This week, Atlanta cops embodied the city’s motto, “Resurgens,” which means “rising again.” Responding to a distress call about an armed man in the Capitol View neighborhood, three cops were shot in the line of duty on May 11. This National Police Week (May 12-18), we should be grateful that it appears that they will all recover. Many cops aren’t so lucky. Sgt. Heather Jayne Glenn, a 47-year-old, 20-year veteran of a rural Indiana police department was killed in the line of duty on July 3, 2023, by an armed domestic-violence suspect. She’s not alone. As of April 30, the Fraternal Order of Police reported that 20 cops have already been fatally shot in 2024. Assaults on police officers are at a 10-year high, according to a recent FBI report. Police departments around the country are feeling the effects. High crime rates in inner cities, hostility from left-wing activists in some communities, and severe budget cuts have adversely affected morale and retention, leaving many departments short-staffed and struggling to ensure public safety. Flanked by fellow Republican lawmakers, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., speaks at a news conference Wednesday at the Capitol at an event recognizing law enforcement as part of National Police Week. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images) Take Washington, D.C., for example. After the city council cut the budget of the Metropolitan Police Department in 2020, the department lost more than 1,000 officers, and currently has a 500-officer shortfall. Not coincidently, crime rates since 2020 in the District of Columbia have spiked, including a 35% increase in homicides last year compared with 2022, an 82% increase year-over-year in motor vehicle theft, and an overall violent-crime increase of 39%. That has left officers worse off and facing dangerous situations. In February, for example, three officers were shot in broad daylight. At the time, D.C. Police Union Chairman Gregg Pemberton told reporters: We’re going to try to keep these neighborhoods safe, as safe as we can. It’s just impossible for us to do our jobs under these kinds of conditions. Aware that rising crime rates are their political Achilles’ heel, liberals are now boasting about the dip in crime rates in blue cities. What they don’t acknowledge, however, is that those small decreases are dwarfed by the massive spike in crime rates that began in 2018 and the rates remain unacceptably high. Those spikes coincide with the efforts of anti-police activists to mainstream the Defund the Police movement and stoke hostility against cops in some communities of color. And crime rates have only been made worse by the work, in several jurisdictions, of so-called progressive prosecutors (we think the term “rogue prosecutors” is more apt) implementing policies that undercut the efforts of law enforcement officers.  Take Philadelphia, for example. In the five years before Larry Krasner was elected district attorney, there was an average of 271 homicides per year. In the first five years of his tenure in office, there have been an average of 457 per year. That’s an “extra” 186 dead bodies per year.  The same is true in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and other major cities.    “Rogue Prosecutors,” a recent book that one of us (Stimson) co-authored, details how more than 70 prosecutors—whose campaigns were funded or inspired by leftist billionaire George Soros and other wealthy, left-wing activists—have implemented pro-criminal, anti-victim policies. The result across the country has been a system that emboldens criminals, treats the police as the culprits, and ignores the millions of real victims across the country.  Although those prosecutors only represent a small portion of the 2,300 elected district attorneys across the country, by population, they are responsible for enforcing the criminal laws of jurisdictions where 1 in 5 Americans live. Police officers and the residents of those communities deserve better. After the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, it was common to thank members of the military, law enforcement, and first responders. But a sense of gratitude for those willing to risk paying the ultimate price in the service of justice has since dissipated in some segments of society.  That’s regrettable. An ordered society depends on adherence to the rule of law, and public safety does not happen by itself, but instead requires sacrifice. Indeed, without patriotic men and women from all backgrounds taking an oath to defend the Constitution and laws of this great country and to serve and protect their communities, our world would be unrecognizable. During this National Police Week, take a moment and think about how your safety is directly affected by local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who risk their lives daily and stand astride the thin blue line protecting the public from those who would do them harm.  And then when you see an officer, thank him or her for serving to protect you.  The post Americans Should Thank a Cop During National Police Week—and the Rest of the Year, Too appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Is it proper for federal judges to boycott hiring students who attend a particular university? Thirteen federal judges, all of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, have announced that they are going to do just that. In a May 6 letter to Minouche Shafik, president of protest-rocked Columbia University, the 13 judges referred to “recent events” there and informed her that, “absent extraordinary change,” they would “not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community whether as undergraduates or law students—beginning with the entering class of 2024.”  The recent events, of course, are the campuswide anti-Israel demonstrations that resulted in the occupation of a school building (Hamilton Hall), multiple arrests, and a smaller-than-usual commencement ceremony punctuated by ongoing protests. Such antisemitic protests, of course, have been taking place on dozens of campuses, but things seem to have been particularly bad at Columbia. In addition to occupying a university building and assaulting maintenance workers, protesters accosted and assaulted Jewish students, shouting “F— Israel” and “Israel is a b—-” and telling them that they would be Hamas’ “next targets” and should “Go back to Poland!” (This last was a thinly veiled reference to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Belzek, Sobibor, and Chelmno, the horrific extermination camps for Jews that existed in German-occupied Poland during World War II.)  Many protesters at Columbia were joined by sympathetic faculty members (hundreds, according to The Guardian), who linked arms and formed a protective wall around the anti-Israel encampments. Among these supportive faculty members was Joseph Massad, who said Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, which left over 1,200 dead and 250 hostages taken, was “awesome” and a “stunning victory of the Palestinian resistance.” The situation became so dicey that one rabbi associated with Columbia said Jewish students should go home and remain there because the school could not guarantee their safety. Columbia Law School was not exempt from this activity. The editors of the Columbia Law Review—presumably among the best and the brightest students—said that they, like most of their classmates, were “irrevocably shaken” by what was happening on campus and demanded that the school cancel final exams and simply pass all students. What judge could have faith in the integrity and academic rigor of any institution teaching future lawyers that this is an appropriate response to disturbing events? As someone with a long family history at Columbia (my grandfather taught at the medical school and I went to Columbia, as did my father and my daughter), this hits close to home. In their letter to Shafik, the 13 federal judges wrote that they had “lost confidence in Columbia as an institution of higher education” and that the school had “become an incubator of bigotry.” To restore academic freedom and reclaim a “once-distinguished reputation,” the judges stated, Columbia should do three things at a minimum: 1) See to it that students and faculty members who violated the school’s rules and disrupted campus life, including by threatening Jewish students, suffer serious consequences. 2) Ensure that in the future the university protects free speech and enforces rules of conduct in a neutral and nondiscriminatory fashion. 3) Make “[s]ignificant and dramatic change[s] in the composition of its faculty and administration” to promote viewpoint diversity. Two of the judges who signed the letter are appellate judges, namely James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Branch of the 11th Circuit. Also signing: eight District Court judges from Texas (Alan Albright, David Counts, James Hendrix, Matthew Kacsmaryk, Brantley Starr, Jeremy Kernodle, and Drew Tipton), a District Court judge from Georgia (Tilman Self), a District Court judge from North Dakota (Daniel Traynor), a judge on the Court of Federal Claims (Matthew Solomson), and a judge on the Court of International Trade (Stephen Vaden). The federal judges noted that the anti-Israel demonstrations on the Columbia campus had made it clear “that ideological homogeneity throughout the entire institution … had destroyed its ability to train future leaders of a pluralistic and intellectually diverse country,” and that it was equally “clear that Columbia applies double standards when it comes to free speech and student misconduct.”  The judges cited abortion as an example, stating that they had “no doubt” that the response of Columbia administrators would have been “profoundly different” had religious conservatives on campus who “view abortion as a tragic genocide” engaged in an uprising.  I also have no doubt that this is true, and could cite many other examples: Protest racial preferences in admissions policies or the establishment of black-only housing on campus? Rally against biological males being allowed to compete in women’s sports? Galvanize a petition drive against being forced to refer to students by their preferred personal pronouns? Raise a ruckus over the legality and morality of same-sex marriages? Gather a crowd and give a speech claiming that the 2020 presidential election was stolen? Not a chance! Any student group that did any of those things would be subjected to discipline for engaging in “hate speech.” But wear a mask and carry placards proclaiming, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” (with its implicit message that Israel must and will be eliminated)? Well, then, “It depends on the context.”  There are those, including Columbia Law grad Dan Abrams (whom I recently debated on this subject on his NewsNation show) and MSNBC columnist Jessica Levinson, who say this is a dramatic overreaction tantamount to guilt by association that punishes innocent students who didn’t participate in anti-Israel protests. Levinson goes so far as to say that the 13 judges are engaging in extortion and blackmail of Columbia. Other commentators, such as Berkeley Law School professor Orin Kerr, say they believe that “judges as judges do not have an important role to play in our society beyond the work they do in the courtroom or in chambers … , and they shouldn’t be trying to help American society solve problems like anti-Semitism, in any kind of official capacity.”  Still others, less thoughtful or kind, have stated that the judges who vow not to hire Columbia graduates are engaging in a performative protest designed to appeal to “their chosen audience of wackjobs.” One wonders whether these critics would respond the same way if a university or college, and especially a law school, were to foster a hostile environment, replete with threats to students by mask-wearing fellow students and faculty members, for female, black, or LGBTQ students? Are there students who will suffer the consequences of this hiring boycott even though they had nothing to do with, and may well have disapproved of, the campus protests? Certainly. But the same could be said of any boycott. When a group chooses to boycott a product or restaurant chain because of some corporate policy or practice, those who produce that product or work in that restaurant inevitably will suffer the consequences and may well lose their jobs, even though they had nothing to do with formulating the policy or implementing the practice that the protesting group finds objectionable. Boycotts are a blunt but often effective tool designed to bring about systemic change from the top. And change is certainly needed here. Many of our elite universities, including Columbia, pay far less attention than they should to teaching students how to think and far more attention than they should to teaching students what to think. Overwhelmingly liberal faculty members and administrators divide the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” indoctrinate students in left-wing ideology, and “cancel” any contrary views in the process. It shouldn’t be surprising that some campus activists (supplemented by well-funded outside agitators), used to getting their way with the administration and utilizing a “heckler’s veto” to drown out views they don’t like, occasionally resort to mass protests, threats, and violence when they don’t immediately get their way.   Those who have observed and decry these developments have the right, if not the duty, to use what leverage they have to promote change. Alumni, for example, can cease donating to their alma mater, which I did several years ago and some far-bigger donors are threatening to do now. And judges have considerable leverage too in the form of desirable and highly prized clerkships in their chambers that can serve as launching pads for a promising legal career. Judges have a special role to play in promoting civil discourse in society, respect for the rule of law, and making sure that students (and future lawyers) are taught the skills they need to engage with an inquiring and open mind in a critical analysis of various texts and arguments, legal and otherwise. Such things should be the bread and butter of every university, but, sadly, that is not the case today. Columbia University professes to provide a top-notch education in an environment that is welcoming to all people and all views. Its law school no doubt touts the fact that its students, including conservative students, have a leg up in terms of obtaining prestigious federal clerkships. Although the latter is certainly true, the former is subject to serious doubt—and these 13 judges are letting everyone know it in a public way. If enough bright, conservative-leaning students who might wish to clerk for one of these judges decides to go to another university or law school that is more welcoming of their views, Columbia may suffer reputational harm. And that might prompt some much-needed change. This isn’t the first time some of these judges have announced a boycott. Ho and Branch, the two appeals court judges who signed the letter, previously announced that they were going to boycott hiring law clerks out of Yale Law School and Stanford Law School. Both schools have long histories of liberal activism.  In March 2022, over 100 students disrupted an event at Yale Law School hosted by the Federalist Society featuring a panel including Kristen Waggoner, then general counsel and now also president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, a public interest law firm that litigates religious liberty cases—and quite successfully too.  The students stood, waved signs, blocked the only exit, threatened to beat up event organizers, shouted profanities, and grabbed and jostled two Federalist Society members who attempted to leave. When Yale Law professor Kate Stith told these budding lawyers attending an elite law school that they should “grow up,” 417 students signed a letter condemning her. In March 2023, 5th Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan was subjected to similar treatment by over 100 law students at Stanford Law School. Only this time Tieren Steinbach, the school’s associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion, who was supposed to be the adult in the room, egged on the students by saying that Duncan’s work had “caused harm” and questioning his judgment for having accepted an invitation to speak on campus, given some of his more controversial (at least to the riotous students) views on the law.  Duncan responded: “You are all law students. You are supposed to have reasoned debate and hear the other side, not yell at those who disagree.” An impressionable and thoroughly misguided future advocate responded, telling the federal judge: “You don’t believe we have a right to exist, so we don’t believe you have a right to our respect or to speak here.”   When the dean of Stanford Law School apologized to Duncan for the students’ opprobrious behavior, she was greeted by hundreds of masked students dressed all in black and lining the halls, and found that her classroom had been vandalized. Was the boycott by these two distinguished federal appellate judges effective? (Or, to quote the subsequently ousted Steinbach: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”) It may be too early to tell, but the initial signs are quite promising. Earlier this year, the American Bar Association announced that it would require all accredited law schools “to adopt a policy that would allow faculty, students and staff ‘to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular, including through robust debate, demonstrations or protests,’ and would forbid activities that disrupt or impinge on free speech.” The ABA’s new policy also applies to speakers invited by student groups. At Stanford, Steinbach was placed on leave and ultimately resigned. Administrative staff was reminded that their job is to ensure that campus rules are followed and events are not to be disrupted. They were told they would receive additional training and that school policies would be revised and “clear protocols” provided. The students who participated in hectoring Duncan were not disciplined, as they should have been. However, they were required to attend mandatory educational programming. Stanford administrators also announced that, in the future, all students would attend a mandatory, half-day session “on the topic of freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession.” At Yale Law School, the dean issued a strong statement that the students’ behavior at the Federalist Society event was “unacceptable” and “violated the norms” of the law school. She wrote that Yale Law School “is an institution of higher learning, not a town square, and no one should interfere with others’ efforts to carry on activities on campus.” She punctuated the point by adding that “this is not ho­­w lawyers interact.” Yale Law School also revised its disciplinary code and developed an online resource providing guidance on free speech and respectful engagement. Ho and Branch were invited to speak. Waggoner also was invited back to speak, this time without disruptions. More recently, Yale Law School hired two prominent conservative scholars, including a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who worked for him when Alito wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. So, it seems that the organized bar, Yale, and Stanford were paying attention after all and are implementing some positive changes.  Let’s hope Columbia does too. The post 13 Federal Judges Boycott Columbia University appeared first on The Daily Signal.

William Frederick "Buffalo Bill" Cody was a legendary American bison hunter, soldier, scout, and showman. Considered as one of the most prominent figures in the Wild West, he became a legend by the time he way 23, although many historians believe his exploits have been embellished throughout the years. Although he worked on jobs and served as a soldier at the beginning of his life... Source

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Belgium and Hungary are leading the way in launching digital ID wallets ahead of EU’s eIDAS (“electronic identification and trust services”) 2.0 regulation and EUDI Wallet coming into force later this month. In Belgium, the MyGov.be app, covering all of the country’s federal public services, was launched on Tuesday, with the government promoting the digital identity as “simplifying” the use of its services, and “making life easier.” In other words, the authorities there are playing the convenience card – while downplaying the risks that come with this type of centralization of people’s identities. Related: EU Approves Digital ID Regulation That Forces Big Tech Companies To Support an EU Digital ID App  The wallet, via “eBox” mailbox, gives access to government-issued documents, as well as 683 services, identity data, Covid vaccination records, and more. However, the success of the scheme is by no means guaranteed – on the one hand it is not mandatory, so people are free to decide not to use it. Judging by an opinion poll Deloitte carried out last year, “71 percent of Belgians do not want a digital ID on their phone,” reports say, adding that the same survey showed that 79 percent “do not want a mobile driver’s license, while half refuse to fully digitize their IDs.” “Ease of use” is also how digital ID is pushed in Hungary, where the appropriate app will be made available for download as soon as this week, while the service will be fully operational from September. Enthusiastic reports about this development describe the digital ID program as “innovative,” “handy” and “saving costs.” At the same time, putting all of a person’s data in one place and storing it in the cloud is advertised as something positive, instead of what opponents consider as scary – from the security standpoint alone. The operation is centralized via Hungary’s Digital Citizenship Program. Wallet users will have all their administrative, etc., documents in that one place, plus a digital mailbox, their vaccine passport, and can rely on a pan-EU electronic signature, while electric payments will be “fully integrated.” Hungary’s digital identity scheme uses biometric data obtained through facial recognition to match a user’s face “against a government database.” Meanwhile, some security researchers in other EU countries are warning that as many as 75 percent of what are described as high-risk organizations (healthcare, banking, air travel…) “do not use the strongest verification method.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Belgium and Hungary Launch Controversial Digital IDs, Vaccine Passport, Ahead of EU Regulations appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. There was a lot of talk about the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) while it was drafted and during the typical-of-the-bloc tortuous process of adoption, but now that it’s been here for a while, we’ve been getting a sense of how it is being put to use. Utilizing the European digital ID wallet to carry out age verification is just one of the fever pitch ideas here. And EU bureaucrats are trying to make sure that these controversial policies are presented as perfectly in line with how DSA was originally pitched. Related: The 2024 Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda The regulation was slammed by opponents as in reality a sweeping online censorship law hiding behind focused, and noble, declarations that its goal was to protect children’s well-being, fight disinformation, etc. The cold hard reality is that trying to (further) turn the screw – any which way they can – on platforms with the most reach and most influence ahead of an election is simply something that those in power, whether it’s the US or the EU, don’t seem to be able to resist. Here’s the European Commission (who’s current president is actively campaigning to get reappointed in the wake of next month’s European Parliament elections) opening an investigation into Meta on suspicion its flagship platforms, Facebook and Instagram, create “addictive behavior among children and damage mental health.” After all, exerting a bit more pressure on social media just before an election never hurt anybody. /s Thierry Breton, an EU commissioner who made a name for himself as a proponent of all sorts of online speech restrictions during the current, soon to expire European Commission mandate, reared his head again here: “We open formal proceedings against Meta. We are not convinced that it has done enough to comply with the DSA obligations to mitigate the risks of negative effects to the physical and mental health of young Europeans on its platforms Facebook and Instagram,” Breton said in a press release. And as the EU investigates “potential addictive impacts of the platforms (…) such as on unrealistic body image” – something not potential, but very concrete will also be under scrutiny: how effective Meta’s age verification tools are. The grounds for these suspicions lie in the (DSA). With this pro-censorship legislation, which was instituted last summer, even major tech firms can now be held liable for online malevolence from “misinformation” to shopping swindles, all the way to child endangerment. Even though pushing age verification pushes digital ID and affects everybody’s privacy on the internet, due to the nature of the technology necessary to achieve such a result – like providing your copies of government-issued identification documents – Breton made sure to appear this was purely a “think of the children” moment: “We are sparing no effort to protect our children,” Breton said. The investigation aims to substantiate the so-called “rabbit hole” effects that these platforms could have, in which they reportedly expose the youth to potentially damaging content about unrealistic physical appearances, amongst other things. The probe also aims to determine the levels of efficacy of Meta’s age-validation processes and child privacy safeguards. “We are sparing no effort to protect our children,” reinforced Breton. The “rabbit hole” narrative, which suggests that social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram can lead users down paths of addictive and potentially harmful content, brings to light significant questions, especially regarding how Meta is using algorithms to control what people see. While the European Commission’s investigation into Meta on the surface seeks to protect the mental health of minors, it also raises the problem of increased censorship on these platforms. If the commission substantiates the claims of the “rabbit hole” effect, it may prompt stringent regulatory measures aimed at curbing the exposure of harmful content to young users, but that could also bring about several behind-the-scenes algorithmic changes that suppress controversial content. In the past, popular content producers such as Joe Rogan, have been maligned as being a gateway to such “rabbit hole” content, and arguments similar to what the EU is making have been used to call for online censorship. Meta has firmly defended its position, with a spokesperson stating, “We want young people to have safe, age-appropriate experiences online and have spent a decade developing more than 50 tools and policies designed to protect them. This is a challenge the whole industry is facing, and we look forward to sharing details of our work with the European Commission.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU Investigates Meta in Crackdown on Alleged “Rabbit Hole” Effects, Wants It To Push Digital ID appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

It's Begun: Death Is the New Treatment for Depression

A disgusted school board member read the contents of a book titled “Triangles,” which explained, in extremely graphic detail, a foursome. This book, along with other books like it, is available to students at middle and high school libraries in North East San Antonio, Texas. The book by Ellen Hopkins talks about three different women’s sex lives. According to booklooks.org, a website dedicated to exposing these sexually explicit books given to children, the book “has sexually obscene sexual activities including sadomasochism; sexual nudity; profanity; alcohol abuse; drug use; controversial religious commentary; and alternate sexualities.” GRAPHIC LANGUAGE WARNING: Bonny Wallace, read page 368 from the book at the May 13 board meeting: I move my mouth to taste her nipples. They are larger than mine. Luscious. My partner’s hands pull me backward to lie across the table. He kisses Lorraine as Micah’s tongue finds the sweet spot between my legs. It all becomes a heady mix of men. Tongues. Hands. Gingers. The unique brine of women. The heat of c**k. Condoms. Don’t forget those. And, God, orgasm. Mine. Hers. Theirs. I think other people are watching. Touching themselves because this foursome is amazing. Beautiful people doing incredibly sensual things. Segue to dirty, nasty things.  At that point the woman left the podium to head back to her seat. Before she could make it all the way back to her chair, board member Diane Villareal interrupted saying: “I’m sorry, I’m gonna ask a question now because I was under the impression that these books had been removed from our schools. What the heck is going on?” The audience erupted in applause at her shock.  “This is revolting,” Villarreal continued, “I wouldn’t even expect to read this in Penthouse if they still published that trash and this is in our schools!?” The video, posted originally by Sarah Fields, president for Coalition Texas, and shared by Libs of TikTok, has almost 800,000 views on X.   In the full video of the nearly two-hour long board meeting titled “Parental Advisory Explicit Content,” concerned parents acknowledged the disturbing content in books that are made accessible to students.  One father talked about his daughters who go to Churchill High School in the school district. He noted that many “vulgar” books in the library are things he’d never want his daughters to be able to have access to, adding that there's nothing that has any “educational” value in them. A woman who is the Texas ambassador for Moms for Liberty noted that the material is “harmful” for children. She read an excerpt from the book called “The Empire of Storms” which is available at every middle school in the district. Related: Oral, Abortion, and Sex With Jesus: Mom Reads Shocking Excerpts From Book Found In a Local High School “His teeth gazed over her nipple and her eyes drifted closed, a moaning slipping out of her, his tongue flipped against her nipple and her head tipped back, her fingers digging into his shoulders,” she read. The woman went on but I’ll spare you the details. All you need to know is that it was erotic content that is provided to young kids in school.  A pastor read an excerpt from the book “What Girls are Made Of” which talked about giving “Jesus head” and “having sex with Jesus.” One more read an “evil” book that kids have access to which read “Daddy put his pee pee smelling thing in my mouth.” Like one of the pastors said, these books have no place in schools. They belong in the “pits of hell.” Follow us on Twitter/X: MRCTV’s Eric Scheiner joins @AlisonOAN to talk about what the leftist media really means when they talk about “democracy.” pic.twitter.com/zZe9fUkCZo — MRCTV (@mrctv) May 15, 2024

Joy Behar, the same co-host of ABC’s The View who thought the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was the military alliance that defeated Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, was back with more of her wisdom during Friday’s show. According to her, two elements of the U.S. Constitution – both present since the founding – were “un-American.” “These lifetime assignments [to the U.S. Supreme Court] have got to stop and they need to fix the Electoral College also because that's un-American,” she shrieked. Behar was triggered by newly released, years-old photos of an inverted American flag allegedly outside the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito several days AFTER the riot at the Capitol. The latest smear campaign against conservative justices suggested – without evidence – that it was to show solidarity with the rioters. Ignoring or ignorant of the meaning of an inverted flag, Behar declared it was something wholly invented by “MAGA people”: Now, in case you don't know, this is something that the MAGA people have adopted as a stop the steal symbol. In other words, when you see that flag upside down, that means stop the steal, which they imagine happened even though Joe Biden did win legitimately. We all know it. Everybody who’s not crazy knows it.     Faux-conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin contributed to the misinformation by misquoting the U.S. Flag Code. According to her: “…the American flag should not be flown upside down except in moments of national – dire national distress.” The code actually says: “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” Historically, an inverted flag has been used my American ships to signal such distress. Farah-Griffin added that what the Alito’s did was “un-American” and “disturbing” especially since it was allegedly done “days after a riot at the Capitol!” But her argument didn’t make much sense either since she, and many in the liberal media, had suggested that January 6 was a day of dire national distress; much like what she said was the only correct time to fly the flag inverted. She and the rest of the cast played a round of whataboutism and pretended as though they would be equally upset if a liberal justice did it: FARAH GRIFFIN: But I would note this to my conservative friends defending this, let's just say if Justice Sotomayor had hung a flag upside down after Donald Trump was elected we would call for her resignation. BEHAR: That’s right! HOSTIN: We sure would! Since The View didn’t care to criticize Sotomayor when she refused to recuse herself and issued a ruling that directly involved her book publisher, it’s safe to say they wouldn’t have anything to say on the matter. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 17, 2024 11:15:42 a.m. Eastern JOY BEHAR: So, the Supreme Court – very iffy these days – is getting ready to deal with cases involving presidential immunity and obstruction charges against Trump. Okay? The January 6th insurrectionists also, they're ready to deal with all those cases. But a photo has just emerged from days after the Capitol Riot on January 6th showing an upside down American flag flying outside – wait for it – Justice Alito's house. Now, in case you don't know, this is something that the MAGA people have adopted as a stop the steal symbol. In other words, when you see that flag upside down, that means stop the steal which they imagine happened even though Joe Biden did win legitimately. We all know it. Everybody who’s not crazy knows it. SUNNY HOSTIN: It was proven. BEHAR: It was proven over and over and over again. Yet Justice Alito has this upside down flag. Now, he claims his wife did it. Thank you, Senator Menendez, another one. In a dispute with neighbors saying she did it because she was disputing with neighbors about their anti-Trump signs on their lawn, even that -- even that annoys me that the wife is worried about anti-Trump signs in her neighborhood. Do you believe his answer to the thing that his wife did it and he has nothing to do with stop the steal? HOSTIN: I do believe it. How about Clarence Thomas and Ginni Thomas. Ginni Thomas sent a bus to the January 6 insurrection and Clarence Thomas is sitting on that court listening to insurrection cases. He’s listening to election fraud cases. It's ridiculous! You know, what upsets me so much about it as an attorney is that the Supreme Court has always been sort of the bastion of the law. Right? It’s where we look to for guidance and now 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court. Never has the Supreme Court been so -- and they do, right? 60 percent. [Applause] It hurts me to my core. And, you know, Justice Sotomayor has said over and over and over again, she said, “will this institution survive” – this is after the Mississippi abortion case – “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” I don't see how it is possible. If you have a Supreme Court justice, even if his wife did it, for days and days and days having that sign there, that is a political expression that has no place! ANA NAVARRO: I think it's incredibly sad how -- how dysfunctional -- we've seen the dysfunction in Congress and now dysfunction in the Supreme Court. So, Americans have to be watching this and just having this crisis, existentialist crisis of faith in our most important institutions and, look, I think John Roberts has lost control of this court. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: Maybe he agrees with them. NAVARRO: Well, I don't know if he does or not but he has a duty to the American people as chief justice to make sure that this Supreme Court is at a certain level of decorum and you have Ginni Thomas and Clarence Thomas accepting all sorts of gifts from billionaires and hearing some of the cases and you've got this. I mean, it’s an embarrassment. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I don't even know -- I don't buy this description. So the U.S. Flag Code states that the American flag should not be flown upside down except in moments of national – dire national distress. I think pointing the finger – If my husband put a flag upside down, I’d say, “what are you doing?!” This is un-American, it’s disturbing. But I would note this to my conservative friends defending this, let's just say if Justice Sotomayor had hung a flag upside down after Donald Trump was elected we would call for her resignation. BEHAR: That’s right! HOSTIN: We sure would! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s so, un-American in days – HOSITN: We sure would. FARAH GRIFFIN: In days after a riot at the Capitol! SARA HAINES: It also speaks to—When you’re married to a Supreme Court justice and you are well aware of that, elevate yourself. When responding to yard signs in your neighborhood, you're telling me you're triggered too easy. He's a Supreme Court justice. You're going to hear things. The fact that that was the act she took because she had to get her word in? It’s a really pathetic example – NAVARRO: Sounds like she belongs in Congress. HAINES: And your stat is worse, Sunny. It's worse. It's 44 percent of Americans support – have faith in the Supreme Court. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: These lifetime assignments have got to stop and they need to fix the Electoral College also because that's un-American. FARAH GRIFFIN: They need a code of ethics. (…)

A Meta Oversight Board member recently confirmed the obvious: Meta might be an American company, but it certainly doesn't prioritize the First Amendment in its policy decisions.  Kenji Yoshino, a New York University Constitutional law professor and member of the Meta Oversight Board, asserted that the U.S. Constitution is not the baseline for the tech company’s free speech policies. “Our baseline here is not the US Constitution and free speech, but rather international human rights norms,” he said at a National Constitution Center town hall event.    Yoshino noted that America is an “outlier” when compared with other countries because it has such strong legal protections against censorship. He explained that as Meta became a global company “it could not simply default back to U.S. jurisprudence.” The Meta Oversight Board member claimed that Meta looks at “striking a balance” between international values like “safety” and “dignity” and the U.S. Constitution. However, he admitted, “oftentimes that calculus comes out differently than it would if the baseline were First Amendment norms.”  Yoshino contrasted the two different attitudes toward freedom of speech, explaining that in the U.S. “the [protecting] the speech we hate doctrine, is part of an expansionist and rigid vision that is intensely speech protective.” In Europe, however, the attitude is “much more tilted toward equality and dignity than it might be toward speech.”  But the European standard is far from perfect. For example, multiple European countries, including Scotland, France and England, criminalize alleged “hate speech.”  Applying European standards to Americans can lead to anti-First Amendment censorship. This is especially problematic as U.S. government agencies have reportedly resumed coordination with tech companies, indicating actions directly violative of the First Amendment. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

A Nashville hotel is being accused of religious discrimination after abruptly canceling a pro-Israel event.The Israel Summit — a "gathering of pro-Israel supporters who unconditionally support Israel’s right to be sovereign in the entirety of the land of Israel, including Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip," according to the event website — was scheduled to take place at the Sonesta Nashville Airport Hotel next week, May 20–22.'In the end, the Sonesta Hotel made a corporate decision to cancel.'But last Friday, a representative for the hotel abruptly canceled the event.The representative told HaYovel, a Christian organization that is coordinating the event, in an email dated May 10:We have received credible threats regarding the safety of your group, our guests and employees, our hotel and sister property, and to businesses in our neighborhood. Those threats were confirmed by law enforcement officials in the last 24 hours. Consequently, we are invoking our rights under the force majeure clause of the contract and unfortunately are canceling the event that was scheduled for May 20-22, including canceling any guestroom reservations associated with the event. We are sincerely sorry.On Monday, the First Liberty Institute sent Sonesta a letter accusing the hotel of "unlawful religious discrimination in a place of public accommodation."By canceling the contract, Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel at First Liberty, said Sonesta violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act.The problem, according to Sasser, is the alleged threats "were anti-semitic and anti-Israel in nature and in line with the hateful rhetoric currently seen on some of America’s college campuses" and not sufficient legal justification to cancel the contract under its force majeure clause."It is un-American — and illegal — to cancel a gathering due to religious beliefs and quite frankly it is morally wrong," Sasser said in a statement. "The Sonesta and others cannot surrender to terror in violation of federal and Tennessee law. If this hotel chain surrenders to pro-Hamas, terrorist beliefs, where does it stop? The hotel must make the choice of standing with American ideals or pro-Hamas terrorists. We hope the hotel will quickly reverse its decision."Moreover, Nashville Police Chief John Drake confirmed the hotel did not receive threats per se. Rather, the hotel was inundated with "external messages" demanding they cancel the pro-Israel event."The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department did not advocate, in any shape or form, for the cancellation of the conference at the Sonesta Hotel. Any inference to the contrary is false," Drake said in an email seen by Blaze News. "Equally false is the assertion in an online article that this police department voiced concerns about persons being in physical danger. In fact, members of the police department did, indeed, meet with hotel management at its request to talk about the conference," Drake explained. "We let it be known that we were absolutely prepared to help the hotel create a safety and security plan, as we would with any of our city’s hotels, and offer additional support if needed.""At the same time, I am aware that the Sonesta was receiving a number of external messages urging that it not host the event. In the end, the Sonesta Hotel made a corporate decision to cancel. This police department was in no way a party to that decision," he clarified.Palestine Hurra Collective Nashville — an activist group "dedicated to the total liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea" — is the group behind those messages, according to the Jewish News Syndicate.Last week, Palestine Hurra instructed its supporters to bombard the general manager of the Sonesta Nashville Airport Hotel with messages demanding they cancel the pro-Israel event, even drafting a script for supporters to recite via phone or email.The post claimed that event organizers and attendees were gathering to "celebrate the death of civilians and recruit new Zionists.""Call relentlessly until this event is shut down!" the post demanded.It appears the pressure campaign worked — at least for now. But organizers have no plans to cancel the event."We will move forward with this event at a different venue and show these thugs that they will not be rewarded for their unconstitutional, hateful actions," HaYovel said. "Now, more than ever, it is important that America stands unconditionally with Israel and that we publicly show that we cannot be intimidated by pro-Hamas thugs."Dave Ramsey, whose business is located in the Nashville area, has reportedly offered to host the summit.Blaze News reached out to a representative for Sonesta, but multiple messages were not returned.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!