force – USMAIL24.COM

How Biden might try to force Israel to change its war strategy

Sabir Ansary — Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:58:32 +0000

As the Biden administration increasingly clashes with Israeli leaders over the war in Gaza, the question often arises as to whether U.S. officials will try to exert some form of tougher influence if Israel ignores their pleas.

They could do this, critics say, to try to get Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza teetering on the edge of famine, to scale back its military campaign or to refrain from invading the city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip, where many civilians have fled.

Since Hamas’ terrorist attacks on October 7, which killed about 1,200 Israelis and took about 240 hostage, Israel’s attacks have killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry. President Biden has tried behind the scenes to influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while showing strong support for Israel. Yet confrontations are lurking.

Israeli officials are expected to meet their American counterparts in Washington next week to express opposing views on plans to invade Rafah. And a growing number of former US officials say Biden must exert influence to distract Israel from what they call its disastrous war.

The Biden administration has done that increasingly spoken of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and mentioned this, among other things, in a draft resolution on the war that the country presented to the United Nations Security Council this week. The resolution called for an “immediate and lasting ceasefire” if Hamas releases all hostages – repeating the government’s position but with stronger language. Russia and China vetoed the resolution on Friday. Many countries have called for a ceasefire without conditions.

Mr. Biden would not be the first president to use hard levers if he chooses. Four administrations, from Gerald R. Ford’s to George HW Bush’s, have all withheld some form of aid or diplomatic agreement or strongly threatened that they would, said Martin S. Indyk, a special envoy to Israel -Palestinian negotiations in the Obama administration.

“In recent years, the willingness to use the aid relationship as leverage has declined dramatically,” he said. “The dependency relationship is there, ready to be used.”

American influence on Israel falls into three main categories. We’ll start with gun assistance, the most important.

Shipments of weapons

The United States is by far the largest supplier of military aid to Israel. In 2022, aid amounted to $3.3 billion. Since the war began, the Biden administration has urged Congress to pass funding legislation that would include $14 billion in additional aid, but that has been halted mainly for reasons unrelated to the war.

Israel is running out of much of its ammunition and needs the American shipments. The US government is working to approve new weapons orders and has accelerated orders that were in the pipeline before the start of the war.

Between October and around December 1, 2023, the United States transferred about 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel, US officials said late last year. From Dec. 1 to now, those total transmission numbers have increased by about 15 percent, a U.S. official said.

There have been more than a hundred transfers since October, but almost all of them have taken place without notice Congress over loopholes in disclosure rules.

Last December, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken twice invoked rarely used emergency authority to send tank munitions and artillery shells to Israel without congressional review. These were the only two times the administration has publicly reported government-to-government military sales to Israel since October.

If Mr. Biden were to order a slowdown or halt some or most arms transfers, Israeli leaders would get the message, current and former U.S. officials said.

Mr. Biden has indicated he is aware of the concerns. He issued a memorandum in February, it established standards for compliance by all countries receiving US weapons, including compliance with international humanitarian law, and required countries to submit signed letters to the State Department pledging to commit would follow the rules.

Some supporters of the tougher approach argue that Biden should declare that Israel is violating a section of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which states that the United States cannot provide weapons or other assistance to a country that “directly prohibits or otherwise restricts” it . or indirectly, the transportation or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.” Eight Democratic senators sent a letter to Mr. Biden on March 11, urging him to do so.

They noted that the law does not prevent the U.S. government from providing defensive supplies to a country that violates the law, such as interceptor missiles for Israel’s Iron Dome.

Josh Paul, a former official at the State Department’s political-military bureau, which oversees arms transfers, said that if Mr. Biden were to take this action, Israel would face a difficult choice between continuing his campaign in Gaza or the stockpiling of ammunition for deterrence. must maintain against other hostile forces, especially Hezbollah and Iran.

“Cutting off certain weapons would force Israel to think about what the urgent needs are for its national security – is it using as many weapons as possible in Gaza?” said Mr Paul, who resigned in October in protest against the government’s war policy.

The State Department has not approved a request from Israel for 24,000 assault rifles, an order that The New York Times reported in November was being scrutinized by some U.S. lawmakers and State Department officials because of the potential for guns would fuel extremist settler violence against Palestinians. in the West Bank.

Many arms transfers involve weapons systems that Israel bought and paid for years ago and will soon be delivered, a former U.S. official and a current U.S. official said. At any given time, there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of open contracts for sale to Israel, the current US official said. The two Americans argued that it could be difficult to slow or suspend specific sales, and that such actions could expose the U.S. government to legal liability under contract law.

The former US official argued that halting the transfers could send a message to Iran and its partners that the United States is willing to abandon Israel in times of need. But this official was not aware of any formal intelligence assessment of the effect of such action.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, made clear this week that he opposed putting conditions on military aid to Israel to try to influence its operations in Gaza.

“This is not the time to talk about conditioning,” Mr. Reed said. “We are Israel’s ally. They are our ally.”

The diplomatic shield

The United States has been a staunch ally of Israel in international institutions, where many countries have expressed outrage over civilian casualties in Gaza.

This is especially true at the UN. The Biden administration has shielded Israel from diplomatic condemnations and from resolutions calling on Israel to immediately end or suspend its war.

Less American support for Israel would open the country to stronger formal charges in the UN

Since the start of the war, the United States, as a member of the UN Security Council, has used its veto power to block three council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire without conditions.

Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations called the US-backed resolution a “hypocritical initiative” before blocking it on Friday.

The United States has also been outspokenly critical of the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The court issued an interim ruling in January calling on Israel to prevent its armed forces from engaging in acts that would violate the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Sanctions

The Biden administration has refrained from imposing sanctions on Israeli officials but may be giving itself more leeway to do so. Such measures would likely be more aimed at curbing Israel’s policies and actions in the West Bank, where the current government has encouraged settlement expansion at the expense of Palestinians, than at curbing military operations in Gaza.

In late February, Mr. Blinken announced that the Biden administration deemed new Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories “contrary to international law” — a reversal of Trump administration policy and a return to a long-standing legal review by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On March 14, the ministry imposed sanctions on three Israeli settlers in the West Bank, accusing them of “extremist violence” against Palestinians. The Biden administration took similar action against four Israelis on February 1.

Tough US sanctions have failed to change the behavior of leaders in a range of countries, from Russia to Iran and North Korea. But sanctions against Israeli officials, or the threat thereof, could have a greater impact because Israel is a U.S. partner, and because many Israeli officials have assets and family members in the United States and travel there frequently.

Farnaz Fassihi contributed UN reporting

The post How Biden might try to force Israel to change its war strategy appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

What is anti-Semitism? A Columbia Task Force would rather not say.

Sabir Ansary — Thu, 21 Mar 2024 07:54:58 +0000

A Columbia University task force created to combat anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks is trying to avoid one of the most contentious issues in college debates about the war: Its members have refused to determine what is the definition of “anti-Semitism”.

Competing factions on campus and beyond are pushing for two different definitions. The Firstfavored by the US State Department and many supporters of Israel, says that “attacking the State of Israel” could be anti-Semitic, a definition that identifies much of the pro-Palestinian activism sweeping the campus as anti-Semitic could label.

The second is narrower. It makes a distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and could lead to criticism that the school does not take anti-Semitism seriously enough.

The debate over the definitions has become a lightning rod for the Columbia Task Force and for other universities across the country. The task force is charged with “understanding how anti-Semitism manifests on campus” and improving the climate for Jewish faculty and students. But the refusal to choose a definition also faced harsh criticism from both sides.

“If you don’t diagnose the problem, you don’t have to deal with it,” said Shai Davidai, a Columbia professor who is Israeli and advocates a stricter definition. He added: “To say we don’t want to define it so we don’t have a problem, that’s getting away with it.”

Pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist teachers and students, quite a few of whom are Jewish, fear that without definition the anti-Semitism task force could be too far-reaching in the speech and activities it seeks to regulate.

Columbia’s dilemma illustrates the broad challenge universities face as they try to find a line between protecting free speech and avoiding lawsuits alleging discrimination against Jewish students.

Universities also face enormous external pressure. Columbia President Nemat Shafik and the co-chairs of the board of directors have been called upon to do so to give evidence during a congressional hearing on anti-Semitism on April 17. Ms Shafik was not present at the controversial meeting. December hearing where the presidents of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania struggled to answer questions about whether a call for genocide of Jews would violate school policy.

Columbia has already been charged in a case federal civil rights lawsuitfiled by more than a dozen Jewish students, describing the university as an institution where “crowds of pro-Hamas students and faculty march in the hundreds and shout vile anti-Semitic slogans, including calls for genocide.”

Pro-Palestinian protesters dispute that slogans such as “Whatever it takes” and “There is only one solution, the intifada, the revolution” are anti-Semitic calls for genocide.

For the task force, the university has chosen three Jewish professors as co-chairs because they are seasoned senior faculty who know how Columbia works. However, they are not academic experts in anti-Semitism research.

The professors argue that their fifteen-member task force does not need to define anti-Semitism, because they do not see it as their job to label things as anti-Semitic or not. Instead, they want to hear why Jewish students and teachers are upset and see if practical solutions can be found to help them feel more at ease.

“I get letters every day from parents, just from regular people, students,” says one of the co-chairs. Nicholas Lemann, a former journalism school dean said in an interview. He said many of them ask, “Why aren’t you listening? Why don’t you do anything?’”

“It’s not our job to define anti-Semitism,” he said, adding: “Our job is to listen to them, make them feel like someone at Columbia cares about them, and try to find out which causes this great inconvenience and suffering. and whether anything can be done to improve it that is consistent with the values of the university.”

Pro-Israel Jewish advocacy groups have been pushing for years that organizations and governments adopt the broader definition developed by the International Alliance for the Remembrance of the Holocaust, which ends with anti-Zionist speeches. As of 2016, it has been endorsed by more than 40 countries, including Israel.

There is no dispute about the core of the definition – anti-Semitism, the report states, is a “certain perception of Jews that can be expressed as hatred” towards them. But the examples about Israel can be interpreted broadly, in ways that critics say would unfairly silence political criticism.

For example, the definition says that “denying the right of self-determination to the Jewish people, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” could be anti-Semitic.

Left-wing Jews often support the newer, Declaration of Jerusalem definition, which takes a more tolerant approach to criticism of Israel, including boycotts and sanctions against the Jewish state. Another definition, known as the Nexus documentstands in the awkward middle.

At Harvard and Stanford, members of the anti-Semitism task force have done the same faced harsh criticism for not supporting the more sweeping definition; that tension was one of the reasons why the co-chair of the task force at Stanford decided to do so resign.

At Columbia, task force chairs are trying to avoid falling into a similar trap. But fighting something without defining it can be difficult.

“If you want to understand any problem, you have to understand what it is,” said Dov Waxman, an expert on anti-Semitism at UCLA. “You can’t count something if you don’t understand what it is.”

He recommended that the Columbia task force refer to more than one definition, as the Biden administration did last year in laying it out anti-Semitic strategy. The task force has not ruled out such a move, Mr. Lemann said.

Some of the Columbia task force listening sessions on campus have become tense. For example, during a March 1 session with graduate students, several anti-Zionist Jews demanded to know what the definition of anti-Semitism would be and whether their views would be included.

Esther Fuchsa professor of urban studies and co-chair of the task force, interrupted them and became hostile. Four students were denounced in a subsequent letter to Ms. Shafik and other administrators, calling on Professor Fuchs to be replaced on the task force by an anti-Zionist.

Caitlin Liss, a Jewish graduate student who signed the letter, said she is part of a “long Jewish tradition of anti-Zionism” that includes many students at the school. But, she said, “you would never know that on campus, from the way the administration talks about it, from the way the task force talks about it.”

Professor Fuchs said the students “tried to disrupt the session and ignore its purpose – to listen to students’ concerns and experiences with anti-Semitism on campus.”

Joseph Howley, a professor of Jewish classics and supporter of Columbia’s pro-Palestinian movement, was invited to a listening session, but did not go. “I have no reason to believe I will be taken seriously,” he said. In the end, only a few of the approximately forty teachers invited to a listening session intended for critics of Israel attended.

In another session, Amy Werman, a professor at the School of Social Work who supports Israel, raised the question of whether the task force might just be window dressing to appease Congress.

“Ester, oh boy, she didn’t take that very kindly,” she said, referring to Professor Fuchs. “I would almost say it felt like she was attacking me.”

Professor Fuchs disputed that, saying she replied: “You clearly don’t know us. We have never done window dressing, and we do not intend to do so now.”

Still, at least some Jewish students who felt left out or unsafe on campus found the listening sessions helpful, the spokesperson said Rebecca Massela sophomore covering anti-Semitism for The Columbia Spectator.

“It has been an outlet for students to express their concerns,” she said.

The task force is now looking for one research director to develop a study on anti-Semitism at Columbia and recommend training materials for the university.

It released its first report earlier this month. The 24 page document extra requested borders on protests and better enforcement of existing rules, to address a major complaint from Jewish students who say the environment at Columbia has become intolerable.

Protests were the initial focus, Professor Fuchs said, because they are “the most overtly disruptive to campus life and make people feel unsafe, like they are not welcome and that they have to find another place to go to school.” to go.”

When asked whether some common anti-Israel protest songs like “Death to the Zionist State” could amount to discriminatory harassment of Jewish or Israeli students, the report largely sidestepped, saying this was ultimately a question for lawyers.

“We urge the university to provide more guidance on the meaning of ‘discriminatory harassment,’ including anti-Semitic harassment,” the report said.

The post What is anti-Semitism? A Columbia Task Force would rather not say. appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

Model Code Of Conduct Comes Into Force; What Does It Mean? EXPLAINED HERE

Sabir Ansary — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:21:05 +0000

MCC lays down a list of dos and don’ts ahead of the elections, during the elections, and till the final results are announced.

The election manifesto shall not contain anything repugnant to the ideals and principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Model Code Of Conduct: The Election Commission of India (ECI) comprising Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar and the two new Election Commissioners, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu has announced the schedule for the Lok Sabha elections 2024 on Saturday.

The elections will be held in seven phases starting from April 19 to June 1.

The results will be announced on June 4.

With this, the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) has come into force.

MCC lays down a list of dos and don’ts ahead of the elections, during the elections, and till the final results are announced.

It also prohibits the government from announcing policy decisions.

In simple terms, MCC is a set of rules that all political parties and candidates have to follow strictly or else face suitable actions.

The broader areas covered by the MCC are:

General Conduct

No party or candidate shall include in any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic.

Criticism of other political parties, when made, shall be confined to their policies and programme, past record and work. Parties and Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the leaders or workers of other parties. Criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided.

There shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes. Mosques, Churches, Temples or other places of worship shall not be used as forum for election propaganda.

All parties and candidates shall avoid scrupulously all activities which are “corrupt practices” and offences under the election law, such as bribing of voters, intimidation of voters, impersonation of voters, canvassing within 100 meters of polling stations, holding public meetings during the period of 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for the close of the poll, and the transport and conveyance of voters to and from polling station.

The right of every individual for peaceful and undisturbed home-life shall be respected, however much the political parties or candidates may resent his political opinions or activities. Organizing demonstrations or picketing before the houses of individuals by way of protesting against their opinions or activities shall not be resorted to under any circumstances.

No political party or candidate shall permit its or his followers to make use of any individual’s land, building, compound wall etc., without his permission for erecting flag-staffs, suspending banners, pasting notices, writing slogans etc.

Political parties and candidates shall ensure that their supporters do not create obstructions in or break up meetings and processions organized by other parties. Workers or sympathisers of one political party shall not create disturbances at public meetings organized by another political party by putting questions orally or in writing or by distributing leaflets of their own party. Processions shall not be taken out by one party along places at which meetings are held by another party. Posters issued by one party shall not be removed by workers of another party.

Meetings

The party or candidate shall inform the local police authorities of the venue and time any proposed meeting Well in time so as to enable the police to make necessary arrangements for controlling traffic and maintaining peace and order.

A Party or candidate shall ascertain in advance if there is any restrictive or prohibitory order in force in the place proposed for the meeting if such orders exist, they shall be followed strictly. If any exemption is required from such orders, it shall be applied for and obtained well in time.

If permission or license is to be obtained for the use of loudspeakers or any other facility in connection with any proposed meeting, the party or candidate shall apply to the authority concerned well in advance and obtain such permission or license.

Organizers of a meeting shall invariably seek the assistance of the police on duty for dealing with persons disturbing a meeting or otherwise attempting to create disorder. Organizers themselves shall not take action against such persons.

Procession

A Party or candidate organizing a procession shall decide before hand the time and place of the starting of the procession, the route to be followed and the time and place at which the procession will terminate. There shall ordinary be no deviation from the programme.

The organizers shall give advance intimation to the local police authorities of the programme so as to enable the letter to make necessary arrangement.

The organizers shall ascertain if any restrictive orders are in force in the localities through which the procession has to pass, and shall comply with the restrictions unless exempted specially by the competent authority. Any traffic regulations or restrictions shall also be carefully adhered to.

The organizers shall take steps in advance to arrange for passage of the procession so that there is no block or hindrance to traffic. If the procession is very long, it shall be organized in segments of suitable lengths, so that at convenient intervals, especially at points where the procession has to pass road junctions, the passage of held up traffic could be allowed by stages thus avoiding heavy traffic congestion.

Processions shall be so regulated as to keep as much to the right of the road as possible and the direction and advice of the police on duty shall be strictly complied with.

If two or more political parties or candidates propose to take processions over the same route or parts thereof at about the same time, the organizers shall establish contact well in advance and decide upon the measures to be taken to see that the processions do not clash or cause hindrance to traffic. The assistance of the local police shall be availed of for arriving at a satisfactory arrangement. For this purpose the parties shall contact the police at the earliest opportunity.

The political parties or candidates shall exercise control to the maximum extent possible in the matter of processionists carrying articles which may be put to misuse by undesirable elements especially in moments of excitement.

The carrying of effigies purporting to represent member of other political parties or their leaders, burning such effigies in public and such other forms demonstration shall not be countenanced by any political party or candidate.

Polling Day

All Political parties and candidates shall:

-co-operate with the officers on election duty to ensure peaceful and orderly polling and complete freedom to the voters to exercise their franchise without being subjected to any annoyance or obstruction.

-supply to their authorized workers suitable badges or identity cards.

-agree that the identity slip supplied by them to voters hall be on plain (white) paper and shall not contain any symbol, name of the candidate or the name of the party;

-refrain from serving or distributing liquor on polling day and during the forty eight hours preceding it.

-not allow unnecessary crowd to be collected near the camps set up by the political parties and candidates near the polling booths so as to avoid Confrontation and tension among workers and sympathizers of the parties and the candidate.

-ensure that the candidate’s camps shall be simple .They shall not display any posters, flags, symbols or any other propaganda material. No eatable shall be served or crowd allowed at the camps and

-co-operate with the authorities in complying with the restrictions to be imposed on the plying of vehicles on the polling day and obtain permits for them which should be displayed prominently on those vehicles.

Polling Booth

The Election Commission is appointing Observers. If the candidates or their agents have any specific complaint or problem regarding the conduct of elections they may bring the same to the notice of the Observer.

Party in Power

The party in power whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned, shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign and in particular –

(a) The Ministers shall not combine their official visit with el ectioneering work and shall not also make use of official machinery or personnel during the electioneering work.

(b) Government transport including official air-crafts, vehicles, machinery and personnel shall not be used for furtherance of the interest of the party in power;

Public places such as maidens etc., for holding election meetings, and use of helipads for air-flights in connection with elections shall not be monopolized by itself. Other parties and candidates shall be allowed the use of such places and facilities on the same terms and conditions on which they are used by the party in power;

Rest houses, dak bungalows or other Government accommodation shall not be monopolized by the party in power or its candidates and such accommodation shall be allowed to be used by other parties and candidates in a fair manner but no party or candidate shall use or be allowed to use such accommodation (including premises appertaining thereto) as a campaign office or for holding any public meeting for the purposes of election propaganda;

Issue of advertisement at the cost of public exchequer in the newspapers and other media and the misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and publicity regarding achievements with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power shall be scrupulously avoided.

Ministers and other authorities shall not sanction grants/payments out of discretionary funds from the time elections are announced by the Commission; and

From the time elections are announced by Commission, Ministers and other authorities shall not:

(a) announce any financial grants in any form or promises thereof; or

(b) (except civil servants) lay foundation stones etc. of projects or schemes of any kind; or

(d) make any ad-hoc appointments in Government, Public Undertakings etc. which may have the effect of influencing the voters in favor of the party in power.

Note: The Commission shall announce the date of any election which shall be a date ordinarily not more than three weeks prior to the date on which the notification is likely to be issued in respect of such elections.

Ministers of Central or State Government shall not enter any polling station or place of counting except in their capacity as a candidate or voter or authorized agent.

Guidelines on Election Manifestos

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 5th July 2013 in SLP(C) No. 21455 of 2008 ( S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Others) has directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines with regard to the contents of election manifestos in consultation with all the recognized political parties. The guiding principles which will lead to framing of such guidelines are quoted below from the judgment:-

(i) “Although, the law is obvious that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be construed as ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of RP Act, the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people. It shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree”.

(ii) “The Election Commission, in order to ensure level playing field between the contesting parties and candidates in elections and also in order to see that the purity of the election process does not get vitiated, as in past been issuing instructions under the Model Code of Conduct. The fountainhead of the powers under which the Commission issues these orders is Article 324 of the Constitution which mandates the Commission to hold free and fair elections.”

(iii) “We are mindful of the fact that generally political parties release their election manifesto before the announcement of election date, in that scenario, strictly speaking, the Election Commission will not have the authority to regulate any act which is done before the announcement of the date. Nevertheless, an exception can be made in this regard as the purpose of election manifesto is directly associated with the election process”.

Upon receiving the above directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Election Commission held a meeting with the recognized National and State Political Parties for consultation with them in the matter and took note of their conflicting views in the matter.

During consultations, while some political parties supported the issuance of such guidelines, others were of the view that it is their right and duty towards voters to make such offers and promises in manifestos in a healthy democratic polity. While the Commission agrees in principle with the point of view that framing of manifestos is the right of the political parties, it cannot overlook the undesirable impact of some of the promises and offers on the conduct of free and fair elections and maintaining level playing field for all political parties and candidates.

The Constitution under Article 324 mandates the Election Commission, to conduct elections inter alia to the Parliament and the State Legislatures. Having due regard to the above directions of the Supreme Court and after consultation with the Political Parties, the Commission, in the interest of free and fair elections , hereby directs that Political Parties and Candidates while releasing election manifestos for any election to the Parliament or State Legislatures, shall adhere to the following guidelines :-

(i) The election manifesto shall not contain anything repugnant to the ideals and principles enshrined in the Constitution and further that it shall be consistent with the letter and spirit of other provisions of Model Code of Conduct.

(ii) The Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution enjoin upon the State to frame various welfare measures for the citizens and therefore there can be no objection to the promise of such welfare measures in election manifestos. However, political parties should avoid making those promises which are likely to vitiate the purity of the election process or exert undue influence on the voters in exercising their franchise.

(iii) In the interest of transparency, level playing field and credibility of promises, it is expected that manifestos also reflect the rationale for the promises and broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it. Trust of voters should be sought only on those promises which are possible to be fulfilled.

Prohibitory period of Release of Manifesto during elections(s)

(i) In case of single phase election, manifesto shall not be released during the prohibitory period, as prescribed under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(ii) In case of multi-phase elections, manifesto shall not be released during the prohibitory periods, as prescribed under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, of all the phases of those elections.”

The post Model Code Of Conduct Comes Into Force; What Does It Mean? EXPLAINED HERE appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

Beyonce’s dad Mathew Knowles writes a sweet note to Blue Ivy praising her “amazing determination” and calling her “a force to be reckoned with”

Sabir Ansary — Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:48:55 +0000

By Valeria Garcia for Dailymail.Com

Published: 9:40 PM EDT, March 14, 2024 | Updated: 9:42 PM EDT, March 14, 2024

Mathew Knowles, 72, wrote a beautiful tribute to his granddaughter Blue Ivy on Instagram, cheering her on for her courage and spirit while dancing on Beyoncé’s concert tour.

The former Destiny’s Child manager posted a close-up photo of the 12-year-old on stage as she danced in a glittering camouflage costume.

Her hair was done up while she wore natural makeup that made her eyebrows and pout pop and look like the spitting image of her famous mother.

His message served as hope and inspiration for the young dancer as she expanded her horizons and exploded in the industry.

The lengthy post proved a hit as fans wrote: “The Beehive is super proud of you Blue Blue,” referencing her mother’s fandom.

Mathew Knowles, 72, took to Instagram to write a sweet tribute to his granddaughter Blue Ivy as she dances at Beyoncé’s concert tour

“Dear Blue Ivy, I remember coming back to the stage in London before the concert and asking about you. Beyoncé replied, “She’s over there rehearsing” and then I understood why, because one of your friends had reacted negatively to your first performance on the tour. At that moment I was so proud that you wanted to do your best to get better. Knowles started.

“I want to take a moment to appreciate the amazing determination and willingness to learn that you have shown. Your enthusiasm for life and your eagerness to gain knowledge and new experiences are truly inspiring. You have already shown the world that you are a force to be reckoned with, and I have no doubt that one day you will continue to amaze us all.”

“It is clear that you have an extraordinary Knowles spirit, and I am confident that you will find your true passion in life,” he continued. have the courage to pursue it with all your heart. Whatever path you choose, I hope it brings you fulfillment, joy, and a deep sense of purpose.”

‘⁠I also want to encourage you to never be afraid to explore new opportunities. The world is full of endless possibilities, and I hope you are brave enough to step outside your comfort zone and seize the opportunities that come your way. Always be open to new experiences as they have the potential to broaden your horizons and lead you into unknown areas.

“Blue Ivy, I hope you can continue to embrace life with the same determination and willingness to learn that you possess now. Your journey has only just begun and I have no doubt that you will leave a lasting mark on the world. Chase your dreams, follow your heart and always believe in the extraordinary potential that lies within you,” he ended.

The post comes as Beyonce recently revealed that Cowboy Carter will be the name of her upcoming country album.

Blue Ivy was a backup dancer on her mother’s record-breaking Renaissance World Tour to promote her eponymous, four-time Grammy-winning, Billboard 200-topping LP.

The Grammy winner tried to improve her performance after making her debut during the Paris stop of the tour, dancing to My Power and Black Parade at almost all stops on the North American leg of the tour.

Renaissance: A Film by Beyoncé followed the artist as she performed during her historic tour. During the film, Beyoncé talks about how she was initially hesitant to let Blue dance with her, but later realized how dedicated and hardworking her daughter was to improve every time she performed.

“I would like to take a moment to appreciate the amazing determination and willingness to learn that you have shown… your enthusiasm for life and your eagerness to gain knowledge and new experiences is truly inspiring,” Mathew wrote

The Grammy winner tried to improve her performance after making her debut during the tour stop in Paris

Beyonce’s eighth studio album is scheduled for March 29 and already contains two songs: Texas Hold ‘Em and 16 Carriages.

She announced her latest project during her Super Bowl commercial collaborating with Verizon Wireless.

It will be a country album, as she plans to return to her Texas roots and embrace this new style of music.

The post Beyonce’s dad Mathew Knowles writes a sweet note to Blue Ivy praising her “amazing determination” and calling her “a force to be reckoned with” appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

The change in waste collection will force millions of people to pay to have their waste collected

Jeffrey Bailey — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:33:35 +0000

A HUGE change to waste collection will see millions of Brits forced to pay £40 to have their rubbish collected.

Residents living in a dozen council areas have been left furious by the change in the collection of brown garden waste.

Brits across the country could pay tens of dollars to have their garden boxes collectedCredit: Getty

According to reports, councils will charge an annual fee for the fortnightly collection of brown-lidded bins.

A £40 charge will be introduced in Nuneaton and Bedworth, Stoke on Trent, Coventry, North Northamptonshire, Renfrewshire and Chesterfield from April 2024.

In other areas the price is set to rise significantly, with residents of Cheshire and Basildon expected to pay between £50 and £56.

Meanwhile, New Forest District Councils will spend £65 and Barnet residents will spend as much as £70 – which could rise to £97.

The decision is part of a plan that will require residents to pay a one-off fee to have their trash bins collected.

Participants will receive a trash can sticker indicating their participation, while those who opt out will have their trash cans returned, the council confirmed.

This move means Brits will have to find alternatives for their garden waste.

However, it has sparked anger among many residents who rejected the ‘terrible’ decision.

A Coventry resident asked: ‘Why do we pay council tax? I mean, as far as I’m concerned, emptying my waste bins is the only thing I get from the municipality anyway.”

Another said: “Horrible. We pay enough to Coventry City Council and should not have to pay for bins to be emptied.”

A third added: “I think we pay enough.”

We have been ‘absolutely devastated’ and left homeless after spending £500,000 trying to get our neighbor to move his BINS

A fourth wrote: “I’m disappointed to hear about plans to introduce charges for garden waste collection in April 2024. Residents deserve transparency and fair treatment.”

Coventry City Council said the decision approved last year is an attempt to ease financial pressure and curb skyrocketing spending.

According to the local authority, this year’s expenditure will be more than £867.8 million.

A statement from Coventry City Council said: “Councils are required by law to adopt a balanced budget every year. We were already aware that there was serious funding pressure.

“We had to take a good look at our services and identified areas where we needed to make cuts. Although these are difficult decisions for our organization, we want to be as open and transparent about them as possible.”

Is your municipality affected?

COUNCILS across the UK have confirmed a new wave of annual bin charges for garden waste collections.

Cannock Chase Council: £38.50 charge from April 2024

Nuneaton and Bedworth Council: £40 charge

Stoke-on-Trent Council: charge £40 from April 2024

Coventry Council: charge £40 from April 2024

Derby City Council: charge £40 from April 2024

Renfrewshire Council: £40 charge

Chesterfield Council: charge £40 from April 2024

North Northamptonshire Council: charge £40 – will increase to £45.6 from April 2024

Basildon Council: charge £50 from April 2024

Cheshire Council: £56 charge from April 2024

New Forest District Council: £65 charge from April 2024

Barnet Council: charged £70 – with proposals to increase the cost to £97

In Stoke-on-Trent, local residents will also see the annual £40 charge for garden waste collections from April 1.

But households will also have to pay an additional 4 percent increase in municipal taxes tax.

The authority said it is not legally required to collect garden waste for free, and that around 70 per cent of councils charge for this.

Councilor Amjid Wazir said: “Not everyone needs or uses the garden waste service.”

He added that the £40 annual contribution could be shared with neighbors to reduce the impact of the costs as some are “facing significant financial difficulties”.

The levy has been in place for years in North Yorkshire, where residents pay £46.50.

In North East Derbyshire, the council has confirmed that residents will have to pay extra costs for an extra green bin from the start of April.

A council spokesperson told The Sun Online: “North East Derbyshire District Council does not charge for green waste, everyone receives this service.

“For those who may have a greater need than the one free green bin, they can opt for an extra green bin that comes on top of the free waste bin for everyone. For this, there is [and] From April 1, a surcharge of £40 will apply.

“They can purchase up to three additional green bins in addition to the waste bin that can be collected free of charge by our waste service.”

In Basildon and Cheshire the charge could rise to around £50, while Cannock residents will pay £38.50.

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the wave of charges is not part of the Simpler Recycling reforms due to be implemented from 2026.

A spokesperson for Defra said: “Any decision to charge for garden waste collection is a matter for the individual local authorities.”

It comes as Glasgow residents pay £50 for a garden now waste permit.

Angry local residents have outraged the municipality about this measure. Many claim they were only notified two weeks before the change.

What are different types of containers used for:

Black rubbish bins/recycling bins: For general waste that cannot be recycled or composted.

Blue recycling bins: To collect ‘dry’ recyclables – including paper, boxes, cans and cans.

Red recycling bins: For plastics, although many municipalities allow you to collect plastics in your ‘dry’ recycling bin, whatever color it is.

However, some plastic items cannot be recycled and must be thrown away in the black bin. This includes plastic carrier bags, packaging, hard plastics and Styrofoam.

Brown recycling bins: For mixed recyclables including plastic bottles, food cans, beverage cans, aerosol cans, aluminum foil and glass bottles and jars.

Green recycling bins: To collect recyclable glass, such as glass bottles and jars.

Yellow recycling bins: For collecting textiles such as clothing, bedding and towels.

Gray recycling bins: For general household waste or for dry recyclables such as paper and food cans or mixed recyclable waste.

Purple recycling bins: In Liverpool they are used for general household waste, food waste and pet food, while in Ayrshire purple recycling bins are reserved for recyclables such as glass, plastic, cans and boxes.

The post The change in waste collection will force millions of people to pay to have their waste collected appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

Dispute between hospital and insurer could force thousands to change doctors

Sabir Ansary — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:21:19 +0000

Stalled contract negotiations between UnitedHealthcare, the health insurer, and Mount Sinai Health System, a leading hospital system in New York City, are forcing tens of thousands of New Yorkers to switch doctors or risk paying out-of-network prices.

The impasse has been dragging on for months. Mount Sinai has tried to raise prices significantly, but the insurance company has refused to agree to pay the new proposed rates. As a result, Mount Sinai hospitals are now out of network for patients insured by UnitedHealthcare of Oxford, subsidiaries of the same company.

But the issue is about to become even more pressing for many patients, as many Mount Sinai-affiliated physicians — in addition to the hospitals themselves — will be removed from UnitedHealthcare’s network starting March 22. That means United patients on employer-sponsored or individual plans will be charged out-of-network rates when they see a Mount Sinai-affiliated physician in a doctor’s office.

The negotiations have caused many patients to look for new doctors. UnitedHealthcare says about 80,000 patients at Mount Sinai are affected.

What happened?

The dispute between the insurance giant and the hospital system is a rare example where health care contract negotiations have entered the public spotlight.

Mount Sinai tried to negotiate better rates with UnitedHealthcare, demanding that the insurance giant pay the hospital more for doctor visits and hospital stays. United claims Mount Sinai asked for fare increases approximately 58 percent in the next four years.

Mount Sinai says it requested a significant increase because it recently learned that UnitedHealthcare paid Mount Sinai significantly less per medical procedure than other top hospitals in New York City.

Mount Sinai estimates that another hospital system, NewYork-Presbyterian, receives about 40 percent more from UnitedHealthcare than Mount Sinai for common procedures.

Hospitals and health insurers negotiate rates individually within the network. Prices were often treated as secret, and hospital administrators often had only a vague idea of what insurance companies were paying their competitors for similar care. But that has changed due to recent legislation that required hospitals to publish information about rates.

“It’s something we thought about for years by talking to colleagues from other institutions, but we were able to prove it in 2023 thanks to the new transparency laws,” said an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mount Sinai, Dr. Alan Adler, who was involved. in negotiations with United.

That set the stage for the current dispute: Mount Sinai wanted United to pay them more in line with the competition, while United wanted to keep costs low. It mentions the hospital network requirements “bizarre.”.

In a statement, UnitedHealthcare said the two sides were in “active discussions” and that it had “provided the health care system with multiple proposals that include meaningful rate increases that will ensure they continue to be reimbursed at market rates.”

Brent Estes, a senior vice president at Mount Sinai, said United “offered us virtually nothing more than the previous contract.”

“Unfortunately,” he added, “we are bracing for our physicians to be out of network.”

What consequences can patients experience?

Doctors say the situation is particularly stressful and confusing for New Yorkers receiving cancer care at Mount Sinai or who were planning to give birth there. While such patients may be eligible to stay with their doctor without paying more, getting clear answers is difficult.

For example, a pregnant woman received a letter from UnitedHealthcare last month stating that she would still be eligible for in-network at Mount Sinai when it came time to deliver her baby. But the letter, provided to The Times by a Mount Sinai employee with the patient’s name redacted, stated that in-network coverage had been approved in April for a three-day period — apparently corresponding to her due date — and only concerned ‘routine problems’. obstetric care” and a vaginal delivery.

The letter said nothing about what would happen if she went into premature labor or needed a caesarean section. A UnitedHealthcare spokesman, Cole Manbeck, said some of the insurance company’s automated letters “may have caused a little confusion.” But Mr Manbeck said United had made phone contact to clarify that delivery would be covered regardless of date or method.

Many other hospitals in New York City remain within UnitedHealthcare’s networks, including NewYork-Presbyterian, the city’s largest private hospital system.

Chris Pope, a health care policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the insurer likely had the upper hand in the negotiations because United patients could simply move their care to other health care systems, leaving Mount Sinai with much less income was left behind. said.

“United can walk away from Sinai much more easily than Sinai can without United,” he said. “So Mount Sinai will be in big trouble if United doesn’t ultimately agree to allow patients to go there again.”

The post Dispute between hospital and insurer could force thousands to change doctors appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

TikTok’s CEO claims the social media giant is free from ‘manipulation’ by communist Beijing after House vote – as Biden administration urges Senate to act quickly to force app to split of Chinese owners

Albert Elence — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:32:55 +0000

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew responded — in the form of a TikTok clip — after the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a legislature that could ban the platform in the United States.

The House voted 352-65 on Wednesday, with representatives from both sides of the aisle joining together to pass the bill. It now heads to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future.

Politicians have long raised concerns about TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, which is headquartered in Beijing and is believed to have ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

President Joe Biden has pledged to sign the bill, which would force ByteDance to sell TikTok within six months or be banned from app stores and web hosting services.

Chew, 41, released a video on the official TikTok account on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday evening. The CEO introduced himself by his first name before beginning his prepared remarks.

“I just wanted to share some thoughts with our US users on the disappointing vote in the House of Representatives,” he said. “There has been a lot of misinformation and I hope to clear some things up.”

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew released a video response on Wednesday following a vote in the US House of Representatives on a bill that would ban the platform in the United States

Politicians have repeatedly raised concerns about TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, which is headquartered in Beijing and believed to have ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

TikTok has repeatedly denied sharing US user data with Chinese authorities and insists it will not do so even if asked

He thanked the platform’s 1.7 billion-member community for “making (their) voices heard.” As of March 2023, there were at least 150 million users based in the United States, although that number is now estimated at around 170 million.

‘Over the past years we have invested in keeping your data safe and our platform free from outside manipulation. We have committed to that and we will continue to do so,” Chew continued.

Whistleblowers within the company, most notably former ByteDance employee Yintao Yu, have previously raised alarms about its lax data privacy.

Yu, who served as head of engineering for ByteDance’s U.S. operations between August 2017 and November 2018, sued the company in May 2023.

In the complaint, he alleged that a group of CCP members nicknamed “The Committee” was installed in offices in Beijing and could view all data collected by the company, including data from the United States.

In 2022, TikTok announced Project Texas, an unprecedented initiative to store all US user data on servers in the country.

In June of that year, the platform reported that all US user traffic was being redirected to its cloud infrastructure in the United States.

TikTok also announced that it would also delete “historically protected user data” in data centers in both Virginia and Singapore.

President Joe Biden has pledged to sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk, forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok within six months or face ban in the country.

In Wednesday’s video message, Chew said he hoped to clear up “misinformation.”

Lawmakers and intelligence officials have spoken out about concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data.

Their fears are fueled by a series of Chinese national security laws that force organizations to comply with intelligence gathering practices.

TikTok has repeatedly denied the sharing US user data to Chinese authorities and insists they will not do so even if asked.

FBI Director Christopher Wray appealed to members of the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, calling the CCP “the defining threat of our generation.”

“Americans need to ask themselves whether they want to give the Chinese government the ability to control access to their data, whether they want to give the Chinese government the ability to control the information they get through the recommendation algorithm,” he said.

Last year, researchers at Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute assessed a “strong possibility” that TikTok promotes and demotes certain topics based on the Chinese government’s preferences.

The researchers suspected that the algorithm manipulated discourse not only on topics specific to China, but also on strategically important topics such as the wars in it Ukraine and Israel.

The focus of Wednesday’s vote, called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, is not the first attempt to ban the app in the United States.

Former President Donald Trump tried to ban the video-sharing platform through an executive order in 2020. This attempt failed after TikTok filed a lawsuit and was ultimately blocked by the courts.

The 41-year-old said TikTok is committed to keeping user data “safe” and the platform “against outside manipulation”

The CEO urged the platform’s 170 million U.S. users to “keep sharing your voice,” including with their senators

“This legislation, if signed into law, will lead to a ban on TikTok in the United States,” Chew said in the message on Wednesday. “Even the bill’s sponsors admit this is their goal.”

He added that the bill “gives more power to a handful of other social media companies,” but did not mention them by name.

“It will also take billions of dollars out of the pockets of makers and small businesses,” Chew continued. “It will put more than 300,000 American jobs at risk and it will take away your TikTok.”

Addressing the users themselves, he continued: “We will not stop advocating for you and we will continue to do everything we can, including exercising our legal rights, to build this great platform that we have together with you built, to protect.’

He ended the video by urging users to continue sharing their voices with those around them, including their senators.

Chew and executives from other tech companies such as Meta and Snap testified before U.S. lawmakers last month on the topic of online child safety.

During the hearing, Chew was questioned about his nationality and possible connections to the CCP by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas.

“You said today, as you often say, that you live in Singapore. Of which country are you a citizen?’ Cotton asked.

Chew repeatedly confirmed that he was Singaporean, even referring to his mandatory two-year service in the country’s military.

When Cotton Chew even asked if he was a member of the CCP, the CEO replied, “Senator, I am Singaporean. No.’

Advocates and content creators gathered at the Capitol ahead of Wednesday’s vote

If the bill were to pass the Senate and be signed into law, TikTok would lose a substantial portion of its advertising market.

A 2022 study from the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health found that the app generated $2 billion in ad revenue from users aged 13 to 17 in the United States alone.

Although the bill received overwhelming support during Wednesday’s vote, critics were quick to voice their opposition.

Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat, denounced the Legislature as “bad policy” in a tweet.

“We need to create real standards and regulations around privacy violations at social media companies — not target platforms we don’t like,” she wrote.

Advocates and content creators flocked to the Capitol ahead of the vote. Some held signs that read, “TikTok has changed my life for the better.”

TikTok itself also issued a statement opposing the vote.

“This process was secret and the bill was blocked for one reason: it is a ban,” spokesman Alex Haurek said in a statement.

“We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents and realize the impact on the economy, on seven million small businesses and on the 170 million Americans who use our service.”

The post TikTok’s CEO claims the social media giant is free from ‘manipulation’ by communist Beijing after House vote – as Biden administration urges Senate to act quickly to force app to split of Chinese owners appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

TikTok faces a US ban as the House of Representatives votes on a bill that would force the app to split from China-backed owner ByteDance, despite opposition from Trump and Elon Musk

Albert Elence — Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:20:24 +0000

TikTok is facing a ban in the United States after Congress voted overwhelmingly to force the app’s Chinese parent company to divest.

The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 352 to 65 on Wednesday morning, despite calls from Donald Trump and Elon Musk to oppose the bill.

Now senators will decide whether the national security threat TikTok poses is worth the headaches of voters who love the app, and they have been calling lawmakers nonstop urging them to vote against the measure.

The House China Select Committee says Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials through ByteDance are using TikTok to spy on the locations of US users and dictate its algorithm to carry out influence campaigns, making it a national security threat.

ByteDance would have five months after signing the law to get rid of TikTok. If not, app stores and web hosting platforms are not allowed to distribute it in the US

The bill has a good chance of becoming law as a bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed the bill and Joe Biden confirmed he would sign it if it also passes the Senate.

But as the bill has gained momentum, so has the opposition. Trump threw cold water on it last week, insisting that if TikTok were banned, its rival Facebook would “double their revenue.”

“I don’t want Facebook, which cheated in the last election, to do better,” Trump wrote in a social media post. ‘They are a real enemy of the people!’

TikTok sent this notice to users Tuesday morning, asking them to contact their lawmakers to let them know if they support the TikTok bill

Lawmakers accused TikTok of providing its US user data to Chinese parent company ByteDance, which they say has ties to the Chinese Communist Party

Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk has spoken out against the TikTok law, claiming it could be used as a form of government oppression

Elon Musk joined Trump in opposing efforts to control TikTok’s influence, calling it government censorship, in a post on X Tuesday.

‘This law isn’t just about TikTok, it’s about censorship and government control! If it were just about TikTok, it would only mention ‘foreign control’ as an issue, but that’s not the case,” Musk said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also voted against the bill, mentioning Musk by name, praising him for restoring her account on

“What’s to stop the U.S. government from forcing the sale of another social media company in the future that claims to protect U.S. data from foreign adversaries?”

‘I think this bill could cause future problems. It opens Pandora’s box and I am against this bill,” Greene said in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

“This is really about controlling US data, and if we cared about US data, we would stop the sale of US data universally, not just to China.”

But the bill’s author, Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., backtracked that Wednesday morning.

“TikTok is a threat to our national security because it is owned by ByteDance, which is doing the bidding of the Communist Party,” Gallagher said on the floor.

“This bill therefore forces TikTok to break up with the Chinese Communist Party. It does not apply to American companies.’

Gallagher argued that his bill would only affect companies controlled by foreign adversaries.

Greene was among several key Republican members who voted against the bill, including Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Tom McClintock, R-Calif., Nancy Mace, R-S.C., and more .

Across the aisle, “Squad” members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., also voted against the measure.

One lawmaker, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, voted present.

TikTok opposed the “ban” in a statement released after the House passed the bill.

‘This process was secret and the bill was blocked for one reason: it is a ban. We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents and realize the impact on the economy, on seven million small businesses and on the 170 million Americans who use our service.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said the bill could be akin to opening “Pandora’s Box” and that the measure’s future implications are unknown.

TikTok advocates gathered outside the Capitol to oppose the bill ahead of Wednesday’s vote

Some of the advocates who came to the Capitol on Wednesday were TikTok content creators

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said in a statement that the vote “demonstrates Congress’s opposition to communist China’s efforts to spy on and manipulate Americans and signals our resolve to defeat our enemies.” to be frightened.’

“I urge the Senate to pass this bill and send it to the President so he can sign it into law,” he continued.

In response to the growing support behind the bill, TikTok sent a push notification to its 100 million users yesterday saying, “Your voice matters in ending the lockdown.”

The notification prompted users to contact their member of Congress to urge them to vote against the proposed bill.

As a result, congressional offices received hundreds of calls about the bill Tuesday and Wednesday morning, congressional aides told DailyMail.com.

Many callers appeared to be children or concerned parents pleading for the app not to be banned.

Users are told that the bill threatens TikTok’s survival, but what it actually does is force the parent company to divest — something callers are largely in favor of once employees explain the bill’s nuance.

“TikTok’s campaign to have users call their representatives shows how much control they have. This campaign is reminiscent of typical Communist Party tactics,” Rep. Greg Murphy, R-NC, said in a statement to DailyMail.com on Tuesday.

“Unfortunately, these callers don’t understand what they are really advocating: they are following orders from Beijing. The CCP hopes to copy its modus operandi of telling its citizens what to do.”

His office phones ‘exploded’ according to staff. Murphy voted in favor of the bill on Wednesday.

Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., told DailyMail.com that he is in favor of the bill and despite the flood of calls: “We will talk to any voter who wants to call us and talk to us through this avenue.”

“We explain our position, and it is a normal part of the process,” he said.

Rep. John Duarte, R-Calif., told DailyMail.com that while he doesn’t yet know how he will vote on the bill, “he won’t because 16-year-olds are calling me from all over the country.”

The bill passed the committee last week on a unanimous 50-0 vote.

In a statement, TikTok said of the bill’s passage through committee: “This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban on TikTok in the United States. The government is trying to deprive 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free speech. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”

TikTok sent this notice to users last week after the bill was introduced

Lawmakers have also expressed reservations about how the TikTok bill could affect First Amendment protections.

“I think it’s a terrible idea and it’s the hysteria that’s sweeping through both parties now.” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told DailyMail.com on Friday.

“In America, we don’t just tell people that you can’t have a business because we don’t like you. And 150 million people are using their First Amendment freedom to express themselves on TikTok, and you can’t just take that away from them.”

Fellow Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie agreed.

‘The so-called TikTok ban is a Trojan horse. The president will have the power to ban websites, not just apps,” he wrote on X.

The post TikTok faces a US ban as the House of Representatives votes on a bill that would force the app to split from China-backed owner ByteDance, despite opposition from Trump and Elon Musk appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban app

Sabir Ansary — Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:48:10 +0000

The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill with broad bipartisan support that would force TikTok’s Chinese owner to sell the wildly popular video app or face it being banned in the United States. The move escalates a standoff between Beijing and Washington over control of technologies that could affect national security, freedom of expression and the social media industry.

Republican leaders quickly moved the bill through the House of Representatives with limited debate, passing it on a 352-65 vote, reflecting broad support for legislation that would directly target China in an election year.

The action came despite TikTok’s efforts to mobilize its 170 million U.S. users against the measure, and despite pressure from the Biden administration to convince lawmakers that Chinese ownership of the platform poses serious national security risks to the United States brings.

The result was a bipartisan coalition behind the measure, including Republicans, who defied former President Donald J. Trump by supporting it, and Democrats, who also backed a bill that President Biden said he would sign.

The bill faces a difficult path to passage in the Senate, where Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has been noncommittal about bringing it to a vote and where some lawmakers have vowed to fight it.

TikTok has been under threat since 2020, with lawmakers increasingly claiming that Beijing’s relationship with TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, poses national security risks. The bill aims to let ByteDance sell TikTok to non-Chinese owners within six months. The president would sign the sale if it would solve national security problems. If those sales didn’t happen, the app would be banned.

Representative Mike Gallagher, the Wisconsin Republican who is among the lawmakers leading the bill, said before the floor vote that it “forces TikTok to break up with the Chinese Communist Party.”

“This is a common sense measure to protect our national security,” he said.

If the bill were to become law, it would likely deepen a cold war between the United States and China over control of key technologies.

On Wednesday, before the vote in the House of Representatives, Beijing condemned pressure from US lawmakers and rejected that TikTok was a danger to the United States. At a daily press conference, Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, accused Washington of “resorting to hegemonic moves when it cannot succeed in fair competition.”

Mr. Biden has announced restrictions on how U.S. financial firms can invest in Chinese companies and has restricted the sale of Americans’ sensitive data, such as location and health information, to data brokers that could sell it to China. Platforms such as Facebook and YouTube are blocked in China and Beijing said last year it would oppose the sale of TikTok.

TikTok has said it has gone to great lengths to protect U.S. user data and provide third-party oversight of the platform, and that no government can influence the company’s recommendation model. It has also said there is no evidence that Beijing used TikTok to obtain US user data or influence Americans’ views, two of the claims lawmakers have made.

TikTok urged users last week to call their representatives to protest the bill, in an unusually aggressive move for a tech company. They said: “This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban on TikTok in the United States.”

TikTok has spent more than $1 billion on an elaborate scheme known as Project Texas, which aims to process sensitive U.S. user data separately from the rest of the company’s operations. That plan has been under review for several years by a panel known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS.

Two of the lawmakers behind the bill, Mr. Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, said last week that lawmakers acted because CFIUS “has not solved the problem.”

Some experts said that if the bill were to become law, it would likely face First Amendment scrutiny in courts.

“The legal issues will require the production of factual evidence, and that evidence will be weighed against free speech concerns,” said Matt Perault, director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which is funding has received. from technology companies, including TikTok and Meta.

He added: “That process looks very different from stamping out things in the political process and op-eds.”

There’s also a chance that even if the bill were to clear Congress, be signed into law, and survive the lawsuits, it could crumble under a new administration. Mr. Trump, who tried to ban TikTok or force its sale in 2020, publicly reversed his position on the app in the past week. In a television appearance on Monday, he said the app was a threat to national security. But he said banning Facebook, a platform he criticized, would help.

“There are a lot of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without TikTok,” he said.

The Trump administration threatened to remove TikTok from US app stores if ByteDance did not sell its stake in the app. ByteDance even appeared willing to sell a stake in the app to Walmart and Oracle, where executives were close to Mr. Trump.

That plan backfired in federal court. Multiple judges have prevented Trump’s proposed ban from taking effect.

Mr. Biden’s administration has tried to find a legislative solution. The White House provided “technical assistance” to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Krishnamoorthi as they wrote their bill, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said at a briefing last week. When the bill was introduced, a spokesperson for the National Security Council quickly called the legislation “an important and welcome step to address the threat of technology that compromises Americans’ sensitive data.”

The administration has repeatedly sent national security officials to Capitol Hill to privately defend the legislation and issue dire warnings about the risks of TikTok’s current ownership. The White House briefed lawmakers before the committee’s 50-0 vote last week sending the bill to the full House.

On Tuesday, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department spoke to lawmakers in a classified briefing about national security concerns related to TikTok.

Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Krishnamoorthi had previously sponsored a bill to ban TikTok. The latest bill was seen as something of a last stand against the corporation for Mr. Gallagher, who recently said he would not run for a fifth term because “the framers intended for citizens to serve in Congress for a season and then would return to their private lives. lives.”

The post House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban app appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

China condemns the US proposal to force the sale of TikTok

Sabir Ansary — Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:28:51 +0000

China on Wednesday condemned US lawmakers’ attempts to force its Chinese parent company to exit the economy TikTok to sell the popular short video platform.

In Washington, House lawmakers were expected to vote later in the day on a bill that would require Chinese internet company ByteDance to cut ties with TikTok or face a nationwide ban. Lawmakers say Beijing could use TikTok to spread messages from the Chinese Communist Party or access sensitive data about TikTok’s U.S. users.

Beijing dismissed concerns that the app would pose a danger to the United States.

“Although the United States has never found any evidence that TikTok poses a threat to US national security in recent years, it has never stopped going after TikTok,” Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said at a daily press conference.

China has resisted previous attempts in the United States to force ByteDance to give up TikTok.

The passion over the House of Representatives bill is the latest episode in a years-long saga about the future of the app in the United States.

TikTok, the global version of ByteDance’s popular Chinese social media app Douyin, has 170 million users in the United States. TikTok’s influence, especially among young people, has become inescapable. President Biden’s re-election campaign has used it to reach voters.

Mr. Wang accused Washington of “resorting to hegemonic moves when it could not succeed in fair competition.”

The surveillance of TikTok was disrupting global business, sowing distrust among investors in the United States and would “ultimately backfire on the U.S. itself,” he said.

The House bill has bipartisan support, underscoring lawmakers’ willingness to take tough action on China even as the country faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Mr. Biden said Friday that he would sign the bill if it were passed by Congress.

Former President Donald J. Trump has spoken out against the bill, despite once issuing an executive order of his own proposing a forced sale of the app.

Last year, Beijing said it would strongly oppose the forced sale of the platform, hours before TikTok CEO Shou Chew was scheduled to testify before Congress. China’s Ministry of Commerce said at the time that the Chinese government would have to sign off on such a sale.

In 2020, Beijing updated its export rules with technology similar to the algorithm TikTok uses to recommend videos to its users. Bids from US companies, including Microsoft and Oracle, to acquire TikTok’s US operations were ultimately shelved.

The post China condemns the US proposal to force the sale of TikTok appeared first on USMAIL24.COM.

force – USMAIL24.COM

How Biden might try to force Israel to change its war strategy

Shipments of weapons

The diplomatic shield

Sanctions

What is anti-Semitism? A Columbia Task Force would rather not say.

Model Code Of Conduct Comes Into Force; What Does It Mean? EXPLAINED HERE

MCC lays down a list of dos and don’ts ahead of the elections, during the elections, and till the final results are announced.

The broader areas covered by the MCC are:

General Conduct

Meetings

Procession

Polling Day

All Political parties and candidates shall:

Polling Booth

Party in Power

From the time elections are announced by Commission, Ministers and other authorities shall not:

Guidelines on Election Manifestos

Prohibitory period of Release of Manifesto during elections(s)

Beyonce’s dad Mathew Knowles writes a sweet note to Blue Ivy praising her “amazing determination” and calling her “a force to be reckoned with”

Share or comment on this article: Beyonce’s father Mathew Knowles writes a sweet note to Blue Ivy praising her ‘amazing determination’ and calling her ‘a force to be reckoned with’

The change in waste collection will force millions of people to pay to have their waste collected

Is your municipality affected?

What are different types of containers used for:

Dispute between hospital and insurer could force thousands to change doctors

What happened?

What consequences can patients experience?

TikTok’s CEO claims the social media giant is free from ‘manipulation’ by communist Beijing after House vote – as Biden administration urges Senate to act quickly to force app to split of Chinese owners

TikTok faces a US ban as the House of Representatives votes on a bill that would force the app to split from China-backed owner ByteDance, despite opposition from Trump and Elon Musk

House passes bill to force TikTok sale from Chinese owner or ban app

China condemns the US proposal to force the sale of TikTok