[Bloomberg] In late December, Kathy Machir called Marcela Zavala Taylor, her banker of nine years at Mexico’s Monex Casa de Bolsa, to get cash for contractors building her retirement home in San Miguel de Allende. Typically, Zavala would wire money or dispatch her assistant, Juan, on his motorcycle with an envelope full of pesos. Monex, with $5.2 billion in assets and operations in the U.S., was woven into the lives of Machir and the 10,000 other Americans who’ve moved to San Miguel de Allende.
The transfer didn’t happen. Juan didn’t show, Zavala didn’t return calls, and Kathy and Jim Machir discovered that their nest egg was gone. When the Machirs and other San Miguel expatriates met with Monex officials in early January, the bankers told some of them that about $40 million was missing from as many as 158 accounts, many belonging to English-speaking Americans. A dozen people interviewed by Bloomberg News say that bank statements Zavala sent them purporting to show full accounts were apparently falsified. Most say the bank has told them little since they filed complaints, and some say Monex tried to settle for far less than the balances owed. "When they told us we had 6 pesos [32¢] in our accounts, I just felt sick to my stomach," Kathy Machir says. "Since then, they have not dealt with us in good faith."
The scandal has upended the expatriate community in San Miguel, a city of 69,000 about 500 miles south of McAllen, Texas. Mostly retirees, they have to navigate a society with fewer legal and financial protections than they’d get in the U.S. Fraud is becoming more common, says Kevin Carr, founder of financial technology firm Finiden in Washington, D.C., and formerly the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s primary representative in Mexico. "Mexican authorities try to prosecute these cases but often aren’t successful." In 2018 there were 7.3 million complaints of fraud involving 18.9 billion pesos, about $1 billion, according to Condusef, Mexico’s consumer protection agency. That’s more than double the number of claims in 2014
[Townhall] The entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was always implausible.
One, the Washington swamp of fixers such as Paul Manafort and John and Tony Podesta was mostly bipartisan and predated Trump.
Two, the Trump administration's Russia policies were far tougher on Vladimir Putin than were those of Barack Obama. Trump confronted Russia in Syria, upped defense spending, increased sanctions and kept the price of oil down through massive new U.S. energy production. He did not engineer a Russian "reset" or get caught on a hot mic offering a self-interested hiatus in tensions with Russia in order to help his own re-election bid.
Three, Russia has a long history of trying to warp U.S. elections that both predated Trump and earned only prior lukewarm pushback from the Obama administration.
It's also worth remembering that President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had been recipients of Russian and Russian-related largesse -- ostensibly because Hillary Clinton had used her influence as Secretary of State under Obama to ease resistance to Russian acquisitions of North American uranium holdings.
[Hot Air] Attorney General Barr gave a speech to the American Law Institute Tuesday on the topic of nationwide injunctions. As Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.
Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.
Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. And I would point out that the only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court‐the so-called "travel ban" challenge‐ended with President’s policy being upheld.
Barr went on to say that he wasn’t interested in arguing about specific policies. He wanted instead to argue that the use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:
Agreed, District courts shouldn't have authority outside their district, but there needs to be a mechanism to immediately challenge onerous or un-Constitutional laws and executive decrees with a nation-wide impact such as, oh, let's say, President Kamala outlaws AR's.
Suggest they go directly to Supremes, who can refuse the challenge, or issue a nation-wide stay pending hearing or skip the stay if they think the question needs adjudication but don't think it'll carry the day.
The Dems have to remember that all that they push so hard now such as impeachment, phony kangaroo courts and political lynchings, and nationawide injunctions will come back to haunt them. I don't see a good ending to this.
[American Thinker] In a book from the 1950s entitled And Not a Shot is Fired: How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism, Jan Kozak, a Czech Communist, explains how Czechoslovakia was transformed from a free country into a communist dictatorship in 1948 without armed revolution taking place. They voted the communists in and, once they had a taste of power, they held on to it for 40 years. That would not be possible in the United States, right? After all, President Trump has said America will never be a socialist country. Let’s take a look at something happening now that may make you wonder.
The 1948 Czechoslovakia model uses the voting booth to obtain power. To do that they need voters. Here’s one way to get truckloads of new voters. Immigrants who become citizens vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Table 4 from this Center for Immigration Reform link shows voter changes as immigrant population increases in 25 U.S. cities. It gives a pretty good reason why Democrats want more immigrants. They result in Democratic election wins.
Step one of the plan is to recruit voters. Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders for you English speakers out there) is a nonprofit group based in Chicago. Glenn Beck gives a good summary of the group, its primary organizers, and some of its activities in this video if you’d like to know more about them.
PSF advertises in Honduras and Guatemala for people who would be interested in coming to the United States to live. That would be a hard sell, wouldn’t it? They then help organize and finance the "caravans" that march 1000 miles across Mexico and end up at our southern border. And you thought it was all a spontaneous.
Ilhan was voted into Congress with over 70% votes in her favor. The majority of those votes were believed not to be Somali, but were sub saharan africa immigrants in her district. These immigrants are highly organized as members of major local organizations who provide them social services and were influential in her election
[Hot Air] Remember John Walker Lindh? One of America’s first detainees in the war on terror walked out of prison today after serving seventeen years of a 20-year sentence for terrorism. Reports that Lindh spent time in prison evangelizing for violent Islamist radicalism has some questioning why the federal government let him out ever:
John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban" whose capture in Afghanistan riveted a country in the early days after the September 11 attacks, has been released from prison.
After serving 17 years of a 20-year sentence, Lindh, the first US-born detainee in the war on terror, on Thursday walked out of a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, and will join the small, but growing, group of Americans convicted of terror-related charges attempting to re-enter into society.
Lindh will live in Virginia subject to the direction of his probation officer, his lawyer, Bill Cummings, tells CNN. But some are already calling for an investigation into his time in prison ‐ where he is said in two US government reports to have made pro-ISIS and other extremist statements ‐ that could send him back into detention.
Reports of Lindh’s maintained radicalization, detailed in two 2017 official counterterrorism assessments, are also driving questions about the efforts of the US government to rehabilitate former sympathizers like him, who are expected to complete prison sentences in waves in the coming years.
Lindh’s behavior must have been particularly good, at least from the prison system point of view. Federal guidelines require prisoners to serve at least 85% of their sentence regardless of their disposition while incarcerated, and that’s precisely what Lindh served. Even so, Lindh would have been released no later than three years from now regardless of his behavior, unless he committed other prosecutable crimes while in prison.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/23/2019 19:04 Comments ||
We're still at war after the American Taliban finished his 20 year prison sentence. Jesus.
Wrong deity, Mr. McCoy. It’s Allah, and they’re still at war.. Not just with us, but with everyone who hasn’t submitted, everywhere in the world that they can reach. One hopes that the significant reduction in oil revenues will start to make a difference soon, but given that local groups tend to specialize in narcotics growth and transport, kidnapping, and other crimes, they tend to be mostly self-financing, while returning jihadis from Iraq/Syria and organized cross-training for cadres takes care of locals skills deficits, now that the Soviet Union isn’t providing that aspect of things.
[Free Beacon] A federal investigation into a nationwide program to secure America's top cities from a mass terror attack has found that the Department of Homeland Security has not adequately tracked local progress in detecting threats and cannot provide assurances that cities participating in the program can sustain efforts to thwart terror attacks.
Since June 2018, several large cities have received nearly $145 million in federal dollars to purchase detection equipment and other devices that could help local law enforcement detect nuclear and radiological materials, which the federal government has deemed a top national security matter.
However, DHS‐which operates the program‐has not adequately tracked how dollars are spent, nor has the agency developed methods to ensure that these key cities can sustain detection efforts aimed at stopping a weapon of mass destruction if a terrorist deployed it.
With the Trump administration's Justice Department charging would-be terrorists in the United States at a quickening rate, detection efforts have become all the more important for major cities. Federal investigators are now warning DHS that it must make a greater effort to help these cities sustain their threat detection abilities.
"DHS does not have assurance that cities can sustain threat detection and deterrence capabilities gained through the" Securing the Cities program, also known as STC, according to a new report issued by federal oversight investigators. "DHS has not enforced planning requirements for sustaining those capabilities and has taken limited action to help cities do so, although encouraging sustainment is one of its primary program goals."
Federal Efforts to Secure Key Cities From Mass Terror Attack Found Faulty
...This is my shocked face.
It's all theater, no more and no less. I've said for years that when the next big attack happens, we'll have video of the perp(s) passing right through one checkpoint or another, the emergency gear will be non-functional if it's there at all, and we'll have paperwork showing that lots of people got lots of money to insure otherwise.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
05/23/2019 6:05 Comments ||
This is the answer to the perennial question "Where's the graft in that?".
It's also the answer to how do we increase the graft available.
[American Thinker] In order to have a rational discussion about abortion, it is best to begin with areas of agreement. The simple truths presented here are not intended to solve all disagreements about abortion, but to provide the foundation for a rational discussion.
After conception, the life developing inside a pregnant woman is human. It has human DNA. It is not a spider, dog or any other species of animal, other than human. Paul Stark’s article for a pro-life organization provides a fuller discussion. The human is very undeveloped at conception, and some may have arguments about why an undeveloped or partially developed human has a lesser right to life than a fully developed human. However, it is wrong to consider it anything other than human. Whether or not it satisfies the legal definition of "person" as that word is used in the United States Constitution, it is a human life.
The argument that a woman has a right to control her own body does not fully resolve the debate because it ignores the other human body involved. The pre-born human has rights also. Some may have arguments about why the woman’s rights predominate, but a complete resolution of the debate must take account of the rights of the pre-born human.
The argument that a woman has a right to control her own body does not fully resolve the debate because it ignores the other human body involved.
That has to be one of the most narcissistic and weakest arguments by the pro-killing crowd. The woman should have controlled her body before she engaged in sex. The guy who got her pregnant has a responsibility here too.
[The Federalist] According to legend, Galileo defiantly muttered "and yet it moves" after the Inquisition forced him to abjure his Copernican views. Although unverified, this story became a popular anecdote in the history of science, giving voice to the passionate love for inquiry and truth, even in the face of dogmatic threats of violence.
If the transgender movement has its way, we shall soon see many more like Galileo, forced by today’s ideologues and inquisitions to deny the plain truth of science and reason. For example, Ray Blanchard, a leading researcher on human sexuality, was recently suspended from Twitter for the clinically correct statement that "Transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder." After an outcry, his account was restored, but the message had already been sent‐thoughtcrime will be punished, even, perhaps especially, if it is true.
This might be dismissed as another Twitter tempest in a teapot, were it not part of a trend of trans activists targeting scientists and researchers who reach politically inconvenient conclusions. Another respected researcher, Kenneth Zucker, was defamed and wrongly fired when trans activists smeared him. Lisa Littman, whose qualitative research identified the phenomenon of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, was vilified and lost a consulting position.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.