theblaze--2020-10-14--Top 25 countries with the most competitive tax codes in 2020 revealed

Top 25 countries with the most competitive tax codes in 2020 revealed Which countries are beating the United States ?

Though not usually considered the sexiest of topics, national tax polices impact the daily lives of billions of people a year. For that reason, the Tax Foundation, a tax policy nonprofit, issues an annual International Tax Competitiveness Index.
The organization posted its 2020 index Wednesday, and the news isn't great for the U.S., which ranked No. 21 in the report.
What is this report?
It's important to understand countries' tax policies to have an idea of how those countries' economies might fare.
As the Tax Foundation noted in its report Wednesday:
The structure of a country's tax code is an important determinant of its economic performance. A well-structured tax code is easy for taxpayers to comply with and can promote economic development while raising sufficient revenue for a government's priorities. In contrast, poorly structured tax systems can be costly, distort economic decision-making, and harm domestic economies.
The index is designed to offers a look at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member nations' tax systems and how closely they stick to the important aspects of competitiveness and neutrality. From the report:
A competitive tax code is one that keeps marginal tax rates low. In today's globalized world, capital is highly mobile. Businesses can choose to invest in any number of countries throughout the world to find the highest rate of return. This means that businesses will look for countries with lower tax rates on investment to maximize their after-tax rate of return. If a country's tax rate is too high, it will drive investment elsewhere, leading to slower economic growth. In addition, high marginal tax rates can lead to tax avoidance.
According to research from the OECD, corporate taxes are most harmful for economic growth, with personal income taxes and consumption taxes being less harmful. Taxes on immovable property have the smallest impact on growth.
Separately, a neutral tax code is simply one that seeks to raise the most revenue with the fewest economic distortions. This means that it doesn't favor consumption over saving, as happens with investment taxes and wealth taxes. This also means few or no targeted tax breaks for specific activities carried out by businesses or individuals. [...]
A tax code that is competitive and neutral promotes sustainable economic growth and investment while raising sufficient revenue for government priorities.
The index scores OECD nations on their corporate, individual, consumption, and property taxes, as well as their international tax rules. The combination of those scores is used to create an overall score.
The United States came in 21st in the 2020 ranking, dropping from 20th place in the 2018 and 2019 rankings.
Below are the 25 OECD member nations with the most competitive tax codes, according to the index, along with their overall scores in the 2020 report and their 2018 and 2019 rankings.
Top 25 countries with most competitive tax codes in 2020
No. 1: Estonia (Score: 100) 2018 ranking: 1
2019 ranking: 1
No. 2: Latvia (Score: 84.4) 2018 ranking: 2
2019 ranking: 2
No. 3: New Zealand (Score: 82.4) 2018 ranking: 3
2019 ranking: 3
No. 4: Switzerland (Score: 77.1) 2018 ranking: 5
2019 ranking: 4
No. 5: Luxembourg (Score: 76) 2018 ranking: 4
2019 ranking: 6
No. 6: Lithuania (Score: 75.8) 2018 ranking: 6
2019 ranking: 5
No. 7: Sweden (Score: 74) 2018 ranking: 7
2019 ranking: 7
No. 8: Czech Republic (Score: 73.1) 2018 ranking: 8
2019 ranking: 8
No. 9: Australia (Score: 71.4) 2018 ranking: 11
2019 ranking: 9
No. 10: Slovak Republic (Score: 69.9) 2018 ranking: 10
2019 ranking: 11
No. 11: Turkey (Score: 69.9) 2018 ranking: 14
2019 ranking: 10
No. 12: Austria (Score: 68.7) 2018 ranking: 12
2019 ranking: 12
No. 13: Norway (Score: 68.1) 2018 ranking: 13
2019 ranking: 14
No. 14: Hungary (Score: 67.9) 2018 ranking: 16
2019 ranking: 15
No. 15: Germany (Score: 67.9) 2018 ranking: 15
2019 ranking: 13
No. 16: Finland (Score: 65.7) 2018 ranking: 17
2019 ranking: 17
No. 17: Netherlands (Score: 65.5) 2018 ranking: 9
2019 ranking: 16
No. 18: Canada (Score: 65.3) 2018 ranking: 18
2019 ranking: 18
No. 19: Belguim (Score: 64.1) 2018 ranking: 21
2019 ranking: 23
No. 20: Ireland (Score: 63.1) 2018 ranking: 19
2019 ranking: 19
No. 21: United States (Score: 62.9) 2018 ranking: 20
2019 ranking: 20
No. 22: United Kingdom (Score: 61.6) 2018 ranking: 24
2019 ranking: 21
No. 23: Slovenia (Score: 61.4) 2018 ranking: 25
2019 ranking: 24
No. 24: Korea (Score: 59.9) 2018 ranking: 22
2019 ranking: 25


theblaze--2020-10-14--Biden calls press ‘lid’ — won’t speak to reporters — following bombshell report about alleged meetin

Biden calls press ‘lid’ — won’t speak to reporters — following bombshell report about alleged meeting with Burisma executive

Biden calls press ‘ lid ’ — won ’ t speak to reporters — following bombshell report about alleged meeting @ @ @

The Biden campaign called yet another press "lid" Wednesday morning following a bombshell report showing that former Vice President Joe Biden may have lied about meeting with an executive from Ukraine energy firm, Burisma Holdings, in 2015.
The New York Post reported early Wednesday about a newly obtained "smoking gun" email that appeared to show that Hunter Biden brokered a meeting in April 2015 between his father and and Burisma's "No. 3 exec," Vadym Pozharskyi. Biden has repeatedly denied ever discussing his son's "overseas business dealings."
"Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It's realty [sic] an honor and pleasure," the e-mail from Pozharskyi to Hunter Biden reads.
The revelation, which calls into question Biden's honesty regarding his son's past lucrative position on the Burisma board, is certainly a subject of interest to the media.
Feeling the heat, Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates hit back at the report in a statement, saying, "We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place."
But a prepared statement from the campaign is not quite the same as a candidate responding to reporter's questions. Unfortunately, at least for the remainder of the day, press will be unable to get a direct response from Biden himself on the matter.
Daily Mail reporter Nikki Schwab posted part of a press release on Twitter late Wednesday morning, showing that while the Biden campaign had called a lid, the candidate would still be participating in a fundraiser later in the day.
"The Biden campaign has called a lid. Later this afternoon, Biden will participate in a virtual fundraiser. Your pooler will send a report at its conclusion," the release said. "At 7 p.m., Biden is delivering pre-taped remarks to American Muslims at the Muslims Making Change: National Honors event. Those remarks are open press."
It should be noted that calling early press lids — arcane signals that mean a candidate is done campaigning for the day and won't be speaking to reporters — have become a common practice for the 77-year-old Democratic nominee during this year's election.
The gaffe-prone candidate has generally relied on a low-profile, under-the-radar campaign and has fielded far fewer questions from reporters than his opponent, President Trump.
So while the action of calling a lid is not unusual for Biden, the timing of Wednesday's lid is what some are finding suspicious.
(H/T: Townhall)


theblaze--2020-10-14--Change My Mind: Confirm Amy Coney Barrett, Part Two

A political science student named Kit joined Steven at the Change My Mind table to discuss whether the Senate should confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
In this clip , in addition to interpreting the law , Kit argued the Supreme Court should represent America 's viewpoints and cultures .
Packing the court , he believed , was the best way to achieve fair representation .
Crowder explained that it is the Supreme Court 's job to interpret the law .
The Supreme Court is not democratically elected .
The president has the right to nominate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confirm .
The public does not have the right to vote on the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice .
`` I 've noticed a pattern today ... you do n't have a constitutional or legal argument for why the Senate should not confirm Amy Coney Barrett , '' Crowder said .
`` You just do n't like it . ''
Watch the video to hear Kit 's `` interesting '' take on the Supreme Court 's role and intent .
Use promo code LWC to save $ 10 on one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Crowder ?
To enjoy more of Steven 's uncensored late-night comedy that 's actually funny , join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand .

A political science student named Kit joined Steven at the Change My Mind table to discuss whether the Senate should confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
In this clip, in addition to interpreting the law, Kit argued the Supreme Court should represent America's viewpoints and cultures. Packing the court, he believed, was the best way to achieve fair representation.
Crowder explained that it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the law. The Supreme Court is not democratically elected. The president has the right to nominate, and the Senate has the right to confirm. The public does not have the right to vote on the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice.
"I've noticed a pattern today ... you don't have a constitutional or legal argument for why the Senate should not confirm Amy Coney Barrett," Crowder said. "You just don't like it."
Watch the video to hear Kit's "interesting" take on the Supreme Court's role and intent.
Confirm Amy Coney Barrett | Part Two | Change My Mind youtu.be
Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
Want more from Steven Crowder?
To enjoy more of Steven's uncensored late-night comedy that's actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.


theblaze--2020-10-14--Report: Wisconsin man admits to firing first shots on the night of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting

Report : Wisconsin man admits to firing first shots on the night of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting

According to a criminal complaint obtained by the New York Post, a Wisconsin man has been charged by Wisconsin authorities with multiple crimes after he reportedly admitted to having fired the first of a number of fateful shots that rang out in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the night of Aug. 25.
According to the Post, 35-year-old Wisconsin native Joshua Ziminski and his wife both admitted to detectives that Ziminski fired a "warning shot" into the air immediately before Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum during a tense night of protests. The detectives are the same detectives who have been in charge of investigating Rittenhouse's activities on that evening.
Rittenhouse has been charged with first-degree murder, among other charges. His attorneys say he was acting in self-defense.
The shot fired by Ziminski was a pivotal moment in the evening and may have played a key role in the violent events of that night. As noted by the New York Times, which exhaustively reviewed available footage of Rittenhouse from that evening, Rittenhouse appears to have been fleeing an increasingly agitated mob of protesters until he was cornered in the lot of a car dealership. Video taken of the shooting appears to show that right before Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum, there was a nearby muzzle flash and gunshot sound from the same direction that Rosenbaum was charging.
According to detectives, that gunshot was fired by Ziminski, who was seen on video "holding a black handgun" immediately before the attack, then was seen walking into the Ultimate Gas Station lot — which is adjacent to the car dealership where the Rosenbaum shooting occurred — with his "arm pointing the gun upward towards the sky." Videos of the shooting appear to show Rittenhouse turning toward the sound of the shot and seeing Rosenbaum charging at him, whereupon Rittenhouse fired several close-range shots at the charging Rosenbaum.
Rittenhouse's attorneys have said that the gunshot allegedly fired by Ziminski was what caused their client to believe that his life was in danger. Daily Caller reporter Richie McGinness, who was on the scene and witnessed the shooting firsthand, also stated that the sound of the gunshot was when Rittenhouse "went from running away to aiming his weapon."
After Rosenbaum was shot, Rittenhouse then fled an even larger group of pursuers. In the course of that flight, he fatally shot 26-year-old Anthony Huber, who chased him down and tackled him in the street, and also shot and wounded Gage Grosskreutz, who appears to have pulled a handgun on him.
Ziminski's attorneys did not return a request for comment to the New York Post. He has been released on bond and is scheduled to have a pre-trial hearing on Dec. 4.


theblaze--2020-10-14--Horowitz: Cuomo admits ‘fear,’ not science, driving his restrictions on New York’s Jewish community

Horowitz : Cuomo admits ‘ fear , ’ not science , driving his restrictions on New York ’ s Jewish @ @ @ @ @ best way to do it , but it is a fear-driven response '

As the virus continues to spread (with a low death rate) despite months of restrictions and mask-wearing, politicians keep returning to the same failed ideas in an attempt to stop the unstoppable. This exercise in repetitive insanity — trying the same thing over again and expecting different results — is certainly not being driven by science, but rather by fear, according to a recent phone recording of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
It's been a shocking few weeks in New York City as an American governor in 2020 is explicitly targeting a sect of orthodox Jews for restrictions on their First Amendment rights to pray in synagogues. In recent days, he dispatched an army of public health officials to Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn to issue thousands of dollars' worth of citations. Now, Cuomo is admitting that it's not science or even anti-Jewish animus driving his latest power play, but the politics of fear and panic.
Earlier this week, Hamodia, a local Jewish community publication, posted 30 minutes of audio (beginning at 19:00) of a conversation between Gov. Cuomo and Jewish community leaders last Tuesday. In response to a question by one local rabbi as to why the governor is setting impossible standards, even on the reopening of preschools that had no cases or risk of serious illness, Cuomo offered a stunning admission that sheds light on what is driving all of these draconian measures all over the world.
"This is not a highly nuanced, sophisticated response," conceded the New York governor. "This is a fear-driven response. You know, this is not a policy being written by a scalpel. This is a policy being cut by a hatchet. It's just a very blunt."
In other words, the First Amendment, the right to pray, attending school, and opening a business are all subject to fear-driven hatchets. Imagine the absurdity of a private physician saying they will perform an operation with a hatchet instead of a scalpel. This, however, is "public health," driven by the "experts."
In addition to trying to shunt the blame off to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Cuomo further admitted that what is driving these decisions is public fear and a clamor for action, regardless of whether there is any science behind that action. "I didn't propose this, you know. It was proposed by the mayor in the city. I'm trying to sharpen it and make it better, but it's out of fear. People see the numbers going up. Close everything! Close everything! It's not the best way to do it, but it is a fear-driven response.'"
But what about all the collateral damage? That never factors into the stampede of panic.
"The virus scares people. ... The fear is too high to do anything other than: Let's do everything we can to get the infection rate down now. Close the doors. Close the windows. That's where we are."
According to local Jewish community leaders, despite that candid admission, Cuomo himself later acted out of fear with a hatchet and violated his own promise on the phone call. During that conversation last Tuesday, Cuomo asked them to limit indoor gatherings to 50% capacity. But just several hours later, during a Jewish holiday, Cuomo announced that all synagogues would be limited to just 10 people, which essentially shuts their doors.
In what some see as an invidious targeting of the Jewish community, the mayor recently announced a $1,000 fine for those not wearing masks, even outdoors, while the fine for not wearing one on public transportation is only $50.
Over the weekend, $15,000 of fines were levied against individuals and institutions among a sect of orthodox Jews in Brooklyn.
What is shocking from a legal perspective is how all of our First Amendment jurisprudence has been abrogated at the altar of this cult of fear. For decades, the courts have articulated a standard of strict scrutiny for any governmental action taken against First Amendment rights. This jurisprudential standard subjects the policy to a litmus test of being "narrowly tailored" and the "least restrictive" means of achieving a compelling state interest. In other words, constitutional rights are by definition hallowed ground that cannot be trod upon with a hatchet, a blunt instrument, or a "do everything" approach. There are no exceptions to this rule. As Justice Robert Jackson famously said, the Founders "made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis."
The foundation for the legal argument of the coronavirus tyrants is Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), wherein the Supreme Court ruled, "It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law." Putting aside the fact that this case cannot be reconciled with everything the courts have said about individual liberty and a supposed right to privacy over the last 60 years, even the Jacobson court ruled that public health measures cannot be enacted in "such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public." In other words, this forecloses on exactly what Cuomo and his ilk are doing, as articulated in his own words.
States have always had the power to quarantine, but those policies were very targeted to those who had an illness and they were limited in time and scope. The notion that an entire civilization could be locked down indefinitely after months of those policies clearly not working is absurd and well beyond the police powers of a state.
Nowhere was this principle better articulated than in New York's own court in The People vs. Peter W. Roff (1856). "The public health is doubtless an interest of great delicacy and importance," wrote the court regarding a state quarantine law. "But it can never be permitted that, even for the sake of the public health, any local, inferior board or tribunal shall repeal statutes, suspend the operation of the Constitution, and infringe all the natural rights of the citizen."
Too bad our forefathers never had the foresight to discover the "fear" and "hatchet" exceptions to fundamental rights expressed in the Constitution.


theblaze--2020-10-14--Female Biden supporter arrested after allegedly assaulting man who crossed street to wave Trump flag

Female Biden supporter arrested after allegedly assaulting man who crossed street to wave Trump flag in faces of her group @ @ @ @ @ resisting , delaying , or obstructing an officer and taken before a magistrate

A pair of female supporters of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden apparently didn't take too kindly to a fan of President Donald Trump invading their rallying spot in Wilmington, North Carolina, over the weekend, WECT-TV reported.
What are the details?
Witnesses said a male Trump supporter decided to head across the street, where Biden supporters were standing near the intersection of Military Cutoff and Eastwood Road, around 4:40 p.m. Saturday, the station reported.
The Trump supporter's mission appeared to be waving his pro-Trump flag in the faces of the Biden backers, witnesses said, according to WECT.
As you might guess, the gesture didn't turn out too well for him.
The male Trump supporter said he was assaulted by two female Biden supporters, the station noted, and one of them threw water on him.
So he pointed out the culprits to police and told them he wanted to press charges, WECT said.
But according to Jessica Williams of the Wilmington Police Department, since the alleged incident falls under a misdemeanor and police didn't witness it, an officer told the Trump supporter he'd obtain the women's information and give it to him so he could pursue a warrant on his own, the station said.
The Trump supporter gave the officer his information so it could be shared with the female Biden supporters, WECT noted.
Oops
However, things didn't go so smoothly when the cop approached the Biden-backing women, as one of them refused to give the officer her information, the station said.
Police told WECT the officer tried reasoning with the woman and asked her to comply multiple times, but she wouldn't budge.
With that, the woman was arrested for resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer and taken before a magistrate, the station said.
Are things heating up in town?
Also in Wilmington, a Trump supporter made headlines after she said her Trump signs and a large flag were taken from her property, WWAY-TV reported.
But Amy Byers told the station that "fear is the absence of faith, and I'm not going to let fear control me."
"I'm going to make a sign that says, 'You can steal my sign but you can't steal my vote.' And that's really what my stance is," she added to WWAY.
Byers added to the station, "I just think we all need to respect each other's opinions."


theblaze--2020-10-14--VIDEO: UFC superstar Jorge Masvidal rallies Latino voters to support Trump in viral speech

'The Democrats just think they 're entitled to the Latino vote '

UFC superstar Jorge Masvidal recently called out Democrats for their "false promises" and rallied Latino voters to support President Donald Trump's re-election in a speech that is now going viral.
Masvidal's comments came during a stop on the "Fighters Against Socialism" bus tour, which Donald Trump Jr. launched with Masvidal and other Latinos.
What did Masvidal say?
Masvidal, whose father escaped communist Cuba, warned his fellow Latinos that Democrats are attempting to take advantage of them by merely assuming Latinos will vote for Democratic candidates.
"I'm gonna let you in on something," Masvidal said. "The Democrats just think that they're entitled to the Latino vote. They think that we just have to hand it over to them. That's right. We sure as hell don't."
The crowd responded with boos.
"They've got to show us what they can do for us, what they can do for our communities," Masvidal continued. "We're not going to buy the same wolf tickets and false promises that destroyed great countries like Venezuela and Cuba. It's not gonna happen.
"You know what else is not gonna work for them? Playing 'Despacito' on your cellphone to pander to us," he added, referring to what Joe Biden did last month in an attempt to curry favor with Latino voters.
"Hell no. You gotta give us some credit for having heads on our shoulders," Masvidal said, before referring to former President Barack Obama's infamous phrase, "Elections have consequences."
"Those words have never been more true than they are today," Masvidal said. "We either re-elect President Trump and keep America great. Or we let Joe Biden destroy the greatest country the world has ever seen."
What does the data show?
While Hillary Clinton handily won the Latino vote in 2016 — with the exception of Cubans in Florida — Trump is expected to earn more support from Latinos this year than previous Republican candidates.
From Vanity Fair:
Polls of Latino voters are now consistently more favorable for the president than one might expect. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, 34% of Latino voters favor Trump, with roughly 9% still undecided. At this point, Trump is running well ahead of his own vote share in 2016 (28%), as well as that of Mitt Romney in 2012 (27%) and John McCain in 2008 (31%). It's still a heavily Democratic vote, but the movement of somewhere between 6% and 15% of Latino voters is potentially significant enough to impact the outcome in states like Florida and North Carolina. The polling has shaken Democrats, who have rapidly expanded their efforts to engage with Latinos over the last month.
Stephanie Valencia, a cofounder of the progressive research hub EquisLabs, told Vanity Fair that the conservative message of personal freedom and economy prosperity resonates with Latino voters.


theblaze--2020-10-14--Facebook suppresses bombshell Hunter Biden story pending fact-check

'We are reducing its distribution on our platform '

Facebook is limiting the distribution of the New York Post's bombshell story about a "smoking gun" email appearing to show that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden met with a top Ukrainian natural gas executive while he was vice president, contrary to Biden's prior claims.
According to the Post, a 2015 email between Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, an advisor to Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company, shows Pozharskyi thanking the younger Biden for introducing him to his father, then the vice president. At the time, Hunter Biden served on the company's board.
The alleged meeting would have taken place less than a year before Vice President Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
The elder Biden has denied that he ever had any conversations with his son related to foreign business dealings. The email, if true, contradicts Biden's claims.
A spokesman for Facebook said Wednesday the social media platform would be reducing distribution of the Post's story and noted that the report is eligible to be fact-checked by Facebook's third-party partners.
"While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners," Facebook's Andy Stone tweeted Wednesday. "In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform."
"This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation," he added in a follow-up tweet. "We temporarily reduce distribution pending fact-checker review."
Stone serves as the policy communications manager at Facebook. He previously worked as a press secretary for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the communications director for the Democratic House Majority PAC.
Facebook's policies on reducing misinformation state that the company will refer stories it thinks contain misinformation to third-party fact-checkers for review. While an article is under review, Facebook suppresses the story in people's news feeds so that fewer people see it. The intent of this policy is to prevent the spread of what Facebook deems as misinformation.
Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the New York Post on why it targeted the Post's report and whether the fact-checking process had begun.
The Trump campaign weighed in on Facebook's decision, accusing the big tech company of "actively interfering in the election" and "rigging the election for Joe Biden."
According to the Post, Twitter also added a warning label stating "headlines don't tell the full story" that is visible to some users who attempt to share the article. The warning "is part of a test we're doing right now. It does not depend on the outlet of the article, or the contents of the article," Twitter spokesman Trenton Kennedy said.


theblaze--2020-10-14--Press-protected Biden has answered less than half as many questions from media as Trump has since Au

Press-protected Biden has answered less than half as many questions from media as Trump has since Aug. 31: Report

Press-protected Biden has answered less than half as many questions from media as Trump has since Aug. 31 : Report @ @ @ @ @ frontrunner ' ever ?

A new report from Axios details how Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden might be the "luckiest, least scrutinized frontrunner" ever in a presidential election based on the media's highly favorable, hands-off approach to the candidate.
In making its case, the news outlet noted that "Biden has yet to be pinned down on an array of legitimate questions" regarding his mysterious intentions on packing the Supreme Court as well as his views on Medicare for All, reallocating police department funding, the Green New Deal, and reparations for black Americans. The former senator also has not been grilled over his questionable support of the 1994 crime bill.
The key statistic
A poignant example of the media's favorability toward Biden highlighted in the report is a Trump campaign statistic not disputed by the Biden campaign that found that since Aug. 31, "Biden has answered less than half as many questions from the press as Trump — 365 compared with 753."
Axios noted that in that time, Biden has been interviewed by local TV reporters 35 times and national reporters three times and conducted two town halls.
Earlier this year, Biden went more than a month without holding a press conference and has generally, during the campaign, flown under the radar and avoided appearances with reporters.
The imbalance of press questions since Aug. 31 is actually an improvement on a reported imbalance between July 19 and Sept. 15. The New York Post reported that during that time, Trump fielded 1,141 questions to Biden's 274 questions — a whopping five times more.
Attempting to provide an explanation for the most recent statistic, Axios suggested the mainstream media's "obsession" with President Trump along with the president's "compulsion" to dominate the news cycle as reasons for the imbalance.
But a more obvious explanation may simply be that the mainstream media have a biased opposition to Trump's re-election and therefore have no interest in grilling his challenger and risking damage to his election chances.
Such media bias was on full display during an early September press conference in which reporters tossed softball question after softball question to Biden. Several conservative commentators lashed out in response to the event, calling it "shameful" and "pathetic."
"It's like watching someone make sure a 3-year-old wins CandyLand," RealClearPolitics senior writer Mark Hemingway tweeted, relaying a friend's text message.
Trump campaign spokesman Andrew Clark told Axios: "Biden has been the least-scrutinized presidential candidate in modern history at great disservice to the voters, but the press still has time to rectify that."


theblaze--2020-10-14--'You don't think we don't know where your children go to school?': Activist lawyer appears to threat

'You don't think we don't know where your children go to school?': Activist lawyer appears to threaten cops, their families in tirade — and backlash is severe

'You do n't think we do n't know where your children go to school ? '
: Activist lawyer appears @ @ @ @ @ families in tirade — and backlash is severe 'There will not be a place of @ @ @ @ @ be a place of respite '

A prominent activist attorney appeared to make threats against Kansas City police officers during a megaphone tirade outside police headquarters Friday — a portion of which was shared on social media.
What are the details?
"We are seeking to revoke the peace officers' licenses," Stacy Shaw hollered while standing with a crowd of supporters. "We are going to start sharing things with your children's teachers."
She added, "You don't think we don't know where your children go to school? Who the f*** do you think we are?"
Shaw is leading a movement to get Kansas City Police Chief Rick Smith fired, among other demands, KCTV-TV reported. In her rant, she accused police of "terrorizing" citizens.
"We are tired, and I don't make threats," she added in her megaphone rant. "I don't make threats, but we're going to start sharing this information so your children can see it."
In the end, she said officers "will have no one, no one that loves you after we get done with this next campaign" and that "there will not be a place of peace, there will not be a place of respite, there will not be a place of respect left for anyone that wears this badge. Not one single place. We will make sure that even your children can't stand you."
Here's the clip. (Content warning: Language):
Stacy Shaw Attorney Outside KCPD HQ October 2020 youtu.be
What was the reaction?
Brad Lemon, president of the city's Fraternal Order of Police, noted in a Facebook statement that the organization is "aware of the video of Attorney Stacy Shaw threatening our members and their families. Our Lodge has begun work with city and state leadership."
His statement also indicated that "we urge our membership to remain calm and act as we have been trained to do. We should always be aware of our surroundings and potential threats. Yes, Shaw's threats serve to raise that threat level. We must remember that while a small number of people may be violent and threatening our families, the majority of this city supports you."
Lemon concluded by saying, "We do this job and have an understanding of the danger that accompanies our oath. Our families do not deserve what Shaw is threatening."
Shaw later denied that she threatened police, telling KCTV that "an information campaign is not a threat."
But Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas — who is black — wasn't buying her explanation and took Shaw to task.
"That is one of the biggest bull crap statements I've ever heard in my entire life," Lucas said, according to the station. "You do not say I'm going to threaten your spouse and your children simply because you want them to understand the nature of someone's job. That's ridiculous and preposterous. Her statements were uncalled for, and she knows better. She's a lawyer, a member of the bar. We are trained not to make statements like that."
Lemon reacted similarly to Shaw's denial, KCTV said: "That's bull crap. You watched the video, everybody else watched that video. We didn't edit the video. There were no cuts in that video. She said what she said, and she's trying to backtrack it now. The reality is she has threatened the families of police officers."
The station said Shaw noted in a Monday press conference that she no longer will discourage violent protests: "I will be praying for the safety of the officers families because as much as I've done for them, as much as I have influence the community to only protest non-violently, it is not my place to tell people how to protest."
'Regrettable statements'
But by Tuesday evening, Shaw apologized.
On Friday, I made regrettable statements that I in no way intended as a threat. I sincerely apologize for the brief moment that I was not upholding the values of love and transformative justice I have consistently championed.
To be clear, I do not endorse nor will I ever tolerate harm to police families or children. We all deserve better. This video has become a distraction from the important work of organizers and activists that are on the brink of changing so much in this city and country.
I am taking time to focus on self-accountability and how I may be of further service in this historic movement.
Lemon, however, didn't seem very impressed by Shaw's mea culpa:
While we acknowledge Ms. Shaw's apology, which unfortunately is serval days too late, it does not in anyway mitigate the fact that our officers had to endure unwarranted threats from a member of the Missouri Bar.
The FOP will continue to evaluate whether to pursue criminal charges or file appropriate ethics complaints against her with the Missouri Disciplinary Administrator.
(H/T: The Police Tribune)


theblaze--2020-10-14--Liberal members of the media falsely imply that Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the use of the N-word d

Liberal members of the media falsely imply that Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the use of the N-word did not constitute racial discrimination in the workplace

Liberal members of the media falsely imply that Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the use of the N-word did not @ @ @ @ @ workplace

It is by now not a surprise to find the media deliberately mischaracterizing the judicial opinions of conservative nominees to the Supreme Court. One particular claim that has been leveled against current nominee Amy Coney Barrett, however, deserves further examination.
The claim, as advanced by the Associated Press and amplified by liberal legal figures in the media like Jill Filipovic, is that Barrett once ruled that being called the N-word by your supervisor does not constitute a hostile work environment, which is obviously a position that no reasonable American would espouse.
The first clue that Barrett's opinion is being grossly mischaracterized can be found in the fact that none of the other judges who reviewed the case dissented from it in the slightest. Indeed, Barrett's opinion merely affirmed the decision reached by district judge Edmond Chang, who was appointed to the bench by former president Barack Obama. Neither of the other judges on the three-judge appellate panel uttered a peep even in concurrence. The idea that four separate federal judges signed off on an facially racist position without a word of dissent ought to be so obviously laughable that no reasonable person would reprint it.
Yet here we are.
The actual facts of the case indicate that the plaintiff had no real shot of proving his case of racial discrimination. As detailed at length in Judge Barrett's opinion, the plaintiff was deemed to be an unsatisfactory employee virtually from his first day on the job, invoking the ire of almost all his supervisors with unsatisfactory performance — and worse, a number of incidents in which the health and safety of his coworkers were threatened due to his negligence. His performance was so obviously unsatisfactory that he did not make it through his employment's probationary period.
The incident involving the use of the N-word, in fact, occurred after the Illinois Department of Transportation had already decided to fire him. According to the uncontested facts in the opinion, the department began proceedings to terminate the plaintiff's employment on Jan. 4, 2013. Almost two weeks later, when those proceedings were nearly concluded, one of Smith's supervisors (who was also black — a perhaps salient fact that was omitted by the Associated Press) learned for the first time that Smith was contesting his termination by alleging that he was the subject of racial discrimination.
This supervisor, who was understandably irked by this transparent last-ditch diversionary tactic (and was, as a reminder, also black) called the plaintiff a "stupid-ass n*****."
The case did not examine the question of whether this was a good choice of words or even whether it was racial harassment for a black supervisor to use it against one of his black employees. Indeed, Barrett wrote in her opinion that the supervisor's use of the word "plainly constitutes race-based harassment." Rather, the issue in the case centered on whether the use of the epithet "altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment."
Under binding Seventh Circuit precedent, in order to satisfy this test, a plaintiff had to show "not only that a reasonable person would find the workplace hostile or abusive as a result of Colbert's slur, but also that he himself perceived it that way." The plaintiff's case was dismissed because he failed to offer any testimony that would have even suggested that he was bothered by his black supervisor's use of the N-word, separate and distinct from the fact that he was generally bothered by the fact that his supervisors always seemed to be yelling at him.
As Barrett noted (again without dissent), "Smith did not even try to make that showing — he points to no evidence that Colbert's slur caused him either additional or different distress. Without evidence that Colbert's outburst changed Smith's subjective experience during his last two weeks at the Department, a reasonable jury could not resolve the hostile work environment claim in Smith's favor."
The case, then, did not turn on whether it was OK or legal for a supervisor to use the N-word against one of his employees, but rather whether the plaintiff had offered sufficient testimony to meet a legal test that was imposed by binding Seventh Circuit precedent. Not only had the plaintiff not submitted sufficient testimony on that score, he had submitted none at all. Therefore, multiple federal judges ruled that his case should be dismissed.
The implication that Barrett, as a judge, condoned or passed over the use of the word in the workplace is simply false.


theblaze--2020-10-14--Poll: Most Americans blame Nancy Pelosi for failure to pass coronavirus stimulus

Poll : Most Americans blame Nancy Pelosi for failure to pass coronavirus stimulus

American voters are pointing the finger at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for Congress' failure to pass a new coronavirus stimulus bill, according to a new poll.
The survey, conducted by YouGov Oct. 9-11 among 1,525 registered voters, found that 43% of voters said Pelosi is more to blame for the lack of progress on a stimulus package, while 40% blamed President Donald Trump. 17% of those surveyed were unsure.
By party affiliation, an overwhelming majority of Democrats blame Trump and an overwhelming majority of Republicans blame Pelosi. However, 45% of self-identified independents said Pelosi is more responsible for the failure to reach a deal, compared to 30% who said it was Trump's fault. 25% of independents were unsure.
A new stimulus package to alleviate the economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic has been logjammed in Congress because of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over how large the stimulus should be and what kinds of aid should be included in the bill.
Pelosi demands a $2.2 trillion stimulus that includes billions of dollars in direct aid to state and local governments to cover budget shortfalls made worse by the pandemic. President Trump on Oct. 6 announced he would end negotiations over the stimulus, accusing Pelosi of asking for "money that is in no way related to COVID-19" and saying he would revisit a stimulus package after the Nov. 3 election. Other Republicans have criticized the aid to state governments as a "bailout."
But shortly after declaring negotiations dead, the president offered to sign a stand-alone bill providing Americans with another round of $1,200 stimulus checks.
Last Friday, the White House offered Democrats a $1.8 trillion compromise, a compromise that Pelosi swiftly rejected. Speaking on CNN, Pelosi said the American people's needs "are not addressed in the president's proposal." She entered into a contentious exchange with host Wolf Blitzer, who pressed her on refusing the president's deal.
"I hope you'll ask the same question of the Republicans about why they don't really want to meet the needs of the American people," Pelosi said. "But let me say to those people because all of my colleagues — we represent these people ... I know what their need are, I listen to them, and their needs are not addressed in the president's proposal. So when you say to me, 'Why don't you accept theirs?' Why don't they accept ours?"
Blitzer pushed back on Pelosi, noting that some Democrats have called on her to take the president's deal, and Pelosi fired back and accused him of being an "apologist" for the Republican opposition.
(H/T: The Daily Caller)


theblaze--2020-10-14--Webster's Dictionary updates word definition after Democrats attack Barrett for saying 'sexual prefe

Webster's Dictionary updates word definition after Democrats attack Barrett for saying 'sexual preference'

Webster 's Dictionary updates word definition after Democrats attack Barrett for saying 'sexual preference '

Webster's Dictionary updated the definition of "preference" on Tuesday to include what liberals now claim as a fact: that the word, when used in relation to sex, is "offensive" to LGBT individuals.
What's the background?
Democrats launched a new attack against Amy Coney Barrett during her Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday because she uttered the phrase "sexual preference" in the context of gay marriage.
Although the term is used widely by Democrats, progressives, and LGBT individuals, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) scolded Barrett for using the phrase to suggest that Barrett, who is a devout Christian, would support reversing gay marriage rights.
"Let me make clear, 'sexual preference' is an offensive and outdated term," Hirono said. "It is used by the anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity. ... So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a 'preference,' as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you will uphold their constitutional right to marry."
What did Webster's Dictionary do?
After Democrats attacked Barrett for using the phrase, Webster's Dictionary literally updated the definition of "preference" to include what Democrats now claim: that it is "offensive" when used in the context of sex.
Prior to the supposed outrage, Webster's Dictionary listed the fifth definition under "preference" to link to the term "sexual preference," the universally used phrase to refer to those with whom a person chooses to have sex.
Now, the definition has been updated to claim the word is "offensive." In fact, Webster's Dictionary claims the phrase is "widely" believed to be considered offensive, despite the fact that it was not listed as offensive until after Barrett used it.
"The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to," Webster's Dictionary claims.
Hirono's statement — that "sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity" and, therefore, is not a choice — is not backed by science.
In fact, there is no scientific evidence proving that genetic code concretely determines the people with whom someone engages in sex.
Still, Barrett, being ever so polite, apologized for using the phrase.
"I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense to the LGBTQ community," Barrett told Hirono. "So, if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell's ruling with respect to same-sex marriage."


theblaze--2020-10-14--Democratic mayor resigns after ‘inappropriate' relationship with TV anchor who alleges scandal, repo

Democratic mayor resigns after ‘inappropriate' relationship with TV anchor who alleges scandal, reportedly threatens to ‘expose’ and ‘kill’ him

Democratic mayor resigns after ‘ inappropriate ' relationship with TV anchor who alleges scandal , reportedly threatens to ‘ expose @ @ @ @ @ him The mayor admitted to an 'inappropriate messaging relationship ' with the anchor

Ethan Berkowitz, the Democratic mayor of Anchorage, Alaska, resigned Tuesday amid a dramatic scandal in which Berkowitz admitted to an "inappropriate message relationship" with local TV anchor. The anchor, Maria Athens, reportedly threatened to kill Berkowitz and made an unsubstantiated claim that graphic photos of Berkowitz existed online.
"It is with profound sadness and humility that I resign as Mayor of the Municipality of Anchorage," Berkowitz said in a statement read by his chief of staff, Jason Bockenstedt, in the city's assembly chambers. Berkowitz, 58, who is married, was not present.
According to the New York Times, several in the crowd, many of whom who had gathered in protest of coronavirus restrictions introduced by the city, "immediately burst into cheers, standing and clapping" at the announcement. They had to be told to stop by assembly chair Felix Rivera.
"My resignation results from unacceptable personal conduct that has compromised my ability to perform my duties with the focus and trust that is required," the statement continued. "I know my conduct has done great injury to my family, my staff, to Municipal employees, and to the people of our community, and for that, I am deeply sorry. To make this transition as smooth as possible, my resignation will be effective Friday, October 23 at 6 p.m."
The announcement of his resignation came only one day after Berkowitz publicly admitted to a "consensual, inappropriate messaging relationship" with Athens, an anchor for KTBY-TV and KYUR-TV, which operate jointly to form Your Alaska Link.
"I apologize to the people of Anchorage for a major lapse in judgment I made several years ago when I had a consensual, inappropriate messaging relationship with reporter Maria Athens," Berkowitz wrote in a statement on Monday. "I'm embarrassed and ashamed for the hurt I've caused my family and our community. I take responsibility for my actions."
Anchorage Daily News reported that Athens had posted a video on social media Friday in which she promised followers an "exclusive" story and announced uncorroborated allegations that the mayor posted a photo of himself on an "underage girl's website."
In response to the allegations, the mayor's office shot back, calling them "slanderous" and "categorically false," adding that they "appear to be the product of someone who is hostile and unwell." The Anchorage Police Department reportedly investigated the claim in cooperation with the FBI but "found no evidence of criminal conduct."
Shortly after the mayor's statement was issued Friday, Athens posted a nude photo purportedly of the mayor that displayed his bare backside, the news outlet reported.
She was arrested later Monday after she reportedly got into a physical altercation with her boss at the TV station, with whom she allegedly is in a romantic relationship. She has been charged with misdemeanor assault, criminal mischief, and disorderly conduct.
On Monday, the mayor's office also released a voicemail that it said was sent to Berkowitz by Athens on Friday. In the voice message, Athens can allegedly be heard promising to "expose" Berkowitz as a "pedophile" and threatening to kill him and his wife.
"You either kill yourself, turn yourself in or do what you need to do," she reportedly said before warning that she would kill him "personally."
"You Jewish piece of living f***ing s**t," she allegedly continued. "You have met your match."
Assembly chair Felix Rivera is expected to take over as acting mayor following the mayor's resignation, Fox News reported.


theblaze--2020-10-14--POLL: Who's given the most ridiculous performance at the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing so f

POLL : Who 's given the most ridiculous performance at the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing so far ?
” @ @ @ @ @ n't forget to share !

POLL: Who's given the most ridiculous performance at the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing so far?”
Cast your vote and don't forget to share!


theblaze--2020-10-15--FEC data reveals 83% of Facebook 2020 election donations have gone to Democrats. Joe Biden is by far

FEC data reveals 83% of Facebook 2020 election donations have gone to Democrats. Joe Biden is by far the No. 1 recipient.

FEC data reveals 83 % of Facebook 2020 election donations have gone to Democrats .
Joe Biden is by far @ @ @ @ @ .

Republicans have long accused Facebook of having an anti-conservative, pro-Democrat bias. Those cries got markedly louder Wednesday when the social media giant chose to suppress the New York Post's bombshell report on Hunter Biden and an alleged meeting between Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and a Burisma executive when Biden was vice president.
So the fact that more than 80% of Facebook political donations have gone to Democrats during the 2020 election cycle will likely not come as a shock to many on the right.
What's that now?
According the Center for Responsive Politics' compilation of the most recent Federal Election Commission data, 83.49% of donations from Facebook-affiliated PACs and individuals (organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees) to federal candidates have gone to Democrats during the 2020 election cycle.
Just 16.51% has gone to Republicans, the CRP reported.
In 2018, 76.03% of Facebook donations went to Democrats, and in 2016, 68.54% went to Democrats, according to the CRP.
Who has received the most Facebook money?
It will probably come as no surprise that the top recipient of Facebook-affiliated money during the 2020 cycle is Joe Biden.
In fact, 23 of the top 25 recipients are Democrats:
No. 1: Joe Biden — DEMOCRAT — $645,152
Joe Biden — DEMOCRAT — $645,152 No. 2: Sen. Bernie Sanders — DEMOCRAT — $245,668
Sen. Bernie Sanders — DEMOCRAT — $245,668 No. 3: Former Mayor of South Bend Pete Buttigieg — DEMOCRAT — $100,289
Former Mayor of South Bend Pete Buttigieg — DEMOCRAT — $100,289 No. 4: Sen. Elizabeth Warren — DEMOCRAT — $87,947
Sen. Elizabeth Warren — DEMOCRAT — $87,947 No. 5: Businessman Andrew Yang — DEMOCRAT — $85,707
Businessman Andrew Yang — DEMOCRAT — $85,707 No. 6: Arizona Senate candidate Mark Kelly — DEMOCRAT — $44,306
Arizona Senate candidate Mark Kelly — DEMOCRAT — $44,306 No. 7: Sen. Kamala Harris — DEMOCRAT — $41,779
Sen. Kamala Harris — DEMOCRAT — $41,779 No. 8: Montana Senate candidate Steve Bullock — DEMOCRAT — $38,277
Montana Senate candidate Steve Bullock — DEMOCRAT — $38,277 No. 9: Kentucky Senate candidate Amy McGrath — DEMOCRAT — $34,164
Kentucky Senate candidate Amy McGrath — DEMOCRAT — $34,164 No. 10: South Carolina Senate candidate Jaime Harrison — DEMOCRAT — $32,717
South Carolina Senate candidate Jaime Harrison — DEMOCRAT — $32,717 No. 11: Sen. Cory Booker — DEMOCRAT — $31,738
Sen. Cory Booker — DEMOCRAT — $31,738 No. 12: Iowa Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield — DEMOCRAT — $31,454
Iowa Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield — DEMOCRAT — $31,454 No. 13: Georgia Senate candidate Jon Ossoff — DEMOCRAT — $29,906
Georgia Senate candidate Jon Ossoff — DEMOCRAT — $29,906 No. 14: Maine Senate candidate Sara Gideon — DEMOCRAT — $27,355
Maine Senate candidate Sara Gideon — DEMOCRAT — $27,355 No. 15: Sen. Gary Peters — DEMOCRAT — $24,750
Sen. Gary Peters — DEMOCRAT — $24,750 No. 16: North Carolina Senate candidate Cal Cunningham — DEMOCRAT — $23,163
North Carolina Senate candidate Cal Cunningham — DEMOCRAT — $23,163 No. 17: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — DEMOCRAT — $22,518
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — DEMOCRAT — $22,518 No. 18: Sen. Thom Tillis — REPUBLICAN — $21,300
Sen. Thom Tillis — REPUBLICAN — $21,300 No. 19: President Donald Trump — REPUBLICAN — $21,251
President Donald Trump — REPUBLICAN — $21,251 No. 20: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — DEMOCRAT — $21,121
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — DEMOCRAT — $21,121 No. 21: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen — DEMOCRAT — $18,715
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen — DEMOCRAT — $18,715 No. 22: Rep. Josh Gottheimer — DEMOCRAT — $17,501
Rep. Josh Gottheimer — DEMOCRAT — $17,501 No. 23: Rep. Eric Swalwell — DEMOCRAT — $17,394
Rep. Eric Swalwell — DEMOCRAT — $17,394 No. 24: Texas Senate candidate MJ Hegar — DEMOCRAT — $17,048
Texas Senate candidate MJ Hegar — DEMOCRAT — $17,048 No. 25: Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke — DEMOCRAT — $16,944
Facebook likes to lobby, too
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Facebook spent $16.7 million in 2019 (the most recent data available) on lobbying.
Of the 72 registered Facebook Inc. lobbyists in 2019, 68 have previously held government jobs.
Interestingly, the man whose tweet about the Facebook move to censor the Post article set the internet ablaze Wednesday, Facebook policy communications manager Andy Stone, was once a press secretary for former California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and the communications director for the Democratic House Majority PAC.


theblaze--2020-10-15--Exclusive: Minnesota Democratic candidate alleges outright vote buying by Minnesota Democrats: 'wors

Exclusive: Minnesota Democratic candidate alleges outright vote buying by Minnesota Democrats: 'worse than Somalia'

'The truth will come out '

A few thousand votes in swing-state Minnesota may decide November's presidential election. In this crucial swing state, one Democratic candidate came forward in July, in a largely unnoticed and untranslated video, to allege that the state's DFL machine was buying votes in Minneapolis' Somali-American community.
In recent years, multiple Somali-Americans living in Minneapolis-St. Paul have come forward to describe vote-buying, ballot-harvesting, and intimidation operations of historic scope in the Democratic Party-controlled area. Some have brought evidence to state and federal law enforcement, though little action has been taken. These whistleblowers explicitly name Rep. Ilhan Omar, her campaign director Ali Isse, and other Democratic Party members as being involved.
This year, local political activist and Democratic Party member Saciido Shaie ran for the Minneapolis City Council seat in Ward 6. She has a long political resume. Shaie has been appointed to several state boards by Minnesota's governor and has also served as the Minneapolis DFL (Democratic Party) fundraising director.
On July 6, Saciido Shaie released a 15-minute video of herself speaking in Somali. She announced that she was not suspending her campaign — but she would no longer be campaigning door-to-door.
She spoke about how upset she was by how many voters she encountered who expected her to pay $200 for a vote.
She was angry that local Democrats had taken advantage of so many elderly Somali-American refugees, who, she said, sincerely do not know that vote-buying is a serious federal crime in the United States.
Shaie also specifically described two incidents she had witnessed.
She added that anyone who thinks she is a "snitch" needs to understand that law enforcement and others "already know." That everyone involved could eventually get turned in by friends and family, presumably if law enforcement finally shows up with evidence and leverage. Shaie also stated that these "terrible things" simply need to stop, because they will destroy the Somali-American community and their children's hopes for a future in America.
As of this article's publication, Saciido Shaie's July 6 video is still live on her campaign page. The full video can be viewed below (relevant portion begins at the 5-minute mark) and is followed by an English translation of her video, provided to us by a native Somali-language speaker and verified by a second independent translator. Please watch the video as well — Shaie's emotion and demeanor show her to be an American patriot.
Shaie did not respond to a request for additional comment on this story.
----------------------------
As you are well-aware, we are going through elections in Minneapolis. The people of Ward 6, I would like to tell them that the campaign is going well and that early voting has started, and it has started on the 26th.
Somalis, by the way, it seems they are not done with fraud and corruption.
There are a lot of things ethically, culturally, and religiously that are not good for us and happening on the side of campaigns. A lot of people are doing things that eventually will bring a lot of problems for the Somali community. A lot of people are doing things that could possibly bring a lot of problems for the Somali community.
The reason being, what we have clearly seen, we have seen first of all the seniors are being confused about the time of the campaign, and how [voting] is supposed to be done in the traditional American system of voting.
We are doing the opposite. In fact we are doing it like Somalia, and even worse, is how the campaigns are being done.
You will see people who are saying "if you need my vote, give me money." Terrible things.
In reality, the person should choose a person on quality, education, and work performance and even being Somali, but instead the people are fighting over "who will give [me] money is who I will give my vote." That is what was going on in Somalia.
Truly, I didn't want to talk about this. But I feel it's become unavoidable to speak out about it.
You remember recently Somalis were caught in the daycare fraud issue? And they were all closed. It was a terrible thing and all these businesses, day cares, home cares were closed. And people were arrested in the city. Because they did things they were not supposed to do. Money being exchanged, people were choosing money over quality and qualifications, religion, culture, ethics, dignity.
Which is exactly what is going on in our campaigns now. People being told "give me your vote for money."
The old men or women, when you go to them to ask for their vote, they respond "I can't vote for you unless you pay."
Recently I sent a van from my campaign to give a ride to voters who promised to vote for my campaign, mostly older women, we picked up eight people. When the driver and the eight people arrived at the voting center the voters told the driver "na af garta" which means "sort us out." So the driver called me and said this is what they are saying. I asked, "What does that mean?"
They responded, "It means our vote is worth $200 a person, we are being promised that amount, but because you are a nice young lady and we like you and how hard you are working, we will take $100 a vote instead."
What I did was I instructed the driver to turn around and take them all back home.
I will only get my votes based on my qualifications, record, personality, and platform. I will not get involved in that. As long as they want money for a vote, tell them to go back to the people who promised them the $200, and vote for them.
This is the truth and it is clear. And we all know each other. It is the truth and it is a fact.
Truthfully I want to tell Somalis that these issues will come to light, and it's not good. This is a country of laws and systems. And this is what has destroyed our Somali community. Our culture, our religion, and our livelihoods being threatened? It is because of these issues. And why we are disliked — it is because of these terrible things.
We must know that the young children we have, we want to leave a future in this country, and we are hoping to be an example in America or elsewhere. But any person who is here sees all these problems we are having within the community and the corruption at all levels, from daycare to seniors, should be aware.
After seeing all these problems — add "corrupting seniors" to all these problems. It's a shame.
Also be aware that there are Somalis working with government, or outsiders who are living among us, who are reporting all these things. Be aware that we need to end these shameful things.
We were used to "clanism," which was part of our culture, and choosing a person from your clan was always part of this community. That won't change because it's always been there, voting for their clan member. But what is terrible is taking bakshish (bribe) and money for a vote.
For sale to a person who will probably do nothing for you, who will sell you tomorrow when they sit on that seat.
I'm very sad and disappointed about this issue. Dear Somalis, I'm advising you today is a day, and tomorrow is a day. Today, the advice I'm giving you, a lot of people will say, "Why? Has she gone crazy? Why would she snitch, why is she telling?"
I am responding that they already know. People are watching. What I'm saying is to heal and fix this community, the problem happening in our community.
An old man or woman in their 80s who are locked in a room here know nothing about the system, or the law you understand. You have misled them!
I met this woman and I asked her, "Have you voted?" She responded "yes."
I asked her, "Aunty, how, because the vote has not happened yet, it's on the 26th of this month this time." She responded, "I don't know."
I then asked, "Who did you vote for?" She responded, "Wallahi I don't know."
So I asked, "How did you know you voted?" She responded, "Someone came and forced me and took my ballot."
I responded, "OK, so what did he say or do?" She replied, "I don't know, he was a Somali man, I just gave it to him."
So please, you people who are running around, who we all know each other. Dear cousins, please stop these problems you are perpetrating on these poor old victims!
Do not put them in situations that will affect them, and their records. If this comes out, billahi, you will regret this one day.
You people who are educated, who know the system, to see people doing bad things and you support them? Be aware on earth and in heaven, it is bad for you. This is advice for you today and tomorrow. These issues will come to light, and people will report you.
Maybe even people who are your closest relatives. The truth will come out.
Everyone knows me. I will never and have never participated in a situation where members of my Somali community have been oppressed, whether it is by a Somali or outsiders. I can say today, as Saciido, I have stopped my [door-to-door] campaigning because of the ugliness that is ongoing.
But people have to know this ugliness. I am telling you I will continue to fight for my people. Since I was a teenager, I have done public service for years. I can't and won't participate before, now, or in the future — I will not sell or buy my people for a couple hundred dollars.
My campaign is on, and I'm urging people to vote for me because of all the work I've done. I need people to come and support my campaign, because I will work for you and do my best to represent you. Assalam aleikum.


theblaze--2020-10-15--Liberals boycott NBC after Trump schedules town hall to compete against Biden event on ABC

Critics of the president lashed out at NBC after the television network announced that it would broadcast a town hall event with President Donald Trump that would directly compete with a Biden event on ABC.
The head-to-head events were scheduled after the president refused to participate in a virtual debate proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Biden campaign scheduled their town hall event on ABC, and then NBC announced its plan to broadcast the Trump event.
"The decision by NBC News to run a Trump town hall directly opposite ABC's Biden town hall is indefensible," said political analyst Jeff Greenfield.
Katie Couric called it bad for Democracy.
"This will be good for Trump because people like to watch his unpredictability. This is a bad decision," she tweeted.
#BoycottNBC
Some expressed their anger by backing an effort to boycott NBC and they tweeted under that hashtag.
"THIS is UNCONSCIONABLE," tweeted liberal actress Debra Messing.
"#Trump pulled out of the scheduled townhall. #Biden KEPT HIS COMMITMENT & HIS WORD and moved forward. Now @nbc@nbcnews is going to REWARD 45 for breaking his commitment and be an accomplice to his attempt to screw over Biden?!" she raged.
"#BoycottNBC is the top trending topic and they earned it. NBC could've scheduled its town hall with Trump LITERALLY any other date/time as the town hall previously scheduled with Biden for Thursday on ABC. But they choose the same time," complained Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah.
Actress Ellen Barkin also backed the boycott:
A Daily Beast report claimed that the president wanted to show that he could garner greater ratings in order to "humiliate" Biden.
The Trump town hall in Miami will be hosted Thursday by "Today" host Savannah Guthrie on NBC, opposite Biden's town hall on ABC. George Stephanopoulos will host Biden's event in Philadelphia.
Here's more about the town hall duel:


theblaze--2020-10-16--Trump campaign advisor says White House is looking into taking legal action against Twitter for cens

Trump campaign advisor says White House is looking into taking legal action against Twitter for censoring NY Post Biden story @ @ @ @ @ a lot of things ''

A top adviser of the 2020 Trump campaign said that the White House was looking into what legal actions they could take against Twitter for censoring the New York Post's Biden story.
Trump campaign senior adviser Steve Cortez made the comments to the Daily Caller on Thursday.
"The White House is very much looking into that as we speak — what can be done from the executive branch side, what can the DOJ do for example, or Department of Commerce," Cortez said.
The social media company has been besieged by criticism over their banning of a story in the New York Post that could be very damaging to the Joe Biden presidential campaign. The Post claims that they have obtained an email that proves Joe Biden met with an official of a Ukrainian energy company because of the machinations of his son, Hunter Biden. The former vice president had previously denied meeting with the official.
Cortez said he did not know if the president was considering issuing an executive order about Twitter's censorship.
On Wednesday, Twitter claimed in a statement that they had banned the story because it included personal and private information, which would be a violation of their terms of service.
Critics of the company claim that the censorship had more to do with protecting the Biden campaign.
Earlier on Thursday, FCC chairman Ajit Pai tweeted that he was going to release a clarification about Section 230 of the Communications Act in order to toughen restrictions on online companies like Twitter and Facebook. Many on the right have been calling for an outright repeal of the policy that would make internet companies more susceptible to legal action.
"If you get rid of Section 230, that's the end of that," said Trump in a phone interview on Fox News Business with Stuart Varney on Wednesday. "We are looking at a lot of things."
The president went on to criticize the news media and their coverage of the story. "It's out of control!" he concluded.
Here's the president's interview about Twitter:


theblaze--2020-10-16--GOP Sen. Sasse excoriates President Trump in call to constituents

The Nebraska Republican said Trump mistreats women , 'kisses dictators ' butts ' and secretly 'mocks evangelicals '

Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse unleashed a litany of criticisms against President Donald Trump during a call to constituents earlier this week, saying the commander in chief mistreats women, "kisses dictators' butts" and secretly "mocks evangelicals."
What are the details?
In audio released in an exclusive report by The Washington Examiner, a woman can be heard asking Sasse, "Like a lot of Nebraskans, I'm trying to understand your relationship with the president. Why do you have to criticize him so much?"
Sasse explained that he has built a working relationship with Trump and that "there are definitely places where we agree," but that "there are obviously a lot of places where he and I differ, as well."
"And these aren't just mere policy issues," the senator clarified, saying that he makes no apologies for pushing back against areas where he feels Trump's values "are deficient, not just for a Republican, but for an American."
The Nebraska Republican then began listing examples, saying, "The way he kisses dictators' butts. I mean, the way he ignores that the Uighurs are in literal concentration camps in Xinjiang right now. He hasn't lifted a finger on behalf of the Hong-Kongers."
"The United States now regularly sells out our allies under his leadership, the way he treats women, spends like a drunken sailor," Sasse continued. "The ways I criticize President Obama for that kind of spending; I've criticized President Trump for as well. He mocks evangelicals behind closed doors. His family has treated the presidency like a business opportunity. He's flirted with white supremacists."
Regarding the coronavirus, Sasse said, "In [Trump's] partial defense here, I think that lots of the news media has pretended that COVID is literally the first public health crisis ever. And somehow, it's Donald Trump's fault. That's not true. They just wanted to use it against him."
But he said of the president's handling of the crisis, "The reality is that he careened from curb to curb. First, he ignored COVID. And then he went into full economic shutdown mode. He was the one who said 10 to 14 days of shutdown would fix this. And that was always wrong. I mean, and so I don't think the way he's lead through COVID has been reasonable or responsible, or right."
RINO Ben Sasse www.youtube.com
James Wegmann, a spokesman for Sasse, confirmed that the senator made the comments earlier this week, telling The Examiner:
"I don't know how many more times we can shout this: Even though the Beltway is obsessing exclusively about the presidential race, control of the Senate is ten times more important. The fragile Senate seats that will determine whether Democrats nuke the Senate are the races Ben cares about, the races he's working on, and the only races he's talking about."
The Washington Post reported on the up-and-down relationship between Sasse and the president, noting that the senator was critical of then-candidate Trump in 2016, but toned down his rhetoric ahead of receiving Trump's endorsement earlier this year amid a primary challenge.
"But relations between them have frayed lately," the outlet noted, pointing out, "Sasse began criticizing the president again after handily winning his GOP primary. In August, Trump reacted strongly to Sasse's objection to the president approving coronavirus relief aid by executive order."
The president tweeted, "RINO Ben Sasse, who needed my support and endorsement in order to get the Republican nomination for Senate from the GREAT State of Nebraska, has, now that he's got it (Thank you President T), gone rogue, again. This foolishness plays right into the hands of the Radical Left Dems!"


theblaze--2020-10-15--Nancy Pelosi LOST composure during an interview with CNN anchor

After failing to pass a coronavirus stimulus package, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a meltdown this week on live cable news, and it was not a good look. Here's what happened.
A recent survey found that most Americans blame Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a failure to reach a deal on a coronavirus stimulus package. Of those polled, 43 percent of Americans blamed Pelosi, while 40 percent blamed President Trump.
In this clip, guest host Hilary Kennedy, Jason Buttrill, and Blaze TV host Elijah Schaffer discussed why Pelosi rejected President Trump's offer to sign a stand-alone stimulus bill. The $1.8 trillion stimulus bill would have provided another round of the $1200 stimulus checks to Americans.
Later, the panel discussed a contentious exchange between Pelosi and CNN's Wolf Blitzer during a one-on-one live interview. Here's an excerpt from the meltdown.
"It's not about me. It's about millions of Americans who can't put food on the table. Who can't pay the rent. Who are having trouble," Blitzer said.
"And we represent them, and we represent them," Pelosi interrupted. "Thank you for your sensitivity to the needs of our constituents."
"It is a sad day when CNN cares more for the American people," Elijah said.
Watch the clip for more from the panel.
Use promo code NEWS to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
Want more from The News & Why It Matters?
To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.


theblaze--2020-10-15--Live: Trump vs. Biden Town Halls Stream

Live: Trump vs. Biden Town Halls Stream

Steven livestreams Trump and Biden 's competing town halls , complete with a drinking game and Back to the Future @ @ @ @ @ 're joined by special guest Rudy Giuliani !
Use promo code LWC to save $ @ @ @ @ @ BlazeTV .
Want more from Steven Crowder ?
To enjoy more of Steven 's uncensored @ @ @ @ @ funny , join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and @ @ @

Steven livestreams Trump and Biden's competing town halls, complete with a drinking game and Back to the Future themed costume contest. We're joined by special guest Rudy Giuliani!
Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.
Want more from Steven Crowder?
To enjoy more of Steven's uncensored late-night comedy that's actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.


theblaze--2020-10-15--Matthew Dolloff to be charged with 2nd degree murder in shooting death of 'Patriot Rally' attendee i

Matthew Dolloff to be charged with 2nd degree murder in shooting death of 'Patriot Rally' attendee in Denver

Matthew Dolloff to be charged with 2nd degree murder in shooting death of 'Patriot Rally ' attendee in Denver He @ @ @ @ @ self-defense

The man who allegedly shot and killed a "Patriot Rally" attendee in Denver will be charged with second-degree murder, according to Denver District Attorney Beth McCann.
Matthew Dolloff was working as a private security guard for a local news station covering the rally when he got into a physical altercation with 49-year-old Lee Keltner, a rally demonstrator, according to the arrest affidavit.
Prosecutors say that an argument between Keltner, Dolloff and a 9News producer escalated until Keltner smacked Dolloff in the head. Dolloff then shot Keltner in the chest after he was hit with pepper spray.
McCann said that she would file the charge on Monday.
The altercation was caught on video and documented by photographers who were there to cover the rallies.
Dolloff faces up to 48 years in prison if he is convicted of the charge.
Early reports after the shooting claimed that Dolloff was an Antifa member, but the police contradicted that claim in a statement later released.
"Further investigation has determined the suspect is a private security guard with no affiliation with Antifa. Additional information will be released as it becomes available," read the statement.
Dolloff claims self defense
An attorney for Dolloff said a statement released to the media that he was acting in self-defense.
"Matt was acting in self-defense. Matt put his life and now his liberty in between the now-deceased and the 9News employee." said attorney Doug Richards. "This was not a political assignment for Matt. This was simply Matt protecting your employee."
The Denver City Attorney's Office also said that there could be civil or criminal charges filed against Dolloff, his direct employer Pinkerton, and 9News, due to the fact that Dolloff was allegedly acting as a security guard without proper licensure.
The family of Keltner said they were considering filing a lawsuit over the lethal incident. They said that he wasn't part of any group protesting, but that he was just at the demonstration to show support for the police.
Here's a local news report about the tragic incident:


theblaze--2020-10-15--Democratic operatives call for Dianne Feinstein to step down as Judiciary Committee ranking member

Democratic operatives call for Dianne Feinstein to step down as Judiciary Committee ranking member Former Obama and Clinton aides want @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett hearings

Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is facing calls to step down as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after she enraged operatives from her own party with her performance on the panel — which ended with her praising Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham.
What are the details?
As the final hearing for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett wrapped up, Feinstein told Graham, "I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in." She added, "Thank you so much for your leadership."
Following the meeting, the two were seen embracing in a hug.
Feinstein, 87, was immediately attacked by high profile Democrats, many of whom declared it was time for her to pass the torch and give up her leadership position on the committee.
Former Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, who now leads the progressive group Demand Justice, issued a statement declaring, "It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene."
"She has undercut Democrats' position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court," he continued. "If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves."
Fallon's message was echoed by former President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who tweeted, "Someone like Feinstein who is so out of step with the rest of the party should not be the lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee."
Likewise, former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett tweeted in reaction to Feinstein's praise of Graham, "That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein."
Feinstein joined her fellow Democrats on the committee in avoiding attacks on Barrett's Catholic faith during this week's hearings, after facing criticism for their treatment of the nominee during the 2017 nomination hearings for her current position on the Seventh Circuit appellate court.
Fox News reported that "California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein receive bipartisan backlash when she told Barrett that the 'dogma lives loudly within' her during" the 2017 hearings.


theblaze--2020-10-15--Man survives being shot 9 times, only for his ex-wife to allegedly plan another murder-for-hire plot

Man survives being shot 9 times , only for his ex-wife to allegedly plan another murder-for-hire plot 'Did I know @ @ @ @ @ course , without a doubt '

Baron Li, 48, survived being shot nine times in July, in what he says was a murder-for-hire plot orchestrated by his wife.
On the morning of July 10, Li walked from his apartment to his car in Bellevue, Washington. Police say a masked assassin was waiting to ambush Li, and told an accomplice that he was "going to cap someone."
According to court documents, Li was shot in the back of the leg, causing him to fall to the ground. Li said he pulled himself behind the car door for cover from the gunfire. The masked gunman allegedly walked up to Li and opened fire. Bullets pierced his arm, legs, torso, and hip. Despite being shot nine times and suffering shattered bones, the bullets miraculously missed major arteries and organs.
First responders needed three tourniquets to stop the bleeding, and he was taken to a Seattle hospital for surgery. Li spent a week in the hospital to recover from his injuries.
"From the get-go, I was just wondering, 'Who was that that my wife sent to kill me," Li told Inside Edition. He immediately informed authorities that his ex-wife could be responsible for the near-death shooting.
"Did I know she was crazy, did I know she was capable of doing this? Of course, without a doubt," Li said.
Li and his ex-wife, Shaerin Rose Kelley, had reportedly been locked in an ugly custody battle over their disabled 6-year-old son for the past five years. Li told detectives that his son has a trust fund, a settlement from when he suffered brain damage as an infant. He told authorities that Kelley, 30, would inherit "significant funds" if she had sole custody of their son.
Police say they discovered a GPS-tracking device on Li's car, which was purchased by Li's ex-wife.
The investigation led police to two teenagers from Mount Vernon, who were reportedly hired by the ex-wife to kill Li. Earlier this month, police arrested the two 17-year-olds, Joseph Good and Quincy Mendez. They were both charged as adults with attempted first-degree murder. Good also faces a charge for unlawful possession of a weapon.
Kelley allegedly offered Good $13,000 to kill her ex-husband. Good reportedly offered his friend $5,000 to take him to Li's home and be the getaway driver in the murder-for-hire plot.
Surveillance video spotted a pickup truck at the scene of the shooting that Mendez borrowed from his father, according to court documents.
According to police, Kelley had already begun planning a new murder scheme with the teen after she found out that Li survived being shot nine times.
"Job unfinished, will need to complete unless it resolves on its own in the next month," Kelley texted Good, according to court records. Good allegedly replied, "You're sure? I'm pretty sure I finished it well." Good reportedly agreed to murder Li, but asked for partial payment so that he could pay his getaway driver.
"Their failure to kill the victim was not for lack of effort," prosecutors said, according to The Washington Post. "He was shot multiple times at close range and left to die."
Police said they obtained phone records and emails between Kelley and Good, which detailed the murder-for-hire plot.
Kelley was arrested on Oct. 8, and charged with attempted murder.
"Rather than any remorse or realization of the horror of what she set in motion when the victim survived, it appears the intent to kill the victim was unabated," prosecutors said in a memo filed with the court. "If Kelley is out of custody, then Baron Li's life is at risk."
"I hope she rots in jail for the rest of her life," Li said. Li said he is not angry at the teens, adding they just made a bad choice. "The real target's not me, I was in the way, the target's my son and I'm glad he's going to be safe now."
Li has nerve damage in his right arm and hasn't been able to use his hand.
An arraignment is scheduled for Oct. 26.


theblaze--2020-10-15--FCC chief says Facebook and Twitter will face greater regulation after NY Post Biden debacle

FCC chief says Facebook and Twitter will face greater regulation after NY Post Biden debacle '' They do not have @ @ @ @ @ a special immunity ''

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission issued a statement warning that change is coming to the rule governing the federal regulation of companies like Twitter and Facebook after New York Post Biden debacle.
Ajit Pai tweeted his statement via his official social media account on Thursday.
"Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set forth in section 230 of the Communications Act. There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law," said Pai.
Pai noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opined that internet platforms have been granted protections by courts that extend far beyond the original intent of the law.
"The Commission's General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning," Pai continued.
"Throughout my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission, I have favored regulatory parity, transparency, and free expression. Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech," he concluded. "But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.
Pai didn't mention the controversy over the banning of the New York Post Biden story, but critics and supporters alike immediately connected his announcement to the scandal.
'This is a major announcement'
Pai's announcement was greeted with applause from those who have been demanding an expansion of federal oversight over the more prominent social media companies.
"This is a major announcement from FCC on #BigTech. Now Congress must act on #Section230," said Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. He went on to mock free market conservatives who decried big government intervention.
Others, like FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, perceived the announcement to be motivated by the political agenda of President Donald Trump.
"The FCC has no business being the President's speech police," said Rosenworcel.
On Wednesday, Twitter released a statement explaining that they had decided to ban the posting of the New York Post article because it contained personal and private information, which they said was against their rules, and implied that there was no political motivation to their actions.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that it was "unacceptable" that they acted without explaining the context of the ban.
Here's more about the Burisma Biden controversy:


theblaze--2020-10-15--Don't these false or misleading reports lack 'authoritative reporting'? Where's Twitter's ban-hammer

Don't these false or misleading reports lack 'authoritative reporting'? Where's Twitter's ban-hammer?

The rules are not consistent

On Wednesday, the New York Post published an explosive report on emails the Post claims were obtained from a computer belonging to Hunter Biden. The emails appear to provide more details on Hunter Biden's ties to Ukrainian energy company Burisma and contradict claims from Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden that he never discussed his son's foreign business dealings.
Critical questions have been raised about the Bidens' ties to Ukraine and whether the Democratic candidate previously used his position as vice president to benefit his son financially.
The New York Post story quickly became controversial with many journalists disputing the details of the story and questioning the Post's sources. But outrage was triggered when social media platforms stepped in to prevent users from reading the story and drawing their own conclusions about the Post's reporting.
Facebook acted first, questioning the veracity of the Post's report and announcing that distribution of the story on its platform would be limited until an independent fact-checker finished reviewing the Post's work. Twitter acted next, initially giving some users a warning label stating "headlines don't tell the full story."
Then Twitter went further. Engaging in what the New York Post called "extraordinary censorship measures," Twitter banned users from tweeting the story, from retweeting it, and even from sharing it in direct messages. The New York Post's Twitter account was locked and subsequently other prominent Twitter accounts that shared the story were locked as well, including the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Twitter also banned a follow-up report from the Post on emails relating to "lucrative" deals with China.
The explanations offered by Facebook and Twitter for their censorship claim that the platforms' policies are intended to prevent the spread of misleading or inaccurate information. Twitter in particular made the determination that the Post is not a source of "authoritative reporting."
"Given the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials included in the article, we're taking action to limit the spread of this information," a Twitter spokesperson told the Washington Examiner Wednesday.
In a statement published by Twitter, the company changed its story and said the ban was put in place because "images contained in the articles include personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules." The images of emails published by the post contain unredacted email addresses. Additionally, Twitter views the emails reported by the post as "violations of our Hacked Materials Policy."
"Commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves, aren't a violation of this policy," Twitter said. "Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves." The company explained that this policy, created in 2018, "prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization."
This public statement made no reference to Twitter's original rationale for suppressing the New York Post story: That it lacked "authoritative reporting."
How does Twitter determine what constitutes "authoritative reporting?" The standard clearly isn't suppressing misleading or inaccurate information. If that were the case, why were the following stories were never censored by Twitter?
A February 2017 story from the New York Times alleging that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence was riddled with "misleading and inaccurate" information, FBI notes revealed. The story was based on unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources and was never updated to reflect how it became discredited.
CNN claimed in June 2017 that then-FBI Director James Comey would, in congressional testimony under oath, dispute a claim made by President Trump that the FBI director had assured the president he wasn't under investigation. Comey did not dispute the president in his testimony and CNN was forced to issue a correction to its story.
The New York Daily News in 2018 published a report claiming the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter was "trained by the NRA." In reality, the National Rifle Association had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.
After the Parkland shooting, CNN misleadingly claimed in a graphic posted on Twitter that 22 "school shootings" had already occurred that year. The inaccurate number was inflated by including accidental discharges of firearms on school campuses, gang violence, domestic violence, and university shootings and incidents that did not even include pupils.
Remember the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal covered in-depth in by CNN and others in 2018? The UK investigation into digital marketing firm found that allegations of colluding with Russia to influence the results of the Brexit referendum and break U.S. campaign laws were unfounded.
The New York Post's Sohrab Ahmari highlights how the Mueller Report's release in April 2019 debunked several media narratives that were shared on social media without censorship, including reports that Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange at Ecuador's embassy in London; that Jeff Sessions lied when he said he didn't meet the Russian ambassador as a Trump surrogate; that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with Kremlin officials; that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress; and, of course, the salacious and allegations from the Steele Dossier. All inaccurate or false stories.
In 2019, CNN, the Washington Post, and other outlets pushed a false narrative that high school student Nicholas Sandmann had provoked an encounter with Native American activist Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C., near the Lincoln Memorial. The media claimed that Sandmann and others taunted Phillips, claims which viral video showed were false. The Post and CNN went on to settle million-dollar defamation lawsuits brought by Sandmann.
In September 2019, the New York Times published a smear of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Times wrote about a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh from his undergraduate days at Yale, but failed to mention that the supposed victim did not recall the alleged incident.
In January this year, MSNBC host Al Sharpton repeated claims from a discredited study suggesting that there was an increase in hate crimes in counties that held Trump rallies.
In April 2020, Politico issued a lengthy correction and apology for falsely claiming that President Trump owed "tens of millions" to the Bank of China. Tweets propagating the original false story remain undeleted.
In September 2020, The Atlantic published claims from four anonymous sources that President Trump referred to a cemetery for fallen WWI soldiers as "filled with losers." Over 20 witnesses went on-the-record to dispute the Atlantic's account.
From these examples, which can still be shared on Twitter's platform, it's clear that "authoritative reporting" does not mean accurate or well-sourced material.
It's code for "stories the censors at Twitter agree with." An unfavorable report about Joe Biden doesn't qualify.


theblaze--2020-10-15--'This isn't news, it's a hit job': Mark Levin challenges Dr. Fauci over Trump campaign ad feud

'This is n't news , it 's a hit job ' : Mark Levin challenges Dr. Fauci over Trump campaign @ @

The Trump campaign recently released a new ad that includes a video clip of White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci saying, "I can't imagine that anybody could be doing more," presumably in reference to the administration's coordinated response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But on Monday, Fauci told CNN's Jake Tapper that his quote had been taken out of context.
On a recent episode of "LevinTV," BlazeTV host Mark Levin argued that Fauci's words were not taken out of context, after all the video clip in question was cut from an interview with Levin himself, on "Life, Liberty, and Levin" in late March.
"It's an accurate ad," Levin said. "And it challenges that narrative by the media and the democrats that the president of the United States hasn't been on top of this virus, that he was slow out of the gate, that he doesn't listen to science, and so forth — you've all heard the propaganda."
In the March interview, which you can watch here, Levin asked Fauci if he had ever "seen this big of a coordinated response by an administration to such a health threat."
Fauci replied that "we've never had a threat like this," and that the coordinated response had been "impressive." He went on to say that he and other members of the [Trump-appointed] Coronavirus Task Force had been working "all hands on deck" virtually all day, every day at that point.
"So I can't imagine, that under any circumstances, that anyone could be doing more," Fauci added.
But when the Trump campaign added a video clip of Fauci uttering those exact words, Fauci quickly came out with a statement saying the sentence had been taken out of context, and that he had been talking about the White House Coronavirus Task Force and not praising President Trump.
"This isn't news, it's a hit job," Levin said. "Let me ask you something. What's the name of the administration? I think it's called the Trump administration. Who appointed the task force? I think it was President Trump. Who runs the task force? I think President Trump's vice president. Who [is consulted] before they make major decisions that affect our culture and our society? The president of the United States. This is ridiculous."
Watch the video clip below for more from Mark Levin:
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.