Category Archives: voters

Voters

Iowa caucus app firm Shadow Inc. run by ex Clinton Obama staff, Garbage in (Democrat Party) garbage out, “reporting out only partial data”

Iowa caucus app firm Shadow Inc. run by ex Clinton Obama staff, Garbage in (Democrat Party) garbage out, “reporting out only partial data”

“I discovered a pattern of corruption that the Washington press covered up for years! I’m also going to bring out a massive pay-for-play scheme under the Obama Administration that will devastate the Democrat Party. Do you honestly think I’m intimidated?”…Rudy Giuliani

“Judicial Watch Finds Millions of ‘Extra’ Registrants on Voting Rolls – Warns California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Virginia to Clean Up Voting Rolls or Face a Federal Lawsuit”…Jan 2, 2020

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

 

From Zero Hedge.

“Tech Firm Whose Half-Baked App Cocked Up Iowa Results Run By Ex-Clinton, Obama Staff

An app developed by a Democratic digital nonprofit group that botched the Iowa caucus results is run by former staffers for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Obama’s presidential campaign, as well as Google, Apple and former DNC employees.

The app was created by Shadow, Inc., which was acquired in January 2018 by the nonprofit, ACRONYM and paid $60,000 by the Democratic Party for “website development – which, according to the Huffington Post, was used to develop the app which caucus site leaders were supposed to use to upload the results at their locations. According to the Post, Shadow CEO Gerard Niemira, COO James Hickey and product manager Ahna Rao worked together on the Hillary for America campaign.

As the Washington Examiner reports, the Nevada Democratic Party also paid Shadow $58,000 for “website development.”

ACRONYM CEO Tara McGowan was notably very excited after Buttigieg announced his candidacy.”

“”While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data,” said Price. “We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system. This issue was identified and fixed.””

Read more:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tech-firm-whose-shadow-app-cocked-iowa-results-run-ex-clinton-obama-staff

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

California begins massive voter roll clean up, Notifies up to 1.5 million inactive voters, Judicial Watch 2017 lawsuit to force cleanup of Los Angeles County voter rolls

California begins massive voter roll clean up, Notifies up to 1.5 million inactive voters, Judicial Watch 2017 lawsuit to force cleanup of Los Angeles County voter rolls

“High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $.”…Podesta Wikileaks email leak

“What is your threshold for acceptable voter fraud since 1 vote can win most elections?”…Citizen Wells

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

From Judicial Watch June 19, 2019.

“California Begins Massive Voter Roll Clean-Up – Notifies Up to 1.5 Million ‘Inactive’ Voters as Part of Judicial Watch Lawsuit Settlement

Judicial Watch announced today that it has been informed that Los Angeles County has sent notices to as many as 1.5 million inactive voters on its voter rolls. This mailing is a step toward removing the names of voters who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible to vote. The massive mailing is the result of a settlement agreement with Judicial Watch requiring the County to remove as many as 1.5 million inactive registrations. In addition, the California secretary of state has alerted other California counties to clean up their voter registration lists to comply with the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), as the secretary promised to do in that same settlement agreement.

All of this is the result of a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017 to force the cleanup of Los Angeles County’s voter rolls (Judicial Watch, Inc., et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (No. 2:17-cv-08948)). Judicial Watch sued on its own behalf and on behalf of Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County. Judicial Watch was joined in this lawsuit by Election Integrity Project California, Inc., a public interest group that has long been involved in monitoring California’s voter rolls.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, voters who do not respond to the notices sent by the County and who do not vote in the next two federal elections must be removed from the voting rolls. Secretary Padilla also agreed to update the state’s online NVRA manual in order to make clear that ineligible names must be removed and to notify each California county that they are obliged to do this. On April 11, Secretary Padilla notified Judicial Watch that this part of the settlement agreement had been implemented.

The agreement also required the office of the secretary of state to send a written advisory to all county clerks/registrars of voters in California stating that current federal law requires the cancellation of a registrant who has failed to respond to an official notice and who then fails to vote, offers to vote, correct the registrar’s record, “or otherwise have their eligibility to vote confirmed for a period of time including the next two general federal elections.”

The updated California National Voter Registration Act Manual, March 2019, conforms to this standard. In April and May 2019, the California secretary of state provided a training presentation to all 58 counties in California regarding the proper list maintenance procedures under the NVRA.

As Judicial Watch previously noted, Los Angeles County has over 10 million residents, more than the populations of 41 of the 50 United States. California is America’s largest state, with almost 40 million residents. The County had allowed more than 20% of its registered voters to become inactive without removing them from the voter list.”

Read more:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/california-begins-massive-voter-roll-clean-up-notifies-up-to-1-5-million-inactive-voters-as-part-of-judicial-watch-lawsuit-settlement/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

CA state senator DeLeon admits ID fraud and should be prosecuted, Illegal aliens stealing our IDs jobs money resources and committing crimes, Alamance County NC 2008 report on illegals ID theft

CA state senator DeLeon admits ID fraud and should be prosecuted, Illegal aliens stealing our IDs jobs money resources and committing crimes, Alamance County NC 2008 report on illegals ID theft

“Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.
Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias who is a living resident of Texas.
As a post-arrest procedure, Maria Sanchez was processed under the 287G program and identified as an illegal alien. She was subsequently processed for deportation.
Sanchez was provided work notes by the Alamance County Health Department to return to work at HondaPower Equipment (this creates substantial tax implications for the real Veronica Arias who is a lawful U.S. resident/citizen).”…Alamance County NC sheriff report 2008

“What is your threshold for acceptable voter fraud since 1 vote can win most elections?”…Citizen Wells

 

Illegal aliens are stealing our IDs, jobs, money, resources and in some cases lives.

California state senator DeLeon had the audacity to admit that half of his family was here illegally and using fake IDs.

The left wants you to believe that is ok.

People like DeLeon are trying to mainstream accepting illegals as being good for the country, not doing anything wrong.

From Breitbart February 5, 2017.

“California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) said last Tuesday that “half his family” was in the country illegally, using false documents, and eligible for deportation under President Trump’s new executive order against “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

De Léon, who introduced the bill, made his remarks at a hearing in Sacramento on SB54, the bill to make California a “Sanctuary State.

He said (at 1:27:34 in the video that follows):

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.”

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/02/05/california-state-senate-leader-family-illegal-false-documents-deportation/

You can listen to Senator DeLeon here:’

http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=4107#.WJUuibp1PqY.email

Senator DeLeon, et al should be prosecuted.

I hope that Donald Trump and Mike Pence will do so.

Did the illegal members of his family vote too?

From Citizen Wells November 2, 2010.

“The following controversy in NC received brief national attention in 2008.

From the Alamance County Sheriff’s Ofice, Alamance County Health Department Investigation, 2008.
(Alamance County is just east of Greensboro)

“On Monday June 23rd, 2008 the SBI initiated an
investigation into allegations that employees of the
Alamance County Health Department specifically Dr.
Kathleen Shapley-Quinn and Nurse Karen Saxer were
knowingly and willingly falsifying patient medical
records.”
“At the request of some patients, Alamance
County Health Department provided work
notes and prescriptions in alias names.

Providing these services would assist illegal
aliens with maintaining assumed or stolen
identities, which may be a violation of state, or
federal law. (Identity Theft, Fraud, etc.)”
“The staff was divided with some believing the practice of writing
work notes (utilizing aliases) to suspected illegal aliens was wrong
and therefore they refused to do so. Subsequently they reported
feeling pressured or feared repercussions.

Others, particularly Shapely-Quinn and Saxer believed the
guidance they had sought and received was vague at best, but
believed their actions did not violate the law and they were
providing care for their patients. Furthermore, according to
them, an illegal alien can not be refused medical care.”
“On more than one occasion Nurse Karen Saxer at the
direction of Dr. Shapley-Quinn prepared or made
health related employer work notes for patients under
alias names, knowing that the names on the documents
were in fact not the birth name or legal name of the
patient.”
“Veronica Arias, of Texas, reported on May 2nd, 2008 to
the ACSO that someone in Swepsonville, NC had
stolen her identity and was using same to be employed.

Maria Sanchez was arrested on May 6, 2008 by
investigators of the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office
for stealing and using the identity of Veronica Arias.

Sanchez used the name, SSN, DOB, of Veronica Arias
who is a living resident of Texas.”

https://citizenwells.com/2010/11/02/nc-voter-fraud-update-voting-machine-errors-nc-gop-lawsuit-status-voter-registration-issues/

https://www.scribd.com/document/338655969/Alamance-County-NC-Sheriff-Terry-Johnson-2008-report-on-illegal-aliens-and-ID-fraud

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Vice President Mike Pence voter fraud commission revealed in Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl interview, Transcript, “take a look at the registration”, Dead people illegals non citizens are on registration rolls

Vice President Mike Pence voter fraud commission revealed in Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl interview, Transcript, “take a look at the registration”, Dead people illegals non citizens are on registration rolls

“What is your threshold for acceptable voter fraud since 1 vote can win most elections?”…Citizen Wells

“North Carolina is the latest state featured by Project Veritas in its series on how America’s electoral system is extremely vulnerable to voter fraud. During last week’s North Carolina primary, James O’Keefe and his colleagues demonstrated how easy it is to obtain ballots even if the person has publicly professed not to be a U.S. citizen.”
O’Keefe also tells WND about his group’s visit to the University of North Carolina, where a dean and a program director laugh off confessions of voter fraud and even seem to encourage it. Yet a day later, both officials tell conservatives that voter fraud never happens.”…WND May 15, 2012

“High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $.”…Podesta Wikileaks email leak

 

 

Voter fraud is real and widespread.

Even the Democrats were concerned about it as revealed in a Podesta email leak.

Donald Trump is setting up a voter fraud commission headed by Vice President Mike Pence.

From the transcript of the Trump Bill O’Reilly Super Bowl interview Sunday, February 5, 2017.

“O’Reilly: Let’s turn to domestic policy. I just spent the week in California. As you know, they are now voting on whether they should become a sanctuary state. So California, and the USA, are on a collision course. How do you see it?

Trump: Well, I think it’s ridiculous. Sanctuary cities, as you know, I’m very much opposed to sanctuary cities. They breed crime, there’s a lot of problems. If we have to, we’ll defund. We give tremendous amounts of money to California — California in many ways is out of control, as you know. Obviously the voters agree, otherwise they wouldn’t have voted for me.

O’Reilly: So defunding is your weapon of choice?

Trump: Well it’s a weapon. I don’t want to defund a state, a city.

O’Reilly: But you’re willing to do it?

Trump: I don’t want to defund anyone. I want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or state. If they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.

O’Reilly: Is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things you can’t back up factually, and as the president, if you say, for example, that there are 3 million illegal aliens who voted and then you don’t have the data to back it up, some people are gonna say that it’s irresponsible for a president to say that. Is there any validity to that?

Trump: Many people have come out and said I’m right. You know that.

O’Reilly: I know, but you’ve gotta have data to back that up.

Trump: Let me just tell you. And it doesn’t have to do with the vote, although that’s the end result. It has to do with the registration. And when you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states that voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens, and they’re on the registration rolls. Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this. It’s really a bad situation. It’s really bad.

O’Reilly: So you think you’re gonna be proven correct in that statement?

Trump: Well, I think I already have. A lot of people have come out and said that I am correct.

O’Reilly: But the data has to show that 3 million illegals voted.

Trump: Forget that. Forget all of that. Just take a look at the registration, and we’re gonna do it, and I’m gonna set up a commission, to be headed by Vice President Mike Pence, and we’re gonna look at it very, very carefully.”

Read more:

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/5/14516156/donald-trump-interview-transcript-bill-oreilly-super-bowl-2017

 

 

 

 

FEC complaints about Hillary DNC Democrats criminal conspiracy, James O’Keefe and Public Interest Legal Foundation charges, Obama controls FEC as well as Justice Dept, Citizen Wells exposed Obama FEC chicanery Ellen Weintraub and Perkins Coie

FEC complaints about Hillary DNC Democrats criminal conspiracy, James O’Keefe and Public Interest Legal Foundation charges, Obama controls FEC as well as Justice Dept, Citizen Wells exposed Obama FEC chicanery Ellen Weintraub and Perkins Coie

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write
advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”
“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You
thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.”
“Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky.”
“The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”…George Will, Washington Post December 11, 2007

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why is Ellen Weintraub, a liberal Democrat and former employee of Perkins Coie, still a member of the FEC since 2002, long after her term expired?”…Citizen Wells

 

It is well known that Obama controls the Justice Dept. which controls the FBI.

It is not so well known that Obama controls the FEC and has been active in rigging it.

And folks, things are worse than that.

Robert Creamer, at the center of the Trump rally violence and voter fraud, as well as complaints filed with the FEC, has been working with Obama since 2007 and visited the White House 342 times since 2009.

He has also been working for Hillary Clinton.

Do you really want 4 more years of this?

Do you believe that the FEC is going to prosecute these charges with or without the Justice Dept.?

From WND October 20, 2016.

“O’Keefe complaint to FEC cites Dems’ ‘criminal conspiracy'”

“Citing a Democratic operative’s confirmation of a chain of command that runs directly from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to agents who “execute … on the ground,” the activists at Project Veritas are asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate a “criminal conspiracy.’

The filing of the complaint with the federal agency follows the release earlier this week of two videos in which Democrats explain how they can attempt to change the outcome of the election through apparently fraudulent means, such as having people travel across state lines to vote illegally.

The complaint follows the filing of a another complaint with the FEC, by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a nonprofit organization “dedicated to protect the right to vote, preserve the constitutional framework of American elections, and educate the public on the issue of election integrity.”

Both cite the evidence in the videos released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

The videos have resulted already in two Democratic operatives who appeared on them losing their jobs.

One is Scott Foval, who had worked for People for the American Way, a George Soros-funded group, and more recently with Americans United for Change.

In the video, he said: “You know what? We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f—ing a—–es for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now.”

Also, he said he and his agents are “starting anarchy” by creating “conflict engagement … in the lines at Trump rallies.”

Also now out of work is Bob Creamer, founder and partner of Democracy Partners, and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/okeefe-complaint-to-fec-cites-dems-criminal-conspiracy/

From Citizen Wells February 1, 2015.

Obama FEC scandal.

Why is this so important?

Forget for a moment the other bias and chicanery associated with the FEC ( hard drive from IRS, etc. )

To the best of my knowledge, the FEC is the only federal government agency since 2008 to address the natural born citizen requirement for presidency in the US Constitution.

In Hassan v FEC they established that just being a US citizen is not enough. Hassan is a naturalized citizen and not eligible for matching federal funds.

They did not prohibit his running since they are only responsible for the monetary aspect.

What is significant about Ellen Weintraub being a commissioner?

1. She is a former Perkins Coie employee. You know, the law firm that made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of the Obama campaign, helped Obama keep records hidden via attorney Robert Bauer ( husband of Anita Dunn ) and requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in 2007 regarding Obama’s matching fund options.

2. Weintraub was a FEC commissioner in 2007 when the FEC provided the advisory opinion.

3. Weintraub was a commissioner in 2008 when the FEC rejected Philip J Berg’s plea for a ruling on Obama’s natural born citizen status.

4. Weintraub has been a commissioner since December 2002 despite her tenure of 6 years being exceeded.

5. Weintraub is a liberal Democrat.

6. Weintraub’s participation as a commissioner with the Perkins Coie ties to Obama is troubling.

7. Numerous articles have been written about Obama not replacing commissioners on the FEC, despite their terms running out, but I have found none other than my own questioning Ellen Weintraub being retained.

8. Why did Wikipedia make it appear like Weintraub began as a commissioner in 2008?

“Commissioners

CURRENT

Name Position Appointed By Sworn In Term Expires
Lee E. Goodman Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2015[7]
Ann M. Ravel Vice Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2017[8]
Ellen L. Weintraub Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired — serving until replaced
Matthew S. Petersen Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired — serving until replaced
Caroline C. Hunter Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired — serving until replaced
Steven T. Walther Commissioner George W. Bush June 27, 2008 Expired — serving until replaced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission

From the FEC.

“Ellen L. Weintraub took office as a Member of the United States Federal Election Commission (FEC) on December 9, 2002.  After an initial recess appointment, her nomination was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on March 18, 2003.  Commissioner Weintraub has twice served as Chair of the Commission, for calendar years 2003 and 2013.

Prior to her appointment, Ms. Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. There, she counseled clients on federal and state campaign finance and election laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, recounts, and lobbying regulation. During the election contest arising out of the 1996 election of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ms. Weintraub served on the legal team that advised the Senate Rules Committee. Her tenure with Perkins Coie represented Ms. Weintraub’s second stint in private practice, having previously practiced as a litigator with the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.”

http://www.fec.gov/members/weintraub/weintraubbio.shtml

 

From Citizen Wells December 21, 2012.

“From the FEC December 20, 2012.

“FEC ELECTS WEINTRAUB AS CHAIR FOR 2013;
McGAHN TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIRMAN

WASHINGTON – At its open meeting today, the Federal Election Commission elected Ellen L. Weintraub as Chair and Donald F. McGahn II as Vice Chairman for 2013.

Commissioner Weintraub took office on December 9, 2002, after receiving a recess appointment. She was renominated and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on March 18, 2003. Commissioner Weintraub previously served as Chair in 2003. Commissioner McGahn was nominated and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008. He was elected Chairman on July 10, 2008 and served in that capacity until December 31 of that year.

Prior to her appointment to the Commission, Commissioner Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. Commissioner Weintraub had previously practiced as a litigator with the New York firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.

Before joining Perkins Coie, Commissioner Weintraub was Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives (the House Ethics Committee). There, Commissioner Weintraub focused on implementing the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.  She was Editor in Chief of the House Ethics Manual and a principal contributor to the Senate Ethics Manual.

Commissioner Weintraub received her B.A., cum laude, from Yale College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Commissioner McGahn took office on July 9, 2008. Prior to his appointment to the Commission, Commissioner McGahn served as head of McGahn & Associates PLLC, a Washington-based law practice specializing in election law. Commissioner McGahn also served as General Counsel to the National Republican Congressional Committee and as Counsel for the Illinois Republican Party.

Before joining the NRCC, Commissioner McGahn practiced law at Patton Boggs LLP in Washington, DC. Commissioner McGahn has been recognized for his significant pro bono work for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Prior to Patton Boggs LLP, Commissioner McGahn served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Charles R. Alexander of the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.

Commissioner McGahn attended the United States Naval Academy, the University of Notre Dame, Widener University School of Law and the Georgetown University Law Center.”

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121220newofficers.shtml

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”
December 11, 2007

George Will in the Washington Post writes.

“Paralyze The FEC? Splendid.”

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write
advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”

“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You
thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.

The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed.

Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends –
unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: “All three or none.” If this standoff persists until
Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members — a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so,
the commission will be prohibited from official actions, including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.”

The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001559.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

June 24, 2008

Senate confirms FEC Nominees.

From the Wall Street Journal.

“The Senate confirmed five new members to the Federal Election Commission, ending a bitter political battle that had hobbled the elections watchdog for
months.

But the Senate action came with a final twist: Republicans accused Democrats of delaying the confirmation vote one day to allow the Democratic National
Committee to file a lawsuit against the presidential campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The six-member elections agency had been without a quorum since December as Democrats objected to Republican nominee Hans Von Spakovsky for what they said was his partisan handling of voting-rights matters in his former job as a Department of Justice attorney. The dispute prevented the two parties from reaching an agreement to vote on any of the nominees.”

“Other commissioners confirmed Tuesday included Democrats Steve Walther and Cynthia Bauerly. The new Republican commissioners are Mr. Petersen, Don McGahn and Caroline Hunter. They join sitting commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat. The commission needs at least four members to take official action on election complaints, new campaign-financing rules and requests from campaigns for legal guidance.”

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BAC81D4FF-0476-4E28-B9B1-7619D271A334%7D&DE=%7B620D20F2-742F-4979-B8D6-6597558A6716%7D

From Fox News.

“Since the beginning of the year, the commission has only had two members: Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.”

August 18, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

The individual, redacted, is requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC on Obama’s eligibility to be president. An email was sent with the request. The
email provides information on why Obama is not eligible. It begins with

“It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:”

It ends with

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help
answer this question?”
August 21, 2008

Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court

Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.
August 22, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

An email from David Kolker, FEC counsel, to Rebekah Harvey is certainly interesting. Rebekah Harvey was the assistant to Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub . Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Weintraub was on the staff of Perkins Coie LLP and a member of it’s Political Law Group.

“Victory in Berg v. Obama”

August 27, 2008

Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC

August 27, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

FEC response to advisory opinion dated August 18, 2008.

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or
activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”

“your inquiry does not qualify as an advisory opinion request.”
November 11, 2008

“Obama to Most Likely Avoid FEC Audit”

“The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not
years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an
audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to
launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a
sitting president.

So, by declining public funding, Obama decreased the odds of an audit. And the FEC may not investigate due to political party affiliations of the FEC
commission members.”

http://obamashrugged.com/?p=267

May 1, 2009

“At midnight Thursday, the terms of Federal Election Commissioner Donald F. McGahn II (a Republican) and FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther (a Democrat) expired. Combined with Democrat Ellen L. Weintraub’s seat — she remains on the commission even though her term expired two years ago — President Obama has the opportunity to make his first three appointments to the six-member commission. Though FEC terms are set for six years, members are free to stay on until replacements are selected by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

“Josh Zaharoff, deputy program director for Common Cause, argues that, short of complete overhaul, such a proposal would be the best way to ensure real
enforcement of election laws. The long-standing existing practice “ensures that the commissioners are likely to be loyal to their political party rather than
to election laws and the American people as a whole.”

After seven months without a quorum, the restocked FEC has drawn significant criticism from campaign-finance-reform advocates for its lack of serious,
independent enforcement. There have been a series of 3-3 deadlocks on key issues, resulting in a significant increase in the percentage of dismissed cases.”

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2009/05/01/2875/president-obama%E2%80%99s-opportunity-mold-fec
April 4, 2011

“More FEC Terms Expire, But Replacements Unlikely”

“The terms of Chairwoman Cynthia Bauerly (D) and Commissioner Matthew Petersen (R) expire at the end of April. The terms of Donald McGahn (R) and Steven Walther (D) expired almost two years ago.

The longest-serving commissioner is Ellen Weintraub (D), whose term expired almost four years ago. The only commissioner who will be serving an unexpired term at the end of the month is Republican Caroline C. Hunter, whom Bush nominated in 2008, for a term that expires in April 2013.

Further complicating the confirmation process is a large list of pending issues before the FEC that will affect Obama’s own re-election campaign.
One of the biggest issues is how the FEC will write new rules in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which would set boundaries for how
hundreds of millions of dollars can be spent by third parties in the presidential election and Congressional campaigns. The issue was so important to Obama
that he admonished the Supreme Court a few days after its decision in the case during his 2010 State of the Union address.”

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_105/-204592-1.html?zkMobileView=true
April 16, 2011

“FEC Launches Audit Of Obama’s 2008 Campaign”

“The FEC’s decision to audit the campaign is not surprising, given that it was the largest federal campaign in history, raising more than $750 million in
receipts. If Obama’s campaign were not audited, it would have been the first presidential nominee’s campaign to escape such scrutiny since the public
financing system was created in 1976.

The potential for the FEC’s audit became increasingly more likely as the FEC questioned some of Obama campaign filings. In all, the FEC wrote 26 letters to
Obama for America warning the campaign that if it did not adequately respond to the agency’s questions that it “could result in an audit or enforcement
action.””

“As of the end of March, Obama for America had spent nearly $3 million on legal fees since the 2008 election. In all, the president’s campaign spent three
times more on lawyers after Election Day than in the two years preceding it.

The lion’s share of Obama’s legal spending went to Perkins Coie, a well-known Democratic legal and accounting firm. Perkins Coie is representing the Obama
campaign in all major legal matters, including seven of the FEC’s known investigations involving the White House bid. In each of these cases, the FEC voted to dismiss the case or found “no reason to believe” that the Obama for America or related committees had violated any laws.

Perkins Coie may be also representing Obama for America in the FEC’s spending investigation of a Republican National Committee complaint. A few weeks before the election, the RNC alleged that Obama’s campaign accepted donations from foreign nationals, received contributions that had exceed limits and submitted fictitious donor names to the agency. The status of this investigation is unknown, though the FEC confirmed it received the complaint.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/FEC-Launches-Obama-Campaign-Audie-205014-1.html
Jan 12, 2012

“Election Watchdogs Assail Obama on FEC Appointments”

“The groups are demanding that Obama shake up the board of commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, the only agency able to enforce campaign laws.
They say political divisions among the agency’s panel of six leaders have rendered it toothless.

“The bottom line is nothing can happen to change the commission unless the White House names new commissioners, and they are refusing to do so,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “The result is going to be an election with no enforcement.””

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/election-watchdogs-assail-obama-on-fec-appointments/

Why would Obama, as we know him, replace the FEC board. Since early 2007, Obama has been shielded by Robert Bauer and Ellen Weintraub. That’s right, as you read above, Weintraub is still on the FEC board, four years after her term expired. And don’t forget, after Obama secured the White House, he hired Robert Bauer as general counsel. Bauer has since returned to Perkins Coie to continue helping Obama keep his records hidden.

This is a clear conflict of interest!!!

And what about attorney ethics?

As stated above, Robert Bauer knew about Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency in February of 2007 and yet he filed a request for an advisory opinion on Obama’s behalf regarding Federal Matching Funds. This is fraud!

From Citizen Wells June 2, 2011.

“From the American Bar Association.

“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent””

“Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.4 Misconduct”

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.”

https://citizenwells.com/2015/02/01/obama-fec-scandal-ellen-weintraub-commissioner-since-december-2002-former-perkins-coie-attorney-robert-bauer-weintraub-conflict-of-interest-natural-born-citizen-ruling-can-we-expect-a-fair-adviso/

 

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Obama hired Robert Creamer in 2007 for “Camp Obama” seminars to train for door-to-door canvassing (for voter fraud), James O’Keefe Project Veritas video 2 canvassing explained, Creamer visits to White House status quo, O’Keefe earlier outted Obama’s ACORN voter fraud

Obama hired Robert Creamer in 2007 for “Camp Obama” seminars to train for door-to-door canvassing (for voter fraud), James O’Keefe Project Veritas video 2 canvassing explained, Creamer visits to White House status quo, O’Keefe earlier outted Obama’s ACORN voter fraud

“Obama hired Robert Creamer, a specialist in voter fraud, in 2007  to train supporters at  “Camp Obama” in door-to-door canvassing. That is a technique for gathering data for voter fraud.”…Citizen Wells

“North Carolina is the latest state featured by Project Veritas in its series on how America’s electoral system is extremely vulnerable to voter fraud. During last week’s North Carolina primary, James O’Keefe and his colleagues demonstrated how easy it is to obtain ballots even if the person has publicly professed not to be a U.S. citizen.”
O’Keefe also tells WND about his group’s visit to the University of North Carolina, where a dean and a program director laugh off confessions of voter fraud and even seem to encourage it. Yet a day later, both officials tell conservatives that voter fraud never happens.”…WND May 15, 2012

“It doesn’t matter what the friggin legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf**cker”…Scott Foval, Project Veritas video

 

 

Obama was heavily involved with ACORN before running for the presidency.

James O’Keefe, a few years ago, exposed ACORN’s involvement in voter fraud and subsequently their funding was cut off by congress.

Obama hired Robert Creamer, a specialist in voter fraud, in 2007  to train supporters at  “Camp Obama” in door-to-door canvassing. That is a technique for gathering data for voter fraud. This is explained in the video below.

Robert Creamer resigned today from Democracy Partners after being outted in the video.

Robert Creamer visited the White House 342 times since 2009 and Obama 47 times.

Robert Creamer and Democracy Partners worked closely with Scott Foval and People for the American Way as well as the Hillary Campaign and DNC.

Scott Foval was fired yesterday.

Scott Foval, Deputy Political Director at People for the American Way explains canvassing.

“Now, if we just had the canvassers logging the homes, they don’t even have to know why they’re doing it. Just put a mark on it. And say, this address… we have moved, but moves could mean someone else moved in. And then take that data, and flip it out, and you give it to people, and you have people go vote in it. That’s brilliant. I love it.”

From Chicago Magazine November 29, 2007.

“Since June, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has been gathering volunteers for its two-day “Camp Obama” seminars, where supporters learn techniques for phone banking, door-to-door canvassing, and other nuts-and-bolts campaign activities. The sessions are taught by campaign staffers, as well as by top Democratic operatives. One Camp Obama instructor has drawn partisan criticism, however. Robert Creamer, the former director of the state’s largest consumer advocacy organization, Citizen Action of Illinois, who in 2005 was sentenced to five months in prison after pleading guilty to bank fraud and withholding taxes while heading the group, has run sessions for Obama’s campers. Creamer’s role came to light after his “information-packed presentation” was described in a Vermont-based volunteer’s blog on Obama’s Web site.

An Obama campaign official says the campaign welcomed Creamer’s expertise because he is one of the most experienced organizers in Illinois. (Creamer’s wife, U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, is also a longtime Obama booster.) But conservative columnist and radio host Tom Roeser and other bloggers have argued that Creamer’s involvement undercuts Obama’s clean-cut, reform-minded public image. “Creamer’s being hired by the Obama campaign to instruct interns and volunteers in political organizing, abuses of which sent him to jail, is ironic,” as Roeser put it in his blog. Calls to Creamer’s office were not returned.”

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2007/Bad-Camper/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Obama: “no serious” person … possible to rig American elections, Same day Video 2 released of massive voter fraud, Trump truth Obama lies, Wikileak email 08 caucuses: “believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters”

Obama: “no serious” person … possible to rig American elections, Same day Video 2 released of massive voter fraud, Trump truth Obama lies, Wikileak email 08 caucuses: “believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters”

“Concerns about high voter turnout and the inability of the precincts to adequately handle the number of participants and monitor the election process are rampant.   On the night of the caucus itself, the Clinton Campaign brought many instances of these irregularities to the attention of the State Party. The
campaign received in excess of 2,000 complaints of rules violations, indicating widespread violations of the Party’s rules”…Dr. Lynette Long, March 4, 2008, Texas Democratic Primary

“It doesn’t matter what the friggin legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf**cker”…Scott Foval, Project Veritas video

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Obama lies, Hillary lies, Bill Clinton lies, Democrat lies, DNC lies and media lies.

So many lies and so little time.

From Reuters October 18, 2016.

“Obama shoots down Trump claims of rigged election, telling him ‘stop whining'”

“With opinion polls showing him falling further back in recent days against his White House rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Trump has intensified his allegations, although numerous studies have shown voter fraud in U.S. elections is rare.

Obama was asked about Trump’s assertions on Tuesday at a joint news conference in the White House Rose Garden following meetings with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

He responded with a blistering attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.

Obama said there was “no serious” person who would suggest it was possible to rig American elections, adding, “I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”

Trump has raised the possibility for months of illegal activities that could tarnish the November election result, and he has urged his supporters to show up at polling locations on Election Day. He has sharpened his allegations in recent days, even as Republican lawyers called his assertions unfounded.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN12I27L

“Stupid and evil, a bad combination.”…Citizen Wells

From Citizen Wells September 25, 2009.

“I first began hearing about ACORN in early 2008. I first began writing about ACORN in August of 2008 when I discovered they were involved in corruption and voter fraud. Then I read some of the analysis of Dr. Lynette Long, who took data from the primaries and caucuses as well as witness stories of ACORN and Obama thugs controlling these processes. I soon discovered that a documentary was being produced of voter fraud. I went to the website and from time to time checked on their progress. Early in 2009, a mutual friend of the producer, Bettina Viviano, introduced me to her and I had several conversations with Bettina about the documentary and the sad state of political affairs in this country.

I spoke to Bettina last night about the status of the documentary. It was on track to be completed next year, but she was receiving a lot of interest due to the recent events exposing ACORN corruption to a wider audience. They may be able to complete the documentary sooner. She also admitted that when she first began investigating voter fraud, she was not aware that ACORN was behind much of it. We also discussed our other projects. It is good to know there are level headed, real Americans in Hollywood.”

“FROM THE TEXAS CONVENTION   They shoved Obama signs in Clinton delegates’ faces, three inches from the nose, called them racists, and told my friend that she had to move from her third-row seat in one meeting and go sit in the back.  She also said that the proceedings were heavily laced with black power speeches by preachers as well as public officials.” Here are some exerpts from the analysis of data by  Dr. Lynette Long:”

  • Voter Fraud – Temporary Chair packets were released by the election judge prior to 7:00 pm. Sign-in sheets were filled out before 7:00 pm by voters participating in the primary who did not participate in the caucus.
  • Voter Fraud –  Inaccurate written records of participants’ presidential preferences.
  • Voter Fraud – Precincts were consolidated for purposes of holding a convention.
  • Voter Disenfranchisement – Precinct caucuses began before polls closed for the primary.
  • Voter Fraud  – Ineligible participants voted or ineligible delegates were elected, including participants who were not registered voters, participants who did not vote in the primary, and provisional voters whose votes were counted; and no verification was made of the eligibility of participants or delegates.
  • Voter Fraud – Participants’ names and presidential preference were entered on sign-in sheets by someone other than the eligible individual participants.
  • Voter Fraud – Results were taken from a head count or hand count rather than the written roll.
  • Due Process – Delegate votes were not ratified by the precinct convention.
  • Due Process – Failure to follow Robert’s Rules of Order at the precinct convention.”

https://citizenwells.com/2009/09/25/acorn-voter-fraud-acorn-corruption-obama-primaries-caucuses-bettina-viviano-documentary-dr-lynette-long-we-will-not-be-silenced-obama-voter-fraud-patrick-fitzgerald/

From Wikileaks email # 3563.

From:bcraig@hillaryclinton.com To: mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-05-14 18:12 Subject: RE: Colorado

On Thursday, May 14, 2015, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote:

“High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region Mike is likely to talk to WJC about this in the near future. Marlon and Brynne, can you respond to the org chart request and give them some points of contact. Marc can you reach out to them on the lawyer election protection issues. Thanks.”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3563

And of course ( drum roll ) the James O’Keefe Project Veritas video on voter fraud released today.

“Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud”

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

Hillary Clinton 2003 – 2004 Immigration, I am adamantly against illegal immigrants, Acting conservative to run for president?, Or damage control for Clinton Administration policies?, Senator Clinton statement on act passage December 8 then Rosemary Jenks House testimony scrubbed December 9, Citizen Wells exclusive

“I think the most compelling thing about Hillary is that she will stop at nothing to achieve her end and that she views the public as plebeians easily seduced into believing her point of view.”…Linda Tripp

“The only question that remains today is whether or not Hillary Clinton gets away with another cover-up, like she did in the Vince Foster case, and runs for President in 2016, or will she finally be held accountable, and Americans learn the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack?”…Canada Free Press December 18, 2012

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

When I discovered the damning testimony of Rosemary Jenks was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website on December 9, 2004, I smelled a rat.

A big Clinton rat.

After poking around on the internet for a while I finally found it.

One day apart.

The “Rosetta Stone” of investigative journalism.

In a WABC interview in 2003 Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,”

“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,”
“I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

The Washington Times reports December 13, 2004.

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.

Mrs. Clinton — who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency — is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.”

“In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.””

““I think she’s realizing how much this issue has grown since 9/11,” he said. “If you talked about it before then, you were just a flat-out racist. Now it’s this huge issue.”

Moving to the right of even some Republicans, the former first lady told WABC she favors “at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And … perhaps, although I’m not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.”

Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report said a conservative stance on immigration would be wise in the event Mrs. Clinton runs for president in 2008.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/13/20041213-124920-6151r/

On December 8, 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton placed the following on her official website:

“Senator Clinton on the Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Today is an historic day. We are coming to the end of a process that began immediately after the September 11 attacks and is ending with an historic reorganization of the intelligence community. Today’s vote, coming after months of testimony before the 9/11 commission, weeks of hearings on Capitol Hill and tough negotiations in Congress, represents a signal accomplishment in reforming our government to protect our homeland and fighting the War on Terror.

Today’s accomplishment, The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, would not have been possible without the courage, dedication and hard work of the families of the victims of September 11th. It was the persistence and resilience of these brave family members who lost their loved ones on September 11th that led to the creation of the 9/11 Commission. And it was their continued resolve that helped to keep the heat on Congress to insure that those recommendations were put into law. While not every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is included in this bill, the bill makes historic changes in the way our government will collect and analyze intelligence so that we hopefully never again have to live through a day like September 11th.

In the aftermath of September 11th, and as the 9/11 Commission report so aptly demonstrates, it is clear that our intelligence system isn’t working the way that it should. The Commission report, following on the work of prior commissions that have studied the issue, details how we have 15 different intelligence agencies who are not sharing information, not communicating with one another and missing important linkages. This legislation, through the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (DNI), breaks down the artificial barriers in the intelligence community and insures that there is a high level official, answerable to the President, who is working to insure that our intelligence agencies are sharing information and communicating with one another.

This legislation gives the DNI budget authority over the intelligence community which will allow him or her to exercise proper control over the coordination among agencies. In Washington, budget authority means real authority and strengthening the DNI is a major accomplishment of this bill. He or she will also be responsible for budget execution and have the authority to reprogram funds and transfer personnel. These powers will allow the DNI to establish objectives and priorities for the intelligence community and manage and direct tasking of collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence.

This legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as the 9/11 Commission recommended. The creation of this Board is intended to ensure that at the same time we enhance our nation’s intelligence and homeland defense capabilities, we also remain vigilant in protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Our civil liberties define us as Americans. As the 9/11 Commission said, “Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.” The conference report being considered today essentially charges the Board with primary executive branch responsibility for ensuring that privacy and civil liberty concerns will be appropriately considered in the implementation of provisions designed to protect us against terrorism. While the legislation that initially passed the Senate explicitly provided the Board with subpoena powers, the conference report that we are voting on today does not. That omission is unfortunate, and I will work with my colleagues in Congress to address this issue and provide such powers in the future, so that the Board will have the tools it will need to help us maintain the proper balance between our nation’s security and our liberties.

The legislation calls for dramatic improvements in the security of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, including aviation security, air cargo security, and port security. Through this legislation, the security of the Northern Border will also be improved, a goal I have worked toward since 2001. Among many key provisions, the legislation calls for an increase of at least 10,000 border patrol agents from Fiscal Years 2006 through 2010, many of whom will be dedicated specifically to our Northern Border. There will also be an increase of at least 4,000 full-time immigration and customs enforcement officers in the next 5 years.

While I look forward to a productive debate on immigration issues in the next Congress, I am pleased that there are a number of key immigration reform provisions in this legislation, including those addressing the process of obtaining U.S. visas.

I am also pleased that the legislation addresses the root causes of terrorism in a proactive manner. This is an issue that I have spent a good deal of time on in the past year because I believe so strongly that we are all more secure when children and adults around the world are taught math and science instead of hate. The bill we are voting on today includes authorization for an International Youth Opportunity Fund, which will provide resources to build schools in Muslim countries. The legislation also acknowledges that the U.S. has a vested interest in committing to a long-term, sustainable investment in education around the globe. Some of this language is modeled on legislation that I introduced in September, The Education for All Act of 2004, and I believe it takes us a small step towards eliminating madrassas and replacing them with schools that provide a real education to all children.

But we are being shortsighted if we limit our educational investments to countries with predominantly Muslim populations, and if we focus solely on expanding the number of U.S.-run schools in these areas, as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act does. Instead, the U.S. should work with the global community to create strong incentives for developing countries to build universal, public education systems of their own. Only then will our investments have the maximum impact because only then will they result in systemic change.

We do not know where the next Afghanistan will spring up. But we do know that extremism will flourish where educational systems fail.

The 9/11 Commission, and the commissions before it, including the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart (“Hart-Rudman Commission”) and The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by former Governor James Gilmore III (“Gilmore Commission”), called for dramatic improvements in the sharing of intelligence information. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I worked with a number of my colleagues in the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in focusing on the need for greater sharing of terrorist-related information between and among federal, state, and local government agencies. The sharing of critical intelligence information is vitally important if we are to win the war against terrorism. We need to ensure that our front line solders in the war against terrorism here at home — our local communities and our first responders — are as informed as possible about any possible threat so that they can do the best job possible to protect all Americans. I am pleased that this legislation mandates major improvements in this regard.

Contained in Title VII of the Act are provisions from the “9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004,” legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman and for which I am proud to have been an original cosponsor. Among its provisions are those that address homeland security preparedness, including a call for a unified incident command system and significantly enhancing interoperable communications between and among first responders and all levels of government. Title VII also speaks to the need for allocation of additional spectrum for first responder needs and to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunication needs, an issue that I have focused on intensely as co-chair of the E-911 Caucus.

I am extremely disappointed, however, that this legislation does not specifically mandate an improvement in how the federal government allocates critical homeland security funds to states and local communities around the country. As many of my colleagues know, I have repeatedly called upon the Administration and my colleagues to implement threat-based homeland security funding to ensure that the homeland security resources go to the states and areas where they are needed most. I have introduced legislation in this regard and even developed a specific homeland security formula for Administration officials to consider.

But threat-based funding is not only important to me and to the New Yorkers whom I represent; it was also a primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, in its report, the Commission stated: “We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.”

The 9/11 Commission also recommended that an advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any additional factors the Secretary should consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security needs. As to these benchmarks, the Commission stated that “the benchmarks will be imperfect and subjective, they will continually evolve. But hard choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.” In short, the Commission made unequivocally clear that the current method of allocating the majority of federal homeland security resources, i.e., on a per capita basis alone, must be changed.

Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made in how federal homeland security funds are allocated, but commissions before it, such as the Rudman Commission, have strongly recommended it as well. Indeed, the Rudman Commission stated more than a year and a half ago that “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. . . . To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”

Both the Senate and House-passed intelligence reform bills that were reconciled in this conference report contained language that sought to effectuate this important recommendation but, unfortunately, such language was not included in the conference report. As the 9/11 Commission, Rudman Commission, many other homeland security experts, and I have repeatedly asserted, there are few issues more important to our nation’s homeland defense than homeland security preparedness and the proper allocation of the resources to achieve that preparedness. Therefore, I will continue to work as hard as I can with my colleagues on a bi-partisan basis to make the 9/11 Commission’s call for threat and risk-based funding a reality.

At the end of the day, this legislation has the capacity to improve our security and make us safer. I would especially like to note the dogged persistence of Senators Collins and Lieberman, who were unflinching in their work on this important bill. However, passage of this legislation is just the beginning. We have now given our government the tools to make a difference. But as with anything in our system, success depends on the independence and accountability of those appointed to carry out these reforms. It is critical that the American people, and we in Congress, insist upon accountability from those whom we are asking to implement these reforms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in that effort.

Once again, thank you to the 9-11 families, the 9-11 Commission and all those who have worked to make this legislation a reality. Now, the hard work of implementing these reforms begins.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051128080436/http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233911&&#038;

Obviously Hillary Clinton was posturing herself for the 2008 election.

Appearing to care about the immigration problem and national security.

There is even a bigger reason for her to do so.

The record of the Clinton Administration abusing the INS and rapid naturalization of immigrants to secure additional Democrat voters for the 1996 election.

This was exposed by David Schippers in his role as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, in his subsequent book “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment” and subsequent articles.

From David Schippers October 2000.

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.

In his new bookSellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment, David P. Schippers, former Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, details his investigation of these same issues. He concludes that were he and his investigators afforded more time, it is likely the abuses of the Citizenship USA program would have been included in the list of impeachable offenses against President Clinton. Below is an excerpt from Schippers’ book, published last month by Regnery.

My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

Ironically and/or fitting, the link to the Rosemary Jenks House Judiciary testimony above contained the following: “666”.

I clicked on the link and it had been scrubbed.

I next went to the Wayback Machine and after trying different dates for copies, I discovered that the testimony was there for December 9, 2004 but not December 10, 2004.

Isn’t that interesting.

The House Judiciary website.

On December 8, one day before Hillary writes of the passage of  “The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” and the strengthening of national security and the borders and the next day, House testimony about how the Clinton Administration abused the INS and the system to expedite and procure more Democrat voters for the 1996 election disappears.

Coincidence?

Mathematically highly improbable.

From Rosemary Jenks’ testimony:

“Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.”

Read more:

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

From David Schippers and his book:

“Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

So, who scrubbed the Rosemary Jenks testimony from the House Judiciary website?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Clinton immigration abuse, Blatant politicization of INS during 1996 presidential campaign, White House pressured INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program, Grant citizenship to thousands of aliens counted as likely Democratic voters, David Schippers Bill Clinton impeachment investigation

Clinton immigration abuse, Blatant politicization of INS during 1996 presidential campaign, White House pressured INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program, Grant citizenship to thousands of aliens counted as likely Democratic voters, David Schippers Bill Clinton impeachment investigation

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

On Hillary Clinton: “evil incarnate.”…David Schippers

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

Most Americans know little about The President Bill Clinton Impeachment.

Most Americans, if they know anything, believe that Clinton was impeached for fooling around with Monica Lewinsky in the White House.

Wrong!

Clinton was being investigated for a variety of indiscretions.

And this was no right wing conspiracy.

From Citizen Wells August 25, 2016.

“David Philip Schippers served as chief counsel to the United States House of Representatives managers for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in the U.S. Senate from Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 1999.”

“From 1963 to 1967, Schippers served as a member and later the chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice at Chicago.”

“Unlike his counterpart, Abbe Lowell, who is serving as the chief investigative counsel for the Democrats, Schippers is no Washington insider. He also isn’t a screaming partisan. Indeed, though a lifelong Democrat, he was hired in the spring by a Republican, Rep. Henry Hyde of Chicago, the panel’s chairman. The two men have been friends for 30 years. Hyde asked him to review Justice Department operations but to be ready to shift gears if Starr sent an impeachment report.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/08/25/david-schippers-exposed-criminal-activity-of-bill-and-hillary-clinton-no-right-wing-conspiracy-schippers-life-long-democrat-chief-investigative-counsel-for-the-us-house-of-representatives/

From David Schippers book, “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment”.

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.

The program was placed under the direction of Vice President Al Gore. We received from the GAO a few e-mails indicating Vice President Gore’s role in the plan (which are included in Appendix A at the back of the book). He was responsible for keeping the pressure on, to make sure the aliens were pushed through by September 1, the last day to register for the presidential election.

In our investigation we uncovered a case study evidencing what is pejoratively known in political science circles as “Chicago Politics.”

Back in the early years of the twentieth century, “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathouse” John Coughlin were recognized as the very models of the unsavory Chicago politician. The two once fixed an aldermanic election in Chicago’s First Ward. To do so, they imported thousands of ward heelers, friends, associates, and city workers and had them registered to vote from every building in the ward — from homes (of which there were few) to taverns and cribs (of which there were many). On Election Day the recent arrivals stopped at Hinky Dink’s tavern, picked up fifty cents, ate a free lunch, and went out to vote their consciences. Guess who won that election?

Essentially, the same tactics were used during President Clinton’s reelection in 1996. Only this time the Democrats weren’t handing out sandwiches. Instead, through CUSA, they were circumventing normal procedures for naturalizing aliens — procedures that check backgrounds and weed out criminals — and consequently they were handing out citizenship papers to questionable characters.”

“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant. On March 21 Elaine Kamarck in the Vice President’s office sent an e-mail to Farbrother saying: “THE PRESIDENT IS SICK OF THIS AND WANTS ACTION. IF NOTHING MOVES TODAY WE’LL HAVE TO TAKE SOME PRETTY DRASTIC MEASURES.” Farbrother responded, “I favor drastic measures.” If he couldn’t get what he wanted from the INS, he wrote, he would “call for heavy artillery.””

“Federal regulations require that, for an alien to obtain citizenship, his application for naturalization (citizenship) must be accompanied by a complete set of the alien’s fingerprints. The fingerprint cards are then sent to the FBI to determine if the applicant has a criminal or arrest record. The law provides that an application may be denied if the alien has a serious criminal record or if he falsely denies ever having been arrested, even if he was never convicted.

In the INS district offices, the alien applicant for naturalization cannot be scheduled for a personal interview until at least 60 days after the application is submitted. This delay is specifically intended to allow sufficient time for an FBI fingerprint check. If the check reveals an arrest record identification, the arrest report is inserted in the alien’s file prior to the interview. An arrest record does not automatically result in a denial of citizenship, but it alerts an examiner to spend additional time questioning the applicant and to request that he furnish further information.

If there is no criminal arrest record in the file prior to the interview, the examiner will assume that none exists. For that reason, the INS has always considered the FBI fingerprint check to be the only practical way of preventing violent felons, dope peddlers, and the like from obtaining citizenship. Any breakdown in the collecting, checking, and reporting of the fingerprints can cause a breakdown of the entire process.

In our investigation we developed sources inside the INS with specific knowledge of the facts who revealed that FBI arrest records that were being sent to the Chicago INS office simply were not being inserted into the aliens’ files. As a result, aliens with criminal records were being granted citizenship.

Our sources also disclosed that, just prior to the 1996 voter registration deadline, a box was discovered in the Chicago INS office containing nearly five thousand FBI arrest reports — reports that had arrived in time but had been ignored.

Later, when the office discovered that those reports had never been processed, the INS initially tried to blame the FBI, claiming that the Bureau had not provided the arrest records within the 60-day window. But the FBI had done its job in a timely manner. Then the INS tried to convince the public that the foul-up really hadn’t harmed the process much. The agency cited statistics showing that the rejection rate of 17 percent was just about what it had always been, so no harm, no foul. But the INS neglected to take into account the thousands of aliens with criminal arrest records who were not rejected, even though they would have been under the normal procedures. If the traditional process had been followed, the rejection rate in the summer of 1996 would have easily exceeded 30 percent and perhaps have been even higher.

The White House, the INS, and the Justice Department publicly denied any political motive in the CUSA program to expedite the citizenship procedure. What the United States got is undeniable:
More than 75,000 new citizens who had arrest records when they applied;

An additional 115,000 citizens whose fingerprints were unclassifiable for various technical reasons and were never resubmitted; and

Another 61,000 people who were given citizenship with no fingerprints submitted at all.
Those numbers were developed by the accounting firm of KPMG Peat Marwick as a result of an audit of the 1996 CUSA program.

What we had here was a perfect example of the Clinton-Gore administration’s overarching political philosophy: “The ends justify the means,” coupled with “win at any cost.” It was a philosophy of governance that, as our investigations into other areas proceeded, we would find repeated again and again.

When the results of the KPMG Peat Marwick audit were made public, the INS and Justice vowed to remedy the situation, root out the felons, and revoke erroneously awarded citizenship. Everyone congratulated the administration for acting so quickly — and then promptly forgot about it.”

“We received no cooperation from either the Justice Department or the INS. Instead we received nothing but complaints about not going through the proper channels, investigating old news, being partisan — if not racist — and so on. But we reasoned that if criminals were given citizenship in 1996, at least some of them had probably continued their criminal activity in the two years since. We asked the GAO — an investigative agency that works for Congress and is therefore not subject to White House or Justice Department pressures — to give us FBI arrest records related to the CUSA program. We were given unquestioned cooperation and boxes of FBI reports.

We reviewed every document in those boxes, pulling out about a hundred of the most violent or serious crimes committed by aliens prior to naturalization and documented by arrest records. I specifically excluded minor immigration crimes, tax offenses, or white-collar crimes such as driving under the influence. I asked the staff to search for drug trafficking and violent crimes such as rape and child abuse. Those are the types of crimes that are most often repeated. A child abuser tends to abuse again, and a rapist tends to rape again.

After a few days — and going through only a few of the 20 or so boxes — we had our basic 100 heinous crimes, including one criminal who was actually in jail at the time he was naturalized.

We asked the FBI if it had arrest records for crimes committed by the same aliens in this country since 1996 and sent them our one hundred profiles.

Less than a week later, the FBI sent the updated arrest records to the Justice Department. (Per an agreement between the FBI and the Justice Department, all materials requested from the Bureau must go through Justice.) But when we inquired about them, the department claimed that it hadn’t yet received the records. An hour later, however, Justice called back to say that the “misplaced” reports had been located.

Of those 100 arrest records updated by the Bureau, some 20 percent showed arrests for serious crimes after the subject was given citizenship. Based on these random results, we asked for updates on every arrest record in our 20 boxes. Our plan was to update every report, using only FBI numbers and with the FBI redacting all identifying information to address the issue of privacy concerns. If, as we anticipated, anywhere near 20 percent came back with subsequent crimes, we would then confront the Justice Department, demand the identity and address of these known criminals, and point out that they had been given citizenship illegally and were still engaged in criminal activity. Unfortunately, before we could go further, the referral from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr arrived. Had we been given sufficient time to develop evidence and witnesses, the CUSA matter might have been included in the abuse of power impeachment article.

The 1996 arrest records are still available, and I am sure the FBI is still willing to update all of them. In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/BookReview-InsideStoryClintonImpeachment

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

Rosemary Jenks testimony before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee US House of Representatives April 30, 1997, Clinton Gore Citizenship USA CUSA program granted citizenship to likely Democrat voters, 71557 FBI criminal records, Why was this scrubbed on December 9, 2004?

“In October 1996, in one of the first public accounts of this matter, former Center Senior Fellow Rosemary Jenks testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration about many of the abuses surrounding the Citizenship USA program. Ms. Jenks concluded that due to pressure from the White House, and in particular the Vice President’s office, the Immigration and Naturalization Service disregarded many of the requirements of the naturalization process that ensure that only qualified immigrants with no significant criminal history may become citizens. She subsequently testified before the House immigration subcommittee on the same matter, in April 1997. Her remarks before that committee may be found at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/666.htm.&#8221;…David Schippers October 2000

“Why did the US House of Representatives website scrub the April 30, 1997 testimony of Rosemary Jenks on December 9, 2004?”…Citizen Wells

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.”…Hillary Clinton, WABC 2003

Statement of

Rosemary Jenks,

Senior Fellow,

Center for Immigration Studies,

Washington, DC

Before the

Immigration and Claims Subcommittee

of the

Committee on the Judiciary

of the

United States House of Representatives

April 30, 1997

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rosemary Jenks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit, non-advocacy research institution. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss an issue that is central to our national identity, the bond that holds us united as one people: United States citizenship. United States citizenship is the most valuable and the most cherished privilege our nation can bestow upon an individual. It is a privilege that is sought by millions around the world. It carries with it the right to travel freely, to hold certain public offices and to petition for the immigration of family members. Most importantly, however, it carries with it the right, and the responsibility, to take part in shaping and securing the future of this country by voting for elected officials at all levels of government.

The requirements for naturalization are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Among other things, applicants are required to submit an application form, the N-400, a copy of their alien registration card, the “green card,” fingerprints, photographs and a fee of $95 to the INS. In general, they must prove that they are at least 18 years of age; that they have resided in the United States as lawful permanent residents for a minimum of five years (unless they marry a U.S. citizen, in which case it is three years); that they are able to read, write, speak and understand English; that they have at least a minimal knowledge of U.S. history and government; that they are of good moral character; and that they do not have a serious criminal record. Upon receiving the N-400 and the accompanying paper work, INS enters the information into an INS database and forwards the fingerprints to the FBI for a criminal record check. As of November 29, 1996, INS policy is to wait for a definitive response from the FBI regarding the criminal record check before scheduling an interview with the applicant. During the interview, INS examiners (or District Adjudications Officers, DAOs) review the information on the N-400 and test the applicant’s knowledge of English, history and civics, unless he or she presents a certificate from one of the non-government testing entities. If all the requirements are met, the application is approved and the applicant is scheduled for a swearing in ceremony. Otherwise, the application is either denied or continued, depending on the nature of the problem.

Citizenship USA

At the start of FY 1994, when Commissioner Meissner took office, some 270,000 N-400 applications were pending (not including any that had been received, but not been entered into the computer). The number of N-400 applications received in FY 1994 (543,353) surpassed FY 1993 receipts (521,866) by only 21,487. At the beginning of FY 1995, however, the backlog of applications had grown to more than 314,000 and INS expected a surge in new applications because of a combination of factors, including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty becoming eligible based on the five-years residence requirement, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in November 1994, and legislative proposals to bar noncitizens from certain means-tested welfare benefits.

To prepare for this expected surge, an INS working group conducted a survey in June 1994 of ways to streamline the naturalization process. Then, in April of 1995, Commissioner Meissner contracted a management consulting firm, PRC, to work with INS staff to overhaul the naturalization process. PRC and the INS staff conducted a four-week review of the process and produced a “radical redesign” of naturalization. The final report, issued in May 1995, is called Results in 30 Days: Re-Engineering the Naturalization Process. Among other things, it recommends that INS develop strong partnerships with “Service Providers”–community-based organizations (CBOs) and voluntary agencies (VOLAGS)–which would involve “total sharing of information, joint decision making, and aggressive coloration aimed at best meeting the needs of the applicant.” It recommends the introduction of high-tech, fully automated and integrated systems to facilitate data entry and criminal background checks, in addition to automatically triggering “pre-qualified ‘invitations’ to immigrants as they become legally eligible for citizenship.” It adds that “long-standing interpretations of eligibility laws and regulations will be reviewed to…[focus] upon meeting the demands of today’s eligible customers.” Finally, it concludes that processing time from submission “to approval will be reduced to ‘same day service’ for 80% of the applicants.”

In June, 1995, Commissioner Meissner submitted a request that the naturalization program be designated as a “Reinvention Lab” under the auspices of Vice President Gore’s National Performance Review (NPR). Her request letter and subsequent INS documentation make clear that the PRC report was to provide the basis for the “re-engineering” of the naturalization process.

In the meantime, N-400 applications were on the rise and examiners were being overwhelmed. District Offices lacked the equipment they needed to process N-400s efficiently. Many offices did not have access to the Naturalization Automated Case System (NACS) database, and those that did were experiencing problems with it.

Commissioner Meissner unveiled the “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative on August 31, 1995. The stated objective of CUSA, at least initially, was “to become current” on N-400 applications, meaning that applications would be processed from start to citizenship within six months, by the end of FY 1996. INS designated five “CUSA cities,” including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and Chicago, which had the largest numbers of pending cases when the program started. Resources, including personnel, equipment and building space, were to be funneled into these five cities, which would serve as the “Reinvention Labs.”

The naturalization initiative was approved as an NPR Reinvention Lab on September 5, 1995. On September 11, Commissioner Meissner forwarded to all field offices the executive summary of the PRC report with a memo explaining its origin and asking for comments. She wrote that “wherever possible, we will use validated re-engineering techniques as outlined in the PRC report to attack the caseload.” She added that the report offers “a basic road map for change.”

In January 1996, INS implemented a “Direct Mail” initiative in all the CUSA cities except San Francisco. Under this system, N-400s are mailed directly to one of the four INS Service Centers (Vermont Service Center (VSC), Nebraska Service Center (NSC), Texas Service Center (TSC) and California Service Center (CSC)) instead of being submitted to District Offices. The Service Centers are supposed to enter the application data into NACS and pull the fingerprint cards and submit them daily to the FBI.

The implementation of the Direct Mail initiative resulted in almost immediate chaos. Neither Service Center staff nor District Offices fully understood the new procedures. INS offices around the country were being overwhelmed by the increase in N-400 applications–the largest group of aliens amnestied in 1986 had met the five-year residence requirement by December 1995. CUSA offices, in addition to being inundated with backlogged and new cases, were attempting to adopt the new “re-engineered” and streamlined adjudication process, thus compounding the confusion. Non-CUSA offices had been forced to detail some portion of their resources, mainly personnel, to the CUSA offices, so they, too, were falling behind. The number of N-400 applications pending on October 1, 1995 surpassed 800,000, and new applications were being received in record numbers.

On May 1, 1996, INS Associate Commissioner for Examinations Louis Crocetti announced in a memo to all field offices that the “new ideas and innovative procedures” that were tested at CUSA sites with “remarkable results,” were to be expanded Servicewide to all offices. As the nationwide expansion of these “Streamlining Initiatives” was predicated on the “remarkable results” of the pilots in the CUSA cities, a brief look at those results is warranted.

Adjudication Speed–The five CUSA cities managed to accelerate naturalization processing times from more than one year in many cases to six months. This allowed the INS to meet its goal of adjudicating more than one million naturalization applications in FY 1996, but only at great cost to the integrity of the system.

FBI Fingerprint Checks–A February 1994 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department identified three major problems with the INS policy on fingerprint checks: 1) the INS had no way to verify that the fingerprints submitted by an applicant actually belonged to that applicant since the INS was no longer taking the fingerprints itself; 2) some applications were wrongly approved because the FBI had not completed the criminal history check before the interview was scheduled or because the FBI “hit” had not been properly filed; and 3) INS often did not resubmit new fingerprint cards when the FBI rejected the original set as illegible. OIG found that 5.4 percent of aliens submitting applications for benefits had an arrest record. The top reasons for arrest were immigration violations/deportation proceedings (32%), assault/battery/rape (19%), theft/robbery/burglary (18%) and drug possession/distribution (10%). A December 1994 General Accounting Office (GAO) report identified the same problems with the INS fingerprint policy.

The “streamlined” naturalization process did not address any of these problems, but instead, exacerbated them. The INS still had no way to verify that the fingerprints an applicant submitted actually belonged to the applicant. In May 1995, the INS published a proposed rule to require that all applicants have their fingerprints taken by an INS-certified “designated fingerprint service” (DFS). Personnel at these DFSs would be properly trained to take fingerprints and fill out the necessary paperwork, and they would be required to ask for identification showing that the person named on the fingerprint card was the same person being fingerprinted. The final rule, however, was not published until June 1996, and final implementation was delayed from November 1, 1996 to March 1, 1997 to insure that INS had certified an adequate number of DFSs.

Fingerprint cards were supposed to be mailed by the Service Centers to the FBI on a daily basis to insure that the FBI had adequate time to run the criminal history check. In March 1996, however, the FBI did a sampling of receipts from 20 INS offices. Over 60 percent of the fingerprint cards received from Los Angeles had been at the Los Angeles office for more than 30 days before they were submitted. For the New York City office, 90 percent had been at the office for more than 30 days. At the same time the INS was dramatically increasing the workload of the FBI, it was, in practice, cutting the FBI’s response time.

The preliminary results of the INS internal review of naturalization applications approved during CUSA, as presented to the Subcommittee by Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate clearly show that the problems were severe. Of the 1,049,872 immigrants granted U.S. citizenship under CUSA:

71, 557 were found to have FBI criminal records, including INS administrative actions (e.g., deportation proceedings or other immigration violations), and misdemeanor and felony arrests and convictions;

Of these 71,557, 10,800 had at least one felony arrest, 25,500 had at least one misdemeanor arrest, but no felonies, and 34,700 had only administrative actions initiated against them;

113,126 had only name checks because their fingerprint cards were returned to the INS by the FBI because they were illegible;

66,398 did not have FBI criminal record checks because their fingerprint cards were never submitted to the FBI by the INS; and

2,573 were still being processed by the FBI.

As of late February 1997, 168 of these new citizens had been found to be “presumptively, statutorily ineligible” for naturalization based on their criminal record, and in another 2,800 cases, it could not be determined based on available information whether they were eligible or not.

It is important to note that none of the numbers given above indicates the degree to which applicants for naturalization lied on their applications, thereby committing perjury, which should make them ineligible for naturalization. They also do not indicate the number of applicants who may have submitted someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having their criminal record revealed. Finally, for the 180,000 applicants whose fingerprints were illegible or never submitted, the INS has no way to go back and check because it is not legally allowed to require citizens to resubmit their fingerprints. Thus, unless these new citizens volunteer to have their fingerprints taken, we will never know if they were actually eligible or not.

Personnel–Temporary workers comprised most of the additional personnel for CUSA. Some 900 temporary adjudicators and clerical workers were hired by INS to accomplish the goal of naturalizing over a million people in FY 1996. As of June 1996, the Inspector General was investigating the training standards for these temporary workers, along with those workers who were detailed from other agencies or offices. In August 1996, the INS conducted an evaluation of the CUSA training program and found two major deficiencies in the program: 1) personnel were poorly trained in doing the computer checks that, among other things, tell whether an applicant is in deportation proceedings or has had other administration actions taken against him or her; and 2) training in the procedures to deny an application were inadequate at best.

These results point to a larger problem that has since been confirmed by INS employees and by the recent KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of the November 29, 1996 naturalization policy changes. A training program that teaches personnel good customer relations, but not how to do computer checks or deny applications sends an implicit message that it is more important to keep the applicant happy and approve the application than it is to maintain the integrity of the process and demand compliance with the regulations. This is precisely the message that many INS adjudicators received, not only from their training, but also from their supervisors. A number of INS employees testified, under oath, last fall that adjudicators feel pressured by their supervisors to “approve, approve, approve;” that good moral character standards are being ignored; that representatives of Community Based Organizations (CBOs) complain to supervisors about adjudicators who continue or deny applications, and that sometimes those adjudicators are removed from their duties; that adjudicators who go on outreach interviews have to provide copies of their tally sheets (showing approvals, denials and continueds) to the CBO representatives; that adjudicators have been told by their supervisors that they are not IRS agents and so shouldn’t concern themselves with possible tax fraud, even though it is inconsistent with the good moral character requirement.

Volunteer workers were also utilized by many INS offices. These volunteers included members of CBOs, family members of INS employees, and, in at least one case, legal permanent residents. These volunteers performed clerical duties, including filing, mailed naturalization certificates, and collected Alien Registration Cards and distributed naturalization certificates at citizenship ceremonies, among other things. According to INS employees, this practice continued even after INS Headquarters Counsel notified Regional Directors that it is a violation of Federal law for a government agency to use volunteers to perform duties that are normally performed by agency personnel, as it constitutes an unauthorized augmentation of the agency appropriation.

Testing Fraud

In addition to internal INS problems with the naturalization process, there is well-documented evidence of widespread fraud in the testing of naturalization applicants by outside (i.e., non-government) testing entities (OTEs). In 1991, the INS established criteria under which OTEs, including for-profit businesses, could be authorized to administer standardized tests to determine a naturalization applicant’s ability to read and write in English, along with his or her knowledge of history and civics. The INS criteria do not require that administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens or have criminal history checks in order to be approved.

The tests are comprised mainly of multiple choice questions, but applicants also have to write two simple sentences that are dictated to them. Five OTEs currently are authorized to administer these tests: Educational Testing Service (ETS), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), Southeast College, Marich Associates and American College Testing (ACT). (There was a sixth OTE, Naturalization Assistance Services (NAS), until earlier this year when its authorization was terminated after repeated instances of fraud.) These OTEs in turn may license community based organizations (CBOs) and other affiliates to administer the tests on their behalf. However, neither INS, nor the individual OTEs, are able to monitor all the affiliates to ensure that requirements relating to the security of the tests or the integrity of the testing are met.

Reports of testing fraud at affiliates of the OTEs, which first surfaced in 1992, began to increase dramatically in late 1994. INS examiners came across increasing numbers of naturalization applicants who, despite having an OTE test certificate, were unable to communicate in or understand English. Some affiliates were charging as much as $850 to prepare and test immigrants. Examples of documented fraud during the administration of the tests include test proctors pointing to the correct answers on the answer sheet, tests being given in the applicants’ native language instead of English, and the sentences being written on a blackboard so applicants simply have to copy them. Some affiliates guaranteed that, as long as applicants could sign their names in English, they would pass the test. Affiliates were using print media–often ethnic newspapers–radio and television ads to advertise their services. Some ads included false promises and/or blatant lies, but there were no regulations governing the ads’ contents.

In April 1996, INS Headquarters sent instructions to the field offices on procedures to follow to report and initiate investigations of complaints of testing fraud. In May 1996, after it was notified of an investigation into testing fraud by the television show “20/20,” INS Headquarters sent a memo to field offices with guidelines on conducting unannounced on-site inspections of testing sites. The guidelines required each District Office to visit one site per quarter.

During the past couple of months, I have been contacted by the directors of two separate testing affiliates operating in separate regions of the country. Both told me that fraud in the outside testing entities continues, with unauthorized groups administering tests and issuing counterfeit certificates, applicants cheating on the tests, tests being given in the applicants’ native language, and in one case, the director of an authorized affiliate simply filling out the answer forms for the applicants. They also told me about designated fingerprint services (DFSs) selling clean fingerprints to applicants, accepting inadequate identification, such as letters from family members or friends attesting to the person’s identity, and accepting blatantly false identification.

Like the criteria for OTEs, those for DFSs do not require that the person taking the fingerprints be a U.S. citizen or have a criminal record check done. While many of the DFSs are police departments, others raise questions about the judgement of the INS in the selection process. Some of the more interesting DFSs are: Harbor Liquors in Baltimore; Biscayne Haircutters in Miami; and Express Courier Service in Passaic, NJ. Hermandad Mexicana Nacional in Ontario, CA and Pookies Post and Parcel in Pasadena, CA had applications pending at the end of February 1997.

INS Responds

The National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee held the first hearing on the Citizenship USA program on September 24, 1996, after it had subpoenaed and sorted through thousands of pages of INS documents, memos and e-mails detailing most of the problems described herein. Despite the evidence, CUSA Project Director David Rosenberg testified at that hearing that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “successfully reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process. We have initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

The Senate Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on naturalization practices on October 9, 1996, in which the former Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs, Alexander Aleinikoff, testified that, as a result of CUSA, the INS had “reduced processing times for citizenship applications nationwide to traditional levels while maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process, and [had] initiated major improvements to naturalization procedures and operations.”

On October 18, 1996, in an official INS response to Senator Alan Simpson regarding testimony I presented at the October 9 Senate hearing, Commissioner Meissner wrote that, under CUSA, the INS had “made numerous improvements to the [naturalization] process, and [had] addressed this workload with efficiency and integrity.”

Sometime between late October and late November 1996, INS officials realized that the problems with the naturalization process could no longer be ignored. On November 29, 1996, Commissioner Meissner sent a memo to the field offices detailing new “Naturalization Quality Procedures.” The memo outlined seven “key enhancements” to the naturalization process, including: 1) standardization of work process; 2) fingerprint check integrity; 3) enhanced supervisory review; 4) instructions regarding the use of temporary files; 5) implementation of a quality assurance program; 6) guidance regarding revocation procedures; and 7) requirements for increased monitoring of OTEs. The new procedures were effective upon receipt.

In a joint hearing before this Subcommittee and the National Security Subcommittee on March 5, 1997, Commissioner Meissner testified that the new procedures “have eliminated the possibility of naturalization cases being completed without verification of an FBI fingerprint check.” She concluded by saying, “It is very important that Congress and the American people understand the validity of these corrections we have made to the naturalization process….We made mistakes in Citizenship USA…We have corrected those mistakes and have put into place a series of new measures to prevent them in the future.”

The recently-released KPMG Peat Marwick review of the implementation of these new measures brings into question the ability, and the willingness, of INS management to seriously address the problems with the naturalization procedures. The fact that three of the 23 offices surveyed did not even have the correct copy of the new procedures clearly points to a severe lack of communication between INS Headquarters and field offices. It is interesting to note here that, once a draft of the review was given to the INS, Commissioner Meissner called all the District Directors to Washington for a briefing and sent 200 naturalization personnel to a training course. Perhaps if those actions had been taken when the new policies were first implemented, the review would have found better results. Such actions also may have helped to communicate the sense of urgency the reviewers found lacking at the field level.

Despite the fact that field offices had been issued guidelines on monitoring outside testing entities in May 1996, as well as the “enhanced” monitoring procedures in the November 29 memo, the KPMG Peat Marwick review team was “frequently informed that INS Headquarters [not the field offices] was responsible for monitoring all outside testing agencies.”

That three of the service processing centers, along with three field offices, had the wrong FBI address is patently absurd. Most worrisome is the report’s conclusion that “the INS continues to have the most significant control problems with the fingerprint process and the identification of statutorily-barred applicants.”

Recommendations for Improvement

Congress and the American people were assured repeatedly by the INS over the last year that there were no major problems with the naturalization process under Citizenship USA. Then, we were assured that, if there were any problems, they had been fixed. Now, we know that these assurances were unfounded. The Justice Department is correct that the process needs a major overhaul from top to bottom. However, we must be somewhat cautious in our expectations of the re-engineering of the process by Coopers and Lybrand; after all, previous re-engineering efforts got us where we are today.

It is important to recognize that many of the problems with the naturalization process have existed for many years. It is equally important to recognize that any attempt to speed up the adjudication of applications without first addressing the underlying problems will only exacerbate them, as happened under the Citizenship USA program.

The INS was well aware at least as far back as 1993 that naturalization applications would rise dramatically in 1995 simply because the 2.7 million amnestied aliens would become eligible. And yet, all of a sudden in 1995, there was a frantic rush to hire new employees and accelerate an outdated system that had already reached its limits. Had the millions of dollars now being spent on re-engineering, reviewing and auditing the naturalization process been invested in computer equipment, electronic fingerprint scanners and personnel training, we likely would not be having this discussion.

The Coopers and Lybrand review of the process is expected to take 18 months to two years to complete. The naturalization process cannot wait that long. The INS expects 1.8 million new applications this year, and they must not be adjudicated under the conditions described in the KPMG Peat Marwick review. There are a number of areas that need immediate improvement:

In order to process these applications, the INS desperately needs an updated and integrated computer system, just as any business needs to process orders. Scanners, which now have accuracy rates of 90 percent or better, could be used to minimize the data entry workload. Eventually, the INS needs to integrate some of its numerous data bases to facilitate status checks and ensure that immigrants being deported by one branch of the INS are not naturalized by another. Paper files must become a thing of the past. One of the biggest problems throughout the INS is its inability to locate paper files on a timely basis.

The INS also needs to prioritize its electronic fingerprint pilot program. Police departments around the country use electronic fingerprint scanners to identify criminals in a matter of minutes, rather than waiting anywhere from two to six months as the INS does. Electronic scanners could reduce naturalization processing time to a matter of days.

Most importantly, the INS needs to train its personnel adequately. Each adjudicator must know how to use the computer system to check an applicant’s status, to ensure the applicant is not in deportation proceedings, and to update the applicant’s file. Adjudicators must be trained not only in customer relations, but also in the procedures used to deny an application. They should have a clear understanding of what they should be looking for during the interview. Standardized interview guidelines would be helpful. Finally, every adjudicator must understand that the integrity of the naturalization process is always more important than expediency. INS Headquarters should strongly discourage supervisors from rating employees based on the number of applications they process, instead of the way in which they process the applications. A short delay in the process is a much smaller problem for the INS than the granting of citizenship to a child molester.

Crimes that constitute a lack of good moral character, including perjury, should be standardized, rather than being left to the discretion of individual adjudicators.

Both Congress and the INS must recognize that the INS will always have less control over the integrity of those parts of the process that it farms out to other organizations, such as testing and fingerprinting.

– If the INS is going to continue to use OTEs for language, history and civics testing, it must require: 1) that all administrators of the tests be U.S. citizens and undergo criminal background checks; 2) that the OTEs register all testers and insist that they wear photo identification badges while administering tests; and 3) proof from the OTEs that every affiliate has passed at least one undercover inspection each year.

– If the INS is going to continue to use DFSs to take fingerprints, it should certify only law enforcement agencies. INS adjudicators can use the interview to check an applicants knowledge of English, but there is no secondary check if an applicant submits someone else’s fingerprints to avoid having a criminal record uncovered. This is too integral a part of the naturalization process to leave it to those who may have a vested interest, financial or otherwise, in allowing fraud.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.”

https://www.scribd.com/document/322152630/Rosemary-Jenks-testimony-before-the-Immigration-and-Claims-Subcommittee-of-the-Committee-on-the-Judiciary-of-the-U-S-House-of-Representatives-April-3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/wp-admin/