‘Armed and Dangerous’: Beck’s Latest Revelations on Saudi National Once a ‘Person of Interest’ in Boston Bombings
For the past week, Glenn Beck has been
investigating a Saudi national once identified as a “person of interest”
in the Boston Marathon bombing. The story has taken a number of
alarming twists and turns, but on his radio program Wednesday, Beck
released some of the most interesting information yet.
But first, here are a few background points on how the case developed:
- A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212, 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing on April 15
- TheBlaze received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national — identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi — as the story gained traction on April 18.
- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill on April 18, saying the inquiry was “so full of misstatements and misapprehension that it’s just not worthy of an answer.”
- An ICE official said April 18 that a different Saudi national is in custody, but that he is “in no way” connected to the bombings.
- Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano on April 22
- New info provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered on the evening of April 17 to disassociate him from the initial charges
- Sources say April 22 that the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts. A DHS official told TheBlaze Alharbi properly transferred his student visa to a school in Massachusetts
- TheBlaze sources reveal April 22 that Alharbi was put on a terror watchlist after the bombing, and Napolitano confirmed on April 23 that he was briefly on a “watchlist”
On his radio program, Beck began with
an overview of how the case unfolded, noting that Alharbi has rapidly
gone from “person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.”
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano even said
yesterday that Alharbi was just “in the wrong place at the wrong time”
and was “never a subject,” after ridiculing inquiries into the matter
last week.
But Wednesday, Beck presented new
information after a Blaze source directly read the original event file,
and multiple government sources with knowledge of the case and files
contributed their knowledge.
Napolitano could serve “jail time for perjury,” Beck declared, and she will be “the first to fall.”
Here are a couple of new points, as Beck related them:
- The event file created for Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi indicated he was “armed and dangerous”
- Alharbi was admitted into the country under a “special advisory option,” which is usually reserved for visiting politicians, VIPs, or journalists. The event file cover page indicates he was granted his status without full vetting.
- One of the first excuses given by law enforcement when confronted about Alharbi’s pending deportation was an expired visa. But according to the event file, his visa is good until 11-NOV-2016.
- The event file indicates he entered the U.S. on 08/28/12 in Boston, MA but says he is a student at the University of Findlay, in Findlay, Ohio. He has an apartment in Boston, and doesn’t seem to have been a full-time student in Ohio.
- When a file is created in the system, the author(s) are notified via email when it is accessed and given the email address of the person accessing, so there is a record within the government data system of who was there. It was amended to remove the deportation reference, then someone later went in and tried to destroy both the original event file and an amended versions. We won’t say who at this time, but copies have already been made.
- The original event file was reviewed and approved by two high level agents – Chief Watch Commander Maimbourg and Watch Commander Mayfield.
Here is the text of the cover of the event file, which reveals still more:
Subject,ALHARBI, ABDULRAHMAN ALI EDOB 03/12/1993COC SAUDI ARABIA
Subject is an exact match to NO FLY TPN# 1037506192. Derogatory information reviewed by W/C Mayfield and CW/C Maimbourg was found to be sufficient to request Visa revocation. NTC-P is requesting revocation of Foil# e3139541. Subject is inadmissible to the U.S. under INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(II). SAO was not completed prior to Visa issuance. Subject is currently in the United States, admitted F1 student, at Boston POE on 08/28/2012. Subject is a student at THE UNIVERSITY OF FINDLAY, 1000 NORTH MAIN STREET FINDLAY, OHIO 45840-3695. Subject has One (1) prior event #1648067, Fins promoted, NT record in place, No scheduled found at this time. [Emphasis added]
And here is a photo of the page:
Beck explained: “Subject is an exact match to that no fly order. That means, we have been presented bad information…and it was reviewed, and found to be sufficient. Subject has One (1) prior event...When they opened this when he was at the hospital, they found he’s already in the system!”
“A 212, 3B is from the Patriot Act…It
is the biggest warning we can put on anybody,” Beck explained for those
unfamiliar with the term. “You do not put people’s name on there
easily…this is a terrorist designation, and there is a panel of agencies
that you have to go and make your case to. It’s not like you’re
standing in the hospital room and they say: ‘Make him a 212,3B.’ And
if they are, they’re abusing their power….It is so rare that somebody’s
name is taken off outside of death, that none of ours sources can tell
us that it’s ever happened. It is laughable what Janet Napolitano said yesterday.”
Certainly, a litany of questions remain.
Was Alharbi considered “armed and dangerous” before the Boston bombing, or at
it? Was it related to something they found at his apartment? Was his
prior “event” from the days prior, at the bombing, or was it from an
earlier period in his life?
Moreover, how was he admitted into the
country under a “special advisory option?” How many students receive
that privilege, particularly without proper security clearance?
In Beck’s estimation, the entire
situation at the least amounts to an alarming lack of transparency, and
at the worst, an abuse of power and cover-up. “This is not about this one guy,” Beck
noted, “but by the way — where is this extraordinarily dangerous man?
Ask that question, you’re not going to like the answer.”
“That’s what TheBlaze is releasing
today,” he continued. “Once they explain away all of this, if you want
to continue to discredit me, you will discredit yourself but more
importantly, you will put the citizens of this country at stake.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/24/armed-and-dangerous-becks-latest-revelations-on-saudi-national-once-considered-person-of-interest-in-boston-bombings/
New Boston Bombing narrative: “It’s not them, it’s us”
On Sunday, I wrote about how the media and left-blogosphere were trying to move the Boston Bombing narrative to focus on what is wrong with how we treated the bombers as immigrants and away from the problem of Jihadism, Politically correct epistemic closure counterattacks Boston Marathon bombing reality:
As it became indisputable that the perpetrators were Chechen Muslims who expressed support for Jihad and al-Qaeda (although the full extent of their connections is not known), the narrative shifted.
Now the emerging narrative is that these killers were not part of a vast foreign conspiracy but isolated “lone wolves” who became disenchanted with American society, who were not fully integrated into society, who were unhappy with their lives here and thus became radicalized…
Framing the issue this way shifts the focus to American society, how the brothers’ became alienated by us, by our actions, how we need to look in the mirror not at jihadism….
If only we had been nicer, none of this would have happened.
In other words, it’s not them, it’s us. They were radicalized here, by us. Even if they don’t come right out and say it, that’s the implication.Sure enough, it’s no longer an implication, it’s being stated out loud.
The bombers were just caught between two worlds, and our world did not sufficiently embrace them according to a Professor at American University, Opinion: Boston Bombings Show Muslims Between Worlds:
The suspected Boston bombers come from a Chechen tribal community that has been brutalized by the Russians in recent decades and from a Muslim community in the United States that has too often been impugned by the actions of a few….
Upon their arrival in the United States, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar joined a Muslim community that bore the scarlet letter of terrorism. Expecting hospitality, they felt alienated and disillusioned, even with all of the opportunities and privileges available to them as citizens of this country.An author at Slate tells us that the bombers were just an example of The Reluctant American:
They opted for an act of violent nihilism, of devastation and death.
Those obsessively poring over emerging news about the Boston bombers should take a break from their iPhones and laptops and newspapers and read Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist, (and see Mira Nair’s film version out later this week). The novel will go further in answering the general bewilderment about the Tsarnaev brothers than the little snippets of their lives we have so far, in answering the bigger mystery: “Why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?” as Obama put it….
To understand the Boston bombers, we need also to understand and be honest about ourselves, the ways in which we both take in and don’t take in people from other countries, the trickier side of the American dream.Melissa Harris-Perry and others at MSNBC could not resist the urge to complain about us (Noah Rothman via Rick Moran h/t Debra Heine):
“They don’t have the privilege of being anonymous – ‘they,’ speaking of people of color or other minorities – we don’t know yet, but we fill in the blanks,” said Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson. “We fill in the blanks with what makes us feel the most comfortable that this was an exceptional, extraordinary case that happened because they are this.”
“I keep wondering: is it possible that there would ever be a discussion like, ‘oh, this is because of Ben Affleck and the connection between Boston and movies about violence?’” Harris-Perry asked. “And, of course, the answer is ‘no.’”
“Given that they’re Chechen, given that they are literally Caucasian, our very sense of connection to them is this framed up notion of, like, Islam making them into something that is non-[unintelligible],” Harris-Perry continued.
“The point is that it’s important to say, ‘that is not us,” Dyson agreed. “We want to demonize the other. We have to distance it from the dominant culture.”We’re also to blame because of drone bombing of terrorists, NBC’s Brokaw Blames U.S. Drone Attacks for Motivating Islamic Terrorists.
It’s all so predictable. And it’s all so much easier than addressing the problem.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/new-boston-bombing-narrative-its-not-them-its-us/
Benghazi Report: Hillary Approved Reduced Security Measures, Contradicting Previous Testimony
This time, "what difference does it make?" isn't going to cut it. Despite the administration's nonchalant attitude and various efforts at suppression, the Benghazi outrage isn't going away. Via Erika Johnsen and CBS News:Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, vulnerable by approving lax security measures, a report released Tuesday by House Republicans concluded. The 46-page report accused Clinton — a possible White House contender in 2016 — of seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The report, compiled by five House panels after a seven-month investigation, said Clinton approved reductions in security levels prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, contradicting Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 23.CBS News ticks down the three major findings of House Republicans' interim report (numerals mine):
(1) The committees' Republicans conclude that Clinton approved security reductions at the consulate, pointing to evidence such as an April 2012 State Department cable bearing her signature. The cable was a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security. In her testimony before Congress in January, Clinton said, "With specific security requests they didn't come to me. I had no knowledge of them."
(2) The interim report also charges that White House and senior State Department officials attempted to protect the State Department from criticism by altering accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community. For instance, the report says that, after a Sept. 15, 2012 meeting, administration officials removed references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists.
(3) The report also contradicts administration claims that the talking points were changed to protect classified information. None of the email exchanges reviewed ever mentioned a concern about classified information, according to the report.The first item is the most damning, but let's work from the bottom up. Democrats and the White House have attempted hide behind "national security" and "classified information" to block the public from hearing details about what exactly happened on September 11, 2012. They used the same excuse to retool Susan Rice's ludicrous talking points before she appeared on five Sunday morning shows, spreading misinformation about the nature of the terrorist attack at every step. Internal documents obtained by House investigators also reveal that the administration's contemporaneous deliberations didn't mention these concerns; instead, they lay a trail of bread crumbs down the path of political ass-covering. The original talking points assembled by the intelligence community were accurate; they were altered by face-saving officials at State. And if they were so worried about sensitive information and documents getting into the wrong hands, why did they allow the compound to remain unsecured for weeks? Finally, Secretary Clinton wasn't truthful -- or at least wasn't accurate -- when she asserted that none of the requests for increased security measures in Benghazi reached her level. She personally signed a cable that bore at least one such request. The Hill has more:
“Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department,” it said. “For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador [Gene] Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.”Cretz's successor, Chris Stevens, pleaded for more resources, too, including on the day of his murder. It's important to remember that the administration didn't merely deny "repeated" appeals for more protection, they actually reduced our security footprint on the ground, for reasons that remain a mystery. We still don't know why the consulate's protection was so breathtakingly insufficient (despite the administration's insulting suggestions to the contrary). The report -- which remains incomplete -- also does not explain why numerous urgent requests for immediate help went unheeded during the hours-long raid itself. We still don't know where the President of the United States was during the bloodbath, nor is there an explanation for why zero forces or assets were deployed to help our people. Men died because of this unjustifiable inaction. Perhaps the "multiple" new whistle-blowers can help answer some of these critical, unanswered inquiries. People like Patricia Smith and Charlie Woods deserve the truth.
Admin Knew Fisker Was Struggling, Continued to Disburse Loan
The Obama administration knew embattled electric carmaker Fisker Automotive Inc. was struggling but continued to give the company money, according to new documents obtained by the Associated Press.
Fisker, which is thought to be on the precipice of bankruptcy, has not produced a car since last summer. The company was awarded a $529 million loan by the Department of Energy that later frozen in June 2011, but not before Fisker drew down $192 million of the loan.
In 2010, an official in the Department of Energy loan program wrote in an email that Fisker ”may be in limbo due to a lack of compliance with financial covenants” as part of the loan, according to the AP:
Newly obtained documents show the Obama administration was warned as early as 2010 that electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc. was not meeting milestones set up for a half-billion dollar government loan, nearly a year before U.S. officials froze the loan after questions were raised about the company’s statements.
An Energy Department official said in a June 2010 email that Fisker’s bid to draw on the federal loan may be jeopardized for failure to meet goals established by the department.A department spokesperson told the AP that the email was taken out of context.
Despite that warning, Fisker continued to receive money until June 2011, when the DOE halted further funding. The agency did so after Fisker presented new information that called into question whether key milestones — including the launch of the company’s signature, $100,000 Karma hybrid — had been achieved, according to a credit report prepared by the Energy Department.
Earlier this week, Fisker missed a $10 million loan payment to the federal government. DOE subsequently disclosed that the government had seized $21 million from a Fisker reserve account earlier this month, and will apply that money to the loan.
Fisker still owes the federal government $171 million.
Executives from Fisker and an official from the DOE loan program will answer questions today in front of Congress about the company.
http://freebeacon.com/admi-knew-fisker-was-struggling-continued-to-disburse-loan/
More Sequester Manipulation: Unnecessary Air Traffic Furloughs
Nationwide panic broke on Monday morning when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rolled out furloughs to a near-15,000 of its air traffic controllers in efforts to comply with mandatory sequester cuts. Almost immediately the AP reported massive delays, traveler discontent, and a grim glimpse of things to come. But when the chaotic day drew to a close, two questions emerged: Were the delays a direct result from FAA spending cuts? And more importantly, were these cuts necessary?The answer to the first question is a muddled yes and no. Flight delays that occurred yesterday were affected by cuts in some airports, notably Charlotte-Douglas and Los Angeles International, but only during brief periods throughout the day. It’s worth noting that the delays themselves were moderate—anywhere from 16 to 60 minutes. NPR continued to update a live blog as the situation unfolded and concluded that:
“The FAA's furloughs didn't bring the massive cascading delays some analysts had feared as of early evening on the East Coast Monday. But many travelers' plans were hampered by delays and cancellations, as rain and windy conditions around New York City forced delays at airports and the rescheduling of flights.”Not only were airports dealing with air traffic furloughs, but they had to implement the changes during the busiest day for air travel. Despite these issues the FAA’s real-time flight delay chart shows that a majority of airports experiencing delays can be attributed to high winds.
Even though it’s evident that the flight delays haven’t been nearly as severe as expected, that hasn’t stopped the political left from placing blame on the Republican-controlled House. Rep. Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat and member of the House aviation panel gave his remarks after the news broke:
"There's a lot finger-pointing going on, but the simple truth is that it is Congress's job to fix this. Flight delays are just the latest example of how the sequester is damaging the economy and hurting families across the country."Rep. Larsen wasn’t the only one exchanging blows. White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer mused, "What do tours and flight delays have in common? They affect [Congress] members directly."
But were the cuts to air traffic controllers necessary? Following the FAA’s announcement, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) released a statement criticizing the administration’s furlough plans.
“The FAA’s management of sequestration is quickly going from bad to worse. Given that the FAA’s budget increased more than 100 percent over the last 15 years, finding five percent in savings shouldn’t need to significantly impact our nation’s aviation operations. What’s perhaps most troubling is that the FAA has known about the sequester for almost two years and gave Congress and the airline industry less than a week’s notice about its implementation plans.”Along with the statement Rep. Shuster included a set of targeted areas that would save airports from delays. The list recommended cuts to the nearly $500 million spent annually on consultants, $325 million in FAA supplies and air travel, and 46 aircrafts owned by the administration that cost $143 million to operate.
In addition to Monday’s furlough announcement, the Department of Transportation announced a $474 million grant program, an ongoing part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus package). While the grant allocates some money to repair road infrastructures, past projects have included over $120 million in streetcar implementation, greenways, and multiple undefined “revitalizations”.
The Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security have both come under criticism recently for exaggerating the effects sequestration will have on Americans. It seems as if the Department of Transportation is next in line, deliberately forcing air travel delays in order to inflict the most pain on the largest group of citizens.
Airline companies, pilots, and air traffic controllers have come together and created a site to channel all complaints to the FAA. The group urges citizens to send the FAA a message in hopes that the administration will reverse its politically motivated policy. “Don’t Ground America” can be found here.
Update: In response to a recent HuffPo article that claims the FAA is merely following the mandatory sequester guidelines--two things. First, that article is written in response to this report, which was written before Congress postponed the sequester for two months and before they passed a continuing resolution granting more flexibility.
Secondly, the OMB released a follow-up on April 4th, which states:
"As directed by Memorandum 13-03, in allocating reduced budgetary resources due to sequestration, agencies should generally use any available flexibility to reduce operational risks and minimize impacts on the agency's core mission in service of the American people. Agencies should also take into account funding flexibilities, including the availability of reprogramming and transfer authority."http://townhall.com/tipsheet/daltonvogler/2013/04/23/more-sequester-manipulation-unnecessary-air-traffic-furloughs-n1576302
Questioning Cronies
Chicago-based utilities company faces questions from shareholder about crony relationship to Obama administration
A representative for the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a Washington-based think tank that holds stock in utilities company Exelon Corp., attended Exelon’s shareholder meeting and asked CEO Chris Crane about the company’s relationship to the Obama administration and the wisdom in taking government money.
Exelon officials used their connections to the White House to shape environmental policies in order to hurt their competitors, according to a New York Times article cited by NCPPR representative Cherylyn Harley LeBon at the meeting. Exelon also secured favorable loans from the government for an already-financed project.
Exelon projected that it would earn an additional $400 million per year due to the pressure that the tighter environmental regulations would place on coal plants, the Times noted.
LeBon highlighted these facts before asking Crane her question.
“So my question is: how much money has the company actually made by surreptitiously eliminating much of its coal-based competition; and do you think that sum was worth the livelihoods of the up to 17,000 coal employees that will be put out of work in the coming years,” LeBon asked. “And during this time of massive federal deficits, and record government spending, is it prudent for our company to use its political connections to take such massive sums from the American taxpayers?”
“The company has taken a position that we are going to develop our generation base around clean, affordable technology,” Crane said, according to an Exelon spokesman. “Environmental rules have been legislated and regulated. Exelon’s desire to have a seat at the table, like many other businesses in the industry, is to make sure that the market rules allow competitiveness and allow us to deliver our product fairly and at a fair price.”
LeBon complained after the meeting that Crane did not answer her question.
“It was like he didn’t even pay attention to what I was saying. It was like he ignored me and went off his talking points,” LeBon said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon. “He didn’t even address the whole Obama administration question,” she said.
John Rogers, a friend of the Obama family and a strong fundraiser for the president, sits on Exelon’s board and was present at the shareholder meeting in that capacity. He sat up and attentively listened to LeBon’s question about links to the Obama administration, she said.
The shareholder meeting lasted 27 minutes, LeBon said. There were eight shareholders in the audience, most of them elderly retirees; none of the others asked a question.
The Times exposé of Exelon’s relationship to the Obama administration notes both personnel links and financial support.
David Axlerod, formerly Obama’s senior adviser, worked for Exelon. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff and current mayor of Chicago, was intimately involved in the company’s creation.
Exelon employees have also been among the strongest supporters of Obama throughout his political career, the Free Beacon reported last year.
http://freebeacon.com/questioning-cronies/
Feds spend at least $890,000 on fees for empty accounts
If you are a federal worker on furlough this week--or an airline passenger delayed by federal furloughs--you might save your blood pressure, and go read another story.This one is about all the money the U.S. government spends on...nothing.
These are supposed to be closed. But nobody has done the paperwork.
So even now--as the “sequester” budget cuts have begun idling workers and frustrating travelers--the government is still required to pay $65, per year, per account, to keep these empty accounts on the books.
In this time of austerity, these accounts are a reminder of something that makes austerity hard: expensive habits, built into the bureaucracy in times of plenty. The Obama administration has spent the last year trying to close these accounts, with some success.
But only some.
“If anyone had kept open a bank account with no money, and was getting a charge every month, they would do everything they could to close it,” said Thomas A. Schatz, of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. But, Schatz said, the government hasn’t shown the same kind of urgency with taxpayers money. “It’s just lack of attention to detail. And poor management,” he said. “And, clearly, the fact that no one gets penalized for paying money to keep the accounts open.”
The money spent on these empty accounts is--of course---a tiny fraction of the federal budget. But, in its own way, it is something special: Washington’s perfect waste, a rare specimen of cost untainted by any reward.
The Pentagon once paid $435 for a hammer, after all. But at least, in that case, it got a hammer.
Here, when the money is spent, “there’s no benefit whatsoever,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has joined Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) in pushing the Obama administration to close these accounts faster.
Inside the Obama administration, officials said they’re trying. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget urged agencies to crack down on these “zero balance” accounts. And this year, it proposed a wide-scale effort to improve the oversight of such accounts.
“We have worked with agencies to improve the timely closeout of grants,” said Danny Werfel, the Controller at the Office of Management and Budget, in an e-mailed statement. “Agencies have made noteworthy progress so far, with the number of zero balance accounts falling by more than 50 percent since the end of fiscal year 2011.” Back then, the total was over 28,000.
Here is how the government winds up spending money on nothing:
First, a federal agency gives out a grant. It doesn’t just write a check; it creates an account within a large government-run depository. The grantee can draw money out from there.
Then, at some point, it’s over. The money runs out. Or the grant’s time limit expires. The agency is given notice: it’s time to close the account down.
Dissecting the Gang of 8′s enforcement sham
By Michelle Malkin
I’ve read through the nearly 900-page “immigration reform” bill released by the Senate’s so-called Gang of 8 last week. Anyone can read it here. The question, of course, is whether non-deluded conservatives can read right through the phony promises, false triggers, and open-borders illusions. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly over the past two decades, the federal government, under both GOP and Democrat majorities, has never bothered to fulfill its legislative mandate to create a functioning entry-exit system — something Congress has promised to do six times over the past 17 years. (Grievance groups helped kill even a limited entry-exit registration system under the Bush administration called NSEERS that specifically targeted terror-friendly countries.)
Here’s an idea: Let’s see Washington and its bipartisan Gang of 8 brigade pass the entry-exit system they all say they support as a stand-alone first. Let’s see Washington actually build and operate that entry-exist system as a stand-alone first and make them prove they can keep even a single one of their promises before entertaining 900 more pages of them.
Prove. It.
As for all those illegal alien lobbying groups demanding “justice” and “pathways” and “processes” now, now, now, it’s time for politicians to tell them that their comfort and security are not America’s number one concern. There are 23 million law-abiding Americans out of work. They come before the “11 million” illegal immigrants “in the shadows.” There are 4.6 million legal immigrant applicants to America waiting to get in the right way. They deserve priority over the “11 million” who bypassed the “pathways” and “processes” that already exist.
At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, immigration enforcement lawyer, NSEERS expert, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach provided a thorough dissection of the Gang of 8′s enforcement sham. I’m reprinting it in full below. See also Paul Mirengoff at Power Line for a good recap and A.J. Delgado’s top 10 errors in the Gang of 8 bill.
Oh, and in case you missed it, according to GOP Sen. Marco Rubio’s staff, if you believe in strict enforcement of immigration laws, you’re just like a slaveholder.
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/23/dissecting-the-gang-of-8s-enforcement-sham/
Voter Fraud: Obama Failed to Qualify For Indiana Ballot? How Many Other States?
It
comes as no surprise to those who were paying attention that there was
voter fraud to launch Obama into the Oval Office. During the 2008
election cycle, the evidence for voter fraud was abundant,
but the majority of Americans did not see the evidence due to the
typical mainstream media blackout on any news item that doesn't advance
the Statist / Liberalism agenda. The evidence of voter fraud in the 2012 election is equally available and occurred in various states, but again, few heard the evidence from mainstream media.What is news is that Fox News (a mainstream outlet) has reported on the possibility that Obama used voter fraud to provide enough signatures to be on the Indiana ballot. In how many other states were illegal means applied?
FoxNews reports the following:
"The trial is underway for a former Democratic official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of being part of a plot that has raised questions over whether President Obama's campaign -- when he was a candidate in 2008 -- submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the presidential primary ballot.
The trial is underway for a former Democratic official and a Board of Elections worker who are accused of being part of a plot that has raised questions over whether President Obama's campaign -- when he was a candidate in 2008 -- submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the presidential primary ballot."
The local WSBT-TV has also been covering the news. Read more here and here. ORYR (ObamaReleaseYourRecords) has also been following this and provides more information in past articles with information on forged signatures along with another report provided here, which includes another WSBT video report.
NPR Host: Constitution 'Like Tinkerbell...Only Alive As We Collectively Decide'
Peter Sagal, host of NPR's highly entertaining "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," is planning a new PBS special on the US Constitution. In an interview with Politico, Sagal explains that he will be using the show to "educate" Americans about our government's framing document .The tax-payer funded show, "Constitution USA with Peter Sagal," sounds harmless enough:
“I went to Northern California to talk to marijuana growers and cannabis activists and same-sex couples who want to get married. I went to Tyler, Texas, to talk to immigrants who were part of the case that established the right of education for immigrants. … We talked to people who were basically living the Constitution whether they wanted to or not, as opposed to the usual array of pundits or activists who have opinions about it.”
But as Sagal reveals his personal views of the constitution, a very "NPR" kind of attitude is apparent:
“The Constitution is only as alive as we collectively have decided it is today,” he said. ”I’ve been calling it the Tinkerbell of national charters because Tinkerbell only lives if you clap, right? Or if you say, ‘I do believe in fairies, I do!’ It’s like this: ‘I do believe in civics, I do!’ And everybody believes in it, and we move on. And it’s an amazing phenomenon.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/24/NPR-Host-Constitution-Like-Tinkerbell-Only-Alive
Investigate Employer Who Filed 37,375 Bad W-2s in One Year
I have a challenge for members of Congress now vowing that the federal government will enforce the immigration laws in the future if we just let them take the illegal aliens in the United States today and put them on a "pathway to citizenship."It is this: Investigate the employer who -- according to the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration (SSA) -- filed 37,375 inaccurate W-2s in tax year 2005. In fact, investigate all employers who have similarly filed massive numbers of bad W-2s.
Forget the employers who filed 100, 200 or even 500 bad W-2s per year. Give them a pass -- for now. Focus only on those that filed thousands.
Make them sit publicly in congressional hearings and explain how and why they filed so many bad documents with the IRS. Make them as famous as they deserve to be.
When you are done with that, bring in any administration official who wants to defend these employers -- or the workers who provided these employers with false Social Security Numbers when they took the jobs for which the bad W-2s were filed.
The truth: Our government is willfully refusing to enforce the immigration laws not only at the border but also in the workplace. Congress can play one of two roles here: It can expose the executive's intentional non-enforcement of the law or be a co-conspirator in that non-enforcement.
If Congress chooses the latter, why should any American believe that it and the administration will join together after they enact an illegal-alien amnesty and enforce laws they refuse to enforce now?
As I reported before in this column, the SSA inspector general on Dec. 15, 2008, published an analysis of "no-match" W-2s. These are W-2s on which the name and the Social Security Number do not match and SSA cannot readily determine the true identity of the worker for whom it was filed. SSA dumps these into what it calls the "Earnings Suspense File" (ESF).
In this 2008 report, the inspector general looked at the W-2s SSA dropped into the ESF for tax year 2005. He discovered that 10.1 million no-match W-2s were filed that year, and 871,000 employers filed at least one. But an elite group -- 1,650 employers -- filed 500 or more. "These employers had reported no-matches that ranged from 501 to 37,375," said the IG, "and about 44 percent of the employers had reported ... 1,000 or more no-matches to SSA."
So, who was the employer that filed 37,375? In the IG's report, this employer is anonymous.
But it is not anomalous. On March 7, 2005, the Government Accountability Office released an audit report on the no-match W-2s filed from 1985 to 2000.
"We found that employers with a high number of reports in the ESF had a consistent pattern of misidentifying their workers on their annual earnings reports to SSA," said GAO. "For example, one employer averaged about 13,300 reports placed in the ESF per year over the period we analyzed, ranging from a low of 5,971 to a high of 33,448."
On Oct. 26, 2004, the SSA IG published a report on the Top 100 employers who filed the most no-match W-2s from 1997 to 2001. The IG discovered unmistakable patterns.
"Forty-three of the Top 100 employers were in the service industry, 32 were in the restaurant industry, and 20 employers were in the agriculture industry," said the IG. "Four of the remaining employers were in the hotel/retail industry, and one was a State agency. Yes, a "State agency" was one of the Top 100 filers of no-match W-2s with SSA. Which state? Again, it is anonymous.
But the IG did say employers with bad W-2s concentrate in certain states. "We found that 54 of the 100 employers had registered addresses in three states - California, Texas and Illinois," said the IG.
An Illinois company filed the most no-match W-2s -- 131,991 -- over the five years, but a Florida company had the highest percentage.
"In the case of the employer with the worst accuracy, SSA suspended 89 percent of the TY 2001 wage items submitted by an agricultural employer located in Florida," said the inspector general. "This represented 6,709 of the 7,497 wage items submitted by this employer."
For more than a decade, the federal government has suspected that employers who file large numbers of no-match W-2s may be knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
"SSA suspects that employers in certain high turnover industries (bars and restaurants, services, and agriculture) compound the problem because they may knowingly hire illegal aliens with fraudulent identification and are able to do so because there are no penalties imposed for their actions," said an SSA IG report published on Feb. 7, 2000. "Consequently, those employers who knowingly accept fraudulent documentation are free to conduct business as usual without regard to the disruption and harm caused to SSA's customers and to unknowing individuals whose identities are falsely used."
During President Bush's second term, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a regulation to require employers who received letters from SSA indicating they had no-match W-2s to double-check their records and clarify their accuracy with their workers if they did not want those no-match W-2s to be considered evidence of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. The AFL-CIO and others sued over the proposal, a judge issued a preliminary injunction against it, and the Obama administration dropped it.
This week, I asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement whether any immigration enforcement had ever been taken against the still-anonymous employer who filed 37,375 no-match W-2s in 2005.
"The Worksite Enforcement Unit would have no way of knowing which company filed the W-2's, if a 'No-Match' letter was generated or if the unnamed company responded properly to a 'No-Match,'" said ICE spokesman Brandon Montgomery. "ICE HIS (Homeland Security Investigations) receives no official communication from either IRS or the Social Security Administration in regards to Employer Correction Request Letters (No Match Letters)."
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2013/04/24/investigate-employer-who-filed-37375-bad-w2s-in-one-year-n1576671/page/full/
Islam Coexists?
There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers carjacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.
The
Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural
crowd -- you know -- all religions are the same. Well, the leading
symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And
exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all the others? What kind of
neighbor has Islam been over history?
When Mohammed was in Mecca before he became a Muslim, he was a good neighbor who was prosperous and helped to settle disputes. But, that all changed when he became the prophet of Allah. Once he became a public preacher of Islam, he became an irritant to his neighbors. You see, not only did Mohammed know what was right, he demanded that everybody do everything his way, Allah's way. He was a neighbor who was always right and you were always wrong. Not only were you wrong, but your parents and grandparents were wrong. Mohammed no longer settled arguments; he created arguments. After 13 years of this, the Meccans told Mohammed to leave Mecca.
So he went to the town of Medina, which was half Jewish. And what kind of neighbor was Mohammed to the Jews? Put briefly, two years later, Medina was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). When he arrived, there were three tribes of Jews. In rapid order, the first tribe was driven out of town, bereft of its goods. Then the second tribe of Jews was exiled. They were lucky. The last of the Jewish tribes suffered the most. The women were enslaved and sold wholesale for money to purchase horses and arms for jihad. For the rest of his life, Mohammed used slavery to help finance his jihad. The children were kidnapped and adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims. Then the 800 male Jews were all beheaded.
But wait. Mohammed was not through coexisting with the Jews. Later he left Medina and went to Khaybar and attacked them. Mohammed crushed them, took their wealth and put them to work under the Sharia s dhimmis and give him half of what they earned.
That was how Mohammed coexisted with the Jews.
But Mohammed was not through with coexisting with the Arabians. He attacked the Meccan caravans. His jihadists killed, kidnapped, stole, assassinated and fought the pagan Arabs at every turn. Mohammed's coexistence policy with the Arabs was jihad. This went on until every Arab became a Muslim.
After Mohammed made every soul in Arabia convert to Islam, he turned his coexistence policy to the Christians north of Arabia in Syria. He attacked the Christians, with the losers becoming dhimmis just like the Jews.
Dhimmis are the way that the Sharia allows Kafirs to coexist within a Muslim society. The dhimmi is a third-class non-citizen who pays special taxes and has no real civil rights. A dhimmi cannot testify against a Muslim in court, for instance.
Look at how Islam coexisted with Africa. A clue as to the nature of that coexistence is that Arabic has one word, "abd", that means both black slave and African. Context must supply which meaning is used. Islam ran the slave trade on the West coast, East coast and Mediterranean coasts of Africa. Islam sold every slave that was brought to the Americas. Conservative estimates are that 120 million Africans were killed in the jihad that produced all of the slaves in Africa.
How did Islam coexist with the Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan? Jihad annihilated every single Buddhist and their libraries and monasteries.
There is a massive database of the coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world at thereligionofpeace.com. It catalogs more than 20,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11 2001. Here is a chart of the data of the top 4 nations as victims of jihad:
Put another way, this is how Islam coexists today with Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus. It practices jihad against all non-Muslims -- Kafirs.
The idea of "coexist" has a social ring to it: we're all one big happy family. But how do we talk about all religions and not get into which one is right or best? Well, there is an easy way to do it. If you are not a member of a religion, the only thing you care about is how you are treated by those who belong to that religion. In short, you only care about the ethics and character of the adherent.
All of the world's religions have an ethical code that is rooted in the Golden Rule. Islam does not have a Golden Rule. Mohammed's life is the perfect example of how not to be a good neighbor. How do you coexist with a neighbor who has the ethical choice of jihad -- of murder and deceit?
What do religious leaders in American think about coexisting with Islam? They love it. "Coexist" is the mental mush that fills the heads of the useful idiots that go to the Family of Abraham religious dialogues. The ministers and rabbis who go to these dialogs know as much about Islam as can be found on the Coexist bumper sticker. Their ignorance is astounding. They are there to coexist and the imam is there to dominate. Dhimmi Christians and Jews want to tie, the Muslim wants to win.
But the mental mush of coexistence is not just in the heads of the dhimmi religious leaders, it also fills the heads of law enforcement and military. Under Bush and Obama, all of those who actually know something about Islam inside the military and law enforcement have been eliminated. FBI and military training files have been purged to satisfy the Muslim Brotherhood. So our protectors are forbidden to study the war doctrine of political Islam. They are prevented from naming the enemy and studying them.
There is only one way to coexist with Islam over time. Islam must submit to Kafir civilization and we must never submit to Islam, not even in the smallest detail. This means we must all know the smallest details of Islam and that begins with the knowledge of Mohammed and his wars against all Kafirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment