#fraud prevention strategies

[josephkravis]

The U.S. Government's $500 Billion11 Fraud Problem: A Call for Vigilance

The United States is getting scammed out of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. That’s not a typo. Depending on how you measure it, the government may lose anywhere from $233 billion to $521 billion annually to fraud. To put that in perspective, the lower end of this estimate is more than the GDP of Greece. The upper end? That’s approaching the entire annual revenue of Amazon. Let that…

[townpostin]

ICICI Bank & SCCI Host Cyber Fraud Prevention Seminar in Jamshedpur

Chamber event highlights digital payment safety and business growth strategies Jamshedpur entrepreneurs gain insights on cybersecurity, loan facilities, and supply chain management at ICICI Bank seminar, emphasizing vigilance in the evolving digital economy. JAMSHEDPUR – The Singhbhum Chamber of Commerce and Industry collaborated with ICICI Bank to host an educational seminar addressing critical…

[auxpay]

Fraud got you down? Auxpay's your Gatling gun! AI-powered defense & chargeback protection. Win the war! Call now: +1-844-452-1234. #fraudprevention #Payments #paymentprocessing #paymentgateway #auxpay

[darkautomaton]

Integrating Risk Management into Corporate Culture in Hong Kong

As regulatory complexity and economic uncertainty continues rising across Hong Kong and mainland China markets, establishing risk-aware cultures has become pivotal for corporations seeking to embed resilience against crises. Beyond building risk monitoring systems, companies today need to drive mindset shifts from the leadership down to infuse vigilance and responsibility towards hazard identification at all levels.

Cultivating Risk Intelligence Starts at the Top

For most organizations, the cultural transformation necessary to view enterprise risk oversight as a shared culture rather than just a compliance activity starts with Asia regional leaders and Hong Kong senior executives. This means not only investment into formal governance through appointing Chief Risk Officers but also having CXOs like Chief Finance, Information and HR Officers spearhead training to their teams around prevailing risk landscapes and vigilance necessary in day-to-day decision making.

Incentivizing Risk Reporting from the Ground Up

Middle managers and frontline analysts will then carry this risk-aware DNA through the organizational bloodstream into daily processes. This demands establishing transparent reporting channels, securing anonymity and anti-retaliation policies to encourage surfacing of suspected risks through what-if questioning or flagging incidents that seemed“off” without fear. Especially around integrity hazards like fraud/bribery, safety hazards like harassment or mental health situations, or regulatory hazards like IP/data transfer violations, removing stigma is key.

Aligning Strategy and Operations with Risk Perspectives

Ultimately, for a risk-informed culture to stick, considerations around financial, reputational and regulatory exposures should drive strategy planning as well as operational enhancements across everything from supply chain design to cybersecurity to financial controls. Key risk indicators must be integrated into dashboards at multiple levels with drilling down to understand root causes. Frameworks like ISO 31000 or COSO provide blueprints here from setup to ongoing assessments into mitigation tracking.

With leadership setting the tone, transparency enabling ground up risk reporting without repercussions, and strategy/operations reflecting risk learnings - global companies can align around managing uncertainty as Hong Kong/China markets, regulations and technologies rapidly evolve. Risk management thereby transforms from restrictive compliance activity to enabler of sustainable advantage and resilience.

[oponinnovations]

Opon Innovations: Revolutionizing Income Verification for a Seamless Financial Future

In today's digitally connected world, the need for efficient and secure income verification processes has never been greater. Whether you're applying for a loan, renting an apartment, or signing up for a new service, verifying income is a critical step. However, traditional income verification methods have often been slow, cumbersome, and prone to errors. This is where Opon Innovations steps in, offering cutting-edge solutions that redefine income verification in the digital age.

The Importance of Income Verification

Income verification is a fundamental component of various financial transactions. Lenders use it to assess an individual's ability to repay a loan, landlords use it to screen potential tenants, and service providers use it to determine eligibility for their offerings. Accuracy in income verification is crucial for responsible lending, risk management, and ensuring that individuals receive the services they qualify for.

Opon Innovations: A Paradigm Shift in Verification

Recognizing the limitations of traditional income verification methods, Opon Innovations has taken a revolutionary approach to the process. By harnessing the power of advanced technology, they have transformed income verification into a seamless, efficient, and accurate procedure.

Swift and Accurate Verification

Traditional income verification methods often involve manual checks, paperwork, and lengthy processes. Opon Innovations, on the other hand, utilizes advanced algorithms and data analytics to provide swift and accurate income verification. With real-time access to multiple data sources, they can verify income details within seconds, significantly reducing the time and effort required for verification.

Enhanced Fraud Detection

Fraudulent income claims can result in significant financial losses for institutions. Opon Innovations has implemented robust fraud detection measures, including AI-powered algorithms, to identify discrepancies and irregularities in income data. This proactive approach helps prevent fraudulent applications and mitigates risks.

Financial Inclusion

Opon Innovations is committed to promoting financial inclusion. Their user-friendly interfaces and digital verification processes make income verification accessible to a broader audience. This inclusivity is particularly beneficial for individuals with limited access to traditional financial services, ensuring they can access the resources they need.

Customized Solutions

Recognizing that different industries and organizations have unique income verification needs, Opon Innovations offers customized solutions. Whether it's a financial institution, a property management company, or a government agency, their platform can be tailored to meet specific requirements.

Leading the Industry

Opon Innovations' dedication to innovation and excellence has positioned them as leaders in the income verification sector. Their solutions have garnered recognition for their efficiency, accuracy, and impact on the financial industry.

The Future of Income Verification

As the financial industry continues to evolve, so too will income verification methods. Opon Innovations is not just keeping pace with these changes; they are driving innovation and setting new standards for income verification.

In conclusion, income verification is a fundamental process in the financial world, and Opon Innovations is redefining how it's done. With their cutting-edge technology, commitment to accuracy, and vision for financial inclusion, they are shaping the future of income verification. To learn more about Opon Innovations and their pioneering solutions, visit Opon Innovations today. Join them on the journey to a more efficient, secure, and inclusive financial industry.

[mfi-miami]

FAPA Is Facing Well Funded Legal Challenges From Wall Street

Attention New York Homeowners In Foreclosure: FAPA Is Facing Serious Legal Challenges From Deep Pocketed Wall Street Bankers. It has been a little over six months since the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) went into effect. As predicted when it was signed into law, FAPA is now facing serious legal challenges from deep pocketed Wall Street banks. After all, Wall Street sees any law that…

[rukimakino-heirofheart]

Reblog for reach for your non-magireco followers!

[lady-raziel]

Somewhere, in another timeline...Bernie Sanders is finishing out his second term as president.

(a coping-method scenario)

Back in 2016, the Democratic Party saw that denying his appeal and pushing forward with Hillary Clinton would be catastrophic—she didn’t have the appeal, and pushing forward another historic first right after Obama might galvanize the right wing further into feeling that America was no longer “for them.” The potential risk was too great in radicalizing that bloc, and as strange as it seemed, Bernie was the safer choice. He faces Donald Trump in the general election—and many pundits decry the sad state of today’s politics, where the only choices are a “socialist kook” or a reality television star. Trump’s odd mannerisms and morally questionable behavior, however, manage to turn off enough people that they’d rather not vote at all. After careful consideration, the Democrats do decide to take a chance on a female VP running mate (after all, the Republicans had set precedent with Sarah Palin in 2008)-- Senator Amy Klobuchar gets tapped to balance the ticket. With the slightly lower voter turnout on the right, and the left energized with a surging youth vote, Bernie Sanders becomes the 45th president of the United States, and America gets its first female VP with Amy Klobuchar.

Trump, who had honestly never intended on winning anyway, uses the loss as planned to claim fraud and launch his own cable streaming channel- TNN, Trump News Nation- intended as a rival to Fox News. He repeatedly tries to sue over the “stolen” election—this had all been intended to make sorely needed funds for his hemorrhaging business ventures after all. TNN draws massive ratings on launch, but as the months go by, views trickle off as watchers grow exhausted of hearing about politics through the context of Trump’s own grievances. Most filter back to Fox News, where at least the diet of mostly fabricated nonsense and conspiracy theories are varied. TNN’s most viewed show is a variation on the Apprentice, where contestants compete to gain Donald’s political endorsement and “mentorship.” None of the winning show contestants ever end up winning their political races. By 2018, viewership is minimal and stagnant, any ad revenue has dried up, and TNN shutters its doors. Trump moves on to his next failed business grift, fading from public relevance only to be occasionally remembered as “that time a reality tv personality ran for president…can you believe that happened?” American politics forgets him as another failed presidential candidate, and the GOP moves on, reexamining their strategy after losing to a Democrat once again.

Bernie’s presidency isn’t all sunshine and roses. The young progressives who voted him in find themselves frustrated with the lack of sudden progressive changes he’s actually able to make due to the constraints of the presidency—one still needs to work with Congress, after all. And Washington doesn’t exactly warm up to the formerly Independent senator with a leftist bent quickly. But landmark bipartisan legislation on climate change that includes concessions to congressional Republicans on taxes proves to be very successful. Despite controversy on some of the legislation's corporate tax restructuring (part of Republican demands), the tax cuts and benefits for the vast majority of Americans have appeal to even those who questioned the value of climate change measures.

By the 2020 election, Bernie’s favorability is substantial, in addition to a boost from quick action in tackling a small, ultimately containable new virus. Regardless, Bernie is able to leverage providing funds for vaccine research to help contain and prevent future outbreaks to drug companies, in exchange for negotiating price caps on certain drugs. The combined result is more than enough to hand him a win in 2020 against Ted Cruz—who’s off-putting “serial killer vibes” and right-leaning deep Texas persona prove to be buzzkills for the GOP’s attempt at leaning right as a rebrand.

The fields for both parties are packed in the 2024 primaries—but ultimately Senator Cory Booker clenches the Democratic nomination, and the Republicans take a chance on Representative Liz Cheney, hoping that the combination of the Cheney name and a female candidate a la the Sarah Palin gambit will be what’s needed to turn their losing streak around. It’s a tight race, in the end—pundits pontificate on how “polarized” the nation has become, as rhetoric flies about the Cheney legacy and calling Liz everything from a warmonger to “the worst candidate America has ever seen who will do serious damage to the heart of the nation.” Voters on the left debate the potential of the first female president vs rehashed talking points from the Bush era and the legacy of wars in the Middle East.

The pick of Booker by the Democratic establishment, who are fairly eager to regain control over the nomination process and candidate selection after having to cede control and allow Bernie's candidacy last time, ultimately reflects that the party and elites have not learned the lesson 2016 should have impressed upon them. Instead of allowing the voters interests to shape the primaries, they continue to wield control and painstakingly fixate over the specific demographics of candidates, trying to find the right "mix" that they think moderate voters will "tolerate." Booker, despite his accomplishments, is ultimately the victim of this, as he doesn't have the revolutionary appeal of Obama, despite frequently being painted as "Obama 2.0." The Democrats fail once again to learn that what voters truly care about is not a candidate fitting certain demographic boxes, but the strength of their ideas and narrative.

Ultimately, the voters go with Liz Cheney, who historically becomes the first female president of the United States. Republicans are jubilant at taking back the White House (and that they were able to claim a historic first and deny Democrats the honor-- not that they'd say it outright, since they'd sought to strike a contrast between running Cheney just as a candidate and not as a woman). Despite the outcome of the election, it's unclear whether the Democratic establishment finally learns that lesson-- or retreats into itself pointing fingers and throwing blame at "not picking a female and losing credibility as the party of progress." Rumors had been flying that Hillary was going to try again—ultimately turning out to be false (but perhaps not entirely untrue-- she had been approached and was considering it). Some Democrats point out that "progress" should be expressed through innovative and progressive policies that will APPEAL to different demographics, instead of ignoring stagnant policies to focus on demographics alone...time will tell if their voices are heard.

As for Joe Biden, one of the longstanding members of the political sphere, after serving as Obama's VP, he retires to his home in Delaware, only occasionally being seen at major political events here and there. The largest amount of attention he gets is a moment in 2021 that spawns many, many memes-- a viral video is captured of Biden enjoying an ice cream when it falls to the floor, at which point the former VP stares at the melting cone and declares "I'm Dark Brandon." No one has any clue what he's talking about, and it's written off as just another "Uncle Joe" gaffe. Other than that, not much is heard from Biden. People do say, however, that occasionally the man stares off into the distance with a far-off look of horror, as if he is somewhere else entirely...and witnessing something awful.

As Cheney is sworn in as president, the progressive corners of the internet mourn, citing the actions of Dick Cheney and decrying that this new administration might be "the death of democracy." A viral Tweet (yes, TWEET) with millions of likes reads "bruh this has to be the darkest timeline, there's no way this could be any worse 😫"

(If only they really knew...)

[meret118]

Last Thursday, he demanded that Republicans insert into must-pass budget legislation that’ll be considered in the next two or three weeks a provision that would demand that every state require absolute proof of citizenship to register to vote. Right now, this is largely confined to red states. “I would shut down the government in a heartbeat if they don’t get it and if they don’t get it in the bill,” Trump told Monica Crowley on her podcast.It’s already a felony in every state for noncitizens to cast a ballot. The simple reality is that there’s never been a noncitizen “voter fraud” problem in America—or any other advanced democracy—so there’s no need for a “solution.”

What Republicans know, however, is that the lower a person is on the economic ladder, the less likely they are to have kept or have easy access to the kinds of documentation of birth and citizenship necessary to meet the GOP’s anti–voter fraud registration requirements.

And the poorer a person is, the more likely they are to vote Democratic.

Republicans also know that millions of women are seriously pissed off about the Dobbs decision, particularly in the 20 Republican-controlled states with bans on abortion. This demand for proof of citizenship to prevent “voter fraud” is the main way the GOP is now expanding its suppression efforts to women. The National Organization for Women notes: “Voter ID laws have a disproportionately negative effect on women.… Roughly 90 percent of women who marry adopt their husband’s last name. That means that roughly 90 percent of married female voters have a different name on their ID than the one on their birth certificate. An estimated 34 percent of women could be turned away from the polls unless they have precisely the right documents.”

Many women won’t have them, won’t be able to track them down, or can’t afford to replace them, so millions will just shrug and go back to their lives, figuring that “just one less vote” won’t make that much difference.

Claiming widespread noncitizen “voter fraud” is the GOP’s primary go-to strategy to prevent people from voting or even registering to vote, and every day it seems they come up with new ways to exploit it. As Crystal Hill pointed out Wednesday at Democracy Docket, “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued one of the state’s most populous counties to block its plan to mail out over 200,000 voter registration forms to residents, claiming the move will ‘facilitate [voter] fraud.’”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Nichols at The Nation:

Donald Trump has made no secret of his determination to govern as a “dictator” if he regains the presidency, and that’s got his critics warning that his reelection would spell the end of democracy. But Trump and his allies are too smart to go full Kim Jong Un. Rather, the former president’s enthusiasm for the authoritarian regimes of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Tayyip Erdoğan, and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán suggests the models he would build on: managing elections to benefit himself and his Republican allies; gutting public broadcasting and constraining press freedom; and undermining civil society. Trump, who famously demanded that the results of Georgia’s 2020 presidential voting be “recalculated” to give him a win, wants the trappings of democracy without the reality of electoral consequences. That’s what propaganda experts Edward Herman and Frank Brodhead once described as “demonstration elections,” in which, instead of actual contests, wins are assured for the authoritarians who control the machinery of democracy. The outline for such a scenario emerges from a thorough reading of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, which specifically proposes a Trump-friendly recalculation of the systems that sustain American democracy. The strategy for establishing an American version of Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” is not spelled out in any particular chapter of Mandate. Rather, it is woven throughout the whole of the document, with key elements appearing in the chapters on reworking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In the section on the DHS, for instance, there’s a plan to eliminate the ability of the agency that monitors election security to prevent the spread of disinformation about voting and vote counting.

How serious a threat to democracy would that pose? Think back to November 2020, when Trump was developing his Big Lie about the election he’d just lost. Trump’s false assertion that the election had been characterized by “massive improprieties and fraud” was tripped up by Chris Krebs, who served as director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the DHS. The Republican appointee and his team had established a 24/7 “war room” to work with officials across the country to monitor threats to the security and integrity of the election. The operation was so meticulous that Krebs could boldly announce after the voting was finished: “America, we have confidence in the security of your vote, you should, too.” At the same time, his coordinating team declared, “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.” This infuriated Trump, who immediately fired the nation’s top election security official.

In Mandate’s chapter on the DHS, Ken Cuccinelli writes, “Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinformation efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth.” Cuccinelli previously complained that CISA “is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections.” As for the team that worked so successfully with Krebs to secure the 2020 election, the Project 2025 document declares that “the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One.” The potential impact? “It’s a way of emasculating the agency—that is, it prevents it from doing its job,” says Herb Lin, a cyber-policy and security scholar at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.

This is just one way that Project 2025’s cabal of “experts” is scheming to thwart honest discourse about elections and democracy. A chapter on public broadcasting proposes to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as part of a larger plan to upend NPR, PBS, and “other public broadcasters that benefit from CPB funding, including the even-further-to-the Left Pacifica Radio and American Public Media.” More destabilizing than the total funding cut that Project 2025 entertains is a parallel plan to end the status of NPR and Pacifica radio stations as “noncommercial education stations.” That could deny them their current channel numbers at the low end of the radio spectrum (88 to 92 FM)—a move that would open prime territory on the dial for the sort of religious programming that already claims roughly 42 percent of the airwaves that the FCC reserves for noncommercial broadcasting. And don’t imagine that the FCC would be in a position to write new rules that guard against the surrender of those airwaves to the Trump-aligned religious right.

[...]

While project 2025 seeks to rewire the FCC to favor Trump’s allies, it also wants to lock in dysfunction at the Federal Election Commission, the agency that is supposed to govern campaign spending and fundraising. Established 50 years ago, the FEC has six members—three Republicans and three Democrats—who are charged with overseeing the integrity of federal election campaigns. In recent years, however, this even partisan divide has robbed the FEC of its ability to act because, as a group of former FEC employees working with the Campaign Legal Center explained, “three Commissioners of the same party, acting in concert, can leave the agency in a state of deadlock.” As the spending by outside groups on elections “has exponentially increased, foreign nationals and governments have willfully manipulated our elections, and coordination between super PACs and candidates has become commonplace,” the former employees noted. Yet “the FEC [has] deadlocked on enforcement matters more often than not, frequently refusing to even investigate alleged violations despite overwhelming publicly available information supporting them.”

John Nichols wrote in The Nation about how Project 2025’s radical right-wing wishlist of items contains plans to wreck and subvert what is left of America’s democracy.

See Also:

The Nation: June 2024 Issue

[misfitwashere]

The single most important thing to listen for in tonight's debate

The Roots of Trumpism, Part 11

ROBERT REICH

OCT 1

Nixon and Teamsters president Frank Fitzsimmons 

Friends,

Tonight, JD Vance will almost certainly try to out-Trump Trump, setting himself up to be Trump’s heir and likely Republican presidential candidate four years from now. 

Listen carefully to Vance and you’ll probably also hear shades of Richard M. Nixon, because it was Nixon who first began peeling blue-collar workers away from the Democratic Party. Trump and Vance are the lineal descendants of Nixon — as well as Nixon aides Chuck Colson and Pat Buchanan.

Nixon wanted to undo FDR’s New Deal coalition and claim the mantle of the white working class for himself and the Republican Party. Using racism and cultural populism, he made some headway, which Ronald Reagan built upon. Trump and Vance are the latest manifestations. 

The decision of the Teamsters Union not to endorse any presidential candidate this year has roots in that Nixonian strategy. The Teamsters endorsed Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and George H.W. Bush in 1986. 

Some years after Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa went to prison for jury tampering, conspiracy, and mail and wire fraud, Nixon henchman Colson helped negotiate Hoffa’s release. When in prison, Hoffa had named as his successor Frank Fitzsimmons, who became one of Nixon’s strongest supporters. 

Nixon and Colson wanted the Teamsters and other unions to break with the Democrats. The Vietnam War provided the first big opportunity. 

Colson can be heard on a White House tape recording made on May 5, 1970, urging several New York union leaders to organize an attack on student anti-Vietnam War protesters in New York. 

Two days later, on May 8, more than 400 construction workers attacked around 1,000 student demonstrators (including two of my friends) protesting the war. The workers were armed with lengths of steel rebar, their tools, and steel-toe boots. They carried U.S. flags and chanted “U.S.A., all the way” and “America, love it or leave it” as they chased and assaulted students in the streets.

More than 100 people were injured; most required hospital treatment. My friends who had been demonstrating against the war phoned me later that day. They had escaped injury, but they were traumatized. I remember them describing the rioting construction workers as a “pack of animals.”

Nixon exploited the riot for political advantage. His chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, wrote in his diary: “The college demonstrators have overplayed their hands, evidence is the blue-collar group rising up against them, and [the] president can mobilize them.” 

Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan wrote in a memo to his boss that “blue-collar Americans” are “our people now.” 

Peter Brennan, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, claimed “the unions had nothing to do with” the riot, but his claim was bogus. Just before the riot began, Brennan rallied construction workers to show support for the war. Brennan explained that workers were “fed up” with violence and flag desecration by anti-war demonstrators. 

In the days after the riot, Nixon invited Brennan and a delegation of 22 other union leaders to the White House. They presented Nixon with several hard hats and a flag pin, after which Nixon praised the “labor leaders and people from Middle America who still have character and guts and a bit of patriotism.”

After the 1972 election, Nixon appointed Brennan labor secretary. In that position, Brennan strongly opposed affirmative action. He also prevented Labor Department officials from investigating allegations of corruption in the Teamsters Union and of Fitzsimmons, who had helped secure labor support for Nixon’s reelection.

Colson’s dirty work didn’t end with the hardhat riot. He assembled Nixon’s “enemies list” — people who would be subject to intensified IRS audits.

Colson also hired E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA agent, to spy on Nixon’s political opponents. Hunt then led a break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building in June 1972. (Colson later became the first member of the Nixon administration to be imprisoned for Watergate-related felonies.) 

Nixon thought he could succeed by emphasizing cultural issues involving nationalism and class as well as race and gender. Buchanan said the Republican Party should embrace these growing working-class resentments. “The Republican moment [depends on the GOP taking] up the challenge from the left on its chosen battleground: the politics of class, culture, religion, and race.” 

The construction workers who attacked the demonstrators on May 8, 1970 and the police who egged them on were more likely to have family and friends in Vietnam than the college students who demonstrated. Many were veterans of World War II and Korea. They also lived in the same working-class neighborhoods. They despised the protesters as a bunch of pampered, long-haired, draft-dodging, flag-desecrating snots.

These blue-collar workers felt abandoned by the middle class and the college-educated who deserted their communities; they felt stiffed by the clever kids with draft deferments; they resented being forced to bus their kids to Black neighborhoods and accept Black kids into their schools; and they were burdened by an economy no longer delivering upward mobility. As the journalist Pete Hamill observed at the time, the workingman “feels trapped and, even worse, in a society that purports to be democratic, ignored.”

Buchanan ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and in 1996. Although he lost both times, he won about a third of the Republican primary vote, chiefly from the party’s blue-collar members. He ran again in 2000. Although he lost once more, his ideas began taking root in the party. He argued that Republicans should oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement, take a stronger stand against immigration, and support Russian president Vladimir Putin because he was anti-gay.

Buchanan’s rallies prefigured Trump rallies two decades later. The crowds he drew included many men wearing military fatigues. The press corps traveling with Buchanan were reviled and subjected to the same verbal threats that have become commonplace today. 

The cultural populism peddled today by Trump and JD Vance is almost the same as that of Nixon, Colson, and Buchanan — and with the same purpose: to capture an angry and disaffected working class. 

But I believe Republican cultural populism would never have got this far had Democrats been more willing to follow FDR and embrace economic populism. (More on this to come.)

[anotherdayforchaosfay]

Lucky for the Republicans who run the House, few Americans are paying attention to their antics of late, given the focus on the presidential race. Here’s what they’re up to: busily exemplifying the definition of insanity — doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

“Led” by Speaker “MAGA Mike” Johnson, Republicans yet again are threatening by their actions to shut down the government. After their extended summer recess, they returned after Labor Day and set out to score preelection points — egged on by Donald Trump — rather than seriously trying to pass legislation to keep the government funded. And they’re doing this just weeks before the Oct. 1 start of a new fiscal year, though they’ve had months to pass regular bills funding federal operations to avoid a last-minute grab-bag.

Their doomed strategy — and they know it’s doomed — is a familiar one: Attach a pet right-wing priority onto the funding package and try to force the Democratic Senate majority and President Biden to accept it under deadline pressure. Except the House Republicans don’t have enough votes to pass the package, given the opposition of party defectors as well as Democrats.

In past years, Republicans’ “poison pills” on funding bills have included proposals targeting Obamacare, abortion rights, immigrants and transgender people. This time immigrants are their target again. They are demanding a law requiring Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Voting by noncitizens is already a crime and one that virtually no one commits.

Yet for this meritless cause, House Republicans would bring the government to a halt.

There is a silver lining. The fiscal follies are a welcome preelection reminder of Republicans’ inability to govern, and why voters should strip them of their majority in November.

The current saga is also a reminder that, if Republicans do keep their majority and Trump becomes president, they’ll act as an extension of his sorry White House — not as the independent branch of government the founders intended.

Trump publicly issued his all-caps marching orders just hours ahead of his debate last week with Kamala Harris. In a social media post Tuesday, he characterized the proof-of-citizenship requirement as an “Election Security” measure necessary to prevent Democrats from cheating. Consider it a preview of his fraud claim should he lose to Harris.

Without the citizenship proof, Trump wrote, Republicans in Congress “SHOULD, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, GO FORWARD WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET. THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO 'STUFF' VOTER REGISTRATIONS WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS. DON’T LET IT HAPPEN - CLOSE IT DOWN!!!”

The speaker complied, though you’d think Johnson would be getting tired of being humiliated by his party and its leader, just to stay in Trump’s good graces. His Trump-blessed bills never seem to be extreme enough for the farthest-right faction in the House (they never vote for spending bills anyway), and yet the measures are too extreme for endangered Republican moderates. (Moderates is a relative term when it comes to House Republicans.)

Lacking enough support for his budget bill, Johnson canceled a House vote on Wednesday, saying he needed more time for “family conversations” with Republicans. If he corrals his slim majority and the bill does pass, it’s DOA in the Senate.

And the follies continue.

Only last November, just after his election as speaker, the all-but-impotent Johnson addressed a Christian nationalist group and compared himself to Moses, divinely chosen to lead House Republicans — and America — to some political promised land.

At the Museum of the Bible in Washington, Johnson told the group a lengthy tale about how, amid House Republicans’ jockeying to replace ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, God awakened him in the night and told him to be ready for a “Red Sea moment.” Then, after Republicans rejected other speaker candidates over several weeks, God awoke him again, Johnson recounted. “The Lord said, ‘Now step forward.’”

“Me?” Johnson asked. Him. He did God’s will, and he’s been doing Trump’s, or trying to, ever since.

We know how the funding fight will end: with Republicans’ retreat. They won’t pass the bill, Johnson will accept a compromise — just as McCarthy had to, relying on Democrats’ votes — and they won’t shut down government right before an election. They’re eager to get home to campaign.

After two more weeks of partisan scuffling, right up to or beyond the midnight Sept. 30 deadline, Congress likely will pass a three-month bill, free of partisan add-ons, funding the government until mid-December. Biden will sign it. Then the House and Senate will return after the election for a lame-duck session and fight right into the holiday season over a longer-term spending measure, against the backdrop of the new Congress that starts in January.

And there’s where the follies could end. Democrats have long been favored, slightly, to regain control of the House, and their takeover prospects improved after Harris replaced Biden atop the party’s ticket. If voters strip House Republicans of the majority, the far-right extremists will be relegated to the backbench where they belong. “Moses” Johnson will be retired as speaker. And Democrats, led by their leader, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, will school the Republicans on how a bill actually becomes law.

A Democratic House, and the first Black speaker. That’s the ticket.

[acceptccnow]

High-Risk E-Commerce: Maximizing Sales with Credit Card Payments

Article by Jonathan Bomser | CEO | Accept-Credit-Cards-Now.com

In today's digital age, e-commerce reigns supreme in the business world. Yet, for enterprises operating within high-risk industries, the e-commerce payment landscape can be challenging to navigate. This is where High-Risk Credit Card Payments come into play as a crucial asset. This article explores how accepting credit card payments can revolutionize high-risk e-commerce. We will delve into strategies that span payment processing solutions to merchant accounts, with a focus on maximizing sales and achieving success within the high-risk e-commerce domain.

DOWNLOAD THE HIGH-RISK E-COMMERCE INFOGRAPHIC HERE

Broaden Customer Reach in High-Risk Sectors Industries characterized as high-risk, such as credit repair and CBD, necessitate the adoption of credit card payments. Offering this payment option not only extends your customer base but also fosters trust. It streamlines payment processing, making it accessible and efficient, which, in turn, instills confidence in customers, encouraging them to make purchases.

The Vital Role of High-Risk Merchant Accounts High-risk e-commerce demands a specialized approach. High-Risk Merchant Accounts are tailored to the unique needs of industries prone to elevated risks. These accounts incorporate features like chargeback protection and fraud prevention, serving as essential tools for high-risk business operations.

Efficient High-Risk Payment Processing Solutions High-Risk Payment Processing solutions cater to the distinctive requirements of high-risk businesses. They simplify payment acceptance, thus reducing the likelihood of transaction issues. The incorporation of a High-Risk payment gateway ensures that sensitive customer information is handled securely, instilling further confidence in your business.

The Significance of E-Commerce Payment Processing Efficient payment processing lies at the core of e-commerce businesses, whether they operate within the high-risk domain or not. Credit card payments play a pivotal role in this payment processing. By providing a seamless e-commerce payment experience, you enhance the overall shopping process, which, in turn, leads to increased sales and heightened customer satisfaction.

Leveraging SEO for Success in High-Risk E-Commerce In the highly competitive e-commerce arena, search engine optimization (SEO) should not be underestimated. The inclusion of pertinent keywords, such as High-risk credit card processing and accept credit cards for e-commerce, boosts your website's visibility. SEO optimization attracts potential customers actively seeking your products or services.

High-Risk Credit Card Payment Services for Businesses Payment processing is a constantly evolving field, with high-risk industries requiring adaptable solutions. High-Risk Credit Card Payment Services continuously adapt to cater to these distinctive demands. Keeping yourself informed and partnering with the right service providers, whether for CBD merchant processing or credit repair payment processing, is pivotal for sustained success.

In conclusion, high-risk e-commerce enterprises can thrive by embracing High-Risk Credit Card Payments. By offering credit card payments, you broaden your customer base and establish trust, streamline payment processing, and position your business for lasting success in the high-risk e-commerce realm.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Early Sunday morning, the USWNT exited the World Cup in the first round of the knockout stage, losing to an overmatched Sweden team on penalty kicks at the conclusion of a 0-0 tie. It marked the worst finish for the American women’s team in World Cup history.

Our national team has been ranked No. 1 in the world since June 2017 and for all but 10 months since March 2008. The squad has never been ranked lower than No. 2. In the Round of 16, Sweden conquered a dynasty.

Close observers were not surprised. The team has been in mental decay since Carli Lloyd retired (2020) and corporate media anointed the purple-haired Rapinoe as the unquestioned face of American women’s soccer.

For the last three years, the 38-year-old winger has used the team’s spotlight to grow the Rapinoe brand. The game, the competition, and representing national honor all took a back seat to self-promotion, virtue-signaling, so-called social activism centered around the BLM-LGBTQ-Alphabet Mafia, and expressing Trump derangement.

Rapinoe’s handlers and major corporations partnered with corporate media to cast her as “The Great Gay Hope,” the alternative-lifestyle Muhammad Ali.

Mia Hamm, Abby Wambach, Carli Lloyd, and Alex Morgan were all better players than Rapinoe. But none of them can match Rapinoe’s knack for drawing attention to herself for sleeping with women — her superpower, the behavior that makes her a legendary icon.

To no surprise, the strategy backfired. Rapinoe acted as a locker-room cancer. She diminished the importance of competition. Throughout the World Cup, the U.S. women failed to play with passion and precision. In four games, they scored four goals and won just one match.

On Sunday, with a chance to off Sweden with a penalty kick, Rapinoe missed the entire net wide right. She smirked and laughed in embarrassment. Two other U.S. women missed their kicks as well. But those women earned their spots on the roster. Rapinoe was on the team and on the field because of social pressure and a never-ending marketing campaign. She hadn’t earned the right to fail. The opportunity was bestowed on her.

When asked for her greatest memory of her “legendary” career, she pointed to the lawsuit she and her teammates filed against the U.S. Soccer Federation over alleged pay inequality. Gender pay inequality is a myth and a lie, no different from other popular corporate media narratives like climate change and the alleged genocidal homicide of unarmed black men.

But the truth is irrelevant in the making of an Alphabet Mafia icon. Megan Rapinoe is the George Floyd of soccer. Racism and sexism are the only things that prevented them from being president and vice president of the United States.

Or maybe Rapinoe is just another narcissistic, greedy, entitled celebrity.

Could you imagine Joe Montana or Michael Jordan summarizing their careers by referencing a contract dispute?

Rapinoe is a fraud. She’s the Colin Kaepernick of soccer. Her attitude poisoned the women’s national soccer team. Let’s hope her side effects don’t linger.