Did Sec. of State Tillerson's right hand man, Brian Hook, set a major policy shift on refugees?

“…..if he hires Brian Hook, he will be opening his arms to a member of the very establishment he campaigned against.”

Daniel DePetris

 
Update July 31, 2017: More on Hook and the Romney/Bushies, here.
Last night I told you that twitter phenom Mike Cernovich immediately fingered Tillerson’s chief policy advisor, Brian Hook, as the State Department official who okayed the release of an e-mail last month to their refugee industry partners around the world announcing a huge jump in weekly refugee admissions.

(So far we have not seen the bump-up from 900 to 1,500 a week that was  announced as Trump and Tillerson were wrapping up a world tour. That is not to say it isn’t still coming.)
A jump to 1,500 a week for the remaining weeks of the fiscal year would push Trump’s numbers up above 2—56,424 and 58,238—and perhaps as many as 5 of Barack Obama’s years! (Here).
When the New York Times announced the stunning news (we wrote about it here), I and many others following the issue closely, were completely flummoxed—-how could Trump go so far from his campaign promises, and did he think no one was watching?
 ***Update*** Just checked the numbers and there is no sign of any bump-up. We admitted 2,244 in the last 3 weeks (June 2-June 23) which represents an average of 748 refugees a week.
We don’t know if Cernovich is correct, but when you learn more about Hook, it makes sense.
Here is what you need to know about who Rex Tillerson relies on for policy decisions in a State Department being run almost completely by career bureaucrats who frankly hate Donald Trump.
And, incidentally, it easily could have been Hook (Tillerson’s chief policy strategist) who was the leader of the pack stomping on Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban while shilling for GEORGE SOROS here last week.
Here is Brian Hook’s bio.
Here is what Alex Pfeiffer (Daily Caller) said about him and his appointment in March:

Brian Hook, a Trump critic and former Bush administration official, is currently serving as the State Department’s director of policy planning, The Daily Caller has learned.

Brian Hook is not only a Bushie, but a Romney advisor and cheerleader. When Trump did not choose Romney for Sec. of State, was Hook the bone Trump threw to the Bush/Romney interests. Was Tillerson required to take Hook?

Foreign Policy magazine previously reported that Hook was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s favorite for the role and a department spokeswoman confirmed to TheDC Thursday that Hook got the job. The director of policy planning is a key position responsible for running the department’s internal think tank, which is home to the secretary of state’s speechwriters.

Hook previously served in the Bush administration in several roles, including as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, and later served as a foreign policy adviser for Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.

The State Department official also co-founded the John Hay Initiative, a neoconservative group that organized a letter of over 100 Republican foreign policy experts who would refuse to back Trump. Eliot Cohen, another co-founder of the John Hay Initiative, has been a strong critic of the Trump administration.

During the Presidential campaign, Hook disagreed with every one of Trump’s positions, so clearly he is opposed to slowing the flow of refugees to America.

The John Hay Initiative*** advocated for a foreign policy that Trump rejected during the presidential campaign. It called for a tougher stance against Russia and more involvement overseas. Hook told Politico in May, “Even if you say you support him as the nominee, you go down the list of [Trump’s] positions and you see you disagree on every one.”

After Foreign Policy reported that Hook might land a State Department role, Daniel DePetris, a National Interest contributor, wrote, “Trump should know what he’s getting himself into: if he hires Brian Hook, he will be opening his arms to a member of the very establishment he campaigned against.”

More here.
Then we learn even more from a huge article at Politico.  Of course Politico is writing in support of the State Department bureaucrats who, first and foremost, hate Donald Trump and are working daily to undermine his White House (at least on the issue we care the most about, see here).
Politico tells us that because the Tillerson State Department has hired so few people loyal to the President, foreign governments are going directly to Hook or, Jared Kushner!

In theory, the Policy Planning office is a kind of in-house think thank that develops long-range strategy, but in practice it often feeds the secretary of state with views about day-to-day problems. The lack of Trump appointees at the State Department’s regional desks and embassies, and the sidelining of many career diplomats, has added pressure on Hook’s office to develop policy for Tillerson.

It’s also led foreign governments to seek out other avenues of communication. Trump has nominated only a handful of U.S. ambassadors, and some countries have responded simply by reaching out directly to Hook or to other White House officials, including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Politico tells us that career bureaucrats went bonkers over Trump White House decision on refugees.

Others say asking senior aides who were deeply and visibly supportive of an array of Obama-era foreign policy initiatives — including the Iran deal — to reverse, modify, or unwind those initiatives, is difficult if not impossible. Even before Tillerson’s confirmation, the State Department’s dissent channel — an internal venue for career officials to register concerns with the trajectory of American policy — lit up with protests over the administration’s temporary ban on refugees.

So, did Hook (Politico calls him Tillerson’s “policy brain”) agree to the announcement of a stepped-up refugee admissions schedule to appease the swamp monsters—the long-time bureaucrats who almost unanimously donated to Hillary’s presidential campaign?

Simon Henshaw, Acting Asst. Sec. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/213334.htm

And, one more thing.  We have been pointing out for many weeks that the US Refugee Admissions Program is being run by long-time bureaucrats and that there has been no move to find a Trump loyalist to fill the Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) position.
Politico confirms that Trump/Tillerson have made no move to get their own people in place.
LOL! Politico suggests that the ‘career civil servants’ want some leadership, but, at least for PRM, I’m betting they are pretty happy to have no Trump-appointee holding the reins so that they can simply run the show and persuade Hook/Tillerson that opening the spigot to 1,500 refugees a week will go unnoticed.
Politico continues…..

About four months after Tillerson’s confirmation, Hook has told associates that his boss is in no rush to fill the several hundred senior-level posts that require political appointments. Trump has yet to nominate a single assistant secretary, leaving the department’s top posts for regions like Europe, Asia and the Middle East vacant. Instead, career civil servants — “acting” assistant secretaries — are filling the jobs until their replacements are nominated, a move that is eliciting criticism from department veterans.

By the way, it will be a battle-royal in the Senate over the PRM job, but there is no reason that Tillerson can’t (right now!) get an advisor who knows something about the USRAP, and such an advisor/consultant does not require Senate confirmation.  Indeed it should be noted that George W. Bush had to get his Asst. Sec for PRM (Ellen Sauerbrey) in place by using a recess-appointment.
Much more here at Politico.
*** More on Hook at the John Hay Initiative.

So did President Trump get blindsided by Dept. of State announcement last month?

That would be the announcement that the State Department was going to almost double the number of refugees being admitted to the country from around 900 a week to 1,500 a week. (So far that rate has not materialized!)
We reported the stunning news from the New York Times here.
Thanks to Richard at Blue Ridge Forum (on twitter @highblueridge ) for sending us this tweet from twitter extraordinaire Mike Cernovich.  @Cernovich has 298,000 followers and here is what he posted on May 30th:
 

 
So who is Brian Hook?
Hint! He worked against Donald Trump in the primary and now he sits next to Tillerson’s throne!
This is not how one goes about draining the swamp!
More tomorrow……

Supreme Court could announce fate of Trump 'travel ban' and refugee ceiling reduction at any time

According to AP at ABC News, here, they have likely already decided and an announcement will come next week.
 

Which way will they go?

 
There are two major issues at stake (maybe more than two, but two for me!).  The first is whether the President has the authority to ban, for a limited time, all entry to the US from six (mostly Muslim countries that are hotbeds of terrorism) in order to keep us safe while they review the entry screening process.  Again, this involves all those of all religions and ethnic groups entering the US through any means from those six countries.
The second issue, and the one more interesting to me, is the one addressed by the Hawaii court (9th Circuit), but NOT by the Maryland court (4th Circuit), and that is whether the President has the legal right to come in at any number below the refugee admissions CEILING set last fall (in this case set by Obama), or more specifically has a legal right to announce a mid-year lowering of the admission ceiling for all refugees, of all religions, from all countries! And, does he have the legal authority to put in place a 120-day moratorium (again all countries, all religions) while the federal government reviews the screening process for refugees.

Presidents always come in under the CEILING, some by very significant numbers, and no one has legally challenged previous presidents on that issue.  There may have been some squawking by federal refugee contractors***, who receive a large portion of their budget based on a per head payment, when Bush came in way low in the wake of 9/11, but I don’t think he was taken to court over it.
See what I said here about how Obama failed to reach some of his ceilings:

In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama?

In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”?

I have my fingers crossed that Justice Department lawyers knew enough to separate the two issues (the overall travel ban from the CEILING issue) which should never have been addressed in the same Executive Order in the first place.
Here is what ABC is reporting:

The Supreme Court has almost certainly decided what to do about President Donald Trump’s travel ban affecting citizens of six mostly Muslim countries.

The country is waiting for the court to make its decision public about the biggest legal controversy in the first five months of Trump’s presidency. The issue has been tied up in the courts since Trump’s original order in January sparked widespread protests just days after he took office.

The justices met Thursday morning for their last regularly scheduled private conference in June and probably took a vote about whether to let the Trump administration immediately enforce the ban and hear the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings blocking the ban.

The court’s decision could come any time and is expected no later than late next week…..

[….]

The case is at the Supreme Court because two federal appellate courts have ruled against the Trump travel policy, which would impose a 90-day pause in travel from citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the travel policy does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination.

That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends Sept. 30.

More here.
If the court rules against Trump on this last point, I see the contractors getting what they always wanted—the President’s determination set in September in advance of the fiscal year would become a TARGET that must be reached, and not simply a CEILING not to be exceeded.  (The Refugee Act of 1980 does have a mechanism for increasing the ceiling during the course of the year that requires consultation with Congress, but is silent if the President comes in low.)
For a laugh, as the contractors argue in the Supreme Court that the President (in this case, Donald Trump) doesn’t have the right to set the ceiling, they say this (see here) about a bill in Congress that would eliminate some Presidential power to set the ceiling:

“….it would remove presidential authority to set the number of refugees who may enter the country per year.”

Make up your minds—does the Prez have the power or not? Truth be told, this is about Donald Trump and not if the president was Mark Zuckerberg!
***Federal refugee resettlement contractors are paid by you, on a per head basis, to place refugees in your towns:

 

LA Times headline is deceptive (yes, can you believe it!)

Here is the headline of an LA Times story yesterday designed to give an impression to lazy readers that President Trump (the meany) has drastically cut refugee admissions.  He hasn’t.

Number of refugees admitted to U.S. drops by almost half

Their story begins:

The number of refugees admitted to the United States was cut by nearly half in the first three months of the Trump administration compared with the final three months of the Obama presidency, reflecting the new president’s skepticism toward immigration.

Further down, at least they try to be honest for readers willing to read more than the headline as they report what we reported ad nauseam and that is that the outgoing Obama State Department was pouring refugees in to the US at a phenomenal rate.

Obama at the UN last September just as he was opening the flood gates (wide!). http://www.lavocedinewyork.com/en/un/2016/09/21/obama-at-the-un-global-refugee-crisis-most-urgent-test-of-our-time/

The data suggest that the Obama administration, as it was about to turn over power to Trump, significantly stepped up the number of refugees admitted. Arrivals in its final three months reflected an 86% year-over-year increase compared to the same period the previous year.

In Trump’s first three months, arrivals were 12% lower than for the same period in the previous year.

But, heck, 12% lower doesn’t make for a headline designed to make President Trump look bad.
Have a look at the data for the last ten years (from Wrapsnet) and see the astronomical numbers that Obama was pushing through the pipeline in the final months of his presidency.
 

 
I’m getting sick of having to show how the mainstream media skews the news on refugees.  I bet you are too!
Then the LA Times story says this:

Trump has sought to limit the number of refugees to 50,000 this year. But adverse rulings in the courts could work against him.

As of today we are at 48,856, and at the present rate of arrivals we will reach 50,000 in a week to ten days.  I have maintained from the outset that Trump can legally slow or outright halt the number being admitted (under the ceiling of 110,000 set by Obama) at any time and will be watching to see how the Supreme Court handles this portion of the case before them.  (Decision is expected at any moment.)

White House and anonymous leakers at DOS (and outside DOS) in battle over refugee costs

Can you believe it!  Reuters is reporting on four anonymous leakers (inside and outside the Dept. of State) who are saying chief White House aide Stephen Miller is trying to skew numbers to make the refugee program look more expensive than they claim it is!

Former Asst. Sec. of State Anne Richard is still in DC. Is she getting inside info. from her old pals at PRM? Just wondering!

Most interesting to me is that a former State Department “official” is in on the effort to skewer Miller (and Trump of course!).
Can you say ‘Obama shadow government’!
Editor: Sorry I’m giving you a quicky post here.  I am preparing for something this evening and have no time for more comment and analysis, except to say that getting at the true cost of the overall migration of impoverished third world refugees to middle America is almost impossible because in most states, the welfare offices do not track and separate out the different classes of immigrants using social services, medicare, or sending kids to school.
For federal budget planning, I’m guessing Miller is trying to get at the true cost to admit the refugees in the first place which is where the federal budget costs are initially incurred for decision-making needed by September.

Here is  Reuters on the ‘Deep State’ undermining the White House (again!), getting more cocky by the day aren’t they!
Is Simon Henshaw leaking?

Two studies that President Donald Trump hopes will buttress his case to cut the number of refugees are at the heart of a fight between senior White House adviser Stephen Miller and career U.S. government officials over immigration policy, four current and former officials said.

Trump in March ordered the U.S. State Department and other agencies to tally only the costs of resettling refugees but not the benefits that policy experts said refugees can also bring, including tax revenues, professional skills and job creation. [Virtually impossible, and are we going to tally medicare, schools, housing, SSI and criminal justice system costs for how many years?—ed]

Is Larry Bartlett leaking?

A current official said Miller had convened meetings with State Department staffers to discuss the refugee cost reports. When department specialists proposed including refugees’ economic contributions in the studies to produce a more balanced assessment, Miller rebuffed the idea, one current and one former U.S. official said.

The White House said Miller did not hold meetings on the specific subject of the cost reports and that Trump’s overall fiscal year 2018 budget proposal sought to “make transparent the net budgetary effects of immigration programs and policy.”

The current and former officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they believe, however, that the administration wants to help make a case to restrict refugee flows by creating a skewed analysis.

“It’s a policy outcome in search of a rationale,” said a former U.S. official familiar with the debate.

Continue reading here and prepare to be outraged!
Endnote: If Henshaw and Bartlett are not the leakers, they better find out who is! They are responsible for whoever is talking to the press!  Like it or not, they work for President Donald Trump!