freebeacon--2020-06-15--Biden Silent on Donations From Facebook Execs As He Wages War Against the Company

Joe Biden is declining to say whether he will return thousands in donations from top Facebook executives as he ramps up his public feud with the social-networking website over fact-checking of political advertisements .
The Biden campaign has spent the last week assailing Facebook for refusing to screen the content of political speech from Donald Trump ’ s campaign , calling on its supporters to sign Biden 's open letter against the company and warning that the network is becoming `` a tool of misinformation that corrodes our democracy . ''
Despite the harsh rhetoric , Biden has shown a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media website .
He has received thousands of dollars in donations from the company ’ s top executives , and his campaign spent millions on Facebook ads in June .
The Biden campaign has received contributions from at least four senior Facebook executives , according to Federal Election Commission records .
This includes $ 2,800 from Facebook ’ s chief financial officer David Wehner , $ 4,050 from Chief Revenue Officer David Fischer , $ 2,800 from Chief Privacy Officer of Policy Erin Egan , and $ 550 from Chief Privacy Officer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned to return the donations , which hit the campaign 's coffers before Biden began waging war on the company , a spokesman for the Biden campaign declined to comment .
Wehner and Egan did not respond to requests for comment .
Fischer and Protti could not be reached .
Last week , the Biden campaign spent $ 4.7 million on Facebook ads , more than it spent in the entirety of 2019 .
In early June , Biden spent a record-breaking $ 1.6 million in a single day , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spokesman for Facebook , directed the Washington Free Beacon to a press release from the company last week .
In that statement , Facebook rebuffed the Biden pressure campaign , declaring that it would not take additional steps to restrict political speech on its website .
`` There is an election coming in November and we will protect political speech , even when we strongly disagree with it , '' said the statement .
That statement prompted additional criticism from the Biden campaign , which claimed the social media company `` sided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement is ‘ we sided with Trump ’ dressed up in a bargain basement ‘ we did n't pick a side ’ costume , '' said Biden ’ s digital director Rob Flaherty on Twitter last week .
`` I have low expectations from Facebook at all times but resorting to ‘ lol nothing matters ’ as their response here even surprised me , '' he added .
The Biden campaign has privately lobbied Facebook for months to place restrictions on political `` misinformation '' on its platform , according to the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly met with opposition from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg , prompting the campaign to take the feud public .

Joe Biden is declining to say whether he will return thousands in donations from top Facebook executives as he ramps up his public feud with the social-networking website over fact-checking of political advertisements.
The Biden campaign has spent the last week assailing Facebook for refusing to screen the content of political speech from Donald Trump’s campaign, calling on its supporters to sign Biden's open letter against the company and warning that the network is becoming "a tool of misinformation that corrodes our democracy."
Despite the harsh rhetoric, Biden has shown a reluctance to cut ties with the social media website. He has received thousands of dollars in donations from the company’s top executives, and his campaign spent millions on Facebook ads in June.
The Biden campaign has received contributions from at least four senior Facebook executives, according to Federal Election Commission records. This includes $2,800 from Facebook’s chief financial officer David Wehner, $4,050 from Chief Revenue Officer David Fischer, $2,800 from Chief Privacy Officer of Policy Erin Egan, and $550 from Chief Privacy Officer of Product Michel Protti.
Asked whether he planned to return the donations, which hit the campaign's coffers before Biden began waging war on the company, a spokesman for the Biden campaign declined to comment. Wehner and Egan did not respond to requests for comment. Fischer and Protti could not be reached.
Last week, the Biden campaign spent $4.7 million on Facebook ads, more than it spent in the entirety of 2019. In early June, Biden spent a record-breaking $1.6 million in a single day, according to the New York Times.
Andy Stone, a spokesman for Facebook, directed the Washington Free Beacon to a press release from the company last week. In that statement, Facebook rebuffed the Biden pressure campaign, declaring that it would not take additional steps to restrict political speech on its website. "There is an election coming in November and we will protect political speech, even when we strongly disagree with it," said the statement.
That statement prompted additional criticism from the Biden campaign, which claimed the social media company "sided with Trump."
"Facebook's statement is ‘we sided with Trump’ dressed up in a bargain basement ‘we didn't pick a side’ costume," said Biden’s digital director Rob Flaherty on Twitter last week.
"I have low expectations from Facebook at all times but resorting to ‘lol nothing matters’ as their response here even surprised me," he added.
The Biden campaign has privately lobbied Facebook for months to place restrictions on political "misinformation" on its platform, according to the New York Times. But their proposals were reportedly met with opposition from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, prompting the campaign to take the feud public.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Young Americans Less Patriotic Than Ever Before

A Gallup poll published Monday found that only 20 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are @ @ @ @ @ an American . ''
This is the lowest percentage of any demographic , falling 23 @ @ @ @ @ to the poll , this is the sixth consecutive year of decline in American pride @ @ @ @ @ the first time `` extreme pride '' among whites fell below 50 percent .
American @ @ @ @ @ percent .
The partisan gap in American pride also fell to 43 percent from 54 @ @ @ @ @ This year , 67 percent of Republicans—a 9 point drop from last year—and 24 percent @ @ @ @ @ extremely proud to be an American .
The data correspond with a recent shift in @ @ @ @ @ Americans , particularly those on the left .
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation released @ @ @ @ @ found 70 percent of millennials and 64 percent of Gen-Z are likely to vote for @ @ @ @ @ one-in-two millennials and Gen-Z have a favorable opinion of capitalism .

A Gallup poll published Monday found that only 20 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are "extremely proud to be an American." This is the lowest percentage of any demographic, falling 23 percent since 2017.
According to the poll, this is the sixth consecutive year of decline in American pride across all demographics, and the first time "extreme pride" among whites fell below 50 percent. American pride among nonwhites is 24 percent.
The partisan gap in American pride also fell to 43 percent from 54 percent a year ago. This year, 67 percent of Republicans—a 9 point drop from last year—and 24 percent of Democrats said they are extremely proud to be an American.
The data correspond with a recent shift in favorability toward socialism among younger Americans, particularly those on the left. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation released a study last year that found 70 percent of millennials and 64 percent of Gen-Z are likely to vote for a socialist, whereas only one-in-two millennials and Gen-Z have a favorable opinion of capitalism.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Maine’s Gideon Gets Three ‘Pinocchios’ for Attack on Collins

Fact-checkers blasted a Maine Democrat running against Sen. Susan Collins ( R. , Maine ) for airing a `` highly misleading '' advertisement that falsely accused Collins of prioritizing corporate donors over Maine voters .
The Washington Post ‘ s fact-checkers awarded three out of four Pinocchios to Sara Gideon , the establishment-backed Democrat poised to challenge Collins , for running an ad that `` misleadingly attacks Susan Collins on the Paycheck Protection Program , '' a pandemic relief program crafted by Collins to help small businesses .
In the ad , Gideon falsely accused Collins of including `` special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her campaign donors in the hospitality industry at the expense of small businesses in Maine .
`` Gideon 's ad takes several discrete elements—relatively minor campaign contributions to Collins , a bipartisan effort to allow franchises in hotel chains to obtain PPP money , and early numbers on PPP recipients in Maine—to sketch a misleading narrative , '' the Post said .
`` Overall , this ad is highly misleading and worthy of Three Pinocchios . ''
Gideon , Maine 's state House speaker , is the frontrunner in the Democratic Senate primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has allowed her to flood the airwaves .
The most recent attack ad claimed that only 10 percent of Maine small businesses have received loans from the Paycheck Protection Program .
The Post , however , noted that Gideon 's figure is misleading because it includes self-employed individuals and shell companies .
Meanwhile , a Census Bureau survey found that between 66 to 73 percent of small businesses in the state have received money from the program .
The fact-checker also took issue with Gideon 's mischaracterization of the reason why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The program 's funds do not directly support large hotel companies but rather their franchisees with less than 500 workers .
These franchisees borrow the hotel 's brand but usually operate as independent businesses .
`` This is a good example of how a narrative can be crafted to leave a false impression , '' the Post said .
The ad claimed that Collins allowed `` large , out-of-state hotels to get millions '' from the Paycheck Protection Program after the hotel industry paid roughly $ 12,000 `` as coronavirus spread .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in February , a month before the outbreak erupted into public view in March and the Senate started crafting pandemic relief bills .
The Post also noted that the $ 12,000 donation—from five different PACs—is a relatively insignificant contribution compared with Collins 's total campaign haul of more than $ 13 million .
This is not the first time Gideon and her supporters have made false accusations against Collins .
Maine Momentum , a dark money group aligned with Gideon , ran an ad that falsely accused Collins of jeopardizing Medicare in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Post .
Gideon has also misled voters with her promises to reject corporate donors , accepting corporate money passed through other PACs .

Fact-checkers blasted a Maine Democrat running against Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) for airing a "highly misleading" advertisement that falsely accused Collins of prioritizing corporate donors over Maine voters.
The Washington Post's fact-checkers awarded three out of four Pinocchios to Sara Gideon, the establishment-backed Democrat poised to challenge Collins, for running an ad that "misleadingly attacks Susan Collins on the Paycheck Protection Program," a pandemic relief program crafted by Collins to help small businesses. In the ad, Gideon falsely accused Collins of including "special loopholes" in the program that benefited her campaign donors in the hospitality industry at the expense of small businesses in Maine.
"Gideon's ad takes several discrete elements—relatively minor campaign contributions to Collins, a bipartisan effort to allow franchises in hotel chains to obtain PPP money, and early numbers on PPP recipients in Maine—to sketch a misleading narrative," the Post said. "Overall, this ad is highly misleading and worthy of Three Pinocchios."
Gideon, Maine's state House speaker, is the frontrunner in the Democratic Senate primary, raising more than $14 million, which has allowed her to flood the airwaves. The most recent attack ad claimed that only 10 percent of Maine small businesses have received loans from the Paycheck Protection Program. The Post, however, noted that Gideon's figure is misleading because it includes self-employed individuals and shell companies. Meanwhile, a Census Bureau survey found that between 66 to 73 percent of small businesses in the state have received money from the program.
The fact-checker also took issue with Gideon's mischaracterization of the reason why some hotels are eligible for financial support. The program's funds do not directly support large hotel companies but rather their franchisees with less than 500 workers. These franchisees borrow the hotel's brand but usually operate as independent businesses.
"This is a good example of how a narrative can be crafted to leave a false impression," the Post said.
The ad claimed that Collins allowed "large, out-of-state hotels to get millions" from the Paycheck Protection Program after the hotel industry paid roughly $12,000 "as coronavirus spread." Those hotels donated money to the campaign in February, a month before the outbreak erupted into public view in March and the Senate started crafting pandemic relief bills. The Post also noted that the $12,000 donation—from five different PACs—is a relatively insignificant contribution compared with Collins's total campaign haul of more than $13 million.
This is not the first time Gideon and her supporters have made false accusations against Collins. Maine Momentum, a dark money group aligned with Gideon, ran an ad that falsely accused Collins of jeopardizing Medicare in August 2019, earning three Pinocchios from the Post. Gideon has also misled voters with her promises to reject corporate donors, accepting corporate money passed through other PACs.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Democrats Slam GOP Police Reform Bill Before Laying Eyes On It

Senate Republicans have yet to release a promised set of reforms for America 's police departments , but that has not stopped top Senate Democrats from waging preemptive war on their colleagues ' forthcoming bill .
Leading Senate Democrats , including minority leader Chuck Schumer ( N.Y. ) and top vice-presidential contender Kamala Harris ( Calif. ) , have blasted Republicans ' still nascent proposal—which is expected to include restrictions on chokeholds , a national database of police use of force , and the labeling of lynching as a hate crime—as `` cherry-picking '' and `` far from being relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats ' own policing bill , but Senate Democrats suggest that the GOP bill is not up to the moment .
Those criticisms come even as the bill 's contents remain in flux—the ban on chokeholds was added just days after Sen. Tim Scott ( R. , S.C. ) , who is overseeing the bill 's drafting , said such a ban could not `` get to the finish line . ''
These criticisms lay the groundwork for Schumer 's caucus to reject out of the gate a counterproposal to House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts at legislative reform .
The preemptive critiques also indicate the tenuous political position Democrats find themselves in , as a vocal minority on their left flank agitates for the full defunding or abolition of America 's police departments .
Although these proposals are unpopular , their sway within some sectors of the progressive base may inform Democrats ' caution about appearing too conciliatory on reform .
`` It 's sad that Senate Democrats ' extreme partisanship means they 're attacking a policing reform bill before they even read it , '' one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beacon .
The Republican proposal is currently in development under the guidance of Scott , one of only three black members of the Senate .
That role has earned Scott his fair share of racial invective from the left , against which he pushed back in an impassioned tweet , writing `` you DO N'T want the person who has faced racial profiling by police , been pulled over dozens of times , or been speaking out for YEARS drafting this ? ''
Scott 's office did not return a request for comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fides , however , have not earned him much recognition among Senate Democrats .
During a Senate floor speech , Schumer disclaimed Scott 's working group , saying `` working groups are all fine and well , but it is critical that we pursue comprehensive reform , not seek the lowest common denominator . ''
Senate minority whip Dick Durbin ( Ill. ) said that while Scott was a `` good man , '' `` just doing some kind of symbolic effort is not enough . ''
Other Democrats have been quick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sen. Cory Booker ( N.J. ) said it was `` heavy on gestures and light on meaningful reforms , '' adding that the unreleased plan is `` not the solution . ''
Sen. Tammy Duckworth ( Ill. ) said that while she would be supportive of `` systemic change , '' she `` would n't be surprised if it 's more cosmetic . ''
Some have said Senate Republicans aim to mislead .
Sen. Brian Schatz ( Hawaii ) , among the Democratic caucus 's most vocal firebrands , tweeted that while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be mentally prepared for this to be whittled down to a blue ribbon commission , '' adding `` we can not allow Republicans to get the benefit of feinting towards real action and then doing nothing . ''
Schatz and his colleagues ' preemptive battering of the GOP bill sets the stage for a knock-down , drag-out fight over an issue where the electorate expresses broad , bipartisan support for certain reforms in the wake of the police killing of Minneapolis resident George Floyd .
According to a recent Yahoo/YouGov poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorse training police to deescalate conflict , providing body cameras for all police , implementing an `` early warning system to identify problematic officers , '' and banning choke holds .
President Donald Trump is widely expected to take his own action on policing this week .
The anticipated executive order is said to include the creation of a national certification system for law enforcement and a database to track wrongdoing as well as encouragement of local departments involving mental health experts in certain routine activities .
House Democrats have floated their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None of these proposals , however , may be enough to satisfy Democrats ' progressive activist base , which has agitated over the past several weeks to defund or abolish local police departments .
The proposal has gained currency among some Democratic leaders , including Harris , but remains massively unpopular among the general electorate .

Senate Republicans have yet to release a promised set of reforms for America's police departments, but that has not stopped top Senate Democrats from waging preemptive war on their colleagues' forthcoming bill.
Leading Senate Democrats, including minority leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and top vice-presidential contender Kamala Harris (Calif.), have blasted Republicans' still nascent proposal—which is expected to include restrictions on chokeholds, a national database of police use of force, and the labeling of lynching as a hate crime—as "cherry-picking" and "far from being relevant."
All those measures appear in House Democrats' own policing bill, but Senate Democrats suggest that the GOP bill is not up to the moment. Those criticisms come even as the bill's contents remain in flux—the ban on chokeholds was added just days after Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), who is overseeing the bill's drafting, said such a ban could not "get to the finish line."
These criticisms lay the groundwork for Schumer's caucus to reject out of the gate a counterproposal to House Democrats' sweeping package, forestalling widely popular efforts at legislative reform.
The preemptive critiques also indicate the tenuous political position Democrats find themselves in, as a vocal minority on their left flank agitates for the full defunding or abolition of America's police departments. Although these proposals are unpopular, their sway within some sectors of the progressive base may inform Democrats' caution about appearing too conciliatory on reform.
"It's sad that Senate Democrats' extreme partisanship means they're attacking a policing reform bill before they even read it," one Senate GOP aide told the Washington Free Beacon.
The Republican proposal is currently in development under the guidance of Scott, one of only three black members of the Senate. That role has earned Scott his fair share of racial invective from the left, against which he pushed back in an impassioned tweet, writing "you DON'T want the person who has faced racial profiling by police, been pulled over dozens of times, or been speaking out for YEARS drafting this?"
Not surprising the last 24 hours have seen a lot of 'token" 'boy" or 'you’re being used" in my mentions. Let me get this straight...you DON’T want the person who has faced racial profiling by police, been pulled over dozens of times, or been speaking out for YEARS drafting this? — Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) June 10, 2020
"Senator Scott continues work on the JUSTICE Act, which is built on a foundation of bipartisan ideas such as increasing the use of body cameras, increasing training around de-escalation and use of force, and the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act," Scott's communications director Sean Smith told the Free Beacon. "Now is our time to act, and Democrats letting politics get in the way is the absolute last thing our nation needs right now. We challenge them to work with us towards solutions, not hide behind a shield of partisan politics."
Scott's bona fides, however, have not earned him much recognition among Senate Democrats. During a Senate floor speech, Schumer disclaimed Scott's working group, saying "working groups are all fine and well, but it is critical that we pursue comprehensive reform, not seek the lowest common denominator." Senate minority whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said that while Scott was a "good man," "just doing some kind of symbolic effort is not enough."
Other Democrats have been quick to label the as-yet-unfinished bill as categorically unsatisfactory. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) said it was "heavy on gestures and light on meaningful reforms," adding that the unreleased plan is "not the solution." Sen. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) said that while she would be supportive of "systemic change," she "wouldn't be surprised if it's more cosmetic."
Some have said Senate Republicans aim to mislead. Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), among the Democratic caucus's most vocal firebrands, tweeted that while he likes Scott, "we have to be mentally prepared for this to be whittled down to a blue ribbon commission," adding "we cannot allow Republicans to get the benefit of feinting towards real action and then doing nothing."
Schatz and his colleagues' preemptive battering of the GOP bill sets the stage for a knock-down, drag-out fight over an issue where the electorate expresses broad, bipartisan support for certain reforms in the wake of the police killing of Minneapolis resident George Floyd. According to a recent Yahoo/YouGov poll, large majorities of both parties and independents endorse training police to deescalate conflict, providing body cameras for all police, implementing an "early warning system to identify problematic officers," and banning choke holds.
President Donald Trump is widely expected to take his own action on policing this week. The anticipated executive order is said to include the creation of a national certification system for law enforcement and a database to track wrongdoing as well as encouragement of local departments involving mental health experts in certain routine activities. House Democrats have floated their own proposal, the Justice in Policing Act.
None of these proposals, however, may be enough to satisfy Democrats' progressive activist base, which has agitated over the past several weeks to defund or abolish local police departments. The proposal has gained currency among some Democratic leaders, including Harris, but remains massively unpopular among the general electorate.
Update June 16, 9:55 a.m.: This post has been updated with comment from Sen. Scott's communications director.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Planned Parenthood Endorses Biden, Says 2020 Is ‘Life and Death Election’

Planned Parenthood endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden Monday in what the abortion provider 's president described as a `` life and death election . ''
`` This is literally a life and death election , '' acting Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson told NPR .
`` We felt like we ca n't endure another four years of Trump ; we have to do everything we can to get him out of office . ''
The group 's endorsement video contrasted Biden 's work on the Affordable Care Act with President Donald Trump 's judicial appointments and attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Americans need a president who will empower women , families , and young people , '' Johnson said in the video .
The video also shows Biden promising to end the `` global gag rule , '' or Mexico City policy , which prohibits U.S. funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide or refer patients to abortion services .
Biden said he would restore Title X funding for Planned Parenthood after the group withdrew from the program .
Pro-life groups said Biden 's record on abortion showed how extreme the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Joe Biden flip-flopped on the Hyde Amendment , the Democratic Party ’ s capitulation to extremism was complete , '' Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said .
`` Now he supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through the moment of birth and vows to stack the Supreme Court with pro-abortion justices who will serve life terms . ''
`` Planned Parenthood noted that this election is about ‘ life and death.
’ On that point we agree—the lives of countless children are at stake , '' she added .
`` It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s largest abortion provider , Planned Parenthood , an organization that claims the lives of 345,672 American babies annually ( a third of all of the abortions in this country each year ) , call the 2020 cycle a ‘ life and death ' election , '' Jeanne Mancini , president of the March for Life , said .
`` Those who really care about protecting life realize that the election of Planned Parenthood-endorsed candidate , Joe Biden , will result in a major increase of tax dollars going to the billion-dollar organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among other deadly consequences . ''
Biden changed his position on the Hyde Amendment at the start of his presidential run in 2019 .
He had voted for the amendment , originally passed in 1976 , throughout his time in the U.S. Senate before he changed his stance .
He also said he would codify Roe v. Wade into law as president .

Planned Parenthood endorsed presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden Monday in what the abortion provider's president described as a "life and death election."
"This is literally a life and death election," acting Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson told NPR. "We felt like we can't endure another four years of Trump; we have to do everything we can to get him out of office."
The group's endorsement video contrasted Biden's work on the Affordable Care Act with President Donald Trump's judicial appointments and attempts to repeal Obama's health care reform.
"Americans need a president who will empower women, families, and young people," Johnson said in the video.
The video also shows Biden promising to end the "global gag rule," or Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide or refer patients to abortion services. Biden said he would restore Title X funding for Planned Parenthood after the group withdrew from the program.
Pro-life groups said Biden's record on abortion showed how extreme the Democratic Party had become on the issue.
"When Joe Biden flip-flopped on the Hyde Amendment, the Democratic Party’s capitulation to extremism was complete," Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said. "Now he supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand through the moment of birth and vows to stack the Supreme Court with pro-abortion justices who will serve life terms."
"Planned Parenthood noted that this election is about ‘life and death.’ On that point we agree—the lives of countless children are at stake," she added.
"It is offensive to hear our nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, an organization that claims the lives of 345,672 American babies annually (a third of all of the abortions in this country each year), call the 2020 cycle a 'life and death' election," Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, said.
"Those who really care about protecting life realize that the election of Planned Parenthood-endorsed candidate, Joe Biden, will result in a major increase of tax dollars going to the billion-dollar organization, including direct payment for abortions, among other deadly consequences."
Biden changed his position on the Hyde Amendment at the start of his presidential run in 2019. He had voted for the amendment, originally passed in 1976, throughout his time in the U.S. Senate before he changed his stance.
He also said he would codify Roe v. Wade into law as president.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--New York Times Perfects the Art of Grievance Journalism

The New York Times is in disarray as company leadership struggles to confront an insurgency of young staffers demanding the publication abandon all pretense of being anything other than an instrument of progressive political activism .
According to Times media columnist Ben Smith , when the paper 's opinion editor James Bennet was ousted after publishing what was described as a `` dangerous '' op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton ( R. , Ark . )
, two employees `` reacted in Slack with a slackmoji of the word ‘ guillotine . '
'' Some employees active with the company 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of articles they found objectionable to present to editors . ''
The project was ultimately abandoned , but may nevertheless be a preview of things to come in the increasingly tempestuous field of professional journalism .
In recent days , the Times ‘ s reporting has sought to reflect prevailing social justice trends by identifying interview subjects by race and other indicators of privilege in addition to the usual details such as age and location .
For example : a `` veteran with a disability … who is black , '' and `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her grandmother to the coronavirus … who is white . ''
Perhaps the Times is onto something , and even well-known political figures should be described as such : Joe Biden , an elderly man of Irishx descent who boasts several prominent black friends and was recently promoted despite suffering from noticeable cognitive deficiencies… Elizabeth Warren , a female-identifying U.S. senator who is 1/1064th Cherokee and was recently passed over for a promotion awarded to a white man who is currently considering her for an assistant-level position… Bernie Sanders , an elderly Brooklyn-born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whitest states in the country… Stacey Abrams , a proud black woman whose self-declared status as the rightful governor of Georgia has yet to be recognized by `` society '' writ large… Amy Klobuchar , a New York Times-endorsed white female whose failed presidential campaign was best known for her virulent criticism of homosexual candidate Pete Buttigieg , and who might miss out on a promising job opportunity because her so-called `` controversial '' record as county prosecutor is receiving a level of undue scrutiny that is all too common among female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman who lost a pivotal election despite carrying hot sauce in her purse , and who is widely suspected of murdering one of the world 's most notorious pedophiles , but not in a good way…

The New York Times is in disarray as company leadership struggles to confront an insurgency of young staffers demanding the publication abandon all pretense of being anything other than an instrument of progressive political activism.
According to Times media columnist Ben Smith, when the paper's opinion editor James Bennet was ousted after publishing what was described as a "dangerous" op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), two employees "reacted in Slack with a slackmoji of the word 'guillotine.'"
Some employees active with the company's union even "compiled a Google document of articles they found objectionable to present to editors." The project was ultimately abandoned, but may nevertheless be a preview of things to come in the increasingly tempestuous field of professional journalism.
In recent days, the Times's reporting has sought to reflect prevailing social justice trends by identifying interview subjects by race and other indicators of privilege in addition to the usual details such as age and location. For example: a "veteran with a disability ... who is black," and "a 33-year-old from Doylestown who recently lost her grandmother to the coronavirus ... who is white."
Perhaps the Times is onto something, and even well-known political figures should be described as such:
Joe Biden, an elderly man of Irishx descent who boasts several prominent black friends and was recently promoted despite suffering from noticeable cognitive deficiencies...
Elizabeth Warren, a female-identifying U.S. senator who is 1/1064th Cherokee and was recently passed over for a promotion awarded to a white man who is currently considering her for an assistant-level position...
Bernie Sanders, an elderly Brooklyn-born cis male Jew who represents one of the whitest states in the country...
Stacey Abrams, a proud black woman whose self-declared status as the rightful governor of Georgia has yet to be recognized by "society" writ large...
Amy Klobuchar, a New York Times-endorsed white female whose failed presidential campaign was best known for her virulent criticism of homosexual candidate Pete Buttigieg, and who might miss out on a promising job opportunity because her so-called "controversial" record as county prosecutor is receiving a level of undue scrutiny that is all too common among female applicants...
Hillary Clinton, an elderly white woman who lost a pivotal election despite carrying hot sauce in her purse, and who is widely suspected of murdering one of the world's most notorious pedophiles, but not in a good way...


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Poll: American Pride in Steady Decline Since Democrats Took Back the House in 2018

For nearly two decades following the dawn of the 21st century , not a year had gone by in which a majority of Americans did not describe themselves as `` extremely proud '' to be American , according to Gallup .
That changed in 2018 , the year Democrats regained control of the House after a solid midterm election performance .
That year , the percentage of Americans who said they were `` extremely proud '' to be American dropped to 47 percent from 51 percent in 2017 .
American pride has been in steady decline ever since .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , found that just 42 percent of Americans described themselves as `` extremely proud '' of their nationality , down from 45 the previous year .
The combined percentage of Americans who said they were `` extremely proud '' or merely `` very proud '' to be American has also declined steadily since Nancy Pelosi reclaimed the position of speaker of the House .
In 2017 , a solid 75 percent of Americans expressed a high amount of pride in their country .
Today , that number sits at just 63 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success of the Democratic Party and its efforts to delegitimize the election of President Donald J. Trump via witch hunts and phony impeachment investigations .
Gallup most likely would have registered an even steeper decline in American pride had the poll not been conducted prior to the embarrassing ( and widely panned ) stunt Democratic lawmakers took part in on June 8 , when Pelosi and other senior Democrats donned kente cloth and kneeled to express their solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement .

For nearly two decades following the dawn of the 21st century, not a year had gone by in which a majority of Americans did not describe themselves as "extremely proud" to be American, according to Gallup.
That changed in 2018, the year Democrats regained control of the House after a solid midterm election performance. That year, the percentage of Americans who said they were "extremely proud" to be American dropped to 47 percent from 51 percent in 2017. American pride has been in steady decline ever since.
The most recent Gallup survey, published Monday, found that just 42 percent of Americans described themselves as "extremely proud" of their nationality, down from 45 the previous year. The combined percentage of Americans who said they were "extremely proud" or merely "very proud" to be American has also declined steadily since Nancy Pelosi reclaimed the position of speaker of the House.
In 2017, a solid 75 percent of Americans expressed a high amount of pride in their country. Today, that number sits at just 63 percent, a decline that coincides with the electoral success of the Democratic Party and its efforts to delegitimize the election of President Donald J. Trump via witch hunts and phony impeachment investigations.
Gallup most likely would have registered an even steeper decline in American pride had the poll not been conducted prior to the embarrassing (and widely panned) stunt Democratic lawmakers took part in on June 8, when Pelosi and other senior Democrats donned kente cloth and kneeled to express their solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Ossoff: Funding for Police Departments Has to Be ‘On the Line’

In a call for `` national policing standards , '' Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff said he favors cutting funds for police departments if they violate his proposed rules on the use of force .
`` You have to have national standards for the use of force , and yeah , you 've got to be able to hold individual officers and entire departments accountable , and there also has to be funding for those departments on the line , '' he said Thursday on `` The Rashad Richey Morning Show . ''
Ossoff 's remarks come amid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police . ''
A Washington Free Beacon analysis found more , not less , money would improve police performance and lower crime .
Ossoff did not specify if he meant federal or local funding , though if elected he would wield influence over the former .
About 20 percent of police funding comes from federal spending .
When asked last week if he backed the `` defund '' movement , Ossoff told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he favors `` reforming and demilitarizing policing in America . ''
`` We have pervasive racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that victimizes African Americans and people without wealth and connections , '' he said .
`` And we have a huge problem with police brutality , and our police forces are heavily militarized . ''
Ossoff 's campaign did not respond to a request for comment .
Ossoff , who has never held office , clinched Georgia 's Democratic Senate nomination last week and will face Sen. David Perdue ( R. , Ga. ) in November .
He previously sought Georgia 's Sixth Congressional District seat in 2017 , losing to Republican Karen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Perdue called for justice for George Floyd , whose death in police custody sparked nationwide protests , and he said defunding the police was an `` outrageous idea . ''

In a call for "national policing standards," Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff said he favors cutting funds for police departments if they violate his proposed rules on the use of force.
"You have to have national standards for the use of force, and yeah, you've got to be able to hold individual officers and entire departments accountable, and there also has to be funding for those departments on the line," he said Thursday on "The Rashad Richey Morning Show."
Ossoff's remarks come amid a national movement from liberals to "defund the police." A Washington Free Beacon analysis found more, not less, money would improve police performance and lower crime.
Ossoff did not specify if he meant federal or local funding, though if elected he would wield influence over the former. About 20 percent of police funding comes from federal spending. When asked last week if he backed the "defund" movement, Ossoff told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he favors "reforming and demilitarizing policing in America."
"We have pervasive racism and classism in the criminal justice system that victimizes African Americans and people without wealth and connections," he said. "And we have a huge problem with police brutality, and our police forces are heavily militarized."
Ossoff's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Ossoff, who has never held office, clinched Georgia's Democratic Senate nomination last week and will face Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) in November. He previously sought Georgia's Sixth Congressional District seat in 2017, losing to Republican Karen Handel.
In a statement last week, Perdue called for justice for George Floyd, whose death in police custody sparked nationwide protests, and he said defunding the police was an "outrageous idea."


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Congress Urges Trump Admin to Rein in China’s Growing Nuclear Arsenal

A delegation of 40 Republican lawmakers is urging the Trump administration to constrain China ’ s nuclear weapons program and significantly overhaul America ’ s own arsenal of aging nuclear arms , according to a letter sent Monday to President Donald Trump .
China is on pace to triple its stockpile of nuclear arms , including missiles capable of reaching America , GOP House lawmakers warned in a letter sent Monday to the White House and reported by the Washington Free Beacon for the first time .
Beijing ’ s proliferation efforts warrant increased U.S. readiness and lethality in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Chinese regime has put its aggressive nuclear ambitions on full display , '' necessitating an immediate intervention by the Trump administration , the lawmakers wrote in a letter spearheaded by Rep. Liz Cheney ( R. , Wyo. )
.
GOP hawks in Congress want to bolster recent efforts by the Trump administration to include China in the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( known as New START ) , an arms control pact that restricts the number of nuclear missiles the United States and Russia can deploy .
As China looks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular emphasis on countering U.S. capabilities—the Trump administration can no longer ignore the imminent threat this poses , according to the lawmakers .
In a move likely to rankle the arms control community , the GOP delegation is calling on the Trump administration to significantly expand the United States ' nuclear arms program to counter China .
This would include the construction of advanced missile and missile-defense capabilities , as well as a complete overhaul of the U.S. nuclear triad—land-based nuclear missiles , nuclear-armed submarines , and nuclear-capable aircraft bombers .
`` Powered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and civilian sectors , China , after many years of proclaiming its minimum nuclear deterrent , has developed its own nuclear triad to directly rival America , '' the lawmakers wrote .
In addition to modernizing its arsenal , China is `` developing capabilities to evade U.S. missile defenses , '' a threat that necessitates Beijing ’ s inclusion in the New START treaty .
China is already seeking to expand its nuclear arsenal to more than 1,000 warheads , triple its current stockpile .
The Communist regime will at least double its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what Defense Intelligence Agency director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley recently described as `` the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal '' in history .
The White House must also renew efforts to bring China to the negotiating table , including discussions that reach beyond the New START treaty , the lawmakers said .
It is unclear , however , how much leverage the United States has over China .
As negotiations with Russia over the New START treaty languish , the Trump administration has threatened to let the agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included in the talks .
Opponents of this approach argue that the United States has little power to bring China to the negotiating table and risks allowing the most significant arms control treaty in history to collapse .
Republican lawmakers are backing the Trump administration ’ s stance and hope to show the White House that these efforts will be supported by allies in Congress .
Trump ’ s `` directive to bring China to the table has only grown in urgency since the spread of the coronavirus pandemic , '' the lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CCP to be transparent about both this devastating virus and its nuclear capabilities and ambitions . ''
In addition to Cheney , the letter is backed by prominent Republican China hawks , including Reps. Jim Banks ( Ind . )
, Mike Gallagher ( Wis. ) , Doug Lamborn ( Colo. ) , and Lee Zeldin ( N.Y. ) , among many others .

A delegation of 40 Republican lawmakers is urging the Trump administration to constrain China’s nuclear weapons program and significantly overhaul America’s own arsenal of aging nuclear arms, according to a letter sent Monday to President Donald Trump.
China is on pace to triple its stockpile of nuclear arms, including missiles capable of reaching America, GOP House lawmakers warned in a letter sent Monday to the White House and reported by the Washington Free Beacon for the first time. Beijing’s proliferation efforts warrant increased U.S. readiness and lethality in the Indo-Pacific region, they said.
"The Chinese regime has put its aggressive nuclear ambitions on full display," necessitating an immediate intervention by the Trump administration, the lawmakers wrote in a letter spearheaded by Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wyo.).
GOP hawks in Congress want to bolster recent efforts by the Trump administration to include China in the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (known as New START), an arms control pact that restricts the number of nuclear missiles the United States and Russia can deploy. As China looks to expand its program past these caps—with a particular emphasis on countering U.S. capabilities—the Trump administration can no longer ignore the imminent threat this poses, according to the lawmakers.
In a move likely to rankle the arms control community, the GOP delegation is calling on the Trump administration to significantly expand the United States' nuclear arms program to counter China. This would include the construction of advanced missile and missile-defense capabilities, as well as a complete overhaul of the U.S. nuclear triad—land-based nuclear missiles, nuclear-armed submarines, and nuclear-capable aircraft bombers.
"Powered by the state-mandated fusion of its defense and civilian sectors, China, after many years of proclaiming its minimum nuclear deterrent, has developed its own nuclear triad to directly rival America," the lawmakers wrote.
In addition to modernizing its arsenal, China is "developing capabilities to evade U.S. missile defenses," a threat that necessitates Beijing’s inclusion in the New START treaty.
China is already seeking to expand its nuclear arsenal to more than 1,000 warheads, triple its current stockpile. The Communist regime will at least double its weapons cache in the next decade, in what Defense Intelligence Agency director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley recently described as "the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal" in history.
The White House must also renew efforts to bring China to the negotiating table, including discussions that reach beyond the New START treaty, the lawmakers said.
It is unclear, however, how much leverage the United States has over China. As negotiations with Russia over the New START treaty languish, the Trump administration has threatened to let the agreement lapse next year if China is not included in the talks. Opponents of this approach argue that the United States has little power to bring China to the negotiating table and risks allowing the most significant arms control treaty in history to collapse.
Republican lawmakers are backing the Trump administration’s stance and hope to show the White House that these efforts will be supported by allies in Congress.
Trump’s "directive to bring China to the table has only grown in urgency since the spread of the coronavirus pandemic," the lawmakers wrote. "We must compel the CCP to be transparent about both this devastating virus and its nuclear capabilities and ambitions."
In addition to Cheney, the letter is backed by prominent Republican China hawks, including Reps. Jim Banks (Ind.), Mike Gallagher (Wis.), Doug Lamborn (Colo.), and Lee Zeldin (N.Y.), among many others.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--De Blasio: NYC Not Asking Whether Coronavirus Patients Attended Mass Protests

New York City coronavirus contact tracers are not asking people about their participation in mass protests as officials attempt to contain further outbreaks of the virus .
`` No person will be asked proactively if they attended a protest , '' a spokesman for Mayor Bill de Blasio ( D. ) told The City .
`` If a person wants to proactively offer that information , there is an opportunity for them to do so . ''
Contact tracers will instead ask individuals who test positive for coronavirus to recall the other people they came into contact with , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone else in their homes .
Protests over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police have seen tens of thousands of people gathered closely together in outdoor spaces , raising concerns about new outbreaks as the country begins to reopen .
Public officials have urged protest attendees to get tested for the coronavirus as quickly as possible after attending protests .
Many public health officials endorsed the protests despite previous warnings about the dangers of mass gatherings .
Hundreds of officials and health professionals signed an open letter endorsing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against state lockdown orders .
De Blasio said that a three-day average of coronavirus tests conducted last week in New York City saw positivity rates increase from 2 percent to 3 percent .
While permitting protests to continue , he has curtailed other outdoor activities , including children 's use of playgrounds .
`` Out of an abundance of caution , the playgrounds just created too much of a risk to families , of the spread of the disease , '' he said .
Early data indicate that the protests have not resulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
Of the participants in Minnesota rallies tested for the virus , 1.4 percent tested positive .
The Seattle mayor 's office reported that of 3,000 tests conducted after the city 's protests , less than 1 percent came back positive .
New York governor Andrew Cuomo ( D. ) threatened to reinstitute New York City 's lockdown orders after city bars and restaurants reopened for outdoor service .
New hospitalizations in the city fell to 1,700 last weekend , the lowest point since March 22 .

New York City coronavirus contact tracers are not asking people about their participation in mass protests as officials attempt to contain further outbreaks of the virus.
"No person will be asked proactively if they attended a protest," a spokesman for Mayor Bill de Blasio (D.) told The City. "If a person wants to proactively offer that information, there is an opportunity for them to do so."
Contact tracers will instead ask individuals who test positive for coronavirus to recall the other people they came into contact with, and also whether or not they live with anyone else in their homes.
Protests over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police have seen tens of thousands of people gathered closely together in outdoor spaces, raising concerns about new outbreaks as the country begins to reopen. Public officials have urged protest attendees to get tested for the coronavirus as quickly as possible after attending protests.
Many public health officials endorsed the protests despite previous warnings about the dangers of mass gatherings. Hundreds of officials and health professionals signed an open letter endorsing the current protests while denouncing other protests against state lockdown orders.
De Blasio said that a three-day average of coronavirus tests conducted last week in New York City saw positivity rates increase from 2 percent to 3 percent. While permitting protests to continue, he has curtailed other outdoor activities, including children's use of playgrounds.
"Out of an abundance of caution, the playgrounds just created too much of a risk to families, of the spread of the disease," he said.
Early data indicate that the protests have not resulted in major spikes in infections around the country. Of the participants in Minnesota rallies tested for the virus, 1.4 percent tested positive. The Seattle mayor's office reported that of 3,000 tests conducted after the city's protests, less than 1 percent came back positive.
New York governor Andrew Cuomo (D.) threatened to reinstitute New York City's lockdown orders after city bars and restaurants reopened for outdoor service. New hospitalizations in the city fell to 1,700 last weekend, the lowest point since March 22.


freebeacon--2020-06-15--Supreme Court Delivers Surprise Victory For Gay Rights

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal civil rights law written in the 1960s also covers gay and transgender workers , delivering a significant and surprising victory for LGBT rights .
Justice Neil Gorsuch , one of President Donald Trump 's appointees , delivered the opinion in a six-to-three decision by the Court .
Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court 's four left-leaning justices were also in the majority .
Job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is legal in 25 states .
At stake in Monday 's cases was whether Title VII , the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covers gay , lesbian , and transgender workers .
The consequences may reach beyond the workplace .
The Trump administration and conservative legal groups warned the disputes have implications for dress codes and separate-sex bathrooms .
Maintaining sex-specific policies will be legally tricky if the courts extend Title VII to LGBT workers , those groups told the justices .
Monday 's disputes present the first gay-rights questions the Supreme Court has decided since Justice Anthony Kennedy 's retirement in 2018 .
Kennedy wrote all four of the Court 's modern gay rights precedents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Defense of Marriage Act , and established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage .
Kennedy cast the deciding vote in two of those cases , but his successor , Justice Brett Kavanaugh , had no record to speak of on LGBT issues as a lower court judge .
Monday 's decisions offer the first hints as to how the Court 's newly entrenched conservative majority will approach gay and transgender rights in the years to come , suggesting that Kennedy 's retirement has not blunted gay-rights momentum at the Court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s reelection bid and the conservative legal establishment .
The president was elected in part on the strength of conservative voters weary of judicial selection under past Republican presidents .
Whether jaded religious conservatives will tolerate another defection in a landmark case is an open question .
The decision may also precipitate real fissures within the conservative legal movement and its flagship groups like the Federalist Society .
Some leading legal conservatives denounced the Gorsuch opinion almost immediately .
The three plaintiffs in Monday 's disputes claim they were fired for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two gay men , Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock , who say they were terminated because of their orientation .
The second case involves a trans woman called Aimee Stephens , a funeral director who asked to present as a woman in the workplace .
The funeral home refused and dismissed Stephens .
The Trump administration supported the employers before the high court .
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans employment discrimination based on race , religion , and other characteristics .
The law does not specifically list gay or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Title VII does ban discrimination `` based on sex . ''
The question in both cases was whether the ban on sex-based discrimination also covers sexual orientation and gender identity .
There is no evidence that Congress meant for Title VII to encompass anti-LGBT bias .
Indeed , Congress has rejected legislation that would amend Title VII to that effect almost two dozen times .
Beginning in 2017 , three federal appeals courts nonetheless concluded that Title VII bars discrimination against gay , lesbian , and transgender people .
Those courts explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Therefore , they reasoned , it is already prohibited by Title VII ’ s ban on sex-based discrimination .
Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan , who represented the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court , advanced that point with a simple example at oral arguments in October .
`` When an employer fires a male employee for dating men but does not fire female employees who date men , he violates Title VII , '' Karlan said .
`` The employer has … discriminated against the man because he treats that man worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same thing . ''
It 's a tricky argument for the conservative justices , since it purports to rely on `` textualist '' legal principles .
Legal conservatives say judges should focus on the plain text of the law , not the intent behind it .
In this case , the plaintiffs say what matters is the plain text of Title VII—not the understanding of Congress—and the text prohibits sex-based discrimination , including LGBT bias .
Karlan ’ s argument proved persuasive enough for Gorsuch , a passionate apologist for textualism , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
`` At bottom , these cases involve no more than the straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings , '' Gorsuch wrote for the majority .
`` For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender , the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex .
That has always been prohibited by Title VII ’ s plain terms . ''
That Congress did not anticipate the full reach of Title VII ’ s application in 1964 makes no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the past , the Court had held that the law also forbids `` reasonably comparable evils '' like sexual harassment , and it has never tolerated sex-based discrimination even when other factors are at work .
The decision also warned that cabining the law based on unforeseen applications will usually work against marginalized groups .
`` To refuse enforcement just because of that , because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law ’ s passage , would not only require us to abandon our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law ’ s terms , '' Gorsuch wrote .
Justice Samuel Alito invoked Gorsuch ’ s predecessor , the late Justice Antonin Scalia , in a furious dissent that accused Gorsuch of poaching the textualist label in bad faith .
`` The Court ’ s opinion is like a pirate ship , '' Alito wrote .
`` It sails under a textualist flag , but what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘ update ’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society . ''
He also predicted that the decision will have far-reaching implications , saying the majority gave no reason to doubt that its logic would apply to issues like transgender bathroom access .
`` As the briefing in these cases has warned , the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion , freedom of speech , and personal privacy and safety , '' Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Court ’ s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty . ''
In a solo dissent , Justice Brett Kavanaugh said judges ought to favor the `` ordinary '' meaning of a term rather than a `` literal '' one .
For example , he said a rule barring vehicles in parks , taken literally , would prohibit baby strollers , even though the ordinary meaning of vehicle doesn ’ t include strollers .
Likewise , he said , the `` ordinary '' meaning of `` because of sex '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gender identity .
`` Notwithstanding my concern about the Court ’ s transgression of the Constitution ’ s separation of powers , it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans , '' Kavanaugh wrote .
Monday ’ s cases are No .
17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County and No .
18-107 R.G .
& G.R .
Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC .
Update 1:00 p.m. : This post has been updated with further information .
Update 2:30 p.m. : This post was updated with further @ @

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal civil rights law written in the 1960s also covers gay and transgender workers, delivering a significant and surprising victory for LGBT rights.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of President Donald Trump's appointees, delivered the opinion in a six-to-three decision by the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's four left-leaning justices were also in the majority.
Job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is legal in 25 states. At stake in Monday's cases was whether Title VII, the federal civil rights statute prohibiting employment discrimination, covers gay, lesbian, and transgender workers.
The consequences may reach beyond the workplace. The Trump administration and conservative legal groups warned the disputes have implications for dress codes and separate-sex bathrooms. Maintaining sex-specific policies will be legally tricky if the courts extend Title VII to LGBT workers, those groups told the justices.
Monday's disputes present the first gay-rights questions the Supreme Court has decided since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement in 2018. Kennedy wrote all four of the Court's modern gay rights precedents. Those rulings struck down anti-sodomy laws, the Defense of Marriage Act, and established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Kennedy cast the deciding vote in two of those cases, but his successor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, had no record to speak of on LGBT issues as a lower court judge. Monday's decisions offer the first hints as to how the Court's newly entrenched conservative majority will approach gay and transgender rights in the years to come, suggesting that Kennedy's retirement has not blunted gay-rights momentum at the Court.
The decision is fraught with implications for Trump’s reelection bid and the conservative legal establishment. The president was elected in part on the strength of conservative voters weary of judicial selection under past Republican presidents. Whether jaded religious conservatives will tolerate another defection in a landmark case is an open question.
The decision may also precipitate real fissures within the conservative legal movement and its flagship groups like the Federalist Society. Some leading legal conservatives denounced the Gorsuch opinion almost immediately.
The three plaintiffs in Monday's disputes claim they were fired for discriminatory reasons. The first case involved two gay men, Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock, who say they were terminated because of their orientation. The second case involves a trans woman called Aimee Stephens, a funeral director who asked to present as a woman in the workplace. The funeral home refused and dismissed Stephens.
The Trump administration supported the employers before the high court.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans employment discrimination based on race, religion, and other characteristics. The law does not specifically list gay or transgender people as protected groups. However, Title VII does ban discrimination "based on sex." The question in both cases was whether the ban on sex-based discrimination also covers sexual orientation and gender identity.
There is no evidence that Congress meant for Title VII to encompass anti-LGBT bias. Indeed, Congress has rejected legislation that would amend Title VII to that effect almost two dozen times. Beginning in 2017, three federal appeals courts nonetheless concluded that Title VII bars discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender people.
Those courts explained that anti-LGBT bias necessarily involves sex. Therefore, they reasoned, it is already prohibited by Title VII’s ban on sex-based discrimination. Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, who represented the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court, advanced that point with a simple example at oral arguments in October.
"When an employer fires a male employee for dating men but does not fire female employees who date men, he violates Title VII," Karlan said. "The employer has … discriminated against the man because he treats that man worse than women who want to do the same thing."
It's a tricky argument for the conservative justices, since it purports to rely on "textualist" legal principles. Legal conservatives say judges should focus on the plain text of the law, not the intent behind it. In this case, the plaintiffs say what matters is the plain text of Title VII—not the understanding of Congress—and the text prohibits sex-based discrimination, including LGBT bias.
Karlan’s argument proved persuasive enough for Gorsuch, a passionate apologist for textualism, who said the question was a relatively straightforward one.
"At bottom, these cases involve no more than the straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings," Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex. That has always been prohibited by Title VII’s plain terms."
That Congress did not anticipate the full reach of Title VII’s application in 1964 makes no difference, Gorsuch went on to explain. In the past, the Court had held that the law also forbids "reasonably comparable evils" like sexual harassment, and it has never tolerated sex-based discrimination even when other factors are at work.
The decision also warned that cabining the law based on unforeseen applications will usually work against marginalized groups.
"To refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms," Gorsuch wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito invoked Gorsuch’s predecessor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in a furious dissent that accused Gorsuch of poaching the textualist label in bad faith.
"The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship," Alito wrote. "It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society."
He also predicted that the decision will have far-reaching implications, saying the majority gave no reason to doubt that its logic would apply to issues like transgender bathroom access.
"As the briefing in these cases has warned, the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety," Alito wrote. "No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty."
In a solo dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said judges ought to favor the "ordinary" meaning of a term rather than a "literal" one. For example, he said a rule barring vehicles in parks, taken literally, would prohibit baby strollers, even though the ordinary meaning of vehicle doesn’t include strollers. Likewise, he said, the "ordinary" meaning of "because of sex" refers to sex only, not orientation and gender identity.
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans," Kavanaugh wrote.
Monday’s cases are No. 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County and No. 18-107 R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.
Bostock v. Clayton County S... by Washington Free Beacon on Scribd
Update 1:00 p.m.: This post has been updated with further information.
Update 2:30 p.m.: This post was updated with further information.


freebeacon--2020-06-16--Former Top Michigan Elections Official Slams Mass Mail-In Vote

Michigan 's former top elections official said that Democrats ' decision to send unsolicited absentee ballot applications to nearly 8 million voters may violate state laws .
Former Republican secretary of state Ruth Johnson said her successor , Democrat Jocelyn Benson , may have made an `` illegal '' decision that `` threatens the integrity of elections '' by ordering state officials to distribute millions of mail-in ballot applications .
Benson 's decision contradicted legal precedent and the secretary of state 's own election manual , which mandates that `` clerks may not mail absentee voter applications without having received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Johnson .
`` For decades , getting applications to voters has been the job of local clerks .
What Benson is doing is possibly illegal—I think it is , '' Johnson told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` It oversteps and threatens the integrity of our elections . ''
President Donald Trump criticized Benson 's decision in a May tweet , calling her a `` rogue Secretary of State . ''
While the comment received pushback from Democrats , local and state officials have expressed concerns that expanded mail-in voting opens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing state .
Allegan County clerk Bob Genetski ( R. ) told the Free Beacon that Benson has `` made it a lot easier for people to take advantage of the system '' by circumventing local election officials who have a specialized knowledge of voters in their area .
He called the situation `` extremely frustrating , '' saying that state officials are not well-positioned to prevent fraud .
`` My local clerks know their voters , they know the areas in their districts , and the state does not , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state to take this over , and it 's very concerning the direction things are going . ''
Benson 's office did not respond to a request for comment .
Johnson said that she has received reports of the state sending ballot applications to a wide range of non-eligible voters , including those who have died , moved , or are not of legal voting age .
`` We have a letter from a 16-year-old who received an application , and I also received a text about a noncitizen who was sent an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This really strips away the integrity of our elections .
It creates opportunity for fraud . ''
According to Genetski , concerns over voter fraud are not hypothetical .
He claimed that , in his county , one former lakefront property owner from another state is attempting to vote despite selling his in-state home years ago .
Those are the types of scenarios that only a local , rather than a state official , would be able to rectify .
Benson defended her decision to send absentee ballot applications to the state 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is `` significantly harder to successfully forge someone 's signature than it is to create a fake ID '' during a June 9 call with AARP members .
Johnson disputed the claim , calling it `` simply not accurate . ''
She said local election officials may lack the resources to handle the uptick in absentee ballots stemming from Benson 's unsolicited sending of applications .
`` How do you check when you have hundreds of thousands of people who vote ?
Local election officials have to compare all of those signatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's why it 's illegal for election officials to send out absentee ballot applications unsolicited . ''
While Michigan allows residents to vote absentee for any reason , voters are typically required to send a ballot request to their local clerk .
State election law also requires those who register to vote online or through the mail to show their local clerk a state-issued ID prior to Election Day .
According to Genetski , `` as soon as Benson took office , her office said that law should n't be enforced . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state senate 's elections committee , has asked those who receive erroneous absentee ballot applications to alert her in an attempt to `` ensure the people of Michigan have secure and fair elections . ''
But she said compiling such applications can be difficult , given that many people immediately throw them away .
Johnson added , `` We 're not getting any accountability , any transparency '' from Benson .
On June 9 , Republican activist Tony Daunt filed a lawsuit against Benson alleging that the state has failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' voter rolls .
The lawsuit claims that northern Michigan 's Leelanau County has a registration rate of 102 percent , meaning that there are more registered voters than people of voting age .
A similar lawsuit was filed in December against the city of Detroit , alleging that its voter rolls contain 511,786 registered voters despite only 479,267 residents being eligible to vote .
`` Jocelyn Benson was given ample notice to clean up the state 's voter rolls , and her failure to do so threatens the integrity of every Michigander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement .
`` Failure to maintain updated and accurate voter rolls violates federal law and undermines the principle of free and fair elections . ''

Michigan's former top elections official said that Democrats' decision to send unsolicited absentee ballot applications to nearly 8 million voters may violate state laws.
Former Republican secretary of state Ruth Johnson said her successor, Democrat Jocelyn Benson, may have made an "illegal" decision that "threatens the integrity of elections" by ordering state officials to distribute millions of mail-in ballot applications. Benson's decision contradicted legal precedent and the secretary of state's own election manual, which mandates that "clerks may not mail absentee voter applications without having received a verbal or written request," according to Johnson.
"For decades, getting applications to voters has been the job of local clerks. What Benson is doing is possibly illegal—I think it is," Johnson told the Washington Free Beacon. "It oversteps and threatens the integrity of our elections."
President Donald Trump criticized Benson's decision in a May tweet, calling her a "rogue Secretary of State." While the comment received pushback from Democrats, local and state officials have expressed concerns that expanded mail-in voting opens the door to fraud in an important swing state. Allegan County clerk Bob Genetski (R.) told the Free Beacon that Benson has "made it a lot easier for people to take advantage of the system" by circumventing local election officials who have a specialized knowledge of voters in their area. He called the situation "extremely frustrating," saying that state officials are not well-positioned to prevent fraud.
"My local clerks know their voters, they know the areas in their districts, and the state does not," he said. "Nobody was asking the state to take this over, and it's very concerning the direction things are going."
Johnson said that she has received reports of the state sending ballot applications to a wide range of non-eligible voters, including those who have died, moved, or are not of legal voting age.
"We have a letter from a 16-year-old who received an application, and I also received a text about a noncitizen who was sent an application," Johnson said. "This really strips away the integrity of our elections. It creates opportunity for fraud."
According to Genetski, concerns over voter fraud are not hypothetical. He claimed that, in his county, one former lakefront property owner from another state is attempting to vote despite selling his in-state home years ago. Those are the types of scenarios that only a local, rather than a state official, would be able to rectify.
Michigan Secretary of State spokeswoman Tracy Wimmer told the Free Beacon that it was "within the Secretary's authority to mail applications" and that forging someone else's signature on an application is "rarely attempted."
Benson defended her decision to send absentee ballot applications to the state's nearly 8 million voters by claiming that it is "significantly harder to successfully forge someone's signature than it is to create a fake ID" during a June 9 call with AARP members. Johnson disputed the claim, calling it "simply not accurate." She said local election officials may lack the resources to handle the uptick in absentee ballots stemming from Benson's unsolicited sending of applications.
"How do you check when you have hundreds of thousands of people who vote? Local election officials have to compare all of those signatures," she said. "That's why it's illegal for election officials to send out absentee ballot applications unsolicited."
While Michigan allows residents to vote absentee for any reason, voters are typically required to send a ballot request to their local clerk. State election law also requires those who register to vote online or through the mail to show their local clerk a state-issued ID prior to Election Day. According to Genetski, "as soon as Benson took office, her office said that law shouldn't be enforced."
Johnson, who currently serves as chair of the state senate's elections committee, has asked those who receive erroneous absentee ballot applications to alert her in an attempt to "ensure the people of Michigan have secure and fair elections." But she said compiling such applications can be difficult, given that many people immediately throw them away.
Johnson added, "We're not getting any accountability, any transparency" from Benson.
On June 9, Republican activist Tony Daunt filed a lawsuit against Benson alleging that the state has failed to clean up its "bloated and inaccurate" voter rolls. The lawsuit claims that northern Michigan's Leelanau County has a registration rate of 102 percent, meaning that there are more registered voters than people of voting age. Wimmer said the suit "seeks to gain media attention using debunked claims and bad statistics to delegitimize our elections."
A similar lawsuit was filed in December against the city of Detroit, alleging that its voter rolls contain 511,786 registered voters despite only 479,267 residents being eligible to vote.
"Jocelyn Benson was given ample notice to clean up the state's voter rolls, and her failure to do so threatens the integrity of every Michigander's vote," Daunt said in a statement. "Failure to maintain updated and accurate voter rolls violates federal law and undermines the principle of free and fair elections."
Update 6/16/2020 11:18 a.m.: This article was updated with comment from the Michigan Secretary of State


freebeacon--2020-06-16--Gun-Rights Groups Launch 11th Hour Bid To Block Virginia’s One-Gun-A-Month Law

A coalition of gun-rights groups has filed a last-minute bid to prevent Virginia from implementing monthly limits on gun purchases .
On July 1 , Virginia will prohibit residents from buying more than one gun per month unless they are law enforcement or hold a valid gun-carry license .
The measure serves as a key part of the gun-control package that Democrats passed after taking control of the Virginia legislature , but Second Amendment advocates say it violates the state constitution , as well as federal gun rights .
The Virginia Citizens Defense League ( VCDL ) , Gun Owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed suit in the Virginia circuit court for the county of Goochland to prevent the law from taking effect .
`` We do n't ration any other constitutional rights , '' Philip Van Cleave , president of the VCDL , told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` We do n't say , ‘ Well , you can only go to church once a week .
You can only read one newspaper a month . '
We do n't do any of that .
We do n't ration our rights . ''
Democrats won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 with major backing from Michael Bloomberg and gun-control groups .
The new majority 's push for major gun-control legislation , however , sparked major pushback from local governments .
All but 4 of Virginia 's 95 counties declared themselves `` Second Amendment Sanctuaries , '' pledging not to enforce certain gun bans they believe to be unconstitutional .
The opposition movement culminated in a massive January protest in Richmond organized by the VCDL .
Gun-rights activists succeeded in stopping an attempt by some Democrats to ban and confiscate guns like the AR-15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Governor Ralph Northam ( D. ) signed in April .
The battle over gun rights has now moved to the courtroom .
The enforcement of the one-gun-per-month policy is most troubling because it would require state tracking policies at odds with gun rights , according to Gun Owners of America .
The group 's spokesman , Erich Pratt , said Northam 's measures are similar to gun-control laws that were repealed in 2012 .
The policies have only become more `` radical '' even as crime rates have dropped in Virginia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problematic , as it necessitates a backdoor gun registry , '' Pratt said in a statement .
`` The radical push for gun control has nothing to do with reducing crime , but rather is about implementing a disarmament agenda . ''
Neither Governor Northam nor state attorney general Mark Herring ( D. ) responded to requests for comment .
The case is scheduled to go before a state court judge on June 26 .

A coalition of gun-rights groups has filed a last-minute bid to prevent Virginia from implementing monthly limits on gun purchases.
On July 1, Virginia will prohibit residents from buying more than one gun per month unless they are law enforcement or hold a valid gun-carry license. The measure serves as a key part of the gun-control package that Democrats passed after taking control of the Virginia legislature, but Second Amendment advocates say it violates the state constitution, as well as federal gun rights. The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation filed suit in the Virginia circuit court for the county of Goochland to prevent the law from taking effect.
"We don't ration any other constitutional rights," Philip Van Cleave, president of the VCDL, told the Washington Free Beacon. "We don't say, 'Well, you can only go to church once a week. You can only read one newspaper a month.' We don't do any of that. We don't ration our rights."
Democrats won both houses of the state legislature in 2019 with major backing from Michael Bloomberg and gun-control groups. The new majority's push for major gun-control legislation, however, sparked major pushback from local governments. All but 4 of Virginia's 95 counties declared themselves "Second Amendment Sanctuaries," pledging not to enforce certain gun bans they believe to be unconstitutional. The opposition movement culminated in a massive January protest in Richmond organized by the VCDL.
Gun-rights activists succeeded in stopping an attempt by some Democrats to ban and confiscate guns like the AR-15, but Democrats passed a gun-control package that Governor Ralph Northam (D.) signed in April. The battle over gun rights has now moved to the courtroom.
The enforcement of the one-gun-per-month policy is most troubling because it would require state tracking policies at odds with gun rights, according to Gun Owners of America. The group's spokesman, Erich Pratt, said Northam's measures are similar to gun-control laws that were repealed in 2012. The policies have only become more "radical" even as crime rates have dropped in Virginia.
"The enforcement of this law is problematic, as it necessitates a backdoor gun registry," Pratt said in a statement. "The radical push for gun control has nothing to do with reducing crime, but rather is about implementing a disarmament agenda."
Neither Governor Northam nor state attorney general Mark Herring (D.) responded to requests for comment.
The case is scheduled to go before a state court judge on June 26.


freebeacon--2020-06-16--NBC News Botches Report Targeting Conservative Opinion Site

An NBC News report that claimed the conservative news and commentary site the Federalist had been demonetized by Google for an article about Black Lives Matter protests was contradicted by Google and the site 's publisher .
`` The Federalist was never demonetized , '' Google 's communications department tweeted after NBC published the story .
The Federalist was not banned from generating revenue served by Google ads but rather was warned it would be , publisher Ben Domenech told the Washington Free Beacon .
The warning concerned the site 's comments section , not any particular article , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminated its comments section on Tuesday `` for the moment , '' Domenech said .
Google already demonetized Zero Hedge , another right-wing site , for violations in its comments section .
The NBC News story initially suggested that the Federalist and Zero Hedge were demonetized because of articles they published .
Its lead sentence read , `` Google has banned two far-right websites from its advertising platform after research revealed the tech giant was profiting from articles pushing unsubstantiated claims about the Black Lives Matter protests . ''
The story was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ websites from its ad platform over protest articles . ''
NBC News has since updated the story 's opening sentence to read , `` Google has banned ZeroHedge , a far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories , from its advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests . ''
The headline now states , `` Google bans website ZeroHedge from its ad platform over comments on protest articles . ''
After her article was published , NBC News reporter Adele-Momoko Fraser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , Google added that it takes into account all of the content on a website including comments to determine if a policy violation has occurred , which is where the policy violations occurred . ''
She later added , in a refutation of her article 's original opening , `` Google notified The Federalist on Tuesday of policy violations .
It now has three days to remove the violations before the ban goes into effect . ''
She also wrote that Google had `` backtracked , '' as a spokesman initially told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been demonetized .
NBC News acknowledged working in concert with the British nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate ( CCDH ) on the story .
The organization `` seeks to disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation '' and counter `` fringe movements . ''
It has compiled a list of U.S.-based websites it claims has published `` racist articles '' about Black Lives Matter protests that could `` make millions of dollars through Google Ads . ''
Fraser also wrote that NBC News had referred Google to the Federalist ‘ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention , '' she initially wrote .
That sentence has now been deleted .
The story , a project of the London-based NBC News `` Verification Unit '' against misinformation , has not added an editor 's note to alert readers to its multiple corrections .
On Twitter , Fraser thanked the CCDH for its `` collaboration '' and appeared to celebrate the consequences for the two websites .
`` Thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work and collaboration !
# BlackLivesMatter , '' she tweeted .
She later deleted the tweet and reposted the same message , but with # BlackLivesMatter taken out .
Fraser did not respond to a request for comment .

An NBC News report that claimed the conservative news and commentary site the Federalist had been demonetized by Google for an article about Black Lives Matter protests was contradicted by Google and the site's publisher.
"The Federalist was never demonetized," Google's communications department tweeted after NBC published the story.
The Federalist was never demonetized. — Google Communications (@Google_Comms) June 16, 2020
The Federalist was not banned from generating revenue served by Google ads but rather was warned it would be, publisher Ben Domenech told the Washington Free Beacon. The warning concerned the site's comments section, not any particular article, as NBC News originally reported. The Federalist eliminated its comments section on Tuesday "for the moment," Domenech said. Google already demonetized Zero Hedge, another right-wing site, for violations in its comments section.
The NBC News story initially suggested that the Federalist and Zero Hedge were demonetized because of articles they published. Its lead sentence read, "Google has banned two far-right websites from its advertising platform after research revealed the tech giant was profiting from articles pushing unsubstantiated claims about the Black Lives Matter protests." The story was also erroneously headlined, "Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles."
NBC News has since updated the story's opening sentence to read, "Google has banned ZeroHedge, a far-right website that often traffics in conspiracy theories, from its advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests." The headline now states, "Google bans website ZeroHedge from its ad platform over comments on protest articles."
After her article was published, NBC News reporter Adele-Momoko Fraser added, "After publication of this story, Google added that it takes into account all of the content on a website including comments to determine if a policy violation has occurred, which is where the policy violations occurred."
She later added, in a refutation of her article's original opening, "Google notified The Federalist on Tuesday of policy violations. It now has three days to remove the violations before the ban goes into effect." She also wrote that Google had "backtracked," as a spokesman initially told NBC News that the Federalist had already been demonetized.
NBC News acknowledged working in concert with the British nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) on the story. The organization "seeks to disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation" and counter "fringe movements." It has compiled a list of U.S.-based websites it claims has published "racist articles" about Black Lives Matter protests that could "make millions of dollars through Google Ads."
Fraser also wrote that NBC News had referred Google to the Federalist's inclusion in the CCDH's project.
"Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention," she initially wrote. That sentence has now been deleted.
The story, a project of the London-based NBC News "Verification Unit" against misinformation, has not added an editor's note to alert readers to its multiple corrections.
On Twitter, Fraser thanked the CCDH for its "collaboration" and appeared to celebrate the consequences for the two websites.
"Thanks to @SFFakeNews and @CCDHate for their hard work and collaboration! #BlackLivesMatter," she tweeted. She later deleted the tweet and reposted the same message, but with #BlackLivesMatter taken out.
Fraser did not respond to a request for comment.


freebeacon--2020-06-16--Football Coaches Should Avoid These Problematic T-Shirts

Oklahoma State University football coach Mike Gundy was nearly canceled after he was photographed wearing a One America News ( OAN ) T-shirt while standing next to a pile of fish .
The school 's running back , Chuba Hubbard , reacted to the photo via Twitter , writing : `` I will not stand for this..
This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society , and it ’ s unacceptable .
I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things CHANGE . ''
Other social media users also weighed in on the controversy , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a rule of thumb , football coaches and other adults should probably refrain from ever wearing a T-shirt advertising any television network .
OAN is obviously problematic because of its support for President Donald Trump , not to mention the fact that Washington Free Beacon reporter Adam Kredo has appeared on the network to provide expert commentary .
Many have argued there 's no such thing as a `` safe '' media network , and they 're probably right .
Wearing the logo of any one of the following networks could make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and therefore should never be done in public .
CANCELED… for turning a blind eye to senior vice president Barbara Fedida 's racist remarks about black employees , broadcasting fake news about Syria , the disgusting behavior of disgraced former political director Mark Halperin , and the cowardice of network executives who spiked a story on Clinton associate Jeffrey Epstein 's monstrous abuse of young women .
CANCELED… for condoning fake news and for the sexually inappropriate behavior of disgraced host Charlie Rose , disgraced producer Jeff Fager , and disgraced chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every dumb thing Don Lemon has ever said ; reporter Kaitlan Collins 's homophobic tweets ; former contributor Marc Lamont Hill 's anti-Semitism ; broadcasting the belief that Trump `` may be responsible '' for more deaths than Hitler , Stalin , and Mao ; and the continued employment of Jim Acosta .
CANCELED… for being complicit in the employment of sexual deviants Mark Halperin and Chris Matthews , the homophobic opinions expressed by Joy-Ann Reid , Brian Williams 's fake war stories , the predatory behavior of disgraced host Matt Lauer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publish detailed allegations of sexual assault against disgraced Hollywood mogul and Clinton associate Harvey Weinstein .
In conclusion : Stay safe .
Do n't wear a media network 's logo on your shirt .

Oklahoma State University football coach Mike Gundy was nearly canceled after he was photographed wearing a One America News (OAN) T-shirt while standing next to a pile of fish.
The school's running back, Chuba Hubbard, reacted to the photo via Twitter, writing: "I will not stand for this.. This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society, and it’s unacceptable. I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things CHANGE."
Other social media users also weighed in on the controversy, which appears to have been resolved amicably.
As a rule of thumb, football coaches and other adults should probably refrain from ever wearing a T-shirt advertising any television network. OAN is obviously problematic because of its support for President Donald Trump, not to mention the fact that Washington Free Beacon reporter Adam Kredo has appeared on the network to provide expert commentary.
Many have argued there's no such thing as a "safe" media network, and they're probably right. Wearing the logo of any one of the following networks could make the wearer a prime target for cancellation, and therefore should never be done in public.
ABC News
CANCELED... for turning a blind eye to senior vice president Barbara Fedida's racist remarks about black employees, broadcasting fake news about Syria, the disgusting behavior of disgraced former political director Mark Halperin, and the cowardice of network executives who spiked a story on Clinton associate Jeffrey Epstein's monstrous abuse of young women.
CBS News
CANCELED... for condoning fake news and for the sexually inappropriate behavior of disgraced host Charlie Rose, disgraced producer Jeff Fager, and disgraced chief executive Les Moonves.
CNN
CANCELED... for embracing every dumb thing Don Lemon has ever said; reporter Kaitlan Collins's homophobic tweets; former contributor Marc Lamont Hill's anti-Semitism; broadcasting the belief that Trump "may be responsible" for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao; and the continued employment of Jim Acosta.
NBC News
CANCELED... for being complicit in the employment of sexual deviants Mark Halperin and Chris Matthews, the homophobic opinions expressed by Joy-Ann Reid, Brian Williams's fake war stories, the predatory behavior of disgraced host Matt Lauer, and the refusal of network executives to publish detailed allegations of sexual assault against disgraced Hollywood mogul and Clinton associate Harvey Weinstein.
In conclusion: Stay safe. Don't wear a media network's logo on your shirt.