YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #history #automotiveengineering #ford #fmc #automotive
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Go LIVE! Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed
1 y

EA Sports Revives Highly Popular College Football Video Game
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

EA Sports Revives Highly Popular College Football Video Game

EA Sports released the official trailer for their new “College Football 25” video game on Thursday, the first time in more than a decade that the company produced the game after a lawsuit was filed in 2013 over name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. The game will be available for PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S starting on July 19 and will allow players to play all 134 FBS schools in all modes of the game, including Dynasty, Road To Glory, Road to the College Football Playoff, and College Football Ultimate Team. “EA SPORTS College Football is BACK! We’ve felt the passion and anticipation of college football fans every step of the way since we first announced this game, and we’re ecstatic to finally be able to show everyone what we’ve been building,” said Daryl Holt, SVP and Group GM, EA SPORTS. “College Football 25 is built with authenticity at its core, inspired by experiences our fans have loved from our games, and fully evolved to reflect modern college football – all of which will immerse them in the sights, sounds, and true-to-life gameplay of the sport they love.” The official trailer released by EA Sports showcases the major advancements made in the game since the last time the studio released the game. The game’s cover features the best players in college football, including  Michigan running back Donovan Edwards, Texas quarterback Quinn Ewers, and Colorado wide receiver/defensive back Travis Hunter. Top commentators broadcast the game, including Chris Fowler, Kirk Herbstreit, Rece Davis, Jesse Palmer, and David Pollack. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP WATCH: Bring Glory Home. Coming July 19. Pre-Order Now ?: https://t.co/sJ7cJ5NXLj #CFB25 pic.twitter.com/iJWl5ZxVQl — EASPORTSCollege (@EASPORTSCollege) May 17, 2024
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed
1 y

Justice Alito Gives His Side Of Story On The Neighborhood Spat Behind NYT Flag Story
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

Justice Alito Gives His Side Of Story On The Neighborhood Spat Behind NYT Flag Story

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was the subject of a New York Times report that attempted to tie him to supporters of former President Donald Trump who breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 — but the justice himself tells a very different story. “At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display,” the NYT headline blared, with a sub-headline explaining, “An upside-down flag, adopted by Trump supporters contesting the Biden victory, flew over the justice’s front lawn as the Supreme Court was considering an election case.” The piece briefly referenced a spat with a neighbor and quoted Alito as saying that he had not made the decision to fly the flag on January 17, 2021: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Justice Alito explained the context in further detail to “Fox News Sunday” anchor — and former Supreme Court correspondent — Shannon Bream, saying that his wife had been repeatedly provoked by neighbors hurling insults and using foul language before she resorted to flying the flag. Bream said that she “spoke directly” with Alito about the report. “In addition to what’s in the story, he told me a neighbor on their street had a ‘F*** Trump’ sign that was within 50 feet of where children await the school bus in Jan 21,” Bream began in a series of posts on X. “Mrs. Alito brought this up with the neighbor.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP According to Justice Alito, things escalated and the neighbor put up a sign personally addressing Mrs. Alito and blaming her for the Jan 6th attacks. 2/ — Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) May 17, 2024 “According to Justice Alito, things escalated and the neighbor put up a sign personally addressing Mrs. Alito and blaming her for the Jan 6th attacks,” she added. “Justice Alito says he and his wife were walking in the neighborhood and there were words between Mrs. Alito and a male at the home with the sign. Alito says the man engaged in vulgar language, ‘including the c-word,'” Bream continued. “Following that exchange, Mrs. Alito was distraught and hung the flag upside down ‘for a short time.’ Justice Alito says some neighbors on his street are ‘very political’ and acknowledges it was a very heated time in January 2021,” Bream’s thread concluded. Following that exchange, Mrs. Alito was distraught and hung the flag upside down "for a short time". Justice Alito says some neighbors on his street are "very political" and acknowledges it was a very heated time in January 2021. 4/4 — Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) May 17, 2024 The New York Times piece quoted several experts who argued that the appearance was all that mattered; whether or not he had made the decision to fly the flag, Alito was ethically and morally responsible for its presence at his home and how that might be viewed by others. Judicial experts said in interviews that the flag was a clear violation of ethics rules, which seek to avoid even the appearance of bias, and could sow doubt about Justice Alito’s impartiality in cases related to the election and the Capitol riot. The mere impression of political opinion can be a problem, the ethics experts said. “It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia. This is “the equivalent of putting a ‘Stop the Steal’ sign in your yard, which is a problem if you’re deciding election-related cases,” she said.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed
1 y

More Pro-Lifers Sentenced To Prison Over Protest At D.C. Abortion Facility
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

More Pro-Lifers Sentenced To Prison Over Protest At D.C. Abortion Facility

A total of seven pro-life activists were sentenced to prison this week over a protest at a Washington, D.C., abortion facility in 2020. Three activists were sentenced on Tuesday and another four on Wednesday after they were convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act Act and conspiracy against rights, a charge that could have led to over a decade in prison. All seven were prosecuted by the Biden administration after they staged a sit-in at the D.C.-based Washington Surgi-Clinic late-term abortion facility. On Wednesday, Jonathan Darnel, Herb Geraghty, Jean Marshall, and Joan Bell were all sentenced to prison. Darnel got 34 months in prison, Geraghty got 27 months, Marshall got 24 months, and Bell got 27 months. The sentences followed Tuesday’s sentencing of Lauren Handy to 57 months in prison, as well as John Hinshaw (21 months) and William Goodman (27 months). During the protest, the pro-life protesters sang songs, prayed, locked arms in front of the facility’s staff entrance, and attached themselves with ropes and chains to block doors inside the building. In March 2022, authorities were called to the home of Handy to recover the bodies of five premie-size aborted babies. Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU) activists previously said that they found the box of aborted babies that was on its way from Washington Surgi-Clinic to Curtis Bay Medical Waste Facility to be incinerated. The PAAU activists called police and asked for autopsies on the babies. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “As evidenced by today’s sentencings, the FBI and our judicial system will not tolerate the obstruction of civil rights,” said David Sundberg of the FBI Washington Field Office. “The FBI will continue to investigate FACE Act violations in all jurisdictions, so patients and providers can exercise their right to receive or provide lawful reproductive health care without the threat of violence or intimidation.” Also set to be sentenced over the D.C. protest is 59-year-old Heather Idoni, who was also convicted earlier this year of similar charges over a protest at a Tennessee abortion facility. On Thursday, several Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Marshals Service that Idoni and Marshall were not getting necessary medical treatment while in federal custody. The questions relate to treatment of Idoni for a heart condition and diabetes and hip surgery for Marshall.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Wire Feed
Daily Wire Feed
1 y

Chaos Breaks Out In Congress Because Our Politicians Are The Dumbest Dimwits To Ever Exist On Planet Earth
Favicon 
www.dailywire.com

Chaos Breaks Out In Congress Because Our Politicians Are The Dumbest Dimwits To Ever Exist On Planet Earth

Yesterday the House Oversight Committee gathered for a very important hearing. Mediaite reports on the purpose of the hearing: The committee met to discuss a resolution to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. That subpoena demanded he turn over the recorded deposition of President Joe Biden as questioned by former Special Counsel Robert Hur. Hur investigated Biden’s retention of classified documents from his time as a senator and vice president. Ultimately, the special counsel declined to prosecute Biden, stating that a jury would likely view him “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. As you probably recall, Joe Biden was judged by the special counsel to be mentally unfit to stand trial for his mishandling of classified documents. The poor old man was just confused, Robert Hur determined. There may be some merit to this excuse, if not for the fact that Joe Biden is also, you may have noticed, the President of the United States. If he is not mentally competent enough to stand trial, how is he mentally competent to sit in the Oval Office? That’s a very good question. Another question is this: just how embarrassing and troubling was Joe Biden’s performance in that deposition that it led to this conclusion? And as a way of getting to the bottom of that, congress has attempted to obtain the audio recording of Biden’s deposition. But the Biden Administration is refusing to comply with the subpoena on the grounds that they don’t want Biden to look bad. That’s not the reason they’re giving but it is the actual reason, as we all know. And this is why the House Oversight Committee was meeting last night. It’s a very important subject. One that requires a seriousness of mind and purpose. WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show Unfortunately, however, in the current year, Congress happens to include some of the dumbest human beings who have ever been born on planet Earth. Voters in this country have scoured the nation, from sea to shining sea, looking for the most obnoxious dimwits they can find, and then they have elected those people, and put them into positions of power. Of course, we have been electing clowns to Congress for many years but we have now reached critical clown mass. As philosophers and scientists have long warned, when you reach critical clown mass, total dysfunction follows. And that’s what we saw at this hearing on Thursday night.  It all began with Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who made a little dig at Democrat Representative Jasmine Crockett. Marjorie Taylor Greene to Jasmine Crockett. "I don’t think you know what we’re here for. I think your fake eyelashes are messing up your reading."??? pic.twitter.com/pB9TqSSKGR — 3sidedstory ?? (@3sidedstory) May 17, 2024 That was the spark — Marjorie Taylor Greene makes fun of Crockett’s fake eyelashes.  Now, you know I am not exactly a sensitive soul when it comes to this kind of thing, or any kind of thing. I have been known to throw out insults myself on very rare occasion. And it’s true that Crockett does seem to have fake eyelashes. But come on. Is a congressional hearing really a place for catty little insults like this? How does a comment about another representative’s eyelashes help us obtain the recordings of Joe Biden’s deposition, which is supposed to be the purpose of the hearing? It does not help us. Instead, it takes things wildly off course. And that’s exactly what happened. Watch:  Anyway. We’re $35 trillion in debt. Heading into World War 3. Being invaded at the southern border. Let’s check in on congress: pic.twitter.com/V3h7u1Jij8 — Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) May 17, 2024 It might be hard to discern anything that is being said over noises that sound like feral cats fighting in a back alley. So please allow me to provide a brief but fully accurate and verbatim transcript of Jasmine Crockett’s remarks. She said, and I quote:  “Ya’ll wanna play games with me. Don’t tell me to calm down. Y’all talk noise and then you can’t take it. Cuz if I come and talk s*** about her, ya’ll gon’ have a problem.” That is an actual statement made by an elected member of the United States Congress during a House Oversight Committee hearing. I think we can safely say that it is the first time in American history that any member of Congress, operating in an official capacity, has ever used the phrase “Ya’ll talk noise.” It’s also, I’m guessing, the first time that the phrase “talk s***” and “ya’ll wanna play games” have ever been uttered during a congressional hearing. We are making history here, in all of the wrong ways.  And that was not the only history making moment. Listen to this exchange, in the same hearing, between Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC: Again, the transcript: “Oh girl. Baby girl. Don’t even play.”  There is another statement that, we can assume with some measure of certainty, has never been stated on the record at any congressional hearing. It is another historic first. We are witnessing history in the making. If you read just the transcript of these exchanges without any context, you would assume this was, perhaps, an argument between groups of people at a Waffle House. Or maybe it’s a feud that broke out in the parking lot of a Bojangles fast food restaurant at 2:00 a.m. If you just arrived here in a time machine from 30 years ago, or any time prior, you simply would not believe that this was an exchange between members of Congress. If you were informed of that fact, you would immediately get back in your time machine and go back to your own time to warn the world of the impending collapse of our collective IQ. If for some reason you couldn’t go back in your time machine, you would probably elect to throw yourself into the sea, rather than stay here and live through this.  We should note that the Democrats are not the only ones humiliating themselves in this exchange. Marjorie Taylor Greene is no better. Or if she is better, only slightly so.  And this dispute between Greene and AOC continued, as AOC demanded an apology for the random insults Greene kept throwing onto the pile: “Why don’t you debate me?” I very much hope she doesn’t. I think we’ve already seen what a “debate” between AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene would consist of. Here’s what the debate would be:  “You’re stupid!” “No I’m not. You are!” “And you’re ugly! “No you are!” “No, you!” And so on, for seven and a half hours. This cat fight felt like it went on that long during the hearing, as the men sat there bewildered and stuttering, trying meekly and ineffectually to get the hearing back on track. It was a microcosm of American culture in many ways — and all the worst ways. By contrast, back in the year 1858, there were a series of presidential debates between Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen A. Douglas. These were highly contentious and emotionally-charged, and often involved bitter personal attacks. After all, this was only three years before the country would erupt into a brutal civil war that would kill 700,000 people on both sides. And yet these men expressed their disdain for one another in eloquent and intelligent ways. So eloquent and intelligent that we can’t even imagine politicians in the modern age speaking this way. Here is just one very brief example, pulled at random. In the first debate, Douglas spoke first. Lincoln, when it was his turn, felt that Douglas had lied about him and misrepresented his record. Here was his way of accusing Douglas of dishonesty. One sentence will be enough to make the contrast clear. He said: My fellow citizens, when a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him-at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. Now compare that to how that same sentiment would be expressed by politicians today. Instead, it would be something like this: Oh baby girl, don’t play with me. You best stop talkin’ that noise, wit your lyin’ a**. The intelligence of our leaders hasn’t just declined, it has plummeted like a meteor out of the sky and formed a crater in the ground that goes five miles deep into the Earth. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We know that, because it never was this way until now. There was a time when our nation was led by men — and it used to be mostly men, let’s face it — who were articulate, intelligent, dignified, composed, and most importantly, boring. I’m not saying that they were always good at their jobs or always made wise decisions. That certainly wasn’t the case. But I’m simply trying to emphasize the fact that it is highly unusual, from the perspective of history, to have a congress with an average IQ of 85. Then again, when the average IQ of the country collapses, we would expect the country’s representatives to follow suit. My only hope is that voters get tired of this. We don’t need to be entertained by politicians. They are not there to amuse us. They are not there to go viral. These are not social media influencers. We should have serious people leading us. We need more than seriousness from them. We should also want them to be competent, and have integrity, and always put America and its people first. We have almost no one who checks any of those boxes, let alone all of them. But before any of that, they need to be serious people who take the job seriously. Yet we can only get serious kinds of leaders if we have serious voters who take the job of voting seriously. Because ultimately you get the leaders you deserve. And as sad as it is to say, this is what we deserve.
Like
Comment
Share
The Conservative Brief Feed
The Conservative Brief Feed
1 y

Uncovering the Scandal: The Shocking Aftermath of the Ashley Madison Hack
Favicon 
www.theconservativebrief.com

Uncovering the Scandal: The Shocking Aftermath of the Ashley Madison Hack

In the age of the internet, where our personal information is just a click away, privacy and security have become a major concern. And the recent Ashley Madison hack has once again highlighted the vulnerability of our online data. For those who are unaware, Ashley Madison is a popular dating website that caters specifically to married individuals seeking extramarital affairs. However, a group of hackers were able to gain access to the website's private data and leaked a list of millions of users, causing chaos and destruction in their wake. The aftermath of the Ashley Madison hack has left a trail of broken relationships, shattered trust, and a flurry of legal actions. The leaked data contained personal information such as names, addresses, and credit card details of the website's users, exposing them to the world. This has resulted in public shaming, divorce, and even suicides. The impact of the hack has been far-reaching, with many questioning the morality and ethics of the website's services. So far this Ashley Madison documentary is one where you root for literally no one. Actually, I'm rooting for the hackers.#Ashleymadisonnetflix pic.twitter.com/2dRCkCTT3S — rn4n (@Zouki33) May 15, 2024 The leaked data has also brought to light the alarming number of users on the website, with over 37 million accounts registered. This has sparked a debate on the state of modern-day marriages and the increasing acceptance of infidelity in society. While some argue that the website is merely providing a platform for people to explore their desires, others condemn it as a tool for destroying marriages and families. The Ashley Madison hack has reignited the discussion on the blurred lines of morality in the digital age. Ashley Madison was a widely popular site hosting tens of millions of users seeking adulterous affairs. Then they got hacked. Ashley Madison: Sex, Lies & Scandal is now playing. pic.twitter.com/jYdjOvpImk — Netflix UK & Ireland (@NetflixUK) May 16, 2024 As the dust settles from the hack, the aftermath has also exposed the website's lax security measures. Despite boasting about their advanced security systems, the hackers were able to access the website's database and steal confidential information. This raises concerns about the safety of other online platforms that handle sensitive personal data. It serves as a wake-up call for both individuals and businesses to prioritize the protection of their online information. Amidst the chaos and turmoil, the Ashley Madison hack has also sparked debates on the concept of forgiveness and redemption. Many of the website's users have come forward, admitting their mistakes and asking for forgiveness. Some have even sought professional help to save their marriages and make amends for their actions. This raises questions about the possibility of redemption and the impact of technology on our ability to forgive and move on. While the Ashley Madison hack has exposed the darker side of the internet and its consequences, it has also served as a warning for all of us to be more cautious with our online activities. It is a reminder to take necessary precautions to protect our personal information and to think twice before engaging in risky online behavior. The hack has also sparked a debate on the need for stricter regulations and laws to prevent such breaches of privacy in the future. As we navigate through the aftermath of the Ashley Madison hack, it serves as a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of the internet and the consequences of our actions. It has also exposed the vulnerabilities in our society and raised important questions about morality, forgiveness, and the impact of technology on our lives. Let this be a lesson for us all to prioritize privacy, security, and integrity in both our online and offline worlds. What are YOUR thoughts? We want to hear from you! Please comment below to join the discussion. The post Uncovering the Scandal: The Shocking Aftermath of the Ashley Madison Hack appeared first on The Conservative Brief.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Caller Feed
Daily Caller Feed
1 y

ABBOTT: Letting Men Into Women’s Sports Reverses 100 Years Of Progress
Favicon 
dailycaller.com

ABBOTT: Letting Men Into Women’s Sports Reverses 100 Years Of Progress

These are biological facts.
Like
Comment
Share
Gamers Realm
Gamers Realm
1 y

All secrets in the Skull Room in Animal Well
Favicon 
www.pcinvasion.com

All secrets in the Skull Room in Animal Well

You may have come across the Skull Room in Animal Well and wondered how to access the two chests and what other secrets are held within. There are more than you might realise. How to access the chests in the Skull Room Once you access the Skull Room in Animal Well you may notice the two chests on the left side of the room. Both of these can be accessed in different ways depending on how well you have completed the game. The skulls in this room represent just how many times you have died in the game. Screenshot: PC Invasion So, to get to the top chest, die as many times as you want and leave a huge pile of skulls in the room in Animal Well. This top chest will contain an upgraded Bubble Wand, which will allow you to blow even more bubbles. However, getting the bottom chest is going to be really hard. The only way you’re ever going to find out what is in the bottom chest in the Skull Room is by completing a deathless run of Animal Well. This will allow you to access...
Like
Comment
Share
Nostalgia Machine
Nostalgia Machine
1 y

The Complicated Life Of Errol Flynn
Favicon 
www.pastfactory.com

The Complicated Life Of Errol Flynn

Born in Tasmania in 1909, during the Golden Age of Hollywood, Errol Flynn became one of the most recognizable movie stars in the world. Best-known for his roles as a suave swashbuckler, his good looks and charisma made him one of Warner Brother's most popular talents. Although Flynn may have been at the top of the Hollywood totem pole, not everything was as it seemed. There was a darker side to... Source
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
1 y

Americans Should Thank a Cop During National Police Week—and the Rest of the Year, Too
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Americans Should Thank a Cop During National Police Week—and the Rest of the Year, Too

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.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
1 y

13 Federal Judges Boycott Columbia University
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

13 Federal Judges Boycott Columbia University

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.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 56934 out of 85312
  • 56930
  • 56931
  • 56932
  • 56933
  • 56934
  • 56935
  • 56936
  • 56937
  • 56938
  • 56939
  • 56940
  • 56941
  • 56942
  • 56943
  • 56944
  • 56945
  • 56946
  • 56947
  • 56948
  • 56949
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund