Federal agencies push flurry of 'midnight' rule-making under Obama

With less than two months before US President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration, federal agencies under President Obama are pushing for a final flurry of new rules – despite the high likelihood that many will not survive.

 

By:   Steven Porter

 

 

WASHINGTON (CSM) - President Obama is heading into his administration's final weeks with a full agenda of new draft orders to consider, even though his successor has vowed to scale back job-killing regulation and cancel "all illegal and overreaching executive orders."

Despite the likelihood that US President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress would kill any controversial late-in-the-game moves by Mr. Obama, federal agencies under the Democratic president are pushing for a flurry of so-called "midnight" regulations on everything from the environment to transportation and financial marketplaces.

The White House was reviewing as many as 98 final regulations, as of Nov. 15, that could be implemented before Mr. Trump takes office, including 17 with an estimated annual economic impact of $100 million or more, Politico reported. But lawmakers have warned agency heads to avoid rushing to finalize rules or regulations before Obama leaves office.

"Should you ignore this counsel, please be aware that we will work with our colleagues to ensure that Congress scrutinizes your actions – and, if appropriate, overturns them," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R) of California, wrote in a letter last week.

Several of the new rules slated for installation before Trump assumes office include environmental protections that critics argue hamper business interests and economic potential. Although some offices had initially delayed implementation of their rules, expecting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to win on Election Day, the offices have pivoted to promulgate the rules quickly after Trump's unexpected win – and faced criticism.

"We're looking at the stack of regulations and the fact that the agencies are just as ill-prepared to make these new regulations work as we are confused on how we can possibly comply in such a short time," Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs at the Western Energy Alliance in Denver, told The Hill.

U.N. goes all-in for unlimited migration

The United Nations has cooked up a “New Urban Agenda” coming soon to a city near you.
 
By:   Leo Hohmann

ACROSS THE GLOBE (WND) - It was unveiled this week in Quito, Ecuador, at the so-called Habitat III conference.

 

And part of the plan, enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton, calls for unlimited migration across open borders. Migrants displaced by war, failing economies or other hardships will be seen as having “rights” in nations other than their own. Cities are seen as the key battlegrounds and the U.N. conference in Quito had a lot to say about how your city will be expected to embrace migrants of all types, from all regions of the world.

 

By now most Americans who follow world events are familiar with the U.N’s plan for global governance as envisioned by its “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” approved by some 190 world leaders including President Obama and Pope Francis in September 2015.

 

This agenda includes 17 goals aimed at ending hunger, wiping out poverty and stamping out global income inequality by “transforming our world” through sweeping changes ostensibly aimed at freeing cross-border “labor mobility,” among other things.

 

Hillary Clinton, anointed by Obama as his successor, said in a speech to Wall Street bankers she envisions the U.S. as part of a single “hemispheric common market with free trade and open borders,” according to WikiLeaks data dumps.

 

In another bombshell revealed by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton told Goldman Sachs bankers that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American.” She has also called for a 550-percent increase in the resettlement of Syrian refugees in America – that’s 550 percent more than Obama’s vastly increased level of more than 12,000 resettled in one year.

 

In short, Hillary’s agenda for cities sounds an awful lot like the U.N.’s agenda for cities as laid out in the New Urban Agenda document approved this week by world leaders in Quito.

 

“She’s totally in line with the U.N. agenda, on board with everything they do,” says economist Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.”

 

Clinton earlier this year announced her $135 billion “breaking every barrier” program to transform America’s cities.

In this plan, she makes 37 pledges promising everything from removal of blight to construction of affordable housing in areas that are currently out of the price range of refugees, immigrants, the chronically unemployed and under-employed. She intends to build on the “successes” of her husband and the Obama administration in using public-private partnerships to transform cities. Obama’s contribution in this area included his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which forces grant-receiving cities to infuse their low-crime suburban areas, deemed “too white,” with subsidized housing marketed to low-income renters.

 

This fits right in with the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

 

“She’s making a pre-announcement here that she’s going to follow the U.N. agenda,” Wood said. “She’s signaling to her fellow globalists that she’s 100 percent on board with their agenda.”

 

The problem that keeps globalists like Obama and Clinton up at night is how to implement the sweeping changes laid out in the U.N. 2030 Agenda last September at the global sustainability summit in New York.

 

That’s where Habitat III comes into play. It’s called the U.N. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development or “Habitat III” for short. Its focus is on the world’s cities.

 

Largest U.N. conference ever

 

Habitat III was attended by a staggering 50,000 people including more than 200 mayors and another 140 city delegations.

 

The sole purpose of this conference is to approve a 24-page document called the New Urban Agenda.

“The only purpose of the conference is to rubber stamp this document and elevate it and lift it up to the world,” said Wood. “And right now it looks like they are. Everybody. All the nations.”

 

In this document lies the globalists’ plans for cities. All cities. Big, small, even tiny cities. Every American who lives in a city will at some point see the fruits of the plan the U.N. has in store for the world, says Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement.

 

The Habitat conference convenes only once every 20 years but when it does, it leaves a trail of anti-capitalist, anti-liberty “global standards” in its wake, says Wood. These are the standards by which the U.N. wants each and every city in the world to be operated. They come packaged as “non-binding” and Congress never approves them.

 

Yet, somehow, the global standards coming out of the major U.N. conferences always seem to filter down to even the smallest American hamlet. How? Through federal grants. Any city that accepts federal grants will at some point be required to implement the practices that the U.N. has declared “sustainable.”

 

‘Inclusive’ by design, coercive by default

 

The buzzword in the New Urban Agenda is “inclusive” or “inclusivity.” This concept has a long history with global elites and technocrats.

 

The definition of “technocracy” as used by the original technocrats back 1938 was “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” That’s according to The Technocrat magazine.

 

“They use the word ‘entire’ twice in that definition so I’m really not surprised we see it showing up in these conferences today,” Wood said. “Their intent is to create a net that will catch 100 percent of the people.”

 

The word “inclusive” or “inclusivity” appear in the New Urban Agenda document no fewer than 36 times.

 

“There is no exclusion,” Wood says. “If you read the document, you’ll find for instance under item 6a, ‘transformative commitments,’ the statement starts out ‘leave no one behind.'”

 

That same phrase, leave no one behind, is in the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

 

“In fact just about everywhere you go now at the U.N. you’ll find this concept,” Wood said. “It’s a little disturbing.”

 

Wood says the U.N. is resurrecting an old concept that fizzled in the early days of the technocracy movement. Its time hadn’t arrived yet, back in the 1930s, but now things are different. The world is run by big data and the world is eager to embraced a set of globalized, one-world standards for everything, whether it be Common Core education standards, globalized police standards that Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the U.N. last fall in the form of the Strong Cities Network, or global standards for healthcare, ala Obamacare. You name it, the United Nations wants to standardize it.

 

The next big hurdle in the race to standardize the world is the issue of immigration.

 

Point 42 on page 7 of the New Urban Agenda talks about cities providing opportunities for dialogue, “paying particular attention to the potential contributions” of women and children, the elderly and disabled, “refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants, regardless of migration status, and without discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.”

 

Everyone is welcome

 

Wood notes that, in America, that would mean exactly what John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, has already said — that anyone with a driver’s license should be allowed to vote.

 

“This is the way I read it,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal, wanted or unwanted, jihadists or non-jihadists, sick or healthy. If they show up in your country, they must participate in the affairs of that country immediately, whatever country they find themselves in.”

 

The preamble to the New Urban Agenda says cities are the “key to tackling global challenges.”

 

“So these people are viewing cities as the key ingredient right now to implementing sustainable development, and they say this battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities.”

 

And the U.N. document goes on to state that this agenda is “the first step for operationalizing sustainable development in an integrated and coordinated way at the global, national, subnational, and local levels.”

 

In essence, it’s a roadmap to global governance where American cities will no longer get their direction from elected officials representing them on the city council, or even the state legislature, but the United Nations itself. The local councils will likely not even know that the rules they are following in order to qualify for federal grants are tied to United Nations’ standards for sustainability.

 

Cities committing to ‘a paradigm shift’

 

The document talks about cities committing to “a paradigm shift” in the way they “plan, develop and manage urban development.”

 

“It’s top to bottom,” Wood said. “They’re saying it’s going to be a top-down implementation. But for all the gains that sustainable development have made since 1992, there’s been a complaint that it hasn’t gone fast enough or far enough, and that it’s not inclusive enough, that some pockets have been left out. So, what they’re saying here is that this New Urban Agenda document is really, in their minds, the first step for operationalizing it. First step to making sustainable development completely operational. That’s huge.”

 

Wallace Henley, a journalist and former aide in the Nixon White House who went on to become a Christian pastor and who has written extensively on globalism, said the U.N. is making a full-on assault against the American system of government, which requires federalism, states’ rights and separation of powers.

 

“The U.N. is a glaring example of the inevitable course of bureaucracies. Like kudzu in Alabama, a tiny seed will inevitably spread until it controls the whole of a hillside,” Henley, author of “God and Churchhill,” told WND in an email.

 

And he, like Wood, sees Hillary Clinton in the thick of the battle, fighting on the side of the globalists, not America first.

 

“The leftist-progressive philosophy is the fertilizer. Agencies sprout and grow, and bring forth policy confabs like Habitat III. The conferences then produce white papers that ultimately become the source of policies,” he said. “It is a leftist-progressivist dream.”

 

“Sustainability” is a code word for regulatory authority, Henley said, and that is the suffocating vine that chokes out everything else.

 

“This meshes perfectly with the New Globalism and its dream of a world without borders. Anything can be done in the name of a ‘sustainable’ future, including the ‘humanitarian’ invasion of a sovereign state – but only if its leaders embrace the same left-progressive philosophy as the bureaucracies headquartered in New York. This makes a Hillary Clinton presidency even more foreboding,” he said.

 

And these “progressives” include many in the Republican Party who are now shilling for Clinton, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Ryan, according to an article by Breitbart’s Julia Hahn, has been working hand in hand with the Clinton campaign for months.

 

“The true conservative seeks preservation of liberty-nurturing principles, and the sustenance of values that resist the control of the bureaucrats and guarantee freedom from a globalist hegemon in the form of the U.N.,” Henley said.

 

Eric Voegelin’s 1975 book, “From Enlightenment to Revolution,” describes with amazing prescience the “line of progress” according to the revolutionaries who drive what Henley calls the New Globalism, from the local to the global, from the individual to the mass of humanity, from nation-states to a concentrated global power.

 

“This is the big picture of which Habitat III and its New Urban Agenda is a part.”

Dozens of Afghan troops missing from military training in U.S.

Forty-four Afghan troops visiting the United States for military training have gone missing in less than two years, presumably in an effort to live and work illegally in America, Pentagon officials said.

 
By:   Idrees Ali  

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Although the number of disappearances is relatively small -- some 2,200 Afghan troops have received military training in the United States since 2007 -- the incidents raise questions about security and screening procedures for the programs.

They are also potentially embarrassing for U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, which has spent billions of dollars training Afghan troops as Washington seeks to extricate itself from the costly, 15-year-old war. The disclosure could fuel criticism by supporters of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has accused the Obama administration of failing to properly vet immigrants from Muslim-majority countries and has pledged a much tougher stance if he wins.

While other foreign troops on U.S. military training visits have sometimes run away, a U.S. defense official said that the frequency of Afghan troops going missing was concerning and "out of the ordinary."

Since September alone, eight Afghan troops have left military bases without authorization, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump told Reuters. He said the total number of Afghan troops who have gone missing since January 2015 is 44, a number that has not previously been disclosed.

"The Defense Department is assessing ways to strengthen eligibility criteria for training in ways that will reduce the likelihood of an individual Afghan willingly absconding from training in the U.S. and going AWOL (absent without leave)," Stump said.

Afghans in the U.S. training program are vetted to ensure they have not participated in human rights abuses and are not affiliated with militant groups before being allowed into the United States, Stump said.

The defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added there was no evidence any of those who had absconded had carried out crimes or posed a threat to the United States.

The Afghan army has occasionally been infiltrated by Taliban militants who have carried out attacks on Afghan and U.S. troops, but such incidents have become less frequent due to tougher security measures.

Trump, whose other signature immigration plan is to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, has proposed a temporary ban on Muslims seeking to enter the country, and has said that law enforcement officers should engage in more racial profiling to curb the threat of attacks on American soil.

After Omar Mateen, whose father was born in Afghanistan, killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando in June, Trump said an immigration ban would last until "we are in a position to properly screen these people coming into our country."

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TRAINING

Washington has allocated more than $60 billion since 2002 to train and equip Afghan troops, but security remains precarious and the Taliban are estimated to control more territory in Afghanistan than at any time since 2001 when the U.S. invaded.

Earlier this year Obama shelved plans to cut the U.S. force in Afghanistan nearly in half by year's end, opting instead to keep 8,400 troops there through the end of his presidency in January.

The military training program brings troops to the United States from around the world in order to build on military relations and improve capabilities for joint operations.

In some cases, officials said, the Afghan students who went missing were in the United States for elite Army Ranger School and intelligence-gathering training. The officials did not identify the missing troops or their rank.

Even though the troops were in the United States for military training, they were not necessarily always on a military base.

If students under the military program are absent from training for more than 24 hours, they are considered to be "absent without leave" (AWOL) and the Department of Homeland Security is notified.

In one case the Pentagon confirmed that an Afghan student had been detained by Canadian police while attempting to enter Canada from the United States.

It was unclear how many others have been located by U.S. authorities, and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Experts said low morale and insufficient training to fight the Taliban could explain the troops leaving, in addition to a dearth of economic opportunities in the impoverished country.

"They face a formidable enemy, with very limited resources and many Afghan troops aren't getting paid on time,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia specialist at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think-tank.

Ten Times in Past Two Years Terrorists Slipped Through Immigration Process into U.S.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York City and Minnesota during the weekend, the focus of the national debate has again shifted back to America’s enemies exploiting weaknesses in U.S. immigration screening processes to get into the country to attack the United States.

 
By:   Matthew Boyle






 

NEW YORK CITY, New York (Breitbart) - While President Barack Obama’s administration, and his would-be successor, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, have promised to increase the amount of people they bring into the United States through immigration, refugee, and asylum programs, the Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, has promised to put the brakes on allowing potential terrorists into the United States.

Below is a by-no-means comprehensive list of at least ten times in the last couple years—there are certainly many more instances—that terrorists have exploited the Obama-Clinton immigration weaknesses to get into the United States. This is the first in a series of stories that will examine specific examples on this front.

1.) Eritrean Plans Terror in Ohio

Twenty-one-year-old Munir Abdulkader of West Chester, Ohio, pleads guilty, according to the Department of Justice, “to attempting to kill officers and employees of the United States, providing material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.”

According to the Columbus Dispatch, Abdulkader is a “native of Eritrea in east Africa,” who “became a citizen of the United States in September 2006.”

He hit law enforcement’s radar while a student at Xavier University in Cincinnati when he was posting messages on Twitter that the Columbus Dispatch said were “seen as sympathetic to Islamic State fighters.”

“On a Twitter account that began in July 2014 and continued into 2015, Abdulkader posted an IS training video, lamented that his cousin had died fighting for IS and expressed his desire to travel and join the terrorist insurgency,” James Steinbauer wrote in the Columbus Dispatch in July. He added:

Abdulkader also stated his wish to attain martyrdom. From March to mid-April 2015, Abdulkader began speaking with a confidential source about his intentions to travel to Syria and fight for the insurgency. He secured a passport, saved money for the trip and began making travel plans, but postponed the trip until May 2015 because of increased arrests of individuals traveling to join IS. During May 2015, Abdulkader communicated with one or more people overseas who were tied to IS. One, a member of IS identified as Junaid Hussein, encouraged Abdulkader to commit terrorist attacks in the United States before going to Syria. IS has advocated for lone-wolf jihadis and extremists to conduct attacks in their home countries.

In his communications with Hussein, the Islamic State recruiter encouraged the Eritrean immigrant—according to the Justice Department—“to plan and execute a violent attack within the United States.”

“Abdulkader communicated with Hussein and the CHS [confidential human source] about a plan to kill an identified military employee on account of his position with the U.S. government,” the Justice Department said in a press release. “The plan included abducting the employee at the employee’s home and filming the execution. After killing the employee, Abdulkader planned to perpetrate a violent attack on a police station in the Southern District of Ohio using firearms and Molotov cocktails.”

None of this would have been possible if the United States government had not let this Eritrean man into the United States in the first place.

2.) Virginia Man? Not Quite.

Also back in July, The Washington Post’s Rachel Weiner and Joe Helm detailed the story of Mohamed Bailor Jalloh—an immigrant from Sierra Leone—who was caught plotting a terrorist attack in support of the Islamic State in Virginia.

“When Mohamed Bailor Jalloh walked into the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun store and indoor target range in Chantilly, Va., on Friday to purchase a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, he had no idea that his every move was being monitored by the FBI,” Weiner and Helm wrote on July 5. “Jalloh, 26, spent about 10 minutes in the shop before attempting to buy the assault weapon, but he was told that he did not have the required three forms of identification to make the purchase, said Earl Curtis, the store’s owner. Jalloh told employees that he would return.”

Jalloh had apparently been a former member of the Virginia National Guard—and that was how The Washington Post’s headline identified him. What the leading newspaper did not say until 16 paragraphs into the article is that Jalloh is not from the United States.

“Jalloh, a native of Sierra Leone, is a U.S. citizen,” the Post wrote.

That’s all the nation’s capitol’s major newspaper said in that story about his immigration history.

According to Justice Department documents, Jalloh was born in Sierra Leone—a West African nation that is predominantly Muslim—and actually after becoming naturalized later as a U.S. citizen traveled back to Sierra Leone in 2015. In addition to disclosing that he listened to lectures from Anwar Al-Awlaki, Jalloh—according to court records available of the Department of Justice’s website—told a confidential human source for federal law enforcement he is “originally from Sierra Leone and has been a Muslim his entire life.” During his trip back to his home nation of Sierra Leone, federal authorities—according to the court records—believed he had contact with representatives for the Islamic State. He was gone for months.

“A review of U.S. Customs and Border Protection travel records indicated JALLOH departed the United States on or about June 11, 2015 via John F. Kennedy International Airport with a final destination of Sierra Leone,” the court document, filed by an FBI agent, says, continuing:

On or about January 16, 2016, JALLOH returned to the United States from Sierra Leone via John F. Kennedy International Airport. Based on the length of time JALLOH was overseas for this trip and the comments made by JALLOH to CHS1 [confidential human source number one] on or about April 9, 2016, I believe it was during this overseas trip that JALLOH met ISIL members in Nigeria and first established contact with UCCl [un-indicted co-conspirator number one].

But it all started, of course, when the U.S. government decided to let this guy into the United States in the first place.

3.) Kenyan Somali ‘Refugee’ — Or Minnesota Man? — Convicted on Terrorism Charges

Guled Ali Omar, a Somalian born in a refugee camp in Kenya but later admitted into the United States as a refugee and subsequently granted citizenship by the U.S. government, was one of three “Minnesota Men” convicted in June of conspiring to join the Islamic State and “commit murder in Syria.”

“Guled Ali Omar, Abdurahman Yasin Daud and Mohamed Abdihamid Farah were convicted by a federal jury today of conspiring to commit murder in Syria on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to provide material support to the designated foreign terrorist organization,” the Justice Department announced on June 3. “Omar was also convicted of one count of attempted financial aid fraud, and Farah was also convicted of one count of perjury and providing a false statement.”

Omar’s case is particularly interesting. His family, in the wake of his conviction, was given fawning coverage by local Minnesota media. In a large profile in the Minneapolis StarTribune, his mother Fadumo Hussein was described as “heartbroken” and portrayed as having her “home” being “shadowed” by “the question of terrorism” for years.

The local newspaper paints the FBI agents who raided their home as jackbooted thugs who disrupted their life.

“On Sunday morning, that question once again stormed into her life, when FBI agents crashed through the door of her south Minneapolis house in search of her youngest son, Guled Omar,” Paul McEnroe wrote in the Star Tribune on April 21, 2015, adding:

Rousting her from sleep, the agents had surrounded the house about 9 a.m. and then stormed in to arrest her 20-year-old son. The young man, who works as a security guard for Target and attends community college part-time, is now charged with leading a secret life centered on plotting with five friends to leave the United States in order to fight with terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

Deeper in the story, though, the StarTribune lets it slip: Omar was not just any typical “Minnesota Man.”

The newspaper quotes the mother as saying, “Guled was born by myself under a tree” during their time “spent in a Kenyan refugee camp.” Never mind that this is Hussein’s second—not her first, her second—son who has been connected with radical Islamic terrorism, the Minneapolis StarTribune focuses on how Hussein, about Omar, was “protesting his innocence.”

“Still reeling from the weekend’s trauma, a tearful Hussein sat on her couch Monday morning and tried to come to grips with now losing her second son to the nationwide investigation of terrorist recruitment among Somali-Americans,” McEnroe wrote:

Omar is the youngest brother of indicted fugitive Ahmed Ali Omar, who left the U.S. in late 2007 as part of the first wave of Somali-Americans in the Twin Cities to fight for Al-Shabab in Somalia. Hussein said she hasn’t heard from Ahmed since — that he’s simply disappeared off the family’s radar. Now, she faces the prospect of losing Guled too, through a terrorism trial or a guilty plea that, either way, could put him in prison for decades.

While the StarTribune article, even further down, tells readers finally that Hussein is a “naturalized U.S. citizen,” it says nothing of the immigration status of Omar. For that information—whether or not Omar was granted U.S. citizenship by the government after coming to the United States—readers need to turn to another newspaper: The Chicago Tribune. More than ten paragraphs into that article from the Tribune wire service, readers finally learn: The United States government gave this man citizenship.

“All six are of Somali descent. Daud is a permanent resident, and Guled is a naturalized citizen,” the paper wrote of the six charged men. “The others were born in the U.S.”

To the wire service’s credit, though, it does—a few paragraphs deep—admit there is a problem in Minnesota:

The Minneapolis area is home to the largest concentration of Somali immigrants in the U.S. Since 2007, more than 22 young Somali men have also traveled from Minnesota to Somalia to join the militant group al-Shabab, which is also listed by the U.S. State Department as fomenting terrorism. Authorities have said a handful of Minnesota residents have traveled to Syria to fight with militants in the past year, and at least one has died.

4.) Legal Permanent Resident Abdurahman Yasin Daud Moves In Next Door

One of the others charged in the case in the third example—Abdurahman Yasin Daud—is a native Somalian who wound up in Minnesota, thanks to the U.S. government. But not only was he allowed into the country, according to the Tribune wire service piece in the Chicago Tribune, he was granted “permanent resident” status by the U.S. government.

Maybe if federal policy did not let people like this into the United States in the first place, FBI agents would not have to chase people like Daud and his buddies across the country as they plot to leave the United States to join the Islamic State in Syria.

In fact, federal law enforcement agents spent years—years—building this case.

Omar and two other members of the conspiracy also made an attempt to join ISIL by traveling across the U.S.–Mexico border near San Diego in May 2014, but failed when members of Omar’s family prevented his travel.

“In October 2014, members of the conspiracy communicated with ‘Antar,’ a self-described member of ISIL in Syria, about how best to travel to Syria to join ISIL,” the Justice Department said in a press release, adding:

Members of the conspiracy met with one another to discuss routes, methods and the timing of leaving the United States to join ISIL in Syria. Omar again attempted to join ISIL in Syria on Nov. 6, 2014, by flying from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to San Diego, crossing the border into Mexico and traveling onward to Syria. Before he could board the flight in Minnesota, Omar was stopped at the airport and prevented from boarding the plane. In order to fund this second attempt to join ISIL in Syria, Omar intended to use federal financial aid provided to him by the U.S. Department of Education to attend college. Also in November 2014, Farah and three of his co-conspirators, Zacharia Abdurahman, Hanad Musse and Hamza Ahmed, took a bus from Minneapolis to New York City and attempted to board flights to Europe with an eventual destination of Syria. Federal agents in New York prevented the four from traveling abroad. In April 2015, Daud and Farah drove from Minneapolis to San Diego, where they intended to purchase fake passports, cross the border into Mexico and travel to Syria to join ISIL. Unbeknownst to them, the individual from whom they purchased the fake passports was a law enforcement officer and both were arrested by federal agents immediately after obtaining the phony travel documents.

5.) Sudanese Man Caught in Virginia Conspiring to Join Islamic State

While the January 16 press release from the Department of Justice was headlined “Two Virginia Men Charged with Terrorism Offenses Related to Attempted Travel to Syria to Join ISIL,” it turns out one of these “Virginia men” was actually an immigrant from the great nation of Sudan.

Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan—whom the DOJ admits “ is a legal permanent U.S. resident originally from Sudan,” but was living in Woodbridge, Virginia—was “charged with aiding and abetting [his friend Joseph Hassan] Farrokh’s attempt to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.” Farrokh was born in Pennsylvania.

Elhassan, the Sudanese man, according to a later release from the DOJ announcing his indictment on May 27, was a taxi driver who used his taxi to try to help Farrokh get to Syria to join the Islamic State.

“In furtherance of the conspiracy, on Jan. 15, 2016, Elhassan drove Farrokh to Richmond in order to enable Farrokh to fly to overseas to join ISIL,” the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced in the indictment press release:

According to the indictment, Elhassan also attempted to provide material support or resources to ISIL by aiding and abetting the attempt of Farrokh to join ISIL. Elhassan’s aiding and abetting included introducing Farrokh to an individual that Elhassan believed could facilitate Farrokh’s travel to the Islamic State; driving Farrokh from Farrokh’s home to Richmond in Elhassan’s taxi cab so that Farrokh could embark on his travel to join ISIL; and making false statements to the FBI about Farrokh’s travel in order to hinder the government’s investigation of Farrokh’s travel. According to the indictment, Elhassan knowingly, unlawfully, and willfully made material false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter involving international terrorism, including: On Jan. 15, 2016, Elhassan falsely stated to FBI agents that Farrokh had flown out of Dulles Airport earlier that day on a flight to California to attend a funeral; that Farrokh had said that he would be back in about two weeks; that neither he nor Farrokh supported the ISIL; and neither he nor Farrokh ever tried to find someone to help them get to ISIL.

Sudan is a northeastern African nation that is run by a legal system operating based on Sharia law, something that has been a source of controversy for the nation as it has handed out death sentences to those who engage in “apostasy.”

“Twenty-five Muslim men, including three teenagers, are facing the death penalty in Sudan after being charged with apostasy for following the wrong version of Islam,” The Guardian reported last December.

That is where Elhassan came from, before the U.S. government allowed him into America.

6.) Iraqi in Texas Sentenced to Four Years in U.S. Prison on Terror Charges

Bilal Abood, a 38-year-old Iraqi man who lives in Mesquite, Texas, was sentenced to 48 months in prison on May 25 for lying to the Feds about terrorism.

In this case, the Justice Department notes right up front that he was born in Iraq—but is now a U.S. citizen. Abood had traveled to Syria from Texas—and then back—and had pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Badhdadi, the leader of the Islamic State.

“Abood admitted that on March 29, 2013, he attempted to depart the United States at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, but was not allowed to board the international flight,” the Justice Department press release said. It continued:

While at the airport, FBI special agents asked Abood about his planned travel and he stated he was merely planning to travel to Iraq to visit family. During a subsequent interview, Abood admitted to FBI special agents that his intent was to travel to Syria to fight the regime of Bashar al-Assad. On approximately April 29, 2013, Abood left the United States through Mexico and traveled through various countries into Syria. On Sept. 16, 2013, Abood returned to the United States and admitted to FBI special agents that he had traveled to Syria, but he denied supporting any terrorist groups. A search warrant was executed on Abood’s computer on July 9, 2014. A review of that computer revealed that on approximately June 19, 2014, Abood stated, while using his Twitter handle @ibnalislaam, “I pledge obedience to the Caliphate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” Abood admitted that he knew that al-Baghdadi is the self-proclaimed leader of ISIL and was designated as a specially designated global terrorist on Oct. 4, 2011, and remains so to date. Abood also admitted that on April 14, 2015, FBI special agents advised him that lying to a federal agent is a crime. He further admitted that on that date, he falsely told FBI special agents that he had never pledged allegiance to al-Baghdadi and that he was aware that the agents were investigating a matter that they suspected could involve international terrorism.

What the Justice Department doesn’t say in this release, or a prior one, is how this Iraqi man got into the United States—and obtained U.S. citizenship—in the first place.

For that, we turn to The Dallas Morning News, which details how Abood helped U.S. armed forces in Iraq as a translator during the Iraq war—and then took advantage of a special program for such translators.

“Abood, a translator for American forces during the Iraq War, left Iraq in 2009 to take advantage of a rare opportunity for U.S. Army interpreters to become American citizens,” The Dallas Morning News’ Kevin Krause wrote on May 25, 2016, continuing:

Abood, who speaks Arabic, said during testimony Wednesday that he was offered the interpreter job after warning U.S. troops that large weapons caches were being kept inside Iraqi schools. He said he also worked as a U.S. military contractor on civil affairs projects, such as building schools and roads. He joined the Army in 2010 and went through basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C. Abood said he trained U.S. troops on how to deal with Iraqi culture and customs. He said he left the Army because it wouldn’t allow him to return to Iraq to see his sick mother. Abood said he settled in an apartment in Mesquite around 2010 where he lived with his common law wife and worked two jobs — one for UPS and the other as a security guard. He said he saved enough money to buy his mother a house in Iraq.

7.) The Uzbeki from Brooklyn Caught Funding Islamic State

Azizjon Rakhmatov, a 28-year-old man from Uzbekistan, whom the U.S. government permitted into United States, was—according to the New York Post—the “sixth man” charged “in an ISIS recruitment plot tied to Brooklyn.”

“Azizjon Rakhmatov, 28, originally from Uzbekistan, helped fund the foiled trip of Akhror Saidakhmetov and Adburasul Juraboev to Turkey and Syria so they could join ISIS, Brooklyn federal prosecutors said Wednesday,” the New York Post’s Pricilla DeGregory and Georgett Roberts wrote on May 11.

8.) Another Uzbeki from Brooklyn

Also previously charged in the case was Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev—a 25-year-old man whom an FBI agent in an affidavit available on the Justice Department website notes is a “citizen of Uzbekistan” and was granted “lawful permanent resident” status in the United States.

Juraboev, according to The New York Times, pleaded guilty in August 2015 of “conspiring to provide material support to” the Islamic State after trying to join the organization. He and a co-conspirator, the Times wrote, “had talked of violence on behalf of the Islamic State, like planting a bomb in Coney Island and attacking President Obama, the authorities said.”

9.) Kazakh Man U.S. Government Let In Tries to Join ISIS

Akhror Saidakhmetov, a 19-year-old man, was also connected to the case with Rakhmatov and Juraboev—and was described by progressive media outlet the Daily Beast as just another “Brooklyn Punk” and “Central Asian immigrant” who wanted to join the Islamic State. It turns out, according to the FBI agent’s affidavit, Saidakhmetov was a “citizen of Kazakhstan” who was also—thanks to the U.S. government—a “lawful permanent resident” of the United States.

10.) Visa Overstay: Another Uzbeki in Brooklyn’s Islamic State Case

Abror Habibov, a 30-year-old citizen of Uzbekistan, was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, in connection with the same case from the last few examples. According to CNN, police accused Habibov of being the one who “helped organize and finance” the entire operation.

“Court documents say Habibov operates mall kiosks that sell kitchenware and repair mobile phones,” CNN reported in 2015. “He has locations in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Virginia.”

CNN also reported that while Habibov was admitted to the United States “legally,” again by the federal government, he “overstayed his visa.” That, ironically, is exactly what many of the 9/11 terrorists did—and as Breitbart News has reported, the federal government still has not implemented the reforms laid out for the visa program recommended by the 9/11 Commission, particularly an entry-exit visa program. As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Breitbart News on 9/11 this year—15 years after the attack—implementing such a program, as Donald Trump has promised he will do, would be extraordinarily simple, cost very little, and only take a matter of months. But 15 years after 9/11, the U.S. government still has not done it.

Nonetheless, Habibov would not have been here if the government did what it was supposed to do.

FBI found extensive evidence Hillary emails violated federal records laws

 By:  John Solomon and Kellan Howell

Though it was not their primary mission, FBI agents who investigated Hillary Clinton's email collected significant evidence suggesting she and her team violated federal record-keeping laws, including persisting to use a private Blackberry and server to conduct State Department business after being warned they posed legal and security risks, government sources tell Circa. 

2 of 48

The evidence was compelling enough to convince FBI Director James Comey that the Clinton team had not complied with record-keeping laws and to cause at least one witness to raise their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an investigative interview, the sources said.

3 of 48

In public, the FBI recommended not filing criminal charges against Clinton on national security grounds. But  in private, the Bureau chose to defer to the State Department on whether to recommend anyone to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution on records law violations, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

4 of 48

Each email transmission of a government document that was not preserved or turned over to the State Department from Mrs. Clinton's tenure could theoretically be considered a violation of the Federal Records Act, the main law governing preservation of government records and data.

5 of 48

Other federal laws make it a felony to intentionally conceal, remove or destroy federal records as defined under the act, punishable with a fine and imprisonment of up to three years.

A single conviction also carries a devastating impact for anyone looking to work again in government because the law declares that any violator "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

6 of 48

The FBI "indirectly documented hundreds, and likely thousands, of violations of the Records Act," one source with direct knowledge of the FBI's investigation told Circa.

Using forensics, the FBI recovered from computer drives and other witnesses about 17,500 emails from Mrs. Clinton's private account that dealt with government business, most that had not been turned over by her or her aides, the sources said. 

7 of 48

Some of the emails recovered by agents were germane to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the public and congressional investigations and had not yet been produced, the sources said.
Accounts from witnesses suggested the efforts to keep Mrs. Clinton's government email communications on a device and server outside the reach of public records laws or congressional oversight  were "systemic and intentional" and began as soon as Mrs. Clinton took office in 2009, one source told Circa.
8 of 48

For instance, the sources said agents secured testimony and documents suggesting that Mrs. Clinton's team:
-Was informed in 2009 that she had an obligation under the records law to forward any government-related records contained in private email to a new record preservation system known as SMART but chose not to do so because her office wanted to keep control over "sensitive" messages.

-Was specifically questioned by a technical worker who was involved with her private email server in the Clinton family home in New York whether the arrangement was appropriate for a government official under the federal records law. The worker was assured there were no problems.

-Wanted to keep her private Blackerry email service because of fears a government email address would be subject to public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.

10 of 48

-Was aware that government officers complying with  FOIA requests did not have access to search Mrs. Clinton's private email for responsive records.

-Persisted in allowing her to use private email to conduct State Department business even after a cable was sent under her name in 2011 to all diplomats worldwide urging them to stop using private email because of foreign hacking fears.

11 of 48

-Allowed Clinton to keep using the private email system after after she personally received a 2011 presentation warning of dangers of the private email for government business.

-Had prior reason from earlier legal cases involving their conduct to know that emails covering government business were legally required to be preserved and turned over to their agency and the National Archives.

12 of 48

-Failed to preserve private emails from Clinton that clearly involved significant government business, including discussions with Army Gen. David Petraues, the Benghazi tragedy, meeting requests with foreign leaders and the State Department's quadrennial policy and performance review.

13 of 48

During a brief aside at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in July, Comey, the FBI Director, was asked by a congressman if he believed Clinton complied with State Department procedures and federal record keeping laws.

14 of 48

"I don't think so. I know you have the State inspector general here, who's more of an expert on all the department's policies, but at least in some respects, no," he answered. Comey, however, offered no explanation why charges weren't filed.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in mid-July that she did not believe her department had assessed whether Clinton or her team violated the Records Act.
15 of 48

"I don't know if that was under the purview of the investigation. I don't recall a specific opinion on that," she said.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment. But Mrs. Clinton has said she regrets using private email to conduct official State Department business.

Her former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, also expressed some regret, saying the Clinton team thought her records would be preserved because her private emails usually went to other government email accounts, but that was mistaken.

16 of 48

Former President Bill Clinton was less apologetic, strongly dismissing Comey's and the FBI's criticism of his wife. "This is the biggest load of bull I ever heard," he said a few weeks ago.

A retired federal prosecutor told Circa the FBI and DOJ could easily have brought a case if the evidence pointed toward intentional violations.

"If you get enough instances of people violating the Federal Records Act and if it's a group of folks then you could look at things like a conspiracy, or a criminal enterprise, that could bump it up to a felony," he said.

17 of 48

Matt Whitaker, who served as U.S. Attorney for Iowa under President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama and now runs a conservative-leaning government ethics group, had this to say:

"There are a lot of intentional acts, including the setting up of the private email server, that probably could go to a question of was this intentional and was this violation of both the records act and the handling of classified material."

18 of 48 

Whitaker said he believes a special prosecutor should be appointed to review the Records Act questions because "in this political silly season it appears that the FBI and especially the Department of Justice doesn't have the stomach to pursue the potential charges that emanate from this behavior."

19 of 48

Ronald Hosko, who retired two years ago as the Assistant FBI Director in charge of the bureau's criminal division, agreed Mrs. Clinton's actions at the State Department showed a disregard for her obligation to preserve and protect sensitive government information.

He said such responsibilities were "taken seriously" inside the FBI but that "does not appear to be the case in the State Department under Hillary Clinton. To me, this was a systemic failure at State, top to bottom."

20 of 48

The FBI's former criminal division chief said the State Department email scandal was a "systemic failure."

21 of 48

But Hosko said a misdemeanor case wouldn't be sexy enough for the FBI -- stretched by higher terrorism, organized crime and cybersecurity priorities -- to pursue, especially against a candidate leading the presidential race right now in a polarizing election. "The FBI is an agency with finite resources. Seldom do you expend resources when the top available penalty is a misdemeanor," he said. I'm not saying you don't consider it or contemplate it. I would say you contemplate it if the facts are so compelling and the intent is so overwhelmingly clear, that her desire was to violate that statute. 

22 of 48

"But we are in a hyper-politicized time in America. Would the electorate take to that? You have to take that all into consideration."

Sources directly familiar with the FBI's thinking said the bureau was not concerned about the election and did make a short reference to Federal Records Act issues in its final report to the Justice Department.

23 of 48

But it chose to defer to State to decide if criminal charges should be filed. "It's their records and their determination to make," one source said, describing the philosophy that governed the FBI's final decision.

In a non-investigative report in June, the State Department's internal watchdog concluded Mrs. Clinton was one of only three senior department officials in the last two decades to use a private email account exclusively for government business and that her team did not comply with the record-keeping policies of the Federal Records Act.

24 of 48

Douglas Welty, a spokesman for the State IG, said Thursday the office has no further work planned on the Clinton email scandal. "The OIG has completed its work. The OIG does not comment on whether or not it has referred, or will refer, any particular matter to DOJ," he wrote in an email to Circa.

State Department officials declined comment.

25 of 48

The Federal Records Act was passed by Congress 66 years ago to ensure federal agencies properly managed and maintained government records so they are preserved for historical purposes at the National Archives and for public access and congressional oversight.

The law was updated by lawmakers in 2014, legislation that President Obama himself signed.
26 of 48

Since the mid-1990s, the State Department has made clear to its employees that emails were public records covered by the Act, even those sent on their private accounts.

In 2009, State employees were instructed if they used personal email for work they had an obligation to upload the emails to a special system called SMART to preserve the records.

27 of 48

Much of the focus during the presidential race has been on the more than 100 emails that moved between Mrs. Clinton and her top aides that contained intelligence classified at the confidential, secret and top-secret level at the time it was transmitted.

Comey announced earlier this summer that Mrs. Clinton's and her staff's handling of intelligence was "extremely careless" but the bureau decided not to request criminal charges for violating national security laws because agents found insufficient evidence of intent and motive.

28 of 48

After her private email system was discovered, Mrs. Clinton eventually turned over 55,000 pages from about 30,000 emails involving State Department work.

But FBI officials recovered about 15,000 additional emails on her private account that involved government business by sweeping her old devices and servers or scouring the government emails of other people she corresponded with.

29 of 48

"There was plenty of evidence from our interviews, especially from technical and compliance staff, as to the intention of creating a private email system outside the State Department's record keeping. It was well known, and it persisted even after people raised legal and security concerns," one source told Circa.

30 of 48

At least one witness in the technical community involved in setting up, maintaining or wiping Clinton's email equipment was concerned enough about their legal liability under federal records laws to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during an FBI interview, sources said. 

31 of 48

Hosko said if there is compelling evidence of intent to evade the law, the FBI could consider recommending misdemeanor charges. 

32 of 38

Among the strongest evidence gathered by investigators occurred in late 2010, when Mrs. Clinton was directly approached by one of her top deputies and informed that her government emails from her private account were not reaching State Department officials and possibly were going to spam. Mrs. Clinton was encouraged to get an official State email address.

Mrs. Clinton told her deputy she was willing to get a govermment email address if she could be assured her personal emails wouldn't be "accessible" to the public. 

33 of 48

Rather than create the government email address, State officials went to a technical person maintaining her private server and made adjustments to the server to ensure emails wouldn't be treated by the agency's email screening systems as spam, the sources said.

34 of 48

Around the same time, two information management employees inside State began raising concerns that material in Clinton's personal email server likely contained government records that needed to be preserved under the Federal Records Act.

One raised the concern to a supervisor at a staff meeting but was scolded and eventually told never to raise the issue of Secretary Clinton's personal email account again, according to the sources.

35 of 48

Agents also found evidence Mrs. Clinton herself was acutely aware of the security and legal dangers of using her private Blackberry to conduct government business. For instance:

-In 2009, Mrs. Clinton and her chief of staff were briefed in a classified memo from the Assistant Secratary for Diplomatic Security on the security dangers of private Blackberry service and the secretary of state responded to that official a few days later that she "gets it."

36 of 48

-Mrs. Clinton received a second classified email in March 2011 about foreign government hacking attempts specifically aimed at State Department officials. The memo included this warning: "We also urge Department users to minimize the use of personal Web email for business" citing evidence of "compromised home systems." A version of that briefing was found in Mrs. Clinton's personal files at State. 
37 of 48

-In June 2011, a cable entitled "securing personal email accounts" was sent to all U.S. diplomatic posts worldwide under Clinton's own name that highlighted growing cybersecurity threats and specifically warned "to avoid conducting official department business from your personal email accounts."

-By that time, officials maintaining Mrs. Clinton's private email server had detected attempts to hack into it but still she persisted in using the private email to conduct government business.

38 of 48

Agents also found evidence hinting at a possible motive for Clinton's team to maintain a private email server: a fear records could be obtained by the public via FOIA if they were moved to a government system.

39 of 48

In 2011, shortly after the information management staff raised concerns about her private email, Clinton's top aides discussed replacing her private Blackberry with a government-owned device, but that idea was scrapped after a top aide warned the materials on the government Blackberry would be subject to FOIA.

"You should be aware that any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and be subject to FOIA searches," a top State official warned.

The government Blackberry was never issued.

40 of 48

When Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff, was recently deposed in a civil lawsuit over FOIA practices brought by the watchdog group Judicial Watch, she admitted that State Department FOIA officers would not have had access to Mrs. Clinton's private email to search for responsive records.

We are probably seeing more of Secretary Clinton's emails now than we would have if they had actually been stored at State Department...

— Patrice McDermott

41 of 48

"No is the answer," Mills testified. "I don't think I reflected on were there occasions where there might still be something with respect to a personal e-mail where someone had either emailed me or I had responded back or the system had been down and we ultimately needed to use it, that there was information that hadn't been captured. And I wish it had."

42 of 48

But it's not just the State Department. Experts say the federal government as a whole has a serious problem when it comes to maintaining electronic records.

Patrice McDermott, executive director of the non-partisan OpentheGovernment.org, told Circa that federal agencies have largely failed to preserve electronic records since the government switched to emails in the 1980s. That's nearly four decades of records that, for the most part, haven't been fully archived.

43 of 48

Regret for lost government records isn't new to the Clinton political machine. Both Mills and Mrs. Clinton were mentioned in a lawsuit in the late 1990s during Bill Clinton's presidency over the loss of more than 1 million White House emails that were not saved for FOIA, congressional or criminal investigations.

The Clinton White House blamed a technical error for the loss of the records.

44 of 48

But subsequent litigation by the Judicial Watch group found evidence that a White House official disabled the archiving function for White House emails.

A federal judge sharply criticized the Clinton White House for what he called a "fiasco" and singled out Mills, who had been a deputy White House counsel for Bill Clinton, for having "failed miserably" to resolve the problem or give the court accurate information.

45 of 48

In another embarrassment, Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser and a longtime confidant of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, was caught a decade ago trying to secret classified information about terrorism out of the National Archives in his socks.

 He pleaded guilty and apologized. Berger died last December after a brief illness.

46 of 48

But Republicans have had their fair share of records act violations too. Most famously in the late 1980s, Fawn Hall, secretary to Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North -- one of President Ronald Reagan's national security advisers -- smuggled documents related to the Iran-Contra affair out of the White House in her boots and shredded them.

And Clinton is not even the first secretary of state to use a private email account. George W. Bush's secretary Colin Powell had one too.

47 of 48

Whether Secretary Clinton's deleted her emails with the intention of evading records laws or not, the FBI and other experts agree conducting government business on a private email account was reckless.

"It was irresponsible of state to let her do it," McDermott said. "I know it's difficult to manage the head of your agency and tell her she can't do something. But, the attorneys should have told her she can't do this."

48 of 48