Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/tbrnew5/public_html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

TBR News January 4, 2016

Jan 04 2016

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C. January 4, 2016: “There is a dichotomy about the great mass of refugees swarming all over Europe and, to a lesser degree, the United Stgates. The great majority of these asylum seekers are pathetic refugees, often with small children, who are fleeing murderious civil and religious wars in their home countries and wish only to find security for themselves and their families. At the same time, mixed in with these unfortunates are numbers of strongly potential trouble-makers, potential, or actual, recruits for political and religious terrorist groups, dope dealers, rapists, burglars and other social misfits. The residents of established communities are torn between a natural impulse to help the unfortunates and equally strong desires to keep them out of their own neighborhoods. In the end, there is no doubt that some of the refugees will stay and become productive citizens and even less doubt that their negative fellow-travellers will be forced out. A liberal media will bemoan this but reality will rule in the end so we can expect moans of anguish on all sides and with little sensible resolutions.”

US authorities begin deportations of Central American asylum seekers

  • 11 families detained in Georgia and Texas

  • Campaigners accuse Department of Homeland Security of playing politics

January 4, 2016

by Daniel Hernandez

The Guardian

The Department of Homeland Security began a divisive push over the weekend to find and deport Central American immigrants who sought legal asylum in the United States but were ordered to leave the country, according to immigration rights advocates.

At least 11 families in Georgia and Texas were detained on Saturday, the start of a campaign aimed at hundreds of families that amounts to the first large-scale effort to deport people who fled violence from drug wars in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Belize.

The repatriation of individuals with final orders for removal – including families and unaccompanied minors – to their home countries is part of our broader effort to address the rising surge of families and individuals arriving at our southern border,” said a homeland security official who was not permitted to speak on the record.

On Saturday in Norcross, Georgia, ICE agents arrived at the home of Joanna Gutierrez, according to the Los Angeles Times. The agents reportedly arrived in an unmarked car and presented Gutierrez with a warrant for a man she didn’t know. Gutierrez told them to stay outside, but the agents went in anyway. They searched the house before revealing that they were looking for Ana Lizet-Mejía, Gutierrez’s niece, and her niece’s nine-year-old son. Gutierrez told the Times that the two were taken into custody.

Lizet-Mejía, who recently received a court order to leave the US after her asylum request was rejected, fled Honduras with her son after her brother was murdered by gang members. The mother and child were among the many so-called “drug war refugees” from Central America, including children who make the harrowing journey on their own. In the 2015 fiscal year, more than 100,000 people from Central America were caught crossing into the United States illegally.

Matthew Bourke, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said that the new deportation push was intended to “further deter individuals from undertaking the journey”.

He added that the United States was exploring options to give Central Americans expanded access to its refugee admissions program. “We aim to ensure that there are safe, lawful and orderly options available,” Bourke said.

When the plans for a large-scale deportation effort were initially reported by the Washington Post in late December, immigrant rights groups such as America’s Voice released statements condemning the Obama administration, calling it “appalling” and “shameful” that refugees would be sent back to “places where rape, sexual abuse and murder are commonplace”.

Most disturbingly,” a statement from America’s Voice read, “the plan raises the ugly specter of the very mass roundups and deportation advocated by several candidates running for the GOP presidential nomination – most notably Donald Trump.”

As drug violence has surged, the number of asylum requests from Mexican and Central American immigrants has increased dramatically. Yet advocacy groups say there aren’t enough pro-bono immigration lawyers to support the population, resulting in many cases being rejected, even when circumstances merit a legal stay.

Homeland Security said it was specifically targeting adults and children ordered to leave the US by an immigration judge. But advocacy groups dispute whether that order is actually being followed on the ground.

We’ve heard testimonies of agents asking other people in the home for immigration papers and even taking children into custody,” Tania Unzueta, an activist from #Not1More Deportation, said on Sunday. “It seems like a tactic that is designed to cause fear, intimidate and make some sort of political point.”

Unzueta said that the raids were “nothing new”, but noted that in recent years ICE had targeted only those with criminal records. The fact that children and families were now being sought was inspiring some in the immigrant rights community to express frustrations with their traditional allies in the Democratic party.

CASA, the largest immigrant rights group in the mid-Atlantic, tweeted last week: “You’re on notice!!” to the Democratic National Committee with a picture of a man holding a sign that read: “You want my voto? Say NO to deportations.”

Last week, the Miami Herald reported, a Honduran woman who had recently illegally crossed the border with her husband and children, spoke at a press conference held by activists. “I beg President Obama to put his hand over his heart and not do this,” she said, “for the sake of the children.”

Germany’s nervous mainstream shifts rightward

More than 600 attacks on refugee shelters, the booming AfD and PEGIDA, and hate speech on the Internet show that Germany is not only a welcoming nation: a new xenophobic sentiment is also on the rise.

January 2, 2015

DW

On August 28, a three-story building was set on fire in a small town near the western German city of Hamelin. A family from Zimbabwe had just moved there. Firefighters soon found the cause of the blaze under the eleven-year-old son Alvin’s bed: a Molotov cocktail. It had been tossed into the ground floor of the building. Hundreds of cases of such homicidal violence have occurred in Germany this year. To give a comparison: in 2011, 18 attacks on refugee accommodation were recorded and now, four years later, the number has gone up to more than 600.

But Germany also showed its positive side in 2015. Thousands of volunteers, from school-age children to pensioners, took care of Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis arriving in Germany. Children were given teddy bears and chocolates, and parents got help with bureaucracy. Active support was dubbed a “culture of welcome.” Outside of Germany, people were astonished at the “crazy Germans,” and even the Germans themselves were a little moved by their own big-heartedness. Germany and the refugees was the predominant topic of the year. Even the practically unassailable Chancellor Angela Merkel seems to be foundering a bit after opening borders to those seeking protection.

Merkel polarizes

The ethical idea of helping is now no longer the main force shaping public opinion on refugee policy. On December 8, refugee number 1,000,000 was registered. But Merkel’s open-door policy actually met with resistance long before that: in her party, in her own cabinet, in German municipalities and on the street. German society has shown its deep division.

Germany’s ethical stance on asylum, which originated in the historical lessons learned from the Nazi dictatorship and World War II, is now encountering the open disapproval of people who feel that the state and society are overwhelmed by the influx of people. Public opinion researchers have confirmed that xenophobia is on the rise. Criticism of Germany’s refugee and asylum policies has turned into fear of people from foreign countries: it is the most obvious phenomenon related to right-wing extremist ideas. The refugee and asylum policy of the German government has become the main focus for people afflicted by the new phobia about foreigners, which is channeled above all by the racist movement Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA), the populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the right-wing extremist National Democratic Party (NDP).

PEGIDA, a phenomenon from Saxony

A noteworthy characteristic of these groups is that their members view themselves as victims and seek “protection” from foreigners – this is especially true of PEGIDA supporters. David Begrich, a theologian and sociologist from Magdeburg, emphasizes that it is a regional problem that is mainly limited to the eastern German state of Saxony, though all of eastern Germany is prone to such thinking. He asserts that political concepts based on promises of a return to a homogenous society are particularly popular in the region.

On Facebook, the anti-immigration organization receives almost twice as many “likes” as all the parties represented in German parliament combined. Its supporters are mainly middle-aged men who, as a rule, have steady jobs. In their Monday demonstration marches, they regularly refer to the “power of the people” and the Christian culture of the Western world, even though eastern Germany is one of the least religious places in Europe, according to David Begrich.

Representative democracy as a bogeyman

Interestingly enough, findings also show that PEGIDA sympathizers are well-educated. Many of them have gone to university. They feel that democracy is a good thing in principle, says Lars Geiges from the Institute for Democracy Studies at the German University of Göttingen. But they feel that representative democracy is flawed. They suspect political parties, politicians, businesses and media of being one big clique. They demand more direct democracy and regular plebiscites, like in Switzerland.

The new thing is that they are now expressing their resentment out loud. The cause for their insecurity goes back further in the past: the social shortcomings of neoliberalism. From 2003 onward, Social Democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s administration initiated a series of drastic cuts in the welfare state, which meant the loss of accustomed social services. Millions of people now receive less financial support while unemployed or end up working at poorly-paid jobs. The potential for protest clearly comes from lesser paid or badly paid workers in the service sector. The package deliverer with a university degree has long been considered the prototype of a socially frustrated citizen. Such people use hostility against refugees as a way of venting their deep grievances.

And another particularly eastern German phenomenon comes into play when politicians ask citizens for flexibility and a willingness to change with regard to the influx of refugees. “They forget,” says Begrich, “that people in eastern Germany have shown more willingness to change than many a western German over the past 25 years.” They are simply sick of change, he says.

The AfD, a forum for ‘outraged citizens’

Originally founded as a eurosceptic movement a few years ago, the party Alternative for Germany (AfD) came close to its demise – until it split in two. Now, it has experienced a surge in public opinion. Euroscepticism is barely mentioned any more; the new party is acting as an anti-refugee party. If elections were to take place today, the AfD would probably enter parliament with a double-digit election result. This would mean that a party representing ethnic-nationalist extremism would enter the Bundestag, says the renowned researcher on right-wing extremism, Hajo Funke, a political scientist at Berlin’s Freie Universität. The AfD is clearly in the process of right-wing radicalization, Funke says.

The AfD sees itself as a natural partner of the Saxony-based PEGIDA. According to the German news magazine “Der Spiegel,” the million refugees in the country seemed to serve as a “catalyst for the new right-wing movement.” It mostly takes in conservative citizens who have become politically homeless in recent years. The increasingly centrist course taken by Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats in particular has meant it has lost support on the right-wing edge of mainstream politics.

The NPD, an exceptional case

When it comes to xenophobic agitation, you can always find the NPD in the midst of it. The National Democratic Party of Germany was recently in steady decline, but the refugee issue has now slightly reversed its fortunes. Without the AfD and PEGIDA, the party could probably capitalize on dissatisfaction with the German government’s refugee policies even more, according to security sources. The party currently plays no role in parliament, but come spring, when the Constitutional Court reviews a petition to ban the party, it could draw media attention again – just when the number of refugees is expected to increase once more.

Radicalized mainstream

According to statistics, fewer than 25,000 people in Germany belong to the right-wing extremist end of the political spectrum, and just 2,500 of them belong to organizations. There is obviously no nationwide master plan behind the regular attacks on refugee shelters, because more than two-thirds of all perpetrators turn out to be locals – mostly relatively young men with no police record. This indicates that a part of the previously silent mainstream has been radicalized. Analysts are already speaking of the “uninhibited republic.”

This loss of inhibitions also means that more people are taking part in counter-demonstrations as a response to xenophobic marches. Hajo Funke, the expert on right-wing extremism, is convinced that the xenophobic potential in Germany will diminish if politicians succeed in clearly structuring asylum policies and accommodating refugees. Angela Merkel says it can be done.

But all the same, 2015 clearly proves one thing: although right-wing extremists do not represent “the people” as they claim, they do constitute a part. And that part is growing.

Conversations with the Crow

On October 8th, 2000, Robert Trumbull Crowley, once a leader of the CIA’s Clandestine Operations Division, died in a Washington hospital of heart failure and the end effects of Alzheimer’s Disease. Before the late Assistant Director Crowley was cold, Joseph Trento, a writer of light-weight books on the CIA, descended on Crowley’s widow at her town house on Cathedral Hill Drive in Washington and hauled away over fifty boxes of Crowley’s CIA files.

Once Trento had his new find secure in his house in Front Royal , Virginia, he called a well-known Washington fix lawyer with the news of his success in securing what the CIA had always considered to be a potential major embarrassment. Three months before, July 20th of that year, retired Marine Corps colonel William R. Corson, and an associate of Crowley, died of emphysema and lung cancer at a hospital in Bethesda, Md. After Corson’s death, Trento and his Washington lawyer went to Corson’s bank, got into his safe deposit box and removed a manuscript entitled ‘Zipper.’ This manuscript, which dealt with Crowley’s involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, vanished into a CIA burn-bag and the matter was considered to be closed forever

After Crowley’s death and Trento’s raid on the Crowley files, huge gaps were subsequently discovered by horrified CIA officials and when Crowley’s friends mentioned Gregory Douglas, it was discovered that Crowley’s son had shipped two large boxes to Douglas. No one knew their contents but because Douglas was viewed as an uncontrollable loose cannon who had done considerable damage to the CIA’s reputation by his on-going publication of the history of Gestapo-Mueller, they bent every effort both to identify the missing files and make some effort to retrieve them before Douglas made any use of them.

Douglas had been in close contact with Crowley and had long phone conversatins with him. He found this so interesting and informative that he taped  and later transcribed them.

These conversations have been published in a book: ‘Conversations with the Crow” and this is an excerpt.

http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Crow-Gregory-Douglas-ebook/dp/B00GHMAQ5E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450147193&sr=8-1&keywords=conversations+with+the+crow

 

Conversation No. 41

Date: Sunday, October 6, 1996

Commenced: 8:45 AM CST

Concluded: 9:38 AM CST

GD: Hello to you this morning, Robert. Up and around?

RTC: Well, the sun did come up and animal instincts get us going. And then there is coffee. Are you a coffee drinker, Gregory?

GD: I never used to be, but I am now. I hate the taste of the stuff which is funny because my grandfather was a big-time coffee broker. We had coffee all over the kitchen in little bags. My uncle was an expert and when my father got out of the business, he continued long after my grandfather died. Coffee gets you going but if I drink too much of it, my wiring gets fried.

RTC: The world runs on coffee.

GD: They buy a lot of it. My grandfather wasn’t exactly poor. That’s how I know about your people and the Guatemala business. My uncle was involved in it and it was well-known around the house. Grandfather was tied up with Levi and Zentner…the United Fruit people…. and the Grace Steamship company. Uncle was born in Petropolis in Brazil and was fluent in a number of languages, including Portuguese. Yes, there seemed to have been quite a connection between American business and the CIA. And of course, the White House and Congress.

RTC: Well, you’ve seen the tip of the big iceberg, haven’t you, Gregory?

GD: How big is it?

RTC: It’s not so much the size but the power of it. This country isn’t run by little local political action groups or small town newspapers. Democracy is only a word that sounds good. The public hates to vote although I understand that in Switzerland it is mandatory. They don’t care as long as they make money. Do you know how much money it costs to run for Congress? Many millions. And where does the money come from? Aunt Anna’s cookie and mad money jar? No, it comes from corporate interests who want to keep things balanced on their side of the books.

GD: That’s not a great revelation, Robert. No one really cares, as you say, as long as they have television and a car. Back in the Depression days when people didn’t have television sets and no cars, a lot of the underpaid and overworked workers were Communists. Once Roosevelt got the war started for us, business boomed and the workers ceased to be Communists.

RTC: Oh, that’s absolutely true, Gregory, but don’t underestimate the power of the Communist bugaboo to terrify the public into letting us do what we wanted.

GD: Gehlen told me that in ’48 when he was asked by the Army brass to prepare an intelligence paper proving the Russians were about to launch a huge attack on the West, there were two forces behind all of this bullshit. The first was the Army who didn’t like to be reduced in size. Generals had to retire you know and they didn’t like that. And, business had been booming during the war and they, like the generals, didn’t much like shutting down plants and making less money. This from the horse’s mouth so to speak. Oh, and it worked. Leaked to Congress and Harry Truman, it started the Cold War.

RTC: Nicely put and remember this for Critchfield. Yes, that’s basically the long and short of it. At this moment, the United States is run by four major power sources. They are all interconnected and they have the common goal of protecting their asses and increasing their profits. We have what they call big business which consists of international companies, mostly the huge New York banking giants but some manufacturing companies as well. This country got great by being a manufacturing country but that’s slipping a bit. At the turn of the century it was railroads and steel, but that has faded a little…

GD: A little? A lot.

RTC: Yes, a question of degree, I suppose. Anyway, we have really big business as one entity. The other is the political part of our society. Most Congressmen are put into office to take care of business.

GD: And then we have Huey Long, who was not interested in business.

RTC: Yes, and Roosevelt had him shot very dead, didn’t he?

GD: Yes.

RTC: But Congress passes the laws and since most of them are on the take, they are careful not to pass too many laws to injure their business paymasters.

GD: But under Roosevelt they went the other way.

RTC: But Roosevelt is dead and when he died, we had a new dawn of commerce. And Congress knows where the money comes from and acts accordingly. Eventually we will see someone in the Oval Office who is also Chairman of the Board of Chase Bank. Just joking, but there are those who would love the concept. We have business and political and then we have the Mafia. Yes, it is a huge industry, spawning billions of dollars in revenue. Joe Kennedy turned to them to get Jack elected and then turned on them and began to persecute them using the other brother. Look at all the damage that short-sighted behavior did to the family. And that leads us into our very own CIA. We are at the top of the pyramid, Gregory, for a number of reasons. As you know, we started out as a small advisory group whose job it was to supply Harry Truman accurate international intelligence. Harry never trusted the Army and he found out about the humped Gehlen Report and wanted more facts to work with. Now we got Allen Dulles whose brother, John Foster, was a lawyer with Sullivan and Cromwell in New York. Sullivan and Cromwell was, in essence, a Nazi establishment. They were firm supporters of Hitler and worked with the Schroeder bank in Cologne. And you ought to know that when he was Ambassador to England, Joe Kennedy did business with Hitler and got huge blocks of I.G. Farben stock. It got taken away at the end of the war, seized by the Justice Department and one of the first things Joe did when Jack became President was to have him put Bobby in as AG so he could get his stock back. Oh yes, those people were for Hitler right up to the last week of the war. And even afterwards as well. Of course now that Jews are getting more power here and especially in the CIA, we do not mention any of this. Same thing with your Mueller friend. Of course we used him because he was the top Nazi expert on Communists. Why not? But, of course, if the Jews ever had to face that fact, they would come unglued. Can you imagine the huge headlines in The New York Times?

GD: Yes, I can. We called that Second Coming Type.

RTC: Wrong. The New York Times is run by Jews and sucks at Israel’s tit but they would never discuss this, let alone put it on the front page. Why? Because we have control over what they print. You see, we help our friends in business with delicate political nuisance problems. Like the nice Belgians in the Congo who had all that uranium. Kill off the left wing politicos who tried to grab it all. They really weren’t Communists planning to give uranium to Russia but that’s what we told the President and that’s what our friends who publish The New York Times heard. And that’s what they published and that’s what they condoned. Naturally, with such a dangerous menace, the CIA rushed up to save us all and kill off old Patrice.1 Same in Guatemala and the same in Iran with Mossadegh. The enemy is identified as dangerous to our business friends. We do studies to prove it to the rabble such as …fake documents and all that…that these enemies are vile Communists, working for the Soviet Union, and a real danger to all of America. On the one hand, get permission to destroy these enemies and on the other, launch a publicity campaign through our many friends in the media to make it just another heroic crusade.

GD: Oh, say it isn’t so, Robert.

RTC: I see you are a baseball fan, Gregory.

GD: No, that’s where it came from, but I am not a baseball fan. I was feigning shock and horror at your dastardly revelations. Do go on, though.

RTC: So we have business, the press, the mob on one side thanks to Jim Angleton’s organization, the legislative branch and that’s it. We don’t control, Gregory, we influence. A press campaign, planned in our offices here, and an assassination or bomb blast there. We have it down to an exact science. A nice balance at that.

GD: And the Mueller business?

RTC: A mere bump in the road. If you had brought this up twenty years before, they would have killed you but by now, it’s unpleasantly cold coffee. They’ll just ruin your reputation by using paid hacks. The media would never discuss this, believe me. You could have Heinrich Mueller’s body in a glass case and the press would be as silent as the grave. We would ask them nicely to drop it and guess what? They would.

GD: The machine seems to run well enough.

RTC: We’ve had time to perfect it. There are always glitches but so far, we have been able to repair them. But it isn’t like it used to be, Gregory. Then it was a band of brothers and now the whole agency has gotten too big, too compartmentalized and too stiff. The power is there but it is an old power, not a dynamic one. One of these days, parts will start falling off and then it will be replaced with another group that will march to a different drummer.

GD: Things always change, Robert, mark that.

RTC: I’m afraid I’m stuck in the old days, thinking the old thoughts and doing what I got used to doing. I told you not to get old, Gregory. I’ve seen it before. Sweet children grow up to be anarchists, faggots, drug addicts, bank robbers, drunks and so on. Wives leave you for someone else, your business changes way past recognition and you become redundant and out you go. You don’t recognize the cars in the street, the music is terrible and the trouble is you remember too much.

GD: And tend to romanticize the past instead of learning from it.

RTC: We write books, but in my case, I can’t. In the first place, I am forbidden to by contract with the Agency and in the second, I can write reports but not books. You write books, though. Of course, so do Joe and Susan. I don’t think very much of Joe, Gregory but I think you might do well to write things up. Joe can see for about two inches in front of his nose, but I find you can see for miles.

GD: It’s a blessing and a curse. I have a secret for you, Robert. You won’t believe me, of course, but here it is, For reasons I don’t even begin to understand, I can meet a new person and almost at once see right into them and know just who and what they are. They may be a professional football player, but if I talk with them for three minutes, I can see that they are gay. Or a religious leader and see he is a drunk. But only face to face. Can’t do it on the phone on by mail. And I think sometimes these people sense I am poking around inside their psyche. I never say a thing to them but some people can sense my invasion of their often rotten soul. And for no reason apparent to a, say, neutral observer, they suddenly hate me.

RTC: They’re afraid of you, Gregory. People fear the predator.

GD: Yes, I’m sure they do, but I am not predatory. I am very understanding of other people.

RTC: Trust me, Gregory, you’re a born predator. That’s one of the reasons I trust you. I prefer to know a wolf as a wolf than a yapping little dog that sneaks around and bites you in the lower leg. You would go for the throat and the kill. No, seeing into people is a gift. I ran enough agents in my time and I know. Always go for the throat.

GD: Yes. I was once confronted with six armed men who were trying to kill some people I happened to be with. I had a gun, a Belgian Browning 9mm. The High Power model with a 13 shot box mag. These fellows were shooting at my friends and at me. I had nothing to do with the business but I had the gun. I got it out and I nailed all six. Five through the head and one in the neck. Before I left the scene with my wounded friend, I went over and shot that one through the head. I didn’t want any witnesses. And I got my brass.

RTC: I never knew that one, Gregory. How old were you at the time?

GD: Seventeen and a couple of months.

RTC: You were in the service?

GD: No. A tourist.

RTC: Six at one throw?

GD: Five on the spot and one a few moments later.

RTC: A dumb question here, but did it bother you?

GD: Yes, terribly. My friend bled all over my shoes before I got him to a safe place. It took a lot of work to get the blood off. And I ruined a very good tie. He got it in the upper leg so I used the tie to keep him from bleeding out. Fortunately, the artery was spared and he survived.

RTC: And it never bothered you?

GD: Why should it? These jerks were shooting at me and in time, they might have killed me, too. Fuck them, Robert. Now they’re turning green in a box somewhere, waiting for the Last Trumpet. Yet in my flesh shall I see God? Oh, I think not. Heaven’s doormat will be a horrible, oozing mess come trumpet day.

RTC: Predatory, Gregory, in word and deed. No wonder the club does not like you.

GD: Club?

RTC: Bill, Tom, Trento and a few others. They warn me about you. I can see why. Their old warning system, the cave man one, is still fitfully working and they can sense you are a danger. Seventeen? Was that the first time?

GD: No, when I was in Germany just before that, I got jumped by a DP. He had an iron bar and I emptied a clip from a .380 into his pump. They had quite a bit of trouble from these DPs from Poland. They were all Polish Jews from the liberated camps and until the Army rounded them all up and shipped them, under guard, to Israel, they cut quite a path. And I got another one over by a putting green. He pulled a knife and his buddy had a wooden pistol. My friend got him and broke his neck and I got the one with the knife using a nine iron. I ruined the club but you should have seen his head. It looked like a cherry pie dropped on the sidewalk. Dragged both of them into the hedges and off we went. The club went into the river. I guess they found them later by the stench and all the flies.

RTC: Very predatory, Gregory.

GD: Self-defense, Robert, self-defense. What else would you call it?

RTC: Good reflexes among other things.

GD: God must hate me for making his doormat so filthy,

 

(Concluded at 9:38 AM CST)

 

Domestic Control from official Department of Defense sources

by Harry von Johnston PhD

 

Domestic Military Control Paper

 

Note: This study, prepared for the NART group of the DoD, under date of 21 April, 2015, is considered to be classified as Secret, NoForn, and is not to be copied or sent by email under any circumstances.

FOREWORD

 

  • All firearms, to include pistols, rifles and shotguns, to be seized and impounded.
  • No ammunition to be sold and any found to be confiscated.
  • National ID card to be carried by all American citizens at all times and made available for inspection upon demand.
  • All unemployed Americans to be inducted into a CCC type organization and put to work on public projects like forest clearance, road work, governmental construction projects. Youths between 18 and 25 will be inducted and then sent to work projects sufficiently distant from their homes to discourage and prevent desertions, escapes, etc.
  • Certain breeds of dogs, such as German Shepherds, Pit Bulls and Rottweilers will be subject to confiscation and euthanasia.
  • Citizens on Social Security or other governmental support programs must present the National ID card in order to collect benefits.
  • All current US passports will be revoked and new ones with tracking chips embedded in them will be issued.
  • Public gatherings of more that five (5) persons must only occur with prior, written official permission.
  • All motor vehicles, to include passenger cars, trucks and busses, will be equipped with GPS devices, officially installed, and may not be removed or otherwise interfered with under penalty of law.
  • Small water craft, to include sail and motor boats, must be simililarly equipped with GPS devices, also under penalty of law.
  • The construction, possession and use of radio controlled aircraft models is strictly forbidden.
  • The possession or use of any garment or other device, intended to block or otherwise interfere with infared surveillance is strictly forbidden. (more)

 

 

The Guardian view on the Saudi execution: unjust, and an unwise provocation

Editorial

The execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr could deepen the confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia

January 3, 2016

The Guardian

Bitter rivals for predominance in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Iran are waging proxy wars against each other in Syria and Yemen, but have so far avoided direct conflict. Yet they have been playing with fire for years, so it is no surprise that their latest clash has quite literally sparked a conflagration in one of their capitals. It remains unlikely that there will be any head-on military confrontation between the two. Yet Saudi Arabia’s execution at the weekend of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a leading Shia cleric, and the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran which was the response to it, must worsen what is already a toxic relationship. It could also weaken pragmatists and inflame internal differences in both countries at a time when efforts to bring about settlements in Syria and Yemen need all the help they can get.

The parallels between the Saudi kingdom and the Islamic republic are in some ways very close. Both are influenced by a sense of Islamic mission, a sense which has encouraged them in ambitions well beyond their means. Both are quick to violence, abroad and at home, where there is little to choose between them, for instance, in the high rate of public executions. Both have coasted economically and politically for years on the income from their oil resources, but are now approaching a day of reckoning. As oil prices fall, their populations rise and the aspirations of their peoples increase, the strains are beginning to show.

In Saudi Arabia there are fissures between the religious and the monarchical establishments which go back to the beginning of the state, another between most Sunnis and jihadists such as al-Qaida, and a further divide between central Arabia and the western region, where there are memories of an independent past under the Hashemites. Then there is the Shia community, which makes up between 10 and 15% of the population, suffers discrimination in state employment and education, and is regarded as apostate and potentially disloyal by a significant number of Saudis. When the Arab spring reached Saudi Arabia in 2011, Shia discontent came into the open. Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, already known for his views on the unfair distribution of wealth in Saudi Arabia (most of the oil is in areas populated by Shia), emerged as a leader of the protest movement in the eastern, Shia area. The Saudis reacted harshly and the sheikh was among those arrested and charged with terrorist offences, although he had always publicly abjured violence. His trial in 2014 was a farce. Under a previous government, a discreet way of avoiding his execution might have been found. King Abdullah, cautiously inclined to reform, had made conciliatory gestures toward the Shia community. But his successor, King Salman, and his inexperienced son, deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, have made a virtue out of being tough and aggressive both at home and abroad. As protests and demonstrations threaten to spread in Shia areas, there will be a price to be paid for that now, in the shape of the further alienation of the Shia community.

Iran has its own Sunni minority and has executed Sunnis on dubious grounds. But its more important internal divisions are to do with the balance between relative moderates, like President Hassan Rouhani, conservatives and hardliners, reflected in its competing and overlapping institutions. It is in the world’s interests, and in those of the Iranian people, that the moderate camp at least keeps its end up, but the execution of the sheikh could conceivably affect that balance.

The attack on the embassy does not seem to have been officially sanctioned. Indeed, Mr Rouhani, although strongly criticising the Saudi government, condemned the perpetrators. The implication must be that hardliners, who were against the nuclear deal with the international community, want to roll back modest liberalisation at home and are inflexible on Syria, may have tried to seize the opportunity, as they see it, to box their government in to more aggressive policies.

Much depends now on events in Saudi Arabia. If protests there grow, and if they are then suppressed by force, followed by more arrests and, potentially, more executions, the situation could slip out of the control of governments in both Tehran and Riyadh. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are wasting their resources on aggressive foreign policies which have little chance of ultimate success. Both are taking large risks. As they pull back from this crisis it is to be hoped both will exhibit more sense in the future.

 

Armed Antigovernment Activists Seize Building in Oregon Refuge

January 3, 2016

by Kirk Johnson and Jack Healy

The New York Times

BURNS, Ore. — The protesters arrived in this old lumber town to support a 73-year-old rancher and his son who had been sentenced to prison for setting fires on federal lands. It was billed as a peaceful demonstration, but after “Amazing Grace” was sung and hugs were exchanged, a small, armed contingent declared outside a supermarket that it was taking a stand and asked who wanted to join it.

So began the latest armed flare-up in a decades-long struggle between federal officials and local landowners and ranchers over how to manage the Western range. The armed antigovernment group seized an empty building on a federal refuge for wildlife about 30 miles away through the snowy sagebrush, and by Sunday night, had hunkered down for what they vowed would be an indefinite standoff with the government.

We will be here for as long as it takes,” said Ryan Payne, an Army veteran who characterized the group’s action as a liberation of public lands. “People have talked about returning land to the people for a long time. Finally, someone is making an effort in that direction.”

He said there was already talk of renaming the refuge the Harney County Liberty Center.

The family of the ranchers convicted of arson, Dwight L. Hammond and his son Steven D. Hammond, 46, distanced themselves from the armed takeover, but said they understood the underlying anger over federal land policies that many here feel are intrusive and overreaching.

I don’t know those people that well, except that I just see from the outside that we have a lot of things in common,” said Dwight Hammond’s wife, Susan. “We share a lot of sentiments in regards to our government, and the overreach into management of our country.”

The Harney County sheriff, David M. Ward, issued a statement on Sunday, saying:

These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.”

Despite the stern language, there did not appear to be any imminent plan to confront the protesters. There was no visible sign of law enforcement outside the wildlife refuge on Sunday night, though the Oregon State Police urged people to stay away and federal authorities said they were monitoring the situation.

At the entry road to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, people associated with the occupying group blocked the road. As the temperature dropped below freezing Sunday night in the high desert outside the stone cottage that is the refuge’s headquarters, the occupiers had set a small fire to stay warm, but the snow saturated sagebrush kept going out. Other local ranchers periodically drove up and looked and then drove away.

Roger Wilson, 74, a retired outdoor outfitter, drove about 60 miles just to sit in his vehicle and watch what was happening. He said his own view of situation was a bit conflicted.

Mr. Wilson said he was an admirer and a friend of the Hammond family — “I support them 100 percent,” he said. But he added that he was wary about what might unfold with the arrival of the armed outsiders.

I don’t want to see them causing problems down here,” he said.

Members of the protest group allowed reporters to walk down to the cluster of buildings — which include the headquarters, a visitors center and a museum — but did not allow entry into any of them. A few people lingered outside in the cold among a cluster of brick and stone buildings, picnic tables and birdfeeders. A lookout tower near the headquarters was clearly manned by at least one person.

LaVoy Finicum, 55, a cattle rancher from Mohave County, Ariz., said he had not planned on being part of the protest. He said he had originally come to support the Hammonds. Then he found himself involved.

I want to leave as soon as possible, but I will stay as long as necessary, “he said when asked how long the protests might go on. He said that none of the buildings had been damaged because doors were open or keys could be found.

The group was led by Ammon Bundy, a rancher whose family became a symbol of antigovernment sentiment in 2014, when his father, Cliven Bundy, inspired a standoff between armed local antigovernment activists and federal officials seeking to confiscate cattle grazing illegally on federal land in Nevada.

In a statement captured on video, Ammon Bundy said Sunday that his group was “prepared to be out here for as long as need be” and would leave only when the people of Harney County “can use these lands as free men.”

But there actions drew a mixed response here in Harney County, an economically struggling rural area with 7,100 residents that has relied on sheep and cattle ranching and the timber industry. Residents expressed sympathy with the underlying complaints, but elected officials criticized the armed protesters as an outsider militia group whose actions had thrown their community into a harsh national glare.

The battle was brought to us,” said Dan Nichols, a county commissioner who is a neighbor of the Hammond family. “This county isn’t supportive of what’s being done here at all. Once again, it’s a bunch of those who live without the county telling us what we need to do, how we need to be doing it and the repercussions if we don’t.”

In this parched corner of eastern Oregon, some counties are nearly 90 percent public land and many ranchers depend on grazing leases from the federal government. Ranchers in the basin have tried to buck federal management since at least the 1970s, when during the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion ranchers tried to claim federal land.

The Hammonds bought their ranch in Oregon in 1964, and have spent years at odds with federal land officials in the area. Three years ago, Dwight and Steven were convicted of lighting fires in 2001 and 2006 on land they leased from the federal government, but said they did so to protect their property from wildfires and invasive plant species.

The fire in 2001 accidentally spread to about 140 acres of government land, documents show. In 2006, a burn ban was in effect while firefighters battled blazes started by a lightning storm on a hot day in August. Steven Hammond had started a “back burn” to prevent the blaze from destroying the family’s winter feed for their cattle.

The Hammonds each served sentences for the arson charges, but they were ordered to report to a prison in California on Monday after a federal judge ruled that the sentences they had served were not long enough under federal law. Ms. Hammond said her husband and son would surrender themselves as ordered.

The case caused a local uproar, but it also touched a nerve with far-right groups like the one headed by Mr. Bundy. The Bundys have been organizing opposition to the government case against the Hammonds on social media in recent weeks, which they described as a tyrannical use of federal authority.

In a  video posted to Facebook on Saturday, Mr. Bundy called the Hammonds’ case “a symptom of a very huge, egregious problem” that he described as a battle over land and resources between the federal government and “the American people.” He said his group was occupying the federal site to take “a hard stand against this overreach.”

Mr. Payne, the veteran who is also at the site, said the group was not violent. But he also said that members had discussed the possibility that the standoff could turn violent.

Referring to the federal government, he added, “If they think that’s worth bringing their armies in here and harming or fouling that endeavor, we’ll just have to read the Constitution and look at our Bibles and see who’s on the right side.”

Kirk Johnson reported from Burns, and Jack Healy from Denver. Reporting was contributed by Julie Turkewitz from Denver, Liam Stack and Amisha Padnani from New York, and Nicholas Fandos from Washington.

 

Oregon militia occupying wildlife refuge wants to overthrow government, says sheriff

Harney County sheriff speaks of ‘alternative motives’ while Ammon Bundy’s group puts away its firearms to convince media it is a simple civil rights issue

January 4, 2016

by Jason Wilson

The Guardian

On the second day of their armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the Bundy militia shifted tactics. From a state of lockdown they moved to a charm offensive, inviting a small media contingent inside their redoubt, with warm smiles and waves.

The local sheriff was not convinced.

These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers,” Sheriff David Ward said in a statement, “when in reality these men had alternative motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States”.

The Oregon senator Ron Wyden, meanwhile, told the Associated Press the FBI was co-ordinating the official response to the occupation with the sheriff and state police. He also blamed “outsiders”.

Ammon Bundy, the 40-year-old leader of the men occupying the federal buildings, insisted his men were peaceful. But, he said, if the federal government tried to take back the refuge, “they would be putting lives at risk”.

The journalists he spoke to had driven the 30 miles (48km) from Burns through heavy snowfall. Greeting them, Bundy was accompanied by a man who would identify himself only as his bodyguard. A few others lingered. There were no guns in sight.

Everything was calculated to project an image of calm and reason and the absence of any threat at all. Just after 11am, Bundy opened his media conference.

Your role is very important,” he said. “We do believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that the American people have a right to know what’s going on.”

What is going on is an armed occupation of a federal facility, in support of two cattle ranchers who were convicted of setting fires on federal land. Steven and Dwight Hammond said they did so while trying to clear their own land so their cattle could feed. The authorities said otherwise.

Father and son served jail time. Both are due to report to a jail in San Diego on Monday, in order to serve some more.

For Bundy, the re-sentencing and re-imprisonment of Steven and Dwight Hammond is simply a civil rights issue; his armed militia members are simply civil rights protectors. The Hammonds were persecuted by the federal government, he said, because they refused to “sell their ranch so it can be added to the Malheur wildlife refuge”.

The Hammonds were the target, he said, of “vindictive behaviours”, from fines and harassment up to and including prosecution under federal anti-terrorism laws.

Bundy is the son of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, whose victory in a land rights standoff with federal agents made the family famous in 2014. He responded to questions patiently and in an even, measured voice. Such poise was clearly a product of his experience at the Bundy Ranch, deployed in an effort to defuse the accusation that the group’s actions here were those of extremists or terrorists.

That marked a shift from the previous day, when Bundy’s conspicuously armed men completed their occupation of this small collection of federal buildings.

Nevertheless, the sunshine policy turned out to go only so far. Bundy confirmed that fire observation towers at the refuge were now occupied by marksmen, for “safety”, and said he was “absolutely” prepared to use force if he thought the situation warranted it.

Once again, there was no evidence of any law enforcement presence on or near the refuge.

In his statement, Sheriff Ward said he was working with local and federal authorities to keep citizens safe and to quickly and peacefully resolve the situation. He asked people to stay away from the refuge, but did not think any other parts of the county were in immediate danger.

At the refuge, Bundy admitted that only “a small percentage” of the still unknown number of militia members on site were from Harney County, but said locals were offering support and supplies.

In isolation, the militia controlled the narrative. To many in Harney County, a place with an ambivalent relationship with government, the image of the Hammonds as persecuted victims of authority is persuasive.

The militia members also talked about the economic decline of the county, and of eastern Oregon in general. In doing so, they tapped into very real feelings about very real hardships.

Harney County at one time was the wealthiest county in the state,” Bundy said. “Because the federal government came in and blocked access to resources, it fell into economic depression. We intend to reverse that.”

In discussions about the decline of areas formerly dependent on ranching and logging, the federal government makes a convenient scapegoat. On Sunday, no one was present to tell a more difficult and complex story.

This refuge from its very inception has been a tool of tyranny,” said Bundy. “Steven and Dwight Hammond would not have been abused the way they have if we had adhered to the constitution. When government steps outside the bounds the people have given it, it is the duty of the people to put it back in its place.”

In order to do this, Bundy said, he and his men planned to stay where they were for a very long time.

We do have a plan,” he said, “and that plan is going to take several months to accomplish. Those who have rights on this land, those rights will be acknowledged. There will be an opportunity to claim those rights. We are going to defend you as you use those rights.”

If the federal government tried to take the refuge back, he said, “they would be putting lives at risk. We are not putting anyone at risk right now. This refuge rightfully belongs to the people.”

Bundy said the militia members intended to “assist the people of Harney County to claim their rights”, and to use the refuge both to make their stand and to “stay out of the cold”.

He would not say precisely what his end goal was, except to return the land to “ranching, trucks and recreational vehicles like it used to be”.

Asked if law enforcement officials had communicated with his men, he said: “No, not since we made this stand.” Anyone who was not a law enforcement official would be able to access the refuge, he said, while the militia were there.

This is your land. Although it makes it complicated for us, we are not about restricting.”

Bundy concluded by outlining his vision of the structure and powers of government in the US, as laid down in the constitution.

The federal government’s job is to protect the states from the outside world,” he said. “The states’ job is to protect the counties from the federal government. The counties’ job is to protect the people from the states.

And the people’s job is to be free.”

 

The War Against the Cowboys: The Oregon stand off and US imperialism

January 4, 2016

by Justin Raimondo

Antiwar

As our old republic fades into history, replaced by a voracious global Empire, the division between foreign policy and domestic policy is erased. A conquistador treats his helots on the home front with the same contempt he has for his subjects abroad. In both cases, conquest and subjugation is the goal – and rebellion is the inevitable result.

Just as the people of Iraq rose up and finally threw out the American occupiers, so the people in the American West are rising up against their federal overlords. This is the reason for the occupation of a federal facility in Burns, Oregon, where hundreds of protesters rallied against the jailing of ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son Steve.

The Hammond case has become a cause celebre West of the Mississippi, where federal control of huge swathes of real estate has become a life and death issue for ranchers and others who make their living off the land. As the feds encroach on their livelihood, they are pushing back, and nothing illustrates this better than the Hammond case.

In 2001, the Hammonds started a controlled burn on their own land to eliminate invasive junipers from ruining grazing for cattle: the fire spread to neighboring federal lands. As the Tri-State Livestock News reports:

The first fire, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

“’They called and got permission to light the fire,’ Dwight’s wife, Susan, said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.

“’We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather wouldn’t be a problem.’ Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region the same day, and that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes a recording from that phone conversation.”

There was a second fire in 2006, started by Steven Hammond to counteract the lightning fires that threatened to envelope their land and their home. The Bureau of Land Management says that a single acre of federal land was affected by the fire –  and they pressed charges, even though lightning fires were raging all over the area and there was no way to determine which fires were burning what land.

The Hammonds were originally charged under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 with nine counts – including starting several other fires — but the jury saw otherwise and acquitted them of all but two counts: starting the fires they admitted to in the first place. The judge sentenced them to less than the federal mandatory, stating that what the government was asking – five years – was “disproportionate” and if imposed would’ve “shocked my conscience.

The government wasn’t satisfied with that, and they appealed the decision. Judge Ann Aiken – the same judge who ruled that the prison system has a right to keep its safety standards confidential, even though a prisoner had died under dicey circumstances – agreed with the Justice Department, and the Hammonds must now serve full five-year sentences, minus time already served. They have agreed to turn themselves in, in spite of the protests on their behalf.

What is clear is that the government is out to make an example of the Hammonds. Their case represents the resistance of rural ranchers and farmers to the aggressive tactics of the government and the radical “environmentalist” movement, which aim at eliminating the few private landowners remaining in the region. The Hammonds are the last holdouts in an area that has seen the Bureau of Land Management revoke permits, block water usage, and use every means to harass them and force them to move out.

To say that this is an adventuristic suicide mission would be an understatement. Yes, the Nevada action forced the feds to stand down: they knew if they moved against the ranchers it would cause a political firestorm, and lives would be lost. This time the feds cannot afford to back down precisely because they did so the last time. And in any armed confrontation with the federal government, the ranchers are bound to wind up dead.

However, that is neither here nor there: the ranchers are resisting, and they must be defended, no matter how shortsighted their tactics may be.

One more thing: the Twitterverse is attacking the ranchers on the crazed grounds that America doesn’t have equality of government repression. Yes, you read that right. The protesters in Ferguson were faced with tanks, and military-style repression, so why don’t we see the same response to the Oregon protesters, they stupidly ask.

It’s hard to even confront such arguments: are these people really saying that repression is a “right” that has to be equally distributed? Is it something in the water that has lowered the intelligence of these people to such a degree that they really want the government to come down hard on everyone?

The irony of this is that the fight against police repression is the same fight as the ranchers’ battle against federal overreach. In both cases, protesters face the armed might of the State. It’s particularly disgusting that the Twitter types who support the BLM and the government are saying that this is all about “white privilege,” and that if the ranchers were black protesters in an urban area they’d be blasted to kingdom come. So now we have the “social justice warriors” screaming for the ranchers’ blood.

This is how the government divides and conquers: pitting race against race, religion against religion, etc. It’s the oldest tactic in the ruling elite’s book.

The media is predictably siding with the authorities: notice how they’re already calling the protesters “militants.” That’s the same language they use to describe alleged “terrorists” in the Middle East – a designation that means nothing less than a death sentence.

We’ll see how this plays out. I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that the feds would pull another Waco if they thought they could get away with it. And with the political atmosphere in this country being the way it is, they just might.

What’s particularly alarming are the cries of “Terrorist!” rising like a poisonous fog from the “progressives.” It’s a testament to the degree that the militaristic rhetoric of the post-9/11 era has managed to define the terms of the discourse that these people aren’t in the least bit ashamed of themselves. Even Code Pink, those supposedly pacifistic peaceniks, has been siding with the government: apparently, their opposition to imperialism on the part of Washington doesn’t include aggression inside US borders. But then again we always knew Medea Benjamin was the worst kind of partisan hypocrite.

The urban left is cheerleading Washington’s war against the cowboys, using every meme from the “anti-terrorist” playbook to target a powerless minority that is bravely fighting against the mightiest military machine on earth. A more revolting spectacle is hard to imagine – but 2016 is young yet, so we’ll just have to see what the new year has in store for us.

 

Domestic Terrorism: The Sovereign Citizen Movement

fbi.gov

Domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—comes in many forms in our post 9/11 world.

To help educate the public, we’ve previously outlined two separate domestic terror threats—eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists and lone offenders.

Today, we look at a third threat—the “sovereign citizen” extremist movement. Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.

This causes all kinds of problems—and crimes. For example, many sovereign citizens don’t pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks, and the like at government agencies, banks, and businesses.

That’s just the beginning. Not every action taken in the name of the sovereign citizen ideology is a crime, but the list of illegal actions committed by these groups, cells, and individuals is extensive (and puts them squarely on our radar). In addition to the above, sovereign citizens:

Commit murder and physical assault;

Threaten judges, law enforcement professionals, and government personnel;

Impersonate police officers and diplomats;

Use fake currency, passports, license plates, and driver’s licenses; and

Engineer various white-collar scams, including mortgage fraud and so-called “redemption” schemes.

Sovereign citizens are often confused with extremists from the militia movement. But while sovereign citizens sometimes use or buy illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government, anti-tax beliefs. On the other hand, guns and paramilitary training are paramount to militia groups.

During the past year, we’ve had a number of investigative successes involving sovereign citizens. A few recent cases:

 

◾In Sacramento, two sovereign citizens were convicted of running a fraudulent insurance scheme. Operating outside state insurance regulatory guidelines, the men set up their own company and sold “lifetime memberships” to customers, promising to pay any accident claims against their “members.” The company collected millions of dollars, but paid out very few claims. More

◾In Kansas City, three sovereign citizens were convicted of taking part in a conspiracy using phony diplomatic credentials. They charged customers between $450 and $2,000 for a diplomatic identification card, which would bestow upon the holder “sovereign” status—meaning they would enjoy diplomatic immunity from paying taxes and from being stopped or arrested by law enforcement. More

◾In Las Vegas, four men affiliated with the sovereign citizen movement were arrested by the Nevada Joint Terrorism Task Force on federal money laundering, tax evasion, and weapons charges. The investigation involved an undercover operation, with two of the suspects allegedly laundering more than a million dollars from what they believed was a bank fraud scheme. More

You can help. First, “be crime smart”—don’t fall for the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens. And second, if you have information on any suspicious activities or crimes, please contact us.

 

 

No responses yet

Leave a Reply