04/4/20

Humiliation, A Pretext For Murder

By: Tabitha Korol

I discovered a paper by the accomplished social scientist, Dr. Evelin Lindner, regarding her theory that the humiliation of a people may cause them to react in anger.  The summary by Brett Reeder, Conflict Research Consortium, of “Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict,” confirmed that this was, indeed, her intent.  However, a violent reaction is by no means inevitable, but a matter of choice, and by broadcasting her assumption, she has merely provided another excuse for claiming victimhood.

By the third paragraph, it had become apparent that there would be the accusations I’d come to expect.  With a deft twist, the authoress had crafted two unproven theories as facts in order to support her beliefs. Her first statement, not in quotes by Reeder, was:              

The Versailles Treaty’s treatment of Germany after World War I is widely believed to have been a major impetus for the rise of Hitler and World War II.

Widely believed may be credible, but not factual.  Can anyone seriously posit that, had the Treaty been more reasonable, Hitler would not have risen to power?  His belief in the innate superiority of the Aryan race and its destiny to rule the world would have supplied sufficient impetus for such an amoral megalomaniac.  Guided by his personality, Hitler made a choice.

One error invariably unleashes another, and Lindner applies her humiliation-causes-anger theory to the Arab-Israeli situation:

The treatment of Jews in the Holocaust certainly contributed to Israelis’ feelings of victimhood, which is manifested, in part, by their humiliating treatment of Palestinians.

It is offensive to suggest that humiliated Holocaust survivors vented their anger on the Palestinians, but more notable is that she portrayed the first two groups, Nazis and Jews, as humiliated-turned-aggressor, but Palestinians as humiliated-remaining-passive.   A theory cannot be credible if it lacks consistency.  The good doctor displays her bias in favor of the Palestinians and against the Jews.

History has shown the Palestinians to be violent, not passive, and the question is whether their violence can be traced to alleged humiliation by the Israelis.  To do so, she had to overlook Islam’s entire 1400-year history of expansionism, atrocities, enslavement, rape, and bloodshed in every nation they invaded, killing more than  669 million people.  The Palestinian heritage is Islam, and the writer ignored the innumerable pogroms against the Jews, the Armenians, and others before Israel’s sovereignty in 1948.  The Muslim attackers were neither humiliated by Israel nor passive.

Oddly, Lindner said, “humiliation destroys everything in its path,” and it “brings about depression and victimhood.”  However, despite the trials of centuries and the harsh rules under which Jews have been forced to live, they did not succumb to humiliation with anger and war but spent their lives improving their lot.  They held fast to their identity, faith, morality, and God’s promise of returning to Zion. They comforted each other through the Inquisition, ghetto confinement, pogroms, and concentration camps; and once liberated, rebuilt their vibrant country out of the desert and malarial swamp.  The small country’s exceptional success reflects their confidence and innovation, energy and industry, not victimhood and humiliation. Life is a gift to be treasured, not squandered.  Given the choices of sanity and madness, the Jews chose the former.  Further, their countless offers of peace to the Palestinians indicate magnanimity, not the bitterness of past humiliation.

Victimhood is a choice that the Palestinians continue to make because it garners cash and sympathy from the world.  Israel recently delivered hundreds of coronavirus-detection kits to Gaza, but Palestinian leaders chose to foster their victimhood by concealing that help from their own and the international community and to condemn Israel for their heightened death toll.

The Palestinians elected not to build their own country concurrently when the Jews were rebuilding theirs, during the same time and climatic conditions – although the Arabs had the oil money and funds from Europe, America, Israel, and UNWRA.  They chose the victim personae.

To verify Lindner’s views that Palestinian violence is caused by the Jews’ mistreatment of them, we must examine the cherished, savored victimhood of the Palestinians and recognize that, as with a painting’s canvas, the personality must also be primed.

Islam is the basis of the blame/shame culture in which Muslims, and Palestinians specifically, are raised.  The social and psychological phenomenon of humiliation is one in which the fault in a crime is attributed entirely to the victim.  This is a coping mechanism of transference, of rationalization, characteristic of borderline personality disorder.  It is found in cultures that produce jihadis, in the children’s early nonverbal communication, their psychotic attachment to their mother, play activities that reveal their traumatic early-life experiences, and their body language that communicates emotional instability, the sadism from their earliest terrors.

The jihadi (or female jihada) has often been described as having masochistic personality disorder, obtaining gratification from the persistent degradation by humiliation, self-sacrifice, and indulgent misery, thus creating the victimization.  Described as an unconscious self-punishment that results from the damaged bond with the devalued, hated mother, the jihadi is capable of committing crimes against humanity.  In mass masochism, the jihadis fuse in a non-thinking, regressed group to commit crimes and sacrifice that the population celebrates, a form of mass hysteria. The Islamic antisemitism and terrorism are stabilized in the inherently fragile, violent jihadi personality.

These traits are clearly found among Gaza’s Palestinians.  The boy’s experiences are harsh. In the family of as many as four wives and multiple children to one husband, the sons are ignored by the father and raised among the women for his first seven years, when he terror-bonds with his mother and accepts her worthlessness. It is an atmosphere of envy and rivalry among the wives as well as the children.  When the father does take control of his education, his mother has already exposed him to a painful betrayal, where he is raped and humiliated into submission by other men.  Despite the veneer of Islamic disgust about homosexuality, Arab poetry is replete with the joys of sodomy.

A boy’s friendships and education are strictly limited but they may come together as a group, faces covered, humiliation hidden, to take out their aggression on Mohammed’s sworn enemies, the Jews.  They work in unison when throwing rocks or incendiary missiles across Israel’s border.  Our social scientist, Lindner, appears oblivious of the ruinous upbringing experienced by the future jihadis, their eagerness for death and martyrdom, instead she attributes their violence to imagined humiliation by the Jews.

Neither is the daughter spared her own childhood nightmare.  In such a family unit, she experiences her own terror and distrust of her family when she undergoes Female Genital Mutilation.  The indignation of being restrained on a table while a stranger imposes on her privacy to inflict severe pain that negates her femaleness also brings her humiliation.  Raised in this household, forced into a loveless marriage to an older man and raped at will, the daughter, still in need of motherly nurturing, must be the mother to the numerous children.  Covered from head to toe, unseen by the world, restricted in her every move, can this be anything but humiliation?  From one generation to the next, the child terror-bonds with her mother, has no outlet for calm and affection, no education save memorization of the Koran, no expressions of art and music, no friends or courtships – and no credibility in a court of law if she seeks a way out.

The daughter has a role to play in the Islamic war against humanity.  She is responsible for creating more children for Allah’s army and martyrdom or to emulate the jihadi’s function.  The jihada is exemplified by Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, as well as by the exploits of female terrorists.  Yet we are to believe the Palestinian violence is caused by an outside source of humiliation. 

Ironically, Lindner inadvertently suggests that the Jews played no part in Palestinian humiliation, clarifying that humiliation is a hierarchal, ranking scale to maintaining social cohesion.  Israelis lives are filled with study and time spent in service to the country, and Israeli Arabs have the same opportunities.  They are encouraged to have a career, to marry and raise a family – the very activities not available to the Arab children of Gaza.  A successful neighbor can either inspire emulation or humiliation, the choice is given.

The Palestinians have been primed – humiliated by their culture and dishonest circumstances. The invading Arab nations were bent on Israel’s destruction and encouraged and caused the bulk of the Arabs to flee Israel, telling them they would return victorious.  Now, after all they endured by their people, from their people, and for their people, the piece de resistance, the final slap-in-the-face, the grand humiliation occurred when their armies lost and these individuals were abandoned, discarded and forbidden from ever returning to their lands of origin – Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan.  While they saw that the Jews who fled mistreatment from Arab countries were welcomed by their Israeli brethren, how demeaning to be told that they were not wanted, must never more identify with their history, their heritage, and other family members.  They were going to be used once again, as pawns.  With no distinguishing language, religion, or culture, and no lineage to this land back more than four generations, they had to create an identity out of whole cloth. This was indeed the ultimate cause for humiliation, and it was their own kith and kin who did the humiliating.

04/2/20

Weekly Profile – Mike Siegel

KeyWiki.org

Mike Siegel

Mike Siegel is a far-left AustinTexas lawyer running for Congress in his second attempt to win Texas CD 10 – which stretches from Austin nearly to Houston.

Mike Siegel was previously an associate attorney with his father Dan Siegel‘s Oakland California law firm, Siegel & Yee. He practices law in the areas of civil rights, employment discrimination, criminal defense, and nonprofit business development.

Dan Siegel was in the 1970s and ’80s a leader of the pro-China Communist Workers Party, one of the most violent and fanatical socialist groups of the era.

Cwops.jpg

Mike Siegel graduated from Cornell Law School in May 2009, where he was president of the student chapter of the far-left National Lawyers Guild.

Prior to entering the legal field, Mike Siegel worked as a teacher in OaklandCalifornia and BrooklynNew York, and served as a union representative in the Oakland Education Association. He was also a co-founder and executive director of Oakland Leaf, a local nonprofit education organization focused on “community transformation through creative education.” Michael also recently co-founded the nonprofit organization Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, which is dedicated to “providing services and opportunities for youth and adults impacted by the prison industrial complex.”

Though not formally endorsed by Austin Democratic Socialists of America Siegel’s 2018 campaign was heavily supported by Our Revolution – Central Texas which was led by several DSA comrades including Roy WoodyChau Lan NgoMickey FetonteJulie Ann NitschClaudia CorumSusanna Woody, and Jim Tourtelott.

Mike Siegel with Democratic Socialists of America/Our Revolution – Central Texas comrades, including Roy Woody front

In the 2020 cycle, the Mike Siegel campaign is supported and endorsed by Progressive Democrats of AmericaSunrise MovementBrand New CongressOur Revolution (national) and the Working Families Party – all Democratic Socialists of America controlled or influenced organizations.

Mike Siegel is also a supporter of DSA inspired programs including the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

In 2018 Mike Siegel a first-time candidate, lost to veteran Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, by only 5%. The Marxist left sees this seat as flippable and is going all out to put Mike Siegel into the House of Representatives in November.

(See more|Mike Siegel…)

04/2/20

Can We Use ‘Social Distancing’ to Defeat the Chinese Communist Party?

By: Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times

Victory ships being fitted out at the Calship yard, Wilmington, Calif., between April 27 and May 30, 1944. (Public Domain)

If there’s one positive outcome from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus pandemic it may be that the United States finally summons the political will to begin serious disengagement from Chinese communism.

Led by the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the United States made a major blunder in the early 1970s by opening political and economic relations with the communist People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Kissinger sold President Richard Nixon on two lies. Firstly, that the United States could play the PRC off against the Soviet Union. Secondly, that U.S.–PRC trade could somehow entice the CCP into abandoning its own raison d’etre—communism.

Now under President Xi Jinping, the PRC is openly committed to the communist road and is in a formal economic, political, and military alliance with Russia—the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Kissinger was 100 percent wrong on both counts. Today, all of Kissinger’s grand ideas have turned to dust and the mighty United States stands on the brink of disaster.

I was told recently of an incident that happened at a conservative gathering in Washington, D.C. Several staffers of The Epoch Times turned up to network with local activists. It was clear that they weren’t welcomed by some people present. It was whispered that the presence of such journalists critical of the CCP could “damage our trade with China.”

Think about that. American “conservative” leaders spurned ties to journalists who report honestly on the CCP because it might upset economic ties with the world’s most-powerful communist nation. Before World War II, similar people bent over backward not to upset Herr Hitler.

When Nixon and Kissinger opened the doors to Beijing in the 1970s, the PRC was a backward rural country that could barely feed itself. The PRC had no significant military strength and was in no serious position to challenge the United States.

Now, thanks to 40 years of expanded U.S.–PRC trade, massive American investment, and technology transfer (much of it stolen), the PRC has the world’s second-largest economy, and, in partnership with its ally Russia, can challenge or surpass the United States in almost every military metric.

While Americans love the huge array of cheap PRC goods lining their department store shelves, they’re less enthused about the other side of the coin—the massive de-industrialization of their country and the huge loss of productive capacity and skilled workers.

During World War II, American factories could produce an entire “Victory Ship” in 24 hours. This country had the industrial capacity, the technological know-how, and the skilled workforce to supply not just its own armed forces but those of Britain and the Soviet Union as well—not to mention to feed the displaced and starving millions of Europe.

Many security-conscious Americans have been aware for some time that the PRC produces much of the United States’ steel and holds the majority of rare earth mineral stocks, which are vitally important in modern military technology. Now people are realizing that most of America’s drugs and medicines are manufactured in the PRC.

What will happen when China is finally strong enough to begin the shooting war it’s been planning for decades? Will American generals requisition the steel and minerals and medicines they need to fight from PRC-based companies?

And speaking of drugs, 67,000 Americans died of opiate overdoses in 2018—much of it attributed to the super-powerful fentanyl. That’s more people than the PRC-backed communists killed through the entire Vietnam War. It’s well known that the bulk of the fentanyl comes from China. Is it possible that the all-seeing CCP doesn’t know about this heinous trade? The PRC is already at war with the United States with every weapon it possesses short of guns and bombs. Trading with the enemy used to be called treason.

Common sense tells that the free market is by the far the most efficient way to build wealth at the local, national, and global levels. However, wealth is worth little if one can’t defend it. A great economy and poor national security are no match for a temporarily lower standard of living and a safe and secure nation. Free trade is a noble ideal, but it should never trump national security.

Right up to the outbreak of World War II, American companies were trading with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. All through the Vietnam War, American companies were trading with the Soviets, which then supplied the North Vietnamese military so they could kill more American soldiers. Is a slightly cheaper battery charger or fishing rod worth putting your son’s life more at risk in the next war?

A few years ago the U.S. government Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack estimated that if China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran detonated a single atomic weapon high in the atmosphere above the continental United States, the resulting EMP blast would destroy most of this country’s electrical infrastructure in seconds.

Most Americans are pretty sick of two weeks of CCP virus lockdown. Imagine extending that to a whole year with no electric power. The EMP commission hypothesized that within 12 months, 90 percent of the current U.S. population would be dead through disease, starvation, and social breakdown. Solar radiation surges (sunspots), which are inevitable and regular, could achieve the same disastrous result.

And what would the Chinese and Russians do with a de-populated, dis-armed, and chaotic America? What they have long dreamed of—invade.

That EMP threat could be thwarted for a few billion dollars spent “hardening” the U.S. electrical grid. This is a tiny fraction of the cost of combating the effects of the current CCP virus pandemic. The CCP has lulled America with cheap cellphones and underwear. The CCP is now costing this country trillions of dollars and maybe millions of lives. What a bargain.

And, by the way, is it any coincidence that Italy and Iran—two nations heavily tied to the PRC’s Belt and Road economic strategy—are among the worst affected by the CCP virus? The CCP is a criminal enterprise. It cannot be trusted to act honorably in any situation where its interests are threatened. Clearly the CCP lied about the extent of the Wuhan outbreak. Consequently millions may unnecessarily die in this pandemic—but what’s a little more blood on their hands to the Chinese communists. And even now the CCP is poising itself to take economic and political advantage of the resulting global chaos.

Why would anyone want to deal with such dishonorable people?

The PRC and Russia are arming at breakneck speed. The United States hasn’t built a nuclear weapon since the beginning of the Clinton era. To his credit, President Donald Trump has been doing his best to increase defense spending and re-build the U.S. nuclear deterrent. How will the CCP virus affect those plans? How does the United States stand up to China’s and Russia’s war plans with a shattered economy?

American business makes billions trading with the PRC. American taxpayers spend trillions defending this country from a PRC–Russian war machine that American business helped to build.

How is that in any way rational?

Like quitting PRC heroin, going “cold turkey” from the CCP “economic opium” will bring some short-term pain. Prices for some consumer goods will rise, and some strategic commodities may be in short supply. However, I believe that inspired by a clear commitment to defending U.S. sovereignty and putting the American worker first, the American people will rise to the occasion.

Temporarily higher prices will spark massive new investment into the U.S. economy. American enterprise and technology will lift U.S. productivity to even higher levels. High-quality U.S. made goods will soon fill American and foreign shelves. American workers’ wages and salaries will climb steadily higher.

And deprived of U.S. investment and stolen technology, what will happen to the PRC?

If the United States keeps starving its own industrial base to feed the CCP war machine, two eventualities are likely—neither of them pleasant.

A weakened and friendless United States will capitulate to Beijing and become an economic and political vassal of the PRC and Russia. Americans will become slaves of the world’s cruelest masters. Or the United States will make a brave and futile military stand (all alone) against the combined forces of Beijing and Moscow and likely go down to a crushing defeat. The few surviving Americans will become slaves of the world’s cruelest masters.

Alternatively, if the United States de-couples from the CCP and works quickly to re-build a badly weakened U.S. military, this country might yet stand a chance. If America’s leaders are courageous enough to stare down the PRC, the Chinese communists will come under huge internal pressure to reform or face a mass revolt. American sanctions have emboldened the Iranian and Venezuelan peoples. If this strategy is maintained, someday those two nations will be free.

To have any hope of a free China and a secure America, the CCP must be sanctioned to the point of genuine reform or total collapse. President Ronald Reagan sanctioned the Soviet Bloc into a major retreat. Had subsequent U.S. presidents kept up the pressure we would not be witnessing the re-birth of the Soviet Union as we are today. Appeasement and engagement failed with Hitler and the Soviet Bloc. Only sanctions and disengagement have ever brought down a tyranny without having to resort to war.

President Trump must do to the CCP what Reagan did to the Soviet communists—on steroids.

A free China is a real hope for the world. Imagine a free Chinese people liberated from the evil tyranny of the CCP. Think of all that energy, intelligence, and culture working for good, rather than harnessed to evil. A free China, working as a responsible member of the international community, would be boon to every nation.

Already U.S. companies are disinvesting from the PRC. President Trump needs to speed that process along. He has the legal authority to do so. Major tariffs should be placed on Chinese products or they should be banned altogether. The PRC produces many of the products that Americans buy—from peeled garlic to Christmas decorations made with forced prison labor. Many of these prisoners aren’t even criminals—they’re Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, Muslims, and Buddhists, or political dissidents. This is illegal under current U.S. law. Those laws should be strictly enforced. This process is fortunately already underway.

Every CCP spy working in this country should be prosecuted and, if convicted, jailed or expelled. That would mean tens of thousands fewer enemy agents working in U.S. laboratories, businesses, and universities.

There should be one exception to this. Any CCP agent willing to expose what he or she knows about the communist networks in this country should be allowed to stay here and be placed under government protection. Any reports of retaliation against the informant’s family in the PRC should be met with further expulsions and sanctions.

The Justice Department should announce a one-month “foreign agent amnesty.” After that, any foreign spy still in the country should be subject to vigorous prosecution. CCP networks would crumble under that kind of pressure.

All PRC student visas should be canceled. The CCP’s Confucius Institutes, which are now established in many major universities, should be immediately closed down.

All land, technology, or business purchases by PRC nationals and businesses should be halted. All existing businesses found cooperating in any way with the PRC regime or People’s Liberation Army should be forfeited. The Italian Mafia was severely damaged through the extensive cultivation of informants and the witness protection program, vigorous prosecution, and long jail sentences. The CCP Mafia networks operating in this country should be dealt with the same way.

All further immigration from the PRC (except for carefully vetted refugees or some family re-unifications) should be immediately halted. Any PRC-born American citizen found to be cooperating with the CCP or its representatives in any way should be stripped of his or her citizenship and deported or jailed.

To defeat the CCP virus, we must quarantine all who are infected. To defeat the CCP, we must apply the same strategy.

That’s my plan to start solving the CCP problem. I welcome any better ideas.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics. He is best known for his book “Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” and his similarly-themed documentary film “Enemies Within.” His soon-to-be-published book is “White House Reds: Communists, Socialists & Security Risks Running for U.S. President, 2020.”

04/2/20

‘Former’ Maoists Collude to Choose Biden’s Running Mate

By: Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden pauses while speaking at the SEIU Unions for All Summit in Los Angeles, Calif., on Oct. 4, 2019. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

While the nation is preoccupied with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) virus, American “former” Maoists are trying to choose Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate for him.

San Francisco lawyer Steve Phillips and his long-time collaborator Aimee Allison are pushing for a “woman of color” to round out Biden’s presidential ticket. More than that, Phillips and Allison are promoting a shortlist that consists entirely of radicals with direct ties to their own socialist clique.

At Stanford University for most of the 1980s, Phillips was a proud Marxist-Leninist and supporter of the pro-CCP League of Revolutionary Struggle. After finally leaving school, Phillips married into the mega-wealthy Sandler family of San Francisco and their $2.6 billion fortune. Phillips has used that wealth and influence to back far-left “candidates of color” for positions of high office through his organization’s PowerPAC and Democracy in Color. He is also a leader of the Democracy Alliance, a semi-secret cabal of the leftist mega-rich, which includes financier George Soros and former presidential candidate Tom Steyer.

Allison was a friend of Phillips at Stanford and was active in the same Maoist circles. She has worked closely with Phillips in PowerPAC and Democracy in Color, and now in the closely affiliated “She the People”—specifically established to elect hard-left “women of color” to high public office.

In 2008, Phillips raised an early $10 million to help Barack Obama get ahead of Hillary Clinton in that year’s presidential primaries.

In 2013, Phillips raised several million to elect his old Stanford classmate Cory Booker to the U.S. Senate from New Jersey. He also helped elect another close friend, Kamala Harris, first as California attorney general in 2010 and then to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

In 2018, Phillips heavily backed two long-time proteges and former PowerPAC+ board members Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum for the governorships of Georgia and Florida, respectively. Both lost by a whisker. Abrams and Gillum both worked closely with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and pro-China front groups such as Liberation Road and the New Florida Majority during their campaigns.

Phillips backed Booker in the latest presidential primary, but he failed to fire. His other hope, Kamala Harris (who I believed would be the Democratic candidate), also failed to perform.

So now Phillips and Allison are trying for a second bite at the cherry. They’re promoting the line that Biden must choose a “woman of color” for his running mate. Moreover, that candidate has to be either Abrams or Harris.

Phillips’ Democracy in Color website features an “Open Letter to Democratic Presidential Candidates: A Call for Committing to Choosing a Woman of Color as Candidate for Vice President.”

“Dear Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders.

“Here is a fact: the Democratic Party needs the leadership, vision, and expertise of women and people of color now more than ever. While you cannot change who you are, you can show us who you value by committing to choose a woman of color as your running mate for Vice President.

“The majority of Democratic voters are women, and nearly half of all Democratic voters are people of color. At the intersection of those communities—which make up 77% of all Democratic voters in the last two presidential elections—women of color have a unique and critical role to play in galvanizing the entire progressive coalition. …

“We strongly urge you to show the leadership this moment demands by publicly committing today to pick a woman of color to serve as your Vice President.”

The letter was co-signed by Phillips-affiliated groups She the People, PowerPAC+, Southern Elections Fund, and The Collective PAC, and the Abrams-linked New Georgia Project Action Fund.

Other groups signing on were Higher Heights for America, Indivisible, Latino Victory Project, and two fronts for the pro-China communist group Liberation Road—the New Florida Majority and the New Virginia Majority—plus the Communist Party USA-influenced Texas Organizing Project.

Phillips contributed a March 16 op-ed to The Nation, in which he laid out his instructions for Joe Biden:

“After months of dancing around the issue of diversifying the Democratic ticket, the remaining viable candidates finally got more specific on Sunday, with Joe Biden firmly pledging to choose a woman as his running mate, and Bernie Sanders saying that ‘in all likelihood’ he would follow suit.

“What neither of these septuagenarian white men could bring themselves to do, however, was to say that that woman would be a person of color.”

Phillips, of course, knows exactly what “people of color” want—because his friend Aimee Allison and her She the People group told him so:

“People of color are also eager to see a Democratic ticket that reflects electoral reality. As my research has found, nearly half of Democratic voters are people of color; it is certainly relevant that the last time the Democrats won the White House was when an African American topped the ticket. Groups such as She the People, a national network of women of color in politics, have crystallized the demands for gender and racial diversity into a call for a woman of color as the vice presidential nominee.”

Then Phillips rolled out the “facts” to bolster his argument:

“The math of the moment lends empirical support to choosing a woman of color. The 2008 exit polls showed that it was women who made Barack Obama president, with 56 percent voting for him. My research has found that 46 percent of his coalition consisted of people of color; just 23 percent of Obama voters that year were white men.

“Clinton was defeated in 2016 in part because of two key shortcomings: a dramatic drop-off in black voter turnout (the first decline in 20 years) and the fact that a meaningful number of white women decided to give Trump a chance. As the Democrats seek to unseat Trump, a running mate who appeals to women and inspires voters of color seems like the obvious electoral strategy to pursue.”

Then Phillips gives Biden his list of approved candidates—with his proteges Abrams and Harris right at the top:

“The list of women of color who could strengthen a Biden or Sanders ticket is long and impressive. Stacey Abrams received more votes statewide than any Democrat had before during her gubernatorial run in Georgia, and was popular with young voters. As a 40-something leader tapped into popular culture, she could help Biden with the youth vote that he has failed to excite. Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Representative Ayanna Pressley, Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth, and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham are some of the other talented women of color who could significantly enhance the Democratic ticket this year.”

Ayanna Pressley has a history with Liberation Road and the DSA. Michelle Lujan Grisham benefited from Phillips/PowerPAC+ support in the 2014 election cycle.

But really, Phillips is just using Pressley, Lujan Grisham, and Duckworth for camouflage. It’s Abrams or Harris that he really wants. 

Aimee Allison was equally explicit in a March 11 article in Newsweek:

“Only a historic increase in the number of voters of color, especially women of color, will deliver the swing states that Democrats must carry to win. This is what we saw in 2018 when Democrats took back the House of Representatives with a 37 percent rise in turnout among women of color from the 2014 midterms. This is what we are hoping for in 2020.

“So how do we get there? How do we motivate voters of color and ensure that 2020 can still be a year of positive political transformation? We get there with a woman of color vice president on the Democratic ticket. …

“Women of color have the numbers to generate a Democratic victory—if we show up at the polls. In swing states across the country, women of color dominate Democratic voter rolls. We are a third of Democratic voters in Florida, North Carolina, and Texas. In Georgia, we’re 44 percent. For us to show up as we did in 2018, we need Democrats to prove that they still care about us, see us and value us. …

“Women of color are already leaders in statewide and local organizations that register and turn out communities of color and white progressives alike. In 2018, high turnout from women of color flipped seats and secured the House for Democrats. Candidates like Lucy McBath in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District flipped seats that white male Democrats previously spent millions to lose. Meanwhile, candidates like Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez inspired millions of voters beyond the borders of their own districts—even crossing over into pop culture—with their history-making races and bold leadership.

“Let’s keep the strategy that led us to victory in 2018. A shortlist of vice presidential candidates can begin with Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris and Deb Haaland. Any one of these extraordinary leaders would genuinely excite women of color voters.”

Deb Haaland is a Native American congresswoman from New Mexico with close ties to Allison and She the People. Haaland is also close to the Communist Party USA’s main Native American organizer Judith LeBlanc. But again, she’s just camouflage for Abrams and Harris.

The efforts of Phillips and Allison should not be dismissed or under-emphasized. These people helped their friend Barack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary. They helped elect Senators Cory Booker in New Jersey, Kamala Harris in California, Mazie Hirono in Hawaii, and Doug Jones in Alabama.

They almost elected far-left governors in Georgia and Florida in 2018.

Phillips and Allison have access to huge amounts of money and extensive networks inside the Democracy Alliance, Democratic Party, and the U.S. far left. They have a track record of electing their friends and comrades to high public office.

To those who believe in socialism and identity politics, rather than the Constitution and individual liberty, they also have a certain logic on their side.

The Democrats are almost certainly going to run with Joe Biden. The next question is, will Abrams or Harris stand at his side? Or, even more likely, behind him pointing him toward the audience and whispering in his ear what to say next and when to stop talking.

If Biden wins, Phillips and Allison will not just choose his running mate — they will effectively be deciding your president.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics. He is best known for his book “Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress” and his similarly-themed documentary film “Enemies Within.” His soon-to-be-published book is “White House Reds: Communists, Socialists & Security Risks Running for U.S. President, 2020.”

04/1/20

Zoom Bombing, Don’t Be Fooled

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

So, there are several online conference video chat platforms now being used while businesses continue to operate even while doing the stay-at-home thing. We are aware, of course, of the common Skype platform, Uber Conference and gaining huge popularity is Zoom.

Warning to the healthcare industry: Since the United States has launched full telehealth platforms, all parties involved in the session(s) should watch carefully the platform(s) for cyber weirdness. All the same warnings and watchful eyes should be applied to the military across the spectrum as forces are working from remote locations as well.

How to Record Zoom Meeting on PC, iPhone

In recent days, I have seen reports of Zoom conference/meeting events getting bombed by rogue players. Every nation while struggling to overcome the pandemic, governments and companies are quite vulnerable to breaches of cybersecurity due to limited employee resources. What better time for bad actors (read China) to attack?

Zoom has also seen a sharp increase in usage, but the attention the teleconferencing solution is receiving continues to be decidedly mixed. TechCrunch reports that researcher Patrick Wardle has found two local security flaws in Zoom’s macOS client.

***

While Zoom has certainly drawn investors’ eyes in a good way, it’s also attracted the ministrations of white hat researchers, cybercriminals, the plaintiffs’ bar, and state attorneys general. The platform’s encryption isn’t really end-to-end, the Intercept reports. Instead, it uses familiar transport encryption, which gives Zoom itself the potential to access its users’ traffic. The FBI’s Boston Field Office has issued a detailed warning about the ways in which criminals (conventional criminals out for gain, sleazy hacktivists, and skids out for the lulz) have been able to meddle with Zoom sessions. Check Point describes the ways in which criminals have registered domains that include the name “zoom;” these domains are of course up to no good at all. Zoom was also discovered to have been sharing analytic data with Facebook, a practice Zoom halted after it came to public attention, but not in time to forestall a class action suit under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Consumer Privacy Act. And the New York Times reports that all of this news has prompted New York State’s Attorney General to ask Zoom for an explanation of its privacy and security policies.

So, as I was researching for this piece, I received an email from a distant buddy that read in part…

The government has sought the assistance of outside software experts to move online meetings. In one particular instance, my email buddy noted the following:

I have a Zoom warning. We had a Council meeting this afternoon and it had to end immediately. Fortunately, the Council was 99% finished with the meeting. The reason for ending the meeting is because we were Zoom Bombed (yup this is really the name for it). A participant joined the meeting late and his name was Mr. Off. His first name was Jack and he had a middle name “Me”. You can imaging the video. It was horrible. There were three hosts of the meeting that could control participants. The hosts could not see this participant so they didn’t think anything was wrong. Clearly, the hack knows how to enter a meeting without the controlling hosts knowing what is going on. I saw it and ordered the meeting end immediately. The Chair couldn’t see it and was wondering what to heck was wrong with me. It took about 5 more long seconds for me to yell at people to leave the meeting. We all jumped back on the meeting in five minutes and Mr. Off joined the meeting again.

I will add that only half the participants actually saw the act. We also caught it in time to not have it go live on cable or YouTube. Another participant actually viewed video of three other participants that no one else could see and were likely ready to Bomb the meeting.

In the future, we will use passwords for participants. This is unfortunate for the public because they wont be able to join the Zoom part of the meeting. They will still be able to watch it live on local cable and YouTube. We will set up an email and telephone for public comment if the agenda item requires public comment.

I highly recommend you use passwords for future meetings.

Seems we have a new kind of cyber terrorism going on here… espionage at a silent/covert level. Perhaps we can get some kind of press release from the NSA or something.

04/1/20

The Reason for the WH and Dr. Birx’s Chilling New Probability Report

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer: We all seem to guess this except for Jim Acosta/CNN and the others at MSNBC. The media continues to blame the Trump White House for the slow response to address COVID-19, while Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci explained what they did not know very early on. Now we know.

Now some real questions and new policies towards China must be considered. We can start with the $1.8 B in U.S. debt that China holds. The next is challenging American telecommunications companies to squelch China’s advances of 5G. Then there is the next phase of the U.S. trade agreement with China. Add in the mission to stop China’s power agenda across the globe as it is clear, China is fine with killing people and economies across the world.

China has concealed the extent of the coronavirus outbreak in its country, under-reporting both total cases and deaths it’s suffered from the disease, the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a classified report to the White House, according to three U.S. officials.

The officials asked not to be identified because the report is secret and declined to detail its contents. But the thrust, they said, is that China’s public reporting on cases and deaths is intentionally incomplete. Two of the officials said the report concludes that China’s numbers are fake.

The report was received by the White House last week, one of the officials said. The outbreak began in China’s Hubei province in late 2019, but the country has publicly reported only about 82,000 cases and 3,300 deaths, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. That compares to more than 189,000 cases and more than 4,000 deaths in the U.S., which has the largest publicly reported outbreak in the world.

Communications staff at the White House and the Chinese embassy in Washington didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

While China eventually imposed a strict lockdown beyond those of less autocratic nations, there has been considerable skepticism of China’s reported numbers, both outside and within the country. The Chinese government has repeatedly revised its methodology for counting cases, for weeks excluding people without symptoms entirely, and only on Tuesday added more than 1,500 asymptomatic cases to its total.

Stacks of thousands of urns outside funeral homes in Hubei province have driven public doubt in Beijing’s reporting.

Deborah Birx, the State Department immunologist advising the White House on its response to the outbreak, said Tuesday that China’s public reporting influenced assumptions elsewhere in the world about the nature of the virus.

Coronavirus: Doctor at hospital in China's Hubei province ...

“The medical community made — interpreted the Chinese data as: This was serious, but smaller than anyone expected,” she said at a news conference on Tuesday. “Because I think probably we were missing a significant amount of the data, now that what we see happened to Italy and see what happened to Spain.”

China is not the only country with suspect public reporting. Western officials have pointed to Iran, Russia, Indonesia and especially North Korea, which has not reported a single case of the disease, as probable under-counts. Others including Saudi Arabia and Egypt may also be playing down their numbers.

U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo has publicly urged China and other nations to be transparent about their outbreaks. He has repeatedly accused China of covering up the extent of the problem and being slow to share information, especially in the weeks after the virus first emerged, and blocking offers of help from American experts.

“This data set matters,” he said at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday. The development of medical therapies and public-health measures to combat the virus “so that we can save lives depends on the ability to have confidence and information about what has actually transpired,” he said.

“I would urge every nation: Do your best to collect the data. Do your best to share that information,” he said. “We’re doing that.”

The outbreak began in China’s Hubei province in late 2019, but the country has publicly reported only about 82,000 cases and 3,300 deaths, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. That compares to more than 189,000 cases and more than 4,000 deaths in the U.S., which has the largest publicly reported outbreak in the world.

Map of sampling sites in the Hubei Province of China. Red ...

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak containment strategies in China based on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) appear to be effective. Quantitative research is still needed however to assess the efficacy of different candidate NPIs and their timings to guide ongoing and future responses to epidemics of this emerging disease across the World. Methods: We built a travel network-based susceptible-exposed-infectious-removed (SEIR) model to simulate the outbreak across cities in mainland China. We used epidemiological parameters estimated for the early stage of outbreak in Wuhan to parameterise the transmission before NPIs were implemented. To quantify the relative effect of various NPIs, daily changes of delay from illness onset to the first reported case in each county were used as a proxy for the improvement of case identification and isolation across the outbreak. Historical and near-real time human movement data, obtained from Baidu location-based service, were used to derive the intensity of travel restrictions and contact reductions across China. The model and outputs were validated using daily reported case numbers, with a series of sensitivity analyses conducted. Results: We estimated that there were a total of 114,325 COVID-19 cases (interquartile range [IQR] 76,776 – 164,576) in mainland China as of February 29, 2020, and these were highly correlated (p<0.001, R2=0.86) with reported incidence. Without NPIs, the number of COVID-19 cases would likely have shown a 67-fold increase (IQR: 44 – 94), with the effectiveness of different interventions varying. The early detection and isolation of cases was estimated to prevent more infections than travel restrictions and contact reductions, but integrated NPIs would achieve the strongest and most rapid effect. If NPIs could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier in China, cases could have been reduced by 66%, 86%, and 95%, respectively, together with significantly reducing the number of affected areas. However, if NPIs were conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks later, the number of cases could have shown a 3-fold, 7-fold, and 18-fold increase across China, respectively. Results also suggest that the social distancing intervention should be continued for the next few months in China to prevent case numbers increasing again after travel restrictions were lifted on February 17, 2020. Conclusion: The NPIs deployed in China appear to be effectively containing the COVID-19 outbreak, but the efficacy of the different interventions varied, with the early case detection and contact reduction being the most effective. Moreover, deploying the NPIs early is also important to prevent further spread. Early and integrated NPI strategies should be prepared, adopted and adjusted to minimize health, social and economic impacts in affected regions around the World.

03/31/20

Rogue Nations Competing with the X-37B

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

America’s four greatest adversaries are investing in systems that can take out satellites on orbit, including funding laser systems, nuclear power, and satellites that shadow American space vehicles.

Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are each researching counter-space capabilities — kinetic or non-kinetic ways to taking out systems in space — according to the annual Global Counter-space Capabilities report, released by the Secure World Foundation.

Defense News was given an exclusive preview of the report, which will available later today and was edited by Brian Weeden and Victoria Samson.

For the first time, the report includes data on the space situational awareness (SSA) capabilities of countries — that is, the ability of nations to track what is moving in various orbits. Japan and India are two nations investing heavily in that area, according to the report, while Iran appears to lag behind.

“This is important because you can’t protect [against] what you can’t see,” said Samson, the organization’s Washington office director. “This doesn’t mean that developing an SSA capability is an indication of an offensive counter-space program, as there are many reasons why you would want that capability. But it is needed if you want to go offensive.”

She also highlighted the fact that in the last year, four of the countries with counter-space investments — India, Japan, France, and the U.S. — have launched new military organizations specifically to deal with space-related issues, including a focus, at least in part, on counter-space efforts. In addition, the NATO alliance declared space an “operational domain” in December.

The vast majority of counter-space capabilities continue to reside with Russia, China, and the United States, but other nations are funding programs as well. France, India, Japan, Iran, and North Korea are all known to be at least investing some money in counter-space efforts, whether through ballistic missile programs or non-kinetic means such as cyberattacks.

The most prominent counter-space example of the last year came from India, which in March controversially launched a missile at one of its satellites, blowing it up and spewing shrapnel around low-earth orbit.

So is a counter-space arms race underway? The authors say no, at least in the context of the nuclear arms race where each country is trying to match the other capability for capability.

Instead, “this is about developing a range of offensive and defensive capabilities to go after an opponent’s space assets while protecting your own,” said Weeden, the organization’s director of program planning. “And I think that’s unfortunately inevitable because more and more countries are using space for military purposes. That drives increased interest in how to counter those uses.”

Added Samson, “it now seems that if you want to be considered a major space power, it’s not enough to have your own satellites, or the ability to launch them, or even the ability to launch other country’s satellites. You want your own counter-space capability.”

The big three

When Pentagon and White House officials talked about the need for a Space Force last year, leaders emphasized a growing threat in space.

“For all their posturing about who’s ‘weaponizing’ space, the big three are all working on a lot of the same technologies and doing a lot of the same things,” particularly rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) where satellites can maneuver near another nation’s system, said Weeden.

The big three, in this case, are China, Russian and the United States.

China has run multiple maneuvers with its space-based systems that may be RPO-related, but it’s hard to know whether those capabilities are being developed for counter-space use as opposed to intelligence gathering, the report said.

When it comes to Chinese capabilities, Weeden said to focus on the ground-based anti-satellite weaponry — perhaps not a surprise, given China declared itself a player in counter-space technology by destroying one of its own satellites in 2007.

Beijing is investing in at least one, and perhaps as many as three, kinetic anti-satellite capabilities, “either as dedicated counter-space systems or as mid-course missile defense systems that could provide counter-space capabilities,” according to the report.

“It was robustly tested and appears to be operationally deployed,” Weeden said of those capabilities. “As long as the U.S. still relies on small numbers of very expensive satellites in LEO, I think it will prove to be a significant deterrent.”

While China often becomes the focus of public comments from Defense officials, Weeden said to keep an eye on Moscow, as he was “a bit shocked by the breadth of Russian counter-space programs. For all the concern and hype in the U.S. about China, Russia seems to be putting the most into counter-space.”

Those efforts include the Nudol, a ground-launched ballistic missile designed to be capable of intercepting targets in low-earth orbit; three different programs focused on RPO capabilities; the rebirth of a 1980s era program involving a large laser, to either dazzle or damage a satellite, carried about an IL-76MD-90A transport aircraft; a newly-discovered program called Ekipazh, which involves a nuclear reactor to power a large payload of on-orbit jammers; and what Weeden describes as a “massive” upgrade to SSA capabilities.

“All of that spells a very potent, more operationally-integrated, and more battle-tested package than what I’m seeing in China,” he warned. He added that he believes the public focus on China to be “part of the broader narrative the Trump administration is trying to push with China being the long-term threat they want to focus on. It also helps sell the narrative they’re trying to push on human spaceflight and exploration as well.”

As for the United States, the military has focused more on SSA and defensive counter-space capabilities, a trend Weeden says is due to America being the most reliant on space of the three countries, and hence must “protect its capabilities if it hopes to win a future conflict against Russia or China.” America’s SSA capabilities, in particular, remain well ahead of the rest of the world.

Which isn’t to say the U.S. is skipping out on counter-space investments either. America has a number of options for electronic warfare in space, including proven capabilities to jam enemy receivers within an area of operations; assets with RPO capabilities; and operational midcourse missile defense interceptors that have been demonstrated against low orbit satellites. In addition, there are plans to invest in prototyping directed energy capabilities for space.

One capability to keep an eye on is the X-37B, a spaceplane program that has made five trips into orbit and back to earth. In total, the spacecrafts have spent 2,865 days on orbit cumulatively over its five missions, with its last trip consisting of 780 days in space — more than two years.

The Air Force has been secretive about X-37B missions, often talking broadly about it conducting experiments in space; analysts have long believed that the mission set has at least something to do with counter-space capabilities. That belief was only strengthened by what happened during its last trip during which researchers believe it was used to launch a trio of small CubeSats that were not registered in international tracking databases.

“The secret deployment of multiple small satellites raises additional questions about the mission of the X-37B. It suggests that the X-37B may have a mission to serve as a covert satellite deployment platform. The secrecy surrounding both the X-37B and the deployment may indicate they are part of a covert intelligence program, but it may also indicate the testing of offensive technologies or capabilities,” the authors wrote in the report. “The failure to even catalog the deployed satellites, something that is done even for classified U.S. military and intelligence satellites, calls into question the trustworthiness of the public SSA data provided by the U.S. military.”

And that creates potential diplomatic issues, at a time that the need for open discussions about space capabilities across nations should be growing, warned Samson.

“The Russians and Chinese have always pointed at the secrecy surrounding the X-37B program as evidence of malevolent intentions by the United States,” she said. “The fact that the U.S. released objects from the X-37B and didn’t register them feeds absolutely into that narrative and causes ripple effects that harm other multilateral discussions on space security and stability.”

03/31/20

Google Sent Users 40,000 Warnings

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Primer questions: Did other tech companies do the same and if so, how many? What does Congress know and where are they with a real cyber policy?

Google’s threat analysis group, which counters targeted and government-backed hacking against the company and its users, sent account holders almost 40,000 warnings in 2019, with government officials, journalists, dissidents, and geopolitical rivals being the most targeted, team members said on Thursday.

The number of warnings declined almost 25 percent from 2018, in part because of new protections designed to curb cyberattacks on Google properties. Attackers have responded by reducing the frequency of their hack attempts and with being more deliberate. The group saw an increase in phishing attacks that impersonated news outlets and journalists. In many of these cases, attackers sought to spread disinformation by attempting to seed false stories with other reporters. Other times, attackers sent several benign messages in hopes of building a rapport with a journalist or foreign policy expert. The attackers, who most frequently came from Iran and North Korea, would later follow up with an email that included a malicious attachment.

Color-coded Mercator projection of the world.

“Government-backed attackers regularly target foreign policy experts for their research, access to the organizations they work with, and connections to fellow researchers or policymakers for subsequent attacks,” Toni Gidwani, a security engineering manager in the threat analysis group, wrote in a post.

Top targets

Countries with residents that collectively received more than 1,000 warnings included the United States, India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea. Thursday’s post came eight months after Microsoft said it had warned 10,000 customers of nation-sponsored attacks over the 12 previous months. The software maker said it saw “extensive” activity from five specific groups sponsored by Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

Thursday’s post also tracked targeted attacks carried out by Sandworm, believed to be an attack group working on behalf of the Russian Federation. Sandworm has been responsible for some of the world’s most severe attacks, including hacks on Ukrainian power facilities that left the country without electricity in 2015 and 2016NATO and the governments of Ukraine and Poland in 2014, and according to Wired journalist Andy Greenberg, the NotPetya malware that created worldwide outages, some that lasted weeks.

The following graph shows Sandworm’s targeting of various industries and countries from 2017 to 2019. While the targeting of most of the industries or countries was sporadic, Ukraine was on the receiving end of attacks throughout the entire three-year period:

Sandworm’s targeting efforts (mostly by sector) over the last three years.
Enlarge / Sandworm’s targeting efforts (mostly by sector) over the last three years.
Google

Tracking zero-days

In 2019, the Google group discovered zero-day vulnerabilities affecting Android, iOS, Windows, Chrome, and Internet Explorer. A single attack group was responsible for exploiting five of the unpatched security flaws. The attacks were used against Google, Google account holders, and users of other platforms.

“Finding this many zeroday exploits from the same actor in a relatively short time frame is rare,” Gidwani wrote.

The exploits came from legitimate websites that had been hacked, links to malicious websites, and attachments embedded in spear-phishing emails. Most of the targets were in North Korea or were against individuals working on North Korea-related issues.

The group’s policy is to privately inform developers of the affected software and give them seven days to release a fix or publish an advisory. If the companies don’t meet that deadline, Google releases its own advisory.

One observation that Google users should note: of all the phishing attacks the company has seen in the past few years, none has resulted in a takeover of accounts protected by the account protection program, which among other things makes multifactor authentication mandatory. Once people have two physical security keys from Yubi or another manufacturer, enrolling in the program takes less than five minutes.

03/31/20

FBI Abuse Of FISA Much Worse Per New Report

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

FBI problems with FISA warrants extend beyond Russia case, DOJ watchdog warns

The Justice Department’s chief watchdog issued an extraordinary warning Tuesday that the FBI is failing to follow its own rules when pursuing surveillance warrants in sensitive intelligence and terrorism cases, confirming that problems first exposed in the Russia collusion probe extend to other cases.

Among the problems cited was a failure by agents to substantiate allegations submitted to courts, similar to the missteps the FBI made in failing to ensure allegations in the Steele dossier back in 2016 were verified before securing a FISA warrant targeting the Trump campaign and former adviser Carter Page.

The report found that investigators:

  • could not review original Woods Files for four of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has not been able to locate them and, in 3 of these instances, did not know if they ever existed;
  • identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed;
  • identified deficiencies in documentary support and application accuracy;
  • interviewed FBI officials who indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and National Security Division oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee who played a key role in exposing FISA abuses during the Russia probe, said Horowitz’s memo shows the problems first exposed with the faulty Carter Page warrant were “just the tip of the iceberg.”

“Not a single application from the past five years reviewed by the inspector general was up to snuff. That’s alarming and unacceptable,” Grassley said.

“The FBI has an important job to protect our national security, but it does not have carte blanche to routinely erode the liberties of Americans without proper justification. Oversight mechanisms like the Woods Procedures exist for a reason, and if the FBI wants to restore its reputation among the American people, it had better start taking them seriously,” he added.

Sally Moyer not ‘Agent 5’ in IG report on FBI

The final report just issued in .pdf is found here.

Additionally, NR has this summary in part:

Horowitz’s office said in a report released Tuesday that of the 29 applications — all of which involved U.S. citizens – that were pulled from “8 FBI field offices of varying sizes,” the FBI could not find Woods Files for four of the applications, while the other 25 all had “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.”

“While our review of these issues and follow-up with case agents is still ongoing—and we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified—at this time we have identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed, with a high of approximately 65 issues in one application and less than 5 issues in another application,” the report reveals.

The Woods Procedure dictates that the Justice Department verify the accuracy and provide evidentiary support for all facts stated in its FISA application. The FBI is required to share with the FISA Court all relevant information compiled in the Woods File when applying for a surveillance warrant.

“FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy, to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process, or increased accountability measures,” the report states.

The OIG concludes by recommending that the FBI “systematically and regularly examine the results of past and future accuracy reviews to identify patterns or trends in identified errors” relating to the Woods Procedure, as well as double-checking “that Woods Files exist for every FISA application submitted to the FISC in all pending investigations.”

In a letter acknowledging the audit, FBI Associate Deputy Director Paul Abbate said that the issues “will be addressed” by the Bureau’s already-issued correctives after the Carter Page review, and added that “the FBI fully accepts the two recommendations.”

McCabe admitted in January that the FBI has an “inherent weakness in the process” of obtaining FISA warrants.

03/30/20

How Trump is Taming the Bureaucracy and Saving Lives

By: Cliff Kincaid

From the start of the crisis, President Trump has been trying to figure out — and cut through — the bureaucracy. His latest victory is the decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to accept 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and one million doses of chloroquine phosphate for possible use in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or for use in clinical trials. Trump understands that America cannot wait for a possible vaccine and that patients and their doctors need the freedom now to try alternative treatments.

In this context, the tragic death of former Senator Tom Coburn is a reminder that the federal health care bureaucracy has been characterized by slow-moving efforts that are sometimes marked by corruption or incompetence. His sad passing is an occasion for remembering that, as a Senator and medical doctor, he released a major study, “CDC Off Center,” about how the federal agency wasted hundreds of millions of tax dollars and has been ineffective in controlling diseases. A case in point is the billions wasted on more than 30 years of research into an HIV/AIDS vaccine.

A strong conservative, Coburn was willing to challenge the bureaucracy and expose its malfeasance. He exposed what critics have called the “Medical Deep State.”

We saw the bureaucracy in action in 2014 when the Obama Administration failed to impose a travel ban and prevent disease carriers with the deadly Ebola virus from coming into the United States. The Obama administration actually allowed a carrier of Ebola from Africa, where it originated, into the United States, where he infected two nurses, one of whom had been allowed by the Centers for Disease Control to travel on a plane. He died. The CDC says the outbreak ended with more than 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths. In the U.S., however, we were fortunate to escape a major outbreak.

Obama’s CDC director, Dr. Tom Frieden, actually wrote an article, “Why I don’t support a travel ban to combat Ebola outbreak.” He is now a leading medical “expert” at the Council on Foreign Relations, a major source of anti-Trump commentaries.

My coverage of this disease at the time questioned why Obama opposed a common-sense ban on travel to the U.S. by people from Ebola-infected countries. He also kept the southern border wide open. Simply put, Obama viewed restrictions on African travel to the U.S. as racist. He was giving black Africa special access to the U.S., and putting their interests ahead of America’s.

On another level, it seemed as if Obama, a globalist, didn’t mind if people in the U.S. were to become infected. In his mind, there would be more pressure to find a “cure,” or at least a vaccine. But who knew how many would die in the process? At the time, we didn’t know. It could have been hundreds, or thousands, or more.

A poll from The Washington Post and ABC News showed that 67 percent of people supported a travel ban.

To make matters worse, Obama appointed Ron Klain, an Obama insider and Joe Biden chief-of-staff, as his “Ebola Czar.” He had no experience in the health field. He is now a leading critic of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus but outlets like CNBC fail to note that he worked for a president who knowingly permitted Ebola to take root on American soil.

In regard to coronavirus, Trump has broken decisively with the Obama policy and has forced the health care bureaucracy to come over to his way of thinking. His ban on travel from China, where the virus originated, has saved countless lives. In effect, Trump has been taming the bureaucracy to put America and Americans first.

I believe the president’s decision to accelerate the use of anti-malaria drugs to treat coronavirus reflects his skepticism of the bureaucracy’s heavy emphasis on vaccines to “solve” the problem of infectious disease. The failed development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine demonstrates that the Medical Deep State cannot be trusted and relied on in this case.

Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in 1981, more than 700,000 American lives have been lost to HIV.  President Trump’s plan, “Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America,” emphasizes drugs as treatments for HIV/AIDS. He promises hope – not false hope.

In the case of Ebola, the CDC quickly announced human testing of an “investigational vaccine to prevent Ebola virus disease” and a so-called “fast-tracking” process was underway. It looked like the CDC was much faster in approving human trials of a vaccine than in stopping Ebola from coming into the U.S. in the first place. Ultimately, however, the first FDA-approved vaccine for the prevention of Ebola wasn’t announced until the end of 2019. But questions remain and it has not been licensed for widespread use. It was another false hope that took too many years to develop through the bureaucracy. It was years too late.

Hundreds of people got neurological disorders and several dozen died from a swine flu vaccine before it was withdrawn in 1976. The CDC Director at that time, Dr. David J. Sencer, was fired. Yet, the CDC museum is named after him. In addition to the 1976 swine flu debacle, there were several vaccine scandals involving children during the Clinton administration. A hepatitis B vaccine was withdrawn because it contained a toxic substance, and a vaccine against diarrhea was withdrawn because it, too, was dangerous to children.

As the feds scramble for another risky and mandatory vaccine, in the case of coronavirus, remember that Congress pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which created a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, for a reason. Vaccines can be dangerous and backfire.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons argues that “we need the right to try” alternative drugs and treatments, such as the anti-malarial drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. The group notes that an early version of these drugs may have been a key factor in General George Washington’s victory over the British in the Revolutionary War.

In the spirit of George Washington, President Trump is meeting the challenge.

Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org.