Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Trump

by -
Poll

One month ago, Trump took the oath of office and became President of the United States.

Trump got right to work signing executive orders and the media got to work questioning everything Trump did. From the ban on immigration from countries that support terrorism to his cabinet picks, everything has been met with resistance.

With all the news outlets focusing on Trump so much it is hard to believe that it has only been a month.

Trump is triggering millions to protest while at the same time giving millions of people a sense of economic optimism that hasn’t been felt in a long time. His first term has been met with very different opinions. Some say Trump is doing a horrible job while some say Trump is doing a great job, but we want to know what you think.

How do you think Donald Trump performed in his first 30 days as president?

Comment below.

by -

On Thursday there were two large terror attacks and a terrorist was caught in London, but the corporate media focused on Trump’s press conference.

On Thursday a car filled with explosives blew up in Baghdad that killed at least 55 people.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack as tensions and terror strikes are climbing in the capital city.

On Thursday, The Guardian reported that ISIS claimed responsibility for a suicide bomb blast in Pakistan that killed at lease 70 people and injured 150 more at at crowded religious shrine.

The shrine dedicated to Sufi saint Lal Shahbaz Qalandar in Sehwan was attacked on the busiest day of the week for the holy place according to the Guardian.

In London, man was arrested on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts.

The authorities have a man in custody, but the details are few at this point.

On a day when over a hundred people were killed by ISIS in different attacks, the corporate media is focused almost on whatever Trump says or does.

For example, here is a tweet from CNN on Thursday, one of many that focused on the president.

Guess how many tweets CNN sent out regarding the ISIS claimed terrorist attacks? None!

Maybe reporting on the terrorist attacks by ISIS would validate Trump’s assertion that ISIS is a real threat.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -

Democrats would like you to believe the anti-Trump protests around the country represent a grassroots movement, but who is really behind it all?

Paul Sperry, an author and columnist for the New York Post thinks that Obama and his nonprofit, Organizing for America, is working behind the scenes to undermine Trump at every turn. In fact, the organization was named Obama for America until he won his second election. Then they changed the name to Organizing for America.

Sperry suggests that Obama is using the Organizing For America group to orchestrate the protests and disruptions at town halls.

In an interview with Fox & Friends, Sperry explains how the Jason Chaffetz town hall was sabotaged by the OFA.

Here is a clip of the Chaffetz twon hall and the dramatic feedback he got from the crowd.

Generally when a President leaves office after his eight years are up, they go back home and relax. Not Obama.

The former president is taking a little time off, but then returning back to Washington to live, just two miles from the White House. Obama will be in the center of all the action, and Sperry claims with Obama’s legacy on the line, he seems to be taking an active part in undermining Donald Trump.

With an organization like OFA and the funding that Obama has available, Sperry suggests that Obama is forming a shadow government to uphold his legacy and restore the progressives to power.

At no time in history has something like this happened. Obama does not plan on sitting around and enjoying retirement. He even promised with his first Tweet after Trump took office that he would be back to work soon.

Back to work? He needs a new job. Unfortunately if Sperry is correct, then his new job will to ruin the Trump presidency.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -

Venezuela decides to shut down the broadcasting of CNN in Spanish over a story the government claims isn’t real.

CNN in Spanish ran a story that alleged Venezuelan government officials sold passports to a terrorist group from the Middle East. The report used the testimony of a whistleblower as the basis of the story.

In a news release the National Telecommunications Commission said the story “threatened the peace and democratic stability” of Venezuela.

The Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez framed CNN as being part of a conspiracy to remove President Nicolas Maduro.

Maduro said that CNN is an “instrument of war in the hand of real mafias.”

To further escalate the problems between the US and Venezuela, Trump met with the wife of the imprisoned former leader of Venezuela.

Trump is calling for the immediate release of Leopoldo Lopez who directly opposes the socialist leader Maduro.

CNN is not backing down, and they are standing by their report. In a statement they said, “at CNN en Espanol we believe in the vital role that freedom of press plays in a healthy democracy.”

by -

Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president.

The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.”

In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.

This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counties leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.

The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.

The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.”

Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.

by -

Everyday the corporate media tries to tie Trump to the Russians, but what is the truth now that Russia is starting to bang the war drums?

First the Democrats blamed the DNC and Podesta email leaks on the Russians with no real evidence. There is still no concrete evidence that connects the Russian Government to the leaks.

Then the claims from the left started rolling in after the election that Russia helped throw the election in favor of Trump. Again there is no concrete evidence to suggest that Russia was involved or that it even happened.

Images of Putin and Trump in love have been spread through social media and even projected onto the side of a large building in NYC.

The corporate media is doing their best to frame Trump as a president with deep connections to Russia. Here is an example from CNN, they wrote about two Trump advisors and their alleged ties to the Russian government.

It is true that Trump’s second campaign manager, Paul Manafort, did have connections with Russia and was fired in the summer before the election. Michael Flynn was the other “top aide” that communicated regularly to Russians and as of Monday he is no longer involved in the Trump administration.

If you were to believe the corporate media blindly, then you would think the Russians helped Trump in the campaign, and then helped him win by rigging the election.

Here is the big problem.

In the past week, a Russian spy ship was spotted moving up the east coast monitoring sub stations, military bases and intercepting communications.

Putin was caught this week deploying new cruise missiles that violate an arms control treaty. The New York Times calling it “a major test for President Trump as his administration is facing a crisis over its ties to Moscow.”

Why would Russia become antagonistic with the United States if they just helped us elect Trump? Why are we not seeing more partnerships between the two countries? We are seeing just the opposite; Russia is getting more aggressive.

The corporate media is working so hard to frame Trump as a secret friend of Putin, they are missing the obvious signs of an escalation in tensions. They are even contributing to the tensions with their focus on the Russian connections.

Putin is smart, and he will use the press in America as propaganda in his country to rally support for his next political move and our corporate media is playing right into his hands. It seems they are helping Russia more than Trump.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -

Of the many words to describe Donald Trump, “measured” and “precise” are not among them. This, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing for a larger-than-life figure like Trump. His grandiose demeanor and over-the-top rhetoric is not only responsible for his celebrity status and immense wealth, but his political fortunes as well.

The hallmark of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign was Trump’s broad, sweeping pronouncements about the “sad” state of America; on issues from immigration to terrorism to outsourcing, and more. His ability to channel populist angst about the failures of the Establishment to address the real problems facing Americans was masterful, especially considering his solutions to such problems were no less vague and simplistic. The tactic worked, and Trump won the election. However, that was the campaign, in which exaggerated rhetoric and bite-sized solutions are a candidate’s stock-in-trade.

Serving as president of the United States, however, is far different; or at least it should be. A sure sign of this is the hullabaloo over Trump’s executive order regarding the temporary halt of refugees from foreign countries, and a pause in travel for residents of seven countries considered terrorist hotspots. On intentions alone, the executive order was both a reasonable and a practical first-step to ensuring America’s national security interests were not being sacrificed in the name of globalist altruism. Given Europe’s ongoing battle with domestic terrorism due in part to the flood of refugees from the Middle East, it would have been irresponsible not to immediately review our policies in this regard.

Yet, as the saying goes, the road to Hell — or in this case the federal court system — is paved with good intentions . . . and, poor execution.

Such seems to be the case with the so-called “travel ban” executive order. Instead of working with the various federal agencies involved with immigration policy — prepping them on the incoming changes and soliciting their advice for its implementation — the Trump White House reportedly rushed its release; giving little notice to Homeland Security and failing to have the policies properly reviewed by the Justice Department. The final result of what should have been a noteworthy policy change was mass confusion, mass protests, and a continuing court battle over its constitutionality.

The White House did itself no favors with the release of the order or in its subsequent explanations; using terms like “extreme vetting” to describe the changes, without ever defining what, exactly, “extreme vetting” actually means.

For starters, “vetting” is not a legal term, so its use to describe changes to a legal process only muddies the water. Secondly, the federal government (and the president in particular) already possesses broad powers to police America’s borders and ports of entry. Such powers include warrantless searches of persons, luggage, or vehicles; powers which the president or those agencies involved can change or expand anytime, without issuing an executive order or calling on Congress for legislative authority.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration frequently asserted the government’s right to inspect and detain electronics from all persons traveling into the United States, and to copy any information stored on those devices. Add to this the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently started collecting social media account information for those applying for travel to the United States, and you have an extremely robust “vetting” process already in place.

Thus, outside of any updates to the internal processes of the State Department and other agencies involved in approving refugees or foreign travelers, the government already has at its disposal a broad arsenal of “extreme vetting” powers. So, if the changes were, in fact, behind-the-scenes, why was this not explicitly detailed by the Trump Administration when announcing the policy, rather than brushing aside the changes with overly simplistic and utterly meaningless terminology?

Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with the changes made by the executive order, Administration officials, if not Trump himself, have a responsibility to clearly and precisely explain significant policy changes. There is a practical reason for this, as the chaos following the immigration policy illustrated. So-called “Green Card” holders were left stranded in airports — a result that allowed the liberal judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hang their hat in finding Trump’s Order unconstitutional.

If the White House will not define its policy changes, others will, including Democrats looking for any chance to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Administration. That is exactly what happened here; and guess with which narrative the Mainstream Media ran?

Trump has already proven detractors of his abilities as Executive-in-Chief wrong with several of his cabinet picks, not to mention his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Avoiding stumbles like his immigration executive order, by keeping in mind that he is no longer on the campaign trail, will help him keep this momentum and out of unnecessary controversies; otherwise, further unnecessary challenges and set backs will result.

Thoughts? Comment below.

by -

The corporate media is downplaying the most significant turn of events to take place since President Trump took office.

Here it is:

An agency of the United States government targeted a top level Executive Branch appointee to discredit him and force his resignation . . . and they succeeded.

In case you missed it, retired Army three-star general, Michael Flynn, was serving as Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor.

Before taking his position within the Trump administration, Flynn spoke with a Russian Ambassador regarding Obama-imposed sanctions.

Regardless of whether or not the conversation was inappropriate, Flynn misled Vice President Pence about the conversation.

Not a cool thing to do and Flynn resigned after details about the conversation were leaked to the press.

In the four paragraphs above, the key phrase is “leaked to the press.”

Someone within America’s intelligence apparatus not only spied on a U.S. citizen, buy they leaked details of the wire-tapped conversation to the press in order to damage the Office of the Presidency.

What . . . the . . . –ck?

On Tuesday morning following his resignation the night before, Flynn took to the cable networks to explain that the wiretapping and leaks were illegal.

While the leaks were clear violations of security, unfortunately the wiretapping was PERFECTLY legal.

We brought this upon ourselves.

Back in 2007, George Bush pushed for an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Falling in line of the Orwellian naming conventions of the government, the amendment was called the “Protect America Act of 2007.”

The Act eased restrictions on our wiretapping and cyber-spying activities by changing the law to require only one party of a conversation to be located overseas.

And get this; if a conversation between two Americans takes place within U.S. borders, but goes through a foreign router or switchboard, then . . . boom . . . the government can totally spy on that conversation.

So Flynn’s conversation with a Russian Ambassador was perfectly in line with the regulations of FISA.

Many Americans think, “I’m not a terrorist so I’m not worried about it.”

What happened to Mike Flynn should change that thinking forever.

If rogue intelligence agents can spy on a top-level administration official . . . more importantly, the National Security Advisor . . . what do you think they could do to you?

If you live in the D.C. area, you should live in fear.

Cut off an employee of the NSA on 395 and they can get to work, grab their coffee, look up your plate numbers, route your emails through a router in Norway, and you’re privacy is shot.

Big user of Social Media and use a hashtag like #lifefreeordie? You can be grouped into a pool of “domestic terrorists” and have your communications monitored (similar scenarios have happened).

Make no mistake; the lack of privacy at the hands of the government turns them from servants of society to overseers of the unwashed masses.

It’s time to repeal with Protect America Act of 2007 and give privacy back to Americans.

by -
Putin wants a "I'm sorry" from Fox News.

During Saturday afternoon’s airing of an interview between Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and President Donald Trump, the host of The O’Reilly Factor, called Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer.”

Donald Trump quickly responded, “You think we’re so innocent?”

A Russian Spokesman for Putin, Dmitry Peskov was nearly as quick with his request for an apology from Fox News and Bill O’Reilly for the “unacceptable and offensive” remark.

Peskov told reporters, “We would like to receive an apology to the president from this respected organization.”

Trump on the other hand was mocked by old foes about his own comment:

Vladimir Putin is suspected of ordering the deaths of several Russian critics including the following:

Alexander Litvinenko: A former KGB officer and Putin critic who died a slow death after being poisoned by polonium-210.

Anna Politkovskaya: Russian journalist murdered with a bullet to her head at point blank range. The killers were caught and admitted to being part of a $150,000 contract paid by “a person unknown.”

Natalia Estemirova: Another journalist who worked with Anna Politkovskaya. Natalia was also murdered by a gunshot wound to the head.

Stanislav Markelov: Attorney for Politkovskaya. Murdered near the Kremlin by a masked gunman.

However, Trump’s sarcastic comment about America being “so innocent” should also be weighed heavily by the public and men like Marco Rubio should think twice about the government’s own crimes against its citizens.

Just over a year ago, Robert LaVoy Finicum was gunned down with the help of FBI agents after occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

In 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that for the first time since the Civil War, the government “targeted and killed” one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, without a hearing or any due process. While Anwar was allegedly involved in terrorism activities, three other American citizens, including Al-Aulaqi’s 16-year-old son were also killed.

Backing up to 1993, The Federal Bureau of Investigations, lead by Attorney General Janet Reno, raided the home of the Branch Davidians.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms suspected the group and its leader, David Koresh, of violating weapons laws.

Seventy-six people were killed in the raid that left the Davidian’s compound on fire. Of the 76 people killed, 20 were shot, including five children who were under the age of 14.

Twenty-one of those who died during the final raid were children. The youngest were Startle Summers, age 1, Chanel Andrade, age 1, Paiges Gent, age 1, and Hollywood Sylvia, age 1.

While the government claims most of the deaths occurred as a result of “suicide, consensual execution or forced execution,” FLIR footage of the raid shows snipers shooting any person who tried to flee the burning building.

Additionally, a shaped explosive charge was placed over a hardened area of the compound, instantly killing the 41 women and children taking shelter in the concrete-lined room.

While there is little argument over Vladimir Putin’s violent past, President Trump may be correct in pointing out the flaws of recent American history that have yet to be corrected or admitted.

by -
A Fourth of July Party at the U.S. Embassy in London held for diplomats and their close friends -- tab went to the U.S. Taxpayers

The United States Department of State has a problem.

The isolated employees of this government agency that serves as the face of America across the world appears to have their own agenda regardless of who is serving in the White House.

A “dissent cable” is being reported widely within the corporate media and has garnered 1,000 signers of State Department employees . . . and it’s still being circulated.

The letter started in an office in Washington, D.C. then electronically shuffled its way around the world, showing up in one embassy after another.

The Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) document is reproduced in full below.

The memo, while written in a standard government format that is difficult to understand due to overuse of acronyms and “inside talk” essentially vents about the Executive Order signed by President Trump.

The order temporarily blocked refugees from seven hostile nations.

Standing out within the document is its emotional tone that is designed to invoke sympathy for non-Americans. The memo recalls an Iranian boy whose parents had spent $6,000 on a trip to NASA who asked, “Can I not go because I am Iranian?”

Other sob stories told by State Department employees included an Iranian couple who were traveling to see their son who was dying of cancer in the United States, and another Iranian man, married to an American who wanted to travel to see the birth of his child.

The author of the sensitive document, along with its 1,000 signers clearly place the personal interests of foreign nationals over the security of the United States.

But it’s nothing new.

The “dissent channel” has existed within the United States Department of State since the Vietnam War.

It is an unusual method to voice complaints and resolve conflicts that creates confusion abroad and discontent at home as the internal memos are nearly always leaked.

In June of 2016, 51 American diplomats circulated a similar dissent cable critical of President Obama’s Syrian policy and called for “bombing” within the war-torn nation. The bombing runs were promoted by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The corporate media of course buried that story.

Fast forward just four days, and President Trump’s discussions with foreign leaders were leaked to the press and offered in a way to embarrass the new president.

The Drudge Report blared with the headline. “Trump Threatens Troops in Mexico” while another story recalled a tense discussion with the Australian Prime Minster over Syrian refugees.

Who would have had access to these transcripts?

Employees of the Department of State.

Who leaked them? Take a guess.

Diplomats and their many employees and assistants, paid for by American taxpayers, have for many decades taken a “let’s all get along for a better world” mentality rather than doing what they are paid to do which is placing America’s interests above all else.

Compromise appears to be their only solution as they mingle with their well-healed foreign counterparts; attend their cocktail parties and treat any foreigner with power as close as family.

The loyalty of these entrenched diplomats appears to stop at the borders of their own nation.

It’s time for President of the United States to clean house and terminated the jobs and contracts of anyone and everyone working for the Department of State. Their institutional knowledge is best forgotten and replaced with the acumen of American business leaders who have had no other choice but to deal with foreign nations fairly yet firmly.

Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the example of the type of diplomat America needs at this point in time.

For far too long, our nation has served as not only the World’s Police Force, but the wealthy, dumb uncle that everyone takes advantage of.

One-by-one, Trump can take pleasure in marching in every State Department employee . . . down to the last secretary . . . and repeating the words, “You’re fired.”

“Dissent Cable” printed below.

Subject: Visa Applicants at Consulate General Dubai Seek Clarification on Executive Order
SUMMARY
1. (SBU) Begin summary. For the second consecutive day, pursuant to official guidance from Consular Affairs on the President’s January 27 Executive Order (EO) on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, Consulate General (CG) Dubai canceled over 180 visa interviews on January 30. Consular officers once again staffed the security checkpoint at the Consular Services Entrance and personally provided letters explaining the appointment cancellations to over 50 Iranian nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants; consular staff also informed several Legal Permanent Residents and immigrant visa beneficiaries who had not yet entered the United States about the EO. Consular officers witnessed significant frustration and confusion, especially among the mostly Iranian NIV applicant pool, as they relayed and explained the new policy. End summary.
GREEN CARD HOLDERS AND IMMIGRANT VISA HOLDERS
2. (SBU) Several green card and immigrant visa holders sought clarification on their ability to travel to the United States. An Iraqi man, who previously obtained a Special Immigrant Visa for his work as an interpreter with the U.S. Army in Iraq, provided a letter of recommendation from the U.S. military and said, “I just don’t know what to do.” Another young Iraqi man with an approved immigrant visa, accompanied by his Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) mother, inquired as to whether he or she could travel to the United States. An Iranian green card holder expressed concern that the 90 day suspension would affect her LPR status.
FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL IMPACT ON IRANIAN NONIMMIGRANT VISA APPLICANTS
3. (SBU) Over half of the Iranian NIV applicants appeared for their canceled January 30 appointments, despite Consulate General Dubai’s GSS contractor having informed them on January 29 of their appointment cancellation. [Note: While NIV appointments for January 30 included applicants from the other six countries affected by the EO, none appeared at the consulate for their interview. CG Dubai’s GSS Contractor notified all applicants affected by the EO of the interview cancellations via email and text message. End Note] Many applicants lamented the financial burdens incurred in traveling from Iran to Dubai for an interview that had been canceled. One couple said that they had waited for over six months for their appointment date; they expressed concern about the difficulty of rescheduling if the ban is lifted.
4. (SBU) Several applicants were elderly parents trying to visit their children in the United States. One Iranian woman stated, “I haven’t seen my daughter in two years. I was going to meet my new grandchild. I pray this all gets situated. We were hoping we could have been interviewed and have our cases put on hold. Then we would have felt that we had made some sort of progress.” Another Iranian applicant accompanied by his wife and daughter complained about “the arbitrariness” of the EO. He stated, “Tell President Trump that my government is the terrorist, but we the people are not terrorists.”
5. (SBU) Applicants became extremely emotional while interacting with consular officers, believing that the recent reports of a judicial stay on the EO applied to them. An Iranian man with a pregnant American citizen wife in the United States pleaded, “Please, can I just go see the birth of my child? Is there any exception? I will have to have my wife come to Iran for the birth. I want to be there to see my child.” Another Iranian couple said that they were traveling to care for their dying son in the United States, stating, “By the time the ban is lifted, my son is going to be dead from cancer.”
6. (SBU) A thirteen-year old Iranian boy also came to the Consulate to inquire about the validity of his previously issued U.S. NIV. He said that his parents had paid $6,000 for an upcoming school trip to NASA. He asked, “I heard about the Presidential order. Can I not go because I am Iranian?”
COMMENT
7. (SBU) CG Dubai is still inundated with Iranian NIV applicants, green card holders, and immigrant visa holders affected by the EO who are seeking clarification and explanations. Post believes that communication challenges reaching individuals inside Iran mean that applicants are not receiving appointment cancellation notifications from Post’s GSS contractor and continue to travel to Dubai to attend their visa appointments. CG Dubai will continue to deploy consular officers to directly engage with those who have questions or complaints about interview cancellations or bars on U.S. travel. CG Dubai seeks updated talking points on how the EO impacts legal permanent residents seeking to return to the United States and dual nationals of countries of concern.

TRENDING STORIES

The former Penn State assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky was convicted of molesting several young boys, and now his son is convicted of similar crimes. Jeff...