The nation’s embattled chief regulator of federal banks, identified in an independent audit as easily angered and quick to berate employees, deliberately spoke softly and measuredly Wednesday on Capitol Hill as he fended off calls for his resignation.  Martin Gruenberg, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., explained, apologized, and took responsibility after the audit last week found poor management and allegations of discrimination and sexual harassment. “I accept the findings of the report and as chairman, I take full responsibility,” Gruenberg said early in the hearing before the House Financial Services Committee. “To anyone who has experienced sexual harassment, discrimination, or other misconduct at FDIC, I again personally want to apologize and express how deeply sorry I am. I also acknowledge my own failures as chairman both in failing [to appreciate] how my temperament in meetings impacted others and for not having identified the deeper cultural issues.” Gruenberg announced the agency is proposing an independent office of professional conduct to investigate and discipline misconduct.  Under later questioning, he agreed with lawmakers’ suggestions that he go through anger management training.  House Financial Services Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who already had called for Gruenberg’s resignation, said the FDIC workplace issues likely played a role in the bank failures of 2023.  “The report indicates that when presented with bad news, your first reaction is to yell, scream, or berate the person presenting the bad information,” McHenry said. “Do you think a bank failure is bad information?” Gruenberg replied, “It is.” But the FDIC chairman added that he didn’t respond to that information with anger.  McHenry and Gruenberg went back and forth.   “You have led the agency for 10 of the last 13 years. We’ve had significant bank failures,” McHenry said to Gruenberg, who has served on the FDIC’s board since 2005 and was appointed chairman by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  “Do you think the fact that you respond to bad information by attacking or yelling at the person presenting that information makes those people less willing to present that bad information to you?” McHenry asked. Gruenberg replied, “I endeavor to treat every employee with courtesy and respect.” McHenry noted that the audit says a staff reluctance to bring bad news to the boss could have the result of “chilling” conversations and “hampers the free flow of communication.” During his opening remarks, McHenry read a January 2021 quote from the president, in which Biden said: “I’m not joking when I say this: If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., a government corporation and independent agency, supplies deposit insurance for customers of U.S. commercial banks and was created as part of the New Deal in response to the Great Depression. Its deposit fund stands at about $122 billion, covering 4,500 financial institutions across the United States. If a bank fails, bank customers are insured for up to $250,000.  The law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton conducted the independent audit, which found that about 1 in 10 employees at the FDIC said discrimination, sexual harassment, and other workplace misconduct occurred there. The agency had 5,952 employees as of the fourth quarter of 2023.   Biden appointed Gruenberg for a full stint as FDIC chairman in 2022, at the urging of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. The political news site Punchbowl News reported that Democrats want to keep Gruenberg in place, writing: “The chair of the FDIC holds a linchpin vote for the Democratic financial policy agenda. Major pieces of banking regulation … need Gruenberg as a tie-breaking vote on the FDIC’s five-member board.” During the hearing, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, said that under Gruenberg the FDIC has done a lot of important work. Waters attempted to move the focus to former President Donald Trump. “As the report states, tone does start at the top. But I am concerned that Republicans who have been quick to call on Chairman Gruenberg to resign are selectively applying that standard,” Waters said. “After all, the top Republican and nominee to be president is currently on trial regarding the first of a series of criminal indictments and has been found liable of sexual abuse. Hopefully, this concerns them too and they will call on the former president to step down and withdraw his nomination.” The FDIC is overseen by a five-member board of directors, including a chairman, appointed by the president. The board currently has a 3-2 Democrat majority.  Gruenberg, now 71, briefly was acting chairman of the FDIC in 2005 and 2006, during the George W. Bush administration. Obama appointed Gruenberg as chairman in 2011 and he served until 2018, over a year into President Donald Trump’s term.  Earlier this month, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee announced the opening of an investigation into the FDIC. Several Republicans on the committee called for Gruenberg’s resignation over the FDIC controversies.  Democrats were less aggressive, but several lawmakers during the hearing questioned whether Gruenberg could address the problems effectively.  White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre took a question on Gruenberg earlier this week.  “I don’t have any personnel announcements to make at this time.  The FDIC administrator—chairman, to be exact, made—apologized and spoke to this,” Jean Pierre said. “And so, certainly, I would—I would send you there. The FDIC is an independent agency, so [I] would refer you to them as to anything else coming out from the FDIC on this particular matter.” The post Struggling to Keep Job, FDIC Chair Known for Berating Staff Humbled at Capitol appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Eight TikTok content creators have launched a lawsuit against the US government, challenging a new federal law that could potentially ban the social media platform nationwide. This legal action, echoing TikTok’s own lawsuit filed this month, asserts that the law infringes on the creators’ First Amendment rights to free speech. The outcome of this case could ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs represent a broad group, including a rancher from Texas who has featured in TikTok ads, an Arizona creator who advocates for “LGBTQ” issues, and a business owner who sells skincare products through TikTok Shop. They argue that TikTok is crucial for their expression, education, advocacy, and livelihoods. “They have found their voices, amassed significant audiences, made new friends, and encountered new and different ways of thinking — all because of TikTok’s novel way of hosting, curating, and disseminating speech,” the lawsuit states. The creators contend that the new law would strip them and others of this unique platform for communication. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. TikTok is financing the legal expenses for this lawsuit, which was filed in the US Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, by the same law firm that contested Montana’s ban on the platform last year—a ban that was blocked by a judge. The Department of Justice defends the legislation, claiming it addresses significant national security concerns in a manner consistent with constitutional rights. US lawmakers and officials have raised concerns about the security of user data and the potential for TikTok to manipulate content on behalf of China, or allow China to spy on users; allegations that TikTok denies. Under the new law, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, must sell its US stakes within nine months, with a possible three-month extension if a sale is underway. Despite this, TikTok and ByteDance argue in their lawsuit that divesting the US operations is unfeasible, predicting a complete shutdown by January 19, 2025. They emphasize that separating the US platform from the global network would be impractical and that the Chinese government, which must approve any sale, opposes selling the recommendation algorithm central to TikTok’s success. Related: The Dangerous Language and First Amendment Challenges of the Rushed Anti-TikTok Bill Brian Firebaugh, a rancher from Hubbard, Texas, is among the creators suing the government. Starting his TikTok account in 2020, he leveraged the platform to market his cattle-related products, amassing over 430,000 followers and transforming it into a full-time income. TikTok has also enabled him to foster an online community, participate in a Netflix show, and afford adoption for his son. Chloe Joy Sexton, another plaintiff, is a content creator from Memphis, Tennessee, who turned to TikTok after losing her job four years ago. Her cookie business, Chloe’s Giant Cookies, gained traction on TikTok, where she now has over 2 million followers. The creators seek a court declaration deeming the law unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent Attorney General Merrick Garland from enforcing it, advocating for their rights to freely express themselves and sustain their livelihoods through TikTok. Here are key points from the lawsuit: Nature of the Complaint: The petitioners describe TikTok as an “irreplaceable means to express themselves and form community” and argue that the Act will “shutter a discrete medium of communication,” violating the First Amendment by restricting their ability to create, publish, and interact with content on TikTok. Claims of the Act’s Supporters: Lawmakers backing the Act claimed TikTok manipulates American minds and disseminates propaganda. For instance, Rep. Mike Flood argued that TikTok is used to “undermine our love for liberty.” Personal Impact Statements from Petitioners: Brian Firebaugh, a rancher and former Marine, uses TikTok to support his livelihood and community engagement. He states, “If you ban TikTok, you ban my way of life,” emphasizing how the platform’s shutdown would force him to alter his living and community support drastically. Constitutional and Legal Challenges: The lawsuit argues that the Act constitutes a prior restraint on speech, which is “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” and faces a “heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Arguments Against the Act’s Justifications: The petitioners contend that the government’s data security concerns, used to justify the ban, are speculative and were previously deemed insufficient by courts to justify a ban on TikTok. Request for Relief: The petitioners request the court to declare the Act invalid under the US Constitution, enjoin the enforcement of the Act, and affirm their rights to free expression. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post TikTok Users File First Amendment Lawsuit Against US Government Ban appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Make My Day: Biden Challenges Trump to Two Debates

Will 'Never Bidens' Settle the Score?

The tale of Kadife, a forlorn orphaned donkey discovered beside a highway, begins with a bittersweet scene of loss and despair. Her plight touched the hearts of local school teachers, who proved instrumental in changing the course of her life. These teachers were compassionate souls with a lot of empathy, and they proved it when... The post Scared orphaned donkey rescued from side of road melts hearts with adorable ‘hugs’ for rescuer appeared first on Animal Channel.

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider blew the lid off the gargantuan election interference that leftist Big Tech platforms have been engaging in for years. During the May 13 edition of The Unusual Suspects podcast, host Rob Garguilo asked Schneider which Big Tech companies are actively suppressing election-related speech. “Every single one of them,” replied Schneider. He added that the leftists in the C-Suites of these censorship-obsessed tech companies, “have the idea that anytime that we disagree with them, that that is disinformation or misinformation or mal-information and harmful to what they think is democracy so we have to be silenced.” Schneider concluded that the “biggest offender” was Google, which was shown through MRC Free Speech America research to have grossly interfered in US elections since 2008.  Schneider broke down some of the MRC’s past findings illustrating specifically how Google has manipulated the U.S. election process to serve its own left-wing political ends. “For about three months we ran about the same two sets of search queries [Republican presidential campaign websites and Democrat presidential campaign websites], and we ran them before each one of the Republican presidential campaign debates.” The results damningly showed that Google actively suppressed President Joe Biden’s political opponents, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But of course, as Schneider analyzed, this is just one of the many glaring examples of Google’s malfeasance. MRC Free Speech America counted no less than 41 times that Google has worked to ensure that its favored leftist candidates won their respective elections.  Schneider stressed that there are “very practical things” citizens could do to fight against Google’s bias. “If you have to use Google, don’t bother with the first page of search results. Go to the second or third page of search results, if you actually want a balanced view.” Schneider also suggested other search engine platforms like Tusk and DuckDuckGo as viable alternatives to the Google monopoly. Garguilo summarized MRC’s Big Tech research as “terrifying when you hear what’s going on with election interference.” He added that part of the problem is a lack of awareness of the issue. “We’ve traded freedoms for ease of convenience,” Garguilo said. “You know why people don’t use DuckDuckGo? It’s not as easy to use as Google. I never even knew Tusk existed. So I’m walking away knowing that now there is a different search engine.”   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 so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

Young professionals in the greater Groveport, Ohio, area will have to find somewhere else to go or something else to do on the weekend now that one local bar has banned anyone under age 30 from entering on Friday and Saturday nights, likely in an effort to curb violence.Two weeks ago, the folks at Donerick’s Pub in Groveport, about 20 minutes outside Columbus, posted to Facebook a photo of a new sign alerting prospective patrons about their policies. For one thing, those arriving after 10 p.m. have to pay the $5 or $10 cover charge in cash. "No cash app/No Venmo!" the sign read.'The amount of clientele we’ve gained on the weekends has made us have to make adjustments for safety purposes. Keeping our customers safe is our top priority!'However, the policy that has attracted the most attention is that adults under 30 years of age will no longer be welcome on Friday and Saturday nights. "No exceptions," the sign emphasized.Though the establishment did not specify the reason for this new policy, a few comments referenced a fight that reportedly occurred in a parking lot outside Donerick's shortly before the policy was imposed. An Instagram video depicting a fight and with Donerick's as its tagged location shows at least three women, one of whom is entirely naked, scuffling while a crowd of bystanders stand about.Donerick's seemed to confirm the incident in reply to a suggestion about imposing a dress code. When one user doubted whether such a dress code would be effective since one of the women in the fight had no clothes on, Donerick's joked, "I can promise you she did when she entered and left the building!"A couple of posts also suggested a shooting occurred near the bar, and Donerick's responded to one of those posts without issuing a denial. Donerick's also tacitly acknowledged in another reply that "violence" has become a problem. "We will try different methods to keep the violence down. It will not be tolerated," the account stated."The amount of clientele we’ve gained on the weekends has made us have to make adjustments for safety purposes. Keeping our customers safe is our top priority!" it said in response to another comment.Most users in the comments supported the new age-based policy. Many even suggested bumping the age up to 35 or 40. However, others slammed the bar for engaging in ageism."What they are doing is illegal its age discrimination. Sue em," one person wrote."If the state is 21 and up bars should not be allowed to discriminate against 21- 29 year olds in my opinion. Because not only do you hurt your sales but you lose customers as well," said another.Donerick's did not respond to the New York Post's request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A decade-old rivalry between UFC heavyweight champion Jon Jones and former champion Daniel Cormier has sparked back up after Jones made light of Cormier's reign during Jones' absence from the division. Jones was answering fan comments when he replied to a response regarding him possibly "holding up the [heavyweight] division."Soon thereafter, Jones also replied to remarks about the UFC implementing an interim championship in his recent absence due to injury:"UFC is a brilliant company, did what they had to do to save the event," Jones said. He then added a jab at Cormier's title reign implying that the now-retired fighter wasn't actually the real champion."I do agree with you," he told the fan. "It definitely confused a bunch of UK fans," he said in reference to English fighter and interim champion Tom Aspinall."[It] got them entitled thinking their boy really is the champion. It reminds me of when DC was the 'champion' during my absence."'It's not the same, while it may seem the same. [Jones] was incapable of competing when I was the champion. He was not allowed to compete.' UFC is a brilliant company, did what they had to do to save the event. But I do agree with you, it definitely confused a bunch of UK fans, got them entitled thinking their boy really is the champion. It reminds me of when DC was the \u201cchampion\u201d during my absence. — (@) Cormier reluctantly responded to Jones days later on his YouTube channel, insisting that the comparison between his time as champion and Aspinall's are not the same."It's not the same, while it may seem the same. [Jones] was incapable of competing when I was the champion. He was not allowed to compete, not due to injury, due to illegal substances found in his body, that's just the truth," Cormier explained."Whenever him and I were fighting and he kept getting in trouble, he could not go 'I'm back in the gym' and say 'I'm ready to fight,' you couldn't. It was illegal. That's where the situation varies, that's why the situation is different, and that's such a key component to the situations being different."Cormier described Jones as a manipulator who is very good at "slight of hand" and distracting fans from his real issues."Jones, it wasn't the same thing, bud. So, no matter how quickly you are, and the magician you are, at manipulating and saying this and the other, that’s not the case. It was different, you couldn't compete whenever I was fighting. You couldn't, you couldn't make that decision to go and fight. I was the champion, for a really long time actually, which is kind of crazy." Daniel Cormier responds to Jon Jones dismissing his UFC title run:\n\n\u201cIt was [Jones] getting caught doing things he\u2019s not supposed to, and then getting stripped and taken out of the competition.\n\nIt\u2019s not the same [as Tom Aspinall]. [Jones] was incapable of competing when I was\u2026 — (@) The rivalry dates back to the pair's first 2015 fight, where Jones defended the light-heavyweight belt against Cormier, and then beat him again in 2017.During that time, Jones was stripped of the belt twice for alleged conduct and substance abuse violations and then had the second victory overturned due to the alleged use of a metabolite.The back and forth antics led to Cormier holding the light-heavyweight title multiple times between 2015-2018, before vacating the belt — Dec. 2018 — after winning the heavyweight title earlier that year. Jones later retook the vacant light-heavyweight title, before winning the heavyweight title after Cormier's retirement from the division following two losses.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Protesting is apparently fine if you’re involved in the violent ones, just stay away from the peaceful pro-life ones. “The pro-life activists are truly under attack at an unprecedented rate with the Biden regime,” Sara Gonzales says, before sharing the story of Lauren Handy. Handy was immediately incarcerated and has been in prison since her conviction. Now, she’s been sentenced to four years and nine months in prison for protesting in front of an abortion clinic. “They were praying, they were singing, they were sitting out there,” Gonzales says, adding, “and this comes nearly nine months after Handy and eight other pro-life activists were convicted on felony charges of conspiracy against rights and violation of the FACE Act.” The FACE Act is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and “what the Biden regime continues to use against these pro-life protesters.” The sentencing was ordered by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who told Handy that she “prioritized her activism above the needs of women.” “Neither you nor any of the other co-conspirators showed any compassion, empathy toward those two women needing medical care. Your views took precedence over frankly, their human needs,” Kotelly also reportedly said to Handy. “Human needs?” Gonzales says. “I don’t know, call me crazy, but I feel like the human being inside of those women probably needed some medical care before they were killed by the doctors inside that clinic.” “Handy, who, by the way, she’s only 30 years old, she’s got to spend nearly five years of her life in prison for protesting against murdering babies,” she adds. Handy is one of the activists who in 2022 discovered the remains of five late-term aborted babies outside the same clinic she was arrested for protesting outside of. “They clearly showed signs that they were killed in partial birth abortions,” Gonzales says, adding, “I can’t get them out of my memory.” Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Disney has in recent years reportedly taken to having transvestites assume the roles of certain iconic female characters in its parks. Apparently, the company — growing increasingly synonymous with box office bombs — saw an opportunity to deprive actresses of at least one more female role at the Magic Kingdom: Tinker Bell. Whereas the company evidently sees no issue with mustachioed men in dresses dealing with young children, it reportedly regards the fictional character from J.M. Barrie's 1904 play "Peter Pan," later made iconic in the 1953 Walt Disney film of the same name, as "problematic." Branding her as such on account of her interest in a member of the opposite sex and likely her femininity as well, Disney has effectively clipped Tinker Bell's wings and thrown her into storage. That Park Place's Jonas Campbell told Blaze News, "I suspect that Disney would work harder to keep the character in the parks if the Peter Pan & Wendy film that race-swapped Tinker Bell had been more successful, instead of being dumped onto Disney+ and forgotten." "That attempt at 'updating' the character did not resonate with audiences, and not long after we see a mainstay meet-and-greet character played by young, athletic, white female performer disappear from Disney's biggest resort," added Campbell. Background In 2017, Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors, "We can take those values, which we deem important societally, and actually change people's behavior — get people to be more accepting of the multiple differences and cultures and races and all other facets of our lives and our people." In the years since, Disney has worked ardently to socially engineer the audience Iger feels it deserves. That campaign has involved transmogrifying Disney's intellectual properties and eliminating nonconforming content. 'These stereotypes were wrong then and are now.' The so-called experts behind the company's Stories Matter team have thought long and hard about what beloved characters are offensive to postmodern sensibilities. The New York Times reported in 2022 that the Stories Matter experts' thin skin broke when watching episodes of "The Muppet Show" from the 1970s. The offending episodes, like other older Disney films such as "Dumbo," were slapped with disclaimers indicating they contained "negative depictions or mistreatment of people or cultures." "These stereotypes were wrong then and are now," read the disclaimers. The professionally offended Stories Matter team also took issue with various iconic Disney characters such as Ursula from "The Little Mermaid" — a supposedly "queer coded" character with skin dark enough to prompt concerns about racism, reported the Times. Captain Hook from "Peter Pan," a film taken off children's Disney+ profiles for "breaching content advisories," was also deemed problematic. Whereas some viewers might conclude from Disney's depiction of a villain missing a hand that amputees can be morally dynamic like everyone else, the Times indicated executives feared Hook could be interpreted as a slight against the disabled. Tinker Bell was among the characters slated for destruction because she is "body conscious" and desirous of Peter Pan's attention. Ousting the fairy Tinker Bell was not only used for decades in Disney advertisements but was a popular meet-and-greet character at Walt Disney World prior to the pandemic. During the pandemic, however, she disappeared along with all other such characters. Although the various costumed cast members ultimately returned to their posts, Tinker Bell was noticeably absent. 'Tinker Bell is significant to many longtime Disney fans because of her direct association with Walt.' Inside the Magic recently reported that her signage has been officially removed from Town Square Theater, signaling her banishment from the Magic Kingdom's meet-and-greets. Guests apparently can only now meet Disney's iconic rodent at Bell's former stomping grounds. According to Inside the Magic, Tinker Bell's presence in the park has more or less been reduced to a silent flyby, a mute cameo on a float, and an old statue. The Plan Disney Committee indicated in February, "At present, Tinker Bell does not hold a 'meet and greet' opportunity at Walt Disney World Resort. Of course, she does make her evening flight over Magic Kingdom Park at the end of the Happily Ever After nighttime fireworks show!" Outside the Magic Kingdom, there remains the possibility of a meet-and-greet with the fairy at the Disneyland Resort in California, but that too may change. Jonas Campbell told Blaze News, "Tinker Bell is significant to many longtime Disney fans because of her direct association with Walt and the identity of the company that holds the IP rights to his name." "If you look at the Disney+ logo graphic of a semi-circle being formed over the name, that's a callback to the Walt Disney Pictures logo of Tinker Bell flying over the castle," continued Campbell. "Tinker Bell used to appear in the Disneyland TV series and the 'Wonderful World of Disney' with Walt during his segments." Campbell suggested the timing of Tinker Bell's ouster is strategic. "I think Disney is taking the opportunity while demand is down for the character," said Campbell. "They closed down the division that made the Tinker Bell / Pixie Hollow movies and specials, and they never brought the character back to Walt Disney World for a meet-and-greet. The character is currently appearing in some parades and as part of the nighttime spectaculars, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this aspect updated as soon as the company can find a different character that current Imagineering fits." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!