The attack was described as ‘targeted and isolated’]]>
Black Friday is the perfect day to shop for your next set of cans. If you’re looking for a pair that delivers a tremendous sound and zero distractions, you’ve come to the right place. Lo and behold, here are 15 options to choose from, and they’re all on sale for an extra 20% off with […]]]>
Political commentator Candace Owens challenged a “false” rating from a third-party Facebook fact-checker and she won.
Earlier this month, Owens announced that she was taking legal action against the fact-checkers used by social media platforms. Owens brought the case because she became tired of being censored on Twitter and Facebook by third-party fact-checkers, as well as seeing fellow conservatives being silenced on social media.
Owens retained a pair of lawyers to represent her in the lawsuit, including attorney Todd McMurtry, who was part of the legal team representing former Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann. Owens is reportedly suing fact-checkers from USA Today and Lead Stories, according to the Daily Wire.
“It is time to fact-check the fact-checkers,” Owens said. “I’m going to put these suckers through discovery and figure out what the relationship is that they have with Facebook.”
Guess what?! I am OFFICIALLY suing the “Fact-Checkers” who are really just activists. https://t.co/nvLBLZaQEH https://t.co/UGbJzMrMk0
— Candace Owens (@Candace Owens)1604623964.0
Owens launched a website titled “Fact-Check Zuck,” which says, “Our freedoms are being stripped away. The overlords of Big Tech are determining what Americans can and cannot say, share, like, and post.”
“Support our legal efforts today as we fight back against Facebook’s fact-checkers, confronting those who are suppressing free speech, thought, and expression across our great country,” the site says.
“I wanted to show that these fact-checkers just lie, and they usually go unchecked because most people don’t have the money, don’t have the time, and don’t have the platform to go after them — and I have all three,” Owens said.
Owens celebrated her first victory in the case against the social media behemoths on Saturday.
“Weeks ago, @Facebook censored a post of mine which truthfully stated that @JoeBiden is NOT the President-elect,” Owens wrote on Saturday. “So I got lawyers involved. Conclusion? @PolitiFact uncensored the post & admitted that they LIED by rating my post false. The fact-checkers are lying for Democrats.”
“At 8 Months pregnant, I unfortunately cannot fight on the ground alongside patriots like I am used to, but I am taking every measure to fight these communists in the court room,” the conservative firebrand added. “It is my goal to expose these lying ‘fact-checkers’ one by one. @JoeBiden is NOT the President-elect.”
At 8 Months pregnant, I unfortunately cannot fight on the ground alongside patriots like I am used to, but I am tak… https://t.co/t4ItNav6ri
— Candace Owens (@Candace Owens)1606578390.0
PolitiFact issued a correction and removed the false rating.
“Correction: PolitiFact originally labeled this video false in our capacity as a third-party fact-checker for Facebook,” PolitiFact wrote on Facebook on Nov. 25. “On Nov. 20, an appeal to that decision was made on behalf of Ms. Owens. PolitiFact approved the appeal on Nov. 20, determined that a correction was appropriate, and removed the false rating.”
Owens argued that Joe Biden is not technically the president-elect as of yet, he was only named as the president-elect by media outlets, which is not authorized to name the president-elect. Biden is projected to be the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but the president-elect will not officially be named until the Electoral College cast its votes on Dec. 14, once all states have officially certified their results.
President Donald Trump is currently challenging the results in the election and has filed several lawsuits in critical swing states.]]>
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Saturday rejected a last-ditch bid from Republicans including Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) to halt the certification of the 2020 election results in the Keystone State.The court’s decis…]]>
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Science.]
By Joseph Annotti
Real Clear Science
As the dust settles from this historic election, it is important we take a moment to look forward to how the outcome may alter the role of science in the next administration.
Joe Biden pledged throughout his campaign to “follow the science” to determine how to address the Covid-19 pandemic. This could be a positive development if it helps to control the spread of the virus and spur an economic recovery. However, I caution his team to ensure that the facts on which they rely are based on objective and unbiased research, not on agenda-driven science intended to accomplish a pre-ordained outcome.
How this promise will impact public policy—both in dealing with the virus and in areas such as environmental policy—is yet to be seen. The first test—the regulation of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds—may come early in a Biden presidency.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) announced plans to introduce legislation that would require the EPA to set cleanup standards and enforceable drinking water limits for some PFAS compounds and said the bill would send a signal to the Biden Administration that controlling PFAS is “a top priority in the new Congress.” A similar bill was passed by the House in the previous Congress but never moved in the Senate.
PFAS compounds have been used for more than 60 years and are critical components in products as varied as semiconductor chips, food packaging, medical stents, firefighting foam, aerospace components, non-stick cookware, and stain and water-resistant fabric. They break down slowly and can survive extreme variations in temperature and air and water pressure, which means that trace amounts of the compounds are found in the bloodstreams of most Americans.
The two original PFAS compounds—PFOA and PFOS—have been voluntarily phased out decades ago because of the potential dangers of long-term exposure to humans. Efforts by government agencies and manufacturers are underway in many states to clean up sites contaminated by these two compounds.
Hundreds of other PFAS compounds have been introduced to replace PFOA and PFOS. At the heart of the debate is whether and at what levels of exposure these “next generation” PFAS compounds are potentially harmful to humans. On this, the scientific jury is decidedly out.
In fact, a recent workshop reviewing Federal research into the toxicity of PFAS compounds conducted by the National Academy of Sciences pointed out significant gaps in the scientific facts about PFAS. From the discussion, the independent scientists convened by the NAS identified fundamental scientific data gaps that “mechanisms of action and role of PFAS parent and metabolites are not well understood” and “knowledge of the specific biological pathways and networks leading to the development of human outcomes is limited.”
While the Environmental Protection Agency has yet to establish federal drinking water standard for PFAS exposure, it did establish a voluntary health advisory of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS in 2016. For context, 1 ppt is the equivalent of one grain of sand in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Several states have enacted stricter standards that are well below the EPA’s health advisories. These state regulations create a complex patchwork quilt of regulatory requirements resulting in compliance nightmare for any business that operates on a regional or national level.
Meanwhile, the trial bar understands that unsettled science and disparate regulatory standards make PFAS lawsuits a potential gold mine for the simple reason that almost every American is a potential plaintiff. For them, the equation is simple: more plaintiffs mean more pressure that attorneys can bring on companies to settle disputes for millions of dollars in legal fees before a case ever gets to court.
Imagine the fear-mongering marketing campaigns to recruit potential plaintiffs: “Drink water? Got cancer? You could be entitled to significant compensation. Call the number on your screen now!”
Mr. Biden’s pledge to follow the science is a noble one. But the most important word in that promise is the most innocuous: the. We cannot afford to fall into the trap of following my science or your science—we must have the courage and discipline to follow THE science.
But until the science on PFAS exists, the mass tort machine will continue to aggressively pursue litigation that relies on fragmented and conflicting scientific “facts” in order to force companies to pay billions in settlements or risk having their reputation, integrity, and shareholder value shredded in the public square.
Instead, we need to make an investment in independent, objective, and time-tested scientific analysis to determine the truth about the effects of PFAS on humans. Advancing public policy initiatives on scientific issues without such complete evidence—no matter how well intentioned—is irresponsible, short-sighted, and decidedly non-scientific.
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Science.]
The post Biden promise to follow the science is ‘noble,’ but it must be THE science appeared first on WND.]]>
A founding member of the Black Lives Matter Global Network accused former Vice President Joe Biden of capitalizing “on our efforts to defund the police.” The organizer of the group’s BLM Los Angeles chapter said Biden also tried to condemn the effort at the same time.]]>
Pope Francis on Saturday paid a visit to his predecessor with 11 of the 13 newly elevated cardinals who were raised to the highest rank in the Catholic hierarchy earlier in the day.The cardinals and Francis paid a…]]>
A founding member of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has slammed Joe Biden, and accused the former vice president of capitalizing on the defund the police movement, according to the Daily Wire.
Dr. Melina Abdullah, the lead organizer of BLMGNF’s Los Angeles chapter that opened in 2013, alleged that Biden “capitalized on our efforts to defund the police, and then tried to condemn the words at the same time.” Last week, several Black Lives Matter leaders lambasted Democrats for not supporting the defund the police movement.
“We want to be very clear that as we happily usher out the Trump regime, we will not accept liberal white supremacy in the White House in the form of Joe Biden,” Abdullah, who has been critical of Biden’s “lock-them-up approach that feeds mass incarceration and overpolicing,” said.
“It doesn’t matter to me if Kamala Harris is your vice president if you’re using her black woman body to usher in oppressive systems and oppressive people like Eric Garcetti,” Abdullah said.
Abdullah made the comments earlier this week during protests outside of the home of Los Angeles Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti. Black Lives Matter Los Angeles was protesting the reports that Garcetti was in contention for a position in a potential Joe Biden cabinet. Garcetti is allegedly being considered for secretary of Transportation or Housing and Urban Development.
“What he’s attempted to do for his entire reign as mayor is silence black voices,” Abdullah said of Garcetti. “We will not let our voices be silent. … He wants us to be silent. And he continues to feed a police department that is one of the most murderous in the entire nation.”
Abdullah said a Garcetti appointment to Biden’s potential cabinet would be “doubling down on liberal white supremacy.”
“We have to remember that there are a lot of liberal white supremacists,” Abdullah said, making a reference of Garcetti. “Just because you plaster on a smile, just because you have a few sellout Negros that want a seat at your dinner table, just because you speak a little bit of Spanish…that does not make you not a white supremacist.”
Two people were arrested this week during protests outside of Garcetti’s residence. The protests continued on Saturday, for the fifth-straight day.
(Content Warning: Explicit language):
“Fuck you @MayorOfLA” – @DocMellyMel
We won’t be silent as Mayor Eric Garcetti continues to uphold liberal white… https://t.co/IMGoreI43G
— People’s City Council – Los Angeles (@People’s City Council – Los Angeles)1606238708.0
5th straight day of protests in front of the home of LA Mayor Eric Garcetti by BLM LA #Garcetti https://t.co/LcUQaM1Z7n
— Jorge Ventura Media (@Jorge Ventura Media)1606587708.0
In 2013, Abdullah had a much different opinion of Garcetti, and openly supported him.
My vote for LA mayor goes to Eric Garcetti…the only candidate supporting a Leimert Park stop and UNDERGROUND Crenshaw line. #ECSummit
— Melina Abdullah (@Melina Abdullah)1358619679.0
Getting excited about Garcetti…Totally gets it on how to address gun violence…programs, prevention and intervention. #ECSummit
— Melina Abdullah (@Melina Abdullah)1358620034.0
Patrisse Cullors, one of the three co-founders of the Black Lives Matter organization, is calling for Biden to adopt far-left legislation for Biden to adopt far-left legislation that would lead to the abolition of prisons and open borders.]]>
The first doses of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine candidate have been flown over to the U.S. from Belgium, a source familiar with United Airlines’ COVID Vaccine Readiness Task Team planning confirmed to …]]>
(DAILY WIRE) – Anybody who has issues with the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) instituting new diversity quotas in order to qualify for Best Picture can “f*** off,” according to “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” star Andy Samberg.
Speaking with Variety’s Awards Circuit podcast about his new film “Palm Springs,” Samberg said that Academy’s diversity requirements are loose enough to allow for artistic freedom.
“The parameters if you look at them closely…you can have the ‘whitest’ cast in the history of cinema and still very easily meet them by just doing a few key roles behind the camera. People who have problems with it can f*** off,” he said.
Read the full story ›
The post ‘F– off’ if you don’t like Oscar diversity quotas appeared first on WND.]]>