• Ted Deutch Calls Out Fellow Democrats for Leniency on Ilhan Omar’s ‘Anti-Semitic Lies’

    Ted Deutch Calls Out Fellow Democrats for Leniency on Ilhan Omar’s ‘Anti-Semitic Lies’

    Democratic Florida Rep. Ted Deutch criticized Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar on Thursday for spreading “classic anti-Semitic lies” and said his fellow House Democrats aren’t doing enough to hold her accountable.

    Deutch criticized Democrats for changing a House resolution condemning anti-Semitism to include other forms of hate.

    “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism? Why can’t we call out anti-Semitism and show that we’ve learned the lessons of history? It feels like we’re only able to call the use anti-Semitic language by a colleague of ours, any colleague of ours, if we’re addressing all forms of hatred. And it feels like we can’t call it anti-Semitism, unless everybody agrees it’s anti-Semitism,” Deutch said in a passionate speech on the House floor. READ MORE...

  • Majority of House Democrats Vote to Let 16-Year-Olds Vote for President

    Majority of House Democrats Vote to Let 16-Year-Olds Vote for President

    A majority of House Democrats on Wednesday voted to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.

    A number of high-profile Democrats voted in favor of the legislation, including California Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters, and Ted Lieu; Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib; and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

    Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley introduced the legislation Tuesday evening as an amendment to House Democrats’ For the People Act, which would overhaul federal election laws. READ MORE...

  • Democratic Congresswomen Want to Lower Federal Voting Age to 16

    Democratic Congresswomen Want to Lower Federal Voting Age to 16

    Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley on Tuesday evening introduced legislation to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.

    Pressley cited teen activists pushing for gun control as a reason for giving 16-year-olds the right to vote, which the congresswoman compared to having a driver’s license.

    “Young people are at the forefront of some of our most existential crises,” Pressley added. “The time has come. Our young people deserve to have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”

    Two other Democratic congresswomen, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and New York Rep. Grace Meng, offered their support for Pressley’s legislation.

    “I’m committed to making sure we empower young people to build our future together. Giving them the power to vote will help build a more equitable and just future,” Meng said in a statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday.

    Tonight I’m testifying before @RulesDemocrats to argue why it is important to lower the voting age to 16 with @RepPressley! Our young people can work and pay taxes. Let’s also make sure they can make their voices heard by voting in all elections. 1/2

    — Grace Meng (@RepGraceMeng) March 6, 2019

    I’m committed to making sure we empower young people to build our future together. Giving them the power to vote will help build a more equitable and just future. I urge my colleagues to include the Meng/Pressley amendment to lower the voting age to 16 in #HR1! #ForthePeople 2/2 https://t.co/o4tdqW3ON9 READ MORE...

  • Linda Sarsour Attacks ‘White Feminist’ Nancy Pelosi

    Linda Sarsour Attacks ‘White Feminist’ Nancy Pelosi

    Women’s March Co-Chair Linda Sarsour on Monday night attacked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as a “typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men,” in response to a House resolution condemning anti-Semitism.

    House Democrats announced the resolution on Monday after Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s latest anti-Israel comments, which critics—including other Democrats—have denounced as anti-Semitic.

    “This is why we wanted Congresswoman Barbara Lee to be the Speaker of the House and ‘progressives’ were like nah, Pelosi is a leader and omg you should see how she claps. What a clap!” Sarsour wrote in a lengthy Facebook post.

    “Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men. God forbid the men are upset—no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos,” she wrote.

    Sarsour accused Democratic leaders of responding more quickly to anti-Semitism than to anti-Muslim rhetoric, and claimed the resolution would only help Republicans.

    “Democrats are playing in to the hands of the right. Dividing our base and reinforcing their narrative and giving them an easier path towards 2020,” Sarsour wrote.

    “I reject this. I will speak out. I won’t be silent. I am not following this. They don’t speak for me as a Democrat. No more double standards.”

    Women’s March has been plagued by its own anti-Semitism issues, including its leaders support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious racist and anti-Semite.

    An investigation published by Tablet Magazine in December revealed Women’s March leaders repeatedly made anti-Semitic remarks, including spreading conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for the slave trade.

    The investigation also found that Women’s March used Nation of Islam members for their security.

    Sarsour was unapologetic about the Farrakhan controversy as recently as January, when she taped a podcast with left-wing media outlet Democracy Now.

    Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

    Source link

  • PragerU Brings New Suit Against Google in California State Court

    PragerU Brings New Suit Against Google in California State Court

    Conservative nonprofit PragerU filed suit against Google in California court on Tuesday for allegedly violating state law in restricting access to Prager’s educational videos on YouTube, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    The suit claims that YouTube’s restrictions on many of Prager’s videos violate California law in four ways: restricting the nonprofit’s freedom of speech contrary to the state constitution; discriminating against Prager on a religious and political basis in violation of the state’s civil rights act; “engaging in unlawful, misleading, and unfair businesses practices” contrary to the state’s unfair competition laws; and breach of contract for violating YouTube’s own terms of service.

    Many of Prager’s videos have been placed in “restricted mode,” which often makes them unavailable for users who are part of or using a larger network, such as networks operated by schools, libraries, and public institutions. The suit also claims that YouTube capriciously and discriminatorily demonetized Prager’s videos, depriving Prager of earning advertising revenue from its videos.

    Prager previously filed suit against Google, YouTube’s parent company, in federal court. That suit lost at the district level and is currently pending on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Attorneys for Prager said they filed the second suit at the state level on the recommendation of the federal judge in the first case.

    “We originally filed a lawsuit that had two federal claims, one under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the other for unfair competition and advertising under the Lanham Act,” said lead PragerU attorney Peter Obstler.

    “We also filed five claims in that lawsuit under California law, including a free speech claim under the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution that takes a much broader view of state action. We also filed state law claims for discrimination under the Unruh Act; unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices; and breach of contract.”

    “We’ve taken an appeal to the 9th Circuit on the merits of the two federal law claims, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. In other words, the court made very clear that the state law claims were dismissed out of deference to state law courts, that the state courts should decide issues of their own law—not the federal court,” Obstler continued.

    “Today we’ve come full circle by filing a state law action, as the judge requested we do, in a state court to litigate those issues there. So we’re now going to have a two-track litigation.”

    PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said she remains optimistic about the federal case but added that “there is reason to believe certain claims are even stronger in California. Specifically claims relating to YouTube’s breach of contract and consumer fraud.”

    “They claim to be a public forum for free expression, but they behave instead as a publisher with editorial controls. You cannot have it both ways,” Streit said.

    Prager has previously battled censorship from Facebook, as well as Google. Nine Prager videos in a row received zero views on Facebook and two were deleted for allegedly violating the company’s “hate speech” policies in August. Facebook later apologized for its censorship of Prager, which the tech giant said was done “mistakenly.”

    Representatives for Google did not return a request for comment in time for publication.

    Prager’s full complaint can be viewed here.

    Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

    Source link

  • Democrat Senator Worries His Party Is Going Too Far Left

    Democrat Senator Worries His Party Is Going Too Far Left

    Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., is worried his party is alienating moderate voters by moving too far to the left.

    “If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism,” Coons said in a speech on Thursday, according to U.S. News and World Report.

    “And we’ve got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions.”

    Coons also warned that the growing Democratic push to abolish Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, which enforces the nation’s immigration laws, is counterproductive.

    “Abolish ICE is too easily mocked as open borders and no law enforcement,” the senator warned.

    “Instead of having something that makes a Twitter hashtag and gets you on Rachel Maddow and fires people up, we need to have something that fires people up and is a policy position we can actually defend.”

    “Forty percent of voters self-identify as pragmatic or moderate. We cannot abandon them,” he added.

    Source link

  • Jimmy Kimmel Wades Into Politics Again and Misleads His Viewers Along the Way

    Jimmy Kimmel Wades Into Politics Again and Misleads His Viewers Along the Way

    Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on Thursday deleted a video clip from Twitter and YouTube that falsely informed viewers that a proposed Federal Communications Commission rule would force them to pay hundreds of dollars to complain to the FCC.

    “The FCC is considering a plan that would require U.S. citizens to pay $225 to make a complaint. So, if you’re mad about how high your cable bill is, soon you can pay the government $225 to complain about it,” the host of ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” told his viewers Wednesday night.

    “Boy, they really have the fingers on the pulse of us, don’t they? It’s shameless, really. Time and time again this administration, they side with the big corporations over people,” the comedian riffed. He then acted out a skit in which a coffee shop customer had to pay $225 to complain about a barista spitting in his drink.

    But Kimmel appears to have botched the facts.

    Americans aren’t charged to file informal complaints through the FCC Consumer Complaint Center, a fact that won’t change under any rule being considered by the FCC.

    It also already costs $225 for consumers to file a formal complaint—a process the FCC describes as similar to a court proceeding—and the proposed language change wouldn’t have affected that, either.

    Kimmel blamed the current FCC for pre-existing policies, while misrepresenting how those policies work. His critique was similar to Democratic talking points about the rule change—talking points that The Washington Post found clashed with the facts. (The Post also noted Thursday that the FCC appears to be backing off the change for now.)

    Kimmel tweeted out a video of the segment on Thursday but later deleted it from Twitter following complaints about the segment’s inaccuracy. Kimmel’s show also removed the clip from its official YouTube channel.

    An ABC spokesperson did not return a request for comment regarding Kimmel’s misinformation and the deleted videos.

    “The actual FCC item itself isn’t that interesting; it doesn’t actually change the informal complaint process. The firestorm around it is based on a misunderstanding that started with the letter from some congressional Dems to the FCC,” Joe Kane, a technology policy fellow with the R Street Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    “Lots of news sites (starting with the now-updated Verge piece, I think) seized on that letter’s misunderstanding that consumers would have to pay $225 for a complaint. It basically just became a thing for reporters who already don’t like the chairman to paint him as anti-consumer. But again, that’s really not what’s happening,” Kane said.

    He continued:

    The issue in question is Footnote 14 of the report and order that talks about the change in the FCC’s complain process. There is currently a process for informal complaints, which, even before this change, were basically just forwarded to the company you have a complaint about. If the company obviously resolves it, then the matter is done. If they don’t, then you move to the formal complaint process. The old language says that the escalation to formal complaint can happen if the person making the complaint is unhappy with how the company or the commission has resolved the issue. The change is to cut the language about the commission resolving the issue because the FCC doesn’t do the resolving of informal complaints. READ MORE...

  • Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC

    Facebook, Amazon, Google and Twitter All Work With Left-Wing SPLC

    Four of the world’s biggest tech platforms have working partnerships with a left-wing nonprofit that has a track record of inaccuracies and routinely labels conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

    Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Twitter all work with or consult the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in policing their platforms for “hate speech” or “hate groups,” a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.

    The SPLC is on a list of “external experts and organizations” that Facebook works with “to inform our hate speech policies,” Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja told TheDCNF in an interview.

    Facebook consults the outside organizations when developing changes to hate speech policies, Budhraja said, noting that Facebook representatives will typically hold between one and three meetings with the groups.

    Citing privacy concerns, the Facebook spokeswoman declined to name all the outside groups working with Facebook, but confirmed the SPLC’s participation.

    Budhraja emphasized that Facebook’s definition of “hate group” is distinct from the SPLC’s definition and said that Facebook consults with groups across the political spectrum.

    The SPLC accused Facebook in a May 8 article of not doing enough to censor “anti-Muslim hate” on the platform. That article did not disclose the SPLC’s working partnership with Facebook.

    “We have our own process and our processes are different and I think that’s why we get the criticism [from the SPLC], because organizations that are hate organizations by their standards don’t match ours,” Budhraja said.

    “That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a process in place, and that definitely doesn’t mean we want the platform to be a place for hate but we aren’t going to map to the SPLC’s list or process,” she said.

    Of the four companies, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority over its platform, TheDCNF found.

    While Facebook emphasizes its independence from the SPLC, Amazon does the opposite: Jeff Bezos’ company grants the SPLC broad policing power over the Amazon Smile charitable program, while claiming to remain unbiased.

    “We remove organizations that the SPLC deems as ineligible,” an Amazon spokeswoman told TheDCNF.

    Amazon grants the SPLC that power “because we don’t want to be biased whatsoever,” said the spokeswoman, who could not say whether Amazon considers the SPLC to be unbiased.

    The Smile program allows customers to identify a charity to receive 0.5 percent of the proceeds from their purchases on Amazon. Customers have given more than $8 million to charities through the program since 2013, according to Amazon.

    Only one participant in the program, the SPLC, gets to determine which other groups are allowed to join it.

    Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom — which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the Supreme Court— are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, TheDCNF found in May.

    One month later, the anti-Semitic groups — but not the Alliance Defending Freedom — are still able to participate in the program.

    Twitter lists the SPLC as a “safety partner” working with Twitter to combat “hateful conduct and harassment.”

    The platform also includes the Trust and Safety Council, which “provides input on our safety products, policies, and programs,” according to Twitter. Free speech advocates have criticized it as Orwellian.

    A Twitter spokeswoman declined to comment on the SPLC specifically, but said the company is “in regular contact with a wide range of civil society organizations and [nongovernmental organizations].”

    Google uses the SPLC to help police hate speech on YouTube as part of YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program, The Daily Caller reported in February, citing a source with knowledge of the agreement. Following that report, the SPLC confirmed they’re policing hate speech on YouTube.

    The SPLC and other third-party groups in the “Trusted Flagger” program work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, according to YouTube.

    First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing the video platform, but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

    The SPLC is one of over 300 government agencies and nongovernmental organizations in the YouTube program, the vast majority of which remain hidden behind confidentiality agreements.

    The SPLC has consistently courted controversy in publishing lists of “extremists” and “hate groups.” The nonprofit has been plagued by inaccuracies this year, retracting four articles in March and April alone.

    The well-funded nonprofit, which did not return a request for comment, deleted three Russia-related articles in March after challenges to their accuracy followed by legal threats.

    All three articles focused on drawing conspiratorial connections between anti-establishment American political figures and Russian influence operations in the United States.

    The SPLC removed a controversial “anti-Muslim extremist” list in April, after British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue over his inclusion on the list. The SPLC had accused the supposed-extremists of inciting anti-Muslim hate crimes.

    Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali also made the list.

    Ali, a victim of female genital mutilation who now advocates against the practice, is an award-winninghuman rights activist. But according to the SPLC’s since-deleted list, she was an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

    Ali criticized Apple CEO Tim Cook in August 2017 for donating to the SPLC, which she described as “an organization that has lost its way, smearing people who are fighting for liberty and turning a blind eye to an ideology and political movement that has much in common with Nazism.”

    Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who is now the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was surprised to find out in February 2015 that the SPLC had placed him on an “extremist watch list” for his conservative beliefs.

    “When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong. It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance,” Carson said in response.

    “That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment,” he continued. “It is nothing but projectionism when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters.”

    Following a backlash, the SPLC apologized and removed him from their list. Carson was on the list for four months before the SPLC removed the “extremist” label.

    Floyd Lee Corkins, who attempted a mass shooting at the conservative Family Research Center in 2012, said he chose the organization for his act of violence because the SPLC listed them as a “hate group.”

    The SPLC has faced tough criticisms not just from conservatives, but from establishment publications, as well.

    “At a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation,” Ben Schreckinger, now with GQ, wrote in a June 2017 piece for Politico.

    Washington Post’s Megan McArdle, while still at Bloomberg, similarly criticized the SPLC’s flimsy definition of “hate group” in  September 2017. Media outlets who trust the SPLC’s labels, McArdle warned, “will discredit themselves with conservative readers and donors.”

    Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

    Source link

  • This Liberal Group Targets Ingraham, Sinclair, and Williamson

    This Liberal Group Targets Ingraham, Sinclair, and Williamson

    The Atlantic fired conservative writer Kevin Williamson on Thursday over his 4-year-old comments that women who obtain abortions should be prosecuted for murder.

    Williamson’s position is atypical for conservatives—who typically hold that women are the second victim of abortion—but his termination for it still represents a startling after-the-fact litmus test for one of the nation’s most prominent magazines.

    The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg fired Williamson after left-wing group Media Matters dug up a September 2014 podcast where Williamson reiterated his belief, first articulated in a single tweet, that women who obtain abortions should be prosecuted for murder. Hanging was the conservative writer’s preferred form of capital punishment because “if the state is going to do violence, let’s make it violence,” Williamson said.

    Williamson was “kind of squishy on capital punishment in general” and his larger point was women should be prosecuted for killing their unborn children, just as they would be for killing their already-born children, he noted in the same podcast.

    Liberal journalists used the Media Matters post to demand Goldberg fire Williamson. “By keeping him on at @TheAtlantic, @JeffreyGoldberg is making clear he thinks ‘killing women’ is an acceptable part of political discourse,” The Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti claimed.

    Goldberg caved. In an internal email on Thursday, The Atlantic editor blasted Williamson’s “callous and violent” language, which he said was contrary to the “values of our workplace” and insisted the issue was not “Kevin’s views on abortion.”

    “Kevin is a gifted writer, and he has been nothing but professional in all of our interactions,” Goldberg wrote. “But I have come to the conclusion that The Atlantic is not the best fit for his talents, and so we are parting ways.”

    Media Matters President Angelo Carusone cited Williamson’s firing as proof the left-wing group is a “potent and effective force.” He’s right.

    Media Matters is behind two other ongoing media firestorms.

    The first is over a promotional segment by Sinclair Broadcast Group warning against “fake news” and dishonest journalism from national media outlets. Liberal commentators accused Sinclair of being unfairly pro-President Donald Trump in its coverage of the commander in chief.

    Media Matters employees spent hundreds of hours monitoring Sinclair broadcasts and then clipping and circulating videos of Sinclair’s anchors reading the promotional script, Carusone later bragged. The promo went viral after Deadspin packaged the clips to show dozens of anchors reading the same script—a point-making stunt comedian Conan O’Brien has relied on for years.

    If you’ve not yet seen the Sinclair Broadcasting propaganda video from @Deadspin, this should sufficiently creep you out. pic.twitter.com/M4LNhb6CQF


    — James Michael Sama (@JamesMSama) April 2, 2018