Democrat California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), the woman who has led the #MeToo charge against sexual harassment in the Golden State, is herself the subject of an investigation into her alleged sexual harassment and groping of a former male legislative aide.

Daniel Fierro of Cerritos told Politico that when he was a 25-year-old staffer to Assemblyman Ian Calderon (D-Whittier) in 2014, an inebriated Garcia cornered him while he was alone after the annual Assembly softball game in Sacramento. She reportedly began stroking his back, then squeezed his buttocks and attempted to touch his crotch before he removed himself from the situation.

Politico notes that a prominent Sacramento lobbyist — who spoke on condition of anonymity — also complained about being sexually harassed by Garcia in May 2017. Garcia allegedly tried to grab his crotch at a political fundraiser hosted by Governor Jerry Brown for state Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) at the de Veres bar in Sacramento. Garcia was allegedly inebriated.

Politico reports:

She spotted him and said,”Where are you going?” the lobbyist said.

“She came back and was whispering real close, and I could smell the booze and see she was pretty far gone,” he said. “She looked at me for a second and said, ‘I’ve set a goal for myself to fuck you.”

At that point, Garcia “stepped in front of me and reaches out and is grabbing for my crotch,” he said. That was “the line in the sand,” according to the lobbyist, and he stopped her. “I was four inches from her, eyeball to eyeball — and I said, ‘That ain’t gonna happen.’”

Ironically, Garcia told the New York Times that she was a victim of sexual harassment by men in the Capitol saying, “Multiple people have grabbed my butt and grabbed my breasts . . . We’re talking about senior lobbyists and lawmakers.”

In a statement to Politico on Thursday, Garcia said she had “zero recollection” of the alleged events:

Every complaint about sexual harassment should be taken seriously, and I will participate fully in any investigation that takes place. The details of these claims have never been brought to my attention until today. I can confirm that I did attend the 2014 legislative softball game with a number of members and my staff. I can also say I have zero recollection of engaging in inappropriate behavior and such behavior is inconsistent with my values.

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

A former Alabama teacher who was imprisoned after pleading guilty to having sex with two teens is appealing her conviction because she believes prohibiting sex with minors is “unconstitutional.”

The Daily Mail reported that Charli Jones Parker, 31, is appealing her conviction after a judge sentenced her to 12 years in prison in August for having sex with two of her 16-year-old male students.

As part of her guilty plea, however, the judge agreed that she would only serve three years of her sentence and five years of probation.

Parker, who taught at the private Christian school Pickens Academy in Carrolton, is arguing through her attorneys that a state law establishing criminal penalties for student-teacher sex is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.

Her lawyers say that the current state law treats teachers differently than other professions and criminalizes “private consensual relationships,” although Alabama’s age of consent is 16, the Tuscaloosa News reported.

“Alabama law does not make it a crime for members of other occupations to have consensual sex with 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds, even when there is a position of trust or authority,” said Parker’s attorney Virginia Buck. “School employees have been unfairly singled out and are being sent to prison for something that, at most, might cost people their job or their license in any other profession.”

Authorities arrested Parker in 2016 and charged her with 13 counts of having a sexual relationship “with a student under the age of 19.”

Parker is accused of having sex with one of the students 11 times between October 2014 and March 2016 in a graveyard and at her home. She was also accused of having sex with another 16-year-old student at his home in June 2016.

Because the age of consent varies from state-to-state, some teachers have been accused of having sexual relationships with students as old as 18 years old.

A 22-year-old student teacher at Conard High School in West Hartford, Connecticut, was charged this week with sexual assault for allegedly having a consensual sexual relationship with an 18-year-old male student.

A still-grieving mother whose teenage son died at the hands of a criminal alien in 2010 excoriated House Minority Nancy Pelosi this week for wasting eight hours of Congress’ time Thursday delivering a spiel on the House floor in honor of illegal immigrants like the one who murdered her son.

“I think I can speak for all angel parents that would say, you know, we wish you would do a shut-up-a-thon,” angel mom Laura Wilkerson said Thursday evening on Fox News, directing her ire at Pelosi. “You know, she just wasted her time, everybody’s time yesterday. She doesn’t seem to get it.”

Pelosi certainly does not. Instead of using the eight hours to speak on behalf of the American citizens who’ve lost family members to illegal immigrant murderers, the House minority leader waxed rhapsodic about illegals themselves, particularly those affected by former President Barack Obama’s since-repealed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

“Our DREAMers hang in limbo, with a cruel cloud of fear and uncertainty above them,” Pelosi bellowed from the House floor at the start of her speech, according to NPR. “The Republican moral cowardness must end. So I’m going to go on as long as my leadership minute allows.”

She reportedly continued by reading “read statements from people in the country illegally who were brought here as children.”

TRENDING: Millennial Uses Hunting Trap to One-Up the Tide Pod Challenge

I suspect that what most Americans find truly “cruel” is her indifference and apathy toward mothers like Ms. Wilkerson, whose tribulations she practically dismissed when the two came face-to-face during a town hall last year.

Listen to Wilkerson’s full Fox News interview below, or fast-forward to the 3:30 mark for her scathing “shut-up-a-thon” retort:

When Pelosi and Wilkerson met last year, the grieving mother described the excruciating details of her son’s murder and asked why Pelosi continues to support sanctuary city laws despite the preponderance of illegal immigrant crime.

“In 2010, one of the illegals slaughtered my son. He tortured him, he beat him, he tied him up like an animal, and he set him on fire. And I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day,” she said, as reported by RealClearPolitics.

“Because there are no laws enforcing the border. We have to start giving American families first. This is not — bad to not put Americans first. We have family that fought and died for this country. How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?”

RELATED: John McCain Joins Dems’ Dreamer Movement in Effort to Stop Trump’s Border Wall

Pelosi responded by defending illegal immigrants as “law-abiding citizens” and claiming that sanctuary city laws “enables them to, to be there without being reported to ICE in case of another crime that they might bear witness to.”

Listen to their back-and-forth exchange below:

If it wasn’t clear then just how little Pelosi cares for the victims of illegal immigrant crime, I hope it is clear by now.

Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about angel mother Laura Wilkerson’s tough words for Nancy Pelosi.

What do you think about Pelosi’s indifference toward the victims of illegal immigrant crime? Scroll down to comment below!

How comfortable are you in giving Google and other tech companies un-elected power of what goes on in your house? It’s a question that Tucker Carlson recently asked as a result of recently submitted Google patents.

On his Fox News show this week, Carlson showcased a series of Google patents that should make people think twice about what’s going inside of their homes.

In a monologue Monday night, Carlson described the potential spying power of the potentially patented systems, before beginning interviews with two experts in the field of “addiction” when it comes to electronic devices.

Check out the monologue in the first two minutes of the video here:

TRENDING: Man Kills Cellmate, Then Says “1 Less Child Molester on the Streets”

The first patent Carlson talks about is a camera that could be put inside your bedroom. Yes, you read that correctly; a camera in your bedroom.

According to a patent that was filed in September of 2016, the camera will read what is inside of a room and offer you advertising based on what it finds there.

The example Google gives is that a camera in your room would notice you have “The Godfather” book on your nightstand. As a result, it will suggest you watch or purchase the movie “The Godfather.”

Pretty creepy, huh? But that’s just one patent. Another patent that Carlson describes now moves into the realm of parenting. Because, let’s be honest, who doesn’t want Google to parent their kids, right?

Carlson says, “In another patent application from September 2016, Google imagines how it could take control of your parenting, your relationship with your children.”

He goes on to explain. “Google’s smart home system could detect children near a liquor cabinet for example, or in their parents bedroom, infer that ‘mischief is occurring’ and deliver a verbal warning,” he says.

Another example that Carlson cites involves proposed Google patent that describes a fictional child named Benjamin. Google would watch Benjamin as he plays, whether it be inside or outside. Based on Benjamin’s playing habits, Carlson said, Google could use that information to later suggest products to him “because that’s the whole point of Google.”

RELATED: Prisoners Get Free Tablets as Other Americans Work Fingers to the Bone to Make Ends Meet

There’s nothing that makes a parent feel more comfortable than knowing Google is watching your child play, right? But it gets worse.

Carlson also pointed out that Google said the same patent describes a device that could use the information gathered by the cameras to “coach” you in “areas of improvement.” For instance, Carlson said, if a family isn’t eating together enough, the device could “scold” them and tell them to start eating together more.

Congratulations. Big Brother just entered the building.

According to Carlson, Google’s response for the report was there’s nothing to worry about because they “file patent applications on a variety of ideas that our employees come up with. Some of those ideas later mature into real products or services, some don’t.”

In other words, as Carlson points out, what they are really saying is “Don’t worry, we’re not spying on you … yet. We just have a patent for it.”

The eerie key word is “yet.”

Please like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think of these patents by Google.

Do you think these patents cross a line? Scroll down to comment below!

A Yale-published study claiming to mirror Facebook’s new methodology for sorting “broadly trusted” news sources from partisan news inadvertently undermines its author’s own advocacy of the methodology by listing far-left sites Salon.com and HuffingtonPost as “mainstream” while packing its “hyper-partisan” category with right-of-center news sources.

Politico ran with the headline “GOP voters trust CNN, N.Y. Times over Breitbart, InfoWars.” A more accurate headline would have been “Single Working Paper With Questionable Methodology Shows GOP Voters Trust CNN Over Breitbart.” But that probably would have got them fewer clicks.

What the study actually shows, by the authors’ own admission, is that mainstream media sources are most likely to achieve a “broadly trusted” rating by surveyed subjects due to their name recognition, not due to the quality of their journalism.

In the study, the authors admit that if Facebook were to sort news on the basis of “trustworthiness” surveys, it would favor established, mainstream outlets and punish new media — because newer, unfamiliar sources are less likely to be trusted.

Given the apparent role of familiarity in judgments of trustworthiness, highly rigorous news sources that are less-well known (or that are new) are likely to receive low trust ratings – and thus will have difficulty gaining prominence on social media. Relatedly, it is unclear how the crowdsourcing approach will scale when trying to cover the massive number of outlets which produce news content online, many (perhaps most) of which will be unfamiliar to most raters.

Nevertheless, the authors of the study — one of whom recently retweeted a post calling the Nunes memo a “stunt” born from “right-wing fever swamps” that “recklessly breathe life into conspiracy theories.” — claim this is totally fine. In fact, they think Facebook doesn’t go far enough.

The problem, according to Rand, is that Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will only count users’ trust ratings for sites that they say they’ve heard of. In other words, if a user’s answer to the first question—do you recognize this website?—is no, their answer to the second question is thrown out.

Rand said that broad unfamiliarity with a site can be a good signal that it’s unreliable. After all, “fake news” is often peddled on URL’s that few would have ever heard of.

Such an approach would, by the authors’ own admission, favor established, recognizable news outlets and punish newer sites. That includes openly right-wing news sites like Breitbart News, but also anti-establishment voices of the left that are despised by the mainstream, like Glenn Greenwald’s The Intercept.

The authors also demonstrate their super-sound judgment and academic objectivity in their list of “mainstream” and “hyper-partisan” news sources.

The “hyper-partisan” list is dominated by right-of-center news outlets, as well as Heat Street, a now-defunct site that was opposed to the partisan left, but not necessarily in favor of the partisan right. Only 6 sites on the 20-strong list, Daily Kos, US Uncut, Palmer Report, New Century Times, True Activist and Dailynewsbin are unarguably of the partisan left.

Meanwhile, their list of “mainstream” news sources include the notoriously far-left Salon.com, and the Huffington Post, which Andrew Breitbart praised for being “openly and loudly and radically leftist” in contrast to actual “mainstream” publications like the New York Times that attempt to hide their bias.

To compile their list of “hyper-partisan” news sites, the authors relied on sources that are themselves partisan. One is a list from BuzzFeed news, known for its left-wing, anti-Trump coverage. BuzzFeed once banned a centrist vlogger from their platform for creating a quiz called “What Type Of Anti-Feminist Are You.” Another fun way to discern BuzzFeed’s bias is to do a search for all the times they’ve used “white male” in their headlines.

A second source was media professor Melissa Zimdars, who describes recent Fox News reporting as “propaganda,” and has listed Breitbart News, The Blaze, and Independent Journal Review (IJR) as “fake news sites.” The third and final source was an unnamed colleague of the authors.

The initial study also claimed that news sites listed in the “hyper-partisan” category have “no editorial norms.” In an email correspondence with Breitbart News, one of the authors, David Rand, admitted that this statement was off the mark.

“I guess rather than “no editorial norms,” what we meant was “weaker editorial norms,” particularly with respect to impartiality/non-politically-biased coverage” said Rand.

Rand has published an updated version of the study, which now says hyper-partisan sites have “weaker or non-existent” editorial norms compared to mainstream news. The new study also adds an asterisk next to Salon.com to acknowledge that the site might, in Rand’s words, “reasonably be considered hyper-partisan.”

The study’s findings are based on a sample of 1,011 people, with a median age of 36, 64.1% of whom were women, then the claim that GOP voters trust CNN over Breitbart is true. But the sample is inherently biased against conservative, pro-Trump politics. At the last election, female voters backed Hillary Clinton by 54 per cent to 42 per cent. The young median age of 36 is also a factor: in 2016, the 18-29 and 30-44 age demographics supported Clinton over Trump by wide margins.

If Facebook’s methodology for determining “broadly trusted” news sites is similar to that of this study, as its authors suggest, then it is likely to vastly inflate the “trustworthiness” rankings of mainstream news networks, many of which are the least trusted brands in America. A Gravis Marketing poll last year found that half of Americans believe that CNN does not provide objective news and analysis — a number which included 27.2 percent of Democratic respondents.

Although Facebook has said they will throw out the ratings of users who say they are unfamiliar with a news source, a spokesman confirmed to Politico that the social network will still take a source’s name recognition into account — although they would not reveal how.

“This is about getting feedback from people who use Facebook in order to improve quality — and fight clickbait, sensationalism, and misinformation” said the Facebook rep. “It’s not about stack-ranking news organizations. If a broad sample of people recognize a news organization and trust it, that’s a good thing. If they don’t recognize it or don’t trust it, that’s not as good.”

One thing that the study proves conclusively is that people are far less likely to trust sources they don’t recognize. If Facebook is judging sources by their name recognition, that’s good news for the establishment, and bad news for anyone who hoped the internet would create a truly open marketplace of ideas.

Breitbart News is currently listed by Alexa as the 53rd most popular website in America.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Contact him securely at allumbokhari@protonmail.com

First daughter Ivanka Trump has turned to conservatives to make a deal to pass a series of policies that are straight from the Democratic Party’s playbook, since she discovered that the Democrats are more focused on passing their own agenda than doing what is best for the country.

“I’m no longer surprised,” Ivanka Trump told USA Today about discovering first-hand the reality that Democrats would not work with her because they are more focused on passing their own agenda than doing what is best for the country. “I think that there are always people that will not move off of their talking points and then there are a lot of people who will,” Trump said. “You have to find the people who will; that’s how you build coalitions.”

According to USA Today:

Ivanka Trump showed up in Washington last year with a to-do list of policies straight from the Democratic Party playbook. The president’s daughter — a former Democratic donor — wanted the administration to tackle paid family leave, equal pay for women and affordable childcare.

She thought Democrats would join her in trying to move the agenda forward — after all, these were issues they had been championing for years and the president had just campaigned on some of them. But Democrats said her plan did not go far enough and while still discussing the issues with her, they have largely avoided teaming up with her. So the former businesswoman has turned to conservatives to try to make a deal.

Asked why she thought the Democrats were not collaborating well with her, despite their outspoken support for policies Trump is seeking to push, she reportedly said, “It’s always easier to be for something and not get it done than to accommodate another perspective and get it done.”

This comes despite reports in March of last year that Democrats “love” her plan for affordable child care and paid family leave and a report from the month before that Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said she was seeking Trump’s help to get support for her Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. The act would reportedly provide six weeks of guaranteed paid leave to all male and female federal employees after the birth, adoption or fostering of a child.

During her speech at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) in India, in November, Trump praised international efforts to improve and expand the role of women in parts of the developing world. She also lauded her father’s administration’s efforts to see this through saying, “Only when women are empowered to thrive will our families, our economies and our societies reach their fullest potential.”

On the issue of child tax credits, Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), who reportedly described Trump as a friend and ally said, “I’m not sure why in the world we would allow the Democrats to control family issues, that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.”

As for the politics of it, conservative members of Congress like Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, told USA Today that he’s met with Trump several times about topics “that conservatives would normally not be in favor of.” However, he reportedly noted, “She makes very compelling cases.”

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.