Ben & Jerry’s Sues Parent Company over Censorship of Leftist Ideology

(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Infamous leftist ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s recently sued its parent company, Unilever, for allegedly censoring the woke company’s pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel rhetoric.

The Daily Wire reported that the company constantly pushed far-left talking points. This time, Unilever allegedly pushed back against Ben & Jerry’s supporting anti-Semitic protests on American college and university campuses, with the students urging the U.S. government to stop sending military aid to Israel.

According to the Wire, the fact that the woke Unilever decided to stop Ben & Jerry’s from spreading its leftist ideology shows that the culture and political status quo in this country is changing.

“That says a lot. In case you forgot, Unilever is the leftist company that brings you Dove — the wokest wash around — and Axe, which is now trying to encourage men to forgo macho stereotypes and take on a more progressive version of masculinity instead. The London-based corporation also supports ‘Pride events across the UK and Ireland [and] partners with LGBTQI+ charities,'” the Wire wrote.

Ben & Jerry’s has always opposed Israel, but the mainstream media exposed the company’s anti-Semitism only three years ago. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s stopped selling its ice cream in Israel‘s territory of the “West Bank” of the Jordan River and east Jerusalem, saying the sales in the territories sought by the Palestinians are “inconsistent with [their] values.”

After that, many American politicians, like former Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., Israel, and many states, like Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, opposed the company’s anti-Israel decision, and Unilever distanced itself from Ben & Jerry’s at the time of the scandal.

As a result, the woke company lost $111 million in pension funds. Even multiple state attorneys called the company to stop its anti-Israel boycott.

“We, the attorneys general of our respective states, write today to express our grave concerns about Unilever’s decision to engage in a boycott of the State of Israel,” the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Unilever. “Not only is Israel one of our nation’s closest and most reliable allies, but it is also the only democratic nation in the region and has long been a force for peace and stability.”

However, after that, Ben & Jerry’s only doubled down on its anti-Semitic rhetoric, subjecting its employees to anti-Semitic propaganda and suing Unilever to prevent Israelis from eating the company’s ice cream.

Ben & Jerry’s also pushed the ‘Defund the Police” movement and anti-American propaganda. As a result, the company that didn’t learn from its mistakes lost $2 billion.

Next year, Unilever cut ties with the company, stating that “simplifying [their] portfolio and driving greater productivity will allow [them] to further unlock the potential of this business.”

Bill Maher Calls Neil deGrasse Tyson ‘Part of the Problem’ for Pushing Transgender Junk Science

(Maire Clayton, Headline USA) Real Time host Bill Maher called out scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson after he refused to admit men have an advantage while competing in sports.

In the Friday night interview, Maher referenced an article that was in Scientific American that said there are not biological differences, but biases between male and female athletes.

“Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports,” the article claimed.

“That’s nuts, and it sure ain’t scientific,” Maher bluntly stated. “And it’s in Scientific American. And that’s why the Democrats lost the election.”

The debate began as the two discussed Scientific American’s editor-in-chief resigning after she went on a post election rant because President-elect Donald Trump was victorious over Vice President Kamala Harris.

Maher questioned Tyson.

“Engage in the idea here,” Maher said. “What I’m asking is Scientific American is saying basically that the reason why a WNBA team can’t beat the Lakers is because of societal biases.”

Tyson stated the editor-in chief no longer had her job, which caused Maher to become annoyed.

“Not because of this!” Maher told the astrophysicist. “I said the scandal is not her tweet… you don’t see a problem here?”

Tyson tried to made an odd point to try to support the study published.

He claimed women would have an advantage in swimming. “Long distance swimming, women might actually have the advantage, you look into that,” he stated.

Maher was visibly annoyed and told Tyson he was “part of the problem.”

“I can’t get a scientist to say that Scientific American, the magazine, as so many institutions, have been ideologically captured by this very, very far-left wing to the point where they’re denying stuff that is just obvious to the naked eye,” Maher said.

The State Dept. Hosting In-House Therapy Sessions over Trump’s Win

(Headline USA) The State Department reportedly offered in-house therapy sessions for agency employees after President-elect Donald Trump’s electoral victory this month.

In one email sent to the entire agency, titled “Managing stress during change,” State Department employees were encouraged to attend a one-hour session in which they could discuss their feelings about the election’s results.

“Change is a constant in our lives, but it can often bring about stress and uncertainty,” the email said. “Join us for an insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times. This session will provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well being.”

The State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs organized a separate meeting for its employees, led by Barbara Leaf, the assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, and John Bass, the acting undersecretary for political affairs, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

The gathering turned into a “cry session,” according to a source familiar with the event.

In a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., demanded to know many taxpayer dollars were used to fund the therapy sessions.

“I am concerned that the Department is catering to federal employees who are personally devastated by the normal functioning of American democracy through the provision of government-funded mental health counseling because Kamala Harris was not elected President of the United States,” Issa wrote.

Issa also noted the report raises concerns that State Department employees will effectively carry out Trump’s agenda once he is in office.

“The mere fact that the department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue and implement,” the letter said.

“The Trump administration has a mandate for wholesale change in the foreign policy arena, and if foreign service officers cannot follow through on the American people’s preferences, they should resign and seek a political appointment in the next Democrat administration,” Issa added.

Adam Schiff Feigns Moment of Introspection over Kamala’s Loss

(Headline USA) Sen.-elect Adam Schiff, D-Calif., admitted on Sunday’s Meet the Press that the “entire Democratic Party,” including himself, was to blame for Vice President Kamala Harris’s sweeping loss this month.

The Democrat made the comment during an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker, who pressed Schiff on his prediction a month prior to Election Day that Harris would win “overwhelmingly.”

Schiff responded by insisting Harris’s chance at victory was never a “guarantee.”

“I thought she could win,” he said. “I thought she could win in all the battleground states.”

Ultimately, Democrats were rocked by an “anti-incumbent wave,” Schiff claimed, especially with regard to the economy.

“That was too much to overcome,” he said.

“I think the principal issue is the economy, and over years and decades it has gotten more and more difficult for people working full-time to make a living,” he continued. “And until we resolve that challenge to the economy, we may find the presidency is easier to get than it is to keep.”

Pressed on whether Schiff agreed with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic leaders that President Joe Biden bores much of the blame for Democrats’ losses because of his decision to run for reelection, Schiff tried to dodge the question.

“Look, I think the entire Democratic Party bears the responsibility, myself included,” Schiff said.

“And the former president,” he added. “They [Republicans] mounted an effective campaign. You have to give them credit for that.”

It is unlikely Schiff will take his own advice to heart and encourage his home state of California to reconnect with working class Americans. In fact, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democratic state leaders are already planning to make California the center of the resistance to President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

Schiff’s own comments this week suggested that he agreed with Newsom’s approach.

“Anytime you have someone—particularly someone who is going to become president of the United States—fawning over dictators, emulating their language, attacking the press, undermining our institutions, yeah, we should be concerned about it,” Schiff said, “because at the end of the day, it means that the American people will suffer.”

Judge to Rule on Whether Google’s Advertising Tech Constitutes Monopoly

(Headline USA) Google, already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine, is fighting to beat back another attack by the Department of Justice alleging monopolistic conduct, this time over technology that puts online advertising in front of consumers.

The Justice Department and Google were scheduled to make closing arguments Monday in a trial alleging Google’s advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, was expected to issue a written ruling by the end of the year. If Brinkema finds Google has engaged in illegal, monopolistic conduct, she will then hold further hearings to explore what remedies should be imposed.

The Justice Department, along with a coalition of states, has already said it believes Google should be forced to sell off its ad tech business, which generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Mountain View, California-based company.

Because of the stranglehold it exerts over online businesses—including media companies like Headline USA—Google has aggressively sought to police online speech, forcing journalistic enterprises either to take down content that it disagrees with or face demonetization.

After receiving an ultimatum in January 2023 to remove its “dangerous or derogatory content” and “unreliable and harmful claims” based on the tech megalith’s subjective—and deeply biased—assessment, Headline USA opted to sever its advertising relationship with Google’s AdSense server.

The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page when one browses websites.

Google dominates all facets of the market: A technology called “DoubleClick” is used pervasively by news sites and other online publishers, while “Google Ads” maintains a cache of advertisers large and small looking to place their ads on the right webpage in front of the right consumer.

In between is another Google product, AdExchange, that conducts nearly instantaneous auctions matching advertisers to publishers.

In court papers, Justice Department lawyers said Google “is more concerned with acquiring and preserving its trifecta of monopolies than serving its own publisher and advertiser customers or winning on the merits.”

As a result, content providers and news organizations have never been able to generate the online revenue they should due to Google’s excessive fees for brokering transactions between advertisers and publishers, the government said.

Google argues the government’s case improperly focuses on a narrow niche of online advertising. If one looks more broadly at online advertising to include social media, streaming TV services, and app-based advertising, Google says it controls only 25% of the market—a share that is dwindling as it faces increased and evolving competition.

Google alleges in court papers that the government’s lawsuit “boil[s] down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers.”

Google also says it has invested billions in technology that facilitates the efficient match of advertisers to interested consumers and it should not be forced to share its technology and success with competitors.

“Requiring a company to do further engineering work to make its technology and customers accessible by all of its competitors on their preferred terms has never been compelled by U.S. antitrust law,” the company wrote.

The Virginia case is separate from an ongoing lawsuit brought against Google in the District of Columbia over its namesake search engine. In that case, the judge determined the search engine constitutes an illegal monopoly but has not decided what remedy to impose.

The Justice Department said last week it will seek to force Google to sell its Chrome Web browser, among a host of other penalties.

Google has said the department’s request is overkill and unhinged from legitimate regulation.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Rand Paul Warns Denver’s FAFO Mayor He Could Be Removed

(Headline USA) Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., argued this week that the Democratic mayor of Denver could be removed from office for trying to obstruct President-elect Donald Trump’s deportation efforts.

 “If he’s going to resist federal law—which, there’s a long-standing history of the supremacy of federal law—he’s going to resist that, it will go all the way to the Supreme Court,” Paul told CBS News on Sunday. “And I would suspect that he would be removed from office.”

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston declared last week that he would fight back against Trump’s plan to deport illegal immigrants, even vowing to use city law enforcement to block federal immigration authorities from doing their job.

“More than us having [the Denver Police Department] stationed at the county line to keep them out, you would have 50,000 Denverites there,” Johnston claimed. “It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants.”

Johnston then encouraged city residents to publicly protest Trump’s plan.

According to Paul, Johnston’s defiance could be considered an act of “insurrection” in court.

“People need to realize that what he is … offering is a form of insurrection, where states resist the federal government,” Rand said. “Most people objected to that and rejected that long ago. So, I think the mayor of Denver is on the wrong side of history, and really, I think will face legal ramifications if he doesn’t obey the federal law.”

Trump’s incoming border czar, Tom Homan, has vowed that the Trump administration will defund and even arrest leaders such as Johnston who refuse to comply with federal immigration law.

“What governor or mayor doesn’t want public safety threats and national security threats out of their neighborhoods, out of their communities?” he said on Sunday. “That’s their number one responsibility.”

DNC Plans Primary-Like Process to Elect Next Chair after Bungling Presidential Race

(Headline USA) The chair of the Democratic National Committee informed party leaders on Monday that the DNC will choose his successor in February, an election that will speak volumes about how the party wants to present itself during four more years of Donald Trump in the White House.

Jaime Harrison, in a letter to members of the party’s powerful Rules & Bylaws Committee, outlined the process of how the party will elect its new chair. The process appeared to be drastically different than the DNC’s primary-free presidential race, as if trying to overcompensate for having allowed President Joe Biden to run virtually uncontested.

Harrison said in the letter that the committee would host four candidate forums—some in person and some virtually—in January, with the final election on Feb. 1 during the party’s winter meeting in at the National Harbor, Maryland.

The race to become the next DNC chair, while an insular party affair, will come days after Trump is inaugurated for a second term. Democrats’ selection of a leader after Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 loss will be a key starting point as the party starts to move forward, including addressing any structural problems and determining how to oppose Trump.

Members of the Rules & Bylaws Committee will meet on Dec. 12 to establish the rules for these elections, which beyond the chair position will include top party roles like vice chairs, treasurer, secretary and national finance chair.

The committee will also use that meeting to decide the requirements for gaining access to the ballot for those top party roles. In 2021, candidates were required to submit a nominating statement that included signatures from 40 DNC members—and that will likely be the same standard for the 2025 campaigns.

“The DNC is committed to running a transparent, equitable, and impartial election for the next generation of leadership to guide the party forward,” Harrison said in a statement. “Electing the Chair and DNC officers is one of the most important responsibilities of the DNC Membership, and our staff will run an inclusive and transparent process that gives members the opportunity to get to know the candidates as they prepare to cast their votes.”

Two Democrats have announced campaigns for chair: Ken Martin, chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and a vice chair of the national party, and Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor and current commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Other top Democrats are either considering a run to succeed Harrison or are being pushed by party insiders, including:

 

  • Beto O’Rourke, a former Texas Rep. and failed candidate for higher office
  • Michael Blake, a former vice chair of the party
  • Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin
  • Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago mayor and Obama chief of staff
  • Rep. Mallory McMorrow, majority whip of the Michigan Senate
  • Chuck Rocha, a longtime Democratic strategist

The next chair of the committee will be tasked with rebuilding a party demoralized by a second Trump victory. He will also oversee the party’s 2028 nominating process, a complex and contentious exercise that will make the chair central to the next presidential election.

Harrison, of South Carolina, made clear in his letter to the rules committee that the four forums hosted by the party would be live-streamed and the party would give grassroots Democrats across the country the ability to engage with the process through those events. He also said he intended to remain neutral during the chair election.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

STUDY: AI Data Centers Could Drive Up Energy Costs by 70% over 10 Yrs

(The average American’s energy bill could increase from 25% to 70% in the next 10 years without intervention from policymakers, according to a recent study from Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Jack Kemp Foundation.

According to reports, America is facing an energy crisis, with demand for energy soaring due to the proliferation of artificial intelligence and hyperscale data centers, which can use as much energy as almost 40,000 homes.

The boom in advanced manufacturing and the movement toward electrification are further driving up the costs due to supply and demand.

Written by economist Ike Brannon, a senior fellow at the Kemp Foundation, and economist Sam Wolf, the report explains partly why so many utilities and regional transmission organizations are having to get creative to meet demand.

“During the previous two decades, power demand in the United States scarcely grew as the U.S. shifted from a manufacturing to a services economy,” the authors wrote.

However, the sharp increase in demand is eating up the spare capacity in the U.S. power grid, which helps protect against brownouts and blackouts in the case of extreme weather and temporary outages by power plants.

That increase contributed to a huge spike in capacity market prices at the most recent auction held by the Mid-Atlantic regional transmission organization PJM.

Prices jumped from $29 to $270 per megawatt-day “across the PJM region” and from $29 to $444 in parts of Virginia, home to more than half of the nation’s data centers, according to the study.

Aaron Ruby, a spokesperson for Dominion Energy, a major East Coast utility company and the primary utility in Virginia, disagreed with the study’s claim that prices could rise to 70% in the next decade, saying the number was “way off” for the commonwealth.

“We just released a 15-year plan forecasting residential electric bills through 2039, and they’re only projected to grow by about 2.5% a year, which is lower than normal inflation,” Ruby wrote in an email to the Center Square. “Our residential rates are among the most affordable in the country. They’re 14% below the national average.”

But the surge in power demand from data centers is projected to be so great that the study’s authors argue the center cannot hold (while acknowledging that rate-setting is “inherently political” and “difficult to forecast” and that it’s “unclear who will bear the cost of these price increases”).

“In Virginia, the high regulation of price and capacity has kept the increased demand from data centers from impacting prices paid by ordinary consumers, but such insulation cannot hold much longer without risking service interruptions or brownouts,” the report said. “As data center growth expands, price increases may need to flow through to consumers more rapidly.”

In Maryland, electricity bills “are projected to increase by somewhere between two to 24% in 2025, depending on the region,” the authors added.

Other states—including Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Illinois and Arizona—may come to resemble Virginia in the years ahead, according to the study.

The report’s authors suggested that policymakers should craft and implement policy that would make data centers part of the solution to the disproportionate demand they place on the grid, such as charging them more for the energy they use.

“To ease the burden on households and small businesses, AI companies should be required to bear the additional costs of the energy they consume,” the report said. “This could include charging data centers higher fees to reflect their disproportionate impact on electricity markets.”

Brannon and Wolf also recommended that state and local governments stop subsidizing data-center construction—arguing that the economic benefits weren’t worth the cost to taxpayers—and that utility providers start including minimum take clauses in their contracts with data centers.

“A minimum take clause guarantees a minimum payment from a utility user—such as a data center—regardless of how much energy it purchases, which provides the utility with a modicum of revenue certainty,” the authors wrote.

The study concluded with several other recommendations, saying that “paying for grid modernization… can be accommodated within existing rate structures, but only if the data centers bear their proportionate share of these costs.”

Disgraced Jack Smith Drops Federal Lawfare Cases against Trump Due to Election Outcome

(Headline USA) Federal prosecutors moved Monday to dismiss the lawfare charges against President-elect Donald Trump that accused him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election and to abandon the classified documents case against him, citing longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution.

“The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again,” said Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung in a statement celebrating the defeat of the Biden administration’s efforts to weaponize the DOJ against a former top political rival.

“Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law,” Cheung continued. “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

The decision by special counsel Jack Smith amounted to a predictable but nonetheless stunning conclusion to criminal cases that had been seen as the most perilous of the multiple legal threats Trump has faced.

It reflects the practical consequences of Trump’s victory, ensuring he enters office free from scrutiny.

Smith, on the other hand, now faces the prospect of being investigated by the incoming Trump DOJ over his brazen misapplication of his prosecutorial powers in several instances, as outlined by investigative journalist Julie Kelly, who has painstakingly documented much of the DOJ’s abuse in cases pertaining to Trump and Jan. 6 political dissidents.

Trump has cast both cases as politically motivated, and had vowed to fire Smith as soon as he takes office in January.

Smith’s team emphasized that the move to abandon the prosecutions, in federal courts in Washington and Florida, was not a reflection of their view on the merits of the cases but rather a reflection of their commitment to longstanding department policy.

“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” the prosecutors claimed in Monday’s court filing.

The American people, however, begged to differ in re-electing Trump not only despite the unrelenting prosecution, but in many cases because of it.

The decision was expected after Smith’s team began assessing how to wind down both the 2020 election interference case and the separate classified documents case in the wake of Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.

The 2020 election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing the Republican as he vied to reclaim the White House. But it quickly stalled due to Smith’s signature overreach in attempting to prosecute Trump over actions for which he was protected under longstanding presidential immunity grounds.

Following Smith’s unprecedented attempt to challenge the presidential immunity precedent—which previously kept presidents such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama from being prosecuted for war crimes—the U.S. Supreme Court in July affirmed that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

It sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial while rebuking Chutkan for having failed to do so previously in her haste to bring the case to trial before the election.

Smith’s team again violated prosecutorial norms in October, when it filed a lengthy brief revising the case it planned to press against Trump in light of the immunity ruling.

It accused Trump of “resorting to crimes” in his effort to challenge the highly dubious election outcome.

Smith and Chutkan colluded to jump ahead in the process, bypassing what would normally have been the Trump defense team’s opportunity to file a brief due to their desperate effort to leverage the case as a political bludgeon against Trump, selectively leaking parts of the heavily redacted brief while preventing Trump from commenting on it due to a gag order.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Man Arrested Last Week over Statements He Made to FBI Informants 5 Years Ago

(Ken Silva, Headline USA) The Justice Department announced charges on Friday against a U.S.-Albanian dual citizen who was allegedly plotting to support the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, also known as ISIS.

The defendant, Erald Alimehmeti, 33, of Tirana, Albania, was arrested Thursday for allegedly attempting to provide material support to ISIS, and for distributing instructional information regarding the making of explosives.

However, the DOJ alleged that Alimehmeti committed those crimes in 2019 and 2020, before he was arrested in Albania for weapons and assault offenses. The FBI arrested him for the five-year-old crimes when he returned to the country, after serving two years in prison in Albania.

According to the DOJ, Alimehmeti began recruiting for ISIS in 2019, when he finished an initial sting in Albanian prison that he served from 2015 to 2019. Around that time, he allegedly asked an FBI informant online for help with “something im not able to do in Albania”—requesting the informant to purchase “a plate carrier,” “magazine pouches,” as and “rifle modifications such as polymer buttstocks handguards optics.”

Alimehmeti continued talking with the FBI informant throughout 2019, and he was eventually contacted by an undercover FBI agent online in January 2020. Alimehmeti eventually invited the FBI agent into “a tactical channel providing training for brothers and sisters”—what the bureau alleged to be an online group for ISIS supporters.

Also in January 2020, the initial FBI informant introduced the defendant to two other informants who were posing as ISIS supporters.

“ALIMEHMETI asked the [FBI informants] about their military experience and skills and referenced the ‘op,’ for which he sought their participation, writing, among other things, ‘Do you know sniping akhi? The formulas and ballistics?’” the government’s criminal complaint said.

Alimehmeti was arrested in Albania again in November 2020, as he was in touch with the FBI informants. Albanian authorities provided the FBI with a forensic image of his laptop, the criminal complaint said.

There are no allegations that Alimehmeti committed any crimes from the time he was released from Albanian prison in 2020 to when he was arrested last week.

Nevertheless, law enforcement still touted the arrest as a major win for national security.

“As we continue to see, allegedly attempting to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization usually has just one outcome: Arrest.  I commend the NYPD and all the members of the FBI’s New York JTTF, for their unwavering focus on keeping New York City and our nation safe,” said NYPD Deputy Commissioner Rebecca Weiner, who department participated in the terrorism sting.

Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.