04/19/19

Preezy Candidates Gillibrand and Buttigieg, What?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

We already know about Bernie Sanders praising Fidel Castro and the communist takeover of Nicaragua. Yet, he still seems to appeal to the millennial class while enjoying their campaign contributions. This demonstrates the failure of the education system for decades. Okay, so how about Kirsten Gillibrand and Pete Buttigieg?

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: “If We Are Not Helping People, We ...

Gillibrand: 

BuzzFeed reported Tuesday that the New York senator will endorse a new report recommending steps to reduce the racial wealth divide, including policies such as a commission to study slavery reparations.

“A draft of the report, titled ‘Ten Solutions to Bridge the Racial Wealth Divide,’ will be jointly released this week by the Institute for Policy Studies, the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition,” they report. Gillibrand told BuzzFeed News that she was “proud” to support the document.

One of the organizations Gillibrand is “proud” to partner with, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was infamous during the Cold War for its defense of Communist governments and for its kneejerk support of the Soviet line.

Emory Professor and preeminent historian of American Communism Harvey Klehr dedicated an entire chapter of his book “Far Left of Center” to the IPS, which he characterized as “an intellectual nerve center for the radical movement, providing sustenance and support for a variety of causes, ranging from nuclear and anti-intervention issues to support for Marxist insurgencies.”

“IPS fellows have consistently maintained that the Soviet threat is largely non-existent and a product of the military-industrial complex,” he wrote. Klehr detailed how IPS fellows’ partnered with Soviet-funded “peace” organizations, defended USSR and Vietnam from charges of human rights abuses, defended the Sandinistas and other Latin-American terrorists, and denied the existence of the Cambodian genocide, even as two million people died.

Former Communist spy and defector Ladislav Bittman likewise wrote in his seminal book “The KGB and Soviet Disinformation” that the Soviets were “particularly interested” in IPS, whose “nucleus” was composed of “researchers and scholars with Marxist perceptions that Soviet foreign and military policies pose no threat to Western democracies.” More here.

Swell, eh? Okay how about lil’ ole’ Pete Buttigieg?

Peter Buttigieg emerges as Democratic 'rock star ...

Well, he was groomed politically by his father, a Marxist. Yep…

Buttigieg:  

The father of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was a Marxist professor who spoke fondly of the Communist Manifesto and dedicated a significant portion of his academic career to the work of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci, an associate of Vladimir Lenin.

Joseph Buttigieg, who died in January at the age of 71, immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s from Malta and in 1980 joined the University of Notre Dame faculty, where he taught modern European literature and literary theory. He supported an updated version of Marxism that jettisoned some of Marx and Engel’s more doctrinaire theories, though he was undoubtedly Marxist.

He was an adviser to Rethinking Marxism, an academic journal that published articles “that seek to discuss, elaborate, and/or extend Marxian theory,” and a member of the editorial collective of Boundary 2, a journal of postmodern theory, literature, and culture. He spoke at many Rethinking Marxism conferences and other gatherings of prominent Marxists.

In a 2000 paper for Rethinking Marxism critical of the approach of Human Rights Watch, Buttigieg, along with two other authors, refers to “the Marxist project to which we subscribe.”

In 1998, he wrote in an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education about an event in New York City celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Manifesto. He also participated in the event.

“If The Communist Manifesto was meant to liberate the proletariat, the Manifesto itself in recent years needed liberating from Marxism’s narrow post-Cold War orthodoxies and exclusive cadres. It has been freed,” he wrote. More here.

So, now you have a head start on 3 of the candidates for President. How about choosing to do a few others and see what you will find. Here is a tip, Kamala Harris’ father, Donald, a Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford straddles between socialism and Marxism himself.

04/19/19

Anyone Fretting over the Real Russian Hacking from the Mueller Report?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Remember the timeline, it was the Comey FBI, the Brennan CIA, the Lynch Department of Justice and the Obama White House. So, Obama only expelled a pile of Russians and closed 3 dachas. Remember? When the dust settles just a little, President Trump has some work to do to clean up this hacking mess via Russia. Congress has some work to do also by defining some kind of hacking legislation.

The Mueller Report’s conclusions about Russian operations are unambiguous: the GRU’s Unit 26165 did the hacking, and the Internet Research Agency managed the influence campaign. The Report also concluded that the GRU’s Unit 74455 retailed the results of the doxing through its subsidiaries DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, and through a sympathetic WikiLeaks.

What is Unit 26165, Russia's elite military hacking centre?
Boris Zilberman on Twitter: "DOJ indictment against the ...

At one point, the Russians used servers located in the U.S. to carry out the massive data exfiltration effort, the report confirms.

Much of the information was previously learned from the indictment of Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, the Russian officer in charge of Unit 26165. Netyksho is believed to be still at large in Russia.

The operatives working for the Russian intelligence directorate, the GRU, sent dozens of targeted spearphishing emails in just five days to the work and personal accounts of Clinton Campaign employees and volunteers, as a way to break into the campaign’s computer systems.

The GRU hackers also gained access to the email account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, of which its contents were later published.

Using credentials they stole along the way, the hackers broke into the networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee days later. By stealing the login details of a system administrator who had “unrestricted access” to the network, the hackers broke into 29 computers in the ensuing weeks, and more than 30 computers on the DNC.

The operatives, known collectively as “Fancy Bear,” comprised several units tasked with specific operations. Mueller formally blamed Unit 26165, a division of the GRU specializing in targeting government and political organizations, for taking on the “primary responsibility for hacking the DCCC and DNC, as well as email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,” said the Mueller report.

The hackers used Mimikatz, a hacking tool used once an intruder is already in a target network, to collect credentials, and two other kinds of malware: X-Agent for taking screenshots and logging keystrokes, and X-Tunnel used to exfiltrate massive amounts of data from the network to servers controlled by the GRU. Mueller’s report found that Unit 26165 used several “middle servers” to act as a buffer between the hacked networks and the GRU’s main operations. Those servers, Mueller said, were hosted in Arizona — likely as a way to obfuscate where the attackers were located but also to avoid suspicion or detection.

In all, some 70 gigabytes of data were exfiltrated from Clinton’s campaign servers and some 300 gigabytes of data were obtained from the DNC’s network.

Meanwhile, another GRU hacking unit, Unit 74455, which helped disseminate and publish hacked and stolen documents, pushed the stolen data out through two fictitious personas. DCLeaks was a website that hosted the hacked material, while Guccifer 2.0 was a hacker-like figure who had a social presence and would engage with reporters.

Under pressure from the U.S. government, the two GRU-backed personas were shut down by the social media companies. Later, tens of thousands of hacked files were funneled to and distributed by WikiLeaks .

Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.

“I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said then-candidate Trump at a press conference, referring to emails Clinton stored on a personal email server while she headed the State Department. Mueller’s report said “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.

More than a dozen staffers were targeted by Unit 26165, including a senior aide. “It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public,” said Mueller.

Mueller said the Trump campaign made efforts to “find the deleted Clinton emails.” Trump is said to have privately asked would-be national security advisor Michael Flynn, since convicted following inquiries by the Special Counsel’s office, to reach out to associates to obtain the emails. One of those associates was Peter Smith, who died by suicide in May 2017, who claimed to be in contact with Russian hackers — claims which Mueller said were not true.

Does that implicate the Trump campaign in an illegal act? Likely not.

“Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy,” according to Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst. “The special counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.”

04/19/19

Truth and the Ability to Speak It Under Direct Attack

By: Jim Simpson | Center For Security Policy

The common complaint that “free speech” should be protected, even when it’s ugly, implicitly accepts the Left’s argument that we are trying to protect the First Amendment rights of Nazis, White Supremacists, and others with a bad smell. But it really isn’t about protecting free speech. The Left and their Muslim allies can and do say anything they want, no matter how malodorous, obscene, dishonest, misleading or defamatory, and get away with it every day. It is about truth vs a totalitarian agenda, and the despots want to shut us up.

The attack that claimed fifty lives at the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand brought immediate, predictable responses from Democrat politicians, the media, the organized Left and Muslim groups. Commenters from CNN to New York Mayor Bill De Blasio blamed “intolerance, “an epidemic of hatred and fear,” and other shibboleths.[1] Presidential hopeful Cory Booker blamed “The rising tide of white supremacy and Islamophobia…”[2] Virtually all placed some blame on Trump. Nihad Awad, director of The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), blamed President Trump directly, “We hold you responsible for this growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the country and in Europe…”[3]

The timing of the attack couldn’t have been better. A real cynic might even suspect it was part of the plan.[4] Rush Limbaugh speculated on his show the day after the attack, “You can’t immediately discount this. The left is this insane, they are this crazy.”[5]

Continue reading