Watch to learn more about how anti-Israel protests fit into the Left's broader goals

'Biden cannot present his case'

A viral image shared on X purports to show a group of Indonesian women supporting Israel. Muslims in Indonesia STAND WITH ISRAEL. ???? I hope to visit Nusantara, Indonesia’s new planned capital, one day. We were never meant to be enemies. pic.twitter.com/xB3B3PL9D9 — Hananya Naftali (@HananyaNaftali) June 21, 2024 Verdict: False The claim is false. […]

'Obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding'

'Everybody's calm here'

Steve Earle was born on January 17, 1955, in Fort Monroe, Virginia. However,  he was raised near San Antonio, Texas. He began his career in music in 1974 and gained significant attention in the early 1980s as a prominent figure in the Nashville music scene. Known for his blend of rock, country, and folk music, Earle quickly became a respected name for his songwriting skills and distinct voice. Steve Earle released his debut studio album, Guitar Town, in 1986, which immediately garnered critical acclaim and reached number one on the Billboard Country album charts. This album was followed by a The post Complete List Of Steve Earle Albums And Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

The Supreme Court sided with a small Oregon city’s crackdown on homeless people sleeping in public in its ruling Friday in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote, “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.” The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of ordinances in Grants Pass, a city in southwest Oregon with a population of about 40,000, that fines homeless people for using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes while sleeping in public within city limits. Grants Pass residents who have been homeless, including Gloria Johnson, sued the city in this case. Grants Pass maintained the ordinances bar camping on public property by everyone, while the counsel of the defendant, argued the laws make homelessness a crime, violating the “cruel and unusual punishment” ban in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Grants Pass Municipal Code includes an “anti-sleeping” ordinance, two “anti-camping” ordinances, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance. In oral arguments in the case on April 22, the court appeared to side with the city. Justice Neil Gorsuch said drawing the line between someone’s legally punishable conduct and their status is difficult. “How about if there are no public bathroom facilities?” Gorsuch asked. “Do people have an Eighth Amendment right to defecate and urinate? Is that conduct or is that status?” The court declined to hear a similar case concerning homelessness in Boise, Idaho, in 2019, but homelessness has since increased. More than 250,000 people live in parks, on streets, and in their vehicles in the U.S., according to an annual federal count, NPR reported. In both the Oregon and Idaho cases, the lower courts decided it’s cruel and unusual to fine or jail someone for sleeping on public land if adequate shelter isn’t available. Grants Pass and other Western cities say those rulings make it hard to keep their public spaces open and safe for all residents. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor contended it is wrong to arrest homeless people for sleeping in public. “You don’t arrest babies who have blankets over them,” Sotomayor said in oral arguments. “You don’t arrest people who are sleeping on the beach.” This is a breaking news story and may be updated. The post Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Ban Homeless Sleeping Outside appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of commercial fisherman who challenged the U.S. government’s imposition of charges for onboard federal inspections. The case deals a massive blow to the power of federal agencies. BREAKING: In a major blow to the unelected administrative state, the Supreme Court has overruled the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to the legal interpretations of unelected bureaucrats. “Chevron is overruled.” pic.twitter.com/tqC5EYaUBl— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 28, 2024 Commercial fishermen in New Jersey initiated the case, Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. The fishermen argued that they were unjustly charged by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2020 to pay for third-party, onboard monitors of their operations. NOAA did this without Congress giving the agency authority to do so. The fishermen argued that the federal regulation violates Article 1 of the Constitution. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the fishermen’s appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision overturns so-called Chevron deference, a legal test that comes from a series of cases before the high court beginning with its unanimous 1984 decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chevron doctrine essentially meant that courts give deference to the expertise of the government’s administrative agencies in interpreting legislative statutes. “Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. Judicial originalists have argued that Chevron deference places too much unimpeded power in the hands of government agencies. The new ruling shifts more power back to courts and legislative bodies. Heritage Foundation fellow Steve Bradbury wrote earlier this year that the Supreme Court’s unanimous Chevron decision 40 years ago was a reaction to overreach by lower courts. “When it handed down its Chevron opinion in 1984, the Supreme Court was reacting with some exasperation to a persistent pattern of flawed judicial intervention by the lower courts, par­tic­u­larly the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the court that hears the greatest volume of challenges to agency actions,” Bradbury wrote. Those who argued in favor of Chevron deference say that the courts are ill-equipped to understand technical policies promulgated by government agencies and therefore should defer to bureaucratic expertise.   Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Chevron deference, “has formed the backdrop against which Congress, courts, and agencies–as well as regulated parties and the public–all have operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds.” This is a breaking news story and may be updated. The post Supreme Court Throws Back ‘Chevron Deference’ in Ruling on Fishermen’s Case Against Government appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a Capitol riot defendant, a decision that could affect hundreds of other cases, and raises the question of whether federal prosecutors went too far in enforcing a statute about “corruptly” obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding. The high court’s ruling could affect the prosecutions of about 330 Americans who are charged under the 2002 federal statute with crimes connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The law carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison upon conviction. In some case, the obstruction charge is the only felony they face. Of those charged, about 170 Jan. 6 defendants were convicted on the anti-obstruction charge, The Associated Press reported. Some of those convicted had their sentencing delayed pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.  Further, the high court’s ruling could affect part of special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump, which includes this charge. The plaintiff in the case is Joseph Fischer, a former police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania, who was charged with obstructing an official proceeding.  A mob of Trump supporters entered the Capitol, some apparently bent on preventing a joint session of Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election.   During oral arguments in April, some justices expressed skepticism about whether the statute was properly applied or whether the Justice Department overreached.  During arguments, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, whose job is to argue for the government before the Supreme Court, said Fischer was prepared to use violence at the Capitol. “He said they can’t vote if they can’t breathe,” Prelogar told the justices.  The average term imposed is two years in prison, not 20, she said. She also argued that the statute is a “classic catchall” and shouldn’t be interpreted too narrowly.   Fischer’s lawyer, Jeffrey Green, argued that Congress passed the 2002 anti-obstruction law in response to the financial scandal that led to the collapse of energy giant Enron. The law was intended to close loopholes in laws focused on destroying or altering documents, Green argued.  Green argued that Fischer wasn’t in the mob that forced Congress to evacuate the Capitol, and that his client entered the building after the lawmakers already were out. The Supreme Court, however, was reviewing the bigger picture regarding the constitutionality of the statute.  At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked: “Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address?” Gorsuch, referring to what Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., did in the Capitol last September to block a budget vote, then asked: “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” This is a breaking news story and may be updated. The post Supreme Court Rules on Anti-Obstruction Law in Jan. 6 Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Considered one of the greatest period historical epics of all time, Ben-Hur continues to marvel audiences who are conditioned to CGI daily. It's a mix of religion, violence, and heroism that has kept everyone on the edge of their seats since 1959. See why this film is at the top of the few to win a record-breaking number of Academy Awards, and why it's still considered to be the definition of... Source