Thread: Leaked Soros Memo: How to Advance Obama’s Use of Executive Action

I am beginning to think we should offer Assange amnesty, he has done more to expose the political corruption than any politician or enforcement agency. Rather him than this old, in my opinion, criminal.

Leaked Soros Memo: How to Advance Obama’s Use of Executive Action

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

by AARON KLEIN
7 Sep 2016

NEW YORK – Just prior to the November 2014 midterm elections, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations held a board meeting at which the organization discussed how it could further the use of President Obama’s executive action authority to bypass Congress during Obama’s final two years in office.

Notably, the event featured a lunch session with Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

The details were contained in a 67-page hacked file detailing the September 29-30, 2014 Open Society U.S. Programs board meeting in New York. The file was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

States the document: “Confident that open society goals can be advanced despite the political forecast for the remainder of the president’s term, our grantees are actively involved in exploring the possibilities of executive action in areas of USP (Open Society Foundations’ U.S. Programs) concern, including racial profiling, the census, and voter registration.”

The board meeting’s minutes state outright that Soros’s organization was seeking ways to “further” the use of potential executive actions by Obama:

There are two years remaining in the Obama Administration, and it is projected by all that the anticipated results of the fall elections will make legislative accomplishments of significance nearly impossible. U.S. Programs (USP) grantees, and the OSF (Open Society Foundations) network more broadly, are thinking about how the administration can cement progress on key priorities through executive actions, while also minimizing problematic developments with long-term consequences.

Using three anchor grantees and a former senior administration official as discussants to detail their views of priorities and constraints, we will consider both the most promising substantive areas for executive action (in areas from transparency to criminal justice to wage and labor rules) as well how OSF might effectively further these.

Foundation grantees are “actively involved” in exploring the use of presidential executive actions, the document related:

Confident that open society goals can be advanced despite the political forecast for the remainder of the president’s term, our grantees are actively involved in exploring the possibilities of executive action in areas of USP concern, including racial profiling, the census, and voter registration.

The Foundations’ U.S. Programs had already begun to influence Obama’s executive action efforts, the document relates:

Whatever the outcome of next month’s elections, analysts expect continued gridlock in Congress, making any policy reforms that require legislation extremely unlikely. The President has telegraphed his determination to make progress on his priorities through administrative regulations and procedures; as he put it, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
USP has begun to influence the administration’s efforts, as evidenced by our central role in launching the philanthropic partnership to the White House’s My Brother’s Keeper Initiative to promote opportunity for boys and men of color, as well as our ongoing efforts to encourage broad administrative relief to some segment of the undocumented population following the elections.

The Foundations’ memo discussed areas of possible executive action that could fundamentally impact the U.S. political system.

There are some areas of executive action that have especially long-lasting consequences (e.g., nominations) and other steps which would be critical to framing issues for the 2016 election and the next president. How do we balance the relative merits of each approach?

The document notes the public pays less attention to executive decisions during a president’s final two years, believing the president’s powers are on the decline.

“Some of the most significant achievements of the Reagan, Clinton and Bush presidencies took place in their final two years. The public may pay less attention to the Executive then, and the president’s perceived power may be on the wane, but he continues to possess the same, significant constitutional authority.”

Muñoz, who served on the Foundations’ U.S. Programs board in 2008, joined the September 2014 board meeting to “discuss the Obama administration’s approach to select issues (criminal justice, immigration) and the remainder of his term,” according to a summary provided by the hacked memo.

The possible executive actions being pushed are “sophisticated in their approaches, which range from broad and large-scale proposals to ideas more likely to fly under the radar,” the hacked file states. “Our anchor partners, in particular, are thinking about how best to leverage the last two years, during which the President will have to adjust to ‘lame duck’ status.”

The Open Society, together with partner grantees, assembled a general list of potential presidential executive actions on numerous issues, such as the following:

Voter registration, including pushing online voting:

• Direct Health and Human Services to ensure that the federally facilitated health-care exchanges created as part of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) incorporate voter registration opportunities as required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, or “Motor Voter Act”), and direct federal agencies to find ways to increase voter participation nationwide.
• Issue guidance interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to accessibility of polling places, privacy when voting, and competence requirements.
• Assist states with voter registration modernization efforts, including statewide database improvements, vote by mail, online registration and voting, and same-day registration.
• Direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to develop new data collection points that provide greater insight into county-based Election Administration and the ways in which voters interact with election systems (i.e., number of votes cast, type of voting machines used, provisional ballot statistics, etc.)

It should be noted that in January 2014, Obama’s 10-person Presidential Commission on Election Administration released its recommendations for reforming the U.S. election process, including transitioning to voting via tablet computers and other technologies.

The commission recommended:

Software-only products can be integrated with off-the-shelf commercial hardware components such as computers, laptops, tablets, scanners, printers, and even machine-readable code scanners and signature pad products.
Tablet computers such as iPads are common components of these new technologies. They can be integrated into the check-in, voting, and verification processes in the polling place.

The commission highlighted new technologies in which the voter can “pre-fill” sample ballots at home to be scanned later at the polling place.

Obama’s presidential panel dismissed concerns about hacking. The commission stated: “The fact that a tablet or off-the-shelf computer can be hacked or can break down does not mean such technology is inherently less secure than existing ballot marking methods if proper precautions are taken.”

Meanwhile, other executive actions recommended by the Foundations include the following on judicial nominations:

• Continue to prioritize racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of federal judicial nominees, and focus on nominating lawyers with a diverse professional background as well.
• Encourage Senate leadership to continue to support simple majority votes for cloture on judicial nominees and a reduction in the number of debate hours on judicial nominees.
• Reform the Senate Judiciary Committee deference to the “blue slip” procedure when there is inaction/obstruction by home-state senators that lead to lengthy delays in the nomination process.

On so-called criminal justice reform, Soros’s group drafted the following possible executive action ideas:

• Direct the Justice Department to identify federal prisoners to whom the Fair Sentencing Act would retroactively apply, and recommend commutations for all those eligible, barring exceptional circumstances.
• Issue an executive order to “ban the box” on federal agency job applications, except for law enforcement positions.
• Direct the Attorney General to issue new guidance banning discriminatory law enforcement techniques.
• http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...utive-actions/

Leaked Memo: George Soros Foundation Seeking to Expand U.S. Online Voting


by Aaron Klein9 Sep 2016

NEW YORK – George Soros’s Open Society Foundations is seeking to expand the use of electronic and online voting systems nationwide, according to a leaked Foundations document reviewed by Breitbart News.

• 
  While the directive was issued two years ago, the issue of electronic voting has become a hot button topic in this year’s presidential election amid fears digital voting systems can be compromised.

The online voting plan was contained in a 67-page hacked file detailing the September 29-30, 2014 Open Society U.S. Programs board meeting in New York.

A significant portion of the board meeting was dedicated to methods the Foundation’s U.S. Programs (USP) could use to further the use of President Obama’s executive action authority to bypass Congress during Obama’s final two years in office.

The Open Society, together with partner grantees, assembled a general list of potential presidential executive actions on numerous issues. Significantly, the Soros-backed group zeroed in on the expansion of online voting.

States the document:

“USP will continue to fight against efforts to restrict voting rights, while supporting steps to improve voter participation and modernize voting procedures, such as on-line and same-day registration and expanded early voting. The Brennan Center, Demos and other grantees have engaged in litigation to expand access to registration and improve ease of voting.”

The document listed a number of executive action steps that the Obama administration could take to “ensure greater participation by eligible voters,” including online voting:
• Direct Health and Human Services to ensure that the federally facilitated health-care exchanges created as part of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) incorporate voter registration opportunities as required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA or “Motor Voter Act”), and direct federal agencies to find ways to increase voter participation nationwide.
• Issue guidance interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to accessibility of polling places, privacy when voting, and competence requirements.
• Assist states with voter registration modernization efforts, including statewide database improvements, vote by mail, online registration and voting, and same-day registration.
• Direct the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to develop new data collection points that provide greater insight into county-based Election Administration and the ways in which voters interact with electoral systems (i.e., number of votes cast, type of voting machines used, provisional ballot statistics, etc.)

In January 2014, Obama’s 10-person Presidential Commission on Election Administration released its recommendations for reforming the U.S. election process, including transitioning to voting via tablet computers and other technologies.

The commission recommended:
Software-only products can be integrated with off-the-shelf commercial hardware components such as computers, laptops, tablets, scanners, printers, and even machine-readable code scanners and signature pad products.

Tablet computers such as iPads are common components of these new technologies. They can be integrated into the check-in, voting, and verification processes in the polling place.

The commission highlighted new technologies in which the voter can “pre-fill” sample ballots at home to be scanned later at the polling place.

Obama’s presidential panel dismissed concerns about hacking. The commission stated: “The fact that a tablet or off-the-shelf computer can be hacked or can break down does not mean such technology is inherently less secure than existing ballot marking methods if proper precautions are taken.”

Those concerns may have been dismissed too soon. Two weeks ago, NBC News cited intelligence officials revealing hackers purportedly based in Russia recently attempted to breach state voter registration databases twice. One of the hacking attempts resulted in the lifting of up to 200,000 voter records in Illinois, according to the officials.

The breach prompted the FBI to issue an unusual nationwide “flash” alert warning states to take immediate measures to beef up the security of their online voting-related systems.

Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson held a conference call with state election officials related to the matter.

Also last month, Johnson was quoted as saying during a media conference call hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that DHS should consider whether to designate the U.S. election system as a “critical infrastructure.”

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Johnson said.
“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he added.

On Thursday, however, Johnson downplayed concerns that hackers could alter the ballot count during the presidential election.

“It would be very difficult through any sort of cyber intrusion to alter the ballot count, simply because it is so decentralized and so vast,” Johnson said. “It would be very difficult to alter the count.”

The Hill poured cold water on Johnson’s optimistic assessment.

The publication contended:
Despite Johnson’s claims, however, hackers would not necessarily need to alter a particular vote count in order to inject chaos into the U.S. electoral system.

Merely tainting the integrity of the voting system might be enough to sow discord in the U.S on Election Day. In other words, even if hackers do nothing, simply claiming to have altered the results could cause the public to doubt the results.

And hackers might be able to alter ballot counts in swing districts where the outcome might have oversized importance.

Meanwhile, this is not Soros’s only attempt to meddle in U.S. election affairs.

A May 2014 USP board meeting document discussed the goal of expanding the U.S electorate by “at least 10 million voters.” The document, first publicized by the Washington Free Beacon, stated the voter expansion goal would be accomplished “by lowering barriers to voter registration through the various forms of modernization and increased ballot access while sustaining and expanding the franchise by establishing strong protections against vote suppression, denial and dilution.”

Ten million new voters are low ball numbers. The Soros-funded Brennan Center was mentioned in the September 2015 board meeting document reviewed by Breitbart News as engaging with other Soros grantees “in litigation to expand access to registration and improve ease of voting.”

Brennon’s website has an entire section dedicated to “Voter Registration Modernization,” explaining its goal is to use voter modernization to add 50 million more voters to the rosters.

The website states:
The Brennan Center’s signature proposal to modernize voting would harness proven technology to ensure that every eligible voter is permanently registered. The move would add 50 million to the rolls, cost less, and curb the potential for fraud. Already, 48 states and the District of Columbia — without fanfare or partisan wrangling — have implemented important elements of the plan.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...ting/?AID=7236

Obama Civil Rights Commissioner Dances On Soros Funding Strings, Leaked Emails Show

She's also the head of what...?

Joe Saunders September 1, 2016

The mainstream media are trying to black them out, but steady leaks of internal documents from liberal billionaire George Soros’s progressive funding network are illustrating just how far the aging financier’s tentacles stretch into American political life.

Whether putting up cash for Black Lives Matter agitators, battling a state trying to protect the integrity of its voting system against Democrat fraud or manipulating the grievance media, Soros and his money — usually big money — can always be found on the wrong side of the argument.

But that’s not all he has in common with Barack Obama, and this newly revealed connection shows just how cozy the two powerful progressives really are and how corrupt is their cooperative enterprise.

One organization Soros is bankrolling to try to rig American elections in favor of Democrat candidates is managed by the same woman Obama appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2014.

That’s not a conflict of interest at all, right?

According to documents obtained by DC Leaks — a website that describes itself as publishing internal documents from “top-ranking officials and their influence agents” — Soros’s Open Society Foundations have funneled millions into a group called the Shelby Response Fund, managed by Obama Civil Rights Commission appointee Karen Narasaki.

Described as a “human rights activist,” Narasaki heads the Soros-financed group named after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2013 Shelby decision, which ruled that acts of discrimination from more than 40 years ago couldn’t justify election laws in the 21^st century.

Since that kind of logical thinking goes against the liberal grain – with the United States still a hateful land where besieged black protesters are trying to cross the bridge in Selma – Soros money is paying for Shelby Response to hit back by fighting state efforts to protect election integrity, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

What matters to Soros, apparently, is not that elections are fair, but that they benefit “voters of color.” What matters to Obama, obviously, is not that someone on his Civil Rights Commission has no conflict of interest, but that the “voters of color” benefit from any conflict that exists.

“The focus of the portfolio, going forward, will be on voters of color—reducing barriers and fighting suppressive measures which impede access to the polls, increasing ease of registration and access to early voting, and improving odds of electing candidates of choice,” one document states, according to the Free Beacon.

“We will also fund affirmative election reform measures that have been shown to better benefit people of color (i.e. same-day registration and early voting.)”

They were successful in that, since North Carolina just lost a court case trying to restrict those exact practices in an effort to prevent voter fraud and protect the integrity of the voting system.

Naturally, manipulating the media plays a big part in this operation as in others where Obama and Soros can influence our political system with whatever means they can get away with. Through Obama’s Civil Rights Commission appointee, Soros funnels money to groups like New America Media, a coalition of “ethnic” media outlets that push progressive storylines.

“New America Media has been quite effective with the small grant it received from the Shelby Response Fund in generating voting stories in the ethnic media” the leaked document states.

So, it sounds like the woman Obama appointed to be on the watchdog agency described as an “independent, bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency” is doing a bang-up job for her real boss, the billionaire liberal George Soros.

But as Investor’s Business Daily notes, not one story about the Soros leaks has appeared in any of the major liberal news outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post or CNN.

It’s really surprising the mainstream media isn’t giving this little arrangement more publicity, isn’t it?

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the...d-emails-show/

DHS election takeover? Agency itself was hacked

Former officer recalls major cyber breach as secretary pushes plan

9/4/16

As the Department of Homeland Security contemplates taking possibly unconstitutional power over the U.S. election system due to the threat of hackers, citizens should consider the fact that the agency itself was the victim of a major cyber intrusion that stole sensitive personal information of thousands of its employees, contends a former DHS officer.

That, combined with a politically correct approach to the Islamic-jihad threat that allows dangerous people to enter the country should be enough reason to reject the plan suggested by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, contends Philip Haney, the co-author with WND News Editor Art Moore of the expose “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”


DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

Johnson said last week that DHS is considering whether or not it should declare the U.S. election system a “critical infrastructure” due to potential cyber threats.

The fear, Haney points out, is that the DHS could overrule powers given to local and state governments to mange their own elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the powers afforded states in the 10th Amendment.

“They certainly don’t have an exemplary record in safeguarding our borders,” Haney told WND. “What gives us confidence they will safeguard our electoral process?”

He noted that DHS “didn’t have the capability of preventing the background paperwork for our secret clearances from being hacked.”

Haney and virtually every one of his colleagues in Customs and Border Protection were informed on June 12, 2015, of the intrusion, which included the theft of Social Security numbers, dates of birth, residencies, educational and employment histories, personal foreign travel histories, immediate families, business and personal acquaintances details, and other information used to conduct background clearances.

“Now, thanks to the American taxpayer, we all have the option of free credit and identity monitoring services,” Haney noted.

Lifezette.com pointed out that Johnson’s remarks came well before the FBI announced last week that hackers had attacked two separate state election boards.

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Johnson said at a media conference hosted by the Christian Science Monitor earlier this month. “There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure.”

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

“If there was to be a change, it should be Congress making it, not a unilateral decision by an agency like the Department of Homeland Security,” Haney said.


Johnson confronted with Haney’s testimony (re removal of 800 muslim brotherhood records)

Haney testified to Congress in June that DHS “purged” his intelligence on terrorist networks in the U.S. because it was deemed offensive to Muslims. He said the Obama administration “modified” or eliminated more than 800 of his records related to the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. and also quashed a case that could have prevented the San Bernardino and Orlando attacks.

On June 30, two days after the hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, confronted DHS Secretary Johnson, asking him if Haney’s testimony was accurate.

“I have no idea,” Johnson replied. “I don’t know who Mr. Haney is. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the room.”

However, as WND reported in January, the Detroit Free Press reported Johnson saying that he not only knew about Haney’s claim, he had read an article the retired DHS officer wrote in The Hill, the influential Capitol Hill newspaper.

In the hearing, Cruz followed up: “So, you have not investigated whether your department ordered documents to be modified?”

Johnson replied: “No, I have not taken the time to investigate what Mr. Haney says. No.”

Cruz then asked Johnson if it would concern him if Haney’s testimony was accurate.

“Senator, I find this whole debate to be interesting, but I have to tell you,” Johnson replied, “when I was at the Department of Defense giving the legal sign-off on a lot of drone strikes, I didn’t particularly care whether the baseball card said Islamic extremist or violent extremist. I think this is very interesting, but it makes no difference to me in terms of who we need to go after, who is determined to attack our homeland.

“I think this is all very interesting, makes for good political debate,” he continued, “but in practical terms, if we, in our efforts, here in the homeland, start giving the Islamic State the credence that they want, to be referred to as part of Islam, or some form of Islam, we get nowhere in our efforts to build bridges with Muslim communities.”

In his book, Haney points out that when the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was “preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism.” But Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders and others began forcing changes to national security policy and even have been invited into the highest chambers of influence. A policy known as Countering Violent Extremism emerged, downplaying the threat of supremacist Islam as unrelated to the religion and just one among many violent ideological movements.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/dhs-elect...6qHxIbeXakf.99