“The Reset” – How One Canadian Activist is Fighting Tyranny

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

As Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau advocates a global “reset” to replace capitalism, Tanya Gaw of Action4Canada talks with Cliff Kincaid about people fighting back against China virus lockdowns, masks, unreliable PCR tests, and other matters. A one-world socialist agenda is being pushed by the UN, Gates, Soros, the Rockefellers, and Pope Francis. Gaw discusses President Trump’s handling of the virus and why a Covid 19 vaccine should be resisted by everybody. Go to www.action4canada.com


ASI TV Shows – 11/17/20

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Lt. Col. (Ret.) and Whistleblower Tony Shaffer Says Trump Should Not Concede

Former senior intelligence officer Anthony Shaffer has been exposing corruption in the national security community for decades and is now deeply involved in the revelations about the nature of the presidential vote. In this riveting conversation with Cliff Kincaid, Shaffer, the president of the London Center, discusses his warnings over the last three years about how electronic voting was susceptible to fraud and what, if anything, various states did about it. He says Trump’s team is on top of this scandal and will eventually reveal details about how the dirty business of election fraud was carried out and by whom.

How Vote Fraud Was Done in Georgia

Garland Favorito of Voters Organized for Trusted Elections Results in Georgia (VoterGA) explains how vote fraud was carried out in Georgia, citing one case in which 20,000 votes mysteriously appeared for Biden. Favorito, a career Information Technology (IT) professional, explains the “recounts” and “audits” that are underway and what, if anything, they will prove. In the end, he predicts, Trump will win the state’s electoral votes.


When Abu Muhammad al-Masri was Killed in Tehran

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Al-Masri, who was about 58, was one of Al Qaeda’s founding leaders and was thought to be the first in line to lead the organization after its current leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.

Long featured on the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted Terrorist list, he had been indicted in the United States for crimes related to the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people and wounded hundreds. The F.B.I. offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture, and as of Friday, his picture was still on the Most Wanted list.

The F.B.I. wanted poster for Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, who went by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad al-Masri.

American intelligence officials say that Mr. al-Masri had been in Iran’s “custody” since 2003, but that he had been living freely in the Pasdaran district of Tehran, an upscale suburb, since at least 2015. Source

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States and Israel worked together to track and kill a senior al-Qaida operative in Iran earlier this year, a bold intelligence operation by the two allied nations that came as the Trump administration was ramping up pressure on Tehran.

Four current and former U.S. officials said Abu Mohammed al-Masri, al-Qaida’s No. 2, was killed by assassins in the Iranian capital in August. The U.S. provided intelligence to the Israelis on where they could find al-Masri and the alias he was using at the time, while Israeli agents carried out the killing, according to two of the officials. The two other officials confirmed al-Masri’s killing but could not provide specific details.

 1998 file photo of Nairobi

Al-Masri was gunned down in a Tehran alley on Aug. 7, the anniversary of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Al-Masri was widely believed to have participated in the planning of those attacks and was wanted on terrorism charges by the FBI.

Al-Masri’s death is a blow to al-Qaida, the terror network that orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S, and comes amid rumors in the Middle East about the fate of the group’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The officials could not confirm those reports but said the U.S. intelligence community was trying to determine their credibility.

Two of the officials — one within the intelligence community and with direct knowledge of the operation and another former CIA officer briefed on the matter — said al-Masri was killed by Kidon, a unit within the secretive Israeli spy organization Mossad allegedly responsible for the assassination of high-value targets. In Hebrew, Kidon means bayonet or “tip of the spear.”

The official in the intelligence community said al-Masri’s daughter, Maryam, was also a target of the operation. The U.S. believed she was being groomed for a leadership role in al-Qaida and intelligence suggested she was involved in operational planning, according to the official, who like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

Al-Masri’s daughter was the widow of Hamza bin Laden, the son of al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden. He was killed last year in a U.S. counterterrorism operation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

The news of al-Masri’s death was first reported by The New York Times.

Both the CIA and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, which oversees the Mossad intelligence agency, declined to comment.

Israel and Iran are bitter enemies, with the Iranian nuclear program Israel’s top security concern. Israel has welcomed the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iranian nuclear accord and the U.S. pressure campaign on Tehran.

At the time of the killings, the Trump administration was in the advanced stages of trying to push through the U.N. Security Council the reinstatement of all international sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the nuclear agreement. None of the other Security Council members went along with the U.S., which has vowed to punish countries that do not enforce the sanctions as part of its “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran.

Israeli officials are concerned the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden could return to the nuclear accord. It is likely that if Biden does engage with the Iranians, Israel will press for the accord to be modified to address Iran’s long-range missile program and its military activity across the region, specifically in Syria and its support for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

The revelations that Iran was harboring an al-Qaida leader could help Israel bolster its case with the new U.S. administration.

Al-Masri had been on a kill or capture list for years. but his presence in Iran, which has a long history of hostility toward al-Qaida, presented significant obstacles to either apprehending or killing him.

Iran denied the reports, saying the government is not harboring any al-Qaida leaders and blaming the U.S. and Israel for trying to foment anti-Iranian sentiment. U.S. officials have long believed a number of al-Qaida leaders have been living quietly in Iran for years and publicly released intelligence assessments have made that case.

Al-Masri’s death, albeit under an assumed name, was reported in Iranian media on Aug. 8. Reports identified him as a Lebanese history professor potentially affiliated with Lebanon’s Iranian-linked Hezbollah movement and said he had been killed by motorcycle gunmen along with his daughter.

Lebanese media, citing Iranian reports, said that those killed were Lebanese citizen Habib Daoud and his daughter Maraym.

The deaths of al-Masri and his daughter occurred three days after the catastrophic Aug. 4 explosion at the port of Beirut and did not get much attention. Hezbollah never commented on reports and Lebanese security officials did not report that any citizens were killed in Tehran.

A Hezbollah official on Saturday would not comment on al-Masri’s death, saying Iran’s foreign ministry had already denied it.

The alleged killings seem to fit a pattern of behavior attributed to Israel in the past.

In 1995, the founder of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad was killed by a gunman on a motorcycle in Malta, in an assassination widely attributed to the Mossad. The Mossad also reportedly carried out a string of similar killings of Iranian nuclear scientists in Iran early last decade. Iran has accused Israel of being behind those killings.

Yoel Guzansky, a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and former analyst on Iranian affairs in the prime minister’s office, said it has been known for some time that Iran is hiding top al-Qaeda figures. While he had no direct knowledge of al-Masri’s death, he said a joint operation between the U.S. and Israel would reflect the two nations’ close intelligence cooperation, with the U.S. typically stronger in the technical aspects of intelligence gathering and Israel adept at operating agents behind enemy lines.


Barring District of Columbia or Puerto Rico from Senate Representation

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Legislation introduced by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC6).

Should the Senate be capped at 100 members, the way the House has been capped at 435 since 1929?


Democrats increasingly call for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to become official U.S. states. With 3.1 million and 700 thousand American citizens respectively, their residents have no representation in the Senate or the House.

In November, Puerto Rico residents voted 52 percent for statehood, in a nonbinding referendum. In June, the House passed the Washington, D.C. Admission Act by 232–180, with no Republicans in favor and all but one Democrat — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN7) — in support.

The Constitution’s 17th Amendment requires the Senate “shall be composed of two Senators from each State.” Republicans say that adding Puerto Rico and/or the District of Columbia as states is just a partisan ploy to add more Democrats to the Senate, not to mention the House. (That said, Puerto Rico’s elected but nonvoting member of the House, Jenniffer González-Colón, is a Republican.)

What the constitutional amendment would do

A constitutional amendment proposal would limit the Senate to states that existed in 2019. In other words, it would block the seating of senators from potential future states Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia — or any other potential future states, for that matter.

That also means it would officially cap the Senate at 100 members. The House has been officially set at 435 members since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, but while the Senate has remained at 100 members since 1959 because that was the last year a new state was added, the Senate has never had an official number of members like the House does.

This was introduced as a constitutional amendment, rather than as normal legislation, because it seeks to supersede the portions of the 17th Amendment; specifically, superseding the portion which says the Senate is composed of two senators from each state, with a new clause saying the Senate is composed of two senators from each state that existed in 2019.

It was introduced on September 29 as House Joint Resolution 97, by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC6).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the widespread Democratic support for new states during the Trump era, especially considering how previous pre-Trump proposals didn’t gain nearly as much Democratic support, merely reflects a partisan gambit to pass policies that existing voters don’t sufficiently support.

“From packing the Supreme Court to passing the disastrous Green New Deal, it’s no secret Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and their Washington elites will do anything to reshape the political future of our nation — no matter the cost,” Rep. Walker said in a press release.

“Democrats’ blatant attempts to strategically manipulate and mold dark blue strongholds in their quest to achieve a Senate majority treats Americans as pawns in their pathetic chess game,” Rep. Walker continued. “There is a cap on the number of members in the House and the Senate should have the same to avoid political abuse and hostage-taking of our standards and norms.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that places such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia currently experience taxation without full representation — exactly the type of oppression the American Revolutionary War was fought to end.

“The rights to vote, to be equally represented in the governments that make our own laws, and that elections are carried out fairly are the most fundamental and essential elements of democracy,” Commish. González-Colón said during a July congressional hearing. “I represent 89 percent of the inhabitants of the five territories of the United States … Those of us who live in the territories, live in jurisdictions that constitutionally does not have a vote in a government that dictates our national laws and that can, and has intervened, with local laws.”

“D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 22 states,” Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC0) said during another July congressional hearing. “D.C.’s population of 705,000 is larger than those of two states,… D.C.’s $15.5 billion budget is larger than those of 12 states… D.C. has a higher per capita personal income and gross domestic product than any state. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016.”

Odds of passage

A constitutional amendment requires passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus three-quarters of state legislatures. And this one has a particularly long road ahead, considering it has not yet attracted any cosponsors.

It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Washington Dc Map / Geography of Washington Dc/ Map of ...

DS: Legislative proposals to make D.C. a state violate the Constitution in at least two ways.

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right to “exercise exclusive Legislation” over the “District” that is “the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Congress cannot simply change the “Seat of the Government” into a state or delegate its power over the District to the government of a new state.

It took a constitutional amendment to give D.C. residents the ability to vote for president because they are not a state and Congress could not make them a state.

Ratified in 1961, the 23rd Amendment recognizes Congress’s authority to oversee the manner in which the District appoints electors to the Electoral College.

Congress cannot single-handedly eliminate the power this amendment grants only to Congress.

Article I would need to be amended, and the 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed for legislative efforts to be constitutional.

In Adams v. Clinton (2000), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that legislative efforts to allow for voting representation in Congress were unconstitutional.

The three judge panel made it clear that the Constitution would need to be amended in order for such changes to take place within the law.

Congress itself recognized this in 1977 with a constitutional amendment to grant D.C. representation—it failed to gain the approval of the states.

Constitutional questions aside, proponents pushing for D.C. statehood overlook the fact that D.C. residents are already well-represented.

The Founders reasoned that the whole Congress would represent the interests of the residents of the District of Columbia.

According to Justice Joseph Story, those who lived in the District “would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the representatives of the whole.”

This remains true today, especially in light of the fact that federal spending often benefits D.C. residents more than those living in the states, whose residents usually receive far less in federal funding per capita than D.C. residents.

In fact, seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in America surround Washington, D.C.

The interests of the residents of the District are already highly promoted, even perhaps at the expense of the rest of the country.

Furthermore, D.C. residents are represented by a second body, the Council of the District of Columbia.

With the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973, Congress ceded a portion of its authority to govern local affairs to a city council.

The council is made up of 13 members and a mayor—each of which is an elected position.

Though the campaign to make the District of Columbia a state and grant it full congressional voting will lumber on, supporters should come to terms with the constitutional and practical impediments outlined above.

If proponents of D.C. statehood want to live in a state and not a district, they have some options that are very close by.


More Forced Lockdowns?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Pandemic lockdown has brought Earth’s vibrations to a halt

Joe Biden has said he would lockdown the nation based on the science. Question is, what science? Virology experts hardly all agree on the threats and implications of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Dr. Michael Osterholm says COVID-19 testing is in crisis ...

Michael Osterholm, an infectious-disease expert and one of the 13 members of Biden’s new coronavirus task force called for a national lockdown lasting four to six weeks to slow the rise of virus cases across the country. Read here in detail.

Then we have governors that are going to another round of lockdowns: California, New York, Michigan, and Oregon and in various forms including just some cities like Chicago. Cancel the holidays they say… close businesses at 10 pm, that is when the virus shows up. Yeesh… but let’s go deeper into critical thinking, shall we?

The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study that goes to the heart of the issue of lockdowns. The question has always been whether and to what extent a lockdown, however extreme, is capable of suppressing the virus. If so, you can make an argument that at least lockdowns, despite their astronomical social and economic costs, achieve something. If not, nations of the world have embarked on a catastrophic experiment that has destroyed billions of lives, and all expectation of human rights and liberties, with no payoff at all.

COVID-19: New York to shut down as it becomes next ...

AIER has long highlighted studies that show no gain in virus management from lockdowns. Even as early as April, a major data scientist said that this virus becomes endemic in 70 days after the first round of infection, regardless of policies. The largest global study of lockdowns compared with deaths as published in The Lancet found no association between coercive stringencies and deaths per million.

To test further might seem superfluous but, for whatever reason, governments all over the world, including in the US, still are under the impression that they can affect viral transmissions through a range of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) like mandatory masks, forced human separation, stay-at-home orders, bans of gatherings, business, and school closures, and extreme travel restrictions. Nothing like this has been tried on this scale in the whole of human history, so one might suppose that policymakers have some basis for their confidence that these measures accomplish something.

A study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center sought to test lockdowns along with testing and isolation. In May, 3,143 new recruits to the Marines were given the option to participate in a study of frequent testing under extreme quarantine. The study was called CHARM, which stands for COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines. Of the recruits asked, a total of 1,848 young people agreed to be guinea pigs in this experiment which involved “which included weekly qPCR testing and blood sampling for IgG antibody assessment.” In addition, the CHARM study volunteers who did test positively “on the day of enrollment (day 0) or on day 7 or day 14 were separated from their roommates and were placed in isolation.”

What did the recruits have to do? The study explains, and, as you will see, they faced an even more strict regime that has existed in civilian life in most places. All recruits, even those not in the CHARM group, did the following.

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission, and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate pre-plated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided with pre-plated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom screening. Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive, the instructor was removed from duty. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel. After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before re-occupancy.

The reputation of Marine basic training is that it is tough going but this really does take it to another level. Also, this is an environment where those in charge do not mess around. There was surely close to 100% compliance, as compared with, for example, a typical college campus.

What were the results? The virus still spread, though 90% of those who tested positive were without symptoms. Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine.”

And how does this compare to the control group that was not tested and not isolated in the case of a positive case?

Have a look at this chart from the study:

Which is to say that the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate than those who were under an extreme regime. Conversely, extreme enforcement of NPIs plus more frequent testing and isolation was associated with a greater degree of infection.

I’m grateful to Don Wolt for drawing my attention to this study, which, so far as I know, has received very little attention from any media source at all, despite having been published in the New England Journal of Medicine on November 11.

Here are four actual media headlines about the study that miss the point entirely:

  • CNN: “Many military Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic, studies show”
  • SciTech Daily: “Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission Revealed Through Study of 2,000 Marine Recruits”
  • ABC: “Broad study of Marine recruits shows limits of COVID-19 symptom screening”
  • US Navy: “Navy/Marine Corps COVID-19 Study Findings Published in New England Journal of Medicine”

No national news story that I have found highlighted the most important finding of all: extreme quarantine plus frequent testing and isolation among military recruits did nothing to stop the virus.

The study is important because of the social structure of control here. It’s one thing to observe no effects from national lockdowns. There are countless variables here that could be invoked as cautionary notes: demographics, population density, preexisting immunities, degree of compliance, and so on. But with this Marine study, you have a near homogeneous group based on age, health, and densities of living. And even here, you see confirmed what so many other studies have shown: lockdowns are pointlessly destructive. They do not manage the disease. They crush human liberty and produce astonishing costs, such as 5.53 million years of lost life from the closing of schools alone.

The lockdowners keep telling us to pay attention to the science. That’s what we are doing. When the results contradict their pro-compulsion narrative, they pretend that the studies do not exist and barrel ahead with their scary plans to disable all social functioning in the presence of a virus. Lockdowns are not science. They never have been. They are an experiment in social/political top-down management that is without precedent in cost to life and liberty.

[The earliest version of this article misstated the conditions of the control group. They were equally locked down with those who participated in the study. The difference between the two concerned testing frequency and the isolation response. This does not affect this article’s conclusion; indeed it strengthens it: even under extreme measures, the virus spread, and more so with the extra measure intended to control the virus. Nearly all infections were without symptoms.]


Democrats Get Something Right – Investigating $300 Million Spent On Defective And Missing F-35 Parts

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The F-35 Lightning II is truly an amazing achievement in military aircraft design and next-general military capabilities. It is arguably the world’s most dominant multi-role fighter. Its detection range, geolocation, threat identification, and system response capabilities allow the jet to precisely zero in on and destroy the most advanced threats in the world. That includes Russia’s latest SA-20 surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. It is promoted as the greatest tactical fighter ever produced. But that title comes with a stunning price tag.

The cost for an F-35 is estimated to be more than $100 million per plane. Adding in development, operations, and maintenance costs, the F-35 fighter initiative is estimated to run well over $1 trillion during its lifetime. Part of that cost is also due to sophisticated hacking operations that have driven up the price tag. This estimate is tens of billions more than the previous projections and the price tag just keeps going ever higher. That does not include the $300 million for missing or defective parts over the last five years. This has raised eyebrows in Congress and surprisingly those looking into this poor use of taxpayer funding are Democrats. The Pentagon also wants answers.

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the New York Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, has gotten wind of all this. She sent a letter to Lockheed Martin demanding thousands of documents related to the spare parts program.

“The military is spending tens of millions of dollars a year to overcome unresolved issues with the system Lockheed Martin built and maintains to track spare parts for the F-35,” the letter stated. “These problems must be resolved quickly as they create a significant administrative burden for military maintenance personnel.”

The other three lawmakers that signed the letter were Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), chair of the Subcommittee on National Security; Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA); and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA).

The letter purports that one military commander told a Congressional delegation that the spare part issues are “pervasive” and a “massive manpower suck.”

While our military deserves the very best in everything we can provide them, with the debt the U.S. is running in all quarters these days, no budget for any item should be open-ended. That’s why an audit of spending concerning the F-35, its parts, and its suppliers should be conducted. A lot of numbers here simply do not add up.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, headed by Republicans, is asking in-depth questions on the spending related to the initiative. Senators want answers regarding the DOD’s plan to spend $17.9 billion to further upgrade the three F-35 variants. Also at issue are questions of funding, parts from Turkey, buying F-35 materials in bulk, and how much money Lockheed is reimbursing the DOD for spare parts that could not be installed.

The cost of an F-35 has reduced 15.3% from previous price estimates through Lockheed Martin. However, their engines have only reduced in cost by 3%. Pratt and Whitney, the manufacturer of the engines, says there will be no further price reductions since Congress killed funding for the F-35 alternative engine contract in 2011, leaving them as a sole-source supplier with no incentive to reduce its profits. Congress and the Pentagon’s audit agency also want answers and solutions for this cost discrepancy.

The F-35 has also been plagued by technical problems, although they have been reportedly cut in half. They were decreased from 13 to seven over the past year. But those problems are costly as well not only dollar-wise but in manpower and combat readiness.

The Pentagon’s five-year budget plan for the F-35 falls short by as much as $10 billion. A number of experts now believe that the complex fighter jet may be too costly to operate and maintain. The Defense Department’s blueprint for the next five fiscal years calls for requesting $78 billion for research and development, jet procurement, operations and maintenance, and military construction dedicated to the F-35 built by Lockheed Martin Corp. But the cost analysis unit estimates $88 billion will be needed.

The Democrats are also not pleased that the Trump administration has formally informed the United States Congress of its intention to sell dozens of F-35 advanced fighter jets and other military hardware to the United Arab Emirates. Israel has signed off on the deal as well. So, while the cost of producing the aircraft is monstrous and ongoing, it would seem that the U.S. will recoup at least some of that spending. The question is whether it is wise to sell military aircraft to the UAE or not. They are ostensibly an ally, but things are very fluid in the Middle East. Nurturing allies over there is in our best interests, however.

The F-35’s spending is clearly a boondoggle that needs further investigation, foresight, and consideration — and all options must be on the table to protect taxpayer funding. But Democrats shouldn’t pretend, as they often do, that even the worst military spending is responsible for our massive deficits in the last two decades. That honor belongs to social spending.

While Democrats seem to believe that military spending is the U.S.’ major debt contributor these days, that simply is not the case. Their reasoning is purely political and not based on factual data. Social Security and Medicare are the real villains in our debt saga.

Our military budget is very large and in many instances managed poorly and handled inefficiently. War-related increases in defense spending have been a significant factor in America’s increasing deficits since the turn of the century.

But it should be noted that the Department of Defense’s budget is shrinking as a percentage of the federal budget. It is currently 14 percent of the budget. That is smaller than expenditures for Social Security and the federal healthcare system. Both of those social endeavors will take up larger portions of the federal budget.

Regardless of our military budget, the spending on the F-35 needs to be looked into. We should have the best military equipment in the world but we should also adhere to Trump’s “Art of the Deal” and not just throw money away without questioning where it is going, what it is being used for, and can a better deal be had.


ASI TV Shows

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

The Communist Network Backing Security Risk Joe Biden

Anti-communist analyst Trevor Loudon examines Biden’s links to the Russians and the Chinese, as well as the communist networks that backed his campaign in states like Georgia. The author of “White House Reds,” Trevor says that while vote fraud may have played a significant role in the Biden “victory,” there is no question that groups, some with ties to Beijing, also played a role. Such groups never came under investigation by the FBI because they are linked directly to the Democratic Party.

Civil War: Trump’s Plan to Thwart the Coup

As America’s political divisions and turmoil grow, geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist examines how China and Russia will exploit our second civil war, with China taking political control of the West Coast (where Biden will be inaugurated as president) and Russia threatening Alaska. Facing a military coup by globalists, Trump will stay in the White House and declare Martial Law. As part of this plan, he has already fired key staffers in the Pentagon and put a supporter into the super-secret NSA. Expect him to can CIA Director Haspel and FBI Director Wray.

More at www.usasurvival.org.


Are You Ready For The Biden/Zeke Emanuel COVID Death Panels?

By: Daniel John Sobieski

New York Governor and nursing home serial killer Andrew Cuomo’s recent interview by George Stephanopoulos on Disney/ABC’s Good Morning America proved an oft-repeated statement by Sean Hannity:

Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday night put the “leftist media” in its place, saying that if President Donald Trump “could actually cure cancer,” the “media still wouldn’t be happy.”

The news that thanks to President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, drugmaker Pfizer has a vaccine that is 90 percent effective against COVID-19 and is ready to roll thanks to $2 billion from and a distribution infrastructure built by the Trump administration, did not make the media, Stephanopoulos and totalitarian Democrats in the mold of Cuomo happy. Those who decried Trump’s alleged slow speed response to the pandemic cannot stomach Donald Trump’s warp speed success in finding a vaccine, and perhaps more than one, to end it. They want to wait for Joe Biden and his hand-picked Obama leftover, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. As Breitbart News reported:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told Good Morning America on Monday morning that while the development of an effective coronavirus vaccine was “good news,” it was “bad news” that it would arrive while President Donald Trump is in office….

George Stephanopoulos: We were talking yesterday about the importance of vaccine distribution in the next two months. What do you make of this news?

Cuomo: Well, it’s good news/bad news, George. The good news is the Pfizer tests look good and we’ll have a vaccine shortly. The bad news is that it’s about two months before Joe Biden takes over, and that means this administration is going to be implementing a vaccine plan. The vaccine plan is very important and it’s probably the most ambitious undertaking since COVID began. … And the Trump administration is rolling out the vaccination plan and I believe it’s flawed. I believe it learns nothing from the past. They’re basically going to have the private providers do it, and that’s going to leave out all sorts of communities that were left out the first time when COVID ravaged them.

So what is Joe Biden’s vaccination plan that’s so important that it would be better to have people die from COVID while we wait for it? Perhaps we should ask Dr. Emanuel, one of 13 “experts” picked by Biden to populate his COVID-19 Advisory Board. From January 2009 to January 2011, Dr. Emanuel served as a special advisor for health policy to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. He was one of the architects of Obamacare and held controversial and appalling views about who should live and who should just get out of the way to die, views which prompted 2008 GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin to warn of Obamacare “death panels.” Ironically, Joe Biden is 77 and Zeke Emanuel has argued it is not worth living past 75:

Oncologist Dr. Zeke Emanuel, one of 10 advisory board members named to Democratic President-elect Joe Biden’s coronavirus task force, argued in a 2014 essay that he doesn’t want to live past 75.

Emanuel, 63, wrote that “by 75, creativity, originality and productivity are pretty much gone for the vast, vast majority of us” in his 2014 essay “Why I Hope to Die at 75.”

“Since 1960, however, increases in longevity have been achieved mainly by extending the lives of people over 60. Rather than saving more young people, we are stretching out old age,” Emanuel wrote in the essay….

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., criticized the selection of Emanuel for the advisory board on Monday.

“A member of Biden’s new coronavirus task force is a lockdown enthusiast who has written that living past 75 isn’t worth it,” Cotton wrote on Twitter. “Americans want our country opened up, not creepy bioethicists who enjoy playing God.”

Dr. Emanuel will personally be a key architect in Biden’s plan on vaccine distribution, on who gets the vaccine first and distribution priorities. His selection for Biden’s COVID-19 Advisory Board is cheered on by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who infamously put COVID-infected patient s into nursing homes and senior care facilities, killing them by the thousands. That is perhaps not so surprising considering Emanuel’s views.

“Calls for changing physician training and culture are perennial and usually ignored. However, the progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’. to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible,” he writes in a June 2008 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

He sees a problem in the Hippocratic Oath doctors take to first do no harm compelling them “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others” thereby avoiding the inevitable movement toward “socially sustainable, cost-effective care.”

In other words, Dr. Emanuel believes that some lives are simply just not worth saving – or being first in line for a vaccine. One of the proposed Obama constructs was something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) whose purpose was to prioritize the allocation of Medicare spending resources. It was to be the means to the end of cost-effective healthcare or Emanuel’s dream of “socially sustainable, cost-effective care.”

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB “essentially a healthcare rationing body” which “will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” wrote Dean, who is also a physician. That is the kind of thing Dr. Zeke Emanuel embraces.

The frightening specter of government appointees deciding who lives and who dies by controlling the availability or withholding of treatment based on cost-effectiveness has been a grim reality in Britain and Canada. Sarah Palin was right when she referred to ObamaCare’s IPAB as a death panel whose decisions would result in the rationing of healthcare to the point that they would be in effect deciding who lived and who died as has happened under Britain’s National Health Service.

The concept behind deciding who lives and who dies and how finite resources should be allocated was once described by Dr. Emanuel. In his paper, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” he expounds on what he calls “The Complete Lives System” for allocating treatments and resources. He says: “When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable…” Allocating is Latin for rationing.

This is scary stuff. With Dr. Emanuel advising Biden, will vaccine decisions be based on whose lives are most worth saving? Will blue states get priority over red states? Will politically correct groups get a higher priority? Will seniors continue to get the shaft as they did in Cuomo’s nursing homes? Will the “woke” crowd be the first in line while the “deplorables” are put in the back. Already there are calls for the making of lists of Trump supporters for retribution.  A list for denying vaccinations perhaps?

Ask Dr. Emanuel, who once thought something like a “death panel” was a perfectly acceptable idea.

*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.


US Election confusion – COVID-19 and the Digital Controversy

Source: Anonymous

With COVID-19 well seeded in our daily lives where social distancing and limited outings were now commonplace, many of us were confronted with trying to vote in the 2020 Election. Many voters were torn at the thought of casting their 2020 Presidential vote in person. Many others, including service members, had no choice but to cast an absentee ballot. However, for those who were able to carry out their patriotic duty in-person, they would be unknowingly plagued with electronic ‘mishaps’ in key states that would raise eyebrows and cast doubt for some while creating unwanted ‘conspiracy theories’ for others during the 2020 Presidential Election.

As a high skill level Cybersecurity Firm that activity performs security research and responsibly discloses numerous zero-day discoveries each year and being a Cybersecurity Firm that performs large amounts of Penetration Testing Engagements, Software and Hardware Testing, Compliance Assessments and more wanted to do a little research on the issue and offer a professional opinion. We have extracted public information primarily in the form of published reports to look at the equipment and processes that are being utilized in the 2020 Election and present them to you. These discoveries are meant to help inform any voter in the United States, raise awareness, and lift the veil to get a better understanding of what is being utilized that has caused so much controversy. We maintain absolute neutrality and impartiality in our research and report only facts in this presentation. We will provide only our professional opinions and professional analysis of the data collected.

Many electronic voting platforms have been put forward as viable options to the American Election System for review and use in the United States Elections. However, 3 vendors are the primary suppliers of the platforms which are: Dominion Voting Systems, American Hart InterCivic, and the American Election Systems & Software (ES&S). These systems undergo routine and constant testing of their policies, hardware, software, and source code. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), develops Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). These guidelines rely on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the technical guidelines.

Testing and Certification of the Voting Systems differ a bit for each state. When we focus on the states that have found themselves in the news the most (Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada), we find they all have different requirements for testing:

Nevada – requires testing to federal standards

Georgia – requires full federal certification

North Carolina – requires full federal certification

Pennsylvania – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory

Michigan – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory

Wisconsin – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory Arizona – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory

Some states like Kansas only comply with compliance, while some like Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey have no federal testing or certification requirements at all.

With such vast requirement differences and standards of testing or none at all, it is difficult (and in some cases impossible) to identify exactly how each state is verifying and validating correct system functionality as well as resistance to a cyberattack of the Voting Systems. Later in this paper, we identify some publicly available information pertaining to the testing and concerns of some Voting Systems in the span of the past 15 years.

The word ‘glitch’ reported on several media outlets during the 2020 Presidential Election. Anytime we hear the word ‘glitch’, we must take a very close look at the issue and validate whether the ‘glitch’ is real, then test to validate if it can be duplicated. If it can in-fact be duplicated, we then need to look at the scenario that caused the glitch. Knowing there are multiple vendors that provide equipment for US Elections, a ‘glitch’ must be fully investigated and reported on using the precise setup and conditions where it was discovered so that it can be accurately duplicated and recreated. The same scenario should then be investigated on any other ‘similar’ platform to test if the ‘glitch’ can be duplicated on those systems as well.

Live testing is never an ideal scenario, however, it should be expected and planned for. Being able to quickly determine if an issue is isolated or if it propagates over one, some, many, or all similar platforms can be the difference between responsibility and controversy. Full Transparency in these situations is critical.

What we have found during our research is a common theme played out time and time again.  What we have found is authorized vendors are permitted to test the Voting Equipment and Platforms.  However, what we do not find is information on if the source-code is properly tested if it is tested at all.  The lack of transparency has led to controversially scenarios and concerns. Some examples of scenarios causing the greatest concern whereby technical evidence to the contrary cannot be found include:

  • Can votes be switched?
  • Can votes be automatically switched with software?
  • Can votes be removed?
  • Can votes be removed automatically with software?
  • Can invalid votes be cast for a given party?
  • Can invalid votes be cast for a given party automatically?
  • Can bulk votes be introduced for a given party?
  • Can bulk votes be removed for a given party?
  • Can access be gained to the voting system remotely and information changed?

Important to Understand

CISA has reported there was no indication of fraud or mishaps in the below publication.


However, this assessment is based on flawed information and a misleading process. The process cited is the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) compliance report which focuses on the calibration of the voting machines and a limited look at the voting software.  The type of testing applied and methodology used does not appear to factor or test critical security elements in a meaningful way or thoroughly examine the actual source code and cannot with any certainty be used to substantiate the security posture of the voting system.

Below is the link to the Pro V& V report that documents the type of testing performed on the Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5c under the EAC evaluation process.


The report document in Analysis Item 8 is the only actual Red Team / Penetration Test of the Dominion Democracy Suite that we could locate in the public domain. The report definitively demonstrates the Penetration Testing team having discovered and exploited many significant vulnerabilities with the Dominion Democracy Suite leaving significant concerns about the voting platform’s security and resistance to fraud and unauthorized manipulation. While this report was published in 2014, continued reports from State evaluations (although not penetration tests) show a trend of continued security failures.

Analysis of Discovered Reports and Documents

Our Analysis on Published Documents and Reports Relating to Dominion Voting Machines (many of discovered reports are heavily buried and likely not known to the host but are indexed by Google and publicly available nevertheless):

1. MAJOR Findings Significantly Downplayed – The following link is the Test Report for the Dominion Democracy Suite 5.2 Source Code performed by SLI Compliance in Wheat Ridge Colorado – this report details no major findings were discovered, which when the entirely of the report is taken into context is not accurate. There are indeed major findings, but they wrap them with only ‘an insider’ would be the one to take advantage of discovered vulnerabilities and the report does not detail the findings. These are serious vulnerabilities that are commonly exploited by attackers such as SQL Injections, memcopy, strcopy, and more. Best practices and a thorough testing approach would be to test these in an ‘assumed breach’ scenario and detail exactly what would be required to exploit them. Immediately following this information would be a thorough analysis of what the consequences would be if exploited. As it stands in the published report, this is a major gap that should be examined as soon as possible.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vendors/dominion/ds52- sc.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNGRQYJJuOjcigVwR6P4sSE LzfRMPw

2. MAJOR Findings Significantly Downplayed – The following link is the Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-A.1 Voting System with Adjudication Version 2.4 ‘Source Code Review’ results performed by Asec & Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group on 11/14/2014. ALL findings in this report are reported as ‘Low’ including the use of SHA-1 for key generation, code exceptions that can cause a denial of service and potentially access to the platform, and the potential for buffer overflow exploit. Many of these should be classified as a high criticality vulnerability and from experience, we regularly successfully exploit the same type of vulnerabilities on other systems.  Further, the report contains only 12 pages which beg questions as to how thorough the testing was.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://verifiedvoting.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/adjudication.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000& usg=AFQjCNERb8F65NdqjYuC-2CJfldk0vTygQ

3. Significant Concerns with Voting System Not Addressed and System was not Approved for Future Releases The following link is the Dominion Democracy Suite Release 4.14.37 Version 2 Voting System Qualification Test Report prepared by The Bureau of Voting Systems Certification (BVSC) Florida Department of State Division of Elections in January 2020. While the system presented passed inspection, the Bureau did not recommend the approval of any future releases for this voting system unless the issues in the Continuous Improvements/Recommendations section were addressed and no longer an issue, including unexpected ICP system shutdown and ‘confusing’ data output.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://dos.myflorida.com/media/702601/dominion- democracy-suite-release-41437-version-2-test- report.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNEMrQGySUhEZV7Wg CTJGOqVCig9PQ

4. Voting System Failed Texas Certification and Denied for Use in Texas Elections – The following link is the Report of review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A by The State of Texas Elections Division on October 2-3, 2019. The findings in this report include ‘multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system satisfies each of the voting-system requirements set forth in the Texas Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.

Therefore, the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system and corresponding hardware devices to not meet the standards for certification prescribed by Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code’ The Democracy Suite 5.5-A system was thus denied certification for use in Texas Elections, signed by Deputy Secretary of State, Jose A. Esparaza on January 24th, 2020.

-d-suite-5.5- a.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNG6Ey27tBkMIt6COPqsdD wpXKhR7w

Here is the link to Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code:


It is very short and specifies the following:


  • A voting system may not be used in an election unless the system:
    • preserves the secrecy of the ballot;
    • is suitable for the purpose for which it is intended;
    • operates safely, efficiently, and accurately and complies with the voting system standards adopted by the Election Assistance Commission;
    • is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation;
    • permits voting on all offices and measures to be voted on at the election;
    • prevents counting votes on offices and measures on which the voter is not entitled to vote;
    • prevents counting votes by the same voter for more than one candidate for the same office or, in elections in which a voter is entitled to vote for more than one candidate for the same office, prevents counting votes for more than the number of candidates for which the voter is entitled to vote;2020.
    • prevents counting a vote on the same office or measure more than once;
    • permits write-in voting; and
    • is capable of providing records from which the operation of the voting system may be
      • Repealed by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., S., Ch. 404 (H.B. 25), Sec. 8, eff. September 1,
      • The secretary of state may prescribe additional standards for voting systems consistent with this The standards may apply to particular kinds of voting systems, to particular elements comprising a voting system, including operation procedures, or to voting systems generally.
      • Effective January 1, 2006, a voting system may not be used in an election if the system uses:
        • mechanical voting machines; or
        • a punch-card ballot or a similar form of a tabulating card.
      • For an election for federal office in which a state or federal court order has extended the time for voting beyond the time allowed by Subchapter B, Chapter 41, a voting system must provide a separate count of the votes cast after the time allowed by that

5. Voting System Determined to have a High Risk of an Insecure Configuration when Installed, even when Installed by the Vendor In response to the Voting System failing TX certification, the following link is a ‘concern’ by Mr. Brandon T. Hurley. He begins by stating he is a newly appointed voting systems examiner under Texas Election code 122.035 and points out many problems and concerns he has with the Democracy Suite 5.5-A platform including: Many  Security features are not automatic, rather they rely on the end-user following instructions, the system is difficult to build and implement and caused issues even for the Dominion installers, the system can be without question connected to external communication networks and can       only be avoided if the end-user takes proper precautions to prevent such connections, thus his recommendation was for non-certification and non-use in Texas Elections:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/oct2019- hurley.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNFIV7uZkXiMD5v667_ DE4AVklAeAA

6. Voting System Again Determined to Fail Texas Certification Requirements – The following link is a summary of all of the findings by Tom Watson another Texas certified voting systems examiner. His report details many concerns including: problems installing the Dominion Software which led to software failures; the difficulty verifying the integrity of the software will likely result in many jurisdictions that simply decide not configure the product in a secure manner before the elections; Party affiliations were missing from candidates; Ethernet ports were active; system crashes which would cause adjudication to be redone; firewalls are not configured as part of hardening and left to each jurisdiction; and much more:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/oct2019- watson.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNEBRxxb5g- ifwBTOU0Gq8aYxQywkQ

The below link is to yet another failed certification in 2019:


7. Dominion Vulnerability Disclosure Program Only Factors Peripheral Elements The following link is to the Dominion Voting Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Program. This Program encourages transparency and permits the public and 3rd parties to report potential vulnerabilities to Dominion.  However, this appears to only be for vulnerabilities related to the Dominion hosting platform, and not for the source code that actually processes the data. Our research indicates that only certified election voting equipment testers can access the actual code for testing but even that appears to be restricted to peripheral code (and not source code). Without testing the actual source code via a skilled penetration testing resource and mimicking real-world operations, it is impossible to assess if the code is secure from manipulation.

disclosure- policy/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNGI5NISUGjbcB3RmT8W e6q8V_z3BQ

8. Voting System has History of Being Implemented with Significant Security Flaws – The following is the link to the Red Team Test Report for the Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-A and4.14.A.1 w/Adjudication 2.4. This test report from Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group on November 18th, 2014 details the test methods and findings for the systems. These findings include: System/Hardware failures; Users have Administrative permissions; Display failures; No centralized GPO configuration management; Missing Windows Updates; Anti-Virus was in evaluation mode; Missing Trust Relationships; Encryption Keys could be and were recovered; User credentials recovered from memory; Flash drive doors could be opened and seals removed; ballot scanner box door could be opened during an election and ballots added or removed without detection, and much more:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/red- team-support.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNGjITVe- qTdzK3Bf83PhsDeD9w0Gw