Friday, March 31, 2017




Fencing Along the Southwest Border

Full Committee Hearing

Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building


  • David Aguilar
    Former Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  • Ronald Colburn
    Former Deputy Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol at U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  • Terence M. Garrett, Ph.D.
    Professor and Chair, Public Affairs and Security Studies Department
    The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley


The Immigration Court's Institutional Hearing Program: How Will It Be Affected ... 

Special Immigration Court hearings under the court's Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) appear slated for expansion under President Trump. A new directive, signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Monday, February 20, provides that "to the maximum extent possible" removal proceedings be initiated against noncitizens currently "incarcerated in federal, state, and local correctional facilities."

Such court removal proceedings are carried out through the Department of Justice's Institutional Hearing Program within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Through this program, immigration judges determine whether noncitizens are deportable while they are still incarcerated and serving their sentence.
Figure 1. IHP Cases by Correctional Facility Type

The IHP program has been in existence for over 35 years. An analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University of case-by-case court records show that under previous presidents more than 200,000 individuals have been processed through this program. Fully 70 percent of these IHP proceedings were at state correctional facilities, and 27 percent were at federal facilities. The remaining 3 percent were at municipal or county correctional facilities. See Figure 1.

To conduct IHP court hearings, immigration judges either traveled to these prison facilities, or the hearing was conducted by videoconference. If a judge determined that a removal order was warranted, then that person was released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and deported. Deportation occurred after the individual's prison sentence was completed, or sometimes earlier through special arrangement with the correctional facility.
Tracing the Growth and Fall in IHP Court Hearings

IHP court records over the last three decades trace both a dramatic growth and then precipitous fall in the number of individuals handled through this system. These trends may prove instructive in helping to assess the impact of this new DHS directive on the court's workload.

Initially started at federal prisons and then expanded to state facilities, in the late 1980s a dramatic upsurge began in the IHP's caseload. Figure 2 plots the annual number of IHP cases concluded at federal, state, and municipal correctional facilities from FY 1980 through FY 2016. (For detailed numbers, see the Appendix Table.)
Figure 2. IHP Cases by Correctional Facility Type, FY 1980 - FY 2016

After this period of sharp IHP growth, the implementation of new immigration legislation - the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) -- caused an abrupt change in these trends. Under IIRIRA, the Immigration and Naturalization Service - now absorbed into Homeland Security -- was given new authority to bypass the Immigration Courts[1].

First, immigration officers were able to reinstate prior orders of removal directly instead of have this handled by immigration judges. A second new provision allowed the federal government to administratively order the removal of most noncitizens convicted of what were defined as aggravated felonies[2], again without any court involvement. Under this provision, only lawful permanent residents were afforded a court hearing.

These two legislative changes caused the number of IHP cases to drop dramatically, particularly at state facilities. See Figure 2. It was no longer necessary for the court to become involved in order to deport many of these incarcerated individuals.

After IHP workloads peaked in FY 1997 and then dropped sharply, caseloads leveled off for a short time. Around 2005 their numbers for a variety of reasons began a slower but more general decline.

But wait that's not all ... look at the costs for illegals in the country. <-- i="" nbsp="">click to see the hidden impact financially for all of the us.  For example: 
One report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.


As the past history of IHP demonstrates, there are competing forces that impact IHP caseloads. Caseloads increase when more correctional facilities are added to the program. A possible source for future increase might be if more city and county facilities not currently covered are added.

Workloads increase further if more inmates at correctional facilities are targeted for deportation. This might happen were some inmate offenses not in the past considered serious enough to be a priority, are now considered a priority.

The overriding influence, however, will likely be the extent to which the administration is able to substitute administrative processes to bypass the need for a court hearing. The directive commands that such administrative procedures "shall be used in all eligible cases."

The net impact of these countervailing forces on the Immigration Court's IHP caseload levels will only become clearer once more details emerge about how these provisions actually will be implemented.


[1] In addition to the two provisions mentioned above, IIRIRA also gives DHS "expedited removal" authority. Other parts of this DHS February 20 directive call for greatly expanded use of this authority.

[2] For further information on these new provisions covering so-called aggravated felons, see TRAC June 2006 and January 2007 reports.

Appendix Table. Immigration Court Institutional Hearing Program Cases Concluded by Facility Type


Thursday, March 30, 2017



Outlawing microchipping humans not so far fetched, Nevada senator says ...

CARSON CITY — State Sen. Becky Harris said a bill to prohibit forced microchipping of people is not as far-fetched as it might seem because it happens in some places around the world. 
Senate Bill 109 would make it a Class C felony to require someone to be implanted with a radio frequency identifier, such as microchips placed in pets.
The idea for the bill came from a constituent, the Las Vegas Republican said.

“As I began to look into the issue I was surprised with the merit that I believe the issue warrants,” Harris told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.
She said sales of radio frequency identifiers are escalating around the world, and a company in Australia as of June 2016 sold more than 10,000 implantable chips with do-it-yourself kits.
“Each kit costs about $100 and includes a tag and an injection tool,” Harris said.

The Wall Street Journal has reported an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 chips have been sold globally, she said.
Harris said the technology is used by companies in Belgium and Sweden to identify employees.
“It’s done under the idea to unlock doors or use copy machines or maybe pay for lunch, you could use your hand,” she said.
Besides privacy concerns, Harris said the concept raises ethical questions, such as who owns the chip or the information contained on it. And how does someone get “de-chipped” if they are no longer employed by the company that required it.

She also wondered if a chip could be hacked to harass or stalk someone.

Harris said the Nevada bill is modeled after legislation passed by at least 10 other states.

“It wouldn’t prohibit the voluntary decision of a person to be microchipped,” she said, adding that a nightclub in Europe offers microchipping to customers so the establishment can provide tailored service.

There was no total opposition to the bill, though some witnesses said the technology could help patients with dementia.

“Some Alzheimer’s patients wander away,” said Jonathan Friedrich of Las Vegas, adding the technology could be used to help find them quickly.

State Sen. Don Gustavson questioned whether military pilots are microchipped so rescuers can find them if aircraft crash or are shot down.

IBM and the Holocaust

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation is a book by investigative journalist Edwin Black which details the business dealings of the American-based multinational corporation International Business Machines (IBM) and its German and other European subsidiaries with the government of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s and the years of World War II. In the book, Black outlines the way in which IBM's technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide through generation and tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data.[1]

In the early 1880s, Herman Hollerith (1860–1929), a young employee at the U.S. Census Bureau, conceived of the idea of creating readable cards with standardized perforations, each representing specific individual traits such as gender, nationality, and occupation. The millions of punched cards created for the population counted in the national census could then be sorted on the basis of specific bits of information they contained—thereby providing a quantified portrait of the nation and its citizens.[2] In 1910, the German licensee Willy Heidinger established the Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft (German Hollerith Machine Corporation), known by the acronym "Dehomag."[3] The next year, Hollerith sold his American business to industrialist Charles Flint (1850–1934) for $1.41 million ($34 million in 2012 dollars).[4] The counting machine operation was made part of a new conglomerate called the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR).[4] Flint chose Thomas J. Watson (1874–1956), the star salesman of the National Cash Register Corporation, to head the new operation.[5] The German licensee Dehomag later became a direct subsidiary of the American corporation CTR.[6] In 1924, Watson assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer of CTR and renamed the company International Business Machines (IBM).

Black details the ongoing business relationship between Watson's IBM and the emerging German regime headed by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler came to power in January 1933; on March 20 of that same year he established a concentration camp for political prisoners in the Bavarian town of Dachau, just outside the city of Munich. Repression against political opponents and the country's substantial ethnic Jewish population began at once. By April 1933, some 60,000 had been imprisoned.[7] Business relations between IBM and the Hitler regime continued uninterrupted in the face of broad international calls for an economic boycott.[8] Willy Heidinger, who remained in control of Dehomag, the 90%-owned German subsidiary of IBM, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.[9]

On April 12, 1933, the German government announced plans to conduct a long-delayed national census.[10] The project was particularly important to the Nazis as a mechanism for the identification of Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic groups deemed undesirable by the regime. Dehomag offered to assist the German government in its task of ethnic identification, concentrating upon the 41 million residents of Prussia.[11] This activity was not only countenanced by Thomas Watson and IBM in America, Black argues, but was actively encouraged and financially supported, with Watson himself traveling to Germany in October 1933 and the company ramping up its investment in its German subsidiary from 400,000 to 7,000,000 Reichsmark—about $1 million.[12] This injection of American capital allowed Dehomag to purchase land in Berlin and to construct IBM's first factory in Germany, Black charges, thereby "tooling up for what it correctly saw as a massive financial relationship with the Hitler regime."[12]

Black also asserts that a "secret deal" was made between Heidinger and Watson during the latter's visit to Germany which allowed Dehomag commercial powers outside of Germany, enabling the "now Nazified" company to "circumvent and supplant" various national subsidiaries and licensees by "soliciting and delivering punch card solution technology directly to IBM customers in those territories."[13] As a result, Nazi Germany soon became the second most important customer of IBM after the lucrative US market.[14] The 1933 census, with design help and tabulation services provided by IBM through its German subsidiary, proved to be pivotal to the Nazis in their efforts to identify, isolate, and ultimately destroy the country's Jewish minority. Machine-tabulated census data greatly expanded the estimated number of Jews in Germany by identifying individuals with only one or a few Jewish ancestors. Previous estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 were abandoned for a new estimate of 2 million Jews in the nation of 65 million.[15]

As the Nazi war machine occupied successive nations of Europe, capitulation was followed by a census of the population of each subjugated nation, with an eye to the identification and isolation of Jews and Gypsies. These census operations were intimately intertwined with technology and cards supplied by IBM's German and new Polish subsidiaries, which were awarded specific sales territories in Poland by decision of the New York office following Germany's successful Blitzkrieg invasion.[16] Data generated by means of counting and alphabetization equipment supplied by IBM through its German and other national subsidiaries was instrumental in the efforts of the German government to concentrate and ultimately destroy ethnic Jewish populations across Europe, Black demonstrates.[17] Black reports that every Nazi concentration camp maintained its own Hollerith-Abteilung(Hollerith Department), assigned with keeping tabs on inmates through use of IBM's punchcard technology.[18] In his book, Black charges that "without IBM's machinery, continuing upkeep and service, as well as the supply of punch cards, whether located on-site or off-site, Hitler's camps could have never managed the numbers they did."[19]
Company response

While IBM has never directly denied any of the evidence posed by the book, it has criticized Black's research methodology and accusatory conclusions.[20] IBM claims it does not have any other information about the company during its World War II period or the operations of Dehomag, as it argues most documents were destroyed or lost during the war. IBM also claimed that an earlier dismissed lawsuit was filed to coincide with the book launch.[21]

In 2002, IBM rejected Edwin Black's claim that IBM was hiding information and records regarding its World War II era.[22] However, IBM later turned over a substantial portion of its corporate records of the period to academic archives in New York and Stuttgart, for review by independent scholars.[23]

In an article published in George Mason University's History News Network Edwin Black accused IBM advocates of systematic censorship of IBM's role in the Holocaust in the Wikipedia article History of IBM.[24]
Critical response

Newsweek called the book "explosive" adding, "backed by exhaustive research, Black's case is simple and stunning." In 2003, the American Society of Journalists and Authorsacknowledged IBM and the Holocaust with its award for Best Non-Fiction Book of the Year.[25]

However, Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."[26] IBM quoted this claim in a March 2002 press release "Addendum to IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit".[22]
Legal actions

In February 2001, an Alien Tort Claims Act claim was filed in U.S. federal court against IBM for allegedly providing the punched card technology that facilitated the Holocaust, and for covering up German IBM subsidiary Dehomag's activities. In April 2001, the lawsuit was dropped. Lawyers said they feared proceeding with the suit would slow down payments from a special German Holocaust fund created to compensate forced laborers and others who had suffered due to the Nazi persecution. IBM's German division paid $3 million into the fund, although the corporation made clear that it was not admitting liability with its contribution.[27]

In 2004, the human rights organization Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation Action (GIRCA) filed suit against IBM in Switzerland. However, the case was dismissed in 2006 due to an expiration of time under the statute of limitations.[28]
See also
List of international subsidiaries of IBM
Identification in Nazi camps
Final Solution

^ Preston, Peter (February 18, 2001). "Six million and counting". The Observer. Retrieved June 14, 2001.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 25.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 30.
^ a b Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 31.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pp. 38–39.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 44.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pp. 44–45.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 45.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 50.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 54.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 55.
^ a b Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 60.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 61.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 111.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 110.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 193.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 198.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 351.
^ Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 352.
^ Michael J. Bazyler, Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America's Courts.New York: New York University Press, 2005; pg. 303.
^ IBM Press Room (February 14, 2001). "IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit". Press Release. Armonk, New York.
^ a b IBM Press Room (March 29, 2002). "Addendum to IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit". Press Release. Armonk, New York.
^ Grace, Francie (March 27, 2002). "IBM And Nazi Germany: Researcher Has New Documents On World War II Conduct". CBS News.
^ Edwin Black. Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge. History News Network. [1]
^ ASJA Award Recipients, American Society of Journalists and Authors. Retrieved July 16, 2010.
^ Bernstein, Richard (March 7, 2001). "'IBM and the Holocaust': Assessing the Culpability". Arts section. The New York Times.
^ Ramasastry, Anita (July 8, 2004). "A Swiss court allows Gypsies' Holocaust lawsuit to proceed, Case questions role of corporate giant IBM in World War II". Law Center, Find Law.
^ Sydney Morning Herald staff (August 19, 2006). "Swiss high court rejects Gypsy Holocaust suit versus IBM, cites time limit". The Sydney Morning Herald. AP Digital. Retrieved April 13, 2010.
External links
IBM and the Holocaust Official Website, Retrieved July 16, 2010.
Excerpt from "IBM and the Holocaust" with photo of Hollerith machine, Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved July 16, 2010.


McCain: World 'cries out' for US and EU leadership
BRUSSELS, 24. Mar, 19:25McCain: "The EU has too many bureaucrats, not much bureaucracy but it's not the only place on earth with that problem."

In a "new world order under enormous strain" and in "the titanic struggle with forces of radicalism … we can't stand by and lament, we've got to be involved," said McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate who is now chairman of the armed services committee in the US Senate.

Speaking at the Brussels Forum, a conference organised by the German Marshall Fund, a transatlantic think tank, he said that the EU and the US needed to develop "more cooperation, more connectivity".

"I trust the EU," he said, defending an opposite view from that of US president Donald Trump, who said in January that the UK "was so smart in getting out" of the EU and that Nato was "obsolete".

He said that the EU was "one of the most important alliances" for the US and that the EU and Nato were "the best two sums in history", which have maintained peace for the last 70 years.

"We need to rely on Nato and have a Nato that adjusts to new challenges," he said.

He noted that "the EU has too many bureaucrats, not much bureaucracy," but added that "it's not the only place on earth with that problem."

He said that he was "still wondering what the overall effect of Brexit will be" and that he did not know "if this is the beginning of a serious problem for the EU".

McCain also said that he supported Trump's demand that European countries increase their defence spending for Nato.
'Who drives the tweets?'

But he added that Americans should "also appreciate the fact that over 1,000 young [European] people have given their lives in Afghanistan or Iraq”.

"I don't know what price tag you put on that. That's quite a contribution I would say, if you ask their mothers," he said.

The influential senator, who admitted that he has not met Trump since the election, said it was "too early" to pass judgment on his presidency.

He said he was "very pleased" by Trump's picks for his national security team, but suggested that they were being bypassed by more ideological and less competent people.

"The question is: who does the president listen to, who drives the tweets at 6 in morning?”, he said.

Asked whether he thought that "Russia owns a significant part of the White House," he said: "I don't worry about that."

What worries him, he said, was "the Russian role in our elections", even if he admitted that he has seen "no evidence they succeeded” in affecting the outcome of last year's US vote.
'KGB thugs'

Noting that Russia was now trying to influence elections in France and in Germany, he said that if it succeeded it would be "a death warrant for democracy".

"It's an act of destruction that is certainly more lethal than dropping some bombs," he insisted.

McCain, a Russia hawk, said that Putin wanted to restore the Russian empire: “He wants the Baltics, he has taken Crimea, he's been in Ukraine."

"These are KBG thugs, my friends," he said, referring to the former Russian spy service for which Putin used to work. He added that the US needed to "respond accordingly".

He said however that there was "nothing wrong" if Trump met Putin.

"I'm not against meeting," he said, reminding the Brussels forum that US presidents met Soviet leaders during the Cold War. But he added that "the best way to go to a meeting is with a strong hand" and that was not the case for the US right now.



Trump’s Big Boo-boo!

Trump Fails to Repeal and Replace!

Stabbed in the Back by Incompetent GOP Leadership.

This past week highlighted the incongruity between Trump’s vociferous pronouncements and his inability to obtain a strategic objective. In particular, I am referring to Paul Ryan’s inability to muster a legislative majority to once and for all defeat Obamacare.

No surprise there!

Since 1999, when Ryan was elected to congress, he has accomplished nothing at all. He is not alone. For the most part, the misnamed “Freedom Caucus” is replete with verbiage and negativity. These boobs achieved their zenith of nihilism by condemning Obamacare. Yet, they were unable to make any meaningful suggestions for replacement.

The Republican Party in both the Senate and the House is replete with lazy naysayers who have done nothing for the past seven years except go on tax-sponsored boondoggles. This last Republican legislative fiasco demonstrated the underlying thesis that I have postulated for over thirty years [since treating both Senators and Congressmen], they really do nothing on the Hill except preen themselves for TV/Town Hall Showtime.

There are only a few real workhorses. None of the members of the nonsensical “Freedom Caucus” are accomplished legislators. Now, Paul Ryan must bear the responsibility for his failure to muster a majority. I will continue to decry the laziness and stupidity of these Republican Congressmen. However, the major brunt of the blame has to go to Donald Trump and his deconstructive team.

Where was His Excellency Gary Cohn, former President of Goldman Sachs and the Chief Economic Advisor and Director of the National Economic Council? 

My suspicion is that very early on in the administration, Cohn perceived that Reince Priebus and his Wisconsin cohort Paul Ryan could never develop an effective strategy to overcome the “Freedom Caucus’s” complete ignorant obstinacy.

I would say the same thing about Jared Kushner, who backed away from the health bill once he realized that the crucial issue for his father-in-law was the economy and not health. The initiative to start the Trump administration with the repeal of the Obamacare bill was both inept and quite ignorant. Trump was and will always continue to be a creature of numbers and not policy.

Whoever decided that the Trump administration should start off with Repeal/Replace and not the economy was completely bereft of strategic capability or tactical foresight. Stephen Bannon’s implementation of a political narrative that begins with ‘administrative deconstruction’ must have his pedantic verbiage redirected to more simpler statements. “It’s the economy, stupid!” From the very beginning of Trump’s administration, I have warned that there is no critical strategy/tactic for the reorganization of the federal bureaucracy overlaying both the civilian and military/intelligence components. Simply eliminating previous legislation and departments without a clear alternative is not going to work.

It would behoove this administration to bring in those individuals who have been in both the business of reorganizing large entities as well as understanding Washington politics. Trump has demonstrated he is a “fast learner” so he needs to course correct immediately.

Allow me to close with a historic saying [phrased by me in one of my novels]:

“A frantic man is one who consciously over-compensates for a secret self-doubt.”

Wednesday, March 29, 2017


How North Korea could kill 90 percent of Americans ... SO, EVEN IF THE SOUTHERN BORDER WALL COSTS $100 BILLION ... SO WHAT!!!
The mainstream media, and some officials who should know better, continue to allege North Korea does not yet have capability to deliver on its repeated threats to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons. False reassurance is given to the American people that North Korea has not “demonstrated” that it can miniaturize a nuclear warhead small enough for missile delivery, or build a reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of penetrating the atmosphere to blast a U.S. city.
Yet any nation that has built nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, as North Korea has done, can easily overcome the relatively much simpler technological challenge of warhead miniaturization and reentry vehicle design.
Indeed, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un has been photographed posing with what appears to be a genuine miniaturized nuclear warhead for ballistic missiles. And North Korea does, in fact, have two classes of ICBMs—the road mobile KN-08 and KN-14—which both appear to be equipped with sophisticated reentry vehicles.

Even if it were true that North Korea does not yet have nuclear missiles, their “Dear Leader” could deliver an atomic bomb hidden on a freighter sailing under a false flag into a U.S. port, or hire their terrorist allies to fly a nuclear 9/11 suicide mission across the unprotected border with Mexico. In this scenario, populous port cities like New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, or big cities nearest the Mexican border, like San Diego, Phoenix, Austin, and Santa Fe, would be most at risk.

A Hiroshima-type A-Bomb having a yield of 10-kilotons detonated in a major city would cause about 200,000 casualties from blast, thermal, and radiation effects. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon having an estimated yield of 20-30 kilotons. The Defense Department assesses that on January 6, 2016, North Korea may have tested components of an H-Bomb. H-Bombs are much more powerful than A-Bombs and can produce much greater casualties—millions of casualties in a big city like New York.

The notion that North Korea is testing A-Bombs and H-Bomb components, but does not yet have the sophistication to miniaturize warheads and make reentry vehicles for missile delivery is absurd.

Eight years ago, in 2008, the CIA's top East Asia analyst publicly stated North Korea successfully miniaturized nuclear warheads for delivery on its Nodong medium-range missile. The Nodong is able to strike South Korea and Japan or, if launched off a freighter, even the United States.

In 2011, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lt. General Ronald Burgess, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that North Korea has weaponized its nuclear devices into warheads for arming ballistic missiles.

  • On April 7, 2015, at a Pentagon press conference, Admiral William Gortney, then Commander of North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD), responsible for protecting the U.S. from long-range missiles, warned that the intelligence community assesses North Korea's KN-08 mobile ICBM could strike the U.S. with a nuclear warhead.

  • And on October 7, 2015, Gortney again warned the Atlantic Council: "I agree with the intelligence community that we assess that they [North Koreans] have the ability, they have the weapons, and they have the ability to miniaturize those weapons, and they have the ability to put them on a rocket that can range the [U.S.] homeland."

  • In February and March of 2015, former senior national security officials of the Reagan and Clinton administrations warned that North Korea should be regarded as capable of delivering by satellite a small nuclear warhead, specially designed to make a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States. According to the Congressional EMP Commission, a single warhead delivered by North Korean satellite could blackout the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for over a year—killing 9 of 10 Americans by starvation and societal collapse.
Two North Korean satellites, the KMS-3 and KMS-4, presently orbit over the U.S. on trajectories consistent with surprise EMP attack.

Why do the press and public officials ignore or under-report these facts? Perhaps no administration wants to acknowledge that North Korea is an existential threat on their watch.

Whatever the motives for obfuscating the North Korean nuclear threat, the need to protect the American people is immediate and urgent:

The U.S. must be prepared to preempt North Korea by any means necessary—including nuclear weapons.

Launch a crash program to harden against EMP attack the U.S. electric grid to preserve American civilization and hundreds of millions of lives. This could be part of President Trump’s infrastructure modernization project.

Beef up national missile defenses. Revive President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the unfairly derided “Star Wars.” Space-based missile defenses could still render nuclear missiles obsolete and offer a permanent, peaceful, solution to problems like North Korea.
Ambassador R. James Woolsey was the Director of Central Intelligence from 1993-95. Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, served in the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Sunday, March 26, 2017


ATF Requests Removal of Document From Public Intelligence

An unnamed representative of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has requested the removal of a document from this website. The document in question was published more than 2 years ago in January 2010 when this website was less than six months old. The document is effectively one page in length, with a cover and an information page listing a phone number and contact information. The one page of content in the document describes an incident in September 2008 when a quantity of “Magnum Ultra” explosive detonator material from a supply store in Concord, North Carolina.
This website hosts more than a dozen documents from the ATF, most of which are restricted in some fashion. It is unclear why this document was identified by the ATF as meriting a removal request, given that it contains little to no sensitive information, and there are several other ATF documents on this website that bear similar markings. The unnamed ATF representative cites the fact that the document is “law enforcement sensitive” a designation which has no legal basis and functions as an internal restriction on employees and those who have signed non-disclosure agreements with the originating organization. The ATF representative then reproduces a warning from the bottom of the document to substantiate the position that this document should be removed: “All information, analysis, data, and methodology included herein are considered official products of work, owned by the Federal Government and held for the benefit of the public. No information contained herein may be duplicated, reproduced, or disseminated without the express authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.” 
The warning is interesting in that it describes the document as property of the ATF that cannot be duplicated or reproduced without the consent of the ATF. A similar warning can be found on FBI documents, like this one“This information is the property of the FBI and may be distributed to state, tribal, or local government law enforcement officials with a need-to-know.” The problem with these assertions is that is unclear how the contents of a government document may be considered property. All works of the Federal Government and its employees in the performance of their official duties are inherently prohibited by law from copyright protection in 17 USC § 105. Most “sensitive but unclassified” government documents, such as this example from the ATF, make it clear that the “for official use only” and “law enforcement sensitive” markings only exempt a document from “mandatory disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act. Unclassified markings are not binding upon members of the general public. In fact, even classified material can legally be disseminated by members of the general public.
Subject: Please remove ATF document from your website.
From: “USBDC”
Date: 2/16/2012 11:52 AM
To: , , ,
To Whom It May Concern:
Reference is made to the below file which is posted on your web site. This is a law enforcement sensitive document. Please remove from your web site (
From the document: All information, analysis, data, and methodology included herein are considered official products of work, owned by the Federal Government and held for the benefit of the public. No information contained herein may be duplicated, reproduced, or disseminated without the express authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter,
U.S. Bomb Data Center
Phone: 1-800-461-8841
BATS Online:
The information contained in this electronic communication is intended to be sent only to the stated recipient and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the intended recipient’s agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above in connection with official business. This communication may contain Sensitive But Unclassified information that may be statutorily or otherwise prohibited from being released without appropriate approval. Any review, use, or dissemination of this e-mail message and any attached file(s) in any form outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives or the Department of Justice without express authorization is strictly prohibited.

Share this: