Saturday, September 12, 2020

How to Steal an Election - Part II - Chris Farrell

by Chris Farrell

The question for you and others in opposition to the TIP plan is: What are you going to do?

  • Through the release of the TIP report, the American Left has established itself and its dishonest storyline as the official narrative of the 2020 presidential election. They have alerted the militant wing of their movement to seize control of the lead-up to election day, to election day itself, and all the way out past inauguration day. This is a campaign unto itself -- not an event.
  • No single statement or particular recommendation is completely outrageous... they support and amplify dubious premises: Leftist protestors are non-violent while Trump supporters are agents provocateurs; Trump will misuse the military and law enforcement to hold on to power; universal mail-in voting poses no risk of fraud; finding new ballots weeks after the election is completely normal; news critical of Biden is misinformation; a Trump victory will be evidence of foreign interference, etc.
  • Now you understand how the Left intends to disrupt and steal the 2020 presidential election. You understand the psychological warfare techniques being used right now to convince you (wrongly) of being demoralized and weakened. You have been warned. The question for you and others in opposition to the TIP plan is: What are you going to do?
Having established the Left's documented plan to disrupt the 2020 presidential election, let's examine further some of the information operations techniques now being deployed against the American public to persuade and influence the election "season" ahead.

The very publication of the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) report and the subsequent news media reporting about it are components of psychological warfare within the broader information warfare campaign aimed at spreading demoralizing rumors to Trump supporters. The goal is to break down and weaken support before, during and after election day. Demoralized and unmotivated supporters do not make their support for their candidate public. They do not campaign in neighborhoods or post yard signs. They do not vote. They do not volunteer at polling places. They become convinced their hopes are a lost, and highly controversial cause. They do not wish to be called a racist, or a hater, or identified with other fringe elements. They stay at home and watch TV.

Having been psychologically conditioned (through the COVID-19 pandemic) to withdraw, isolate, and lock-down -- on largely fiat orders of various government officials -- many Americans will react to the "irregular" and extra-legal tactics of the Left. The Left relies on this reaction to suppress voter turnout and use varying forms of terror, such as reprisals and the threats of reprisals, against those who do not cooperate or who challenge the projected accusations detailed in the TIP report.

The TIP report is careful not to engage in sedition. They are a whisper away from advocating violence -- but these are very sharp political operatives that are all lawyered-up, so they speak in code. Here are some examples for you to read between the lines:
  • "If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions"
  • "Planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle; technocratic solutions, courts, and a reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here."
  • "Groups, coalitions, and networks should be preparing now to establish the necessary communications and organizing infrastructure to support mass mobilization."
  • "Military and law enforcement leaders need to be particularly attuned to the possibility that partisan actors will seek to manipulate or misuse their coercive powers for inappropriate political ends."
No single statement or particular recommendation is completely outrageous, except that, in the context of the report, they support and amplify dubious premises: Leftist protestors are non-violent while Trump supporters are agents provocateurs; Trump will misuse the military and law enforcement to hold on to power; universal mail-in voting poses no risk of fraud; finding new ballots weeks after the election is completely normal; news critical of Biden is misinformation; a Trump victory will be evidence of foreign interference, etc.

The voter psychological conditioning campaign, wherein suppression and reprisal become a self-fulfilling prophesy, will not receive news media or social media scrutiny. Those who raise the threats of violence and reprisals will be termed conspiracy theorists, marginalized and dismissed. Once again, who wants to be called a racist, a hater, or identified with some other fringe elements?

Through the release of the TIP report, the American Left has established itself and its dishonest storyline as the official narrative of the 2020 presidential election. They have alerted the militant wing of their movement to seize control of the lead-up to election day, to election day itself, and all the way out past inauguration day. This is a campaign unto itself -- not an event. Now you understand how the Left intends to disrupt and steal the 2020 presidential election. You understand the psychological warfare techniques being used right now to convince you (wrongly) of being demoralized and weakened. You have been warned. The question for you and others in opposition to the TIP plan is: What are you going to do?

Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author's alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Who Will Tell the Truth About Joe Biden? - David Keltz

by David Keltz

It is not a stretch to say that Biden has received the most favorable press coverage of any modern presidential candidate in history, and it’s not even close.

The inability of the mainstream media to accurately cover any of Joe Biden’s foibles is truly astonishing. If it was not already obvious by now, there is simply nothing Biden can say or do, no matter how incoherent, offensive, or alarming that would cause the current crop of “objective journalists” in the mainstream media, to even consider asking whether or not he has the mental capacity to be president of the United States. It is not a stretch to say that Biden has received the most favorable press coverage of any modern presidential candidate in history, and it’s not even close. Even the warm treatment that Barack Obama received during his presidential run in 2008 from his pals in the media pales in comparison.

Consider that in the last four months alone, Biden has asked a reporter if he was a “junkie,” told black voters that they’re not really black unless they vote for him, and said that there were “over 120 million dead from COVID,” in the U.S., without suffering any backlash from the media. He has confused the location of where he was speaking from, and was led by hand by a staffer out of a venue, as though he were blind. He has read his talking point notes out loud during a virtual interview, “Look, Venezuela topline message is President Trump’s policy is an abject failure.” He can lose his entire train of thought during a roundtable discussion in which he has prepared notes in front of him, “You know the rapidly rising umm uh in with uh with I don't know,” without so much as a peep from the media. Can anyone imagine what the headlines and constant barrage of media outrage would be if President Donald Trump had said or done any of those things?

The mainstream media finds Trump so morally and ethically repugnant that they would rather risk losing whatever credibility they have left, than to even suggest that a stumbling and often confused Biden has any businesses determining the U.S. tax code or holding China accountable for unleashing the Wuhan virus on the entire world. Instead of reporting on what should be fairly obvious to anyone with eyes or ears, the media seems to believe their main job is not only to protect Biden, but to prop him up by making him look as coherent and effective a leader as possible. At the DNC the bar was set so low for Biden’s speech that the media seemed astonished that he was able to successfully read concise sentences from a teleprompter for 24 minutes, without any notable hiccups. Not surprisingly, we were greeted with fawning headlines from the Washington Post, “Biden offers sharp attack on Trump as a dark force and promises to be ‘an ally of the lightas president,” and this one from the New York Times, “Biden Speaks Once More, With Feeling.”

Anyone who has watched Biden speak over the last several months knows that this is not the same Biden who served in the Senate for thirty-six years and then subsequently as vice president for another eight years. This might not even be the same Biden who we saw on the debate stage during the Democratic primaries last year. The one who said in response to a question about the legacy of slavery, “The teachers are -- I’m married to a teacher, my deceased wife is a teacher... It’s not that they don’t want to help, they don’t know what to play the radio, make sure the television -- excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the -- make sure that kids hear words.”

Historically speaking, it is true that Biden has a propensity to say idiotic things any time he opens his mouth, but these are not merely gaffes. In the same interview where he asked CBS News correspondent Errol Barnett if he was a “junkie” Biden also said, “I am so forward looking to have an opportunity to sit or stand with the president and debates... I am very willing to let the American public judge my physical and mental, fi—my fi—my physical, as well as my mental fitness.” In no rational world can that response to a question be considered merely a gaffe. Stumbling over his own words, and uttering incoherent sentences is now a regular occurrence for Biden, and yet the media remains more silent than the tennis matches at this year's U.S. Open.

After Trump received a notable boost in the polls from the RNC, it was clear that the Biden campaign’s strategy of keeping him hidden in his basement simply would not suffice. So last week they sent a compromised man out of his home to read from a teleprompter, where he stumbled yet again, “COVID has taken this year, just since the outbreak, has taken more than 100 years. Look, the lives, when you think about it, more lives this year than any other year for the past 100 years.” Reporters have seldom had the opportunity to ask Biden any questions in the last several months, and in the rare circumstances when they are provided the opportunity, they almost never ask anything substantive, or adversarial. He never has to face the wrath of belligerent reporters or the usual hostility, rudeness, and interruptions that we have come to expect from Trump White House briefings.

Last week at an event in Delaware, Biden stood at the podium, while his staffers called on preselected journalists. One could be forgiven for wondering if these were reporters or Biden campaign officials who were asking him the questions. Biden, who was often caught glancing down at his notes on the podium, with prepared answers to the “questions,” should not have had to use them. The reporters allowed him to take every opportunity to dump on Trump without having to discuss any of the specifics about his own policies or ideas. The two “toughest” questions Biden was asked was if he had been tested for COVID, and what he thought about the 1.4 million new jobs that were added last week.

No reporter bothered to ask Biden why he failed to condemn any of the violence that has dominated our streets in major cities across the country for the past three months. No journalist asked how he could credibly accuse Trump or his supporters as somehow bearing responsibility for rioting and looting, done largely by Antifa and Black Lives Matter protestors in Democrat-run cities. No one asked Biden if he condemned the angry mob of protestors that attacked Senator Rand Paul outside the White House after Trump’s RNC speech. Not one reporter asked what his specific plans are for rebuilding the economy, creating more growth and more jobs. Instead we are left with fawning reporters who cover for Biden’s declining cognitive skills and provide him every opportunity to attack Trump. They are complicit in one of the greatest coverups ever orchestrated by the mainstream media.

Image: Gage Skidmore

David Keltz


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Peace breaking out all over from Trump, and the left is going haywire - Monica Showalter

by Monica Showalter

Caught off guard by Trump's peace moves now noticed by the Swedes, their famously lockstep "narrative" is going all over the place.

Democrats are having a shattered-glass crack-up to the continuous good news coming from President Trump on the global peace front. Their famously disciplined lockstep "narrative" has gone haywire.

Over in Sweden, a legislator has nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize over his role in bringing peace to longtime foes Kosovo and Serbia. That's the second one who's done it. It follows a Norwegian legislator's nomination of Trump this same week for the same prize over his role in brokering an Israel-UAE entente, the biggest peace breakthrough since the Camp David accords, which made peace between Israel and Egypt. That one earned its participants a Nobel Prize, too.

Instead of saying "nice job" with a pat on the back, hoping the news cycle moves on, Democrats are going nuts. The Swedes have noticed! Now their responses are absolutely crazy.

Start with sleepy, befuddled Joe Biden, who's been famously wrong about every single foreign policy issue, according to old swamp thing Robert Gates. For him, this baffling breakout in peace must have just...happened:
Former Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged Thursday that President Donald Trump is making peace between Israel and several Arab states, but he said that he was doing so "accidentally."
"I think Trump is going to accidentally do something positive here, in terms of this issue of … other Arab states" making peace and establishing normal relations with Israel, Biden told a fundraiser hosted by the far-left J Street organization, as quoted by the Times of Israel.
The Laurene Powell–financed Atlantic had another tack — that with Trump up for it, it's time to get rid of the prize:
"Giving the peace prize to no one at all is a tradition the Nobel Committee should revive, perhaps on a permanent basis," Wood continued, arguing "the committee should take a long break to consider whether peace is a category coherent enough to be worth recognizing."
The article responded to reports that Trump's name was submitted for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian lawmaker Christian Tybring-Gjedde for brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and by Swedish lawmaker Magnus Jacobsson for Trump's role in an economic deal between Kosovo and Serbia.
The article called Trump's nomination "preposterous," suggesting the president's "main diplomatic maneuver is to adopt a lickspittle posture toward authoritarians."
See, if Trump creates peace, then it's time to pick up our marbles and go home. Trump isn't allowed to create peace.

Meanwhile, over in Nancy Pelosi's rat's nest of leftism, news of peace spreading to Bahrain and Israel, in a nuclear chain reaction style, elicited this crazed response from the speaker well known for her loose grip on reality:
On Friday's broadcast of CNN's "Situation Room," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reacted to President Donald Trump's announcement of the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain by stating she hopes the agreement and other peace agreements will help the region, and "good for him for having a distraction on a day when the numbers of people who are affected and the numbers of people who are dying from this virus only increased."
A distraction. Just as those paycheck rises to American workers were "crumbs." Seriously, peace a distraction? From what, her party's riots? That's some weird peace potion she's got going there.

What the crazy array of responses suggests is one thing: that the Democrats have been caught off guard. Trump has stolen one of their proprietary issues, peace, something they claim to know more about than anyone and, like lightning, has actually converted their empty promises of peace, premised on kowtowing and appeasement, into real peace.

Better still, he did it without troops, with no the send-troops-first approach characteristic of the neocons, who are among Trump's most vehement NeverTrump opponents. He did it with actual diplomacy, that thing the Democrats have claimed they knew all about but obviously didn't.

The left and its allies might have hoped to ignore this explosion of peace coming from Trump as a result, but they couldn't. The Swedes have noticed, and you can't have the Swedes noticing, because with the Swedes noticing, there's no going back.

And if Trump wins the Nobel Prize from this, as he should, they know they're going to go even crazier, having even less of intelligence to say than they do now.

There's just no "narrative" for this for them from their big-money puppet masters, so their response was atomized, each leftist coming up with a different bizarre take.

What this peace news shows is not just that Trump has been right at every turn on how to create peace; he's also still extremely good at exposing the left for what it is — taking them off guard, leaving them naked without a "narrative" to repeat in lockstep, and watching them go bonkers in all directions.

One more reason, a very big reason, to vote for Trump.

Image credit: The White House, via Flickr, public domain, edited with FotoSketcher.

Monica Showalter


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Remembering 9/11 in a Woke Year - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

What do the heroes of September 11 mean in a year of hating police officers?

The 19th anniversary of 9/11 has been the nation’s darkest in this dreaded cycle.

The Black Lives Matter riots that attacked the statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Christopher Columbus, and Abraham Lincoln, did not spare 9/11 memorials.

The statue of a police officer was beheaded and toppled in  Plymouth, MA at a 9/11 memorial honoring those who had died in the attacks. But the 2,000 pound steel beam from the World Trade Center proved beyond the ability of the vandals to topple.

When Black Lives Matter racists defaced statues and memorials in the Boston Common, including the ‘Glory’ regiment, they didn’t spare the 9/11 memorial in the Public Garden.

A 9/11 memorial honoring five fallen firefighters was defaced and the American flagpole was cut down in Washingtonville, NY,.There was also vandalism at the Decatur, IL memorial site, and a red, white and blue rearing horse 9/11 memorial in Rochester, NY was smeared with red paint.

 Beyond the radical attacks on the monuments of September 11 were the attacks on its heroes.

The NYPD has suffered its worst days since 9/11 with over 400 officers injured in the BLM riots. Police and firefighters went from the heroes of a nation to being smeared as soulless monsters.

“I could see no difference between the officer who killed and the police who died, or the firefighters who died,” Ta-Nehisi Coates, an intellectual godfather of Black Lives Matter, wrote, “They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were the menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.”

“Between the World and Me”, the hateful tract in which Coates dehumanized the police officers and firefighters who had died trying to save people of all races and creeds, became a bestseller, was a Pulitzer finalist, and has repeatedly shown up on corporate anti-racism reading lists.

All of this makes commemorating September 11 into an awkward task that Democrats avoid.

The 9/11 Memorial & Museum tried to cancel the Tribute in Light, whose beams that fill the night sky are used to light the space of the fallen towers of the World Trade Center, and the reading of the names of the fallen dead by 9/11 family members. It took an outpouring of anger from family members and alternative events by Tunnel2Towers to get the museum to reverse course.

While the leadership of the mismanaged museum blamed the pandemic for their decision, local Democrats had long viewed the ceremonies as intolerant and out of touch with their agenda.

Last year, Nicholas Haros Jr., the son of a 9/11 victim, had blasted Rep. Ilhan Omar's minimization of the attack on America at the reading of the names, while wearing a t-shirt decorated with her comments minimizing the Islamic atrocity, “I was attacked, your relatives and friends were attacked, our constitutional freedoms were attacked and our nation’s founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked. That’s what some people did."

Meanwhile, the Tribute in Light had been decried as a symbol of “extreme nationalism”.

There had always been a deep discomfort with the patriotism of September 11 and with its heroes and victims, the former were mostly working class white men from the bridge and tunnel crowd, and the latter were mostly white middle class men and women, many from outside the city and state, who were also insufficiently diverse and representative of the “New America”.

Even early on there had been efforts to replace the firefighters raising the flag at Ground Zero with a more diverse group in an official memorial. In the long years after the men of the NYPD and the FDNY had raised up the courage of a nation, both organizations, like the military, have been gutted by political correctness, and have turned into shadows of their former selves.

The FDNY has a diversity monitor who has cost the organization $23 million, and a top diversity official who was sued for excluding one of the firefighters who raised the flag at Ground Zero from a color guard ceremony.

Nicholas Garaufis, a Clinton judge, and Mayor Bill de Blasio imposed their vision of diversity on the FDNY to ensure that "the racial, ethnic and gender demographics of the department’s firefighters reflect that of the city’s population as a whole" along with the "full integration of a mixed-gender workforce."

But the heroism of the FDNY and NYPD on September 11 came from the fact that its men did not reflect a random sampling of the city’s population. They were extraordinary men, heroes who went where no one else would dare, climbing 100 stories in the hope of saving someone.

If Islamic terrorists were to fly planes into the Freedom Tower today, there would be fewer members of the FDNY’s mixed-gender and fully diverse workforce who would climb 100 stories with 60 pounds of gear on their backs while a skyscraper was tottering and burning on all sides.

On 9/11, firefighters around the country will commemorate their heroism by climbing 110 stories.

That’s the traditional kind of heroism. It’s out of step with the millennial ethos of performative hysteria spread virally across social media which turns victimhood into celebrity. The men who lived and died on that day were not victims and they were not trying to get famous. They did their duty. But to many the concept of duty has become as alien as frock coats and top hats.

19 years after 9/11, men and women born after the attack will be able to vote.

The politics of the present are being formed by radicals who, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 11 years old at the time, were children on September 11. The meaning of the day is as incomprehensible to them and as distant as Pearl Harbor.

The Obama administration had tried to shift the meaning of September 11 away from heroism to  volunteerism. Its idea of commemorating the attack on America was cleaning up parks. As time goes by, there will be no need to actively suppress the commemorations, they’ll be irrelevant.

If we let it happen.

History is made up not only of dry facts, but emotional connections. The stories that define us are the ones that matter because they endow life with meaning. For millions of Americans, the death of an ex-con who had robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint gave their lives meaning. That’s why so much of the country is burning and so many of its memorials have fallen.

The Islamic terrorists who attacked us on September 11 had beliefs that gave their lives meaning. So did the SS soldiers who marched through Poland or their NKVD counterparts.

It is not the mere presence of evil that creates a crisis, but the absence of meaningful opposition to it. And meaningful opposition comes from a deep moral passion without which life is empty.

The 19 hijackers lied to the passengers that if they didn’t resist, they would be allowed to live.

Mohammed Atta told Flight 11 passengers, “Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.”

It worked three times. And then when Americans realized what was at stake, it stopped working.

Atta and his band of Jihadist butchers understood that what normal Americans wanted was to be comfortable and safe. They wanted to recline back in their seats, plug in their headphones, and wait out the interminable passage of time they would spend flying in a tin can in the sky.

“Take prisoners and kill them. As Allah said: 'No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood,’” Atta told his men.

"Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay," he lied to the infidel hostages.

The leftist radicals, who have been in league with Islamic terrorists, defending them in court, propagandizing for their “civil rights” in the press, and funding their networks, now call themselves, “woke”. Another September 11 anniversary reminds us that we need to wake up.

In our streets, the radicals chant, “Death to America”, they burn flags, desecrate churches a

The 19th anniversary is another warning from the bloody echoes of history that they won’t.
When the Jihadis and BLMers chant, “Death to America”, believe that they mean it!

The enemies of our nation are also the foes of our history. They don’t just want to topple Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and every historical figure who wasn’t up to date with contemporary woke views on, in the words of a D.C. commission calling for the removal of the Washington Monum

Many others woke up. We know where the plane headed toward the right side of history flies. And we don’t intend to let it follow that familiar arc toward social justice and mass murder.

An anniversary only matters as much as it brings meaning and purpose into our lives.

No amount of wishing or willing can raise the dead of September 11 out of their ashen graves. All we can do this anniversary, and every one before it and since, is to keep resisting the terrorists, domestic and international, to stay awake and ready in the long flight of history.

We must remember our heroes and honor their valor because we may need to imitate it.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Exclusive: Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors - Hollie McKay

by Hollie McKay

A Take Back Action Fund analysis of $400M in donations to liberal causes raises red flags of possible foreign involvement

EXCLUSIVE: Less than two months ahead of the presidential election – with concerns of foreign interference again at the forefront – a conservative political group is raising "serious concerns" about millions of donations reported by a major Democratic fundraising platform.

A  preliminary computer analysis by the Take Back Action Fund, obtained exclusively by Fox News, has found that nearly half of all 2019 donations to ActBlue were made by people claiming to be unemployed.

Action Fund President John Pudner questioned the veracity of those donations and called it a loophole that must be closed for the sake of election integrity.

"After downloading hundreds of millions of [dollars in] donations to the Take Back Action Fund servers, we were shocked to see that almost half of the donations to ActBlue in 2019 claimed to be unemployed individuals," he said. "The name of employers must be disclosed when making political donations, but more than 4.7 million donations came from people who claimed they did not have an employer. Those 4.7 million donations totaled $346 million ActBlue raised and sent to liberal causes."

The trend is continuing this year: An Action Fund examination of 2020 data from January through August showed an uptick in "unemployed" donations through ActBlue, to 50.1% this year.

ActBlue defends the integrity of its donations and said many come from retirees and people who aren't counted as employed, such as homemakers.

According to the findings of the Action Fund – a nonprofit that aims to "educate the public on conservative solutions for political reform" – 48.4% of ActBlue donations last year, prior to the massive loss of jobs that came with the onslaught of the coronavirus pandemic, came from those who did not list an employer or who claimed to be unemployed.

Pudner said the large number is a red flag that some donations may be illicit contributions from foreign interests attempting to impact U.S. elections.

"It is hard to believe that at a time when the U.S. unemployment rate was less than 4 percent, that unemployed people had $346 million dollars to send to ActBlue for liberal causes," Pudner said, adding that "4.7 million donations from people without a job ... raised serious concerns."


ActBlue, created in 2004, bills itself as a "powerful online fundraising platform available to Democratic candidates and committees, progressive organizations, and nonprofits that share our values for no cost besides a 3.95% processing fee on donations."

"And we operate as a conduit, which means donations made through ActBlue to a campaign or organization are considered individual donations," its website explains.

But critics, including the Action Fund, contend that the website allows credit card donations that are not verified, so anyone from any country in the world can donate without a paper trail.

"ActBlue's insistence on refusing to allow banks to verify their donations is an invitation to foreign programmers or others to send money through them using fake American names, and we encourage them to start letting banks verify the identity of donors to stop the potential for millions of dollars to influence our election," Pudner said.

Last year, the Republican Party created a competing fundraising platform called WinRed to counter ActBlue's prowess in small-donor sourcing.

According to the Action Fund, an analysis of WinRed's 4.9 million donations totalling $302 million found that only 4% came from people who did not list an employer or were unemployed. This year, the rate is 5.6%, according to the data.

2019 data compiled by Take Back Action Fund
2019 data compiled by Take Back Action Fund (Take Back Action Fund)
"We purposely wanted to examine 2019 first, because, before COVID-19, the unemployment rate was at 4 percent or below. It's hard to believe that millions of Americans who were out of work had $346 million to spare to give to ActBlue for liberal causes," Pudner said.


Precisely determining if the donations were authentic and genuinely from those who were unemployed requires further time and resources, he said.

"Auditing these suspect donations to determine if millions lied by indicating they were unemployed when in fact they were not, or if their names were just being used by a foreign programmer or someone else to move money without their knowledge, will take time," Pudner said. "We've planned a series of forensic procedures to identify whether or not these donors of record exist or not, if they made the contributions themselves, and whether they were legally able, and whether or not they are potential 'straw' donors, making the contributions after being given the money and direction by someone else."

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden departs after speaking at a campaign event on manufacturing American products at UAW Region 1 headquarters in Warren, Mich., Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden departs after speaking at a campaign event on manufacturing American products at UAW Region 1 headquarters in Warren, Mich., Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
In response to questions by Fox News, a representative for ActBlue said "it is best security practice to refrain from publicly sharing any detailed information about how we analyze contributions."

"But we use an array of data sources, internal validation and third-party services to verify the validity of transactions. We take the security of our platform and integrity of donations very seriously," the spokesperson said. "We report every contribution to federal candidates that comes through our platform, and you can look those up on the FEC. We report the information donors enter about their occupation and employer, and we do see a significant portion of donors who report their status as not employed, such as retired donors or full-time parents."

The issue of unauthenticated political donations was also brought to light by The Washington Post in 2008, which was at the time "allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity."

In 2015, the Action Fund said millions of dollars "could be moved by allowing unverified credit card contributions," and Pudner said that even today, ActBlue continues to use such an "unverified system."

"We found it took other vendors only a matter of hours to switch their system to allow verification of donations and thus prevent the possibility of illegal foreign money being moved into campaigns," Pudner said. "Choosing to use an untraceable system has a higher cost in terms of the risk of credit card fraud and also tends to incur higher bank fees. And this untraceable system allows someone with a gift card to make donations in anyone's name, even if that person never actually made that donation, or even if that person doesn't exist at all."

FILE- In this Sept. 17, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Albuquerque International Sunport in Albuquerque, N.M. A new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds about half of Americans think Donald Trump's actions as president have made things worse for African Americans, Muslims and women. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE- In this Sept. 17, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Albuquerque International Sunport in Albuquerque, N.M. A new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds about half of Americans think Donald Trump's actions as president have made things worse for African Americans, Muslims and women. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
Despite such claims, ActBlue currently holds the highest level of certification as a service provider.

Both WinRed and ActBlue note on their donation pages that law requires donors to list their employer and occupation.

"The problem," Pudner said, "is on the back end where ActBlue does not allow banks to verify the identity of the cardholder, meaning someone could buy endless gift cards and list any name they wanted and leave the employer line blank or type in words like 'not employed,' 'unemployed.'"

Data complied from January-August 2020
Data complied from January-August 2020 (Take Back Action Fund)
"With half of ActBlue donors indicating they do not have an employer, we recommend they start letting their payment processors verify donations to stop any foreign or other illicit donations by simply listing themselves as an unemployed American," Pudner added.

Hollie McKay has a been a Fox News Digital staff reporter since 2007. She has extensively reported from war zones including Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, and Latin America investigates global conflicts, war crimes and terrorism around the world. Follow her on Twitter.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

BBC under fire for planned documentary on City of David in Jerusalem - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

NGO which maintains historical Jewish sites in Jerusalem warns upcoming BBC documentary is already tainted by journalist's anti-Israel bias.

City of David
City of David                                                                                                                   Flash 90
The BBC is under fire this week - for a documentary which hasn’t even been released.

The UK broadcaster is currently producing a documentary on Jewish activities in eastern Jerusalem, including in the Holy Basin, the area surrounding the Old City, an area rich in archeological and religious sites.

For the documentary, the BBC’s Rosie Garthwaite, interviewed Doron Spielman, vice president of the City of David Foundation (Elad – Ir David Foundation), about his organization’s operations in the area.

While Garthwaite vowed the documentary would be fair and balanced, Spielman said he was shocked to read Garthwaite’s follow-up questionnaire, emailed to him in mid-August.

“We want our programme to be a fair and accurate account of events,” she wrote.

In the questionnaire, Spielman said, Garthwaite exhibited a transparent bias against Israel and Jewish claims to the city, deriding Jewish life in eastern Jerusalem as “the settling of Jewish people in occupied land.”

Garthwaite also repeatedly characterized Jerusalem as “occupied land” and “occupied territory”, accusing the City of David Foundation – Elad of violating international law.

This is not the first time Garthwaite has been accused of harboring an anti-Israel bias. This January, she came under fire for sharing a social media post which included maps claiming to show the spread of Israel over “Palestine” – despite the latter never having existed.

After the tweet stirred controversy, Garthwaite later removed the item, telling The JC she had “un-retweeted” the maps. A BBC spokesperson said Garthwaite “realized it was inaccurate”.

Garthwaite has also expressed criticism of Britain’s Balfour Declaration, retweeting a message which called it “British duplicity in the Middle East”.

Concerned by Garthwaite’s bias, Spielman reached out to the British Parliament, BBC chief David Clementi, and BBC director-general Tim Davie, warning against releasing a “biased, inaccurate and sensational” documentary.

“It is clear from her questions and statements that the program intends to vilify Israel, Jewish history, and Jewish charities and present a number of false and misleading claims.”

“In addition, we are very concerned by the tabloid tactics which have been applied during this production.”

Spielman went on to say that Garthwaite had ‘chased’ over a dozen former City of David – Elad employees, “including summer interns who were employed more than seven years ago, asking them to make statements about the organization.”

Spielman later told Arutz Sheva that the production appears to be an “anti-Israel” hit-piece designed as “a direct attack on the City of David”.

"While this most recent piece by BBC seems to be another example of biased journalism with an anti-Israel narrative from the get-go, given that it will be a direct attack on the City of David, which forms the very basis of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, we must not sit idly by. Dozens of organizations and individuals immediately got involved both on social media and with letters to the director demanding that the network once and for all fulfill their motto of fair and honest reporting. Additionally, this is a major test for the BBC's new director general Tim Davie, who has made statements about re-evaluating the way the network is operating. If he is serious about what he has said, then this is a prime opportunity."

A BBC spokesperson said to Arutz Sheva in response: “We do not comment on investigations”.

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Jewish stake in opposing ‘anti-racism’ training - Jonathan S. Tobin

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Race-obsessed diversity training and pushing of 'white privilege' theory by gov't agencies are dangerous to Jews and other minorities.

(JNS) - We are in a moment in history when, as one CNN anchor put it, “2020 is being defined in part by this long-overdue reckoning about race.” So when President Donald Trump decided to issue an order banning sensitivity and diversity training based on “critical race theory” and “white privilege,” this was widely denounced as one more example of the administration seeking to both [sic] Americans along racial lines. It was also seen as insensitive in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests that have been going on over the past three months since the death of George Floyd.

Many Jews, including the majority who identify as political liberals, believe the move to be an affront to their belief in social justice and the need to work for a society that expunges racism.

But whatever you think of Trump, it is a mistake for anyone—white or black, gentile or Jew—to oppose the president’s order. To the contrary, his demand that the government cease spending taxpayer dollars on training programs rooted in ideas about white privilege and the critical race-theory genre from which they sprung is not only right. Opposing these programs is a defense of liberal ideas that is just as, if not far more important, than the question of which septuagenarian white male will serve as president for the next four years. Moreover, it’s also exactly the kind of pseudo-intellectual snake oil that those who purport to be speaking up in defense of the Jewish community ought to be standing against rather than supporting.

The field of “anti-racism” training was a booming business even before the summer of Black Lives Matter. In the wake of the Floyd killing and other incidents that were interpreted as proof of the systemic racism that supposedly pervades American society, it is one of pandemic America’s few true growth industries. It’s not just government agencies that are buying into the need for these programs. Corporations have lined up by the thousands to pay exorbitant fees to people whose mission it is to indoctrinate Americans about the toxic insidious whiteness that they teach is the answer to all of the nation’s problems.

Neither the triumph of the civil-rights movement nor the election of an African-American man to the presidency completely erased racism. America is still an imperfect nation whose history of past injustices is still relevant to our contemporary struggles.

But the answer to these problems cannot be ideas that start from the same damaging premise about human beings as those embraced by racists. Despite the popularity of anti-racism training and the widespread perception that these sessions are liberal efforts to eradicate racism, they are not progressive. Though you’d never know it from the criticisms aimed at Trump’s order, far from eradicating prejudice, these fundamentally illiberal programs perpetuate it.

The catechism of this fad is the best-selling book White Fragility. Written by anti-racism trainer Robin DiAngelo, it is a guidebook to a way of looking at America and race whose premise is that all white people are racists, whether they know it or not. Though it is rooted in a kernel of truth about the relative advantages that those who are not defined as “people of color” may benefit from, it goes far beyond that anodyne observation.

Though written in some of the most turgid prose set in print in recent decades and overflowing with simplistic cant devoid of intellectual rigor, it has the simple virtue of enunciating a dogma that allows for no dissent. Like any effective religious cult, it condemns anyone who questions the dubious assumptions on which it is premised.

Those who resist the training sessions that are based in its ideas are defined as ipso facto racists. If you defy DiAngelo’s demand to “strive to be less white,” that merely confirms her assertion that you are racist, even if your life, relationships and record prove that you are anything but that. As journalist and author Matt Taibbi wisely pointed out, this is the “intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” method of judging people that held that “if you float, you’re a witch.”

White privilege training is the bedrock upon which cancel culture exists and is the driving force behind the assault on free speech that has gained momentum in recent months. But the real tragedy is that, as he points out, this absurdity “is orthodoxy across much of academia.”

Like most terrible things that originate on college campuses, the contagion of belief in “white fragility” indoctrination and “struggle sessions”—in which all must berate themselves for their “privilege”—has now crossed over into mainstream society. Frauds like DiAngelo and the many other charlatans engaged in this racket are raking in big bucks as government agencies, private businesses and corporations gladly pay them millions in order to be labeled as sufficiently woke to pass muster in the brave new anti-racist world in which we now live.

But the problem here is not the rise of a class of woke profiteers selling a new religion about white guilt. It’s that the anti-racism classes that unfortunate employees are forced to suffer through are promoting a faith antithetical to liberal beliefs, in addition to concepts like meritocracy and individual rights.

DiAngelo shares a frame of reference about America with the authors of The New York Times’ equally fraudulent “1619 Project” that depicts America as an irredeemably racist nation. But it goes much further than that effort to falsify American history.

In the world of White Fragility, even well-meaning white progressives are no different from white supremacists or Ku Klux Klan members. White toxicity is in the air they breathe and baked into their DNA, regardless of whether they believe in equality and oppose prejudice. Indeed, as is the case with a whole range of intersectional ideas, “whiteness studies” challenge the validity of concepts about objective scholarship, scientific truth and individualism. They are all viewed as part of a system geared towards reaffirming white supremacy.

While Jews are eager to support anything that represents itself as a way to advance social justice, this new faith threatens the foundations upon which the security of Jews and every other minority rests. A world where only race, as opposed to individuals, matter is not one that is friendly to Jewish rights. That’s especially true when Jews are regarded by the Black Lives Matter movement as just another variant of white oppressor that must undergo re-education.

By denigrating positive attributes like intellectualism and the use of data as “white values,” anti-racism training also hurts African-Americans and other minorities because it treats them as unable to advance in the same manner as anyone else. Few concepts better describe the soft bigotry of low expectations as programs about white privilege.

Most importantly, the entire point of these training sessions flatly contradicts the goal of the civil-rights movement so eloquently articulated by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at the 1963 March on Washington. King said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

We do not yet live in a nation where that hope has been fully realized or universally accepted. But the United States is a very different and far better country with respect to the struggle against racism. While we should continue to strive towards that goal, anti-racism training is so immersed in ideas about the immutability of race that it treats King’s vision as not so much difficult to achieve, as it is neither possible nor desirable. Whereas the whole point of the civil-rights movement was to take race out of the law in order to advance the cause of equality, the ideology of White Fragility takes us in the opposite direction by making it the center of every conversation.

Trump’s effort to rid the government of training sessions that promote these toxic ideas was long overdue and should be emulated in the private sector. But as long as con artists like DiAngelo are treated like infallible popes of popular culture, few businesses will dare to refuse to go along. It is nothing less than a tragedy that opposition to this sham has become inextricably tied to politics. Yet that is all the more reason why liberals. and especially Jewish liberals, must reject an ideology that is sacrificing American liberalism in the name of the false god of anti-racism.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Today's 19th Anniversary of 9/11 - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

Biden and Harris blithely ignore the findings - and warnings - of the 9/11 Commission.

Today, even as we remember the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, America finds itself under attack by anarchists and Radical Leftists and violent criminals who have been released under the guise of “bail reform” and to protect criminals from COVID-19 while they commit murders, rapes, robberies and other violent crimes.

Certainly there is no shortage of news reports about acts of extreme violence carried out across the United States primarily in cities run by Leftist Radicals literally following the old dictum of news reporting, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

However, the threat of terrorism continues but has been all but ignored by the media and by our politicians.

Consider that New York’s disgusting mayor, de Blasio attempted to block the reading of the names of the victims of the terror attacks of 9/11 and the lighting of the twin spotlights, a practice that has been ongoing since September 11, 2001, purportedly out of concerns of the COVID-19 virus, a concern that he ignored during massive violent demonstrations in NYC, the city that was the most heavily impacted by those attacks.

On August 14, 2020 The Miami Herald reported, ‘This is a disgrace.’ Outrage after 9/11 light show canceled over COVID-19 concerns.

Additionally, for the first time, Americans who were born after the attacks of 9/11 will be voting. Furthermore, many of our schools are failing to teach their students about the attacks of 9/11 or the ongoing threat of terrorism posed by radical Islamists. Indeed, who could ever forget the outrageous description of the 9/11 terror attacks by Rep. Ilhan Omar when she said that on that day, “Some people did something"? On September 11, 2019 Fox News reported on this: "Ilhan Omar slammed on 9/11 anniversary by victim's son after 'some people did something' quote."

Furthermore, “Sanctuary” policies implemented by radical political “leaders” act in opposition to the findings of the 9/11 Commission and undermine national security and public safety for our entire nation.

The official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel, included this paragraph:
Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.
In the upcoming Presidential debates all of the candidates for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency should be asked, “Have you read The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel?”

However, I doubt that this vital question will be asked of those who aspire to be our next Commander-in Chief.

Clearly Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris have not learned the lessons that the terror attacks of 9/11 should have taught us. They have proposed to gut immigration law enforcement and provide providing lawful status to unknown millions of illegal aliens.

There would be absolutely no way to interview these individuals who entered the U.S. surreptitiously. There would be no way to conduct field investigations to determine the truthfulness of the information that they would provide in their applications for legalization.

This ignores that the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key method of entry and embedding used by terrorists determined to launch deadly attacks in the United States. This was the focus of my article, "Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill."

These two excerpts from the afore-noted report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel addressed the nexus between terrorism and immigration fraud:
Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:
Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.
This paragraph is found on page 98:
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
I have testified before numerous hearings conducted by various House and Senate committees and subcommittees on various aspects of the immigration crisis, most often about that nexus between immigration and terrorism, public safety and national security.

Back on May 5, 2005 the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, New ''Dual Missions'' Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies. I testified at that hearing.

What was particularly striking about this hearing was that the Chairman of that subcommittee, John Hostettler, a Republican, challenged the way that the George W. Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the enabling legislation, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). He noted the following in his prepared testimony: "Failure to adhere to the statutory framework established by HSA has produced immigration enforcement incoherence that undermines the immigration enforcement mission central to DHS, and undermines the security of our Nation's borders and citizens."

His testimony also noted:
The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda's plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation's security.
Hostettler’s courageous criticism of the Bush administration demonstrates that until the election of President Trump, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really wanted to address the multiple failures of the Immigration system as I wrote in an earlier article, "Sanctuary Country - Immigration failures by design."

Biden’s plan to create a massive amnesty program for what he claims would be 11 million illegal aliens but would actually involve a multiple of that already huge number.

Immigration fraud would permeate such a massive amnesty program where the hapless adjudication officers could not keep up with the onslaught of applications.

Earlier this year I addressed the magnitude of such a massive immigration amnesty program in my article, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Should be Renamed the “Overwhelm America Act" in which I noted that a number of universities have estimated that there are at least 25 million illegal aliens in the United States. I would suggest that even that number is much smaller than the true number of such aliens.

The major fact being ignored by everyone, however is that if those aliens were to be granted legal status, they would automatically have the absolute right to immediately petition to have all of their spouses and minor children to be admitted into the United States as lawful immigrants.

Imagine if, on average all of these legalized aliens have 3 or 4 minor children back home. The number is likely to be even higher. All of them would have an absolute right to join their newly legalized parents in the United States.

Thus we would really be looking at an influx of unknown tens of millions of additional alien children who would be enrolled in our schools and, in a short period of time, would join the labor pool.  The economics of this, coupled with the impact on housing, critical infrastructure, hospitals, and other such factors would cause America to implode. We could be looking at the legal immigration of one hundred million such immigrants -- literally overnight -- who would overwhelm our schools, critical infrastructure and do irreparable harm to Americans.

Every person in America has an environmental footprint. Those who immigrate to America not only need a place to sleep but food, water, electricity, transportation, healthcare and other necessities.

For all of the breast-beating by the Left about “sustainability,” the Biden plan would dump tens of millions of lawful immigrant workers into our labor pool, displacing American workers and suppressing wages.

So much for Biden’s “promise” that if elected he would help American workers get better-paying  jobs!

Biden’s “promises” are actually threats aimed at the lives and livelihoods of Americans during a particular treacherous and difficult era.

Facts are indeed stubborn things!

Michael Cutler


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter