Joe Biden Missing In Action With Government On Verge Of Shutdown

Religious liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom will meet with the Walt Disney Company in early January to question its collusion with a now-defunct advertising giant known to censor news outlets and personalities. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media likely violated federal antitrust laws by censoring and boycotting the speech of conservative news outlets and personalities, according to the House Judiciary Committee. Disney became a member of GARM sometime after its founding in 2019 and before its dissolution in 2024. “No major company should be throwing their ad dollars behind a program of censorship like that,” ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco told The Daily Signal. “Disney needs to continue to hear a drumbeat of objections to be continually held accountable for these kinds of actions until we really see a change in behavior, one that’s lasting.” Alliance Defending Freedom partnered with Bowyer Research and Patron Partners, who represent Disney shareholders, to file a shareholder resolution against Disney. Disney is a global brand with immense influence and ad-buying power. It should be advertising in ways that support its competitive interests and build its reputation for serving its diverse customers. But recent reports have shown that it colluded with the world’s largest advertising buyers, agencies, industry associations, and social media platforms through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and others for expressing disfavored political and religious viewpoints. Disney agreed to an investor meeting in January, so ADF will withdraw the resolution. “We’re taking this issue straight to the board, into the leadership of Disney, and saying, ‘Why were you a member of GARM’?” Tedesco said. “‘What are you doing to prevent moving forward using Disney’s reputation in advertising prowess?'” GARM, an initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers, included every major advertising agency holding company in its ranks. GARM has a history of promoting “hyper-partisan and censorial groups like the Global Information Index and NewsGuard,” according to the resolution. GARM threatened Spotify because Joe Rogan promoted dissenting views on the COVID-19 pandemic. The alliance also boycotted X when Elon Musk loosened censorship restrictions. GARM disbanded shortly after public pressure and a lawsuit from X in 2024. “Disney needs to rebuild trust by providing transparency around these policies and practices. This will assure customers, shareholders, and others that it is protecting, not targeting, free speech and religious freedom,” the resolution says. Disney is no stranger to backlash over its woke practices. An upcoming Disney show titled “Win or Lose” faced parental backlash for plans to feature a character who identified as transgender. In deference to parents, Disney removed the character’s transgender-themed storyline from the series. The shareholders represented by ADF, Bowyer Research, and Patron Partners are calling Disney’s Board of Directors to conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year evaluating how it oversees risks related to discrimination against ad buyers and sellers based on their religious or political persuasions. Disney did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. ADF has filed around 10 shareholder resolutions against household-name companies who were part of GARM. The pro-free speech law firm has filed more than 50 shareholder resolutions dealing with other issues, including diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, in the workplace, de-platforming, de-banking, and more. “We’re very much engaged with corporations on behalf of shareholders, to try to pull them back from all the politics that has entered the business, and to get them to at least get to a place where, if they’re going to do something that gives back to society more than just being great businesses that create great products, then they should be giving back to a culture that respects free speech and religious freedom,” Tedesco explained. The post ADF Urges Disney to Evaluate Discrimination Based on Political, Religious Beliefs appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The current battle in Congress over the continuing resolution to fund the government is a fight worth having to stop the bloated spending of the federal government—spending that increases our unsustainable, monumental debt; funds dangerous and unnecessary government programs; and keeps unaccountable bureaucrats in office whose goal in life is to control our lives from birth to death. This article, originally published in 2013 during a previous budget fight, illustrates that the government never really shuts down. Crucial services for national security and law enforcement will continue even if no continuing resolution is approved, as will payments for Social Security and veterans’ benefits. The rallying cry for concerned members of Congress trying to stop the federal government’s runaway spending should be the famous words of Captain John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to fight!” Here is the article—and the lesson—from 2013: If President Barack Obama “shuts down” the government by vetoing a continuing resolution, or CR, that funds all government operations with the exception of Obamacare, or the Senate fails to pass such a CR, crucial services will continue without interruption. That includes all services essential for national security and public safety—such as the military and law enforcement—as well as mandatory government payments such as Social Security and veterans’ benefits. The key fact, as the U.S. Department of Justice itself has said, is that when there is a short-term lapse in appropriations, “the federal government will not be truly ‘shut down’ … because Congress has itself provided that some activities of government should continue.” In fact, any claims that not passing a CR will result in a “shutting down” of the government “is an entirely inaccurate description,” according to the DOJ. Such a lapse in funding would be neither catastrophic nor unprecedented, but it would pare down government services to those most essential for “the safety of human life or the protection of property.” That would not include the hundreds of billions of dollars in the federal budget that are constantly squandered and wasted on frivolous, unnecessary, and unneeded programs. What the Law Says The effect of a veto of appropriated funding by the White House or the failure of the Senate to pass a CR is governed by the Constitution, federal law, DOJ legal opinions, and planning memoranda issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Under Article I of the Constitution, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” This constitutional limitation is implemented by the federal Antideficiency Act, which makes it illegal for federal officials to spend money in excess of appropriations or to obligate the government to enter into contracts before an appropriation has been passed to pay for such a commitment. The Antideficiency Act also prohibits the federal government from accepting voluntary services, which is why federal employees (except those deemed “essential”) have to be furloughed—they cannot volunteer their services during a shutdown even if they want to. The act contains a very expansive exception, however, “for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” Although that exception has been broadly interpreted by the Office of Management and Budget and the DOJ to give executive agencies wide discretion over how to spend their remaining funds, the statute was amended by Congress in 1990 in response to a 1981 opinion issued by Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti to make it clear that the term emergencies does “not include ongoing, regular functions of government, the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.” A 1995 opinion by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel over that amendment confirmed the earlier DOJ opinions, although it slightly narrowed the interpretation of “the safety of human life or the protection of property” to mean that they must be “compromised in some significant degree” by the lack of funding. A 2011 Office of Management and Budget memorandum also confirmed that the executive branch still views those DOJ opinions as establishing the guidelines for the continued operation of the government during a lapse in funding. The Office of Management and Budget refers to those government functions that can continue to operate because they meet the emergency definition as “excepted” functions. Federal employees who “are needed for the performance of those ‘excepted’ functions” can continue to be employed even in the absence of a CR or an appropriations bill. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget says that federal employees can continue to work who are necessary not just to protect life and property but to perform activities “expressly authorized by law” or “necessarily implied by law,” an extremely broad standard. Many ‘Essential’ Functions As a recent report by the Congressional Research Service points out, an Office of Management and Budget memorandum from 1981 lays out examples of the many government functions of federal agencies that may continue during a funding lapse: National security, including the conduct of foreign relations essential to the national security or the safety of life and property. Benefit payments and the performance of contact obligations under no-year or multi-year appropriations or other funds remaining available for those purposes. Medical care of inpatients and emergency outpatient care and activities essential for the safe use of food, drugs, and hazardous materials. Air traffic control and other transportation safety functions. Border and coastal protection and surveillance. Protection of federal lands, buildings, waterways, and other property of the U.S. Care of prisoners and others in federal custody. Law enforcement and criminal investigations. Emergency and disaster assistance. Activities essential to the preservation of the money and banking system of the U.S., including borrowing and tax collection. Production of power and maintenance of the power distribution system. Protection of research property. In its 2011 memorandum, the Office of Management and Budget also provided other instances of “excepted” situations where federal agencies would continue to function. For example, operations where a “statute or other legal requirement expressly authorizes an agency to obligate funds in advance of appropriations” such as a Civil War-era law that “provides authority to the Defense Department to contract for necessary clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, or medical and hospital supplies” or another federal law authorizing the Bureau of Indian Affairs to continue to contract for goods and supplies. The DOJ’s 1995 opinion again confirmed that essential government benefit payments continue because they operate “under indefinite appropriations provisions that do not require passage of annual appropriations legislation.” It pointed out that “Social Security is a prominent example of a program that operates under an indefinite appropriation. In such cases, benefit checks continue to be honored by the Treasury, because there is no lapse in the relevant appropriation.” And all government employees necessary to continue to make those benefit payments will continue to be employed to do so even though their salaries would normally be paid through the CR because they are “necessary to disburse the Social Security benefits that operate under indefinite appropriations.” This same rule would obviously apply to other such government benefits such as Medicare and for military veterans, as well as “the performance of emergency services that continue under that separate exception.” The 2011 Office of Management and Budget memorandum confirmed that there would be no cessation in any government functions necessary for Obama to carry out his “constitutional duties and powers (e.g., commander in chief or conducting foreign relations).” So, for example, the president would be able to continue his very extensive (and very expensive) foreign travels in the interests of “conducting foreign relations,” even if he decides to cause a lapse in government funding with a veto of a CR. Regarding the president’s duty as commander in chief, the Department of Defense has issued guidance outlining that “the legal authority for critical military operations to continue” is clear. Among the units and activities exempt from a funding lapse are “forward-based combat, combat support, and combat service support units.”  So, “operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan would continue, units preparing for deployment would carry on their training and other deployment preparations, and activities needed to support operations and training would continue.” There would also be no suspension or furlough of “units identified for deployment in plans for major regional contingencies” as well as “units assigned to carry out strategic nuclear operations.” Recent History There have been 17 funding gaps since 1977, ranging in duration from one to 21 days. In November 1995, when President Bill Clinton vetoed a CR and there was a funding gap for five days, only about 800,000 out of a total of 4.475 million federal employees were furloughed. Only about 280,000 federal employees were furloughed during the December 1995 to January 1996 funding gap. During this time, the Social Security Administration initially retained about 5,000 employees and then called back an additional 50,000 employees within three days to continue paying benefits and processing new claims, keeping over 80% of the total employees of the agency employed despite the lack of a CR. Not Much Shut Down Based on past experience, one may safely conclude that a very large number of federal employees would continue to provide services during any government “shut down,” and essential services necessary to safeguard the country will continue, as will the crucial benefit payments on which many Americans depend. But this would still not allow the full, continued implementation of Obamacare. As outlined in a prior Heritage issue brief, “Even if a government shutdown occurs without a defunding bill, while the administration may have some funding available from other sources to continue to implement parts of Obamacare that fall within exceptions to the ADA [Antideficiency Act], it would not be able to legally implement all of the many different parts of the law, and it is doubtful it would have the funds to implement all of the law.”  There are many parts of the law that could not be deemed “emergencies,” even under the broad reading given that term by the executive branch. And the more parts of the law that are stopped, the better off the American people will be. The post What Happens During a Government ‘Shutdown?’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Spain’s central government is preparing to introduce a bill that would require social media influencers and digital platforms to publicly issue corrections to posts, aiming to prevent the spread of “disinformation” online. “We citizens have the right to defend ourselves from professional hoaxers.” This declaration comes from a highly influential member of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government, who has long claimed to be a victim of disinformation campaigns. Justice Minister Félix Bolaños announced the approval of a preliminary draft law regulating the right of rectification. This new legislation will extend beyond traditional media—such as newspapers, television, and radio—to include online influencers who have more than 100,000 followers on a single platform or 200,000 across multiple platforms. Following a five-day confinement in April, during which Prime Minister Sánchez reflected on his tenure and considered resignation, he emerged with a “democratic renewal plan.” This plan seeks to reinforce the right to truthful information. The contemplation of resignation came after Judge Juan Carlos Peinado initiated proceedings against Sánchez’s wife, Begoña Gómez, based on a complaint the government contends is rooted in hoaxes. While Bolaños refrained from mentioning specific cases, his use of phrases like “we have the right” subtly linked the proposed law to incidents affecting the government itself. He highlighted that the new legislation, which will undergo a consultation phase before reaching parliament, is designed to replace outdated laws from 1984, a time before the internet existed. “These people have a wider reach of the information they spread than many traditional media outlets and there are professional hoaxers and liars who every day sully our public debate with lies and falsehoods,” Bolaños said. The legislation also removes the requirement for rectification requests to be addressed to media directors, who can sometimes be difficult to identify. The correction must include a notice that the information has been amended, provide the accurate details, and link back to the original content. “We are making life more difficult for those people who lie and spread hoaxes every day,” Bolaños stated. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Spain Proposes Law Requiring Social Media Influencers to Issue Corrections for “Disinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Worth Every Dime of Those Student Loans: Such Schweet Kids on College Campuses These Days

VIP Membership Christmas SALE: 60% Off!

The original definition was developed 30 years ago, and a lot has changed since then.

They absorb most ultraviolet light too.

Michael Tomasky was back on Morning Joe today, beating his dour, one-note samba: right-wing media is the root of all evil. Last month, we caught New Republic editor Tomasky blaming conservative media for Kamala Harris's defeat. He even claimed that right-wing media is more powerful than the MSM. As we wrote: "If only!" Today, Tomasky blamed right-wing media, singling out Rupert Murdoch for particular opprobrium, for Trump's current popularity, as reflected in majority support for his handling of the transition. Trump has nominated "unqualified extremists" across the board, and yet the public approves of the transition. He doesn't blame "people," he blames Fox. "First and foremost, I blame Rupert Murdoch and, to a lesser extent, his imitators, whose media properties have injected so much poison and so many lies into our discourse since 1977 that common civic agreement about basic morality in public life has become impossible." "Common civic agreement about basic morality." Translation: when the liberal media set the agenda. Care for an example from the liberal media of that "common civic agreement about basic morality" and "what kinds of actions did and did not reflect our best values?" Try this bit of rank, rancid bigotry in a description of the South: "Reactionary, prejudice-infested, fetid, reject[ing] nearly everything that’s good about this country, just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment." The author? Michael Tomasky, as we caught him ten years ago. Tomasky approvingly cited John Dean asserting that if Fox News were around in 1973-74, Nixon would have survived Watergate. And yet, though Fox News was alive and well in recent times, that didn't prevent the Democrats from twice impeaching Trump and indicting him for 90-plus felonies in several separate criminal cases. Note: Tomasky, in both word and mien, has to be the most lugubrious guy in the liberal media. Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 12/20/24 6:31 am ET JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, Michael Tomasky, in your latest article for the New Republic, which is titled, "The Real Reason Why Americans Approve of Trump's Disastrous Transition," you write in part this. "How can it be, you may be wondering, that 55% of Americans tell pollsters they approve of how Donald Trump is handling the transition? He has nominated almost, but not quite literally across the board, unqualified extremists. I don't blame people," you say. "I blame the larger culture, which has been almost totally drained of common concern about our civic health.  "First and foremost, I blame Rupert Murdoch and, to a lesser extent, his imitators, whose media properties have injected so much poison and so many lies into our discourse since 1977 that common civic agreement about basic morality in public life has become impossible." You go on.  "We had a basic understanding about what kinds of actions did and did not reflect our best values. And this was why Richard Nixon had to resign in disgrace for committing far fewer offenses than Trump already has. Everyone, whatever their politics, agreed that Nixon had clearly crossed a line. But that impulse is dead in the United States, and the right-wing media killed it. Michael, a powerful piece tell us more about your argument about the right-wing media. What it's done, and do you see any way that this civic bond, this civic concern can be repaired? MICHAEL TOMASKY: Uh, I'm not very hopeful about that, Jonathan, unfortunately. You know, John Dean famously said a few years ago that if Fox News had existed in 1973-74, Richard Nixon would have survived Watergate. I think that's probably true. 

Home-run hitting legend Sammy Sosa may have finally admitted to using performing-enhancing drugs during his playing years, penning a letter in which he said he "made mistakes" and is ready to move on.Sosa, who holds three of the top 10 highest single-season home run totals — including the third highest at 66 — directed his open letter to the Chicago Cubs organization and its fans. The slugger was accused decades ago, along with fellow players like Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, of using PEDs during the home run boom of the late 1990s-2000s.'I made mistakes and I apologize.'"I left it all on the field for the Cubs and Cubs fans because I wanted to win and make the fans happy," the letter began."I loved to see the fans at Wrigley in the right field bleachers every home game. I understand why some players in my era don't always get the recognition that our stats deserve," he ominously continued.The next passage struck readers as a possible admission to using steroids, human-growth hormones, or possibly some other PED."There were times I did whatever I could to recover from injuries in an effort to keep my strength up to perform over 162 games. I never broke any laws, but in hindsight, I made mistakes and I apologize."Sosa concluded, "We accomplished great things as a team, and I worked extremely hard in the batting cage to become a great hitter. Cubs' fans are the best in the world, and I hope that fans, the Cubs and I can all come together again and move forward. We can't change the past, but the future is bright. In my heart, I have always been a Cub and I can't wait to see Cubs fans again."The former right fielder's plea to move forward with the Cubs did not go unnoticed by the franchise, as Executive Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a letter of his own in response:"We appreciate Sammy releasing his statement and for reaching out. No one played harder or wanted to win more," Ricketts' official statement read. "Nobody's perfect but we never doubted his passion for the game and the Cubs. It is an understatement to say that Sammy is a fan favorite. We plan on inviting him to the 2025 Cubs Convention and, while it is short notice, we hope that he can attend."The letter closed by saying, "We are all ready to move forward together." — (@) Sosa's comments have come a long way from remarks he made in March when he was asked if he and Ricketts could rekindle their relationship.OutKick reported that Sosa called himself a "mature man" and said he recognized his "mistake."He was then asked by reporter Lou Canellis if that meant he recognized the fact that "maybe" he "did do steroids."Sosa replied, "This is not a question that I expected from you." As well, in 2020, Sosa told radio hosts that he never "tested positive" as a reason why he should be considered for Hall of Fame induction."I always play every day. I play pretty much 162 games every (year). I was healthy pretty much all of the time. You look at my record, I did it in the field. That's a question. Let’s see what happens. I haven't tested positive. My case is not too hard to deal with."When Sosa testified about PEDs in 2005, along with other MLB stars, he was criticized for using an interpreter despite speaking English. It was seen as a delay tactic to shorten his time spent answering questions. Sosa's defense was that since he is Dominican, he wanted to be exactly sure what was being asked and what he was trying to communicate. The then-37-year-old denied any used of PEDs.Sosa finished his career with 609 home runs, with total career earnings over $127 million.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!