wnd--2020-11-24--'Malevolent travelers' coming if Trump's travel ban killed

Establishment media have maligned President Trump for his executive order restricting travel from countries that foment terrorism , mislabeling it a `` Muslim ban , '' and Joe Biden has vowed to reverse it on `` day one , '' should he occupy the Oval Office .
But critics of the order , insisting it was motivated by animus for Muslims , have never addressed the issue it actually was designed to address , writes Todd Bensman , a senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies , in an analysis for the Investigative Project on Terror .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how would the United States ensure applicants from pre-modern countries where violent Islamic terrorist organizations operate would be kept out of the country ? ''
Bensman writes .
`` To date , neither the campaign nor the fledgling transition team has acknowledged the problem that Trump 's travel ban ostensibly addressed , defaulting mainly to assertions that its only real purpose was to satisfy an anti-Muslim animus , '' he said .
`` Whatever the motive , America 's inability to detect malevolent travelers will become problematic again after travel from the countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump added six nations to the list : Burma , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , Nigeria , Sudan and Tanzania .
Restrictions , which were upheld by the Supreme Court , remained in place on travel from Iran , Libya , North Korea , Somalia , Syria , Venezuela and Yemen .
Bensman , also a former manager of counterterrorism for the Texas Department of Public Safety 's Intelligence & Counterterrorism Division , cited three threats that developed before Trump 's travel order that could have had disastrous consequences .
Mustafa Alowemer , 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama State Department officials to travel to the U.S. in 2016 .
Within three years of his arrival , he was under federal indictment for plotting to bomb a church in north Pittsburgh attended by Nigerian Christians .
Apparently , his objective was to inspire other ISIS supporters in the United States to commit similar acts .
It turned out he was `` already a full-fledged ISIS acolyte before applying for his refugee slip to the United States . ''
In another incident , 20-something married couple Mohamed Abdirahman Osman and Zeinab Abdirahman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration to resettle from Somalia to Tucson , Arizona .
Shortly after arriving , they were charged by federal prosecutors with 11 counts of repeatedly lying on their refugee applications and subsequent permanent residency applications .
`` Just about everything they said was a lie , the indictment alleges , including their real names and nationalities , their claim that al-Shabaab had kidnapped the couple and held them hostage , and that Mohamed Osman lost his hands in a terrorist attack , '' Bensman wrote .
They eventually were deported instead of facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaafar Muhammed Ebrahim Al-Wazer , who arrived in the U.S. from Yemen in 2014 .
Two years later , the FBI learned , via a tip , Al-Wazer had fought with the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthis , who held virulently anti-American views .
On his Facebook page , Al-Wazer wished `` death to all Americans , especially Jews , '' and vowed he would stay on the path of jihad , Bensman said .
`` These cases and others should serve as reminders to incoming policy-makers that what Trump often notoriously called 'extreme vetting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he said .
The greatest value of Trump 's travel ban , Bensman wrote , was that `` it eliminated the high-stakes gamble that America 's security vetting systems could suss out terrorist actors from countries with such governance problems . ''
`` Perhaps its greatest weakness , arguably , was that it did not include enough countries with records-keeping deficiencies or diplomatic hostility . ''
Under a Biden administration , however , `` losses '' will be `` a more certain outcome . ''

Establishment media have maligned President Trump for his executive order restricting travel from countries that foment terrorism, mislabeling it a "Muslim ban," and Joe Biden has vowed to reverse it on "day one," should he occupy the Oval Office.
But critics of the order, insisting it was motivated by animus for Muslims, have never addressed the issue it actually was designed to address, writes Todd Bensman, a senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis for the Investigative Project on Terror.
"If Biden repeals the ban, how would the United States ensure applicants from pre-modern countries where violent Islamic terrorist organizations operate would be kept out of the country?" Bensman writes.
"To date, neither the campaign nor the fledgling transition team has acknowledged the problem that Trump's travel ban ostensibly addressed, defaulting mainly to assertions that its only real purpose was to satisfy an anti-Muslim animus," he said. "Whatever the motive, America's inability to detect malevolent travelers will become problematic again after travel from the countries is restored."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In January, Trump added six nations to the list: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. Restrictions, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, remained in place on travel from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
Bensman, also a former manager of counterterrorism for the Texas Department of Public Safety's Intelligence & Counterterrorism Division, cited three threats that developed before Trump's travel order that could have had disastrous consequences.
Mustafa Alowemer, 17, was allowed by "refugee-friendly" Obama State Department officials to travel to the U.S. in 2016.
Within three years of his arrival, he was under federal indictment for plotting to bomb a church in north Pittsburgh attended by Nigerian Christians.
Apparently, his objective was to inspire other ISIS supporters in the United States to commit similar acts. It turned out he was "already a full-fledged ISIS acolyte before applying for his refugee slip to the United States."
In another incident, 20-something married couple Mohamed Abdirahman Osman and Zeinab Abdirahman Mohamad were granted permission under the Obama administration to resettle from Somalia to Tucson, Arizona.
Shortly after arriving, they were charged by federal prosecutors with 11 counts of repeatedly lying on their refugee applications and subsequent permanent residency applications.
"Just about everything they said was a lie, the indictment alleges, including their real names and nationalities, their claim that al-Shabaab had kidnapped the couple and held them hostage, and that Mohamed Osman lost his hands in a terrorist attack," Bensman wrote.
They eventually were deported instead of facing trial.
Third was the case of Gaafar Muhammed Ebrahim Al-Wazer, who arrived in the U.S. from Yemen in 2014. Two years later, the FBI learned, via a tip, Al-Wazer had fought with the Iranian-backed Shiite Houthis, who held virulently anti-American views.
On his Facebook page, Al-Wazer wished "death to all Americans, especially Jews," and vowed he would stay on the path of jihad, Bensman said.
"These cases and others should serve as reminders to incoming policy-makers that what Trump often notoriously called 'extreme vetting' should remain a national priority," he said.
The greatest value of Trump's travel ban, Bensman wrote, was that "it eliminated the high-stakes gamble that America's security vetting systems could suss out terrorist actors from countries with such governance problems."
"Perhaps its greatest weakness, arguably, was that it did not include enough countries with records-keeping deficiencies or diplomatic hostility."
Under a Biden administration, however, "losses" will be "a more certain outcome."


wnd--2020-11-24--'Clear losers' in 2020 election: Pollsters

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]
Weeks after the 2020 elections , several races have yet to be called , but a clear loser has emerged – pollsters .
The polls understated the percentage of the Republican vote in 48 of 50 states , and 15 of the 16 Senate races , according to an analysis from Ohio State University political scientist Thomas Wood .
At the national level , President Trump outperformed the polls significantly .
Major surveys in the last week before the election , including Economist/YouGov , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News/Wall Street Journal , all had Joe Biden winning in a landslide – by 10 percentage points or more .
Biden ’ s actual margin of victory in the popular vote is less than four points The polls also underestimated Trump ’ s support in most swing states , where around 100,000 votes in a few battlegrounds account for Biden ’ s victory .
In particular , Biden won Wisconsin by some 10,000 votes -- less than a single percentage point -- but polls from Reuters/Ipsos and the New York Times/Siena had him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post poll done in the Badger State the week before the election had Biden up 17 points .
Polling failures were also manifest in key Senate races .
Republican incumbent Susan Collins was trailing in all 14 major polls conducted in the closely watched Maine contest .
A Quinnipiac poll in September had Collins down a whopping 12 points .
She won by nine .
North Carolina ’ s GOP incumbent , Thom Tillis , ended up with a clear win despite trailing in the last five polls taken .
In the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at FiveThirtyEight showed Democrats expanding their majority .
Instead , Republicans have picked up nine seats and are leading in several of the still-undecided races .
There ’ s simply no way to spin the terrible performance of pollsters this year .
“ Let 's just call a spade a spade here : this was a bad polling error , ” said New York Times ’ polling reporter Nate Cohn .
“ It 's comparable to 2016 in size , but pollsters do n't have the excuses they did last time.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ echo those of 2016 , which included leading election analysts as well as pollsters .
On the eve of that election , the New York Times reported that state and national polls indicated Hillary Clinton had an 85 % chance of beating Donald Trump ; Reuters/Ipsos predicted she had a 90 % chance of winning while election guru Larry Sabato estimated that Clinton would win 322 electoral votes .
These failures of have put pollsters , polling experts , and election analysts on the defensive .
Appearing on a podcast the day after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silver was asked to address the online “ rage.
” Silver rose to prominence on the left-wing blog The Daily Kos and worked with the Obama campaign , so when the polls turned out to be inaccurate , liberals felt betrayed .
“ If they ’ re coming after FiveThirtyEight , then the answer is f -- k you , we did a good job !
” Silver retorted .
Although polls are often invoked because they give political commentary an unearned sense of mathematical certainty , polling is both an art and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical poll involves getting responses from 1,000 registered voters , but randomly selecting 1,000 people is unlikely to produce a sample representative of millions of American voters .
Once the responses are in , pollsters will then balance the pool – “ weighting ” is the term of art for emphasizing certain demographics and characteristics among poll respondents , such as education , partisan affiliation , or race – to produce a sample more representative of the electorate .
However , weighting polls is an inexact science and involves pollsters making subjective judgments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a clear idea of the size of particular demographic group , if the demographic data being used as a baseline is inaccurate , or if they are making accurate assumptions about voter turnout .
Silver has been considered a leading polling authority since 2008 when he became a vocal proponent of using state polling averages to analyze presidential races .
That year he correctly predicted the presidential winner in 49 states .
In 2012 , Silver got all 50 right .
These feats created a surge of new interest in election data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention given to polling .
Since 2012 , however , polling hasn ’ t fared well at all .
The midterm polls were badly off in 2014 , with multiple Senate surveys being off by 10 points or more .
The polling errors of the last four election cycles have one thing in common : overstating support for Democratic candidates .
So far , it doesn ’ t look like most pollsters have any idea how to fix the problem .
Reached for comment on the firm ’ s 2020 performance , Quinnipiac @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m not able to make even preliminary hypotheses about what exactly the issues are , ” Quinnipiac ’ s Doug Schwartz told RealClearInvestigations .
“ After the 2016 election , it took 6 months for the American Association of Public Opinion Research to release their findings about polling errors ; I would expect a full evaluation of 2020 to take at least as long , though we might have some idea of the situation before then.
” Autopsies of the 2016 election by individual pollsters and the AAPOR zero in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ’ s appeal among blue-collar voters .
To address this shortcoming , most state polls in 2020 were weighted by education levels to make sure voters without college degrees were not again under-represented .
This reweighting doesn ’ t appear to have fixed the problem .
Some have suggested 2020 has presented unique issues for pollsters because the coronavirus pandemic led to a huge increase in mail-in ballots .
“ In the end , the polling error in states was virtually identical to the miss from 2016 , ” Cohn observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican pollsters made robust efforts to identify Trump voters , including Robert Cahaly of the Trafalgar Group , who proved to be the most accurate swing-state pollster in 2016 .
Cahaly is proprietary about his methods , but he said a central problem was the reticence of Trump voters to express their support for the President – the so-called “ shy Trump voters ” – along with general suspicion of the media and , by implication , pollsters working for media companies .
“ Trump people distrust the ‘ deep state ’ or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Cahaly says .
“ They might not even give their real opinion on a tax .
They might not give their real opinion on an automated call .
They might not give their opinion on an email survey that they do n't know – ‘ Who 's asking ?
’ We got that [ question ] all the time , ” he says .
Cahaly says he altered his polling techniques for 2020 to try and account for that growing distrust .
He remains guarded about his polling methods , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of polling by text message and that its polls only involve a few direct and easy to answer questions .
The goal is to be as unintrusive as possible and get quick , unguarded responses .
Cahaly finds the continued use of phone polling misguided .
The Pew Research Center confirms response rates to telephone surveys have declined from 36 % in 1997 to just 6 % in 2018 .
“ These guys are VCR pollsters in a Netflix age , ” he says .
For all that , Trafalgar ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in 2016 , and the firm had some notable misses .
While it distinguished itself from most other pollsters by correctly predicting Trump victories Florida and North Carolina , Trafalgar ’ s final poll in Georgia had Trump winning the state by five points ; he 's lost there by less than one .
Trafalgar said Trump was up two points in Michigan and two points in Pennsylvania ; he 's behind in both .
Even though Trafalgar ended up with a better track record than most polling organizations , outside observers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post columnist and polling expert , says that instead of underweighting Trump voters , “ Cahaly overweights those [ voters ] so that he was producing these estimates that clearly also were not correct.
” Nonetheless , Olsen concedes : “ Cahaly ’ s basic insight is right .
There are people who just are disinclined to answer polls .
They are disproportionately Trump backers .
… I think Cahaly had the wrong assumption about weighting or turnout , but the vast majority of more traditional pollsters just missed the boat entirely.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of politically conservative pollsters in 2020 , such as Rasmussen , Susquehanna Polling and Research , and Insider Advantage , all regularly produced polls that were noticeably more favorable to Trump and as a result , they often produced more accurate results this year .
So far , the polling establishment has been reluctant to acknowledge the success of certain partisan pollsters – Trafalgar gets a C- in FiveThirtyEight ’ s grading system despite outperforming many more established and better-graded polling firms in the last few elections .
In fairness to FiveThirtyEight , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trafalgar doesn ’ t reveal much about how its polls are taken .
Republican pollsters , meanwhile , are using the recent failures to press their criticisms of the polling establishment .
Jim Lee of Susquehanna echoes Cahaly ’ s observations about growing distrust , noting that pollsters are most often affiliated with either the media outlets or universities – two institutions that are viewed as hostile to conservatives and intensely disliked by Trump voters .
Lee has called on AAPOR , the industry trade group , to hold pollsters accountable for poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has produced a detailed memo making recommendations .
Many of these suggestions call for greater transparency , such as requiring pollsters to disclose donors , business relationships , and partisan affiliations .
But Lee also wants AAPOR to institute meaningful professional consequences for pollsters who are wrong , and suggests instituting the following paragraph in the trade organization ’ s “ Code of Professional Ethics and Practices ” : While Lee doesn ’ t specify what sanctions or rebukes the organization should institute , he is concerned that the media ’ s obsession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those polls have consistently and inaccurately favored the Democratic Party , is affecting election results .
“ I think the study that needs to be done is with registered voters that chose not to vote on Nov. 3 and to ask them why , ” Lee says .
“ And if you have even 10 % say , as you know , ‘ I saw the polling and my guy was winning , so I stayed home , ’ boom there it is.
” Not everyone agrees the consequences of bad polling are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaccurate polling leads to voter suppression is laughable , ” Olsen says .
“ Marginally attached voters are well known to consume low amounts of political news .
The idea they might be interested in voting but discouraged because of an obscure poll barely publicized among the general public is absurd.
” However , Olsen isn ’ t dismissive of the idea that there ’ s a need to hold pollsters accountable .
“ Nothing wrong with the AAPOR adopting polling guidelines that members have to adhere to , ” he says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and revised their guidelines after well-publicized polling misses in the last decade.
” The AAPOR won ’ t comment on Lee ’ s memo , but a spokesperson for the organization noted “ AAPOR is in the midst of doing its every-five-year review of its Code of Professional Ethics and Practices and will review and evaluate all suggestions when the open comment period ends in January 2020.
” While the contention that bad polling affects election outcomes is contestable , there ’ s really no doubt polls are distorting the electoral process in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and Republicans .
Democrats raised nearly $ 200 million for Senate races in Maine and South Carolina , in no small part because polls indicated those races were close .
The Democratic candidates in those races lost by nine and 10 points , respectively .
Democratic leaders told Politico after the election that poor performance in November was because the party “ underestimated Donald Trump ’ s popularity , relied too much on polls , and failed to heed the warnings of its most vulnerable members.
” More broadly , the failures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether journalists and political professionals alike rely far too much on polling instead of fuller ways of measuring Americans ’ moods and political aspirations .
Just a few weeks after widespread failure in the polling industry , reporting on polls continues to shape media coverage and set the national political agenda as if nothing happened .
And that might be the biggest problem of all , says Cahaly .
“ If you ca n't predict something as simple as an election race , do you think these same polls are giving people the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid ?
” [ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]
By Mark Hemingway
Real Clear Investigations
Weeks after the 2020 elections, several races have yet to be called, but a clear loser has emerged – pollsters. The polls understated the percentage of the Republican vote in 48 of 50 states, and 15 of the 16 Senate races, according to an analysis from Ohio State University political scientist Thomas Wood.
At the national level, President Trump outperformed the polls significantly. Major surveys in the last week before the election, including Economist/YouGov, CNBC/Change Research, Quinnipiac, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal, all had Joe Biden winning in a landslide – by 10 percentage points or more. Biden’s actual margin of victory in the popular vote is less than four points
The polls also underestimated Trump’s support in most swing states, where around 100,000 votes in a few battlegrounds account for Biden’s victory. In particular, Biden won Wisconsin by some 10,000 votes -- less than a single percentage point -- but polls from Reuters/Ipsos and the New York Times/Siena had him up double digits. An ABC News/Washington Post poll done in the Badger State the week before the election had Biden up 17 points.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Polling failures were also manifest in key Senate races. Republican incumbent Susan Collins was trailing in all 14 major polls conducted in the closely watched Maine contest. A Quinnipiac poll in September had Collins down a whopping 12 points. She won by nine. North Carolina’s GOP incumbent, Thom Tillis, ended up with a clear win despite trailing in the last five polls taken.
In the House, the final projection of polling experts at FiveThirtyEight showed Democrats expanding their majority. Instead, Republicans have picked up nine seats and are leading in several of the still-undecided races.
There’s simply no way to spin the terrible performance of pollsters this year. “Let's just call a spade a spade here: this was a bad polling error,” said New York Times’ polling reporter Nate Cohn. “It's comparable to 2016 in size, but pollsters don't have the excuses they did last time.”
The failures are particularly striking in how they echo those of 2016, which included leading election analysts as well as pollsters. On the eve of that election, the New York Times reported that state and national polls indicated Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of beating Donald Trump; Reuters/Ipsos predicted she had a 90% chance of winning while election guru Larry Sabato estimated that Clinton would win 322 electoral votes.
These failures of have put pollsters, polling experts, and election analysts on the defensive. Appearing on a podcast the day after the 2020 election, FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver was asked to address the online “rage.” Silver rose to prominence on the left-wing blog The Daily Kos and worked with the Obama campaign, so when the polls turned out to be inaccurate, liberals felt betrayed. “If they’re coming after FiveThirtyEight, then the answer is f--k you, we did a good job!” Silver retorted.
Although polls are often invoked because they give political commentary an unearned sense of mathematical certainty, polling is both an art and a science. For instance, a typical poll involves getting responses from 1,000 registered voters, but randomly selecting 1,000 people is unlikely to produce a sample representative of millions of American voters. Once the responses are in, pollsters will then balance the pool – “weighting” is the term of art for emphasizing certain demographics and characteristics among poll respondents, such as education, partisan affiliation, or race – to produce a sample more representative of the electorate. However, weighting polls is an inexact science and involves pollsters making subjective judgments – particularly if they don’t have a clear idea of the size of particular demographic group, if the demographic data being used as a baseline is inaccurate, or if they are making accurate assumptions about voter turnout.
Silver has been considered a leading polling authority since 2008 when he became a vocal proponent of using state polling averages to analyze presidential races. That year he correctly predicted the presidential winner in 49 states. In 2012, Silver got all 50 right. These feats created a surge of new interest in election data, and resulted in vastly more media attention given to polling.
Since 2012, however, polling hasn’t fared well at all. The midterm polls were badly off in 2014, with multiple Senate surveys being off by 10 points or more.
The polling errors of the last four election cycles have one thing in common: overstating support for Democratic candidates. So far, it doesn’t look like most pollsters have any idea how to fix the problem. Reached for comment on the firm’s 2020 performance, Quinnipiac sent a sober statement in declining. “I’m not able to make even preliminary hypotheses about what exactly the issues are,” Quinnipiac’s Doug Schwartz told RealClearInvestigations. “After the 2016 election, it took 6 months for the American Association of Public Opinion Research to release their findings about polling errors; I would expect a full evaluation of 2020 to take at least as long, though we might have some idea of the situation before then.”
Autopsies of the 2016 election by individual pollsters and the AAPOR zero in on the failure to accurately account for Donald Trump’s appeal among blue-collar voters. To address this shortcoming, most state polls in 2020 were weighted by education levels to make sure voters without college degrees were not again under-represented.
This reweighting doesn’t appear to have fixed the problem. Some have suggested 2020 has presented unique issues for pollsters because the coronavirus pandemic led to a huge increase in mail-in ballots.
“In the end, the polling error in states was virtually identical to the miss from 2016,” Cohn observed in a recent post-election report.
Some Republican pollsters made robust efforts to identify Trump voters, including Robert Cahaly of the Trafalgar Group, who proved to be the most accurate swing-state pollster in 2016. Cahaly is proprietary about his methods, but he said a central problem was the reticence of Trump voters to express their support for the President – the so-called “shy Trump voters” – along with general suspicion of the media and, by implication, pollsters working for media companies.
“Trump people distrust the ‘deep state’ or whoever they think might be asking,” Cahaly says. “They might not even give their real opinion on a tax. They might not give their real opinion on an automated call. They might not give their opinion on an email survey that they don't know – ‘Who's asking?’ We got that [question] all the time,” he says.
Cahaly says he altered his polling techniques for 2020 to try and account for that growing distrust. He remains guarded about his polling methods, but it’s known that Trafalgar does a lot of polling by text message and that its polls only involve a few direct and easy to answer questions. The goal is to be as unintrusive as possible and get quick, unguarded responses.
Cahaly finds the continued use of phone polling misguided. The Pew Research Center confirms response rates to telephone surveys have declined from 36% in 1997 to just 6% in 2018. “These guys are VCR pollsters in a Netflix age,” he says.
For all that, Trafalgar’s 2020 results weren’t as accurate as in 2016, and the firm had some notable misses. While it distinguished itself from most other pollsters by correctly predicting Trump victories Florida and North Carolina, Trafalgar’s final poll in Georgia had Trump winning the state by five points; he's lost there by less than one. Trafalgar said Trump was up two points in Michigan and two points in Pennsylvania; he's behind in both.
Even though Trafalgar ended up with a better track record than most polling organizations, outside observers remain skeptical. Henry Olsen, a Washington Post columnist and polling expert, says that instead of underweighting Trump voters, “Cahaly overweights those [voters] so that he was producing these estimates that clearly also were not correct.” Nonetheless, Olsen concedes: “Cahaly’s basic insight is right. There are people who just are disinclined to answer polls. They are disproportionately Trump backers. … I think Cahaly had the wrong assumption about weighting or turnout, but the vast majority of more traditional pollsters just missed the boat entirely.”
Aside from Trafalagar, a handful of politically conservative pollsters in 2020, such as Rasmussen, Susquehanna Polling and Research, and Insider Advantage, all regularly produced polls that were noticeably more favorable to Trump and as a result, they often produced more accurate results this year.
So far, the polling establishment has been reluctant to acknowledge the success of certain partisan pollsters – Trafalgar gets a C- in FiveThirtyEight’s grading system despite outperforming many more established and better-graded polling firms in the last few elections. In fairness to FiveThirtyEight, it tries to evaluate pollster methodology and Trafalgar doesn’t reveal much about how its polls are taken.
Republican pollsters, meanwhile, are using the recent failures to press their criticisms of the polling establishment. Jim Lee of Susquehanna echoes Cahaly’s observations about growing distrust, noting that pollsters are most often affiliated with either the media outlets or universities – two institutions that are viewed as hostile to conservatives and intensely disliked by Trump voters.
Lee has called on AAPOR, the industry trade group, to hold pollsters accountable for poor performance. To that end, he has produced a detailed memo making recommendations. Many of these suggestions call for greater transparency, such as requiring pollsters to disclose donors, business relationships, and partisan affiliations. But Lee also wants AAPOR to institute meaningful professional consequences for pollsters who are wrong, and suggests instituting the following paragraph in the trade organization’s “Code of Professional Ethics and Practices”:
Public, private and/or academic university polling firms that publicly release results to election-related polls within 14 days of an impending election, and where hypothetical "ballot test" results are released, and where these results are said to differ wildly from actual election outcomes post-Election Day, and thus are vulnerable to criticisms of contributing to voter suppression, shall face sanctions, rebuke and/or reprimands by AAPOR and as a result, should be called on to issue public apologies with detailed explanations of their survey methodologies and reasons for [their] erroneous election outcomes. Furthermore, AAPOR should strongly encourage these academic institutions of higher education who are recipients of federal and/or state grants or other taxpayer financed earmarks for the purposes of conducting “research” to refund in full to governmental jurisdictions and/or state/federal agencies these expenditures.
While Lee doesn’t specify what sanctions or rebukes the organization should institute, he is concerned that the media’s obsession with reporting on polls, particularly when those polls have consistently and inaccurately favored the Democratic Party, is affecting election results. “I think the study that needs to be done is with registered voters that chose not to vote on Nov. 3 and to ask them why,” Lee says. “And if you have even 10% say, as you know, ‘I saw the polling and my guy was winning, so I stayed home,’ boom there it is.”
Not everyone agrees the consequences of bad polling are so dire. “The idea that inaccurate polling leads to voter suppression is laughable,” Olsen says. “Marginally attached voters are well known to consume low amounts of political news. The idea they might be interested in voting but discouraged because of an obscure poll barely publicized among the general public is absurd.”
However, Olsen isn’t dismissive of the idea that there’s a need to hold pollsters accountable. “Nothing wrong with the AAPOR adopting polling guidelines that members have to adhere to,” he says. “The UK polling board does that and revised their guidelines after well-publicized polling misses in the last decade.” The AAPOR won’t comment on Lee’s memo, but a spokesperson for the organization noted “AAPOR is in the midst of doing its every-five-year review of its Code of Professional Ethics and Practices and will review and evaluate all suggestions when the open comment period ends in January 2020.”
While the contention that bad polling affects election outcomes is contestable, there’s really no doubt polls are distorting the electoral process in a way that’s bad for Democrats and Republicans. Democrats raised nearly $200 million for Senate races in Maine and South Carolina, in no small part because polls indicated those races were close. The Democratic candidates in those races lost by nine and 10 points, respectively. Democratic leaders told Politico after the election that poor performance in November was because the party “underestimated Donald Trump’s popularity, relied too much on polls, and failed to heed the warnings of its most vulnerable members.”
More broadly, the failures of 2020 have rekindled periodic questions about whether journalists and political professionals alike rely far too much on polling instead of fuller ways of measuring Americans’ moods and political aspirations. Just a few weeks after widespread failure in the polling industry, reporting on polls continues to shape media coverage and set the national political agenda as if nothing happened. And that might be the biggest problem of all, says Cahaly. “If you can't predict something as simple as an election race, do you think these same polls are giving people the right answers on how people feel about Covid?”
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]


wnd--2020-11-24--Trump should tell America: 'Survival of republic at stake'

Recalling Julius Caesar 's iconic crossing of the Rubicon when the fate of the Roman republic hung in the balance , author Matt Walsh is urging President Trump to use his bully pulpit to put the current contested election in perspective .
Trump should , through perhaps a `` Thanksgiving fireside chat , '' address the nation before his cases arrive at the U.S. Supreme Court , Walsh wrote for the Epoch Times , Above the the din of the `` talking heads and the chattering classes , '' the president should `` explain to the American people what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survival , but the survival of the Republic itself under a constitution the left increasingly and openly despises . ''
`` And then let the evidence be seen and the judgments — both political and historical — rendered .
Roll the dice , '' he wrote .
Walsh is the editor of The-Pipeline.org and the author of `` The Devil ’ s Pleasure Palace , '' `` The Fiery Angel '' and `` Last Stands , '' a cultural study of military history from the Greeks to the Korean War .
He argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution should wish him well , even if they can not wish him success . ''
The call to give up and accept the verdict , he said , is `` rich coming from those who refused to accept the outcome of 2016 , proclaimed themselves the 'resistance , ' and have been waging guerilla warfare against Trump and his voters ever since . ''
Walsh argued that as president , `` he swears the most public oath imaginable to preserve , protect , and defend the constitution as he sees it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serves his own immediate interests is beside the point , '' he said .
`` What Trump , like Caesar , understands is that he ca n't back down from this fight , even should he wish to , '' Walsh wrote .
`` To leave an open question of whether our porous and multifarious systems of voting are easily manipulated and therefore untrustworthy would be to do the nation a great disservice . ''

Recalling Julius Caesar's iconic crossing of the Rubicon when the fate of the Roman republic hung in the balance, author Matt Walsh is urging President Trump to use his bully pulpit to put the current contested election in perspective.
Trump should, through perhaps a "Thanksgiving fireside chat," address the nation before his cases arrive at the U.S. Supreme Court, Walsh wrote for the Epoch Times,
Above the the din of the "talking heads and the chattering classes," the president should "explain to the American people what the stakes really are: not your political survival, but the survival of the Republic itself under a constitution the left increasingly and openly despises."
"And then let the evidence be seen and the judgments — both political and historical — rendered. Roll the dice," he wrote.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Walsh is the editor of The-Pipeline.org and the author of "The Devil’s Pleasure Palace," "The Fiery Angel" and "Last Stands," a cultural study of military history from the Greeks to the Korean War.
He argued that all Americans "who care about the Constitution should wish him well, even if they cannot wish him success."
The call to give up and accept the verdict, he said, is "rich coming from those who refused to accept the outcome of 2016, proclaimed themselves the 'resistance,' and have been waging guerilla warfare against Trump and his voters ever since."
Walsh argued that as president, "he swears the most public oath imaginable to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution as he sees it."
Is the survival of the American republic at stake with the 2020 election results? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 99% (138 Votes) 1% (1 Votes)
"Whether by so doing serves his own immediate interests is beside the point," he said.
"What Trump, like Caesar, understands is that he can't back down from this fight, even should he wish to," Walsh wrote.
"To leave an open question of whether our porous and multifarious systems of voting are easily manipulated and therefore untrustworthy would be to do the nation a great disservice."


wnd--2020-11-24--WATCH: Poll monitor describes 4 a.m. Biden ballot dump

In a blockbuster video witness statement , a poll challenger who was at the vote-tabulating center in Detroit on election night described dozens of incidences of fraud of various kinds during the count , including an early morning dump of ballots for Joe Biden .
After nearly 40 minutes of testimony , Detroit resident and congressional candidate Articia Bomer confirmed that no one paid her to speak out , the Gateway Pundit reported .
`` This is volunteer , this is for justice , '' she said firmly .
`` And this is to go all the way to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because I saw what I saw , I made notes , and justice needs to be served . ''
Bomer , who ran as a candidate for the U.S. Taxpayers Party , said the Democrats `` cheated '' and the election needs to be `` redone . ''
Bomer was asked if she has confidence in the election results in Wayne County .
`` I do n't have any confidence in any of the election process after this fraud happened right before my eyes , '' she said .
`` I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` ...
It hurts my heart , my spirit , my soul . ''
In her testimony , she recounts : • Hearing an announcement of 50 boxes arriving at 4 a.m. that turned out to be ballots for Joe Biden ; • Hearing that the Biden ballot dump was counted and processed in an impossibly short amount of time ; • Poll workers overriding the votes and changing Trump votes to Biden ; • Poll workers bringing in luggage and boxes that could have contained illegal ballots ; • Poll workers using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try and expel Republican poll challengers ; • GOP poll challengers being ejected from observing the vote count ; • GOP poll challengers were observing illegal ballots and their objections were ignored ; • Poll workers being obvious Democratic partisans Suspicious meetings of the poll workers ; and • A Detroit poll worker who used correction tape to rig the machines to generate errors that could be overridden by staff .

In a blockbuster video witness statement, a poll challenger who was at the vote-tabulating center in Detroit on election night described dozens of incidences of fraud of various kinds during the count, including an early morning dump of ballots for Joe Biden.
After nearly 40 minutes of testimony, Detroit resident and congressional candidate Articia Bomer confirmed that no one paid her to speak out, the Gateway Pundit reported.
"This is volunteer, this is for justice," she said firmly. "And this is to go all the way to the Supreme Court, if we have to, because I saw what I saw, I made notes, and justice needs to be served."
Bomer, who ran as a candidate for the U.S. Taxpayers Party, said the Democrats "cheated" and the election needs to be "redone."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Bomer was asked if she has confidence in the election results in Wayne County.
"I don't have any confidence in any of the election process after this fraud happened right before my eyes," she said.
"I'm traumatized by it," Bomer continued. " ... It hurts my heart, my spirit, my soul."
In her testimony, she recounts:
Are Democrats illegally stealing the 2020 presidential race? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 99% (1519 Votes) 1% (23 Votes)
Hearing an announcement of 50 boxes arriving at 4 a.m. that turned out to be ballots for Joe Biden;
Hearing that the Biden ballot dump was counted and processed in an impossibly short amount of time;
Witnessing officials tamper with vote tabulators;
Ballot harvesting operations by a local church;
Poll workers overriding the votes and changing Trump votes to Biden;
Poll workers refusing to count Trump votes;
Poll workers bringing in luggage and boxes that could have contained illegal ballots;
Poll workers using deceitful tactics and colluding with Democrats to try and expel Republican poll challengers;
GOP poll challengers being ejected from observing the vote count;
GOP poll challengers were observing illegal ballots and their objections were ignored;
Poll workers being obvious Democratic partisans
Suspicious meetings of the poll workers; and
Suspicious meetings of the poll workers; and A Detroit poll worker who used correction tape to rig the machines to generate errors that could be overridden by staff.
See her testimony:


wnd--2020-11-24--Constitutional experts: Fraud could put election outcome in state legislators' hands

State legislators have the constitutional authority to overrule a certified vote count in presidential election if they believe it was fraudulent or in error and did not fulfill the will of the people , contend constitutional attorneys William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney .
They were responding to a National Review column in which former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy insised that Republican-controlled state legislatures can not appoint slates of Republican electors to the Electoral College if the voters chose the Democratic candidate .
But Olson , a former special counsel to the U.S .
Postal Service board of governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputy assistant attorney general and acting assistant attorney general , explained in their analysis how the outcome could change even after states certify their results .
`` During the 2020 presidential election , many of the so-called swing states , including Arizona , saw unprecedented – and unlawful – erosions of procedural safeguards as well as administration irregularities on Election Day , '' they wrote .
`` People deserve an honest accounting of who won .
… With respect to identifying and remediating fraudulent or mistaken results , it is now or never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done . ''
Olson was member of a committee for the President 's Export Council , a member of Ronald Reagan 's transition team in 1980 and an official in the U.S. Department of Transportation .
McSweeney was executive director of the Virginia Commission on State Government Management and a law clerk at the 4th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals .
In their analysis -- titled `` The constitutional duty of state legislatures in a contested presidential election '' -- they pose the question of what should happen if there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rampant fraud – with votes being tabulated at overseas computers , with software designed to elect favored candidates , with stacks of ballots marked only for Biden and no down-ballot races , etc.
? ''
In the instance of a `` prima facie case '' of `` substantial computerized election fraud , '' they wrote , McCarthy `` would have even those state legislators who become fully persuaded that the count was fraudulent to sit back and see the person that their constituents actually elected be de-throned by CNN and National Review .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ examine the election process , and take action if significant election fraud is found , would be simply giving effect to the vote of the people , not denying it .
They should not , as Mr. McCarthy would want them to do , avert their eyes to the Big Steal . ''
They noted the U.S. Constitution `` vests the total authority to select electors in state legislators , not governors , secretaries of state , or pundits . ''
In Arizona , as of Nov. 21 , Biden had 1,672,143 votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference of only about 10,000 .
`` This 10,000 vote spread is so small that it easily could be the result of the type of retail election irregularities that occur , such as persons voting twice , voting by dead persons , voting by illegal aliens , voting by persons not living in the state , etc , '' they wrote .
`` But the reported margin could also be the result of a relatively new type of computer-based election fraud . ''
Trump lawyers say they have `` significant evidence '' of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' : the Deep State , foreign governments and Republican office holders who benefited from the existing system .
Statistical anomalies , such as numerical patterns in `` vote dumps '' for Biden right after the election amount to `` a prima facie case of fraud . ''
Further , 70 % of the Trump base believes there was widespread fraud .
And those voters also believe that unless the fraud is exposed , it 's `` the end of free and fair elections in the nation . ''
`` No state constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can alter or constrain that grant of power , '' the lawyers wrote , citing Supreme Court precedent .
Pointing to the Arizona evidence , they said the legislature `` has a duty to thoroughly investigate the claims of fraud and ensure that a lawful election has taken place . ''
If there was fraud , the state lawmakers are `` free to determine how to proceed . ''
`` The power to choose electors lies 'absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states . '
'' The question for each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote counting system that is in place has generated an accurate reelection of the lawful voters of Arizona , or whether the system either is flawed , or was hijacked , to reach a pre-determined result .
If it is believed that there was systemic election fraud in Arizona , then allowing the State Certification process to go forward unchecked would make the legislature complicit in the perpetration of a fraud upon the United States and its people .
However , there is no reason why a State Legislature could not send its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this scenario , ( i ) could give all of the state ’ s electors to Trump , ( ii ) could split them between Trump and Biden , or ( iii ) could refuse to send any electors at all .
`` The Founders recognized that elections could be corrupted or stolen .
They established the Electoral College as a safeguard and empowered state legislatures to ensure the integrity of the election .
Lawful voters expect state legislators to do their constitutional duty to ensure that the lawful votes of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diluted or debased by systemic fraud . ''
Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz suggested a path for victory for Trump by challenging state certifications and causing enough to remain in question that Biden would not get the required 270 votes with the Electoral College meets .
Dershowitz , an emeritus professor of law at Harvard , noted in a column for the Gatestone Institute that Biden is not officially the president-elect .
`` Let us remember that as a matter of law and constitutionality , Joe Biden is not yet the president-elect .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by politicians and by most Americans .
But to officially become president-elect requires , at the very least , certification by enough states to give him the 270 required electors .
That has not yet occurred , '' he explained .
The president 's road to reelection would require a `` perfect storm '' that now seems unlikely but not impossible , he said .
`` The goal of the Trump legal team is not to get 270 electoral votes for their client .
That seems beyond the realm of all possibility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to question Vice President Biden the 270 he needs for the Electoral College to select him as president .
Since this is a zero-sum game , how is it possible for Biden to be denied the 270 without Trump reaching that number ? ''
He said that if `` enough electoral votes are still being contested by mid-December , and if fewer than 270 electors are certified by their respective states by that date , then Biden could – in theory – be denied the necessary 270 . ''
`` If that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be thrown into the House of Representatives , as it was on several occasions in the 19th century , '' Dershowitz said .
`` Under the Constitution , the House votes for president not by individual members , but by state delegations , '' he noted .
`` Each state gets one vote , and so 26 states are required to elect a president .
Although there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House of Representatives , there are more states with a majority of Republican representatives .
Accordingly , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , the Republicans would determine the next president . ''

State legislators have the constitutional authority to overrule a certified vote count in presidential election if they believe it was fraudulent or in error and did not fulfill the will of the people, contend constitutional attorneys William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney.
They were responding to a National Review column in which former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy insised that Republican-controlled state legislatures cannot appoint slates of Republican electors to the Electoral College if the voters chose the Democratic candidate.
But Olson, a former special counsel to the U.S. Postal Service board of governors, and McSweeney, a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general and acting assistant attorney general, explained in their analysis how the outcome could change even after states certify their results.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"During the 2020 presidential election, many of the so-called swing states, including Arizona, saw unprecedented – and unlawful – erosions of procedural safeguards as well as administration irregularities on Election Day," they wrote. "People deserve an honest accounting of who won. … With respect to identifying and remediating fraudulent or mistaken results, it is now or never, whatever can be done must be done."
Olson was member of a committee for the President's Export Council, a member of Ronald Reagan's transition team in 1980 and an official in the U.S. Department of Transportation. McSweeney was executive director of the Virginia Commission on State Government Management and a law clerk at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In their analysis -- titled "The constitutional duty of state legislatures in a contested presidential election" -- they pose the question of what should happen if there is a "case-in-chief which demonstrates the presence of rampant fraud – with votes being tabulated at overseas computers, with software designed to elect favored candidates, with stacks of ballots marked only for Biden and no down-ballot races, etc.?"
In the instance of a "prima facie case" of "substantial computerized election fraud," they wrote, McCarthy "would have even those state legislators who become fully persuaded that the count was fraudulent to sit back and see the person that their constituents actually elected be de-throned by CNN and National Review."
Will President Trump win the 2020 election once all is sorted out? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 91% (627 Votes) 9% (60 Votes)
"Legislators who want to carefully examine the election process, and take action if significant election fraud is found, would be simply giving effect to the vote of the people, not denying it. They should not, as Mr. McCarthy would want them to do, avert their eyes to the Big Steal."
They noted the U.S. Constitution "vests the total authority to select electors in state legislators, not governors, secretaries of state, or pundits."
In Arizona, as of Nov. 21, Biden had 1,672,143 votes to President Trump's 1,661,686, a difference of only about 10,000.
"This 10,000 vote spread is so small that it easily could be the result of the type of retail election irregularities that occur, such as persons voting twice, voting by dead persons, voting by illegal aliens, voting by persons not living in the state, etc," they wrote. "But the reported margin could also be the result of a relatively new type of computer-based election fraud."
Trump lawyers say they have "significant evidence" of fraud from "three particularly disturbing sources": the Deep State, foreign governments and Republican office holders who benefited from the existing system.
Statistical anomalies, such as numerical patterns in "vote dumps" for Biden right after the election amount to "a prima facie case of fraud."
Further, 70% of the Trump base believes there was widespread fraud.
And those voters also believe that unless the fraud is exposed, it's "the end of free and fair elections in the nation."
They expect state legislators to expose thefraud.
"No state constitution, state law, or state court can alter or constrain that grant of power," the lawyers wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.
Pointing to the Arizona evidence, they said the legislature "has a duty to thoroughly investigate the claims of fraud and ensure that a lawful election has taken place."
If there was fraud, the state lawmakers are "free to determine how to proceed."
"The power to choose electors lies 'absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states.'"
They explain:
The question for each Arizona state legislator should be whether the vote counting system that is in place has generated an accurate reelection of the lawful voters of Arizona, or whether the system either is flawed, or was hijacked, to reach a pre-determined result. If it is believed that there was systemic election fraud in Arizona, then allowing the State Certification process to go forward unchecked would make the legislature complicit in the perpetration of a fraud upon the United States and its people. However, there is no reason why a State Legislature could not send its own Certificate of Ascertainment, which, in this scenario, (i) could give all of the state’s electors to Trump, (ii) could split them between Trump and Biden, or (iii) could refuse to send any electors at all.
"The Founders recognized that elections could be corrupted or stolen. They established the Electoral College as a safeguard and empowered state legislatures to ensure the integrity of the election. Lawful voters expect state legislators to do their constitutional duty to ensure that the lawful votes of the people as cast are honored — not diluted or debased by systemic fraud."
Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz suggested a path for victory for Trump by challenging state certifications and causing enough to remain in question that Biden would not get the required 270 votes with the Electoral College meets.
Dershowitz, an emeritus professor of law at Harvard, noted in a column for the Gatestone Institute that Biden is not officially the president-elect.
"Let us remember that as a matter of law and constitutionality, Joe Biden is not yet the president-elect. He has been coronated by the media, by politicians and by most Americans. But to officially become president-elect requires, at the very least, certification by enough states to give him the 270 required electors. That has not yet occurred," he explained.
The president's road to reelection would require a "perfect storm" that now seems unlikely but not impossible, he said.
"The goal of the Trump legal team is not to get 270 electoral votes for their client. That seems beyond the realm of all possibility," wrote Dershowitz. "The goal is to question Vice President Biden the 270 he needs for the Electoral College to select him as president. Since this is a zero-sum game, how is it possible for Biden to be denied the 270 without Trump reaching that number?"
He said that if "enough electoral votes are still being contested by mid-December, and if fewer than 270 electors are certified by their respective states by that date, then Biden could – in theory – be denied the necessary 270."
"If that were to happen, then the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, as it was on several occasions in the 19th century," Dershowitz said.
"Under the Constitution, the House votes for president not by individual members, but by state delegations," he noted. "Each state gets one vote, and so 26 states are required to elect a president. Although there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House of Representatives, there are more states with a majority of Republican representatives. Accordingly, if the election were to go to the House, the Republicans would determine the next president."


wnd--2020-11-24--2 of 3 Trump supporters want him to run in 2024

A new survey found 2 of 3 President Trump 's supporters want him to run again in four years because they believe the 2020 election was `` stolen '' by Democrats .
The poll for the communications and messaging firm Seven Letter was discussed by columnist Paul Bedard in his `` Washington Secrets '' column in the Washington Examiner .
The survey found 66 % of Trump 's supporters want him to run again in 2024 if Joe Biden is certified the winner of the Nov. 3 election .
It found 79 % of believe that Democrats stole the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar Rasmussen Reports survey last week that put the number at 75 % , he explained .
Bedard noted others considered as potential candidates are Vice President Mike Pence , Donald Trump Jr. , Ambassador Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz .
The survey was the first from a new Seven Letter division called Seven Letter Insight .
The survey also showed showed the sharp division in the country .
Eighty-one percent of Republicans and 77 % of Democrats have `` LESS RESPECT '' for those in the other party , and 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats say the other party is `` RUINING this country . ''
And 75 % of Republicans and 72 % of Democrats are less likely to trust those of the other party .
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans and 52 % of Democrats say they would be upset if a child joined the wrong party , and 55 % of Republicans and 59 % of Democrats say the opposing party members are n't so smart .
A child marrying into the wrong party ?
Fifty-one percent of Republicans and 50 % of the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same number said they would be `` less likely '' to hire someone from the wrong party .

A new survey found 2 of 3 President Trump's supporters want him to run again in four years because they believe the 2020 election was "stolen" by Democrats.
The poll for the communications and messaging firm Seven Letter was discussed by columnist Paul Bedard in his "Washington Secrets" column in the Washington Examiner.
The survey found 66% of Trump's supporters want him to run again in 2024 if Joe Biden is certified the winner of the Nov. 3 election.
It found 79% of believe that Democrats stole the election from Trump, even more than a similar Rasmussen Reports survey last week that put the number at 75%, he explained.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Bedard noted others considered as potential candidates are Vice President Mike Pence, Donald Trump Jr., Ambassador Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz.
The survey was the first from a new Seven Letter division called Seven Letter Insight.
The survey also showed showed the sharp division in the country.
Eighty-one percent of Republicans and 77% of Democrats have "LESS RESPECT" for those in the other party, and 80% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats say the other party is "RUINING this country."
Should Trump run for president in 2024 if he doesn't stay in office now? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 88% (36 Votes) 12% (5 Votes)
And 75% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats are less likely to trust those of the other party.
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans and 52% of Democrats say they would be upset if a child joined the wrong party, and 55% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats say the opposing party members aren't so smart.
A child marrying into the wrong party? Fifty-one percent of Republicans and 50% of the Democrats would be upset.
Just about the same number said they would be "less likely" to hire someone from the wrong party.


wnd--2020-11-24--Biden's Obamaesque promise to 'transform' America

When Joe Biden boasted he was going to beat President Trump he assured all : `` And when we do , we wo n't just rebuild this nation – we 'll transform it . ''
The question that went unasked is exactly what he purposed to `` transform '' America into .
Transforming America into a communist nation of industrialized baby-killing , grotesque sexual perversion , the elimination of our First and Second Amendment rights by edict etc.
, is what Obama meant when he promised to `` transform '' America .
Obama issued edicts that required grown men and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's bathrooms , showers and changing/dressing rooms .
He invoked God 's name in claiming Planned Parenthood did `` good work . ''
Mine was one of the voices that publicly condemned Obama for praising Planned Parenthood 's industrialization of murdering children , specifically black children .
Biden is no less anti-Second Amendment than Obama , and he , combined with Kamala Harris , who boasts of whoring her way to Washington by sleeping with married politically connected men , would immediately move to remove our Second Amendment rights .
Harris and Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
And , if the rumors are true , Obama , like Harris , whored for what he wanted .
A reputed former female classmate has said that Obama slept with `` old white men to get money for his cocaine '' habit , just as Harris slept with any married man who could further her political aspirations .
Biden 's son is a lifelong crack cocaine addict , who slept with his brother 's wife , impregnated a stripper and is credibly rumored to have engaged in what is politely referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his then-14-year-old niece , who also happens to be Biden 's granddaughter .
Additionally , Hunter Biden is compromised by the Russians , the Chinese , and corrupt Ukrainians ; and only time will tell what other entities he is indebted to .
Obama-Biden transformed America into one of proliferated violent street gangs , proliferated skin-color discord and the highest rates of unemployment amongst blacks , Hispanics and women in decades .
Together they created unprecedented levels of overall unemployment , manufacturing companies fleeing the country to avoid one of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and record levels of food stamp/welfare recipients .
Muslim terrorists and debauched sexual deviants fared well under Obama-Biden .
The Obama woman also fared well .
She treated being in Washington as her private ATM .
When she was n't doing jumping jacks in the White House Rose Garden she was wallowing around on the floor doing pushups on talk shows for the perverted pleasure of hosts like Ellen DeGeneres .
Obama-Biden passed on one of the worst economies since the Great Depression .
So , just what should we expect when Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transform America '' ?
Biden and Harris have prolific records of incarcerating blacks .
They 're both anti-Second Amendment and pro-baby killing .
They are rabid sexual deviants , who will sell their soul to whomever furthers their political interests .
Biden promises to end fossil-fuel production , and Alexandria `` pop-eyed '' Ocasio-Cortez boasts that Biden can be pushed further to the left .
That said , Biden may think it will be him who `` transforms '' America , but even if he 's able to have the voter and ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steal the election , Democrats would label him non compos mentis within 30 days after his inauguration .
That means it would n't be Biden `` transforming '' America , it would be Harris and whatever Marxist they plan to replace her .
I 've long said that the most likely reason America is n't mentioned or referenced in biblical eschatology is because it will have ceased to exist in any meaningful influential way .
That means the decline has to begin at some point .
Literal hell on earth is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions pursuant to that fact : 1 ) When it starts , and 2 ) Who goes through it .
It 's biblical fact that God 's patience is n't without end .
The Scriptures tell us that the return of Christ will come n at a time `` as in the days of Noah . ''
That means society will be all evil , all the time – which means things must still get worse than they are now .
If it 's God 's will that President Trump not be reelected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very close inspection of themselves concerning their relationship with Christ , because if I 'm right – and I am – things are going to get really bad , really quick , as the end looms nearer .
And if it 's God 's will that President Trump be reelected , we need to answer the question : How will we use the additional time God has given us ?
Order Mychal Massie 's new book , `` I Feel the Presence of the Lord , '' a collection of devotions intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lord in every aspect of life .

When Joe Biden boasted he was going to beat President Trump he assured all: "And when we do, we won't just rebuild this nation – we'll transform it."
The question that went unasked is exactly what he purposed to "transform" America into. Transforming America into a communist nation of industrialized baby-killing, grotesque sexual perversion, the elimination of our First and Second Amendment rights by edict etc., is what Obama meant when he promised to "transform" America.
Obama issued edicts that required grown men and boys be granted unrestricted access to women's bathrooms, showers and changing/dressing rooms. He invoked God's name in claiming Planned Parenthood did "good work." Mine was one of the voices that publicly condemned Obama for praising Planned Parenthood's industrialization of murdering children, specifically black children.
Biden is no less anti-Second Amendment than Obama, and he, combined with Kamala Harris, who boasts of whoring her way to Washington by sleeping with married politically connected men, would immediately move to remove our Second Amendment rights. Harris and Obama are the most pro-baby-killing elected deviants in history. And, if the rumors are true, Obama, like Harris, whored for what he wanted. A reputed former female classmate has said that Obama slept with "old white men to get money for his cocaine" habit, just as Harris slept with any married man who could further her political aspirations.
Biden's son is a lifelong crack cocaine addict, who slept with his brother's wife, impregnated a stripper and is credibly rumored to have engaged in what is politely referred to as "inappropriate sexual behavior" with his then-14-year-old niece, who also happens to be Biden's granddaughter. Additionally, Hunter Biden is compromised by the Russians, the Chinese, and corrupt Ukrainians; and only time will tell what other entities he is indebted to.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Obama-Biden transformed America into one of proliferated violent street gangs, proliferated skin-color discord and the highest rates of unemployment amongst blacks, Hispanics and women in decades. Together they created unprecedented levels of overall unemployment, manufacturing companies fleeing the country to avoid one of the most oppressive regulatory environments in American history, and record levels of food stamp/welfare recipients.
Muslim terrorists and debauched sexual deviants fared well under Obama-Biden. The Obama woman also fared well. She treated being in Washington as her private ATM. When she wasn't doing jumping jacks in the White House Rose Garden she was wallowing around on the floor doing pushups on talk shows for the perverted pleasure of hosts like Ellen DeGeneres.
Obama-Biden passed on one of the worst economies since the Great Depression.
So, just what should we expect when Biden boasts that he will "rebuild and transform America"? Biden and Harris have prolific records of incarcerating blacks. They're both anti-Second Amendment and pro-baby killing. They are rabid sexual deviants, who will sell their soul to whomever furthers their political interests.
Biden promises to end fossil-fuel production, and Alexandria "pop-eyed" Ocasio-Cortez boasts that Biden can be pushed further to the left.
That said, Biden may think it will be him who "transforms" America, but even if he's able to have the voter and ballot fraud work in his favor and thus steal the election, Democrats would label him non compos mentis within 30 days after his inauguration.
That means it wouldn't be Biden "transforming" America, it would be Harris and whatever Marxist they plan to replace her.
I've long said that the most likely reason America isn't mentioned or referenced in biblical eschatology is because it will have ceased to exist in any meaningful influential way. That means the decline has to begin at some point.
Literal hell on earth is going to take place. There are only two questions pursuant to that fact: 1) When it starts, and 2) Who goes through it.
It's biblical fact that God's patience isn't without end. The Scriptures tell us that the return of Christ will come n at a time "as in the days of Noah." That means society will be all evil, all the time – which means things must still get worse than they are now.
If it's God's will that President Trump not be reelected, that should make people perform a very close inspection of themselves concerning their relationship with Christ, because if I'm right – and I am – things are going to get really bad, really quick, as the end looms nearer.
And if it's God's will that President Trump be reelected, we need to answer the question: How will we use the additional time God has given us?
Order Mychal Massie's new book, "I Feel the Presence of the Lord," a collection of devotions intended to encourage the reader to seek and see the Lord in every aspect of life.


wnd--2020-11-24--Election Fraud for Dummies

Election Fraud for Dummies

Election fraud is the act of stealing or trying to steal an election by cheating .
When it is done by an individual it is called voter fraud .
When it is done by a group of people cooperating together it is called `` criminal conspiracy . ''
Conspiracies are usually very hard to prove because the people doing them work very hard to hide the evidence so they do n't get caught .
The best way to get away with it is to do it in places where all the people who could expose or punish you , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters , election officials , etc.
, are your friends .
Groups of criminal friends all in one place are called `` political machines . ''
Democrats really like having those kinds of friends , so the places that have the most election fraud are cities which have the most Democrats in power .
In some states like Massachusetts , New York , Illinois and California , there are so many Democratic friends working together that the whole state becomes like one big happy family of `` alleged '' criminals , and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts and Mitt Romney before him ) become part of the family .
In places like that , there is no one around to spoil the fun by bringing criminal charges or even exposing the crimes .
But in other places , called `` swing states , '' the Democrat circles of friends in big cities like Philadelphia , Detroit , Milwaukee , Atlanta , Phoenix and Las Vegas , are surrounded by what are called `` hateful bigots '' ( also known as `` conservatives '' ) who always try to ruin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so much fighting over the 2020 election in the swing states .
And that 's why these cities , especially the biggest ones , have such a long history of people going to jail for election fraud .
But that 's OK , because the Democrats always find new friends to take their place .
Now , let 's talk about how election fraud actually works .
Basically , you have to make sure your guy gets more votes than the other guy .
So when the voters like the other guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheat .
The problem is that the only people allowed to vote are those on the `` official voter list . ''
The easiest way is cheat is to figure out who on the voter list is n't planning to vote and to vote for them ( without telling them ) .
So you need to make sure the voter list has lots and lots of people on it that you and your friends can pretend to be .
Some can be dead people .
Some can be old people in nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where your friends work .
Some can be women who changed their names when they got married and moved out of state .
There are many groups like that .
If you and your friends control the voting places , called `` precincts , '' on Election Day , that 's the best .
You can just cheat right there and fill the ballot box with fake votes from everyone on the list who does n't come in to vote in person .
Easy peasy .
But in other precincts you ca n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called `` poll watchers '' who might not be your friends .
In those precincts , you have to ask the election officials for what is called an `` absentee ballot '' for each voter whose vote you plan to steal .
The absentee ballot allows you to pretend to be that voter and not get caught by any nosy poll watcher , because you can send that ballot in by mail .
Wow , not so easy .
It 's not that hard when you 're pretending to be a dead person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out what you 're doing .
But it 's a real pain when you 're pretending to be a living person , and you have do all this work without anyone finding out .
Because of those things , this kind of cheating only works when the number of votes you need to steal is fairly small .
But what if your guy is so unpopular that the other guy will cream him on Election Day ?
That 's when having friends in high places , like politicians and judges , really pays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the rules to allow what is called `` mail-in voting , '' which should really be called `` mail-out '' voting because it sends ballots to all the people on the voter list without them having to ask for one .
Man , does that make things easier !
Because then there are many , many people you can pretend to be – so many that even when your guy is losing badly , you can just keep putting more and more fake votes in the ballot boxes until your guy wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheat that is really , really easy .
That is called `` electronic voting . ''
It 's so easy to cheat with electronic voting because the whole thing is run by computers that can be controlled by the people who make the software .
Thankfully , most of those people are Democratic friends .
The only real problem that can happen with electronic voting is when the other guy is SO popular with the voters and your guy is SO unpopular that you have to stop the computers in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help your guy catch up – AFTER everyone thought the other guy won .
Whew !
That 's a tough one .
If you do that , then there is a pretty good chance the voters will think something is wrong with the election .
If that ever happens , you 'll need ALL your friends to come out and work together to fool the public into thinking they 're crazy for believing in election fraud `` conspiracy theories . ''
The bad part is that even your sly-as-a-fox friends who wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to help you , and that could be bad for them .
But , that wo n't really matter much if you win , because once you 're in power there are lots more people who will want to be your friends .
So , that 's how it works .
Happy voting !

Election fraud is the act of stealing or trying to steal an election by cheating.
When it is done by an individual it is called voter fraud. When it is done by a group of people cooperating together it is called "criminal conspiracy."
Conspiracies are usually very hard to prove because the people doing them work very hard to hide the evidence so they don't get caught.
The best way to get away with it is to do it in places where all the people who could expose or punish you, such as the police, judges, news reporters, election officials, etc., are your friends. Groups of criminal friends all in one place are called "political machines."
Democrats really like having those kinds of friends, so the places that have the most election fraud are cities which have the most Democrats in power.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In some states like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois and California, there are so many Democratic friends working together that the whole state becomes like one big happy family of "alleged" criminals, and even the Republicans (like Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Mitt Romney before him) become part of the family.
In places like that, there is no one around to spoil the fun by bringing criminal charges or even exposing the crimes.
But in other places, called "swing states," the Democrat circles of friends in big cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas, are surrounded by what are called "hateful bigots" (also known as "conservatives") who always try to ruin the party.
That's why there is so much fighting over the 2020 election in the swing states. And that's why these cities, especially the biggest ones, have such a long history of people going to jail for election fraud. But that's OK, because the Democrats always find new friends to take their place.
Now, let's talk about how election fraud actually works.
Basically, you have to make sure your guy gets more votes than the other guy. So when the voters like the other guy better than your guy you have to cheat. The problem is that the only people allowed to vote are those on the "official voter list."
The easiest way is cheat is to figure out who on the voter list isn't planning to vote and to vote for them (without telling them).
So you need to make sure the voter list has lots and lots of people on it that you and your friends can pretend to be. Some can be dead people. Some can be old people in nursing homes or mentally disabled people in care homes where your friends work. Some can be women who changed their names when they got married and moved out of state. There are many groups like that.
If you and your friends control the voting places, called "precincts," on Election Day, that's the best. You can just cheat right there and fill the ballot box with fake votes from everyone on the list who doesn't come in to vote in person. Easy peasy.
But in other precincts you can't cheat that way because of certain people called "poll watchers" who might not be your friends. In those precincts, you have to ask the election officials for what is called an "absentee ballot" for each voter whose vote you plan to steal.
The absentee ballot allows you to pretend to be that voter and not get caught by any nosy poll watcher, because you can send that ballot in by mail.
Wow, not so easy. It's not that hard when you're pretending to be a dead person, because dead people can't figure out what you're doing. But it's a real pain when you're pretending to be a living person, and you have do all this work without anyone finding out.
Because of those things, this kind of cheating only works when the number of votes you need to steal is fairly small.
But what if your guy is so unpopular that the other guy will cream him on Election Day?
That's when having friends in high places, like politicians and judges, really pays off. You get those friends to change the rules to allow what is called "mail-in voting," which should really be called "mail-out" voting because it sends ballots to all the people on the voter list without them having to ask for one.
Man, does that make things easier! Because then there are many, many people you can pretend to be – so many that even when your guy is losing badly, you can just keep putting more and more fake votes in the ballot boxes until your guy wins.
There's one more way to cheat that is really, really easy. That is called "electronic voting." It's so easy to cheat with electronic voting because the whole thing is run by computers that can be controlled by the people who make the software. Thankfully, most of those people are Democratic friends.
The only real problem that can happen with electronic voting is when the other guy is SO popular with the voters and your guy is SO unpopular that you have to stop the computers in the middle of the election night and change the software to help your guy catch up – AFTER everyone thought the other guy won. Whew! That's a tough one.
If you do that, then there is a pretty good chance the voters will think something is wrong with the election.
If that ever happens, you'll need ALL your friends to come out and work together to fool the public into thinking they're crazy for believing in election fraud "conspiracy theories."
The bad part is that even your sly-as-a-fox friends who wanted to pretend they weren't your friends have to help you, and that could be bad for them. But, that won't really matter much if you win, because once you're in power there are lots more people who will want to be your friends.
So, that's how it works. Happy voting!
Watch a video version of this column:


wnd--2020-11-24--Can 2 parties agree the F-35 is a massive boondoggle?

When Republicans and Democrats actually agree on something that does n't compromise their principles , it better get done .
So why are we continuing to pour billions of dollars down the drain on the wasteful F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program ?
The 2020 budget called for $ 2.1 billion , and bizarrely included more F-35s than the Trump administration actually requested .
The U.S. government already has 600 F-35s .
The JSF program is the most expensive weapons system in history .
When Lockheed Martin landed a contract with the government in 2001 to produce the F-35s , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affordable replacement for the A-10 and the F-16 .
But Citizens Against Government Waste found that the program has been `` plagued with cost overruns , delays , and poor performance . ''
There are many flaws , including seven serious ones ( down from 13 at least ) that could endanger aircrew and aircraft .
The JSF program accounts for 12.9 % of all the earmarks across the 2020 federal budget – even more than last year .
The lifetime operation and maintenance costs will total $ 1.727 trillion , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underestimated expenses .
It has requested $ 78 billion over the next five fiscal years , but the cost analysis unit says $ 88 billion will be needed .
The Pentagon is investigating why the company that is providing the engines , Raytheon Technologies ' Pratt & Whitney division , only reports 3 % in cost savings for recent contracts , while Lockheed Martin found as much as 15.3 % in cost savings for the rest of the plane .
There are plenty of incidents of subcontractors under Lockheed Martin not being held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems with the F-35 arose because the decision to buy it was made before the jet had been fully developed .
Whenever problems were identified after purchase , they had to be fixed , adding to the initial cost .
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in 2015 , then-Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated , `` The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we 're building it . ''
In February 2014 , then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to the purchase of the F-35 as `` acquisition malpractice . ''
The JSF program has a terrible record of tracking and managing spare parts .
This has resulted in $ 300 million for extra labor charges .
GAO auditors found that , from May to November 2018 , F-35s were unable to fly 30 % of the time due to a shortage of spare parts – which were probably just misplaced .
This is an incredible level of mismanagement .
Some of the items found during inspections were not authorized under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ televisions and vehicles , including golf carts .
Many of the parts are made in Turkey .
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked the Pentagon to stop buying from Turkey due to the country 's authoritarian drift under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and its human rights violations in Syria and Iraq .
But the Department of Defense is moving slowly on transitioning to other manufacturers , with some parts from Turkey scheduled to be delivered in 2022 .
Compounding the problem is all the earmarks that have been added to the JSF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease '' research under the Defense Health Program .
The National Guard Counter-Drug Program allows for the use of military personnel in domestic drug enforcement operations .
But the Drug Enforcement Administration already covers this area .
Millions of other dollars in earmarks are going to `` sustainability '' measures .
Members of Congress blatantly admit they are funding this overpriced ripoff in order to stimulate the economy and add jobs .
In fact , the Program On Government Oversight , or POGO , states that `` the program 's architects deliberately scattered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create so many jobs few members of Congress would balk at voting for it .
It 's been called `` too big to cancel . ''
Yes , we need a strong defense , and in recent years ours has been focused on air power .
The F-35 is used by the Air Force , Navy and Marines .
But we are on the verge of withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan and Iraq .
We do n't need a defense program that comes with massive waste .
That is something that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolve the problem , `` Pentagon leaders could go a long way toward solving this dilemma by pursuing simpler programs from the outset .
The pursuit of dazzling yet unproven technologies inevitably results in programs that waste billions of taxpayer dollars on weapons that failed to live up to the lavish promises made at their beginning . ''
There are other large aircraft manufacturers to consider for fighter jets such as McDonnell Douglas and Boeing .
Boeing already produces a similar fighter jet , the F-15EX .
Both the Obama and Trump administrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F-35 , and the Senate Appropriations Committee is calling for more transparency and reports , so there is evidence Republicans and Democrats agree here .
Problems have plagued this program for almost 20 years ; it 's overdue to start looking at an option B instead of continuing down a path of waste .

When Republicans and Democrats actually agree on something that doesn't compromise their principles, it better get done. So why are we continuing to pour billions of dollars down the drain on the wasteful F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program? The 2020 budget called for $2.1 billion, and bizarrely included more F-35s than the Trump administration actually requested. The U.S. government already has 600 F-35s.
The JSF program is the most expensive weapons system in history. When Lockheed Martin landed a contract with the government in 2001 to produce the F-35s, the fighter jet was supposed to be an affordable replacement for the A-10 and the F-16. But Citizens Against Government Waste found that the program has been "plagued with cost overruns, delays, and poor performance." There are many flaws, including seven serious ones (down from 13 at least) that could endanger aircrew and aircraft.
The JSF program accounts for 12.9% of all the earmarks across the 2020 federal budget – even more than last year. The lifetime operation and maintenance costs will total $1.727 trillion, according to Bloomberg. And the Defense Department has underestimated expenses. It has requested $78 billion over the next five fiscal years, but the cost analysis unit says $88 billion will be needed.
The Pentagon is investigating why the company that is providing the engines, Raytheon Technologies' Pratt & Whitney division, only reports 3% in cost savings for recent contracts, while Lockheed Martin found as much as 15.3% in cost savings for the rest of the plane. There are plenty of incidents of subcontractors under Lockheed Martin not being held accountable for costs.
Many of the problems with the F-35 arose because the decision to buy it was made before the jet had been fully developed. Whenever problems were identified after purchase, they had to be fixed, adding to the initial cost. Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in 2015, then-Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated, "The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we're building it." In February 2014, then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall referred to the purchase of the F-35 as "acquisition malpractice."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The JSF program has a terrible record of tracking and managing spare parts. This has resulted in $300 million for extra labor charges. GAO auditors found that, from May to November 2018, F-35s were unable to fly 30% of the time due to a shortage of spare parts – which were probably just misplaced. This is an incredible level of mismanagement.
Some of the items found during inspections were not authorized under the program. They include large screen televisions and vehicles, including golf carts.
Many of the parts are made in Turkey. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked the Pentagon to stop buying from Turkey due to the country's authoritarian drift under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and its human rights violations in Syria and Iraq. But the Department of Defense is moving slowly on transitioning to other manufacturers, with some parts from Turkey scheduled to be delivered in 2022.
Compounding the problem is all the earmarks that have been added to the JSF program, ostensibly for "health and disease" research under the Defense Health Program. The National Guard Counter-Drug Program allows for the use of military personnel in domestic drug enforcement operations. But the Drug Enforcement Administration already covers this area. Millions of other dollars in earmarks are going to "sustainability" measures.
Members of Congress blatantly admit they are funding this overpriced ripoff in order to stimulate the economy and add jobs. In fact, the Program On Government Oversight, or POGO, states that "the program's architects deliberately scattered subcontracts across 45 states," apparently to create so many jobs few members of Congress would balk at voting for it. It's been called "too big to cancel."
Yes, we need a strong defense, and in recent years ours has been focused on air power. The F-35 is used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines. But we are on the verge of withdrawing more troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
We don't need a defense program that comes with massive waste. That is something that can be fixed. POGO explains how to resolve the problem, "Pentagon leaders could go a long way toward solving this dilemma by pursuing simpler programs from the outset. The pursuit of dazzling yet unproven technologies inevitably results in programs that waste billions of taxpayer dollars on weapons that failed to live up to the lavish promises made at their beginning."
There are other large aircraft manufacturers to consider for fighter jets such as McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. Boeing already produces a similar fighter jet, the F-15EX. Both the Obama and Trump administrations made reductions in their budgets for the F-35, and the Senate Appropriations Committee is calling for more transparency and reports, so there is evidence Republicans and Democrats agree here.
Problems have plagued this program for almost 20 years; it's overdue to start looking at an option B instead of continuing down a path of waste.


wnd--2020-11-24--Trump to continue fight despite GSA determination

( FOX NEWS ) -- President Trump took to Twitter late Monday to respond to those who see the General @ @ @ @ @ to make federal resources available to Joe Biden ’ s transition team as a sign @ @ @ @ @ losing steam .
The GSA ascertained that Biden , the president-elect , is the “ @ @ @ @ @ election earlier this month .
Trump indicated in an earlier tweet that he directed his @ @ @ @ @ transition , but vowed to keep up the fight and followed up with another late-night @ @ @ @ @ GSA being allowed to preliminary work with Dems have to do with continuing to pursue @ @ @ @ @ will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history ?
” Trump @ @ @ @ @ moving full speed ahead .
Will never concede to fake ballots & “ Dominion .
@ @

(FOX NEWS) -- President Trump took to Twitter late Monday to respond to those who see the General Services Administration’s decision to make federal resources available to Joe Biden’s transition team as a sign that his legal challenge is losing steam.
The GSA ascertained that Biden, the president-elect, is the “apparent winner” of the election earlier this month. Trump indicated in an earlier tweet that he directed his team to cooperate on the transition, but vowed to keep up the fight and followed up with another late-night tweet.
“What does GSA being allowed to preliminary work with Dems have to do with continuing to pursue our various cases on what will go down as the most corrupt election in American political history?” Trump tweeted. “We are moving full speed ahead. Will never concede to fake ballots & “Dominion.”’
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-11-24--Lindsey Graham warns of 'trifecta from hell' if Dems win Georgia Senate

( FOX NEWS ) -- `` A lot 's at stake '' in Georgia 's dual Senate runoff elections on @ @ @ @ @ Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , told “ Hannity ” Monday night .
Graham @ @ @ @ @ Gowdy that if Republicans win one of the two races and keep their majority , @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Budget Committee beginning next year .
However , if Democrats win both races @ @ @ @ @ 50-50 with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris breaking ties , Graham warned that chairmanship would go @ @ @ @ @ I-Vt .

(FOX NEWS) -- "A lot's at stake" in Georgia's dual Senate runoff elections on Jan. 5, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told “Hannity” Monday night.
Graham explained to guest host Trey Gowdy that if Republicans win one of the two races and keep their majority, he will be chairman of the Senate Budget Committee beginning next year.
However, if Democrats win both races and the Senate is split 50-50 with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris breaking ties, Graham warned that chairmanship would go to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-11-26--'Throw the turkey' at holiday guests for gender wrongthink, says news company

( BREITBART ) -- A left-wing writer on a website devoted to “ sex , abortion , parenthood , and @ @ @ @ @ readers to confront Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists — or TERFS — during Thanksgiving gatherings , including @ @ @ @ @ can you do if there ’ s a TERF at your Thanksgiving table ?
We @ @ @ @ @ .
Throw the turkey at them .
If you do not have the upper-body strength @ @ @ @ @ you can opt for something slightly easier to lift like a handful of mashed potatoes @ @ @ @ @ pie also works , and offers an added comedic effect .

(BREITBART) -- A left-wing writer on a website devoted to “sex, abortion, parenthood, and power,” is encouraging readers to confront Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists — or TERFS — during Thanksgiving gatherings, including physical confrontation.
The article states:
So what can you do if there’s a TERF at your Thanksgiving table? We’ve got some ideas. Throw the turkey at them. If you do not have the upper-body strength to throw the turkey, you can opt for something slightly easier to lift like a handful of mashed potatoes or some stuffing. A pie also works, and offers an added comedic effect.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-11-26--Suit threatened against school that won't let student out of class pushing anti-white racism

( THE COLLEGE FIX ) -- A charter school in Nevada has rebuffed a student trying to opt out of @ @ @ @ @ discrimination against whites , according to his mother .
Gabrielle Clark ’ s lawyer warned @ @ @ @ @ Campus in a letter last week that the school was violating mother and son ’ @ @ @ @ @ a “ hostile and divisive educational environment.
” It also claimed Superintendent Steve Popper “ @ @ @ @ @ against Clark and her son “ on multiple occasions ” after they sought an accommodation @

(THE COLLEGE FIX) -- A charter school in Nevada has rebuffed a student trying to opt out of a mandatory class that promotes discrimination against whites, according to his mother.
Gabrielle Clark’s lawyer warned Democracy Prep at the Agassi Campus in a letter last week that the school was violating mother and son’s constitutional rights and creating a “hostile and divisive educational environment.”
It also claimed Superintendent Steve Popper “doubled down and retaliated” against Clark and her son “on multiple occasions” after they sought an accommodation.
Read the full story ›