Daily Archives: July 29, 2021

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation Wednesday to combat the censorship campaign orchestrated by colluding Big Tech companies and governments all over the world, including the Biden Administration.

Americans should know when governments especially their own request or pressure internet companies to censor legal speech, Rubio said.

Rubio explained in a FOX NewsarticleWednesday that the bill, thePRESERVE Online Speech Act, would require technology companies to disclose any U.S. or foreign government requests or recommendations regarding content moderation within seven days of the request.

It would also force theFederal Communications Commission(FCC) to submit an annual report to Congress covering all government censorship requests and resulting actions from that year. Non-compliant firms will receive a daily fine of $50,000 that will be directed to the FCC to provide rural broadband access.

The legislationcomes nearly two weeks afterWhite House Press Secretary Jen Psakiopenly admitted that the Biden administration is conspiring with Big Tech oligarchs to suppress dissent on social media platforms.

We already know that Big Tech companies pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed on their platforms, and now the Biden administration expressed their willingness to help them censor the American people, said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), one of the bills cosponsors.

Indeed, it is obvious bywhoandwhattech companies choose to censor that their disinformation campaigns are ideological vendettas against conservatives.

Transparency is critical, wrote Rubio, but it alone will not change the poisonous role that Big Tech and social media corporations are playing in our national politics.

For this reason, Rubio said he has also introduced the DISCOURSE Act, which would strip Section 230 protections from large tech companies that drop the pretense of neutrality by censoring specific viewpoints or creating and developing content, including through algorithmic amplification.

We need to step up to the plate to stop Silicon Valley-Democrat collusion before its too late, said Rubio.

Evita Duffy is an intern at The Federalist, co-founder of the Chicago Thinker, and a senior at the University of Chicago. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1

Continue reading here:

New Bill Would Force Big Tech Firms To Disclose Censorship Requests From Governments - The Federalist

After months of advocating for critical race theory in classrooms throughout the country, the Democratic Party is rapidly losing ground with voters over this controversial issue.

Recent polling indicates that the Democratic Party has overplayed its hand on this deeply contentious topic, with a recent poll from YouGov, sponsored by The Economist, found that 58 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of critical race theory, while only 38 percent of Americans had a favorable view.

An overwhelming 85 percent of Republicans who were surveyed had a very unfavorable view of critical race theory, with another 6 percent reporting that they had a somewhat unfavorable view. The split was notable partisan, with 58 percent of Democrats having a very favorable view in addition to 28 percent who self-reported a somewhat favorable view.

Meanwhile, Independents had a distinctly negative view of the theory, with 71 percent reporting a very unfavorable view and another 5 percent answering that they had a somewhat unfavorable view of critical race theory.

With just over three-quarters of Independent voters opposing critical race theory, the vast majority of whom were staunchly against it, the Democratic Party could likely face serious electoral troubles as the theory becomes a hot button topic at the center of various elections.

Politico reports that the Democratic Partys appeal to suburban voters may be particularly threatened as grassroots movements crop up to combat the Marxist ideology in school districts the country while the Democratic Party has remained largely unresponsive to such concerns. Virginias Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe hastily dismissed parents concerns surrounding critical race theory by calling it a right-wing conspiracy theory that was concocted by Donald Trump and McAuliffes Republican opponent Glenn Youngkin.

While other Democrats and left-wing teachers unions claim the theory isnt being taught at all, Politicos reporting indicates that Democratic leadership is deeply underestimating the breadth and depth of parents opposition to critical race theory, noting:

Objections to new equity plans are not the sole province of conservatives but extend to many moderate and independent voters, according to POLITICO interviews with school board members, political operatives and activists in Democratic and left-leaning communities including the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; New Yorks Westchester County; Maricopa County covering Phoenix, Ariz.; and suburban Detroit.

It remains to be seen whether or not the Democratic Party will be able to effectively walk back their support for critical race theory, or if their attempts to push the theory in K-12 schools will cost them at the ballot box.

Read more:

Democrats Rapidly Losing Ground In Fight Over Critical Race Theory - The Federalist

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice issued two guidance documents purportedly to ensure states fully comply with federal laws regarding election. Those documents, however, really represent the Biden administrations latest attempt to squelch investigations into potential voting irregularities, silence critics of the 2020 election, and cement forever the free-for-all COVID voting procedures implemented last voting cycle.

Wednesdays guidance came in the form of two documents entitled, respectively, Federal Law Constraints on Post-Election Audits and Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting. In the DOJs guidance on post-election audits, the Biden administration began with its familiar refrain that the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history, and that notwithstanding automatic recounts or canvasses, there was no evidence of either wrongdoing or mistakes that casts any doubt on the outcome of the national election results.

Yet, as the DOJ put it, there has since been an unusual second round of examinations by states looking at certain ballots, election records, and election systems used to conduct elections in 2020. Then, with a not-so-veiled threat, the Biden administration rattled off the federal constraints, which are enforced by the Department of Justice, on these audits.

Among other laws, the federal guidance on post-election audits highlighted Section 301 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 that requires state and local election officials to retain and preserve all records relating to any act requisite to voting for twenty-two months after the covered election. This mandate, the DOJ explained, means that election records must be retained either physically by election officials themselves, or under their direct administrative supervision, the latter of which requires election officials to have physical access to the records, according to the DOJ.

While not singled out by name, the detail contained in its guidance statements suggest the DOJ has in its sights the Arizona Republicans leading the probe into Maricopa County voting. Just Monday, the Republican-led Arizona Senate served another subpoena on officials in Maricopa County, seeking its routers and other information necessary for the legislature to complete its audit.

The DOJs guidance will likely provide the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, which has resisted attempts by the state Senate to obtain the equipment and other data, an excuse to keep a close hold on the information. The guidance from the Biden administration, however, seems also to seek to scare off state officials from pursing such investigation, as seen by the DOJs reference to the criminal penalties that attach to willful violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The DOJ referenced criminal penalties again later in its guidance statement when discussing federal laws that prohibit the intimidation of voters. Then, after providing some examples of non-physical intimidation, the Biden administration suggests that work apparently planned as part of the Arizona audit qualifies as intimidation.

There have been reports, with respect to some of the post-2020 ballot examinations, of proposals to contact individuals face to face to see whether the individuals were qualified voters who had actually voted, the DOJ wrote, citing a Cyber Ninjas Statement of Work. Cyber Ninjas is the Florida-based company hired by the Arizona Senate to conduct the audit. It reportedly had proposed using a combination of phone calls and physical canvassing to collect information on voters in three urban precincts.

The Biden administration claims this sort of activity raises concerns regarding potential intimidation of voters, especially when such investigative efforts are directed, or are perceived to be directed, at minority voters or minority communities. States that authorize or conduct audits must ensure that the way those reviews are conducted has neither the purpose nor the effect of dissuading qualified citizens from participating in the electoral process, the DOJ continues, before warning that if they do not, the Department will act to ensure that all eligible citizens feel safe in exercising their right to register and cast a ballot in future elections.

The DOJs closer seems a sure signal that it intends to shut down any real analysis of voting in Arizona because it claims that investigative efforts that are merely perceived to be directed at minority communities qualify as intimidation under federal law.

Arizona is not the DOJs only target, however, as the second guidance document issued yesterday shows. Rather, in Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting, the Biden administration, while hiding behind a litany of legal citations and legalese, exposes its intent to target any state that tightens voting procedures from the pandemic period.

After noting favorably the record turnout seen in 2020, stemming from the increased use of vote by mail and early voting, the DOJ explained that since then, some States have responded by permanently adopting their COVID-19 modifications; by contrast, other States have barred continued use of those practices or have imposed additional restrictions on voting by mail or early voting.

While one would think that returning to pre-COVID voting procedures would pose no legal problemafter all, if a voting rule was valid before COVID, why would it be illegal nowthe Biden Department of Justice sees things differently.

The Departments enforcement policy does not consider a jurisdictions re-adoption of prior voting laws or procedures to be presumptively lawful, the guidance document reads. Rather, the Department will review a jurisdictions changes in voting laws or procedures for compliance with all federal laws regarding elections, as the facts and circumstances warrant.

In other words: Red states, prepare to be sued.

The DOJ already targeted Georgia last month with litigation under the Voters Right Act, claiming Georgias mainstream regulations of the time, place, and manner of elections result in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. At the time the Biden administration filed suit against Georgia, the allegations against the state were pretty insane, but the entire case became a burning dumpster after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, shortly after the DOJ filed the case.

In Brnovich, the Supreme Court upheld Arizonas in-precinct voting requirement and ban on ballot harvesting against a Voting Rights Act challenge. In doing so, the high court delineated several guideposts to address whether a voting regulation abridges the right of citizens to vote on account of race, including the size of the burden; the degree to which the voting rule departed from the standard in 1982 when Congress amended [the Voting Rights Act]; the size of the disparity of the rule on minorities; the opportunities provided by the states entire voting system; and the strength of the states interests in the law.

While yesterdays guidance does not explicitly conflict with the courts holding in Brnovich, that the Biden administration stressed in its summary that the Voting Right Acts demand that election systems be equally open to voters of all races reaches rules involving the availability of vote by mail, deadlines, application and ballot formalities, or drop boxes for returning ballots, suggests the DOJ intends to push more frivolous lawsuits, like the one filed against Georgia.

At least in the Georgia case, though, the DOJ did not have the benefit of the Supreme Courts decision in Brnovich. Should the Biden administration execute on the not-so-subtle threats conveyed in Wednesdays guidance, it will be doing so with full knowledge that the voting-integrity laws passed by Republican-controlled states fully comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party have decided that they score a victory just by pretending Republicans seek to disenfranchise voters of color and by portraying voting-integrity laws as Jim Crow 2.0, whether they win in court (or success in passing H.R. 1). Here, the left is playing with fire, because our country is too divided to withstand many more elections where half the populace believes the election was rigged.

That reality represents the clear and present dangernot Arizonas audit or any of the other complaints put forth by the Biden administration in yesterdays guidelines.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

See original here:

Department Of Justice Threatens To Sue To Keep 2020 Election Chaos - The Federalist

When Nicole Solas, a Rhode Island mom, was preparing to enroll her daughter in kindergarten this year, she had one simple question: did the school teach critical race theory and gender theory to five-year-olds?

The answer to that question was not so simple, or at least, the South Kingstown, Rhode Island school district didnt want it to be. Both the principal and chair of the school committee told Solas she would need to submit public records requests in order to find out the content of her daughters taxpayer-provided education.

When Solas submitted the requests, the school rejected them, claimed the requests were unclear. The school even held a meeting to discuss threats to sue Solas. When attorneys from the Goldwater Institute submitted another request on Solass behalf, the school said they could hand over the documents but only if Solas paid more than $74,000 in processing fees.

The Goldwater Institutes request was for any school communications that included terms such as CRT, white privilege, gender theory, 1619 project, and systemic racism. The school district estimated it would take 4,954 hours more than 619 business days to retrieve the documents mentioning those terms.

Jonathan Riches, the director of national litigation at the Goldwater Institute, said the fact that the district claimed it would take so many hours to comb through the documents indicated high levels of CRT in the curriculum.

Theyre clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouth here. You have a situation where they have suggested that theyre not teaching things like CRT, but then when you ask for real specific records of emails that include the phrase CRT, and curriculum and lesson plans that include that phrase, theyre saying its 5,000 hours of time to go through all that, Riches said. Obviously theres a lot of materials that are out there, a lot of communications that are out there that are discussing many of the very things that the school district is disavowing teaching.

Solas said the Goldwater Institute reached out to represent her after learning that the school district was evading her records requests.

We believe the school is engaging in a pattern of obstructionism to prevent me from getting the information that I had requested on my own, Solas told the Federalist. I felt like I was an enemy of the state from the beginning. This was my first experience with public school as a parent. I didnt think that I would be treated like an adversary but Im getting more and more information from other parents who say that theyre treated in similar ways too.

According to Solas, many other local parents have reached out to her privately to share their experiences of what their children learned in the South Kingstown district. The school refrains from calling students boys or girls, supports Black Lives Matter, and shames kindergartners for American ideals and traditions.

They asked the students what couldve been done differently on Thanksgiving, Solas said. That is obviously a way to shame children for their American heritage. And its really a ridiculous question to ask five-year-olds because they dont have a sense of history at all. To ask them what couldve been done differently on Thanksgiving is impossible for a five-year-old to answer I dont even know if an adult could answer that.

Riches told Fox News there was no reason it should be difficult for parents to find out what is being taught to their own children at taxpayer-funded schools.

What our children learn in school shouldnt be a government secret, he said. I dont think its a controversial proposition to say we should have open and transparent government, especially when were talking about publicly funded schools using our tax dollars and here you just have a conscientious parent asking Hey, whats my child going to learn?

The Goldwater Institute has responded to the school district and is in the process of determining next steps.

Under Rhode Island law any request for fees has to be reasonable and thats the language thats used in the statute, according to Riches. It seems to us that asking a parent to pay $74,000 to see what their kid is learning is not reasonable under any circumstances.

Maggie Hroncich is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College.

Original post:

School Tells Mom Pay $74000 To Find Out If They're Teaching CRT - The Federalist

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is sowing doubt about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines by demanding that vaccinated Americans mask up again.

Using the Delta variant to justify its nagging, the CDC is shifting its masking recommendations back to encompass those who have received the shot and re-emphasize that children over 2 years old who attend K-12 schools should continue to don face coverings. Health officials at the agency claimed that new evidence found that the levels of virus found in breakthrough cases among the vaccinated people are similar to those found in unvaccinated individuals who contract coronavirus, raising concerns that vaccinated individuals may be able to spread the virus.

The flip-flop comes just two months after the health bureaucrats lifted recommended mask guidance from vaccinated Americans.

You can resume activities without wearing a mask or staying 6 feet apart, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance, the CDC website stated.

Now, as the corporate media mock and exploit the deaths of unvaccinated COVID patients to draw attention to the Delta variant, the CDC is walking back its original guidance even after promising just last week that there were no plans to alter mask guidance unless there were a significant change in the science.

The CNN report of the CDCs change claims the decision was made after a meeting to review new transmission evidence on Sunday night, but the White House began discussions about possibly urging more masking as early as last Wednesday.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki and her staff repeatedly claimed that we follow the guidance and advice of health and medical experts and that public health guidance is made by the CDC, and they continue to recommend that fully vaccinated individuals do not wear a mask, but even President Joe Biden hinted that his administration was itching for a change during his most recent CNN town hall event.

The CDC is going to say that what we should do is everyone under the age of 12 should probably be wearing a mask in school, Biden said. Thats probably whats going to happen.

Some counties such as Los Angeles also jumped the gun two weeks ago and overlooked current CDC mask recommendations to demand that their residents, even those who are vaccinated against COVID-19, wear a mask indoors.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read more from the original source:

CDC Sows Vaccine Doubts By Nagging Those Who Got The Shot To Mask - The Federalist

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, journalist and author Noah Hurowitz joins Federalist Political Editor John Daniel Davidson to discuss his book El Chapo: The Untold Story of the Worlds Most Infamous Drug Lord.

El Chapos rise coincided with all of these big changes. In the 80s, with the advent of cocaine, theres just more money than ever because you can make a lot more money trafficking cocaine than marijuana and the ability to corrupt entire volumes at the Mexican state, Hurowitz said.

Corruption in the drug smuggling industry, Hurowitz explained, is institutionalized in the Mexican government.

In Mexico, theres certainly cops who are more or less dirty, but in law enforcement, the way that I found that it typically works is that someone higher up gets paid and they pay people below them extra to look the other way or even to go to sometimes escort drug shipments, Hurowitz said.

The reason that the drug trade generates so much profit is because its illegal. Because its ablack market. And the reason that the government in Mexico could have a certain degree of control over it was theyhad control over virtually every aspect of business in Mexico, but this was even easier because you know if youstepped out of line, they could just whack you.And that was done, you know, with pretty much the understanding of the U.S., he said.

Listen here:

Originally posted here:

How El Chapo's Rise Exposes The Corruption Of The Mexican State - The Federalist

A critical race theory (CRT) clash is ensuing at the taxpayer-funded University of Nebraska, and it is another example of how those in power are grappling with the left-wing ideologys injection into the classroom.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Pillen, who is also a regent at the University of Nebraska, recently announced his plan to put forth a campus resolution opposing critical race theory in August, which led to the administration issuing a statement calling for academic freedom due to its significant concerns about the resolution.

Regent Jim Pillen has notified us that he intends to place a resolution regarding critical race theory on the agenda for the August 13 Board of Regents meeting, the university wrote in a July 21 email obtained by The Federalist to faculty, staff, and students. As we have shared with Regent Pillen, we have significant concerns about the resolution and how it would be interpreted by the faculty, staff and students we hope to recruit and retain. We will continue to work together and with the Board to vigorously protect and defend academic freedom at the University of Nebraska.

Without completely banning any mention of critical race theory in classrooms, Pillens resolution seeks to bar teachers from imposing it on their students. It states:

Whereas we oppose discrimination in any form and whereas critical race theory does not promote inclusive and honest dialogue and education on campus and whereas critical race theory proponents seek to silence opposing views and disparage important American ideals, be it resolved that the regents of the University of Nebraska oppose any imposition of critical race theory in curriculum.

The regents move comes after Chancellor Ronnie Green of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln wrote a column in January calling for anti-racism and racial equity. Likewise, the school said in July 2020 it would begin a journey of addressing anti-racism and racial equity and Commit to studying and addressing systemic issues and institutional policies.

Reacting to Pillens resolution, the University of Nebraska said in its press release, Issues around race, equity and the fight against racism are an important part of our countrys story and they have an appropriate place in our classrooms, affirming its prior commitment to potentially mandating anti-racism coursework. Such mandates are not uncommon these days in major institutions, given the University of Pittsburgh now requires all freshman students to study anti-black racism, and 150 law school deans demanded that the American Bar Association mandate anti-racism training.

Pillen said in an interview with The Federalist that while his resolution does not ban critical race theory from being taught in various classes, it does ban mandates and course requirements.

My resolution does not ban critical race theory, Pillen said. The goal of it is to make sure that all students understand that they are to be a part of a free and fair exchange of ideas as are faculty to be able to represent the academic freedom on both sides of it. The goal is to make sure that every professor and every student understands that critical race theory is not to be taught as an imposition.

On Monday, Republican Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts announced his support for Pillens resolution. The governors backing comes after the United College Athlete Advocates, a major nonprofit and advocacy group for college athletes, unveiled a petition, which has gathered thousands of signatures, opposing Pillens move.

I strongly urge the Board of Regents to pass the resolution opposing the imposition of Critical Race Theory on students, so we can keep academic freedom alive and well at the University of Nebraska, Ricketts tweeted.

In Nebraska, regents maintain charge of the general government and budget of the university,Pillens deputy campaign manager John Gage told The Federalist. They also decide who the president is. The University of Nebraska has eight members who serve six-year terms. Pillen was first elected in 2012.

While regents are a nonpartisan group, Gage noted it currently boils down to six Republicans and two Democrats at the university. The Republicans campaign thinks there is a 50-50 chance it passes, though, and a source familiar with the situation indicated to The Federalist that Pillen is trying to sway the more moderate conservatives to join the initiative.

This resolution opposes policies, standards, and graduation requirements that would compel students to study critical race theory or adopt a CRT framework in their chosen course of study, Pillen told The Federalist. If a student chooses to study CRT, this resolution wont stop them from learning about it or professors from teaching it on an elective basis.

Bob Phares, a Nebraska regent who is a former member of the presidents advisory council and was formerly mayor of North Platte, said the resolution needs further discussion when asked whether he supports banning the imposition of CRT. I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around about what Jim was attempting to do and what he really wanted, Phares said, not elaborating further.

Colby Young, a junior at the university, told The Federalist that while Pillens resolution is a good start, more could be done.

Should it be banned? Yes. But thats just my opinion, Young said, noting that open debate does not necessitate mandatory lessons and that he worries his teachers are thinking in a more radical way.

A spokeswoman for the university declined to comment further on the resolution, as did other regents.

Below is the document announcing Pillens resolution proposal.

Anti-CRT Resolution Univers by The Federalist

Read more:

University Of Nebraska Regent Seeks To Ban Teachers From Forcing CRT - The Federalist