Tag Archive for: elections

GOP Primary Voters Want Candidates to Embrace Cultural Issues, Poll Finds

A new poll reveals that the overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters want future GOP presidential contenders to embrace hot button issues like gender transition procedures for minors and implementing restrictions on pornography.

The survey, conducted by OnMessage Inc., found that 93% of respondents want candidates to confront parents rights issues, including increased transparency with school curriculums and school activities. A full 76% also want candidates to ban gender transitions procedures for minors, such as surgeries to remove healthy organs, puberty-blocking drugs, and cross-sex hormones.

The poll also found 86% of respondents saying they are more likely to support a candidate that advocated for requiring age verification in order to access pornographic websites.

In response to issues that are considered less contentious, voters showed less enthusiasm, with 59% saying they want a candidate who will push for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and 50% saying they want an emphasis on supporting Ukraine through military aid.

“The fight against the woke issues … that’s where the intensity really was,” said Jon Schweppe, director of Policy and Government Affairs for the American Principles Project, during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” last week. “Ultimately, voters are looking for someone who’s going to defend the family, who’s going to fight the woke Left, who’s going to fight to stop these horrific sex change procedures that are being performed on kids. … I think a Republican candidate who emerges from this presidential primary is going to have to be strong on all those issues.”

Perkins pointed to a particularly notable result in the survey indicating less than expected support for protecting women’s sports from men who identify as transgender women. “Sixty-nine percent [who support prohibiting males from competing in girls sports], that’s still a good number. But what was surprising was that it’s even stronger when it comes to these sex change medical procedures. People understand what’s going on and what really matters.”

Schweppe, whose organization released the results of the poll, concurred.

“When you’re talking about puberty blockers as young as seven, eight years old, that’s where voters are really animated,” he observed. “They see it as an issue of life and death because it is. Women’s sports is important and we want to protect these opportunities for girls, but I think it’s a little bit lower stakes. [Gender transition procedures] are a horrific thing that’s being perpetrated on these kids. And it really, really animates Republican voters. And what we’ve found is that in our polling of the general electorate, it’s actually really important to independents and even some Democrats too. It’s a great issue for Republicans to lead on and hopefully do the right thing as we try to stop this from happening across the country.”

The survey’s results appear to rebuke the strategy taken by some Republican candidates and strategists ahead of 2022’s midterm elections, which was to steer clear of divisive social issues. That strategy did not appear to pan out in the midterm results.

The poll also found that GOP primary voters prefer Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over former President Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup, with DeSantis garnering 53% and Trump receiving 38%.

Schweppe asserted that the growing rivalry between the two men will benefit conservative voters in the end.

“The encouraging thing, especially for social conservatives, is that as Trump and DeSantis fight each other, they’re going to continue to try to outflank each other on all of these issues. [Even with] the Big Tech issue today, they’re kind of outflanking each other with that, trying to do a digital Bill of Rights to make sure censorship doesn’t happen online.”

“I think folks should be excited about the primary. Let’s make sure that we get a strong candidate that can finally take Joe Biden out of office and make sure we can save this country,” Schweppe concluded.

Matt Carpenter, director of Family Research Council Action, was also encouraged by the message voters appear to be sending to presidential candidates through the latest poll results.

“GOP primary voters want to hear their presidential candidates address cultural issues,” he told The Washington Stand. “Many of these voters are motivated by what their children are exposed to in the classroom, or the obsession of the current administration to fund abortion through all stages of pregnancy. They want their nominee to provide a clear contrast to the radical anti-family, anti-faith, anti-life agenda of the current administration.”

“Americans, in general, have opted to vote with their feet and their wallets, by leaving liberal states in favor of more conservative ones and by cancelling subscriptions or deciding to shop elsewhere in order to avoid woke corporations,” Carpenter concluded. “It follows that the GOP would see a similar pattern emerge among their likely primary voters in the upcoming presidential primary.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans Introduce Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood: “Abortion is Not Health Care”

North Dakota House Passes Bill Blocking Gender Transition Procedures for Minors, Votes Down Another

A Japanese professor at Yale floats the idea of mass suicide for the elderly


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Zuck Bucks 2.0’: Liberal Group Uses Legal ‘Magic Trick’ To Fund Election Offices, Even In Red States, Watchdogs Say

  • A nonprofit organization that poured money from Mark Zuckerberg into election offices during the 2020 presidential election is now offering “nonpartisan” assistance for election offices.
  • The group, the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), alongside various other “left-wing” nonprofits and companies, formed an $80 million initiative called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, which targets election offices with grants, trainings, resources and consulting services, even in states that block public funding for election offices.
  • The Alliance claims to be nonpartisan, but a review of documents by the Honest Elections Project and the John Locke Foundation show that the group is designed to “systematically influence” aspects of the election administration and push progressive voting policies.

A nonprofit organization that poured money from Mark Zuckerberg into election offices during the 2020 presidential election recently created a collaborative initiative that offers “nonpartisan” assistance for election offices; however, the initiative’s partners and funding are tied to various left-leaning nonprofits, and the group’s “unusual and complex structure” allows for loopholes to be found in laws that block public funding, election integrity watchdogs told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The group, the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), alongside various other “left-wing” nonprofits and companies, formed an $80 million initiative called the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, which claims to assist election offices with grants, trainings, resources and consulting services, according to a report by the Honest Elections Project, a nonprofit focused on election integrity. The Alliance, whose member offices are called “Centers for Election Excellence,” claims to be nonpartisan, but a review of documents by the Honest Elections Project and the John Locke Foundation shows that the group is designed to “systematically influence” aspects of the election administration and push “progressive” voting policies by working around laws that block public funding for election offices.

“[The Alliance] allows CTCL and its partners to get into election offices, instead of parachuting in the way they did in 2020. They want to go to stay, they want to learn everything about how these offices function, they want to push, you know, what they term best practices, guidance, resources, trainings, technology, software, to reshape the way that they function,” Honest Elections Project Executive Director and report co-author Jason Snead told the DCNF. “All of it is designed to basically give them behind-the-scenes access at a granular level, so that they can nudge, push, whatever, to get these offices to behave in ways which are more in line with their left-wing agenda.”

CTCL is an Illinois-based election reform advocacy group that pushes “left-of-center” voting policies and election administration, according to Capitol Research Center’s (CRC) Influence Watch. The group has been funded by a wide array of organizations over the years, including the Skoll Foundation, the Democracy Fund, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The group was founded by co-workers from the now defunct New Organizing Institute (NOI), which has been described by The Washington Post as the “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry,” and was a training center for “left-of-center” activists while it existed, according to Influence Watch.

Alongside CTCL, the Alliance is composed of partners that include the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, an Arabella Advisors front group which lobbies for automatic voter registration, and the Center for Civic Design, which uses funding from liberal eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar to advocate for ballot redesign and permanent vote-by-mail, according to CRC.

Arabella Advisors is a nonprofit network that hosts a number of nonprofit groups that channel “hundreds of millions of dollars” from left-leaning foundations to left-wing organizations, according to Influence Watch. The group creates hundreds of “pop-up groups” designed to look like standalone projects, despite being Arabella-run.

The Alliance’s newest partner, the Institute for Responsive Government, works with government agencies to modernize election administration, specifically focusing on government-driven voter registration policies, according to CRC. The Institute for Responsive Government is housed by the New Venture Fund, which is a nonprofit run by Arabella Advisors.

“This is a coalition of left wing organizations, all of which have had deep ties through their senior staff, founders, etc, to the Democratic Party, to partisan campaigns on the left, and of course, to major left wing, dark money funders as well,” Snead told the DCNF.

CTCL’s Alliance, dubbed “Zuck Bucks 2.0” by the Honest Elections Project, builds on the “Zuck Bucks” initiative, which used private funding to impact election policy nationwide in 2020, according to the Honest Elections Project. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan reportedly donated a total of $350 million to CTCL in 2020 to be dispensed as COVID-19 “relief grants” to election offices, leading a group of House Republicans to call on CTCL to explain where the hundreds of millions of dollars they were given during the COVID-19 pandemic went.

Following the “Zuck Bucks” initiative, many states implemented legislation that blocked private donations to election offices, but the CTCL’s Alliance is allegedly moving around oversight by implementing a “membership” program with a “unusual and complex structure,” according to the Honest Elections Project. 

“The second main thing that the alliance is set up to do is allow CTCL to spread even in states that ban private funding of elections. And we suspected that from the jump, which is why we put so much time into trying to understand what the Alliance looks like, what its structure was, so we can understand what their strategy is.” Snead said.

Through public records requests, the Honest Elections Project received email communications between Alliance partners and local election offices selected to join the Alliance. The records, also reviewed by the John Locke Foundation, helped the Honest Elections Project look into the function of the Alliance, which showed the group’s alleged “behind-the-scenes influence” into election administration.

The Alliance started as a free group, but later added a membership fee and introduced “scholarships” to cover costs, which are now instantly converted into “credits,” according to the Honest Elections Project. The “credits” must then be used to buy services from Alliance-sponsored partners.

The “scholarship” to cover the membership cost can be used in states with weaker restrictions on public funding to provide funding for election offices without directly giving the office money, according to the Honest Elections Project. The Alliance’s choice to offer scholarships to election offices is a “two fold” decision, Snead told the DCNF.

The scholarships make it free for jurisdictions to join if they are allowed to accept funds, and also provides a loophole for states with less strict public funding laws. “It’s almost like they’re doing a magic trick pretending that we say it costs $4,800 to join, but if we never bill you, and you’d never pay us, there’s no transaction, we just convert those fees into credits behind the scenes,” Snead told the DCNF.

“I think it was very clearly designed to allow the influence of the Alliance to move into states where you cannot accept even the scholarship because of tightly worded private funding restrictions,” Snead said.

The membership process seems to be a “two way street,” according to one election official in email records obtained by the Honest Elections Project. Election offices receive guidance, resources, trainings, technology and software to reshape the way that they function, and the Alliance receives information on how the member offices operate, as well as the ability to guide election offices through the use of its partner services.

“I get something and give something,” one election official said about the agreement in documents obtained by the Honest Elections Project.

The Honest Elections Project is still investigating how states with public funding bans are able to join the Alliance, and has submitted public record requests to further understand the onboarding process, according to Snead.

“I fully expect that we will see other jurisdictions in states that have private funding bans targeted over the next days and weeks,” Snead said.

Once election offices are locked in with the Alliance and the “credits” have been awarded, election offices work with the left-wing partners of the Alliance, according to the Honest Elections Project.

“Instead of spending taxpayer dollars on any potential competitor to provide, for instance, a software solution to manage the recruitment and distribution of poll workers, they spent this money, now the money has to then effectively be spent on services that are provided by these CTCL approved collaborators,” Snead said.

The Alliance initially recruited “Centers for Election Excellence” in states that did not block the use of private funding in election offices, but later expanded to states that block public funding, including Utah and Georgia, according to the Honest Elections Project. Instead of sending funding directly to the election offices in Georgia, the Alliance sends funding to the respective county’s finance department, which later dispenses the funding to the election offices, CRC Senior Researcher Hayden Ludwig and Snead told the DCNF.

“Georgia private funding restrictions are not the tightest and so they have essentially identified a loophole where the funding goes to the county and then the county appropriates it to the elections office,” Snead told the DCNF. The Dekalb County, Georgia, finance department did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The Honest Elections Project is currently investigating how counties in Utah were able to join the Alliance.

“Utah has fairly tight private funding restrictions. Again, the question is, did they get a membership fee to join the Alliance? Or did they take advantage of this scholarship program and pretend that that is somehow a satisfactory workaround?” Snead told the DCNF.

The Alliance is marketed as a seal of approval for election offices that excel at election administration, but after election offices were admitted, they were told that they would also be receiving massive grants, Snead told the DCNF.

Many election officials were surprised by the large sums of money offered, leading election officials in Ottawa, Michigan, and Brunswick and Forsyth, North Carolina, to announce that they will not be taking any funding from the Alliance. Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck believes that some of the group’s initiatives are exciting, “but $1.5 million just seemed excessive,” he told the Holland Sentinel.

“We didn’t ask for that. Honestly, we were very surprised and we want people in it for the right reasons,” Roebuck continued.

Half of the original group of participating election offices are now facing some degree of pushback or expressing some reservations about joining the program, Snead told the DCNF.

Governors in LouisianaMichiganNorth Carolina and Wisconsin vetoed legislation banning private funding in 2021, and Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina have election offices that are participating in the Alliance. The respective offices did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

If voters are going to have faith that CTCL is operating in a nonpartisan manner, “the process for awarding the money should be more transparent,” Ludwig told RealClearInvestigations.

If the CTCL Alliance is truly committed to helping election offices, “they would be advocating through democratic channels to expand budgets, going into state legislatures to support infrastructure. But they don’t and they have millions of dollars at their disposal,” he continued.

CTCL, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections and the Center for Civic Design did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The Institute for Responsive Government could not be reached for comment.

AUTHOR

BRONSON WINSLOW

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Voter Participation Groups With Left-Wing Ties Threaten Voters With Peer Pressure

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Musk’s Twitter Buy ‘The Best $44 Billion I’ve Seen Spent in My Lifetime’: Congressman

If Elon Musk won’t suppress the news, CBS, ABC, and NBC News are more than happy to. While the Twitter files continue to drip out damning evidence of the company’s pre-Musk bias, three of America’s biggest outlets refuse to cover the story that’s riveting people the world over. In an ironic twist, the media is so beholden to Big Tech that it is suppressing a story about suppression. But don’t think the truth won’t get out, Congressman Pat Fallon (R-Texas) warns. The GOP is weeks away from House control, and no amount of coordinated media blackouts will protect Silicon Valley then.

“Get ready for Republican oversight” was the message of incoming soon-to-be committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.). Like the rest of his conservative colleagues, he’s ready to dive into the last two years of criminal mismanagement under Democratic rule — on everything from the border and COVID to Afghanistan, energy, and Hunter Biden. But this latest wrinkle, this proof of widescale, devastating, conservative censorship will be priority #1.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) may have been unsurprised by the revelations at Twitter, but he’s outraged nonetheless. “…[O]ur worst fears and suspicions have been confirmed,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch.” “Really. I mean, you had the head of their legal department, Vijaya Gadde, admitting that the FBI told him, ‘Hey, listen, you’re going to get probably a hack and leak story in October dealing with Hunter Biden. So just be aware of that and take action.’ That’s very troubling.” Add that to the suspicions that Google “magically” made 70% of GOP campaign emails redirect into spam, and Fallon warns that this is a much bigger, more sinister problem than people realize.

“Now we’ve confirmed that Twitter, I suspect Facebook, and other Big Tech firms are doing the same thing. We’ll get them under oath, because they claim that they’re not biased — which I find laughable, being that I’ve been… a victim of their shadow-banning for years. So let’s ask them… and see what they say. And if they want to commit perjury, well, then, they’re going to have to pay the consequences — and then they might do a perp walk after all.”

Perkins pointed out that while Twitter might be a private company, “they’ve become the public square. … They’re like a public utility… like a telephone company. And can you imagine the telephone company refusing to do service with one person because they don’t like their politics? But that’s essentially what we have with Big Tech.” And worse, he explained, since the Biden administration was colluding with these platforms to squelch “disinformation.”

“If you’re on the government clock,” Fallon argued, “… and using taxpayer resources to meddle in politics and campaigning — you’re breaking federal law. And it seems to us [from] what we’ve uncovered thus far, that’s exactly what went on. That’s why another [reason] we need to call some of these former executives and current executives of Big Tech [before Congress and ask], ‘Have government officials [been] pressuring you and telling you to edit political free speech?’”

Asked if Twitter violated election laws, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, who served on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 2006-2007, replied, “The answer to that is yes.” But, he told Perkins, “In September of last year, the Federal Election Commission, which has authority over investigating violations of our federal campaign finance laws, actually dismissed complaints that have been filed against Twitter — not only for shadow-banning Republican elected officials and candidates, but also for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

Twitter executives claimed they hadn’t coordinated with the Biden campaign. But also, von Spakovsky, explained, Jack Dorsey’s team insisted they had “a bona fide commercial reason for suppressing the Hunter Biden story, which was their internal policy against publishing hacked materials.” But now that we know they were lying, the FEC needs “to reopen that file, reconsider the case, and potentially make criminal referrals to the Justice Department for any Twitter executives who committed perjury in their testimony to the FEC,” he insisted. After all, it’s “a potential violation of campaign finance law,” the former commissioner pointed out.

The lawyers who filed the original complaints need to go back to the FEC and say, “You might need to reconsider your decision to close the file based on this newly uncovered evidence,” von Spakovsky urged. At the end of the day, the FEC has civil authority, “so they can impose fines and … penalties on anyone violating campaign finance laws, including a corporation.”

In the meantime, expect an intense, in-depth investigation of Twitter and all of the social media platforms suspected of cracking down on conservative or politically inconvenient messaging. “This is the best $44 billion I’ve seen spent in my lifetime,” Fallon insisted. “I mean, thank you, Elon Musk. It’s like the Wizard of Oz, and he’s pulled back the curtain, and we find that all of our suspicions have been confirmed.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ex-Twitter Manager Slapped With Three-Year Prison Sentence For Spying For Saudi Arabia

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washing Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

CEO Allegedly Conspired To Store California Election Workers’ Data In China

Eugene Yu, whom police arrested last week for alleged data theft, allegedly conspired to store California election workers’ personal data in China during the 2020 presidential election, prosecutors said in a court filing Thursday.

Yu’s firm, Konnech, entered a contract with Los Angeles County to provide secure poll worker management software for the 2020 election that stipulated all employee payroll and scheduling data collected by the company should be stored in the U.S., according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. Despite multiple statements to The New York Times denying Yu or Konnech stored data in China, new court filings indicate that Yu deliberately collaborated with unknown conspirators to transfer the personal information of hundreds of Los Angeles election workers through third party contractors based in China.

Luis Nabergoi, Konnech’s project manager for the Los Angeles operation, sent a memo via Chinese messaging app DingTalk around Aug. 18 confirming Chinese contractors exercised so-called “superadministration” privileges for all clients of Konnech’s PollChief software, the court documents state. Nabergoi called the situation a “huge security issue.”

The Chinese company with whom Konnech contracted was responsible for developing troubleshooting software, according to the NYT.

On Oct. 4, Nabergoi sent an internal email informing Konnech employees the company was “moving t0 a new stage in the company maturity and we need to ensure the security, privacy and confidentiality or [sic] our client data,” the court documents state.

The documents also included allegations the company embezzled at least $2,645,000 by violating the company’s contract with Los Angeles County.

Authorities arrested Yu in Michigan on Oct. 5 following initial allegations that Konnech stored the personal information of Los Angeles election workers in servers located in China, extraditing him to California afterward.

“Data breaches are an ongoing threat to our digital way of life. When we entrust a company to hold our confidential data, they must be willing and able to protect our personal identifying information from theft,” District Attorney George Gascón said in a statement.

Gascón said the event could constitute a “cyber intrusion” in U.S. elections.

None of the data appeared to have been sold, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, intelligence services operating on behalf of Beijing could obtain access to information from private companies housed in Chinese servers, according to a 2020 Foreign Policy report.

None of Konnech’s actions had an effect on vote counting or altered election results, according to the L.A. District Attorney’s office.

True The Vote, a election integrity organization, previously reported concerns about Yu and Konnech to the FBI in 2021 after claiming their researchers had accessed Konnech data from servers in China, according to the NYT. Los Angeles County authorities began investigating Konnech after receiving a tip from Gregg Phillips, a True The Vote associate.

After Yu’s arrest, Konnech distributed a letter to clients claiming the company “never hosted your data or system in servers outside of the United States,” the NYT reported.

The district attorney declined to say whether other individuals were under investigation, the NYT reported.

Konnech did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

MICAELA BURROW

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICEL: Michigan Announces $715 Million Contract With Chinese Communist Party-Affiliated Company

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Trump-Endorsed Democrat Wins Nomination In Heated New York Primary

A Trump-endorsed Democrat who helped his party lead the first impeachment effort against the former president won the Democratic nomination to represent New York’s contested 10th district in Tuesday’s packed primary election, NPR reported Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Daniel Goldman won the Democratic nomination over Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou and incumbent Rep. Mondaire Jones to represent New York’s 10th district in Congress on Tuesday.

Goldman won with 25.8% of the vote, NPR reported, citing The Associated Press. Niou finished in second with 23.7%.

Jones, the first openly gay black congressman, came in third place for the nomination after redistricting prompted him to switch from seeking re-election against another incumbent in New York’s 17th district. Trump endorsed Goldman earlier this month.

“Lawyer Dan Goldman is running for Congress, NY-10, and it is my great honor to Strongly Endorse him,” Trump wrote in a TRUTH Social post.

“I do this not because of the fact that he headed up the Impeachment Committee and lost, but because he was honorable, fair, and highly intelligent. While it was my honor to beat him, and beat him badly, Dan Goldman has a wonderful future ahead,” he continued.

The New York Times editorial board also endorsed Goldman, praising his efforts to impeach Trump.

“The Republicans are out for blood and out for revenge,” Goldman told the editorial board. “And so my experience, having led the impeachment investigation and being right in the throes of that kind of complex and high-stakes investigation, will be even more valuable, I think, to the Democratic caucus than reasonably a first-year congress person would be even in the majority without any seniority.”

His runner-ups, Niou and Jones, both prided themselves as more progressive candidates and lambasted Goldman as a “conservative Democrat.” They claimed he opposes Medicare for All and depended on his own wealth to win the seat, according to Spectrum News.

Niou came in second place after losing some support for expressing support for the Boycott Divest and Sanctions movement against Israel in an interview with Jewish Insider.

AUTHOR

JUSTINE BROOKE MURRAY

Contributor.

RELATED VIDEO: New York Primary winner states her socialist intentions out loud. This video explains the connection between the COMINTERN and the Democrat party well, because it is the Democrat Socialists of America speaking at a meeting of the International Communists (COMINTERN) at the EU Parliament.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Trolls Democrats With Two Key Primary Endorsements

Florida Governor DeSantis Releases Campaign Ad Spoofing Famous, All-American Movie

GINGRICH: Reality Is About To Crush Democrats’ Midterm Dreams

‘Definition Of Fascism’: Karine Jean-Pierre Tries To Explain Why ‘MAGA Republicans’ Are Fascists

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Surprisingly, an Actually Good Candidate is in the Running to Replace Boris Johnson

Tom Tugendhat has just announced his candidacy to succeed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

While Ben Wallace, the current front-runner, has a record of antipathy toward Israel and curious sympathy for Iran, a country he claims proudly to have visited more than any other MP, Tom Tugendhat is among the most pro-Israel of MPs. And his background is also unusual for someone who supports Israel. Tugendhat has a degree in Islamic Studies, speaks Arabic and was a military intelligence officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. While in Afghanistan, he was a Lieutenant Colonel; the commander of the British forces in Afghanistan at that time was his superior officer, Colonel Richard Kemp. Kemp is well-known for his testimony at the UNHRC: Commission on the Goldstone Report:

Based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Kemp went on to give a stirring defense of the Israel Defense Forces and the extremes to which it goes to protect civilian lives.

But as Kemp subsequently noted his remarks to the commission, though criticized in some quarters, were not at all unusual among his fellow officers. In fact, he said that many of his comrades in the British army share them.

[While] I got quite a lot of criticism from within the U.K., I got a lot of support for what I said from other military people — people with military experience in the U.K.,” Kemp said. “In general terms, I find that my opinions on these matters … are shared by many British military officers and retired military officers. The reason for that is the IDF has for many, many years been very well respected by the British military; they have been looked at as a very effective fighting force and we’ve looked to see what kind of lessons we can learn from them.”

In fact, Kemp studied IDF operations while a cadet at Sandhurst — the British equivalent of West Point.

“It wasn’t just me; it was the British army as a whole that made a considerable study of the IDF,” Kemp has said. Indeed, the British studied the Israeli operations “probably above all other contemporary armed forces.”

According to him, the civilian casualty rate during Operations Cast Lead and Piller of Defense — the code names for Israel’s last two conflicts with Hamas — was less than one civilian killed for every fighter. In Afghanistan, he noted, the rate was 3 to 1, by U.N. statistics and probably higher in Iraq.

“That’s a remarkable achievement,” Kemp said. “It shows the extent to which the Israelis went to gain the intelligence — precise intelligence — to be extremely careful about their targeting, to warn the civilian population off.”

Tom Tugendhat is among those retired British military men who served under Colonel Kemp when he was overall commander of the British forces In Afghanistan, and came to share his views on the IDF as a fighting force that was not only amazingly effective but also, as Kemp has often said, “the most moral army” in the world.

In 2016, the UN Security Council voted on Resolution 2334, which condemned Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a “violation of international law” and “of no validity.” Britain voted with the majority (and Obama, shamefully, instructed the U.S. delegate to “abstain” instead of vetoing the measure as was customary with such anti-Israel resolutions). Tugendhat rose in Parliament to denounce that British vote. There were not many Conservative members of Parliament willing to take issue with their own government’s UN votes. British supporters of Israel have not forgotten Tugendhat’s stand. Nor, of course, have the Palestinians.

Tugendhat wrote in The Spectator about that “wrong vote”:

Like all the best mistakes, it [the British vote for UNSC Resolution 2334] was done for the right reasons. Knowing that for once the US wouldn’t veto, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning settlement building in the occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK was no doubt keen to be with the consensus but we were wrong to back the Resolution. This time was different. Not because Israel has changed, nor the expansion of the settlements is exacerbating the efforts towards a settlement, but because the world has changed and so have we.

Since voting to leave the European Union, the UK has needed a new grand strategy, one that promotes our interests and allows us to chart our own future. Resolution 2334 shows our foreign policy has not caught up. Backing an outgoing US administration, an anti-Zionist myth, and many dictators’ propaganda message doesn’t just undermine Israel and ignore recent tectonic change, it hurts our regional allies and weakens us. To write our own future we need to think more about the message our votes send and be prepared to stand against consensus. This time we got it wrong.

Tugendhat knew, four years before the Abraham Accords were born, that the question of Palestine doesn’t matter to the Arabs as it once did. Most of the Arabs have moved on, he maintains, and so should the British, instead of continuing to support “an anti-Zionist myth” and believing that everything that happens in the Middle East must somehow be connected to, or blamed on, Israel for its putative misdeeds. Israel is an important ally of Great Britain; its “intelligence and military technology” have helped to save countless British lives; it has taken “huge risks” for peace. The BDS movement undermines our friend, Israel. Arab despots, like Assad, use Israel to deflect attention from their own wretched rule. Sensible Arabs in the UAE and Bahrain have chosen to make peace with, and normalize ties, to Israel as members of the Abrahamic Accords. It should be our task in Britain to promote those Accords, and allow the Palestinian question to assume its proper, quite tiny, space in our attention and our geopolitics, or even, perhaps, be allowed to wither altogether on the vine.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslim writer says the ‘right-wing extremist’ threat ‘pales in comparison to the Islamic threat’

Dutch airline Transavia omits Israel from its list of countries, but includes ‘Palestine’

Pakistan: Muslims abduct 15-year-old Christian girl, force her to convert to Islam and marry Muslim

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Coke Gets a Kick in the Can from Consumers

A week into the fiasco over Georgia’s election law, most Americans want to know: just who are these woke CEOs listening to? Not to their shareholders, who can’t make a profit when their companies alienate half of the country. Not to lawyers or legislators, who could set them straight on what the policy actually does. And certainly not to U.S. consumers, who are sending a resounding message that they’re done with businesses who can’t check their radicalism at the door long enough to read a 98-page piece of legislation.

“It’s insanity,” Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) agreed on “Washington Watch.” Like most people, he can’t believe that Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, Delta, and so many others would put the solvency of their companies on the line to make a political point that — it turns out — isn’t even true! When even MSNBC is telling Joe Biden he “needs to keep it honest,” the Democratic Party has reached a low even the liberal media can’t believe. And yet the White House and its field marshals in Hollywood and Atlanta created such a ridiculous narrative about this law that people like Willie Geist are going on the most radical news outlet in the country and insisting it’s impossible to “square the president’s argument.”

“[D]oesn’t it seem that a lot of people jumped the gun?” Joe Scarborough asked in follow-up. They moved the MLB All-Star Game “before actually either reading the bill or understanding how the bill lined up with New Jersey laws, with New York laws, with laws all across the nation,” he said. Then, astounding even more viewers, he took aim at the lynchpin of the Left’s whole argument. “…When you line this bill up with what the laws were before the pandemic and what the laws are in states like New York, it is not Jim Crow 2.0.”

And what’s happened in the meantime? Countless shoppers are walking away from major U.S. brands because the Left’s dishonesty “whipped up a controversy that left millions of people grossly misinformed, frightened voters, mired major corporations in high-stakes public relations frenzies, distracted the political discourse, and furthered the country’s divisions,” the Federalist’s Emily Jashinsky argues. A new survey just released today found that three-quarters of Americans think corporations should stay out of politics. Another 64 percent of them said they’d be less likely to support those who don’t. And this is a poll, incidentally, that talked to more Democrats (34 percent) than Republicans (31 percent)!

Americans of all stripes are fed up. Once they understand what the Georgia law really does, NRO’s Alexandra Desanctis points out, “a majority — again including a majority of Democrats and non-white Americans — also supported the law’s regulations as applied to ballot dropboxes. Almost 80 percent of those surveyed — including a majority of Democrats and non-white Americans — said they support the law’s ID requirement for absentee voting.” The same was true, she explains, about MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred’s unilateral decision to move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta. “A slim majority said they supported MLB’s decision to move the game at first, but after learning more about the specifics of Georgia’s law, a majority said they were ‘less supportive’ of MLB’s decision.”

As for this loud minority deterring other states from following Georgia’s lead — well, the Left was wrong about that too. An astounding 361 election integrity bills have been introduced in 47 states across the nation this year — and that includes a 43 percent increase since February. If Joe Biden and his party were hoping to scare off other states, they might want to try a different strategy.

“I lay the blame [for this uproar] clearly on these corporations who do not have a backbone. They don’t have the guts to stand up and just accept the truth. They are so afraid of what this Left-wing mob could do to them that they’re alienating their very own customers,” Loudermilk fumed. When Major League Baseball pulled out of Georgia, who do you think they’re going to hurt, he asked? “Well, they’re not going to hurt the other big corporations based there. They’re going to hurt the guy who sells hot dogs at the stadium. They’re going to hurt the server at the restaurant who’s not going to get this business.”

A handful of days ago, he talked with some of those business owners who were trying to come back from the brink after the pandemic. “These are businesses that thrive on having these conventions and sporting events. They were all excited about the All-Star Game.” They wondered if this was the one thing — the catalyst — that could bring their businesses back from poverty. “We met last week,” Loudermilk remembered, “and they were concerned about Major League Baseball. But around the table, everyone said, ‘You know, we don’t [think] that baseball would go to that extreme, because none of this is true.’ And here they go. They’re going off the deep end. It’s unbelievable.”

And of course, these same corporations — whether we’re talking about Delta or others — repeatedly come to these same state leaders looking for special subsidies or tax breaks. Major League Baseball has anti-trust immunity that they’ve enjoyed since 1922. They all look to government — and specifically free-market Republicans — to protect them but now bite the hand that feeds them.

“The last day of the legislative session was the day that Coca-Cola came out and made their announcement [against the election reforms],” Barry explained. “Obviously, the CEO never did read the bill. He just took Stacey Abrams and Nancy Pelosi and the extreme Left’s talking points and came out with this asinine statement that had no truth to it whatsoever.” And the irony, he says, is that when Delta publicly opposed it, the legislature was considering — that day — whether to renew the special tax breaks the airline gets for being based in Atlanta. “How brazen it was for the CEO [to do that], knowing that this [could] cost them millions and millions of dollars… They have totally lost all sense of morality to start with. And I think they’ve totally lost their minds as well.”

Liberals may be brazen now, but Republicans from the Senate on down are sending a message that if corporations want to fuel the crazy policies of the Left, then they need to rely on someone else to protect them from the high taxes and regulations Democrats want to force on them. “You can’t placate to the far-Left mob — especially when they come out and they lie,” Loudermilk shook his head, “and then expect us to… support you the way that we have in the past when you’re just going to turn around and stab Americans — not Republican politicians — but stab Americans in the back.”

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

NY Primary ‘Mess’ Seen as Omen for Big Problems With Mail-In Voting in November

The more than 84,000 mail-in ballots that were disqualified in the June 23 primary in New York—where two congressional nominations were just decided this week—underscore prospective problems posed by the universal mail-in voting being called for by liberal politicians for the November elections in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The massive problems with the primary in New York’s 12th Congressional District raise alarms over the prospects for a debacle on a multistate level, not only in the presidential election, but in Senate and House races, governorships, and other elected offices as well.

“If ballots aren’t promptly processed, it could lead to a legal showdown in November,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told The Daily Signal. “It could certainly set things up for a contested election in November. This is going to be a big problem, especially for whichever party loses.”

The New York primary on June 23 had more than 10 times as many absentee ballots cast as in a normal primary, The New York Times reported. That came after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing the state to send out absentee ballots with prepaid postage (covered by state funds) on the envelopes to make it easier to vote by mail.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


On Wednesday, longtime Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., declared victory in her primary contest in New York’s 12th Congressional District against progressive insurgent challenger Suraj Patel, who hasn’t conceded the race and is litigating to get the votes counted.

Maloney outpolled Patel by 648 votes—16,473 to 15,825—out of 39,635 votes that were counted in the four-way race.

In the neighboring 15th Congressional District, New York City Councilman Ritchie Torres was certified the winner in a 15-candidate Democratic primary to fill the seat of retiring Rep. Jose Serrano.

The New York City Board of Elections received 403,103 mail-in ballots for the primary, but counted only 318,995, leaving 84,108—or 21% of those votes—uncounted, The New York Post reported Wednesday. The Post described the election as a “mess.”

Some of those votes were not counted because the prepaid ballot envelopes were not postmarked. In other cases, people didn’t add their signatures. Patel complained that ballots were disqualified if the envelopes were taped shut.

New York City officials said in federal court they were still mailing ballots the day before the election.

Even New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, said the city’s Board of Elections “can do better and must do better,” adding: “I am certain they can learn from this and be prepared for the general election.”

Meanwhile, in neighboring Connecticut, CNN reported, town and city election officials are mailing out some 20,000 absentee ballots just one week before the state’s Aug. 11 primary election. That’s a “major problem,” said Anna Posniak, the president of the Connecticut Town Clerks Association.

This comes on the heels of another problem, also in the Northeast, where 1 in 5 votes in May 12 municipal elections in Paterson, New Jersey, were disqualified amid allegations of voter fraud and voter intimidation—also tied to the all-mail balloting.

“There was a massive increase in mailed ballots, but not the proper resources to prepare for it,” Snead said of the New York primary on June 23. “There is a general lack of capacity in states dealing with so many absentee ballots, and an inability of many states to build the capacity for mail-in voting.”

In 2000, the presidential vote was so close in Florida between candidates George W. Bush, then governor of Texas, and then-Vice President Al Gore that it led to 36 days of recounts and court battles before Bush won the state’s electoral votes and the presidency.

Snead is concerned about the prospects for a repeat of that—and not just in the presidential race. That, he said, would be even more damaging for the country today.

“One thing distinct about 2020 from 2000 is that things are more contentious and more divided now,” he said. “There is far more partisan animosity.”

Given the sheer volume of voters in a presidential election, what happened in two New York congressional districts doesn’t bode well for November, said Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and a former member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017.

“It took six weeks to count ballots in a primary” in one congressional district, von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “So, imagine what could happen in November. This could be the largest voter disenfranchisement and longest wait for a presidential election outcome in history. This could dwarf what happened in Florida in 2000.”

Election officials should encourage in-person voting and conduct the same sanitation procedures at polling places that occur at retail stores and other public locations, von Spakovsky said, adding:

The New York election demonstrates all the vulnerabilities that could occur if we switch to an all-mail-in election in November, or if there is a huge increase in absentee voting.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Conservatives Cheer as Trump Celebrates Achievements Under Fire [+Video]

President Trump’s full remarks at CPAC 2020:


Speaking before a celebratory crowd of conservative activists Saturday, President Donald Trump gave thanks to God for being able to accomplish so much in three years despite incoming fire from the left.

Trump referred to both the lengthy Russia investigation and House Democrats’ hasty impeachment move during remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference just weeks after the Senate found him not guilty in a historic impeachment trial.

“Can you imagine with all of that—going through all of that with a cloud over your head like nobody has ever had—for us to have seriously done more than any other administration?” Trump said to the cheering crowd.

Trump, in a freewheeling speech delivered without a script in just under an hour and a half, pondered other options before settling on divine help.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“It’s sort of a miracle when you think about it,” Trump said. “It’s sort of a miracle, or a toughness or something.”

Then, pointing up, Trump said: “Maybe it’s right there. Thank you. Thank you, God. How did we do that? How did we do it?”

In mentioning the impeachment trial, the president referred to Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, the lone Senate Republican who voted to convict him for abuse of power.

“You know the Republicans stuck together, except Romney, of course,” Trump said, provoking boos from the crowd at the mention of Romney’s name. “Low-life, low-life. Except Romney, they stuck together.”

Earlier Saturday, the United States and the Taliban signed a peace agreement for Afghanistan that could mean U.S. troops finally depart that country after 19 years.

The historic deal, Trump said, may end “the longest war in U.S. history, not even close.”

“I’ll say this for the Taliban, they’re great fighters,” he said. “You can ask the Soviet Union. But they’re tired also.”

The U.S. and allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 because the Taliban was providing shelter and resources there for the al-Qaeda terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks on America that killed nearly 3,000.

The United States can’t get caught up in building democracies, Trump said.

“American forces cannot be the policemen for the world,” he said. “We’re all over the world and a lot of times, we’re not appreciated. It’s taken for granted.”

“After years of rebuilding foreign nations,” he added to huge applause, “we are finally rebuilding our nation and taking care of our own American citizens.”

Trump, echoing his State of the Union address Feb. 4, cited record low unemployment amid what he called the “great American comeback.”

Trump said 10 million people are off welfare roles and 7 million are off food stamps.

The president then made a reference to his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose 2008 campaign slogan was “hope and change.”

“We are actually achieving the progress, ‘hope and change,’ that liberals have been falsely promising for decades, but utterly failed to deliver or produce—and it’s really driving them crazy,” Trump said.

Trump acknowledged he wasn’t a typical politician or nice guy.

“You’ve had a lot of really nice people running the country,” he said. “Maybe I’m not nice, but I’m doing a great job for you.”

Trump took only a few jabs at the media and “fake news.”

“It would be so much easier for our country if we had a press that told the truth,” he said.

After holding a White House press conference earlier in the day on the spread of the coronavirus, Trump brought up his administration’s response at CPAC, saying:

Border security is also health security. In our efforts to keep America safe, my administration has taken the most aggressive action in modern history to control our borders and protect Americans from the coronavirus.

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs Thursday through Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.”  Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Bernie Sanders Isn’t Telling You About Canadian Health Care

Fighting Coronavirus Means ‘Keeping Sick People Out,’ Homeland Security Chief Says

What’s Next as US, Taliban Sign Peace Deal for Afghanistan

How the Left Seeks to Undermine America’s Elections

RELATED VIDEO: Stronger!


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Exit Signs: Poll Warns Dems to Back off Social Issues

In the last 48 hours, there’s been a lot of speculation about what motivated voters to give back control of the House to Democrats. But based on exit polling, we can tell you one thing: it isn’t their radical social policy. Some Americans may be frustrated by GOP leaders or at odds with Donald Trump, but their positions on life, religious liberty, and sexuality are still light years more conservative than the party they just handed half of Congress to.

In a new FRC-commissioned McLaughlin & Associates survey, 1,000 Americans were asked their thoughts on a wide variety of issues — including some that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already promised the House will address. The answers we got (which, interestingly, included more people who voted for Democrats on Tuesday than Republicans) might surprise you. When heartland Democrats tried to explain that Hillary Clinton lost because it seemed like she cared “more about bathrooms than jobs,” the party should have listened. Today, those same people are sending the same message – and it’ll be interesting to see if the extremists under Pelosi’s control pay attention.

When they were asked if they approved or disapproved of “government forcing schools, businesses, and nonprofit organizations opening showers, changing facilities, locker rooms, and bathrooms designated for women and girls to biological males and vice versa,” the answer couldn’t be clearer. Sixty percent said they opposed the bathroom policies of Barack Obama and other liberals, compared to just 24 percent who approved. That’s a 36-point gap on an issue that Pelosi has already promised to force on Americans in the new Congress. The Equality Act, the most radical piece of LGBT legislation ever introduced, is about to become a top 10 priority of the Democratic House.

As recently as this year, the Democrats’ own base pleaded with them to stop pushing their transgender agenda and get back to the work of real governing. “You’re killing us” was the headline. “The Democratic brand,” Illinois State Rep. Jerry Costello told Politico, “is hugely damaged, and it’s going to take a while to bring it back. Democrats in southern Illinois have been more identified by [transgender] bathrooms than by putting people back to work.” That seems destined to continue, based on the agenda of House Democrats.

Along those same lines, the majority of people don’t want the federal government to redefine sex to include “gender identity.” That’s especially significant now, as President Trump considers rolling back Obama’s overreach on that very issue. Asked if they wanted to “allow individuals who identify as transgender to get a special legal status related to employment law, federally-funded health care benefits, and the use of bathrooms and showers of the opposite sex,” 54 percent said no. Only 27 percent agree with radical positions of Pelosi and Obama.

On abortion, where Democrats have boxed themselves into one of the most militant positions of all — even going so far as to demand taxpayer-funded abortions in their platform — 56 percent don’t agree. As other polls have shown, the majority of Americans appreciate the Hyde Amendment that Democrats want to abolish – the 41-year-old wall between taxpayers and elective abortion. That’s double the 28 percent in Pelosi’s camp.

But perhaps the most powerful support came on an issue where President Trump stands tallest: religious liberty. A whopping 70 percent of respondents agreed that the government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman” — not just in how they live their lives but in how they run their businesses. They’ve seen people like Jack Phillips, Aaron and Melissa Klein, and Barronelle Stuzman personally destroyed for daring to hold a view on marriage that Barack Obama did five years ago. (And, as our poll shows, a plurality still do!) That’s an astounding majority, especially when you see the minuscule number (18 percent) who think like Obama and Pelosi do – that government should be used as a club to beat people into submission on LGBT issues.

The bottom line of the survey is this: if Democrats think they have a mandate to push their fanatical social agenda, they’re wrong. And trust me. In two years, Americans will remind them — like they did in 2010 and 2016 — if they try.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

HHS Prescribes a Health Care Fix

Justice Was Served by Sessions

French Presidential Campaign: Partie 5

Part 1 can be found here – click.

Part 2 can be found here – click.

Part 3 can be found here – click.

Part 4 can be found here – click.

10:44 AM: I feel like my country, the country I’ve lived in for over 44 years, is a patient in intensive care. Tubes and catheters, control panels, IT graphs, pulsing images, flashing lights. We’re waiting with sinking hearts for the specialist to come in and interpret the lab results. Something ineluctable is about to be revealed. But what?

I’m going to the outdoor market. When I get back, maybe I’ll run the vacuum cleaner. To keep my mind fresh. Plans for my visit to Israel in May are shaping up. Then 2 weeks in June in the US. A week in the South of France after that. Life goes on. I’ll walk around and take a look at the polling places. All the candidate posters have been defaced by anarchists and other heavy metal destroy protestors.

3 PM: The hawk is out, a merciless cold wind is slamming our hopes for springtime. The sun is hot and bright. It’s not enough. Anarchists and other looking-for-a-fight protesters at yesterday’s Social 1st Round left their filthy messages all up and down boulevard Beaumarchais. Last night they threw bottles and other hard edged objects at the police. Their graffiti looks like blood, talk about broad brush, they obscure whatever they touch. WAR ON THE RICH here POLICE ASSASSINS there. Can’t someone get them out of our face, out of our hair, out of the national conversation? Their causes are rotten. They grab at anything as an excuse for slopping signs and breaking windows, attacking the police and whatever else they get their hands on.

I’m on edge. Up to now, everything was possible, you grasped it with your rational mind. Now it is happening. People are voting. The verdict will soon fall.

I’m sharply impatient and here they come again with Marine Le Pen. A friend tells me about an article in the Jerusalem Post, CNN is in her stomping grounds at Bénin-Haumont and President Trump thinks she’s the best on frontiers and all that sovereignty, and the only one that’s dealing with that pesky problem. C’mon guys, either find out what’s really happening here or comment on another poker game.  You want Marine le Pen for president? Help yourself. But leave us out of it

Oh they’re so sure she’ll get to the 2nd round. I just hope they’re wrong. I’m so tired of her misrepresentation.

I have to leave for the concert.

8:17 PM: The concert lasted longer than I expected. My friend Isaac Bensimhon brought to life Jean Ferhat and it brought tears to my eyes, the beauty of song, the commitment to social justice, the innocence (he was a Communist fellow traveler) and the reality of the Soviet Union. Tears for the idealism of our youth, with nothing but hollow bushel barrels to harvest their hopes.

Authorities fear an outbreak of violence after the election results are announced.

A helicopter turns in the cold skies.

I meant to write hour by hour but I kept bumping into friends and neighbors, heard fantastic theories of what was about to happen.

I sensed it, didn’t I? The smug pollsters. Oh my friend, our pollsters are not like your pollsters. Ours are French sharpshooters. Haven’t they been telling us for weeks and months that it would be Le Pen and Macron? Didn’t they make fun of us for seeking other sources that would comfort are vain hopes.

la pen macron

Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron

OK, it’s Macron and le Pen. A few minutes ago Fillon squeezed a few centimeter ahead of Mélenchon. Merci, c’est gentil.

Le Pen and Macron. Are you happy, foreign media and friends from everywhere that have been promising Marine would make it to the 2nd round? And win.  Forgive me, I had a higher evaluation of French citizens.

Excuse me, for the moment I’ve lost interest in this story.

Now I have to go and endure their victory speeches.

Merci, François Hollande, you realized the dream of the Left: run against the Front National instead of the parliamentary Right. And win.

What a loss!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

‘France First’ – Marine Le Pen Hits out at Islamism and Financial Globalisation

Front-runner for French presidency against arresting and deporting “radical Islamists”

The trouble with Emmanuel Macron

First Round of French Presidential Election a Blow to the Establishment

Le Pen vs. Macron in French Presidential Run-Off

Europe’s Rising Islam-Based Political Parties

Paris: Knife-wielding Muslim tackled by police at Eurostar terminal

French ex-Muslim lunges at Paris mayor: “There is no more French, there is nothing anymore!” “I was a Muslim, I’m not anymore. I’m ashamed.”

French Presidential Campaign: Why It Matters

Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.

Besides, this cliffhanging French campaign is a fascinating mixture of Shakespear, Greek tragedy, soap opera, and courtly intrigues.

First, a brief summary of the overall situation:

The incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, didn’t dare run for reelection. His 5 year-term has been a disaster, the Socialist party is in a shambles, the winner of the (Belle Alliance Populaire) primary, Benoît Hamon, is a Kinder Surprise with goodies for all the small people paid for by the Big Bad Rich. He has no chance of getting to the 2nd round. ID: Socialist

The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche

François Fillon, who served for five years as Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister, came out of the Primaries (Right and Center-Right) with a strong mandate, upsetting the media’s favorite Alain Juppé, and polling above Macron and Le Pen. Then, out of the blue, Fillon was hit with a sensational smear campaign and a judicial ton of bricks that would have crushed a weaker constitution. The character assassination putsch against Fillon is the centerpiece of an extraordinarily dramatic campaign. It will be treated briefly below and more amply in Part 2 of this ongoing series. Fillon’s platform is built on a Thatcherite revolution aimed at releasing France from decades of stagnation and double digit unemployment, and a resolute combat against Islamic Totalitarianism at home and abroad. ID: Les Républicains.

And then there is Marine Le Pen. ID: Front National

The top issue on the list of voter preoccupations in February, whether expressed directly or indirectly, was Islam. They wanted to know where candidates stood on the question. Would it be sweet submission or tough resistance? Instead of the issue-based campaign they clearly wanted, voters have been dragged into the quicksand of moralizing purification-aimed at eliminating François Fillon-and thrown a lifesaver attached to the gossamer rope of the Little Prince Emmanuel Macron.

The Polls

The one thing we cannot know before the 7th of May is the name of the winner. We don’t even know which of the current frontrunners-Le Pen, Macron, Fillon- will make it to the second round. Despite constant reminders of recent prediction flops, commentators are hooked on the fortune-teller syndrome. They watch Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron peddle uphill and careen around hairpin curves as if it were the Tour de France. Last week the media thought they had pushed François Fillon over a cliff and into the abyss, but he held firm. He’s only a few points behind the other two…in the polls, that is. Big Data Analysis gives a different picture, substantially more favorable to Fillon. But that’s not the media’s storyline…

So what about Marine Le Pen? Isn’t she the fourth act of the Trump/Brexit/Wilders divine surprises?

Marine Le Pen’s reputation as The Anti-Islamization Candidate goes back to the early 2000s, when she forcefully expressed the exasperation of the lower classes that were bearing the brunt of Islamic encroachment on French society. Immediately branded as xenophobe, Islamophobe, and racist she turned the disapproval into an advantage, gathered steam, and racked up a series of impressive electoral results. The Front National went from pariah to legitimate party. And Le Pen was handed ownership of anything that could be deemed hostile to Islam. Whenever a politician takes a stand on issues of immigration, Islam, law and order, or homegrown jihadis, he is accused of leaning to the far right, picking issues off the National Front’s plate, disgracing himself…

Foreign media have generally relayed this caricature, fueling widespread ignorance of other aspects of Marie Le Pen’s program and her embryonic party’s structural weaknesses.

Desperate to burnish her foreign policy credentials, Le Pen found no better destination than Lebanon. She opted out of an audience with the Mufti, by refusing to wear a veil. This put her head and shoulders above the Swedish ladies wrapped in hijab that had paraded in front of Iranian president Rohani as if they were merchandise at a slave market. She did not, however, veil her defense of Bashir al Assad, “the only solution for Syria,” or dissimulate her good relations with Michel Aoun, the Christian outsider that became an insider by making an alliance with Hezbullah. Madame Le Pen graciously suggested she might exempt French-Lebanese from her promised ban on extra-European dual nationality. How about French-Israelis? Hardly! Marine Le Pen wants French Jews to sacrifice the kippa in support of an across the board prohibition of religious garb in public. Her envoy, Nicholas Bay, was snubbed during a recent foray into Israel. The presidential candidate herself did not get any further than the Trump Tower coffee shop on a “recreational” weekend in New York.

The Assad connection is longstanding. Marine Le Pen’s friend and associate Frédéric Chatillon, handles PR for both the National Front and Assad.  Her father Jean-Marie badmouthed Muslims domestically while entertaining a close friendship with Saddam Hussein. I reported extensively in 2014 on the dubious alliances of the National Front.

The European Union accuses National Front eurodeputies of fraudulent use of EU parliamentary assistant salaries for a total of close to a million euros. Frédéric Chatillon is under investigation for tricky: campaign financing, Marine Le Pen is accused of faulty financial declarations, her cabinet chief is also under investigation and that’s just the tip of an iceberg that has virtually no effect on her faithful supporters. Nevertheless, the sudden flurry of activity on cases that have dragged on for years is questionable. As is the absence of coverage of the party’s unsavory dealings with neo-Nazis and Islamic Jew haters.

Under Marine Le Pen’s leadership, emphasis has been subtly shifting the from Islam to the economy, with a French brand of  national socialism: restored sovereignty, protected borders, increased welfare benefits and jobs for the French-French, zero immigration, law & order at home, no foreign entanglements abroad. Her rhetoric is anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-globalization and, of course anti-EU. She promises a referendum to get France out of the EU and the Eurozone; if voters choose to remain, she will resign.

Sloppy comparisons with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. ignore the fact that Trump was able to hitch the Republican Party to his runaway wagon; Marine Le Pen rules over a heteroclite skeleton party that can’t be fleshed out by alliances-all the other parties are devils in FN theology. If she does make it to the second round, she has virtually no chance of winning and no hopes of forming an operational government. The idea that hordes of politicians from the Parliamentary right would pour into her administration is far-fetched.

Emmanuel Macron is a former banker (Banque Rothschild) who served as François Hollande’s Minister of the Economy while freelancing as the founder of En Marche [On the go], a movement that wears his initials like a signet ring. Never before elected to public office, Macron teased his movement into a presidential election machine. He is now jockeying with François Fillon for 2nd position… the polls again. In a cheap version of Richard the Something, Macron made an end run around Manuel Valls, who remained the faithful Prime Minister while Hollande delayed announcing he wouldn’t run for reelection. Subsequently defeated in the primaries, Valls stands back while Socialists big and small go over to Macron. I expect François Hollande will join them at the opportune moment.

Macron is the feel good candidate. Just enough labor reform to look modern, a heavy dose of welfare to reassure the weak and make the strong feel generous. He talks high tech, floats a few inches above the ground, throws out ideas like flowers to lovely maidens, does Black is Beautiful photo-ops and makes affirmative action commitments in the banlieue, visits a police station to show he knows people want security, and declares, in Algeria, that the French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” That was followed by a rally in a Front National stronghold with a large population of “pieds noirs,” former French residents of Algeria, where he unashamedly declared “Because I want to be president, I hear you, I love you.” (borrowed from Général de Gaulle). Macron ruffled feathers with a hymn to multiculturalism: “There is no French culture, there is a culture in France.” That was followed by a long-winded exposé of his “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” project for France.

On his way back from Algeria, the startup candidate stopped in London where he addressed an enthusiastic crowd of expats. In a shocking feat of erroneous reporting, The Guardian turned Macron’s Algerian bomb into a modest statement that “human rights abuses” were committed during the colonization of Algeria. No, my friends, he said “crime against humanity.”  We heard elsewhere that the British government was not pleased by Macron’s invitation-extended in front of 10 Downing Street-to bankers, engineers, scientists, and other desirables fleeing the Brexited UK to settle in France.

Melodrama

February 22: 4-time defeated presidential candidate François Bayrou solemnly declared: “l’heure est grave” [the situation is serious]. The long-winded, pedantic, moralizing politician-professor performed a public act of abnegation-he wouldn’t be running for president-and heroically offered an alliance with Emmanuel Macron. Who immediately accepted. Bayrou maintains his hallmark pose of disinterested superiority: He never seeks fame, fortune, power or prerogatives. His mission is to save the nation from electing someone other than himself or a candidate he has sanctioned. Will he be an addition or a subtraction to Macron’s campaign? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull out before mid-April. But I might be wrong.

François Fillon

We can safely assume that François Fillon has not been accused of corruption at any point in his 36-year political career; if he had been, we would be hearing about it from morning to night. Tragically, Fillon stood straight and tall on his clean reputation in the primary campaign, going so far as to ask, rhetorically, “Could we imagine Général de Gaulle mise en examen (under investigation)? This was an obvious poke at his rival Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been repeatedly mise en examen since François Hollande took office. No matter that all the cases ended in acquittal, mise en examen has come to mean “presumed guilty.” When the scandal, maliciously labeled “Penelopegate,” broke in February, Fillon was so certain of his innocence that he said he would drop out of the race if he were mise en examen.

The opening shot was sensational: “Penelope Fillon earned 500,000 euros for doing nothing.” Zionists are familiar with this type of operation. Nothing that is said or done afterward will erase the initial shock effect. François Fillon’s lawyer, Antonin Levy (the son of the famous philosopher and activist Bernard Henri Levy), says he has filed more than 600 pages of evidence of madame Fillon’s effective assistance to her husband, why should anyone believe him? The story gets the post-modern treatment of verification by repetition.

Fillon’s platform and the relentless effort to keep him from reaching the second round, where he might defeat Le Pen or Macron, will be explored in depth in Part 2.

The outgoing Prime Minister and Interior Minister made a brief statement to the press shortly after the thwarted attack at Orly airport this morning. The assailant, they said, tried to grab the Famas assault rifle from a (female) aviator on patrol. But she held onto it. This was repeated several times. He couldn’t get the gun, but he was a danger to her and the passengers. He was shot dead by a fellow Air Force man in the patrol. A few hours later a photo of the dead assailant was published. The gun is lying across his chest.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Nationalist and Presidential Contender Is Schmoozing With Putin

61% of French adults say Islam is incompatible with their society and 79% support banning headscarves in universities, new poll shows

Eastern European countries join forces! Refuse to take refugees Brussels is pushing on them

France’s Hollande says his final mission is to ensure that “populism, nationalism and extremism cannot win”

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC: 61% of French say Islam is incompatible with their secular society.

french islam poll

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Family Security Matters. Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

It’s Naive to Think Not One of the Millions of Aliens in the U.S. is Voting

It’s now officially an issue: illegal aliens are voting. President Donald Trump has announced a major investigation into the charges and counter charges surrounding this phenomenon. At Judicial Watch, however, it’s nothing new. We’ve had our eye on this for years, and our Election Integrity Project  was active in monitoring polling places in the most recent election.

I was interviewed some time ago (when the issue was first raised around the November election) by Breitbart Daily News about illegal voting, and I want to share that with you. Here is a report at Breitbart on the interview:

On…Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton about a study from the Center for Immigration Studies that revealed that “there could be as many as 43 million non-citizens in the United States right now.” Fitton had previously spotlighted this study on Twitter as evidence of potential voter fraud issues.

“There’s 43 million people who are not citizens and are ineligible to vote, but a good percentage of them do register to vote. And of those that do, some vote,” Fitton explained.

“Most tend to vote Democrat. It’s a fact,” he continued. “There’s been a study out of Old Dominion University that shows it is enough of a vote to sway elections, one way or another. It may have resulted in election, specifically, of Al Franken to the United States Senate, and all the bad things politically or public policy-wise that happened as a result, like Obamacare and things like that.”

“Are we supposed to be so naive as to think that tens of millions of people are here, present in the United States, and none of them are illegally voting?” Fitton asked. “In states where you don’t have voter ID, in states where most voter registration, you’re not required to certify citizenship, other than signing and saying you’re a citizen?”

“It happens repeatedly where you have these voter registrations signed by aliens because they shouldn’t be voting, so they’re registered to vote – and the irony is, once they’re registered to vote, voter ID ain’t gonna protect you,” he noted, “because they have the ID necessary to vote, once they’re registered. So you have many non-citizens voting in elections, and they vote in large numbers in a way to sway elections.”

“The number of non-citizens in the United States are at record proportions – about as big as it’s been in 105 years, according, I think, to CIS, the Center for Immigration Studies,” he observed. “It is looking at U.S. Census data, and there’s just been this massive uptick, just even the last few years.”

“And it’s not just illegal aliens. We’re talking about aliens who are here legallywho are also voting illegally,  potentially,” he added. “That’s why we’re gonna be in Virginia, trying to monitor elections, because we know this is an issue. This is one of the issues that can lead to voter fraud and a stolen election.”

The Washington Times published a big story today following up on this issue and featuring JW:

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence – that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud.

“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 – 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”

“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”

President Trump is right.  A full-scale, non-partisan federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue.  I’m not aware of any systematic federal investigation of voter fraud – ever.  Initially, such an investigation would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity team, headed up by Robert Popper, former deputy chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, would be more than happy to help.

In the meantime, you can sample our comprehensive efforts on election integrity here.

Turning Red States Blue, one Migrant at a Time

There is nothing surprising in this story at Breitbart about Dallas, Texas “progressive” mayor Mike Rawlings.

mike Rawlings

Democrat Mayor of Dallas Mike Rawlings

But, please take note of the the big global bank—JP Morgan Chase—underwriting this series of discussions called ‘City Makers Summit’ where they are attempting to sell the idea that only migrants can revitalize cities.

I’ve been begging for years for some think tank with economic know-how to do a study of long-established resettlement cities like Utica, NY  (or Amarillo, TX!) because I believe such a study would quickly kill this notion that importing poverty was good for a city.

Lana Shadwick at Breitbart:

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said during a recent summit on the city’s economy, its workforce, and its future, that he believes welcoming refugees is crucial to Dallas becoming a “global city.” The Democratic mayor made the statement after being asked about “hosting refugees” and “bringing people inside” as “one of the building blocks of a revitalized town.”

Rawlings made these statements during a recent “City Makers Summit” hosted by The Atlantic and JP Morgan Chase. The summit was held on March 10th and was the third of such events by the publication. Other events have been held in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco.

[….]

The Democrat mayor in the democratic/”Blue” city called himself “a pretty progressive guy” and appeared to be quite proud of it.

Continue reading here.

Then be sure to visit my three part series on Texas from early last summer.  Begin reading here.  There are some good links to excellent data on who is being “welcomed” to Dallas county. Arabic is the top language spoken by refugees going to Dallas.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House immigration subcommittee set to mark-up refugee reform bill tomorrow; why now?

Collusion of Church & State in Invasion of Illegals: $182M to house “unaccompanied children” for just 4 months

ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases

Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion in U.S. contracts, grants since 2012

U.S. Senate Investigating Administration Funding of anti-Netanyahu V15 Campaign

As the Israeli Knesset election looms on March 17th Fox News reported that the bi-partisan U.S. Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs  may be engaged in investigating Administration funding of  OneVoice. It is an NGO linked to the Israel-based V15 anti-Netanyahu field effort headed by veteran Obama Campaign official Jeremy Bird.  The Fox report noted:

A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel’s activities told FoxNews.com.

The fact that both Democratic and Republican sides of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have signed off on the probe could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama, who has had a well-documented adversarial relationship with the Israeli leader.

The development comes as Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel Two television station this week that there were “governments” that wanted to help with the “Just Not Bibi” campaigning — Bibi being the Israeli leader’s nickname.

It also follows a FoxNews.com report on claims the Obama administration has been meddling in the Israeli election on behalf of groups hostile to Netanyahu. A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican and chairman of the committee, declined comment, and aides to ranking Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, did not immediately return calls.

The Senate subcommittee, which has subpoena power, is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ chief investigative body with jurisdiction over all branches of government operations and compliance with laws.

[…]

 “It’s confirmed that there is a bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee inquiry into OneVoice’s funding of V15,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity about the American group, which bills itself as working for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the [Fox]source, the probe is looking into “funding” by OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants and until last November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administrations, [former Carter Administration Advisor on Middle East Policy and Clinton Ambassador to Morocco, Marc Ginsburg].

Ginsberg, who has described the administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a “window of opportunity,” is now serving OneVoice as “special advisor” after resigning as CEO at a time that turned out to be just ahead of the early December announcement of the Israeli election.

“I resigned on November 11, 2014, because I had only committed to serve as CEO for one year and my resignation was effective December 19, 2014,” he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. “I agreed to be available after that as a Senior Adviser on an occasional basis to the organization…along with many others, but have had ZERO decision-making authority over personnel, budgets, programs, etc. That responsibility was transferred to the Executive Director of the OneVoice Europe organization after I resigned.”

Frank Curtis, a New English Review contributing editor and colleague  had  more about OneVoice and Bird’s connections with the Israel based V15 (“Victory”) “anyone but Bibi” support group  in a Feb 2, 2015, The Commentator article “Netanyahu should be shown respect by the White House”:

Bird has begun advising V15 on its Tel Aviv campaign, with the intent to recruit thousands of volunteers to go door to door canvassing for anti-Netanyahu parties. V15’s collaborator OneVoice is a group that describes itself as an international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians. OneVoice claims to have 600,000 Palestinian, Israeli, and international signatories. Its president is Daniel Lubetzky, son of a Holocaust survivor, who was born in Mexico City in 1968, and is now a wealthy businessman based in the U.S. He apparently has funded the activity of Israeli peace groups, and is actually the founder of one of them, PeaceWorks. V15 and OneVoice are active in the attempt to defeat Netanyahu.”

Aaron Klein, veteran Israel-based investigative reporter has interviewed the head of the OneVoice offices in Tel Aviv and filed several reports on both Klein On-line and the WorldNetDaily.  He reported the February 1st, 2015 injunctions claims by Likud officials raised by Prime Minister Netanyahu and filed with the Israel Election Commission:

“Accus[ing] V15 and other related nonprofits of being supported “through millions of dollars funneled from Europe, the U.S., the New Israel Fund and international factors interested in bringing down Prime Minister Netanyahu” who think “that all means are appropriate.”

The Likud further called for Israel’s Central Elections Committee to outlaw V15′s activities to “ensure the integrity of the election.” The party today will be filing an official complaint with the Committee seeking an injunction against V15.”

Klein reported OneVoice spokesman in Israel saying:

Uri Wollman, V15′s spokesman, said  his organization will not stop its campaign to ensure a center-left coalition forms the next government in Israel.

Wollman accused Netanyahu and the Likud of “fabricating” a relationship between V15 and the Obama administration.

“We have no relation to any U.S. political party, the White House or the State Department,” Wollman told [Klein].

However, Wollman revealed to Klein that in addition to OneVoice Movement  founder Lubetzky, the grass roots efforts  were being funded by two other philanthropists: “S. Daniel Abraham, the Palm Beach based billionaire founder of the Slim Fast food line. Abraham is a major donor to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation and [Israeli ]Alon Kastiel, a Tel Aviv-based businessman and owner of multiple local venues, including bars, clubs and hotels.”

 Klein’s  further investigations uncovered another  possible get out the Anti-Netanyahu vote effort directed at Israeli Arab voters by The Abraham Fund. Like OneVoice, The Abraham Fund had been given a three year grant  by the  U.S. State Department of nearly $1 million to improve Jewish Arab relations in Israel. Klein noted an Abraham Fund news release on January 21, 2015 announcing the launch of a non-partisan turnout the vote campaign to increase participation in the upcoming Knesset elections with a focus on conferences at colleges and in media and advertising to enhance Arab integration in the election process.

Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon reported on January 27th, Christina Taler, State Department Grant officer for OneVoice saying:

“ We’ve formed a partnership with [V15], but it’s important to know we’re absolutely nonpartisan,” “Our biggest emphasis and focus right now is just getting people out to vote.”

When Klein asked Nimrod Dweck,  Founder  of V-15 in OneVoice’s Tel Aviv office about why Bird and the 270 Strategies team of Obama Campaign operatives were hired to ‘get out the vote’, Dweck responded:

Israelis don’t know how to run field (operations) as Americans [do], and that was the major contribution of Jeremy’s team. Bird provided very professional help about how to organize, manage people, how to go door-to-door, how to talk to people on the street. It’s a matter of finding the right professionals. And if I need to pick the best professional in the world for the job, [Bird] knows what he is doing. 270 [Strategies] is a great company.

State Department funding of both the OneVoice/V-15 and the Abraham Fund  is potentially  aiding  the anti-Netanyahu Arab and leftist Jewish vote in the “anyone but Bibi” campaign.   V-15 has hired the Jeremy Byrd of 270 Strategies, former Obama campaign field organizer coupled with funding by wealthy U.S. Democratic contributors and Israeli Zionist Union supporters fueling the tight race for control of the 33rd Israeli government on March 17th.  Given today’s Fox News report it has also led the U.S. Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee to address  complaints by  Senate colleagues and Prime Minister Netanyahu of U.S. Administration interference in these critical elections, the results of  which will be the basis of coalition negotiations to  form the next government.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.