George Soros network pushed “Islamophobia” propaganda after San Bernardino jihad massacre

BY ROBERT SPENCER

“ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.”

For years I have wondered why every single mainstream media reporter I have ever encountered was completely in the tank for the “Islamophobia” myth, and wholly unconcerned about jihad terrorism. Now we know why: they were bought and paid for. These revelations should bring the whole elite media superstructure tumbling down. It won’t, but every new push brings it closer to collapse.

“Hacked Memos: George Soros Network Hyped ‘Islamophobia’ After Muslim Terror Attacks,” by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, September 28, 2016:

NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.

Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.

One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.

The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.

Here are some actions, as cited in the document:

*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.

*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.

* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.

* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.

* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”

The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.

The document reveals:

Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.

US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.

The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.

Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”

According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:

Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.

Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

LATIMES POLL: CLINTON ENDS SEPTEMBER DOWN 5 POINTS…

BY ARMAND EMANDJOMEH AND DAVID LAUTER

The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” poll tracks about 3,000 eligible voters until election day, asking on a regular basis about their support for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or other candidates as well as their likelihood of actually casting a ballot.

We update the data each day based on the weighted average of poll responses over the previous week. That means results have less volatility than some other polls, but also means the poll lags somewhat in responding to major events in the campaign. More about the poll and why it differs from others.

Who would you vote for?

We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-02-27-am

By age

Voters 35-64 have so far shown the least volatility, splitting about evenly between Clinton and Trump. Trump holds the advantage among those 65 or older. The two candidates have exchanged leads among younger voters.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-03-36-am

By education

Trump holds an advantage among voters without a college degree. White voters who have not graduated from college are a core source of support for Trump. By contrast, Clinton has done better among voters with college degrees than previous Democrats.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-05-11-am

By income

Clinton holds a distinct edge among lower-income voters, reflecting her strong support among blacks and Latinos. Trump has a lead among middle-income voters.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-06-23-am

By race/ethnicity

Disaffected white middle-class voters have been the backbone of Donald Trump’s presidential run, as the poll shows. Black and Latino voters lean heavily toward Clinton. Trump’s statements critical of Mexicans in the U.S. illegaly have harmed him politically among Latinos.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-07-33-am

By gender

Trump saw a significant bounce in his support from women after the Republican convention, but Clinton rebounded quickly after her convention. Trump’s support among men has remained fairly steady.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-08-34-am

Who do you think will win?

We ask voters who they expect to see win, regardless of which candidate they support. Over the years, asking voters their expectation about which candidate will win often has proved to predict elections more reliably than asking how they plan to vote. That’s particularly true when the election is still many weeks away.

Do you intend to vote?

Turnout is a key factor in any election, but may be particularly central in this one. If one candidate’s supporters are less committed to turning out than the other’s, that could point to an important weakness.

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-11-11-25-am

Investigation launched after dead people are registered to vote in Harrisonburg

BY GRAHAM MOOMAW

Harrisonburg officials and the FBI are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud after officials say almost 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.

Harrisonburg Registrar Debbie Logan said Thursday that investigators have found from 18 to 20 potentially fraudulent registrations. The Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office confirmed Thursday that an investigation is underway, but offered no additional details on the case.

The applications were turned in by a voter registration group called HarrisonburgVOTES, officials said. The group’s representatives could not be reached for comment Thursday. No charges have been filed.

*

The Breeze, the student newspaper of James Madison University, reported that the applications were submitted by a student working for the group. The problem came to light when an employee in the registrar’s office noticed a new registration had come in from Richard Claybrook Sr., the late father of a well-known local judge.

*

“When they used a distinguished resident of Harrisonburg’s name and address, it came to the attention of an employee who has worked in the city for many years,” Logan said.

“We were pretty disgusted that they would use his name,” Richard Claybrook Jr. said of his father, who died in 2014. “He was a retired educator and had served in World War II. He was always a law-abiding citizen.”

*

Logan said applications using a deceased person’s real name and address but a false social security number would not be flagged in the voter system.

*

The fraudulent voters are still technically registered as the investigation continues, Logan said, but if her office receives an absentee ballot from one of the dead voters, it would react appropriately. Logan said she expects the State Board of Elections and her local electoral board will allow her to cancel the registrations before the Nov. 8 election.

Republican lawmakers held a news conference call Thursday to call attention to the investigation, which they said proves voter fraud is real and validates their push for strong voter ID laws.

*

“Often times we hear our Democrat colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia or is a myth,” said House Speaker William H. Howell, R-Stafford. “Well it does indisputably exist.”

*

“If it hadn’t been for the vigilance of a citizen, this fraud effort may never have been uncovered until it was too late,” said Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania, who chairs the House Privileges and Elections Committee.

*

Others weren’t convinced that the case represents a close brush with election fraud.

Del. Marcus B. Simon, D-Fairfax, said it’s “very disingenuous” to suggest the applications were part of a large-scale fraud, because votes would have to be cast either in person by elderly impostors or through absentee ballots sent to real home addresses.

“There’s no way any reasonable person could conclude that this was part of an effort to actually cast votes for people that aren’t able to cast votes,” Simon said.

UN: ‘END TRUMP’ USA TODAY: STOP HIM!

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-10-42-40-am

USA TODAY’s Editorial Board: Trump is ‘unfit for the presidency’

The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We’re doing it now.

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

POLICE SHOOT 6-YEAR-OLD AUTISTIC BOY DEAD, BUT HE’S WHITE SO NO ONE CARES

There won’t be any protests over this

SEPTEMBER 30, 2016

Police officers shot and killed a 6-year-old autistic boy during an incident in Louisiana, but the boy was white, wasn’t holding a gun and didn’t have a long criminal record, so don’t expect any protests or national media attention.

Video footage of last November’s fatal shooting of Jeremy Mardis by two deputy city marshals (pictured below) was shown in court on Wednesday.

Police claim they chased the boy’s father Christopher Few after he had an argument with his girlfriend and that Few used his vehicle as a weapon, prompting them to open fire.

“However, state District Court Judge William Bennett said the video doesn’t show Few using his car as a “deadly weapon” at the time of the shooting,” reports CBS News.

The clip posted above appears to back this up. The officer seems to be shooting at a stationary car while Few is clearly seen with his hands up.

Mardis, who had autism, died at the scene after suffering multiple gunshot wounds while his father survived. Police claimed they were chasing Few because of an outstanding warrant, although it was later confirmed that there were no outstanding warrants against him.

While ‘Black Lives Matter’ demonstrators will stage riots, attack reporters and burn down cities over the shooting deaths of black victims who invariably turn out to have either been carrying a gun or resisting arrest, saying “all lives matter” is racist, so there will be no protests over Mardis.

His death will not be spun into a grand narrative and used by the media to whip up hysteria because the boy’s skin isn’t the right color.

Mardis’ mistake was to not have accrued a long violent criminal record and posted pictures of himself on Facebook acting like a gang member. If the 6-year-old boy had done so, he may have got more sympathy from the media and BLM,

But just like the five white people killed by cops on the same day that Keith Scott was shot dead, police brutality is ignored unless it can be exploited for race-baiting, divisive, political purposes.