Strong Cities Network or Global Police?

Posted on October 13, 2015October 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

What’s the Goal of DOJ’s Strong Cities Network?

by Johanna Markind
American Thinker
October 8, 2015

On September 29, 2015, with the endorsement of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a group called the Strong Cities Network was launched at the United Nations.

According to its website, Strong Cities “aims to connect cities and other local authorities on an international basis, to enhance local level approaches to prevent violent extremism; including facilitating information sharing, mutual learning and creation of new and innovative local practices.”

Reportedly, the “network will conduct workshops and training, will offer online documents of best practices, and will offer grants for innovative initiatives. The US State Department will provide funds through 2016, at which time charities are expected to take over funding.” A summit is scheduled to take place next spring in Paris.

The group includes 23 cities, including four from the US: Minneapolis, New York, Denver, and Atlanta. Minneapolis is also one of three US cities – the other two being Boston and Los Angeles – the Obama Administration selected to participate in its Countering Violent Extremism pilot program.

The Strong Cities Program has been criticized by the New York Civil Liberties Union and by American Muslim activists fearful it will target Muslims. Similar criticisms have been leveled against the Department of Justice Countering Violent Extremism program, notably by the Islamist-posing-as-civil-rights group Council on American-Islamic Relations. New York groups like the NYCLU, Association of Muslim American Lawyers and the Justice League NYC expressed concern New York would eventually become active with the Justice Department’s “Countering Violent Extremism,” or CVE, programs, which they say “overwhelmingly” target Muslim communities.

Given this sort of challenge, and the Obama Administration‘s own predilections, it is unsurprising that the program avoids connecting its target to radical Islam. Its stated goals include addressing “violent extremism in all of its forms” without associating violent extremism “with any particular religion, nationality or ethnic group.” It emphasizes inclusiveness, collaboration, and non-discrimination “in compliance with international human rights standards.”

The Attorney General’s remarks likewise avoided referring to any specific religion. The closest she came was to refer vaguely to “groups like ISIL,” and ecumenically to “fanatics motivated by hatred against religious or ethnic factions,” and explained, “all are antithetical to the shared vision and common cause that joins us.”

Similarly, in his remarks at the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law’s “More Effective Responses to the Foreign Terrorist Fighter Threat” event the day before the Strong Cities launch, Assistant Attorney General John Carlin managed to avoid all references to Islam, and all reference to Muslims save to describe ISIL as “a group that beheads and kills Muslims and non-Muslims with the same impunity,” and to focus on the need to broadcast “the damage they [ISIL] are doing to Muslim communities.”

The refusal to identify radical Islam as the focus of the Strong Cities Network – indeed, Mayor DeBlasio‘s insistence that it would not focus on any one type of extremism and references to the shooting of African-American churchgoers in Charleston and the past attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics – has in turn stoked fears that it will target conservative groups and criticism of its close cooperation with the United Nations. (Regarding the latter, it is difficult to take seriously an organization that puts Saudi Arabia in charge of its Human Rights Commission; the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Saudi Prince Zeid Ra’ad Hussein, was scheduled to be present at the launch.)

Are Lynch’s remarks, and the Strong Cities Network’s self-description, necessary diplomatic niceties for a program designed to deal with violent Islamism? Or will the program blunt its utility by taking on too many tasks? For example, how many resources will it devote to combating right-wing extremism?

The refusal of the program, and of Lynch and Carlin, to speak plainly about violent Islamism and the need to defeat it, does not bode well for its chances of success at that task. To quote former US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, “You can’t defeat an enemy that you don’t admit exists.”

*** Deeper layer peeled back:

From John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute
Now, with Strong Cities Network, U.S. cities will be cooperating and “sharing resources” with foreign governments around the world. Local police are already training with FBI, DHS and even the military. Obama’s new program lays the groundwork for them to train with foreign police units under the banner of the U.N.

“With the Strong Cities program we see the goal is to have global police, so it’s going to be very hard to rein in global cops,” Whitehead said. “Cops who were trained locally are going by the wayside, dealing solely with local cops is going to be a thing of the past. It’s sort of in your face, it’s saying the U.N. is going to be a global police force, working in this country one way or the other. New York City, L.A., Chicago are going to lead the way. Americans better get ready for this because what it means is, our Constitution is being replaced, and the constitutional protections we have eventually will be gone.”

Among the first steps taken will involve merging some of the law-enforcement capacities within regions, with U.S. cops cooperating more closely with those of Mexico and Canada, Whitehead said. Click here for Whitehead’s summary and warning from 2010.

EPA Hires Thunderclap….Huh?

Posted on October 13, 2015October 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

Armed EPA Agents? The Truth Is Way Out There

The EPA’s armed war on alien polluters.

AmericanSpectator: Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, the FBI agents on Fox’s The X-Files, have been known to draw weapons on aliens, poltergeists, and phantoms. But they have an excuse — they’re fictional characters in a network TV drama, coming back on-the-air soon after a long hiatus. Not so the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPAs) own, real-life agents. They are packing pistols and even heavier firepower to catch the nation’s contributors to global warming and other, mythical phenomena. Truth is stranger than science fiction in today’s Washington, D.C., and the truth is way out there.

According to a report released last week by a watchdog group called Open the Books, the EPA has spent millions of dollars recently on guns, ammo, body armor, camouflage equipment, and even night-vision goggles to arm its agents in the war on polluters.

The Illinois-based investigative group examined thousands of checks totaling more than $93 billion from 2000 to 2014 by the EPA, and its auditors indicate that about $75 million is authorized each year for “criminal enforcement” of America’s clean air and water laws. This includes cash for a cadre of 200 “special agents” that engage in SWAT-style ops.

“We were shocked ourselves to find these kinds of pervasive expenditures at an agency that is supposed to be involved in clean air and clean water,” said Open the Books’ founder, Adam Andrzejewski, a former candidate for governor of Illinois. “Some of these weapons are for full-scale military operations.”

Some of these military operations have been reported in the media. Two years ago, the EPA was involved in an armed raid at a small town in Alaska where miners were accused of polluting local waters, as Fox News reported that EPA “armed agents in full body armor participated.”

The EPA’s own website describes the activities and mission of the criminal enforcement division as “investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses and providing legal guidance to assist in the prosecution of criminal conduct that threatens people’s health and the environment.”

Don’t blame President Obama for this alone. The EPA was first given police powers in 1988 during the Reagan era. These days, EPA also conducts joint projects with the Department of Homeland Security as it engages in what a media report calls “environmental crime-fighting.”

“For more than 30 years,” according to the EPA website, “there has been broad, bipartisan agreement about the importance of an armed, fully-equipped team of EPA agents working with state and federal partners to uphold the law and protect Americans.”

But that’s not all that the Open the Books investigators found. Backing up these armed environmental crusaders are scores of highly paid lawyers and other professionals.

The report showed that seven of 10 EPA workers earn more than $100,000 a year, and EPA’s $8 billion budget also finances the salaries of 1,000 attorneys, making the agency one of the biggest law firms in the U.S.

The EPA is hardly going solo in this armed adventure against America, however. The agency has collaborated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and a recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that more than 40 federal agencies, with 100,000 officers, carry guns and make arrests.

How far will EPA agents go to enforce the law as they interpret it? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued a temporary stay on the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Water Rule that regulates “waters of the U.S.” The court decided the EPA’’s Rule that originally became effective on August 28, 2015 requires “further judicial analysis.” The new Clean Water Rule defined navigable waters to include tributaries and wetlands, and even puddles caused by rainstorms. The rule defines which waterways would be protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. A total of 18 states are challenging the new rule. Perhaps the new water rules will be enforced at gunpoint by armed agents if President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy decide that “environmental justice” requires it.

*** Gina likes Thunderclap, so she hired them for crowd-sourcing positive responses.

Join a Thunderclap for Clean Water

EPA is planning to use a new social media application called Thunderclap to provide a way for people to show their support for clean water and the agency’s proposal to protect it. Here’s how it works: you agree to let Thunderclap post a one-time message on your social networks (Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr) on Monday, September 29 at 2:00 pm EDT. The message will be posted on everyone’s walls and feeds at the same time.
Here’s the message: “Clean water is important to me. I want EPA to protect it for my health, my family, and my community. www.epa.gov/USwaters”

Read about the Thunderclap.

EPA Publishes Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans

Under Clean Water Act section 304(m), EPA develops biennial plans for issuing new regulations or revising existing regulations to control industrial wastewater discharges. While EPA’s final 2012 plan and preliminary 2014 plan do not propose any new effluent guidelines for industry, EPA is announcing initiation of detailed studies of the petroleum refining industry and centralized waste treatment facilities, and continuation of its preliminary review of the metal finishing industry. EPA will accept public comments on the preliminary 2014 plan through November 17, 2014. Learn more.

Section 319 Success Story: Ionine Creek, Oklahoma

Ionine Creek in Grady County runs through an area of high cattle, wheat, and hog production. An assessment of the creek’s fish community in 2004 revealed a poor biological condition, prompting Oklahoma to add the creek to the state’s Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired waters for biological impairment. Implementation of best management practices to reduce runoff from grazing land and cropland and to improve wildlife habitat decreased sediment and nutrient contributions to the creek and provided better in-stream habitat. As a result, Oklahoma removed Ionine Creek from Oklahoma’s list for fishes bioassessment. Ionine Creek now fully attains its fish and wildlife propagation designated use. The complete success story can be found here.

Trey Gowdy Gets Final Word on Benghazi Politics

Posted on October 12, 2015October 12, 2015 by Denise Simon

A big hat-tip to The Right Scoop for capturing this.

A former Benghazi staffer and Air Force intelligence officer has come out claiming that the Benghazi Committee had become partisan as they wanted to go after Hillary to bring her poll numbers down. As you see in this short clip, Gowdy responds to this staffer’s claims, calling it a damn lie in an interview with NBC News last night:

Below is Trey Gowdy’s full and strong statement dismantling this staffer’s claims. I’ve highlighted a couple of interesting parts:

One month ago, this staffer had a chance to bare his soul, and raise his claim this Committee was focused on Secretary Clinton in a legal document, not an interview, and he did not do it. Nor did he mention Secretary Clinton at any time during his counseling for deficient performance, when he was terminated, or via his first lawyer who withdrew from representing him. In fact, throughout the pendency of an ongoing legal mediation, which is set to conclude October 13, this staffer has not mentioned Secretary Clinton. But as this process prepares to wrap, he has demanded money from the Committee, the Committee has refused to pay him, and he has now run to the press with his new salacious allegations about Secretary Clinton.

To wit, until his Friday conversations with media, this staffer has never mentioned Secretary Clinton as a cause of his termination, and he did not cite Clinton’s name in a legally mandated mediation. He also has not produced documentary proof that in the time before his termination he was directed to focus on Clinton. The record makes it clear not only did he mishandle classified information, he himself was focused on Clinton improperly and was instructed to stop, and that issues with his conduct were noted on the record as far back as April.

Because I do not know him, and cannot recall ever speaking to him, I can say for certain he was never instructed by me to focus on Clinton, nor would he be a credible person to speak on my behalf. I am equally confident his supervisor, General Chipman, did not direct him to focus on Clinton.

In fact, when this staffer requested interns do a project that focused on Clinton and the National Security Council, he was informed by the Committee’s deputy staff director his project was ‘not approved.’ This individual was hired as a former intelligence staffer to focus on intelligence, not the politics of White House talking points.

On September 11th, in his mediation filing, this staffer specifically claimed his reserve status as a basis for his termination. I would note first this staffer’s reserve duty was approved both times it was requested.

In all of the interviews conducted since news broke of Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement, exactly half of one interview focused on Clinton’s unusual email arrangement. The Benghazi Committee has now interviewed 44 new witnesses, including 7 eyewitnesses to the attacks never before interviewed, and recovered more than 50,000 pages of new documents. Approximately 5 percent of those are Secretary Clinton’s self-selected email records. I cannot say it any plainer than stating the facts, the Benghazi Committee is not focused on Secretary Clinton, and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton, it is because she was Secretary of State at all relevant times covered by this Committee’s jurisdiction.

“Had CNN contacted the Committee regarding its interview with this staffer before it rushed to air his sensationalistic and fabulist claims, it could have fully questioned him about his unsubstantiated claims. But that is the difference between journalism as practiced by CNN, and the fact-centric investigation being conducted by this Committee.

This Committee always has been, and will be, focused on the four brave Americans we lost in Benghazi and providing the final, definitive accounting of the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the American people.

Sounds like this staffer himself wanted to target Clinton at a time and was told no by the committee. As Lanchan Markley points out, this claim and the full statement by Gowdy should be easy to verify.

As the NRO points out, CNN claims it did contact Gowdy to have him on but he declined:

“We categorically deny Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy’s statement about CNN,” a network spokesperson said. “We reached out to the committee for a response prior to publishing or broadcasting, which the committee provided. That response was included in our reporting. In addition, Chairman Gowdy was invited to discuss this on CNN and declined. Chairman Gowdy is wrong.”

Perhaps I’m parsing, but it sounded like Gowdy was referring to be contacted before the interview, so that CNN could question the staffer about his ‘unsubstantiated claims’. But I could be reaching with that.

Another one at Hillary’s State Dept Moonlighted?

Posted on October 12, 2015October 12, 2015 by Denise Simon

Sheesh, the list grows. Seems all kinds of State Department personnel under Hillary’s term had multiple jobs, paychecks and assignments. Maybe we need to question what Hillary actually did…oh wait….

Ethics? Nah…no one talked about ethics…by the way, Cheryl Mills is a lawyer. Oh yeah, one other item, she worked for Oprah in charge of Corporate Policy and Public Planning as a Senior Vice President.

Top Clinton aide worked on Abu Dhabi project while at State

TheHill: Hilary Clinton’s former chief of staff spent some of her time at the State Department working part time to build a campus for New York University (NYU) in Abu Dhabi.

Cheryl Mills disclosed the details of the special arrangement — which are likely to raise additional questions about top government officials who split their time between official and private work — in an interview with The Washington Post published on Monday.

Mills worked “very hard” to stick to State Department rules preventing conflict of interest, she said in the interview.

“I try to understand the rules and follow them. And I try to make sure that I’m disclosing my obligations,” Mills said. “I don’t know if I’m ever perfect. But I was obviously trying very hard to make sure I was following those rules and guidelines.”

Mills served as Clinton’s chief of staff during the Democratic presidential candidate’s time as secretary of State.

During her first four months with the State Department, Mills worked part time with NYU to set up its new campus in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The government during those four months dit not pay her.

As she explained to the Post, the job was primarily to coordinate the construction of a new facility in the Persian Gulf metropolis, and navigate the cultural and administrative barriers that presented themselves.

“The UAE’s culture is very different than ours,” she told the Post.

“We had to have extensive discussions and negotiations to step through how this university could exist consistent with their framework, how we ensured the right protections for faculty and for students as they did their work.”

The revelation comes amid heightened scrutiny on the work arrangements for Clinton’s former top aides.

In addition to Mills, longtime Clinton confidante Huma Abedin also received permission to work for an outside firm while employed at the State Department. Abedin’s decision to split her time between the government and a private consulting firm have led to allegations about a possible conflict of interest.

In her discussion with the Post, Mills said that did not recall the State Department’s ethics office flagging any questions about her unusual work arrangement.

“There was nothing special, if you were, about me,” she said.

Mills continued to work with NYU and to sit on outside boards because she initially intended to leave the government after helping with the transition. Once Clinton convinced her to stay, Mills said she began to “wind down those obligations.”

This summer, Mills sat down before the House Select Committee on Benghazi to answer questions for nine hours behind closed doors. Democrats have said they intend to make the transcript of that testimony public this week, despite the objections of the committee’s GOP leaders.

Concerns about outside obligations on Mills and Abedin have compounded existing criticism against Clinton for her use of a personal email address and private server while serving as secretary of State.

In her Post interview, Mills declined to offer any new information about the server or the ongoing FBI investigation into whether any classified information was improperly handled.

She largely echoed Clinton’s explanation that she had used the server purely out of habit.

“I wish there had been a lot more thought and deliberation around it, but I can’t tell you that I can offer you that insight that there was,” she said.

Leaks Prove the Vatican is in Turmoil over Pope Francis

Posted on October 12, 2015October 12, 2015 by Denise Simon

Leaked letter adds intrigue, confusion to Vatican bishops meeting

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – A gathering of world Roman Catholic bishops was thrown into confusion on Monday with the leak of a letter from conservative cardinals to Pope Francis bitterly complaining that the meeting was stacked against them.

It was published by the same Italian journalist whose press credentials were stripped by the Holy See last June after he ran a leaked copy of the pope’s major encyclical on the environment.

The gathering, or synod, of more than 300 bishops, delegates and observers, including some married couples, is discussing how the 1.2 billion-member Church can confront challenges facing the modern family.

The bishops are debating ways to defend the traditional family and make life-long marriage more appealing to young people, and at the same time reach out to disaffected Catholics such as homosexuals, co-habiting couples and the divorced.

L’Espresso newsweekly, which published the English-language letter in full, said 13 cardinals signed the letter and one of them hand-delivered it to the pope last week.

It complained that the synod’s working paper needed “reflection and reworking” and was inadequate as the basis for a final position paper the pope may use to write his own document.

The published letter also complained that a change in which small group discussions have greater influence than speeches to the assembly “seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions”.

A Vatican spokesman said letters to the pope were private.

Four of the conservative cardinals cited by the magazine later disassociated themselves from the letter. Several said private letters should remain so and one said he signed a similar but different version.

The leak of the letter added a new layer of intrigue and confusion in the debate between conservatives and liberals on a host of sensitive issues. One topic is how to reach out to Catholics who have divorced and remarried in civil ceremonies.

They are considered by the Church to be still married to their first spouse and living in a state of sin. Some bishops want a change to the rules that bar them from receiving sacraments such as communion.

Conservatives are trying to block change to the current teaching on divorced Catholics. They also oppose resolutions that could be interpreted as a weakening of the Church’s teaching against homosexual acts.

Since his election in 2013, Francis has given hope to progressives who want him to forge ahead with his vision of a more inclusive Church that concentrates on mercy rather than the strict enforcement of rigid rules they see as antiquated.

*** The signatories include: According to Magister, were Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Thomas Collins, Timothy Dolan, Willem Eijk, Péter Erdo, Gerhard Müller, Wilfrid Napier, George Pell, Mauro Piacenza, Robert Sarah, Angelo Scola, Jorge Urosa Savino, and André Vingt-Trois. However some of those cardinals have denied signing the letter.

The lists of signatories originally provided by Magister was impressive. Cardinal Erdo is the synod’s relator general, while Cardinals Napier and Vingt-Trois are among the synod’s four presidents-delegate. Cardinals Müller, Pell, and Piacenza head curial discasteries. However, four of those cardinals– Erdo, Scola, Piacenza, and Vingt-Trois– have subsequently stated that they did not sign the letter posted in Magister’s report.

It is not clear how Magister obtained the cardinals’ letter, and why he listed the names of cardinals who now say they did not sign it. Informed Vatican sources indicated that a letter had indeed been written, but Magister’s information, regarding the letter and its signatories, was imprecise. Many Vatican-watchers speculated that Pope Francis was responding to this letter when, in an unscheduled address to the Synod, he reportedly cautioned against a “hermeutic of conspiracy” regarding the procedures for the meeting.