Sunday, October 6, 2024

Complaints Ask FEC, FCC To Investigate ABC For Breaking Broadcast And Donation Rules In Debate

Broadcasters must present debates in the public interest, and corporations can’t donate to campaigns.

Beth Brelje reporting for The Federalist

Remember that brazenly biased presidential debate on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC television? The one where ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis “fact-checked” former President Donald Trump five times and Vice President Kamala Harris, not at all? The one advertised as a legitimate debate that felt more like a 90-minute campaign commercial for Harris?

The Center for American Rights has filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), asking these agencies to hold ABC and its local affiliate accountable on two matters: an alleged campaign donation violation, and a concern about its television broadcast license.

Unlike print media, broadcast airwaves belong to the public. While anyone can find some paper, start their own newsletter, and say whatever they want, there is a finite number of airwaves across the broadcast spectrum, so they belong to everyone. That is why the FCC licenses segments of the airwaves to broadcasters with the condition that they must use a certain amount of their broadcast time to serve the public.

“One of the obligations of stewarding the airwaves in the public interest is that debates must be fair and impartial, and when you fail at that, there must be accountability from the regulator,” Daniel Suhr, attorney at the Center for America Rights, told The Federalist in a phone interview. “The media have been pushing the boundaries for decades and what ABC did was further than what anyone had done previously.”

Public Reprimand

The Center for American Rights filed a complaint with the FCC, naming WPVI-TV Philadelphia, which produced the debate in conjunction with ABC. WPVI holds the broadcast license.

The complaint notes that the public has a right to be “honestly informed” and the FCC has promised to “investigate when presented with ‘evidence of a broadcaster’s intent to advance a particular candidacy,’” the complaint to the FCC reads. “Over and over again, the [FCC] has warned against debate programming and format decisions that ‘serv[e] the political interest of one of the candidates.’”

The moderators’ “obvious bias comes from the questions they did not ask, the topics they did not raise,” the complaint said. There were no questions about abruptly swapping the Democratic candidate from President Joe Biden to Harris, or about Biden’s apparent cognitive decline, or about why Biden is still the sitting president if he is not fit to run for office.

The attempted assassination of Trump was also ignored. Harris was not asked about the effectiveness of the Secret Service, who was responsible, or what security measures should be taken to prevent future threats.

The Center for American Rights tells the FCC the debate failed the “public interest standard” for broadcasters which prohibits “news distortion … and news suppression.”

The complaint asks for a public reprimand of WPVI “for carrying programming contrary to its public interest obligations.”

Neither WPVI nor ABC responded to a request for comment for this report.

“Media have been pushing the boundaries for decades and what ABC did was further than what anyone had done previously,” Suhr said. He noticed a similar problem in the recent vice-presidential debate. “The vice-presidential debate is just further evidence we need to enforce the rules. It goes against the core of what a debate should be and what the law provides.”

The FCC has informed WPVI of the complaint, Suhr said. The television station has 30-60 days to respond. It will not be resolved before the election.

In-Kind Donation

The complaint directed at the Federal Election Commission notes that while the FEC allows broadcasters to stage candidate debates, this was not a true debate. That makes it a 90-minute prime-time television in-kind campaign contribution, Suhr said. That is, a service given to a candidate instead of money. It is a problem because it is illegal for a corporation to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any presidential election.

“ABC News did not provide fair and impartial treatment of candidates; in doing so, they misled rather than informed voters,” the FEC complaint reads. It points to the critical fact-checking of Trump, live on the air, and the allowance of untrue statements by Harris to pass without notice. For example, Harris said “There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, [for] the first time this century.” This was a shock to deployed military troops who were watching from around the world.

Harris also criticized Project 2025, written by the Heritage Foundation, as something Trump supports. Her campaign ads continue to present this fabrication. “Trump has repeatedly said he wasn’t involved in its writing, does not believe in its policies, and won’t implement it,” the complaint notes.

“If Donald Trump were to be reelected, he will sign a national abortion ban,” Harris lied without interruption. Trump has repeatedly said he opposes a national abortion ban and supports leaving the issue to the states.

If ABC had charged advertising rates for what seemed like a 90-minute infomercial for Harris, it would be valued at tens of millions of dollars. That could be considered an undocumented, illegal donation, and could result in fines for ABC.

The FEC and FCC will investigate these complaints and issue decisions, Suhr said.

Did She Really Just Say That?: Hillary Clinton Lets the Cat Out of Bag on Dems and Controlling Speech

One of the things that Elon Musk just warned about at former President Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was the danger that the Democrats posed to free speech and how important it was to vote for Trump to preserve our Constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag during an interview with CNN on Saturday, where she spoke about the need to control social media. She said it should be "at the top" of every legislative agenda:

We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view. Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.

"We lose total control." That's the real problem to them right there, that's why Democrats are so upset. Yes, that's the point of the First Amendment -- the government is not supposed to be in "control" of the speech of the people. Sounds pretty fascistic to me.

People can now see and hear the truth without having it be filtered through liberal media organs. We can now know when the media is lying to us. We may all have -- gasp -- freedom of thought and not agree with the liberal media narrative that is being pushed at us constantly. We can now see reality. When we see reality, we can see what the Democrats really are about. And it should frighten all of us.

The current Democratic candidates for president and VP have showed they have the same kinds of thoughts as Hillary Clinton.

Tim Walz -- a former member of Congress and the governor of a state -- revealed he has no idea what the First Amendment is about during the vice presidential debate with Sen. JD Vance (R-OH):

He thinks "hate speech" or misinformation is forbidden -- wrong on both. He thinks "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." Joe Biden keeps saying this too and they're both wrong.

Here's what I've previously written on that:

This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law.
From The Atlantic:
As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

The First Amendment was specifically created to protect incendiary speech, speech people may not have liked or might find wrong. That’s the very purpose of the Amendment.

Here's George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley talking about how these are dangerous times for free speech with these thoughts.

Governor Walz has been out there saying that misinformation and hate speech are not protected under the Constitution. And there's a crushing irony there. I mean, in calling for the censorship of other citizens accused of disinformation, the governor is spreading disinformation. He's been told repeatedly by many of us that he's wrong, that that's just completely and demonstrably wrong. The Constitution does protect those forms of speech."

That's also incredibly ironic for someone like Clinton as well, who was a purveyor of misinformation.

Turley also called out Hillary Clinton for pushing censorship.

But this disturbing CNN comment on Saturday from Hillary Clinton is actually a good sign, on a couple of levels.

She's revealing where they want to go, so we can fight it. And she's doing it because it means they know they are losing control. And that's why we must defeat them:

Obama’s Message Could Be ‘Difficult To Sell’ as He Embarks on Battleground State Tour Campaigning for Kamala Harris

This is not an October surprise, but rather an October ‘shrug,’ one observer tells the Sun.

As President Obama prepares to kick off a battleground state sprint for Vice President Harris, some observers say the trip opens up an opportunity for President Trump to brand Ms. Harris and her allies as politicians of the past and a party of “yesterdays.”

Mr. Obama is “a popular figure, certainly in the Democratic Party, there is excitement around him, and then that also comes with quite a bit of fundraising power as well. But he’s also the past,” a Republican strategist, Matthew Bartlett, tells the Sun. “This is a candidate that was first elected almost two decades ago.”

As voters are looking towards who the “change candidate is,” Ms. Harris is pulling campaign support and approval from the likes of not only the Obamas but former Representative Liz Cheney and former Vice President Dick Cheney, he adds.

“Right now, people are looking towards the future of the country. This is talk of yesterdays when this election is going to be about tomorrows,” Mr. Bartlett says. “So I think Donald Trump has some power, some energy, by saying that he is going against the grain. He is not the establishment, he continues to be outside Washington. And when all these endorsements pile up for Kamala Harris, he has a way of making political jujitsu and turning it to his own favor.”

Mr. Obama’s campaigning for Ms. Harris will kick off in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 10, in what will be the start of a 27-day blitz through swing states before Election Day, a senior Harris campaign official, reported by multiple news outlets, said. Mr. Obama, who gave a speech earlier this year at the Democratic National Convention, is popular with Americans: recent YouGov polling suggests that 57 percent of American adults have a favorable opinion of him, and 53 percent would likely vote for him if he was running for president this year. Fundraising efforts featuring Mr. Obama have raised $76 million in the presidential campaign, Axios reported.

Asked if the upcoming campaign blitz could be an “October surprise,” like some of Mr. Obama’s supporters are suggesting, Mr. Bartlett says “This is an October shrug of the shoulders.”

“Barack Obama campaigned hard for Hillary Clinton, campaigned for Joe Biden,” he says. “This is nothing new. He and his wife were stars of the Democratic convention after being the invisible hand that helped push Joe Biden out of the campaign.” Although it’s “mixed or unclear” if this will pull new voters, he adds “I don’t think that there’s a single American in this country that has been waiting on their decision between Harris or Trump and now that Barack Obama has weighed in, that they will follow.”

Other observers agree that the trip won’t necessarily affect swing voters, given that Mr. Obama’s party is the party in office.

“I don’t think it will move the needle with undecideds, because they tried this in 2016 when he was still the sitting president, it wasn’t successful,” a former communications director for President Trump’s campaign, Marc Lotter, said in a CNN interview. One critical difference, he says, is that now “nearly two-thirds of the American people still think our country’s headed down the wrong track. So going out there and saying that Kamala’s the new way forward? Well she’s the way of right now — difficult to sell.”

Ms. Harris and Trump are within less than 2 percentage points of each other in all seven battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia — RealClearPolitics polling averages indicate.

Asked what type of messaging he’d expect from Mr. Obama on the campaign trail, Mr. Bartlett says he will likely go back to “hope and change, ‘08, to try to reignite that dream.”

“Now, with a new candidate, Kamala Harris, there absolutely is some energy and power to that,” he says, “but it is still a challenge, because she is the incumbent, because Democrats have been in power for the better part of 20 years here. So, it’s very hard to say that you are the change candidate when you are currently holding office.”

A senior advisor to Mr. Obama was not immediately reachable by the Sun for comment, nor was a representative of the Harris campaign.

https://www.nysun.com/article/obamas-message-could-be-difficult-to-sell-as-he-embarks-on-battleground-state-tour-campaigning-for-kamala-harris

There Was an Attempted Self-Immolation Incident at the White House. Man Is Allegedly a Reporter.

We’re approaching the anniversary of the ghastly and barbaric October 7 attacks in Israel, and we have this incident where a man tried to self-immolate himself in front of the White House earlier today. This individual was able to set his arm on fire before bystanders acted, dousing him with water and using articles of clothing to smother the fire. Police quickly moved in to detain the individual [WARNING: Some graphic images]:

The man is reportedly a journalist.

Netanyahu Slams Macron's Call for Arms Embargo on Israel FRANCE

Netanyahu Slams Macron's Call for Arms Embargo on Israel

By Jim Thomas | Saturday, 05 October 2024 05:49 PM EDT

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned French President Emmanuel Macron's suggestion of an arms embargo on Israel, calling it a "disgrace" and asserting that Israel is fighting to defend civilization, The Times of Israel reported.

"Today, Israel is defending itself on seven fronts against the enemies of civilization," Netanyahu said in a post on X, referencing active conflicts involving Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. He framed Israel's military actions as a defense not just for the country but for global civilization, emphasizing that Iran plays a central role in these hostilities.

"As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized countries should be standing firmly by Israel's side," Netanyahu insisted, criticizing Macron and other Western leaders for supporting an arms embargo at this critical time. "Shame on them," he added.

In his address, Netanyahu pointed to Iran's support for various militant groups and its influence over conflicts in the region, describing them as part of an "axis of terror." He questioned whether Iran, which backs proxies like Hezbollah and other groups hostile to Israel, was similarly imposing arms restrictions on its allies. "Of course not," he said, highlighting the apparent hypocrisy of such calls from Western leaders.

Netanyahu framed the situation as a clash between civilization and barbarism, arguing that the countries who call for an arms embargo on Israel are inadvertently siding with those who threaten global security.

"What a disgrace!" he exclaimed. He emphasized that Israel would continue to fight regardless of international support. "Israel will win with or without their support," he declared. "But their shame will continue long after the war is won."

The prime minister concluded his remarks by reinforcing his familiar narrative that Israel is on the frontlines in a larger battle for the future of the free world.

"Rest assured, Israel will fight until the battle is won — for our sake and for the sake of peace and security in the world."

Netanyahu's strong rhetoric comes amid increasing international scrutiny of Israel's military actions and as calls for cease-fires and arms embargoes grow louder, mainly from Europe. Macron's proposal reflects the broader concern among many Western nations regarding the humanitarian toll of the ongoing conflict in the region.

However, Netanyahu's remarks make clear that Israel views these international pressures as misguided and detrimental to its security. He portrayed Israel's military efforts as crucial to combating terrorism and preventing a "dark age of fanaticism" from spreading across the globe

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/netanyahu-macron-israel/2024/10/05/id/1182974/

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

W³P Daily News Open Thread.

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread.

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.

Democrats Start to Panic, Begin Comparing Kamala Harris to Hillary Clinton

If you're running a political campaign, the one person you never want to be compared to is Hillary Clinton. The twice-failed presidential candidate went down in history after losing to Donald Trump in 2016, and plenty of speculation has revolved around whether her defeat was preventable. Most infamously, she never set foot in Wisconsin because she was confident the so-called "blue wall" states would hold.

Ultimately, they didn't, and Trump walked away with Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the entire election. Now, Democrats are beginning to panic, and the comparisons to Clinton are getting scarier by the minute.

Democratic operatives, including some of Kamala Harris’ own staffers, are growing increasingly concerned about her relatively light campaign schedule, which has her holding fewer events than Donald Trump and avoiding unscripted interactions with voters and the press almost entirely.
In interviews with POLITICO, nearly two dozen Democrats described Harris as running a do-no-harm, risk-averse approach to the race they fear could hamper her as the campaign enters its final 30-day stretch.
With early voting by mail and in person already underway in more than half of the country, Harris spent just three days of the last week of September in battleground states. On Sept. 28, when Trump gave a speech in Wisconsin before flying to Alabama for the Georgia-Alabama football game, Harris was attending a fundraiser in San Francisco. And beyond concerns about her schedule, Democrats argue that Harris would benefit from venues that allow her to introduce herself to voters in a more authentic way, such as town hall events, more sit-down interviews and unscripted exchanges with voters.

When Harris first entered the race, she bested Trump in the number of events held for the first month. That has completely turned around, with the former president barnstorming the country while the current vice president plays it safe. But is keeping her from interviews and town halls actually the safest path to victory in November?

That's what has Democrats panicking. They see Harris repeating a lot of the mistakes Clinton made, both in showing such overconfidence and in being so risk-averse. That is only exacerbated by the fact that the vice president only got into the race in late July. If anything, her schedule should be busier than a typical nominee because there's so much ground to make up in a limited amount of time.

But while Democrats want Harris to seem more "authentic" by doing sit-down interviews and unscripted exchanges, there's a big problem: She doesn't have the ability to do them.

That was illustrated perfectly on Friday after her teleprompter went out during a speech. Instead of showing some command of her policy platform, Harris melted down, cackling uncontrollably while rambling about how many days were left before the election.

She had no off-the-cuff material to go to. She had clearly not even read the speech beforehand. This is a woman who is incredibly lazy and incapable of doing anything but reading from a script provided to her by her handlers. More interviews would be disastrous for her.

Comparing Harris’ campaign to other recent Democratic presidential nominees is difficult, as Biden’s 2020 campaign was affected by the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic. But an analysis of Barack Obama’s first campaign in 2008 and Clinton’s 2016 bid — based on data from Eric Appleman’s Democracy in Action sites — shows that Harris’ schedule more closely reflects the latter than the former.
Looking at the same time period in those two elections, Obama had just two days with no public events, and his schedule was packed daily with an array of campaign events, brief appearances at local restaurants, fundraisers, and other events. Clinton, by contrast, had roughly the same number of days with no events that Harris has had, including a brief stint where she was treated for pneumonia.

The Harris campaign has become complacent in the face of an overwhelming cash advantage. They don't want to put the vice president out on the trail every day because they fear she'll do more harm than good. But bombarding the airwaves with the same, tired political ads can only get her so far. Perhaps her schedule picks up as we move into mid-October, but for now, Harris is playing a dangerous game.

Politico's Headline Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About How Dems Feel About Hurricane Helene

The Biden-Harris administration is being raked over the coals for its slow response to the Hurricane Helene disaster. Government officials are dithering, no one seems to oversee supply distribution, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced that they don’t have enough funds to make it through this hurricane season, thanks to funds being diverted to help illegal aliens. To boot, $157 million was sent to Lebanon. It’s becoming more striking how the slow rollout could be due to the Democrats’ intention to prevent those impacted by Helene from voting.

The storm heavily impacted Republican areas of the country, especially in two swing states during this cycle, Georgia and North Carolina. It’s part of the liberal ethos that’s mean-spirited, snobby, and unforgiving: if you don’t believe in our values, bad things should happen to you. Helping these flood-ravaged victims means keeping potential voters for Donald Trump alive, and they don’t want that to happen. Politico said the quiet part out loud with this piece: ‘Helene hit Trump strongholds in Georgia and North Carolina. It could swing the election.’

Hurricane Helene hit especially hard in heavily Republican areas of Georgia and North Carolina — a fact that could work to Donald Trump’s disadvantage in the two swing states.
Research has shown that major disasters can influence both voter turnout and voter preference. And Helene has pushed this contest into novel territory: It’s the first catastrophic event in U.S. history to hit two critical swing states within six weeks of a presidential election, based on a POLITICO’s E&E News analysis of data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The challenge for Trump: The parts of western North Carolina and eastern Georgia that were flooded by the monster storm are largely Republican. In 2020, he won 61 percent of the vote in the North Carolina counties that were declared a disaster after Helene. He won 54 percent of the vote in Georgia’s disaster counties.
Both Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris this week visited Georgia, a state that President Joe Biden won by just 11,779 votes in 2020. Georgia and North Carolina each have 16 electoral votes, and polls show that Trump is leading Harris by about 1 percentage point in each state, well within the margin of error.
“There’s going to be a lot of [voting] alterations, and it probably is going to affect turnout,” said Andy Jackson, director of the John Locke Foundation’s Civitas Center for Public Integrity, a free-market think tank in North Carolina.
Now, both states face crucial decisions in the next few days about how to help people register and vote after massive flooding ripped away roads, shuttered towns and dispersed residents.

Meanwhile, Kamala surveyed the damage and told residents to have no fear; the government is here with $750 checks. How much do illegal aliens get, Kamala? We all know it's sizably larger. Also, maybe these relief checks could be more significant if you cared more about American citizens than people who shouldn’t be here. It's getting harder to argue against the narrative that there is an intentional slowing down of relief efforts because these people are Republicans.

When a Democrat says, ‘I’m going to be a president for everyone,’ it’s nothing but an insulting lie. They always lie, but you can spot this one from afar.