored by nearly two-thirds of the U.N.’s membership and received a 14-1 vote on the Security Council.

“If there was a settlement resolution, would the U.S. abstain? I could see that as a possibility,” said Goldenberg.

In the wake of Israel’s election, U.N. and Israeli officials exchanged sharp words after U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq called on the new Israeli government to halt “illegal settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

In response to the statement, Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., snapped back: “If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the Palestinian people, it should be asking … why Hamas uses the Palestinian people as human shields.”

Hey Barack Obama, Meet Border Patrol Agent Cabrera

Posted on by

They have been lined up since Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stating that the Southern border is secure. Americans know better than what they are told, they know better than what they read but when it comes to hearing sworn testimony, it is time for the President of the United States to either listen or be challenged.

Published on March 18 2015

Testimony of Chris Cabrera, on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council, in front of United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee March 17, 2015

“Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Carper, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) and the 16,500 Border Patrol Agents that it represents.

My name is Chris Cabrera and I joined the Border Patrol in 2003, after serving 4 years in the U.S. Army as a paratrooper. I have spent my entire Border Patrol career in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

Before I discuss some potential solutions that could be employed to increase border security I want to address whether or not the border is secure. If you ask this question of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or senior management at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), they will tell you the border is secure. They may even point to statistics and metrics showing that the Border Patrol is 75% effective in apprehending illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

I want to be crystal clear – the border is not secure. That is not just my opinion or the position of the NBPC. Ask any line Agent in the field and he or she will tell you that at best we apprehend 35-40% of the illegal immigrants attempting to cross. This number is even lower for drug smugglers who are much more adept at eluding capture.

How can this enormous gap exist between what the DHS tells you here in Washington and what our Agents know to be the truth in the field? Frankly, it is how you manipulate the statistics and let me give you one example. A key metric in determining our effectiveness is what is known as the “got aways”. If we know from footprints or video surveillance that 20 individuals crossed the border and we ultimately catch 10 of them, then we know that 10 “got away.”

When I first joined the Border Patrol if I saw 20 foot prints in the sand there was no argument – we were looking for 20 people. Today if I see 20 or more footprints in the sand a supervisor must come to my location and “verify” the number of footprints. I guess that after 13 years in the field I must have lost the ability to count.

Agents who repeatedly report groups larger than 20 face retribution. Management will either take them out of the field and assign them to processing detainees at the station or assign them to a fixed position in low volume areas as punishment. Needless to say Agents got the message and now stay below this 20 person threshold no matter the actual size of the group.

In January 2011 Border Patrol Chief Fisher came to our station. To his credit, he took questions from the assembled Agents. I expressed my concern to him about what I perceived to be CBP being more interested in border security statistics than border security, especially as it pertains to “got aways”. Chief Fisher’s response was “if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

To be candid, I do not know whether the tree makes a sound. But I do know that if I see 20 footprints in the sand and we catch 5 illegal immigrants that there are 15 “got aways” whether or not our official statistics reflect that.

I raise this issue with you because before we can start to address our problems, we have to acknowledge the extent of them. In a moment I am going to ask you to provide Agents with more resources. I know that times are tough right now and everyone is asking for more resources. I know that it is a harder sell for me when the head of my agency is telling you that we are 75 percent effective and the border is secure.

To give you a sense of what we are dealing with, not six months after Chief Fisher made that comment to me I was involved in a fire fight with drug cartel members. We were attempting to intercept a drug shipment and we took sustained automatic gunfire from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande River. In less than 5 minutes, my partner and I fired over 600 rounds defending ourselves. When cartel members are brazenly firing automatic weapons at Federal law enforcement agents, the border is not secure ladies and gentlemen. This was in 2011 and since that time things in the Rio Grande Sector have only deteriorated.

What are some actions that this Committee can take to improve border security? Let me give you several suggestions:

  • Increased manpower- Currently there are 21,370 Border Patrol Agents in this country. We do not have to double the size of the Border Patrol to gain operational control of the border. But we are, in my opinion, approximately 5,000 Agents short of where we should be. NBPC would advocate that 1,500 be sent to the northern border, which is woefully understaffed, and the remaining 3,500 positions allocated to interior enforcement.
  • Supervising staffing levels- The Border Patrol is an extremely top heavy organization with far too many layers of management. The average large police department has one supervisor for every 10 officers. The Border Patrol has one supervisor for every 4 Agents. The Committee should mandate a 10:1 ratio and achieve it through attrition in the supervisory ranks. This could easily return another 1,500 Agents to the field.
  • Interior Enforcement- Every night we effectively play goal line defense because all of our resources and assets are concentrated right at the border instead of having a defense in depth. You may be surprised to learn that even in a border state like Arizona we have no Agents in Phoenix. This, despite the fact that Phoenix is one of the most important illegal immigrant and narcotics transit points in the country.
  • Better training- During the Bush Administration the Border Patrol’s academy training was reduced from approximately 20 weeks to as little as 54 days if you spoke Spanish. This is simply not enough time to properly train an Agent and weed out those who are not up to the challenge. The Committee should require that the Academy revert back to 20 weeks.

Again, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify and if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability.”