News & Politics

News, Politics, Governments, World Affairs, Journalism, War, Peace

I did not vote for President Trump nor did I vote for President Obama. I simply do not vote for anybody.  I am also not too keen on getting involved in political discourse. However, I have watched and keep watching people obsessed fighting adamantly against President Trump, marching, chanting angry themes and making a mockery of the few privileges we have left in America. He is now our President! I am concerned, however, he may disparage women, minorities and others. I am also worried about his lack of knowledge with foreign policy; particularly because he came from the private sector with no political experience. I am not sure how this will impact the future of the U.S. And, these are just a few of the many unanswered questions, we, Americans face.

Despite this, I believe Donald Trump’s success as a businessman and as a father is to be praised and to be admired.   I truly believe, the people who do not like him is because they have not taken the time to get to know what he stands for.  Despite of it all, President Trump deserves a chance, as any other President would have; in the same way President Obama was given the opportunity. The American people have spoken loud and clear and chose to elect Donald Trump for good reason. Even if you do not agree with such reasoning, he is still our President and the best thing we can do is to wish him well and pray for him and his family. It is not an easy job! The gridlock, bickering, anger and the divide that has swept our nation will only be perpetuated if President Trump is not given the chance to govern as he so deserves and fought so hard to achieve. And, if you analyze the situation you will conclude that Donald Trump had been preparing for this moment all of his adult life. 

Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Last modified on
Hits: 309

I am surely not the only one noticing the extent to which the corporate media worldwide are damning Donald Trump. In the wake of Brexit, his supporters were repeatedly likened to the Brits who voted Leave, both groups being characterized as “white and less well educated.” And over the past week, the Washington Post has been examining and damning nearly everything The Donald has said and done, hammering the presumptive GOP nominee with an average of six heavily editorialized news articles daily, plus op-eds.

To be sure, Trump has earned much of the opprobrium, with his often contradictory and scattershot presentations of the policies he intends to pursue, as well as the provocative language that has left him legitimately open to charges of racism and sexism. Trump’s racially flavored warnings about homegrown terrorists certainly have considerable popular appeal in the wake of San Bernardino and Orlando, but the reality is that Muslim Americans as a group exhibit low crime rates, achieve higher-than-average levels of education, and are financially successful. Police sources reveal that they frequently cooperate with law enforcement regarding members of their community who are flirting with militancy.

Trump is also presumed guilty of several other Democratic Party-defined capital crimes, including failing to enthusiastically embrace diversity and multiculturalism. But at the core of his appeal to voters is the one issue that he largely gets right, and that is immigration, both as a cultural phenomenon and as a law-and-order issue.

His up-front condemnation of illegal immigration can be seen as the launching pad for his successful campaign for the GOP nomination. From a rule-of-law and national-security perspective, many Americans have long been dismayed by the federal government’s unwillingness to control the nation’s borders, and many blue-collar workers have a more personal stake in the issue, being appalled by the impact of mass illegal immigration on their communities.

While Trump’s proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is rigorously screening travelers and immigrants—but it has provided little to no evidence that its procedures are effective.

The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a serious threat. Shi’a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi’as as heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni.

It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant groups.

U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists. Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably “catch” more innocent people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for additional review.

For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 “visa waiver” countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor’s visa, called a B-2. At that point, the consulate’s objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud relates to overstaying one’s visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S. The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts, employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision.

In some countries, documentary evidence can be supplemented by police reports if the local government is cooperative. Some consulates employ investigators, generally ex-policemen, who are able to examine public records if there is any doubt about an applicant’s profile or intentions, but most governments do not permit access to official documents. Recently, background investigations have sometimes been supplemented by an examination of the applicant’s presence on the internet to determine whether he or she is frequenting militant sites or discussing political issues online. If the visa applicant is seeking to become a U.S. resident, the process is, of course, much more rigorous.

Both travel and immigrant visas are nevertheless a somewhat subjective process. I knew a visa officer in Turkey who delighted in turning down Iranian applicants “on principle.” It was a seemingly arbitrary act—but this was shortly after the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, and it was plausibly based on the fact that there was no embassy any longer in Iran and documents presented in Turkey would be impossible to verify.

Most of those convicted in terrorism-related cases in the U.S. are foreign-born. The real issue that Trump should be addressing is the federal government’s inability to vet visa applicants to a level that could be considered sufficient from a national-security perspective, a failure that has led some conservatives to complain that White House policy is to “invade the world, invite the world.”

In many places, official documents are easy to forge or can even be obtained in genuine form from corrupt bureaucrats. If one is unable to go the source of the document for verification, papers submitted in support of a visa application are frequently impossible to authenticate. So what does one do when applicants from countries in the throes of civil war—like Iraq, Syria, or Yemen—show up at a visa window, some of them with no documents at all? Or when such applicants constitute not a trickle but a flood? It gets complicated, and Trump has a point in saying we should deny visas to all of them until procedures can be established for making those judgments in a more coherent fashion.

Another steady stream of immigrants into the U.S. comes from the refugee-resettlement process; Washington is a signatory to the United Nations-administered agreements to resettle refugees. Much of the background vetting is carried out by the UN in a not-completely-transparent fashion, and the resettlement of the refugees in various places is done by quota—with the U.S. being the largest recipient country, expected to receive 100,000 refugees in 2017. But does the Obama administration have a clue regarding the reliability of the information it gets on the new would-be Americans? If it does, it is not letting on.

The mostly Saudi attackers on 9/11 used temporary or tourist visas to enter the country, so the threat from that source should be clear to everyone involved in the entry process, and consulates are acutely aware of the danger. But beyond that, the Obama administration has been complacent. It would no doubt point to the fact that no refugee to the United States has carried out an act of terror once admitted to the country, which would be true but somewhat misleading: The estimated 77,000 Somali refugees who have somehow wound up in Minnesota have included a substantial number of younger men and women who have returned home to join the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab. And it would in any event be prudent to be cautious when relying on past behavior models, as groups like ISIS have indicated their desire to hit the United States and have proven to be highly adaptable in their tactics.

Trump’s demands to block many visitors and would-be residents might seem an overreaction, but until a broken immigration system is fixed, he is more right than wrong.

This article has been reproduced from Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Last modified on
Hits: 197

Posted by on in News & Politics

For many years I have followed the Republican candidates without questions or doubt, always thinking it was the Party of truth and honesty with men of integrity and honorable party of leaders.

Although there were some in the past like Ronald Reagan who in my opinion was the only real President this Nation ever had, but always hoping someone similar to him would come.

After seeing the disaster of the past eight years, and, disillusioned by the poor performance of John McCain, and Mitt Romney, who were heavily criticize for not 

been strong enough in the debates against Obama and gave away the Presidency both times; my hope was revived by the postulation of Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of the United States.

Maybe Mr. Trump is not “POLITICALLY CORRECT" but he is “AMERICANLLY CORRECT" (sic) he has reacted like any other Citizen who cares for the what is right and see the Country falling at the hands of ugly politicians who only care about their own personal gain.

What really bothers me is to see the so called LEADERS of the Republican Party running away like scare rabbits at the first sign of trouble instead of regrouping to back up their Candidate and find ways to reaffirm his positions against the Media and powerful interest national and international.

I can see the destruction of the Republican Party after the act of COWARDLY they did with Mr. Trump.  Again they are giving the Country away and this time there will be no return!

Shame on all of you in the Republican Party including the Bush Family and the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

How can they call themselves leaders? Leaders of What?

Last modified on
Hits: 401
U.S. Eases Restrictions on Travel to Cuba and Bank Transactions

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced a new round of measures chipping away at the decades-long sanctions against Cuba Tuesday, encouraging more person-to-person educational travel and allowing Cuban nationals to get jobs in the United States or to open U.S. bank accounts.

The rules could allow Cuban athletes and entertainers — including baseball players — to get jobs in the United States without having to defect from Cuba, officials said.

"It certainly does address the ability of Cuban athletes who could earn salaries in the United States to do so. That's obviously one of the issues that (Major League Baseball) has been discussing with Cuba," said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. But for the rules to allow a new influx of Cuban ballplayers, Cuba may still have to change its rules to allow scouts into the country, he said.

The new measures come days before President Obama departs for Havana for a historic two-day mission to improve economic ties with the communist nation, even while he also plans to meet with dissidents in an effort to push the regime toward democracy.

It's the fifth round of new rules the Obama administration has announced since opening up diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2014, allowing educational visits and, later this year, direct commercial flights. But the current travel regulations require that educational trips be sponsored by an educational organization.

Under the rules that go into effect Wednesday, educational trips can now be person-to-person — allowing, for example, more efforts to build democratic institutions in Cuba. The traveler would be required to keep records of the full-time educational activities for five years.

"This is something that we will monitor," said Andrea Gacki of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. "We do have confidence that individuals will be able to come up with ways to engage with the Cuban people in ways that are more affordable and less expensive than having to work through a formal program."

Existing regulations also allow for family family visits, government business, journalistic activity, professional research, religious celebrations, public performances and exhibitions. But tourism is still prohibited under the embargo, creating a system of exceptions .

The regulations add to a growing system of increasingly exceptions to the Cuban embargo, which is set by law and can only be lifted by Congress.

"The fact is, we found ways consistent with the law to open up space for further travel and commercial engagement, in part because we were also able to demonstrate ways that it benefits the Cuban people," Rhodes said. "But at a certain point, the embargo is an impediment to the very engagement that has a change of improving the quality of life for the Cuban people."

Rhodes said the new steps aren't contingent on any reciprocal action by Cuba. "These are important changes, and they will, we believe, advance our own national interests," he said.

Other steps announced by the Treasury, Commerce and State Departments Tuesday include a relaxation of restrictions on shipping to Cuba, imports of Cuban software, and consumption of Cuban goods by Americans while in third countries.

Last modified on
Hits: 558
Overwhelming UN vote says US blockade of Cuba needs to end

The UN General Assembly has voted 191-2 to condemn the US blockade of Cuba, with only the US and Israel opposed. 

Washington voted against the resolution despite the recent renewal of diplomatic ties with Cuba and the push by President Barack Obama to lift the embargo first introduced a year before he was born. 

The draft resolution urges all member states to “refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures” that furthering the blockade, and those that have such laws to “repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible.” It specifically cites the 1996 Helms-Burton Act as one such law, which affects the sovereignty of other states and legitimate interests of their citizens, as well as the freedom of trade and navigation. Helms-Burton penalizes foreign companies for doing business with Cuba. 

Of the 193 member states at the General Assembly, 191 voted in support of the resolution, titled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”  

Washington imposed the blockade in 1960, after Cuban revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro overthrew the regime of Fulgencio Batista, a US-backed dictator. It has been in place for over 55 years.  

“The time has come to put an end to this unilateral embargo," said the Paraguayan representative, speaking on behalf of Mercosur, and a free trade block of seven South American nations.  

“The continuation of the embargo is unjustifiable, and counters Cuba’s effort to achieve sustainable development,” said the Iranian representative, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. 

President Obama announced in December 2014 that he would be changing the US policy on Cuba, arguing that the blockade had not produced the desired effect. In May 2015, the US removed Cuba from the list of countries accused of sponsoring terrorism. The Cuban embassy in Washington reopened in July, and the US embassy in Havana followed suit in August.   

Last modified on
Hits: 613