Laurence O'Donnell: Cohen Didn't Steal the Money; He Was Just Giving Himself a Bonus

LA Times: The Restaurant Industry is in Bad Shape

After a years-long battle with the school system and Maryland parents, a federal court has decided that despite parents' concerns and religious conflicts, parents are not allowed to choose to opt their children out of learning about progressive ideologies and topics in schools. Remember: to the left, your children belong to them. Last, parents from the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) started publicly fighting back against the progressive lessons being taught to their elementary-aged students. In March of 2023, the school district essentially declared that they wouldn’t tell parents prior to teaching lessons or reading books to students about progressive ideologies or agendas. Kids in the school system are now being read books like “The Pride Puppy,” “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Born Ready: The True Story of a  Boy Named Penelope,” as Fox News reported. They’re also being exposed to themes like drag queens, furries and other queer crap. Parents insisted, and rightfully so, that these books and the ideologies they promote were inappropriate for young kids, and forcing them to listen to or read them would violate said children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by intentionally teaching them ideologies that are antithetical to the tenets of their religion.   “The parents had argued that refusal to provide an opt-out from their children’s exposure to LGBT-themed books and related discussions violates federal and state law,” Fox News reported. The plaintiffs, one Muslim and two Christian, worked with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to sue MCPS. Late last week, the Court of Appeals decided in a 2-1 vote that simply exposing kids to these progressive ideologies isn’t enough to constitute a breach of the First Amendment.  “The board argues that exposure to ideas contrary to one’s faith is not enough of a burden to implicate the First Amendment,” the court decision read, adding, “the board contends that exposure to issues that one disagrees with, even for religious reasons, is part of the compromise parents when choosing to send their children to public schools.” So essentially, they’re our kids now. Homeschool if you don’t like what we’re teaching.

ByteDance may be suing the Department of Justice (DOJ), but the two have now joined forces in an effort to fast-track the company’s legal challenge to a potentially imminent TikTok ban.  TikTok, and its parent company ByteDance, along with a separate group of eight TikTok creators announced lawsuits against the federal government last week in TikTok Inc. v Garland and Firebaugh v. Garland. The petitioners of the two cases joined forces with the target of the lawsuits, the DOJ, and filed a motion to expedite the legal challenges to a law that forces ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok or exit the United States market. Together, they requested that the Court come to a decision about the case by Dec. 6, 2024 to allow the company to act before Jan. 19, 2025 when the law is set to take effect.  In the expedition request, the petitioners argued that the law demanding that TikTok shed its Chinese control “is subject to substantial challenge,” and due to TikTok’s large user base, “the public at large has a significant interest in the prompt disposition of this matter.” The motion also echoed ByteDance and TikTok’s joint lawsuit, which claimed that “‘qualified divestiture’” of TikTok as defined in the statute is not “commercially, technologically, or legally feasible.” The social media company added that “TikTok Petitioners maintain that the possibility of a 90-day extension under the Act will not be available to them because it would require the President to determine that ‘significant progress’ has been made toward a ‘qualified divestiture’ which is not feasible.” Given the high stakes, all parties asked that opening briefs begin as early as June 20 with oral arguments beginning in September and a decision by December. “To ensure that there is adequate time before the Act’s prohibitions take effect to request emergency relief from the Supreme Court if necessary, the parties respectfully ask this Court to issue its decision on the merits of these actions by December 6, 2024,” the motion reads.  This comes after the company feined devotion to freedom of speech and concern for its users' rights being allegedly violated. “There is no question: the Act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere,” TikTok wrote in its lawsuit against the DOJ. But TikTok did not seem to care much about the freedom of speech of its users before it found out it might be banned. A Sept. 2022 MRC Free Speech America study found that TikTok permanently banned 11 pro-free speech organizations including Live Action, Judicial Watch and The Babylon Bee. Federal Communications Commissioner called TikTok out on its unserious understanding of the purpose of the law.  “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

A California teacher was accused of misconduct and fired last year after refusing to comply with LGBT activists' radical gender dogma at the expense of her Christian faith. Jessica Tapia previously taught gym, but last week she taught the Jurupa Unified School District that trampling Americans' free exercise of religion and freedom of speech can still prove costly even in a Democrat-dominated state. Background In recent years, the JUSD in Riverside County has fully embraced gender ideology, codifying it into its policies. For instance, the district considers a refusal to address a student "by a name and the pronouns consistent with the student's gender identity" as harassment. Exclusion of a male from girls' bathrooms or from participating in girls' activities similarly qualifies as harassment. Parents Defending Education highlighted that the JUSD also has a policy that keeps parents in the dark about their children's so-called gender identity. 'The directives required Ms. Tapia lie to parents about their children's gender identity.' "A student's intersex, nonbinary, transgender or gender-nonconforming status is the student's private information," says the policy. "The district shall only disclose the information to others with the student's prior written consent, except when the disclosure is otherwise required by law or when the district has compelling evidence that disclosure is necessary to preserve the student's physical or mental well-being." This is in keeping the California Department of Education, which maintains that "disclosing that a student is transgender without the student’s permission may violate California's antidiscrimination law." When it comes to a JUSD student's effort to reject reality and masquerade as a member of the opposite sex, "the compliance officer may discuss with the student any need to disclose the student's intersex, nonbinary, transgender or gender-nonconformity status or gender identity or gender expression to the student's parents/guardians and/or others, including other students, teacher(s), or other adults on campus." These policies, which serve to undermine parental rights, are par for the course in California, which has legally enabled transvestic males to invade girls' sports, programs, and restrooms since at least 2013. Refusal to live by lies According to her May 2023 complaint, Tapia had worked in the JUSD in various capacities since 2014. Despite apparently enjoying a great rapport with parents, students, and faculty members alike, she received a notice of unprofessional conduct on Sept. 30, 2022. The suit claims Tapia was accused of "posting offensive content on her public Instagram account, referencing her faith during conversations with students, and expressing controversial opinions on issues pertaining to gender identity." Tapia has made no secret of her religious views on marriage, transvestism, and sexual orientation, anchoring her understanding in a constitutionally protected biblical worldview. 'God created two sexes: male and female.' In the wake of the misconduct notice, Tapia was reportedly presented with "A Plan of Assistance and Directives," which required her complicity in the district's advancement of gender ideology and undermining of parental rights. "The directives required Ms. Tapia lie to parents about their children's gender identity, refer to students by their preferred pronouns, refrain from expressing her religious beliefs with students or on her social media, and allow students to use the bathroom or locker room that matched their preferred sex," said the complaint. Unable to comply on the basis of her Christian beliefs and altogether unwilling to live by lies, Tapia requested accommodation from the district. After all, she "believes that God defines human sexuality, and that men and women are created in the image of God," said the complaint. Additionally, she maintains that "God created two sexes: male and female." She was refused accommodation and was subsequently canned. Tapia indicated that after reaching out to Charlie Kirk, CEO of Turning Point USA, and Pastor Jack Hibbs, the Christian teacher connected with the pro bono law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom, she then sued the JUSD. Mariah Gondeiro, then-vice president and legal counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, claimed that "Jessica Tapia was not dismissed for any wrongdoing, rather, she was dismissed for her Christian beliefs. This is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights." 'If the school district's actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher.' The lawsuit — which ultimately named the district, superintendent Trenton Hansen, and assistant superintendent Daniel Brooks as defendants — claimed Tapia had been deprive of both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech. Additionally, it accused the district of violating the Due Process Clause, Title VII, and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Triumphant While the JUSD refuses to admit wrongdoing, it approved an out-of-court settlement on May 13. The district will accordingly pay Tapia $285,000 as well as $75,000 for her attorneys' fees. "Today's settlement serves as a reminder that religious freedom is protected, no matter your career," Julianne Fleischer, legal counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, said in a statement. "If the school district's actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher." "Jessica's story is one of faithful courage. She fought back to ensure her school district was held accountable and that no other teacher has to succumb to this type of discrimination," added Fleischer. 'I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception.' "What happened to me can happen to anybody, and I want the next teacher to know that it is worth it to take a stand for what is right," said Tapia. "Across the country, we are seeing teachers' freedom of speech and religious liberty violated through policies that require them to forsake their morals. I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception." Per the terms of the settlement, both sides will refrain from badmouthing one another or taking further legal action. Additionally, Tapia agreed not to seek another job with the district. Tapia appears to have found a calling besides helping the JUSD hide students' confusion from their parents. She has joined forces with Advocates for Faith and Freedom to launch "Teachers Don't Lie." According to its website, Teacher's Don't Lie "is to support teachers of faith who are feeling the weight of the darkness that has infiltrated the education system. We believe teachers of faith have the right to be in the public education system without sacrificing their convictions and the truth." The group serves to equip teachers with the constitutional understanding and legal backing to stand firm when their religious beliefs are targeted by radical school districts. Jacquie Paul, a JUSD spokeswoman, suggested the settlement was a "compromise of a disputed claim," reported the Los Angeles Times. "The decision to settle this case was made ... in the best interest of the students, such that the district can continue to dedicate all of its resources and efforts to educate and support its student population regardless of their protected class," said Paul. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority announced that it will sponsor each player on the Las Vegas Aces WNBA team for $100,000 for two years. The league is investigating whether or not this violates the salary cap rules.In a video promoted by the city of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas Mayor Pamela Goynes-Brown and Henderson Mayor Michelle Romero were joined by the tourism board to announce the deal with the players in the dressing room.'There are no better representatives for Las Vegas than these champion athletes.'"Today we want to do something that is new, something I don't think that anybody's ever done before," said Steve Hill, president and CEO of the LVCVA."We want to recognize you individually, we want to put some money in your pockets.""So, we've got an offer for you, we think it's a great offer for us ... we would like to offer each of you, individually, a sponsorship for this year in the amount of $100,000."The terms of the deal put forth by the city were simple, "just play" and "rep Vegas." The sponsorships appear to be coming out of taxpayer pocketbooks and will provide $100,000 to each active player for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. In response, the WNBA said that it opened an investigation into the player payments to ensure that they followed proper protocol. The LVCVA said it was "happy to answer any questions" from the WNBA and did everything by the book, including contacting players' agents beforehand, Sports Business Journal reported. — (@) Of the 12 players on the roster, the sponsorship is higher than the annual WNBA salary of six of them. At the same time, the team employs two of the most popular and marketable women in the league.Center A'Ja Wilson recently received two massive endorsement deals from Nike and Gatorade. The endorsements came following an interview during which she complained that black, female athletes were not seen as marketable and were often "swept underneath the rug."She also claimed that race played a "huge" role in the popularity of Indiana Fever star Caitlin Clark.At the same time, Aces guard Kelsey Plum has a massive following on social media and has sponsorships with Under Armour, Target, and a cigar company."These players have put a national spotlight on Las Vegas. There are no better representatives for Las Vegas than these champion athletes," LVCVA CEO Hill added. "A first of its kind sponsorship deal with the players directly creates a win for them and a win for our destination. This partnership builds on the current momentum of sports tourism and the popularity of women’s professional sports."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Star rookie Marvin Harrison Jr. is likely the only player in the NFL who hasn't signed an agreement with the players' union to market his likeness and merchandise.The no. 4 overall draft pick for the Arizona Cardinals is also facing a lawsuit from Fanatics over an alleged $1 million deal to market his merchandise. Fanatics would also be one of the outlets that sells his jersey if he were to sign the standard licensing agreement that the vast majority of players sign. That agreement is called the NFL Players Association group licensing agreement. It gives the union exclusive rights to market a player's name, image, signature, and voice. This, of course, includes jerseys and memorabilia with a player's name and face, and it is the same way players end up in video games like Madden NFL, ESPN reported.The union holds agreements with video game giant Electronic Arts, Hallmark, Under Armour, the aforementioned Fanatics, and more.'We're not taking that deal. We're not signing the deal.'The GLA was developed in 1972 to protect player marketing rights through its union and has ensured that players get paid royalties, which have a reported baseline of $30,000 per season.Of the 2,125 active NFL players reported in 2023, Harrison Jr. is one of the few players carving out this incredibly rare path. Not only is the wide receiver holding on to his likeness (for now), but he also does not have an agent.The number of players not to sign the GLA is hard to tell, but there are other notable high-income players who also do not or did not have agents. This included Super Bowl winners Richard Sherman and Bobby Wagner, current Baltimore Ravens players Lamar Jackson and Roquan Smith, and fellow NFL rookie Caleb Williams.Harrison Jr. has reportedly received help, however, from his father, Marvin Harrison Sr., a Hall of Fame wide receiver, when negotiating deals. Without the help of the NFLPA, the younger Harrison has three deals that are publicly known: a shoe and apparel deal with New Balance, an endorsement with the shampoo Head and Shoulders, and a memorabilia deal with Fanatics. — (@) Harrison Jr.'s deal was reportedly signed before his final year at Ohio State University and is estimated to be worth more than $1 million. The deal allegedly was signed to market his autographs, signed trading cards, game-worn apparel, and other marketing opportunities.Those details come from an unnamed source from ESPN, who also claimed that Harrison Jr. is trying to leverage the fact that he hasn't signed the GLA as a way to get more money out of Fanatics.Fanatics alleges that the two sides agreed to a binding term sheet in mid-May 2023, taking just two days to finalize. Fanatics has initiated a lawsuit against the rookie and is seeking damages worth "millions of dollars." The company is said to be hoping that the lawsuit will force Harrison Jr. to fulfill his obligations. The company also took issue with the fact that Harrison Jr. has allegedly "publicly asserted" that a contract between the two parties does not exist.Podcaster and former NFL punter Pat McAfee commented in early May 2024 that Harrison Jr. had previously turned down a "card deal" from Fanatics while he was a sophomore in college."Marvin Harrison, who doesn't need the money, said, 'We're not taking that deal. We're not signing the deal.' What we have been told is the price of Marvin Harrison Jr. as a rookie and second-year in the NFL is not the same as when he was a sophomore in college," McAfee reported.Meanwhile, Harrison Jr. has been selling memorabilia on his website. Photos, jerseys, footballs, and helmets have been on sale under the banner of The Official Harrison Collection.Harrison Jr.'s representatives did not respond to request for comment; however, the player answered questions about signing the GLA and an agent during his introductory press conference with the Arizona Cardinals."I'll continue to talk to my team, and we'll do what's best for me moving forward," Harrison Jr. reportedly said. "We'll just take it one day at a time. I just got drafted, so I'm trying to enjoy the moment and be happy while I can at the moment."Fanatics has requested a trial by jury.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Dr. Anthony Fauci came out of hiding to give the commencement speech for this year's Columbia University graduates, and it was so dystopian, it sounded as if it were ripped straight from the pages of Orwell’s "1984." “Differences of opinion or ideology have in certain circumstances been reflected by egregious distortions of reality,” Fauci told the students. “Sadly, elements of our society are driven by a cacophony of falsehoods, lies, and conspiracy theories that get repeated often enough that after a while, they stand largely unchallenged, ominously leading to an insidious acceptance of what I call ‘the normalization of untruth,’” he continued. “Wouldn’t that sort of be like if you get the vaccine you will not get nor transmit COVID? Would it be a lie to say that six-foot social distancing was a complete lie? It was. There was no evidence that masks worked — like everything this man has pushed,” Dave Rubin, host of "The Rubin Report," says. Fauci went on to blame news organizations and social media and claimed that it’s relevant to those in science and medical professions because “our very identity is anchored in data, evidence, and critical thinking.” “And we as much or more than anyone else need to push back on these distortions of truth and reality,” Fauci concluded, echoing the Orwellian idea that only the official line of “truth” should be allowed in the public sphere. “Everything he just accused all of us of is the stuff that he and his cadre of lunatics have been doing,” Rubin concluded. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Michael Cohen's former lawyer, Robert Costello, testified for the defense on Monday in the New York criminal case against former President Donald Trump, according to live updates from the courthouse.Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, called the defense team's first witness, Daniel Sitko, a paralegal at Blanche's law firm.Sitko explained that he created a summary chart of the calls between Cohen and Costello, who briefly acted as Cohen's attorney in 2018. Cohen has argued that he never had a formal agreement with Costello to represent him.'You don't give me a side eye and you don't roll your eyes.'Last week, Costello told lawmakers during a Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing that Cohen had repeatedly lied while testifying on the stand in the New York criminal trial against Trump, Blaze News previously reported. Costello smeared Cohen's reputation, calling him an "inveterate liar." According to Costello, Cohen told him he paid the $130,000 settlement agreement to porn actress Stormy Daniels by himself and without consulting Trump. Costello argued that Cohen was desperate to regain favor with Trump and receive a position at the White House. While testifying Monday, Sitko explained that despite Cohen's claims, he never formally hired Costello. The two exchanged 75 calls in April, May, and June 2018. One of the phone calls lasted 96 minutes, he stated.Costello testified for the defense on Monday afternoon. He told jurors about his first meeting with Cohen on April 17, 2018. Costello noted that one of his partners, Jeffrey Citron, also attended the meeting. According to Costello, Cohen was "absolutely manic" throughout the two-hour meeting at the Regency Hotel in Manhattan. At the time of the meeting, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had recently raided Cohen's hotel and office."He kept on pacing back and forth, left and right," Costello testified.He told jurors that Cohen had repeatedly said to him that Trump was not involved in the settlement agreement with Daniels. According to Costello, Cohen said, "'I really want you to explain to me what my options are: What's my escape route?' That's the phrase he used."Cohen reportedly told Costello, "I swear to God, Bob, I don't have anything on Donald Trump." Costello said he repeated the sentence 10 to 12 times during the April meeting. "Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own. He repeated that numerous times," Costello testified.While on the stand, Costello became frustrated when Judge Juan Merchan sustained multiple objections from the prosecution in response to his testimony. Costello rolled his eyes, audibly sighed, and remarked, "Ridiculous."Merchan told Costello, "You don't give me a side eye and you don't roll your eyes. ... When there's a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say 'jeez.' You don't say 'strike it.'"At one point, Costello gave Merchan a long glare, prompting the judge to tell people to temporarily "clear the courtroom." After a few minutes, the defense was able to proceed with its direct examination of its second witness. During cross-examination, Costello explained that Cohen had told him he had considered suicide "because he couldn't handle the pressure of the ongoing criminal case coming his way."Anything else?Emil Bove, Trump's attorney, stated that he does not expect to call any additional witnesses after Costello.Blanche requested that the judge dismiss the charges against Trump, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case."There's no evidence that there's any idea or any intent to mislead or to hide or to falsify the business records," Blanche told the judge. "There's no evidence, zero, that anyone was thinking about a campaign finance charge in 2016 when this payment was made to Ms. Daniels."Blanche also contended that there was no evidence that any of the "purported co-conspirators had any criminal intent at the time they were engaging in this conduct." He requested that Merchan find Cohen "not credible as a matter of law.""We didn't just catch him in a lie, your honor, he came in here with a history of lying," Blanche argued. "He testified and he lied under oath in this courtroom. … The consequences of that lie, if accepted, by the jury is a conviction.""There is no way the court should let this case go to the jury relying on Mr. Cohen's testimony," Blanche declared.Merchan stated that he would respond to the defense's dismissal argument at a later time. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Some games know what they are and who they’re for and Songs of Conquest is one of them. It leaves you with no doubt about its inspirations, with the most obvious being the earlier Heroes of Might and Magic games sprinkled with a bit of city building and a dab or two of 4X games like Civilization 6. It’s a true melange of classic titles and it's just launched out of early access into a full release. Continue reading Stunning fantasy strategy game inspired by the greats out now on Steam