In the picturesque New England countryside‚ there’s a gentle giant named Tommy‚ a colossal Brown Swiss steer. Originating from the Alps‚ Tommy’s breed is known for being the heavyweights of the dairy world‚ and he’s living up to that reputation in style. Tommy’s journey began when Fred‚ a farmer with a talent for raising calves‚... The post Farmers thought brown cow they rescued is “like any other” until it didn’t stop growing appeared first on Animal Channel.

When a reporter lobbed a softball at President Joe Biden‚ the president took the opportunity to demand further adulation from the media.  Biden on Dec. 23 fielded a question about how he feels about the economy in 2024‚ telling a reporter‚  “All good‚ take a look‚ start reporting it the right way.” The president‚ clearly unsatisfied with the slavish coverage of his presidency from legacy media outlets‚ called for help from his allies at NBC‚ ABC‚ CBS‚ CNN‚ MSNBC‚ The New York Times and The Washington Post‚ as if these outlets haven’t been spinning the news for Biden already.  Since the president chose to overlook the media’s zealous work on his behalf‚ here is a small collection of moments when the media tried to paint a brighter economic picture of the Biden presidency. For example‚ in June The Washington Post put out an article carrying water for the president‚ noting that the president and his staff “have long been frustrated that the president is not getting more credit for an economy that by many measures is thriving.”  Not to be outdone‚ CNN provided overwhelmingly positive coverage of the Biden economy or “‘Bidenomics‚’” frequently giving voice to concerns that voters didn’t properly appreciate how good the economy was.  Several other media outlets have featured articles blaming an ungrateful American public for Biden’s terrible economy. This includes a New York Times column by Paul Krugman‚ who whitewashed Biden’s economy while criticizing Americans for their low opinion of Bidenomics.  From the left coast‚ a Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus also weighed in to defend Biden’s economy and scourge American voters for failing to appreciate it. McManus wrote‚  “The challenge for Biden and his campaign strategists is how to persuade unhappy voters not only that better times are ahead‚ but that he deserves some credit.” McManus put the focus not on struggling Americans‚ but on the complete mystery of how Biden cannot sell what McManus called a “freakishly good” economy to an ungrateful public.  Earlier this year‚ Michael LaRosa‚ former Press Secretary to First Lady Jill Biden‚ wrote an op-ed titled “Biden should stop focusing on the economy.” Mr. President‚ the press can’t make the public see what isn’t there.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact CNN at 404-827-1500 and demand the outlet tell the truth about how terrible Bidenomics has been for the U.S. economy.

President Joe Biden signed on Friday the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act‚ which included a pro-free speech provision effectively prohibiting the Department of Defense from contracting with radical leftist entities that discriminate against right-leaning media. Hours later‚ however‚ Biden invoked a George Soros-tied Supreme Court case to hint at his potential rebellion against the provision he just signed into law. “While I am pleased to support the critical objectives of the NDAA‚ I note that certain provisions of the Act raise concerns‚” Biden whined‚ drawing attention to Section 1555(a) of the NDAA. Specifically‚ the provision prohibits the Pentagon from doing business with NewsGuard‚ the infamous Internet traffic cop‚ and the Global Disinformation Index‚ the blacklisting rag‚ among others who would use taxpayer dollars to censor. You May Also Like: Clock Is Ticking! NDAA Calling Out NewsGuard Awaits Biden Signature Biden claimed the Pentagon “will comply with this provision by requiring recipients of such contracts to certify that they will not place the Department’s advertisements based on the enumerated grounds.” But here’s the caveat. Biden cunningly warned that the Pentagon will also comply with the “First Amendment‚” claiming that the government cannot force entities — in this case‚ NewsGuard and GDI — to adopt a specific ideological belief.  Most strikingly‚ Biden cited a distantly analogous and readily distinguishable case brought by the Soros-funded Alliance for Open Society International to defend his take. The Court held in that case that the federal government “may not use funding and the threat of the loss of funding as a method for the regulation of speech and policies of non-governmental organizations.” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider torched Biden’s pledge to usurp the pro-free speech provision by citing “one of the biggest censors” in the world as “his get out of jail card.”  Schneider said‚ "The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from censoring political speech; likewise government cannot collude with private companies to violate the First Amendment. Several courts already rebuked and ordered him to stop colluding with Big Tech. Congress has also stepped in to pass a law to force Biden to comply with the Constitution. It appears nothing will deter Biden from using government to silence his political opponents.” Biden hinted that it will continue to instruct advertising firms to place ads on left-wing media outlets. The president’s opposition to the provision came after Senate Democrats pushed back on the original language of the prohibition‚ which explicitly barred the Pentagon from funding and doing business with NewsGuard. Both NewsGuard and GDI have blatantly discriminated against right-leaning media and those who dare to oppose the Biden administration’s approved talking points. However‚ the NDAA specifically declared that the Pentagon cannot “place advertisements in news sources based on institutional political preferences or biases‚ or determinations of misinformation.” Related: EXCLUSIVE: Rep. McCormick Champions Push to End Dystopian Censorship Industrial Complex‚ Touts MRC Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The most obvious retort to people who forced out New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet for publishing an op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton was the parade of Times op-eds by dictators and terrorists. Remember "What We‚ The Taliban‚ Want"? Now it’s happened again.  The Times ran an op-ed Sunday (on Christmas Eve!) by Hamas’s handpicked Gaza City mayor — prompting outrage on social media from Israel supporters. Gaza City hasn't had an election in 18 years. The essay by Yahya R. Sarraj was titled “I Am Gaza City’s Mayor. Our Lives and Culture Are in Rubble.” The Times made him sound like a respectable academic‚ not a Hamas stooge: “Dr. Sarraj is the mayor of Gaza City and a former rector of the University College of Applied Sciences there.” Israel was scorched‚ and naturally‚ there was almost no mention of October 7‚ no mention of hostages held: The Israeli invasion has caused the deaths of more than 20‚000 people‚ according to the Gaza Health Ministry‚ and destroyed or damaged about half the buildings in the territory. The Israelis have also pulverized something else: Gaza City’s cultural riches and municipal institutions. The unrelenting destruction of Gaza — its iconic symbols‚ its beautiful seafront‚ its libraries and archives and whatever economic prosperity it had — has broken my heart. Sarraj noted he was appointed (by terrorists): "One of my major goals after the Hamas administration appointed me mayor in 2019 was to improve the city’s seafront and foster the opening of small businesses along it to create jobs." But the Times allows him to pose as Mr. Nonviolence:  The Gaza Zoo has been destroyed‚ with many of its animals killed or starved to death‚ including wolves‚ hyenas‚ birds and rare foxes.... Why did the Israeli tanks destroy so many trees‚ electricity poles‚ cars and water mains? Why would Israel hit a U.N. school? The obliteration of our way of life in Gaza is indescribable. I still feel I am in a nightmare because I can’t imagine how any sane person could engage in such a horrific campaign of destruction and death....I call on the world’s municipalities — everyone — to pressure world leaders to stop this mindless destruction. "Mindless destruction" is a more appropriate term for Hamas slaughtering whole families in the kibbutzes and mowing down young people attending a concert for peace. Sarraj concluded by attempting to play on geopolitical naivete: "Why can’t Palestinians be treated equally‚ like Israelis and all other peoples in the world? Why can’t we live in peace and have open borders and free trade?" Did the war Hamas brought out of Gaza look like an argument for "open borders"? The New York Times doesn't care if these articles make sense. They only want to demonstrate the range of opinion they'll publish....where Republicans are too offensive‚ and Hamas and the Taliban are granted a platform. 

Pineapple Upside Down Cake is a classic that never goes out of style! Perfect to enjoy with friends and family and always a hit. Pineapple upside-down cake is an old-fashioned classic that has been around as long as I can remember. My mother made this cake for every picnic‚ potluck or gathering and it was...

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson recently found herself stopped by her own reasoning concerning the right to a fair trial after podcast host Tim Pool applied it to the case of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. On the Dec. 21 episode of the "Timcast IRL" podcast‚ Pool and Williamson discussed various sensitive topics‚ including the surge of illegal immigration under President Joe Biden's watch‚ critical race theory‚ late-term abortions‚ and Democratic efforts to prevent the electorate from casting votes for former President Donald Trump. Late in the conversation‚ they broached the subject of fair trials and judicial bias‚ particularly as it concerns those Jan. 6 protesters given relatively extreme sentences. Pool‚ who noted both a dearth of "far-left extremists" similarly rotting in jail and concerted efforts by the "corporate media" to pre-emptively convict rightists in the court of public opinion‚ focused in particular on the treatment of Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio‚ who was not at the Capitol on Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ but was nevertheless sentenced to 22 years in prison. The host suggested the lengthy sentence was not the result necessarily of something Tarrio had done but rather due to who he is. "I think they are sending him to jail because he's a prominent Trump supporter and the chair of the Proud Boys‚" said Pool. Williamson questioned whether there was indeed a "massive conspiracy" among the jury members in Tarrio's trial and in others like his‚ prompting the host to question whether Washington‚ D.C.‚ where 93% of the electorate voted Democrat in the last presidential election‚ could ever produce a jury free of substantial partisan bias. "I think we are‚ in essence‚ a purple nation in our hearts‚" replied Williamson. "And I think people are interrogated before they are allowed to sit on a jury‚ and if they say things that are clearly prejudicial‚ then they are not allowed to sit on that jury." The Democratic activist added‚ "We can agree that people should be ... held fairly accountable and that the legal system should be fair to everyone." Drawing upon an audience question‚ Pool asked Williamson‚ "Would you agree with black people people being sentenced to long prison sentences if the jury determines that's what should happen?" Despite her stated faith in the jury system‚ Williamson acknowledged that it's not always perfect‚ as some jury decisions "are fair‚ some of them are obviously unfair‚ but it's the best that we have." Pool pressed the issue further‚ asking‚ "Do you think like a jury of white people from a wealthy suburb are going to be fair ... to like a black man accused of selling drugs?" "That's why often it is‚ you know‚ there's a movement for a case to be tried elsewhere for that reason‚" responded Williamson. "I mean‚ that's part of the system that one can argue that this person could not get a fair trial in this area." Pool then asked whether it would be acceptable if a judge indicated that "a fair trial would not be possible‚ so we're going to do it here anyway." "I don't think that would be right. And somebody would be petitioning somebody‚" said Williamson. "I mean‚ even in those cases‚ there is such a thing as judicial prejudice. Someone would be arguing for judicial prejudice. ... I would be the first to say‚ 'This is wrong.'" The host then put it to Williamson: "So will you stand up in defense of Derek Chauvin?" Williamson was visibly stunned by the question‚ muttering‚ "Uh‚ wow." After repeating Chauvin's name‚ Williamson fell silent‚ held her head‚ and looked off blankly to the side with mouth agape. Chauvin's defense attorney attempted to change the location of his murder trial in March 2021‚ arguing that a jury pool would be greatly influenced by the then-recent news of Minneapolis' settlement with George Floyd's family‚ reported NPR. "You have elected officials — the governor‚ the mayor — making incredibly prejudicial statements about my client‚ this case‚" said defense attorney Eric Nelson‚ reported the MinnPost. "You have the city settling a civil lawsuit for a record amount of money. And the pretrial publicity is just so concerning." "I do not think that that would give the defendant any kind of a fair trial beyond what we are doing here today‚" responded Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill. "I don't think there's any place in the state of Minnesota that has not been subjected to extreme amounts of publicity on this case." Cahill previously admitted he was "a little shocked" when two jurors admitted the Floyd-Minneapolis settlement "did move them off being fair and impartial." "I was surprised that it had such an effect‚" said the judge. One of the jurors was seen in photos taken before the trial wearing a BLM baseball cap and a T-shirt that said‚ "Get your knee off our necks." According to the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions‚ individuals facing criminal prosecution have right to trial by an impartial jury. After puzzling over Pool's question for a moment‚ Williamson attempted to defend Judge Cahill's decision‚ suggesting it was an "overriding circumstance." "Wasn't there some legitimacy to that given the fact that everybody saw the video?" said the Democrat. "So how could there be a lack of prejudice anywhere?" "So the question is about the Constitution and what is fair in the court of law‚ not what we want to have happen because of our feelings‚" said Pool. "So if the issue is the issue is a judge says‚ 'There will be no fair trial for you‚' my argument is that there's no trial at all and the man should be released because that's a limitation of our democratic system." Williamson‚ who tried her hand at becoming the president of the U.S. in 2020‚ ultimately disagreed with the host's suggestion that a fair trial is necessary for a court to imprison an American citizen. Chauvin was found guilty of second-degree unintentional murder‚ third-degree murder‚ and second-degree manslaughter in spring 2021 and sentenced to 22.5 years in prison. He was stabbed 22 times last month at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tucson‚ Arizona‚ by a former FBI informant. — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The next time you’re fondled at the airport by a TSA agent‚ look around. You may very well see foreign nationals ushered through security without proper documentation and disregarding every TSA rule. While Joe Biden pretends that millions of invaders from 150 countries are a natural occurrence‚ his administration is using taxpayer-funded nongovernmental organizations to disperse tens of thousands of them throughout the country. This cannot be allowed to continue. Why won’t Republicans pledge to put an end to it by refusing to fund one more penny of this scheme with the budget deadline looming? It’s time for House Republicans to refuse to fund these organizations and well past time for states to begin indicting the leaders of these nonprofits for violating state and federal laws. In September‚ the Center for Immigration Studies obtained partial data showing that 221‚000 illegal aliens were flown into our airports in the first three quarters of the year. The government enlists NGOs to help with logistics and even to advertise in foreign countries how to navigate the U.S. immigration and asylum process. For example‚ Miles4Migrants and Welcome.US have partnered with American Express Global Business Travel‚ “to make travel more accessible to Cubans‚ Haitians‚ Venezuelans‚ Ukrainians‚ and Nicaraguans seeking refuge in the United States.” These are not organizations that operate on the fringe of the law and society. Miles4Migrants’ honorary co-chairmen include Barack and Michelle Obama‚ George W. and Laura Bush‚ and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Breitbart recently reported that “several regular travelers” at Tucson International Airport “were politely told to exit the special ‘migrant security line’ because they were not noncitizens.” The NGOs provide “noncitizens” with transportation‚ logistical support‚ and a map of the layout of the airport. TSA‚ in turn‚ established a special line whereby the invaders could fly without proper documentation. I’m sure they are not getting screened like we are. A recent report from a Florida grand jury on illegal immigrant smuggling noted that taxpayer-funded NGOs have an incentive to encourage more illegal aliens in order to bolster their budgets. “The river of accountability-free money has absolutely polluted the entire process‚” noted the grand jury Governor Ron DeSantis empaneled in 2022. “Given the breadth of our mandate‚ we focused on transnational criminal organizations and illegal immigration. … We discovered‚ however‚ that there are also ‘legal’ organizations who appear to be misusing federal contract monies and their ‘nonprofit’ status in order to abet the process‚ and likely the actors‚ responsible for the illegal activity we are describing.” One would think that if taxpayers are funding groups to aid border security‚ they’d use the money to dissuade would-be migrants from embarking on such a dangerous journey. Instead‚ they advertise the trip to the world’s poor and benighted people and facilitate every step. The grand jury’s 146-page report notes how the nonprofits “provide cash cards‚ cell phones‚ and transport vehicles and what amount to safari-style guide maps through portions of jungle and across deadly terrain‚ increasing the number of individuals who thus elect to make the journey and enabling Transnational Criminal Organizations to amass fabulous wealth and a bottomless pool of victims in the process.” The panel recommended a separate grand jury be convened to focus solely on the criminal activity of the NGOs. The crux of the report’s findings is that Americans are sending billions of dollars to insidious groups responsible for the human‚ financial‚ cultural‚ and drug trafficking misery that the government has a duty to stop. We have been giving $2.7 billion to NGOs every year just to pay for the resettlement of unaccompanied alien children. Federal law makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to‚ entered‚ or remains in the United States in violation of law‚ conceals‚ harbors‚ or shields from detection‚ or attempts to conceal‚ harbor‚ or shield from detection‚ such alien in any place.” The law also makes a criminal of anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to‚ enter‚ or reside in the United States‚ knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to‚ entry‚ or residence is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts‚ or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts.” Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1891 made it a felony to “assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien by promise of employment” through advertisements. Any alien who came in due to such advertisements was deemed inadmissible‚ and that law was designed to prevent people from encouraging them.Earlier this year‚ in United States v. Hansen‚ the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law‚ noting it does not outlaw advocacy of illegal immigration but rather aiding and abetting illegal immigration through actions. It’s time for House Republicans to refuse to fund these organizations and well past time for states to begin indicting the leaders of these nonprofits for violating state and federal laws. The way to stop the Biden invasion is to put his NGO allies behind bars. Biden’s use of NGOs is eerily similar to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s effort to stage thousands of Middle Easterners in Minsk as a means of destabilizing the rest of Europe. After thousands of imported migrants from Minsk crossed into Poland and the rest of the EU in 2021‚ EU Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen correctly identified his stratagem as a “hybrid attack” instead of a “migration crisis.” Ironically‚ she conveyed this very complaint about Lukashenko to Joe Biden himself! — (@) European countries have already accused Belarus of working with travel agents to invade Poland and Lithuania. This is essentially what Biden is doing — except‚ unlike Lukashenko‚ he is staging an invasion against his own people. As we watch the chaos and mayhem continue on our southern border and beyond‚ only one question matters: Will Americans continue funding our own demise in next month’s Homeland Security budget bill? There is only one right answer.

Former President Donald Trump scored another legal victory in his pursuit of the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination after the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear a case about removing him from the state's primary ballot.Four Michigan voters filed a case to remove Trump from the primary ballot‚ citing the former president's alleged role in the incident at the U.S. Capitol on January 6‚ 2021. The suit filed by the voters claimed that Trump's actions amounted to "insurrection or rebellion" and that he was therefore ineligible to become president. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — a clause added to the Constitution nearly 160 years ago in the wake of the Civil War and the attempted secession of many Southern states — strictly prohibits those who have engaged in such "insurrection or rebellion" from holding most federal offices. Notably‚ president and vice president are not included among the list of offices forbidden to insurrectionists and rebels‚ though "elector of President and Vice-President" is.On Wednesday‚ Michigan's highest court declined to hear the case submitted by the four voters. "We are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court‚" Justice Elizabeth M. Welch wrote in the order.The state supreme court's order agreed with a decision earlier this month from the Michigan Court of Appeals‚ which similarly declined to hear the case. Both courts gave the same basic reason for declining to hear the case: Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) does not have the authority to remove Trump from the ballot in this instance. Welch's order called the secretary of state's authority in determining who qualifies for the ballot "limited" and claimed that Benson "lacks the legal authority to remove a legally ineligible candidate from the ballot once their name has been put forward by a political party in compliance with the statutes governing primary elections."The order did express some agreement with the appellants' argument that political parties are state actors "subject to constitutional restrictions" but did not rule on such an argument since there were no political parties named in the litigation. Appellants may "renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate‚" the order said.The order also discussed the recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court‚ which barred Trump from the primary ballot in that state. On a 4-3 vote‚ Colorado's high court ruled that Trump is ineligible for the ballot because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump has promised to appeal that case to the U.S. Supreme Court‚ and the Colorado Republican Party has already indicated it might move from a primary vote to a caucus system to circumvent the court's ruling.Michigan's Supreme Court claimed that Colorado election laws differ from Michigan election laws in "a material way" since Colorado law requires that candidates be "qualified" for office to be eligible for the ballot. Michigan law has no such stipulation‚ the order said.Like Colorado‚ Michigan is considered a swing state‚ and its electoral votes may help decide the 2024 presidential election. The Michigan primary will be held on February 27. The Colorado primary will be held on March 5‚ also known as Super Tuesday.The supreme court of Minnesota ruled last month that Trump could not be barred from the state's primary ballot. The secretary of state in Maine is still considering whether to remove Trump from the ballot‚ so litigation in that state may be forthcoming as well. Republican presidential candidate John Castro has filed lawsuits attempting to bar Trump from ballots in more than a dozen states‚ but so far‚ the courts have not ruled in his favor. "After careful consideration‚ the Court finds that this case must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Castro lacks standing to bring his claim‚" wrote U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes regarding Castro's lawsuit in Arizona.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The House of Representatives recently voted for an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702‚ which allows the warrantless surveillance of American citizens in certain cases. However‚ this wasn’t just a Democrat effort. 147 Republicans voted for the extension‚ along with a majority of the Democrats. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is in shock‚ saying the vote “just threw away the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution.” 73 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted against the extension. Glenn Beck calls it “insanity‚” asking Massie what those who voted for it were thinking. “Well‚ Glenn‚ they put you in a SCIF here‚ one of these secret rooms without your phone‚ and they try to convince you the world’s going to end if you don’t allow them to reauthorize this‚ but that’s a false choice‚” Massie explains. While what has happened is far from good‚ there’s still a sliver of hope. “People ask me ‘Is there any hope?’” Massie says‚ saying there’s a “5% chance we can fix it” and a “30% chance that it all goes to hell.” But he plans on sticking it out through that “hell.” “I can be here to try to put it back together‚” he tells a somber Glenn. Massie doesn’t want to defend them‚ but he doesn’t completely blame the 147 Republicans who “voted the wrong way‚” either. “They were given a false choice. They were saying‚ ‘If you don’t fund this program then we won’t be able to spy on terrorists‚ and oh‚ by the way‚ we’ve attached it to the military funding bill and the soldiers won’t get paid‚’” Massie explains. Glenn disagrees with Massie‚ in that those who voted poorly should be blamed. “You’re being much too kind. I’m sorry‚ if you’re in Congress and you fall into that trap‚ which has been used over and over and over again by both sides‚ you’re a moron and not smart enough to be in Washington‚ D.C.‚” Glenn says. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling‚ thought-provoking analysis‚ and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

The FBI said that Aylo Holdings‚ Pornhub's parent company‚ was "motivated by profit" when it came to profiting off of women who were sexually exploited.Aylo Holdings S.A.R.L. was arraigned on a charge of engaging in unlawful monetary transactions involving sex trafficking proceeds‚ the Justice Department stated in a press release.According to the DOJ‚ Aylo hosted pornographic videos created by a company called GirlsDoPorn‚ which was indicted in 2019 by a federal grand jury in California for‚ among other charges‚ sex trafficking offenses in which the company was accused of "deceiving and coercing young women to appear in sex videos which were then posted online without the women’s consent" in United States v. Pratt‚ et. al.Since the indictment‚ several of the operators of GirlsDoPorn have allegedly been convicted in connection to the prosecution.The DOJ went on to describe that according to Aylo's admissions and court documents‚ the company "knew or should have known" that money received from GirlsDoPorn operators came from sex trafficking operations."This deferred prosecution agreement holds the parent company of Pornhub.com accountable for its role in hosting videos and accepting payments from criminal actors who coerced young women into engaging in sexual acts on videos that were posted without their consent‚" said United States Attorney Breon Peace.The FBI also said that Aylo was "motivated by profit" and "knowingly enriched itself by turning a blind eye to the concerns of victims who communicated to the company that they were deceived and coerced into participating in illicit sexual activity."James Smith‚ FBI assistant director in charge‚ added that "any entity that engages in sexual exploitation will be held to account for the mental anguish and terror imposed on victims."The DOJ noted September 2017 as an example of an instance when Aylo allegedly learned that many women who appeared in certain videos had filed a lawsuit alleging that they had been tricked and coerced into filming adult videos. Furthermore‚ the women claimed that the videos were posted to Pornhub.com without their consent.Aylo allegedly did not independently verify consent and did not remove all the videos that were requested to be taken down. Also according to the DOJ‚ Aylo removed videos in question in October 2019.Pornhub has faced heightened scrutiny in 2023‚ particularly in Virginia‚ where it was compelled to enforce an age restriction feature on its website.Rather than comply‚ the website chose to cease access in the state altogether. "The safety of our users is one of our biggest concerns. We believe that the best and most effective solution for protecting children and adults alike is to identify users by their device and allow access to age-restricted materials and websites based on that identification‚" wrote Pornhub. "Until a real solution is offered‚ we have made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in Virginia."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!