Big Tech bans Alex Jones: Drawing a line between commentary and conspiracy

"Inforwars" host Alex Jones.  (Tamir Kalifa/Austin American-Statesman via AP, File)

After years of deflection and foot-dragging, the major tech companies are finally having to take steps toward policing their own content.
They have reached this point kicking and screaming, under great public pressure, after clinging for years to the fiction that they are just public utilities and that people can use their pipes for pretty much anything.
But now they have united, for a brief moment at least, against a major conspiracy theorist.
Facebook, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have all taken action against Alex Jones.
They are deathly afraid of being accused of political bias, sometimes for good reason. Both Facebook and Twitter have both grappled with incidents of discrimination against conservatives, which may have made them gun-shy about banning (as opposed to shadow-banning) some folks.
But almost in unison, the tech giants teamed up against Jones, who runs Infowars.
Candidate Donald Trump appeared on Jones' online show in 2015, and yesterday Jones tweeted a video defense with the headline: "EMERGENCY: President Trump Must Defend the First Amendment."
Facebook said it has taken down some Jones pages "for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies."
Apple said it removed the "Alex Jones Show" and other podcasts from iTunes and its podcast app. The company said it "does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users."
Google’s YouTube dropped the ax on Jones' channel, telling The Washington Post that it terminates users who violate "our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures."
And Spotify banned Jones altogether after earlier removing some podcasts, telling the Post: "We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community."
I know Jones has a lot of fans—remember the controversy swirling around his interview with Megyn Kelly—but he's also a guy being sued by Sandy Hook parents for saying that the horrible massacre at that Connecticut school was a hoax.
Jones apologized last year, in careful language, for spreading the phony Pizzagate conspiracy theory, saying he'd been given inaccurate information.
That’s not "conservative." That's at odds with reality.
Jones texted the Post that being banned by the tech companies was "a counter-strike against the global awakening."
"We've seen a giant yellow journalism campaign with thousands and thousands of articles for weeks, for months misrepresenting what I've said and done to set the precedent to de-platform me before Big Tech and the Democratic Party as well as some Republican establishment types move against the First Amendment in this country as we know it," he said.
Separately, Jones called The New York Times a "globalist intelligence agency" and said that the "evil, wicked sociopaths" who work for major media outlets were teaming up to take down Infowars.
I confess I'd like to know how the four tech companies happened to take action on the same day. Perhaps they concluded there was safety in numbers. They seemed to have an ally in Drudge, whose banner headline was "APPLE REGULATES HATE."
But this is just a skirmish. Just recently, Mark Zuckerberg got himself into trouble by saying he saw no reason to ban pages by Holocaust deniers.
There is a fine line between banning hate and bullying on one hand and censoring controversial political opinions on the other. These battles will play out in a hyperpartisan political atmosphere. But for now, Apple, Facebook, Google and Spotify have all agreed there is one person who falls on the wrong side of that line.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Trump legal team drafting letter about 'reluctance' to answer obstruction questions

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

President Trump’s legal team said Monday they are preparing to send special counsel Robert Mueller a letter that would largely turn down a meeting that would include any “questions related to obstruction of justice,” sources told Fox News.
Trump attorneys are expected to send their response to Mueller as early as today.
Last week, a source said that Trump’s legal team would consider allowing questions regarding obstruction if they were in written form.
“In a perfect world, we’d have a few written questions about the obstruction issue, and oral questions about Russia/collusion,” the source said.
Rudy Giuliani, the top lawyer on Trump’s legal team, however, told Fox News “we have real reluctance about allowing any questions regarding obstruction of justice.”
The Washington Post was first to report the letter after an interview with Giuliani on Monday, who said the letter is not intended to decline Mueller’s request, rather he hopes to “continue the negotiations.”
Talks between Trump’s lawyers and the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have restarted in recent days, and it is not clear a deal will be struck, The Associated Press reported. Trump has publicly expressed a desire to be interviewed, but his lawyers have repeatedly objected to the investigators’ proposals.
Trump attorneys say both sides have exchanged proposals for conditions for such a Trump interview.
The negotiations come amid a backdrop of Trump’s escalating attacks on the probe, including his blunt declaration that his attorney general should terminate “right now” the federal probe into the campaign that took him to the White House, a newly fervent attack on the special counsel investigation that could imperil his presidency. Trump also assailed the trial, just underway, of his former campaign chairman by the special counsel’s team.
“The president still hasn’t made a decision, and we’re not going to make a final decision just yet,” Giuliani told the paper.
Sebastian Gorka, a Fox News national security strategist, told ‘Hannity’ that there is “zero evidence” connecting the president to Russia.
“And I’m going to say now on the record, they will never find any because there isn’t any,” he said.

Trump renews 'biting sanctions' against Iran, warns countries doing business with Tehran

In this photo released by official website of the office of the Iranian Presidency, President Hassan Rouhani addresses the nation in a televised speech in Tehran, Iran, Monday, Aug. 6, 2018. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani struck a hard line Monday as the U.S. restored some sanctions that had been lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal. (Iranian Presidency Office via AP)

President Trump on Tuesday called the sanctions against Iran that went into effect at midnight "the most biting sanctions ever imposed,” and warned that countries that do business with Tehran will not do business with the U.S.
Trump signed an executive order on Monday to restore some of the sanctions that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal during the Obama administration, targeting transactions that involve U.S. dollars, as well as the country’s automotive sector, the purchase of commercial planes and metals including gold.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded Monday, "If someone has knife in the hand and seeks talks, he should first put the knife in his pocket."
Rouhani said he has no pre-conditions for opening talks with the U.S. as long as the Islamic Republic gets paid back for decades of American “intervention in Iran.”
"If the U.S. government is ready to negotiate about paying compensation to the Iranian nation from 1953 until now," Rouhani said. "The U.S owes the Iranian nation for its intervention in Iran."
Rouhani appears to be referencing the CIA-backed mission to overthrow Iran’s elected prime minister to secure the shah’s rule in 1953, a similar sentiment touted by many of his predecessors.
A senior administration official told Fox News these restored sanctions are designed to constrict the revenue Iran uses to fund “terrorists, dictators, proxy militias, and the regime’s own cronies.”
Additional sanctions will resume on Nov. 4, targeting Iran's oil industry and banking sector.
Rouhani also said the country can rely on China and Russia to supplement its oil and banking sectors amid the U.S. imposed sanctions.
Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to withdraw the U.S. from a nuclear deal that he called “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never ever been made,” has said he is open to negotiating with Iran.

Obamacare Cartoons

Liz Peek: Obama stiffs Ocasio-Cortez as Democrats weigh whether she hurts or helps them in November

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been jilted by President Obama. The former president recently announced 81 endorsements of candidates running in the midterm elections. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, toast of the progressive movement, did not make the cut.
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy maxim “Don’t do stupid stuff” may apply. Embracing the 28- year-old Latina supernova who is running for Congress to replace long-time Democrat leader Joe Crowley in New York’s 14^th district carries risks. Already she has made gaffes that expose a tenuous (at best) understanding of important issues like unemployment and the history of capitalism; she pleads ignorance on foreign policy matters. She also ruffled feathers among House members whose caucus she hopes to join by suggesting that Crowley might try to undermine her chances.
Her rookie errors have not deterred most members of her party and the media who, like toddlers with a shiny new toy, cannot get enough of the young self-professed Democratic-Socialist. (She originally described herself as a Socialist until a helpful someone attached the D-word.)  Her surprise upset of a senior Democrat considered a contender to boot Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker shocked the media, which responded with over-the-top coverage meant to atone for their earlier neglect of the race. (The New York Times, for instance, ran but one piece about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in the lead-up to the primary ballot, a disturbing miss by the hometown newspaper.)
The real story is that a smug and entitled incumbent lost to an attractive, energetic challenger who rallied supporters with an aggressive social media campaign. Also, the demographics of the Queens-Bronx district had changed markedly during Crowley’s 20 years in the seat. It is now majority-minority, 50 percent Hispanic, and the incumbent is white.
Ocasio-Cortez won decisively, 57-42, but the margin was a little more than 4,000 votes. Only 13 percent of Democrats turned up.
In any event, since her win, and her likely election to Congress come November in the heavily Democratic district, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has become the toast of the town, not to mention the entire country. Which goes to show just how desperate Democrats are.
Democratic National Committee chief Tom Perez declares that Ocasio-Cortez “represents the future of our party”; Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna, D-Calif., calls her a “harbinger of [a].. new progressive movement”.  The New Yorker’s David Remnick suggests she offers the nation a “glimmer of hope.”
Enthusiasts whisper she could be presidential material.

But can she sell her agenda to the nation? No, and especially not to the blue collar workers, formerly reliable Democrat voters, who defected to elect President Trump.

There is no doubt that Ocasio-Cortez has inspired excitement, partly because she is female, Latina, telegenic and feisty, and partly because standard-bearers like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have Democrats hungry for new leadership.
She also embraces the increasingly vocal progressivism that animated Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and that has arguably moved Democrats to the left. She hates pipelines, wants to abolish ICE, advocates for Medicare-for-all, free college and guaranteed employment.
But can she sell her agenda to the nation? No, and especially not to the blue collar workers, formerly reliable Democrat voters, who defected to elect President Trump. Perhaps that’s why President Obama has, for now, withheld his endorsement. He, like other Dem leaders, may think the party is spiraling out of control, or at least out of the mainstream.
Obama may think that recent (bipartisan) studies putting the price tag for Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All Act at $33 trillion (with a “t”) over its first ten years renders the proposal moot. Or they may be worried that mandating a big hike in the minimum wage will accelerate job-killing automation.
Or, those party elders may be reviewing research and polling by center-left think tank Third Way, which suggests that Americans want opportunity, not handouts. In an online survey, most respondents embraced traditional American values like hard work, and 75 percent said they wanted the government to present an “opportunity agenda for the Digital Age so that that everyone, everywhere has the opportunity to earn a better life.”
When asked, “What is the more challenging problem affecting the U.S. economy,” only 36 percent of those surveyed chose “income inequality,” while 44 percent selected “opportunities to get ahead.”
Similarly, asked to choose between “policies that spread opportunity to more people and places” and “policies that address income inequality,” 46 percent chose the former and only 25 percent the latter.  A plurality said they would vote in favor of a candidate whose platform included, “Creating one million new apprenticeship positions, giving every American who works a private retirement account on top of Social Security and eliminating all federal taxes on the first $15,000 of income each year” – all work-friendly proposals.
Also, the poll found that more people wanted to see ObamaCare strengthened and made more user-friendly,“ as opposed to single-payer health care, as well as a minimum wage geared to regional differences as opposed to a one-size-fits-all national wage.
The polling was a follow-up to a study by Third Way of the 2016 election, reviewing how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fared in counties across the country distinguished by economic circumstances. It found that President Trump won regions described as “Opportunity-Falling America” while Clinton dominated in “Opportunity-Rising America.” Those divisions were based on whether counties had more new businesses starting up or more failing. The conclusion reached by the authors of the study, and by the strategists at Third Way, is that Americans want to make it on their own, and will vote for the candidate who promises to provide jobs and opportunity, as President Trump did.
President Obama may yet come around to giving Ocasio-Cortez a boost. Democrats are struggling to find a message that can top record-low unemployment and rising wages. The progressives making promises that cannot be kept may be their best bet, and Ocasio-Cortez is emerging as their top spokesperson.  But, as former Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, “If her win makes her into…. the new face of the Democratic party, the Democratic party’s not going to have a very bright future.”

Americans are 'winning' on health care as Trump administration chips away at ObamaCare

Americans keep winning on health care reform. The public may only hear about a bungling Congress that could not repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – aka ObamaCare – even though it has been imploding on its own. 
Less publicized, the Trump administration continues to implement important, strategic reforms that empower consumers, lower the cost of insurance, and improve access to more affordable medical care. And the administration just delivered again. Secretary Alex Azar’s Department of Health and Human Services expanded the availability of short-term, limited duration insurance (STLDI) that is exempt from the coverage requirements and other regulations of the ACA.
STLDI was originally designed to fill a temporary gap in coverage of less than one year when transitioning between plans. President Obama’s HHS later finalized a rule in October 2016 that limited STLDI coverage to only three months.  This new directive allows STLDI to last for up to 12 months, and it can be renewed for up to 36 months. For those Americans who prefer the choice of more affordable premiums in lieu of many of ObamaCare’s coverage mandates that made insurance significantly more expensive, that choice is now available.
The benefits are highly significant for those choosing this coverage. Premiums are estimated to cost about one-third of ObamaCare-compliant insurance, per eHealth data from Q4 2016. That provides a new opportunity for financial protection from catastrophic health expenses for those who were formerly choosing to remain uninsured, because expensive ObamaCare insurance was totally unaffordable. 
This also benefits those who simply prefer to save money on premiums, rather than stretch to afford more expensive, more comprehensive insurance. Additionally, consumers who were buying ACA-compliant insurance just to escape the tax penalty that punishes people who would have bought non-ACA-compliant plans may also now opt for cheaper STLDI, given that the Trump administration reduced that penalty to $0 as of January 1, 2019. Beyond cheaper premiums, broader access to doctors and hospitals could also be available under STLDI compared to ACA-compliant plans that have very narrow provider networks.

Despite the failure of the Republicans in Congress to completely repeal the ACA, this administration has repeatedly made significant inroads toward providing more affordable health coverage and care to more Americans.

This administration understands that the factors by which the ACA contributed to rising premiums must be eliminated, and broader access to STLDI is an excellent step. STLDI coverage is cheaper because it is tailored coverage that circumvents the ACA’s excess mandated coverage and its harmful regulations. That includes the ACA’s required “essential benefits” that increased premiums by 10 percent; the ACA’s 3:1 age rating that raised premiums for younger enrollees by 19 percent to 35 percent; the “guaranteed issue” that gave people incentives to remain uninsured until they were sick, a grossly misguided rule that raised premiums for everyone regardless of age or city by 46 percent; and hopefully many of the costly and often unwanted state coverage mandates now totaling over 2,270 for everything from acupuncture to marriage counseling to massage therapy.
But these new rules on limited mandate plans could be improved. For instance, these plans should be allowed for longer periods of time; they should be available to everyone, regardless of age or employment; and even more boldly, they should be included in Medicare and Medicaid as alternative, cheaper coverage coupled with an option for a defined benefit instead of traditional coverage. Why would anyone be against offering such choices to Americans and instead force them to buy coverage they don’t want or value for their hard-earned money?
To appreciate the potential impact of health reforms like this, we must also sort out fact from false political grandstanding about our current state of affairs under ObamaCare.
Contrary to the claims of those wedded to ObamaCare, the data shows that its regulations caused massive increases in insurance premiums and a disappearance of insurance options across the country. In its first four years, ObamaCare insurance premiums for individuals doubled while for families they increased by 140 percent. Shockingly, this occurred even though insurance deductibles for individuals increased by over 30 percent for individuals and by over 97 percent for families, according to eHealth data.
As time passes, insurance options and prices on ObamaCare Exchanges continue to worsen, according to HHS data. For 2018, only one Exchange insurer offered coverage in each of approximately one-half of U.S. counties; many more counties had a choice of only two companies in their Exchanges.  Moreover, many Exchange enrollees continue to face large year-on-year premium increases in 2018, according to Kaiser Foundation analysis, even in the face of markedly higher deductibles.  And the spectrum of doctors and specialists accepting that insurance continues to sharply narrow, with far fewer specialists than non-ACA Exchanges. Almost 75 percent of plans are now highly restrictive.
Despite the failure of the Republicans in Congress to completely repeal the ACA, this administration has repeatedly made significant inroads toward providing more affordable health coverage and care to more Americans. New association health plans for small businesses and other groups, expanded health savings accounts, and broader access to limited mandate insurance coverage through STLDI are all important steps toward more affordable health care.
Although such arcane rule changes likely cause eye-rolling and yawns among many, these important steps remove harmful regulations from the previous administration that hurt consumers. While Americans are likely not yet “tired of winning,” expanding limited mandate insurance is a clear victory for consumers.
Scott W. Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and the author of “Restoring Quality Health Care: A Six Point Plan for Comprehensive Reform at Lower Cost (Hoover Institution Press, 2016).

President Trump: Red Wave Likely In November Midterm Elections

U.S. President Donald Trump looks up during an event held to announce a Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) initiative at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:35 PM PT — Sun. Aug. 5, 2018

President Trump hails his rising approval numbers hinting at a likely red wave in the upcoming midterms.
The president took to twitter Sunday after a Rasmussen poll found 50 percent of Americans approve of his job performance.

Presidential Approval numbers are very good – strong economy, military and just about everything else. Better numbers than Obama at this point, by far. We are winning on just about every front and for that reason there will not be a Blue Wave, but there might be a Red Wave!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018

President Trump said these numbers are higher than Obama’s at the same point in his presidency.
He stressed his reforms have resulted in economic acceleration, while bringing improvements to the military and several other areas.
The president also suggested the Republican party is headed for a major midterms victory.
“You know they’re talking about this blue wave. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. Maxine Waters is leading the charge. Maxine. She’s a real beauty. Maxine. A seriously low IQ person.”
President Trump urged voters to support Republican candidates to make the tax-cuts permanent, build the border wall and tackle violent crime.

'What wars?' "What wars have we started?" Fox News's Chris Wallace asked National Security Adviser John Bolton in reference to a recent Trump attack on the media. Bolton's dodge »

National Security Adviser John Bolton dodged questions from Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Sunday about President Donald Trump’s tweet earlier claiming the media is “dangerous & sick” and “can cause War.”

“What wars have we started?” Wallace asked Bolton on “Fox News Sunday.”

Bolton failed to answer that question directly and attempted to redirect the conversation, saying that “the issue of press bias has been around for a long, long time.”

″There is press bias,” Wallace interrupted. “People get stories wrong, and people are called out for it. And we should be called out if we make a mistake.”

But then, citing the language in Trump’s Sunday tweet, he said, ”‘Cause war,’ ’sick,’ ‘divisive’ ― this is taking it to a completely different level.”

But Bolton continued to defend Trump’s repeated attacks on the media and journalists, whom the president has frequently labeled “the enemy of the people” and has accused of publishing “fake news.”

WALLACE: Trump today accused the media of 'causing war.' What was he talking about?

BOLTON: Look, the issue of press bias has been around a long time. JFK feuded with the media too. This is nothing new. pic.twitter.com/1mo4NknP2a

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 5, 2018

“That’s the president’s view based on the attacks that the media made on him,” Bolton said. “There have been other administrations that have been highly critical of the press.”

“I think this kind of adversarial relationship is typical,” he added.

Trump on Sunday ramped up his attacks against the media in a flurry of tweets, including one in which he publicly acknowledged for the first time that his son Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians during the 2016 election to gather dirt on his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018

Too bad a large portion of the Media refuses to report the lies and corruption having to do with the Rigged Witch Hunt - but that is why we call them FAKE NEWS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018

Trump’s anti-media rhetoric has drawn concern from lawmakers and journalists in newsrooms nationwide. The New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger told Trump during a meeting last month that the outlet had placed armed security guards outside their offices in response to an increase in threats against reporters.

A deadly attack against reporters at the Capitol Gazette newsroom in Maryland in June did nothing to quell Trump’s belligerent accusations against the media. Since the shooting, which left five people dead, Trump has used Twitter to attack news outlets, reporters and the media generally over 25 times.

The White House has largely stood by Trump’s anti-media stance. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to say the press is not “the enemy of the people” during a briefing for reporters on Thursday. Senior White House adviser Ivanka Trump, daughter of the president, said earlier that day that she did not believe that assessment of the media to be true.

Trump tweeted later that he believed his daughter’s statement was correct because the entire media is not “the enemy of the people” ― but a “large percentage” is.

On Sunday, top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway broke with Trump’s assertion that journalists are “the enemy of the people,” though she continued to defend her boss’ attacks on the press.

“I think some journalists are enemy of the relevant and enemy of the news you can use,” Conway told CBS’ “Face The Nation.”

• This article originally appeared on HuffPost.