Zuckerbucks 2.0? States begin banning new private, foreign funding of elections

From Just the News.com (Mar. 16):

Two states are in the process of banning “Zuckerbucks 2.0” – the injection of private money into public election administration – with one focusing on an outright ban, while the other is looking to prohibit foreign funding of elections.

As Indiana has enacted a law to ban a new form of “Zuckerbucks” – also called “Zuckerbucks 2.0” – the Arizona Senate has passed a related prohibition on the foreign funding of elections. Meanwhile, four counties in two other states have left the “Zuckerbucks 2.0” group.

On Monday, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed House Bill 1264 into law, which includes multiple election security measures, such as banning “Zuckerbucks 2.0.”

The new law “[p]rovides that a political subdivision that conducts or administers an election may not join the membership of, or participate in a program offered by, a person who has directly financed certain elections activities,” according to the state legislature’s summary.

The ban on the new form of “Zuckerbucks” comes after four counties have left the latest project involving private funding of election administration.

Two Utah counties and two North Carolina counties have withdrawn from the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a project of the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). There are currently 11 cities and counties across eight states that remain in the alliance. One of those counties, Coconino County, is in Arizona.

The alliance is awarding funds to counties and municipalities under its Centers for Election Excellence program. According to CTCL in 2022, the alliance is providing $80 million over five years “to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration.”

The alliance aids elections offices that are part of its program by “identifying the election office’s unique challenges and goals, then, where permitted, we provide them with customized resources, coaching, implementation support, and grant funding to advance their nonpartisan goals related to improving the voting experience.”

CTCL poured about $350 million into local elections offices managing the 2020 election, with most of the funds donated to the nonprofit by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The nonprofit has claimed its 2020 election grants — colloquially known as "Zuckerbucks" — were allocated, allegedly without partisan preference to make voting safer amid the pandemic.

However, a House Republican investigation found that less than 1% of the funds were spent on personal protective equipment. Most of the funds were focused on get-out-the-vote efforts and registrations.

Controversy ensued in part of the disproportionate private funding "Zuckerbucks" funneled to Democratic jurisdictions. Opponents claim the imbalance helped sway the 2020 election in Biden's favor, and asa result, 27 states have either restricted or banned the use of private money to fund elections, while 12 counties have also restricted or banned the funds, according to the Capital Research Center.

The Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1374 on Monday, then sent it over to the state House. The bill “[r]equires a person to provide certification that the person is not the knowing recipient of foreign donations before entering into any agreement with a government entity to provide goods or services relating to elections administration.”

This legislation is related to “Zuckerbucks 2.0” because CTCL received nearly $25 million in 2020 from New Venture Fund, according to the Capital Research Center. New Venture Fund, which is the largest nonprofit created by the Arabella Advisors network, received $57.8 million from nonprofits started by Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, according to a report by Americans for Public Trust.

Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Action, told Just the News on Wednesday that Indiana is “first in the nation” to ban “Zuckerbucks 2.0,” while the Arizona Senate is doing so by focusing on foreign funding.

Snead explained that the Arizona Senate bill is “basically making it impossible for a membership-type program” like the alliance “to recruit” an election office “if it can't certify” that the program is “free of foreign funding.”

He added that the Arizona bill appeared to pass along party lines, noting that “after years of railing against foreign interference in elections, you have liberal lawmakers voting to keep elections open to foreign influence,” probably because they’re “benefiting from foreign funding.”

CTCL didn't respond to a request for comment. [source]

Good. More states should do this.

How To Blow Up the Middle East War in Five Easy Steps

From Victor Hanson.com (Oct. 3):

When Joe Biden became president, the Middle East was calm. Now it is in the midst of a multifront war.

So quiet was the inheritance from the prior Trump administration that nearly three years later, on September 29, 2023—and just eight days before the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis—Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan could still brag that “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”

So, what exactly happened to the inherited calm that led to the current nonstop chaos of the present?

In a word, theocratic Iran—the nexus of almost all current Middle East terrorism and conflict—was unleashed by Team Biden after having been neutered by the Trump administration.

The Biden-Harris administration adopted a 5-step revisionist protocol that appeased and encouraged Iran and its terrorist surrogates Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

The result was a near guarantee that something akin to the October 7 massacres would inevitably follow—along with a subsequent year of violence that has now engulfed the Middle East.

First, on the 2020 campaign trail, Biden damned long-time American ally Saudi Arabia as a “pariah.”

He overturned the policies of both the previous Obama and Trump administrations by siding with the Iranian-supplied terrorist Houthis in their war on Saudi Arabia.

Biden accused the kingdom of war crimes, warning it would “be held accountable” for its actions in Yemen. Biden-Harris took the murderous Houthis off the U.S. terrorist list.

Almost immediately followed continuous Houthi attacks on international shipping, Israel, and U.S. warships—rendering the Red Sea, the entryway to the Suez Canal, de facto closed to international maritime transit.

Worse still, by the time of the 2022 midterms, when spiraling gas prices threatened Democratic congressional majorities, Biden opportunistically flipped and implored Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to lower world prices before the November election. Appearing obnoxious and then obsequious to an old Middle East ally is a prescription for regional chaos.

Second, Biden-Harris nihilistically killed off the Trump administration’s “Abraham Accords.” That diplomatic breakthrough had proven a successful blueprint for moderate Arab nations to seek détente with Israel, ending decades of hostilities to unite against the common Middle East threat of Iran.

Third, Biden begged Iran to reenter the appeasing, so-called Iran Deal that virtually had ensured that Iran would eventually get the bomb.

Worse yet, it dropped oil sanctions against the theocracy, allowing a near-destitute Iran to recoup $100 billion in profits. And it greenlighted $6 billion in hostage ransoms to Tehran.

An enriched Tehran immediately sent billions of dollars in support and weapons to the anti-Western terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to attack Israel, Americans, and international shipping. Iran soon began partnering with China and Russia to form a new anti-American axis.

Biden-Harris also fled abruptly from Afghanistan, abandoning billions in weapons and American contractors. The humiliation thus virtually destroyed American deterrence in the Middle East, inciting enemies and endangering friends.

Fourth, Biden-Harris restored hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the West Bank and Gaza, but without any guarantees that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas would desist from their past serial terrorist acts.

In the case of Hamas, U.S. and Western “humanitarian aid” simply freed up more fungible dollars in Gaza to arm Hamas and to expand its subterranean tunnel complex essential to its October 7 massacres and hostage-taking.

Fifth, from the outset of the ensuing increased tensions, Biden-Harris began pressuring the Israelis to act “proportionally” in responding to the massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and nearly 20,000 missiles, rockets, and drones launched at their homeland from Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Such straitjacketing of our closest Middle East friend further signaled the Iranian-backed terrorists that there was now “daylight” between the U.S. and its closest regional ally. That opportunity provided still further incentives for Iran to test just how far it could safely go in attacking Israel.

But why did Biden-Harris so foolishly ignite the Middle East?

In part, the administration naively tried to resurrect the old, discredited Obama administration notion of ‘creative tension’—of empowering a rogue Iran and its terrorists to play off Israel and the moderate Arab regimes, as a new sort of balance of power in the region.

In part, Biden-Harris was caving to increased anti-Semitism at home and the rise of powerful, pro-Palestinian groups on U.S. campuses and in critical swing Electoral College states.

In part, Biden-Harris was naïve and gullible. The two bought into the anti-Americanism and anti-Israel boilerplate of our enemies. So, they thought to make amends by seeing Iran and its terrorists as the moral equivalent of democratic, pro-American Israel.

Their malignant legacy is the current Middle East disaster. [source]

So, true. All this mess because the Briben-Harris regime wanted to undo President Trump’s legacy of peace.

Jack Smith’s J6 Report Is A Deep State Vehicle For Impeaching Trump A Third Time

From The Federalist.com (Oct. 3):

Former President Donald Trump can expect to fight impeachment efforts again pending a second term this November.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page report unsealed Wednesday is the Steele Dossier 2.0, an anonymously sourced manifesto compiled to warrant deep state investigations into former President Donald Trump with the ultimate aim of tossing him out of the White House.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed the report to be filed last week after Smith submitted an updated indictment in response to new case law regarding presidential immunity. The Supreme Court ruled this summer that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts in office, forcing the Department of Justice to recalibrate its case against the Republican presidential nominee. Earlier this month, however, Judge Chutkan acknowledged the case would likely go to trial well after the election, and possibly after the start of the new administration.

The summary of the evidence of the former president’s alleged crimes related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, represents Smith’s final Hail Mary to convince Americans of Trump’s guilt — even as voters are already turning in ballots. The report, filed and made public within 60 days of an election, serves no legitimate legal purpose, as the special counsel desperately attempts to thwart Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

“Smith was clearly eager to get this out before the public despite Justice Department policies that encourage prosecutors to avoid acts that would be viewed as trying to influence an election,” wrote George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley on X.

“In some ways …” wrote former prosecutor and National Review Editor Andrew McCarthy, “Smith’s public submission is better than a trial.”

Trials are messy and unpredictable; prosecutors’ written descriptions of what they hope to prove are often compelling and damning. That is why, at a trial, the judge routinely instructs the jury that an indictment and proffers by a prosecutor are only allegations; they are not evidence, they are not subject to cross-examination, and they prove nothing. Here, by contrast, there will be no cautionary instructions.

As Election Day draws near, “Smith’s allegations will be used by Democrats and repeated by the media as if they are established fact, the conclusions of a searching, exacting probe by a Justice Department special counsel.”

If Trump were to win, Smith is certain to continue the deep state lawfare campaign even after the election, likely challenging any effort for the president to pardon himself. In other words, Smith’s persistent prosecution laid out in the 165-page filing is the Democrats’ “insurance policy” against another Trump presidency.

The Democrats hatched plans to impeach Trump on day one of his presidency, and formally conducted a second impeachment trial by the time he was out of office. There is no evidence to suggest the next four years will be any different. Only this time, Trump’s opponents are starting with three criminal trials already underway, in D.C., Georgia, and New York (where a Manhattan jury already voted this year to convict the former president). Democrats are only planning to escalate their legal crusade against Trump after the election, as is made clear by Smith’s political 165-page report. [source]

There's no need to do this. Pretty dirty. Definitely an attempt at election interference.

Another article on the report: Jack Smith's new filing on Donald Trump.

5 takeaways from the Vance-Walz VP debate

From The Hill.com (Oct. 2):

Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) met face-to-face in New York City on Tuesday in the first and likely only vice presidential debate of the election cycle, a high-stakes moment that comes a little more than a month before Election Day.

The two candidates clashed on a range of issues, from abortion to immigration to foreign policy. But the forum was notably more civil and policy-focused than the debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump that took place last month.

It’s unclear how much the event will move the needle, but it could be the last time voters will see a debate involving the top of the ticket before November. Harris has pressed her rival for another showdown, but so far Trump has insisted he won’t do another.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s vice presidential debate. 

Vance shows his debate skills

Vance went into the debate with arguably higher stakes than Walz. The Ohio senator has stoked controversy and ridicule for promoting unfounded conspiracies about Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, and for past remarks about “childless cat ladies.”

But Tuesday night, Vance put to rest — at least temporarily — any doubts as to why Trump picked him to be his running mate.

A Yale-trained lawyer, Vance was clearly in his element Tuesday night, easily batting away potentially tricky questions and at one point challenging the moderators over their fact-checking of his Springfield remarks.

His polished delivery drew a stark contrast with Walz’s sometimes rocky performance, while his emphasis on his humble upbringing in Ohio was a clear effort to appeal to the sort of voters who might have been turned off by the controversy surrounding him.

It was just the sort of shot in the arm Vance needed, having entered the debate with lower favorability numbers than his Democratic counterpart. 

Walz stumbles with answer on China story 

The Minnesota governor had a more uneven night Tuesday, something that was underscored by his awkward answer regarding claims that he had been in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.

News outlets including APM Reports and Minnesota Public Radio recently reported that evidence suggested Walz was actually in China later that year, in August, contradicting his claims.

Asked to address the discrepancy between his remarks and recent reporting, Walz struggled to offer a succinct answer, noting that he could sometimes be a “knucklehead.”

“Look, my community knows who I am,” Walz said. “They saw where I was at. They — look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I’ve tried to do the best I can, but I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times, but it’s always been about that.”

Pressed again, Walz said, “All I said on this was, is I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just — that’s what I’ve said.”

“So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest, went in, and from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance,” he added.

Republicans have ramped up scrutiny on details of Walz’s life since he joined the Democratic ticket, including his military service and his family’s fertility journey.

Walz also failed to land any knockout blows on Vance, whose performance many commentators praised after the debate. [read more]

Vance won the debate. He did real well. Although, he should've not accepted the Left's "gun violence" premise that it's the gun's fault not the person holding the gun. People have been killing each other way before the invention of gun powder.

As for not remembering that Walz didn’t go to China during the Tiananmen Square protests, that’s a lie not a misstatement.  A misstatement is saying he’s “friends with school shooters.” What a knucklehead!

Other articles about the VP debate:

• Five takeaways from the Vance-Walz VP debate: Deportation, China and making nice
• Ridiculous ‘fact check’ of a true statement during CBS debate
• Beyond ‘Defining’ To Shining: 5 Ways JD Vance Flipped The Script
• Senator Vance’s Triumph: President Trump’s Vindication
• O'Reilly Reacts to the Vice Presidential Debate [video]

Democracy Isn’t a Worldview: Politics Can’t Answer Our Deepest Questions

From Breakpoint.org (Nov. 10, 2022):

Though election day is behind us and the direction of the country set, politics will most likely continue to overstep into most of our lives and our culture. After all, the presidential campaign season has already begun.

Without abandoning the political sphere altogether or downplaying its importance, Christians must push back against the all-consuming nature of politics. For many of us, that will mean less time on social media, fewer podcasts, less talk radio and cable news, and more time cultivating our knowledge of Scripture and theology. In this loaded cultural moment, anyone not intentional about what is shaping and forming his or her view of the world is at risk of the political illusion.

Take a recent statement by President Joe Biden, tweeted just before the midterm elections: “Democracy is more than a form of government,” he (or whoever runs his Twitter page) wrote. “It’s a way of being. A way of seeing the world. A way that defines who we are, what we believe, and why we do what we do. Democracy is simply that fundamental.”

In other words, to lightly paraphrase the president, democracy is a worldview. But is that true?

On one hand, the quasi-religious tone used to describe a system of government is a bit like The Washington Post’s melodramatic slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Popular sovereignty is not a “way of seeing the world” that “defines who we are, what we believe, and why we do what we do” any more than the market economy or trial by jury are worldviews. Instead, each is a reflection of prior values, which are shaped by deeply held beliefs about reality. We do things (like voting) that are important to us, and they’re important to us because of how we see the world.

In other words, the president had it exactly backwards. He’s assuming that democracy determines how we view the world. In reality, democracy (or any form of government) emerges from a certain set of assumptions about the world: assumptions about the dignity and importance of individuals, created equalities, and the lack of a divine right to rule as a monarch. Each of these assumptions are, by the way, historically rare.

Even more importantly, the American variety of democracy assumes that there are inalienable rights that cannot be infringed on by popular vote. That assumption is behind the Bill of Rights, as well as Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation. If we don’t assume and commit to certain truths about the world prior to democracy, it will devolve into mob rule, something both unsustainable and unjust. If you don’t believe that, the French have a guillotine or two to sell you.

Because America’s founders did understand this, they didn’t give us a pure democracy, on either federal or state levels. Instead, they gave us a democratic republic (“if you can keep it”). In fact, their writings reveal how much they feared pure democracy and considered it a terrible form of government (“two proverbial wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”).

Democracy isn’t a worldview: It’s worldview dependent. The laws a democratic society produces depend on the worldviews of the people who vote and legislate. To treat democracy like a fundamental source of values and a way of seeing reality is to misunderstand democracy, government, and the human condition. Also, it is asking a political system to answer questions it cannot. It’s simply not big enough.

My kids used to play a game called “Topple,” in which a plastic plate-like thing is balanced precariously on a stick. Players then take turns adding little disks to slots on the plate until it can no longer hold all of them and it topples. Today, we are playing a cultural game of “Topple Politics,” loading it with all kinds of expectations and problems it cannot handle.

In a sense, we’ve loaded politics with all the expectations of a worldview. But politics cannot bring salvation, determine morality, provide ultimate meaning, or secure our relationships. Politics should reflect what is good and true, but it cannot define or sustain what is good and true. If we continue to load it up with so much of our lives, it will topple, and the result will be a mess.

This government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has brought the world a lot of good. It’s a privilege to vote, and we should take it seriously as a way of loving God and our neighbors and upholding our God-given rights. These ideas, however, only come from a Christian worldview, which actually is big enough to answer life’s most fundamental questions. [source]

Good article. To sum up, a gov’t type flows from the powers-that-be’s understanding of human nature.

8 Democrats vote to ax Biden’s EV rule

From The Hill.com (Sept. 20):

Eight Democrats voted with House Republicans in favor of overturning a Biden administration rule that’s expected to force automakers to make a significant portion of their fleet electric.

The Democrats who voted in favor of overturning the rule were Reps. Yadira Caraveo (Colo.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), and Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska).

All eight Democrats represent districts that are highly competitive in this fall’s election.

One Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), voted with the rest of the Democrats against axing the rule. Fitzpatrick also represents a competitive district, though it is rated as likely Republican by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

The effort is not expected to actually result in the rule being eliminated; if the resolution that passed the House 215-191 makes it past the Senate, President Biden would veto it.

The vote will help Republicans emphasize their opposition to Biden’s effort and draw a contrast between the parties ahead of the election.

The rule in question does not expressly mandate electric vehicles (EVs), but it does force companies that manufacture cars and small trucks to meet certain fleet-wide emissions standards.

These standards would be impossible to meet without a shift away from gas-powered cars and toward other types like electric vehicles and hybrids.

One projection from the Biden administration said the rule could mean that 56 percent of new vehicle sales are electric in 2032 while just 29 percent are gas-powered — but the actual outcome depends on how automakers choose to go about meeting the emissions standards.

In a statement on the vote, resolution sponsor John James (R-Mich.) described the Biden rule as an “out-of-touch regulation that will crater the Michigan auto industry and decimate our middle-class, and most vulnerable.”

In a statement outlining its opposition to Friday’s resolution, the White House said the rule would mitigate climate change, benefit public health by reducing pollution, and allow the U.S. to take the lead in EV manufacturing.

“The rule is supported by U.S. automakers and autoworkers and disapproval of the rule would jeopardize development in a critical technology sector, ceding the electric vehicle and battery future to global competitors like China,” the statement said.

Electric vehicles have been a major issue on the presidential campaign trail, as both sides seek to make their case to workers in swing states like Michigan that their policies will improve the economy. [source]

Good!  Let the market decide. More Dems should have voted in overturning the stupid rule even though the bill may not get passed the Senate and Biden (and probably Comrade Kamala if she was president) would veto it.

Over 1,000 Hezbollah members injured by exploding pagers in Lebanon — hack or sabotage suspected

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 17):

At least 1,000 Hezbollah members across Lebanon were injured in what appeared to be a simultaneous attack that caused pagers to explode, several reports have indicated.

After videos and imagery of exploded devices and injured Hezbollah members circulated online, Hezbollah put out several statements condemning the apparent attack.

The group said that the detonations killed two of its fighters and a girl and are carrying out an investigation.

Lebanon's Ministry of Health also urged citizens to discard pagers if they owned them and put hospitals on "high alert," per CNN.

Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, was reportedly injured from an explosion as well. According to Al Jazeera, Hezbollah is claiming the explosions were part of a coordinated hack-and-detonate operation using the pagers.

However, the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the pagers were from a new shipment that Hezbollah received in recent days.

The Independent said that the pagers were the latest model brought in by Hezbollah as well but within recent months. The outlet cited three security sources.

No matter the timeframe, these claims point to an interception of the pagers that allowed them to be tampered with before they made it to the Hezbollah forces.

Tech and cyber-security expert Josh Centers said that it was more likely that the assailants "intercepted the shipment and installed remote detonated explosive devices in the pagers."

"No matter who the culprit, this is a known tactic and the U.S. government has been shown to do something similar with networking equipment," he added.

Centers pointed to a 2014 report by Glenn Greenwald that explained how the NSA implanted devices in internet routers.

The outlet Clash Report claimed the pagers that exploded were manufactured by Motorola, citing a document from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Motorola Solutions is a supplier of communications products to the Israeli military and is listed on several anti-Israel websites as a company that should be boycotted.

"Motorola provides the Israeli military with a 4G cellular network and has developed encrypted communication systems for military personnel," the report said.

One video posted to X showed an explosion in a market allegedly in Lebanon from either a man's laptop bag or from a device on his hip. He appeared to be the only person injured from the detonation.

Another image showed an injured man on a moped with a wound on his side, allegedly from another exploded pager.

Security forces have said more than 1,000 were wounded, with 50 ambulances and 300 emergency medical workers tending to the injured.

The most targeted areas were the towns of Ali Al-Nahri and Riyaq, according to Lebanese state media, which are Hezbollah strongholds.

The apparent attack comes after Israel claimed it had killed Fuad Shukr, a Hezbollah commander, in a recent airstrike in Beirut. [source]

Nice. Sucks to be them. That's what they get for being so evil.

More articles on the exploding pagers:

• This Is the Most Deliciously Devious Part About Israel's Exploding Pager Attacks
• The pager attack in Lebanon.