Feel-Good Friday: The $5 Fast Food Meal Battles

Holly, a dedicated volunteer with Woodside Wildlife Rescue, has an inspiring tale to tell about Petunia, a baby beaver found alone in a field. When Petunia was discovered, she was less than a week old and in desperate need of help. The rescue team quickly took her in, and Holly, whose main focus at the... The post Adorable baby beaver starts chattering to rescuer and sounds just like a human baby appeared first on Animal Channel.

With President Biden arguing that former President Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan decided it would be a good idea to try to help make that case. On Friday’s CNN News Central, O’Sullivan was seen on the road with Trump voters, where he was aghast at the idea that they view America as a republic, not a democracy. In one clip, O’Sullivan was speaking to a couple when he declared, “Obviously, there's a lot of criticisms of Trump that he is bad for democracy. That he's bad for American democracy.” A woman interrupted him to assert, “Can I say something? We are a republic. We’re not a democracy,” while a man echoed her sentiment, “We are a republic. We’re a representative republic. We're not a democracy.”     It was a pattern that O’Sullivan would highlight through other Trump supporters, but O’Sullivan was distressed, “But for centuries, America has celebrated its democracy.” He then played a clip of former President Ronald Reagan declaring “Democracy is worth dying for” and George W. Bush claiming “Democracy remains the definition of political legitimacy” to try to make the point that Republicans have left those two men behind and embraced craziness. The clips of Reagan and Bush were juxtaposed with actor Will Cain, Speaker Mike Johnson, and Fox News host Pete Hegseth claiming America is a republic, not a democracy. The whole premise is silly. Reagan and Bush were using democracy as an antonym for dictatorship, whereas others use democracy in a more literal sense, where the rights of the people are not protected from the emotions of the masses or of the legislature of the day. Regardless, O’Sullivan sat down for an interview with author Anne Applebaum and asked, “Is America a democracy?” Applebaum claimed, “America is a democracy. It was founded as a democracy.” There is no way around it: Applebaum is simply wrong. Nevertheless, O’Sullivan lamented, “I've heard a lot of conspiracy theories -- I hear a lot of things out on the road. But to hear Americans -- people who would describe themselves as patriots -- say that America is not a democracy -- that stopped me in my tracks.” Seeing a grand conspiracy at work, Applebaum replied, “You are hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that. Who have been planting that narrative.” Later, she claimed that for people who care about literal definitions, “democracy” and “republic” aren’t all that different in today’s world and claiming they are is just an excuse to empower Trump: These words were used in different ways in the 18th century. And it's true the founders didn't want direct democracy, by which they meant people gathering on the town square. They wanted representative democracy. But I think the reason why this conversation about language has risen now is because there is a part of the Republican Party that would like to rule as a minority, and they need an excuse for why that's okay. And so, they have begun to say we're not a democracy; we're a republic -- and it's not 100 percent clear what that means, but I think they mean we want Donald Trump to be able to do whatever he wants. Applebaum can “think” as much as she wants, but the idea that America is a republic and not a democracy and therefore politicians can’t legislate away the First Amendment’s religious liberty provisions, the Second Amendment, or any of other part of the Bill of Rights or Reconstruction Amendments has been around for a while. Here is a transcript for the June 14 show: CNN News Central 6/14/2024 7:56 AM ET DONIE O'SULLIVAN: Obviously, there's a lot of criticisms of Trump that he is bad for democracy. That he's bad for American democracy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can I say something? We are a republic. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are a republic. We’re a representative republic. We're not a democracy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are not a democracy. O'SULLIVAN: One thing we've been hearing at Trump rallies like this over the past few months is that America isn't really a democracy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 2: America is not a democracy; it's a republic. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Look, it's not a democracy, Okay? Democracy is actually not as good as you think it is. O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): But for centuries, America has celebrated its democracy. RONALD REAGAN: Democracy is worth dying for. GEORGE W. BUSH: Democracy remains the definition of political legitimacy. O'SULLIVAN: But some Republicans and pro-Trump media are pushing the idea that America is not a democracy. WILL CAIN: The United States of America is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. MIKE JOHNSON: The United States of America is not a democracy. You don't want to be in a democracy. PETE HEGSETH: We are not a democracy. We are a republic. O'SULLIVAN: Is America a democracy? ANNE APPLEBAUM: America is a democracy. It was founded as a democracy. O'SULLIVAN: I've heard a lot of conspiracy theories -- I hear a lot of things out on the road. But to hear Americans -- people who would describe themselves as patriots -- say that America is not a democracy -- that stopped me in my tracks. APPLEBAUM: You are hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that. Who have been planting that narrative. O'SULLIVAN: Is America a democracy? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 3: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 4: No. I don't -- I think we're a republic. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 3: Well, not right now but -- we're a republic. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 4: Yeah, we’re a republic. O'SULLIVAN: What's the difference? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 3: I feel like democracy -- let me think this through. That it's government controlled. I don't see freedom in democracy; I see freedom in the republic. APPLEBAUM: Honestly, the word "democracy" and the word "republic" have often been used interchangeably. There isn't a meaningful difference between them. O'SULLIVAN: So much of the warnings and criticism about Trump is that he is a threat to democracy. That he is anti-democratic. APPLEBAUM: Absolutely. If they can convince people that we don't have a democracy, then it's okay that Trump is attacking democracy because it doesn't really matter. O'SULLIVAN: So why -- like, why has democracy become a bad word? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE 5: Because it's being used in a way to change the flavor of our country, which is a republic. APPLEBAUM: These words were used in different ways in the 18th century. And it's true the founders didn't want direct democracy, by which they meant people gathering on the town square. They wanted representative democracy. But I think the reason why this conversation about language has risen now is because there is a part of the Republican Party that would like to rule as a minority, and they need an excuse for why that's okay. And so, they have begun to say we're not a democracy; we're a republic -- and it's not 100 percent clear what that means, but I think they mean we want Donald Trump to be able to do whatever he wants.

On Wednesday, three judges with the First District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida ruled that Plaintiff Zachary Young had sufficiently provided enough evidence to the court that they could proceed with his defamation suit against CNN for punitive damages. The network allegedly, knowingly lied about his security consulting company and their work amid President Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Jake Tapper, one of CNN’s presidential debate moderators was one of the journalists at the center of it all. The defamation suit stemmed from a segment on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper about Young’s company Nemex Enterprises Inc. and the prices they were allegedly charging to get people out of Afghanistan. Tapper led into the segment by painting an image of “black market” hustlers who charged “exorbitant fees” taking advantage of desperate people: In our world today, the U.S. government, the Biden administration says that as of last week it had assisted in the departure of at least 377 U.S. citizens and 279 lawful permanent residents of the U.S. from Afghanistan since August 31st. Still, many Afghans, Afghans who desperately want to flee Taliban rule and Afghans who say their lives are at stake, they remain behind. As CNN's Alex Marquardt has discovered, Afghans trying to get out of the country, face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success. A NewsBusters investigation found that CNN has since deleted the segment in question from their CNN Transcripts archive page for the November 11, 2021 episode of The Lead. There’s no note about the missing segment. CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt singled out Young’s company, not mentioning any others known to be working in-country to get people out.     “According to Afghans and activists we've spoken with desperate Afghans are being exploited like that young man, told they can get them or their families out if they pay exorbitant often impossible amounts,” he said. “One LinkedIn user posted messages with Young, where Young said it would be $75,000 for a car to Pakistan. He told another, it would be 14 and a half thousand per person to get to the United Arab Emirates or Albania for another 4,000. Prices well beyond the reach of most Afghans.” At no point did they mention anything about the dangers involved with getting people out of a country controlled by terrorists and freshly abandoned by the Biden administration. Those facts didn’t stop them from taking parting shots at Young as they concluded the segment: MARQUARDT: In another message, that person offering those evacuations, Zackary Young, wrote “availability is extremely limited and demand is high.” Jake, he goes on to say, “that's how economics works, unfortunately.” TAPPER: Unfortunately, Hmm. Alex Marquardt thanks so much for that important report. But, according to legal filings, internal CNN emails allegedly show that they knew the story was not sound or backed up with facts. “Young proffered CNN messages and emails that showed internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting—the story is ‘a mess,’ ‘incomplete,’ not ‘fleshed out for digital,’ ‘the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact,’ and ‘full of holes like Swiss cheese,’” the judges wrote. The messages also allegedly showed that CNN reporters were operating out of malice for Young, a key component of a defamation suit: Young proffered internal communication showing, at minimum, CNN employees had little regard for him. In those messages, CNN employees called him a “shitbag” and “a-hole” and remarked they were “going to nail this Zachary Young mfucker.” Marquardt referred to him as “fucking Young” and quipped, “it’s your funeral bucko.” (…) Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages. Though not a direct quote of CNN, the judges wrote that CNN’s defense for their internal attacks on Young was “journalistic bravado.” Will Tapper put that journalistic bravado on display during the first presidential debate?

Indiana Fever’s star Caitlin Clark was snubbed when it came to getting a spot on the USA Basketball Women’s Olympic team, which has left fans asking why. Dave Portnoy doesn’t know either, and he isn’t happy about it. “If you don’t think Caitlin Clark talent-wise belongs on this team, even though she does put up like 37 to 13, like the most points in the history of the league for a rookie,” Portnoy rants, annoyed. While he calls himself a “pro-women guy,” he notes that these specific women “complain and they cry about equal rights, equal wages.” “Hey, dummies, for the first time in the history of basketball you have arguably a player who is the most popular player in the world. You could argue right now Caitlin Clark is the most talked about, discussed, most popular, most puts asses in the seats, single basketball player in the world,” he continues. “And you leave her off the Olympics team?” he asks. “It’s not only a showcase for her, it’s for the sport and the other WNBA players who are on this team.” “How dumb, how brain dead, how idiotic do the people running this thing have to be?” he asks, adding, “I don’t ever want to hear you complain about flying commercial or not getting salaries or this, that. You’re too dumb. You’re too dumb. You have a cash cow.” “Women’s basketball would be like the number one thing people watch with Caitlin Clark. As it is, I’d rather watch grass grow, I’d rather watch paint dry, I’d rather watch dirt just be moved around because Caitlin Clark’s not on the team,” he continues. “Whoever did this, honestly, hey, take your brain, put it in a museum, and study it for how dumb you are.” Dave Rubin is nearly speechless. “I’m not sure I can add much to that. He’s making every point,” Rubin says, impressed. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Stanford Internet Observatory is the narrative curation outfit at Stanford University that reportedly worked hand-in-glove with the Biden administration and social media organizations to flag and clamp down on undesired speech, especially regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election. Despite having proven their value to the powers that be, the key players at the SIO have recently abandoned ship. The newsletter Platformer, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter, revealed this week that ship is now all but sunk. Background The SIO was founded in 2019. It took the lead on the so-called Election Integrity Partnership, which was created in July 2020 to tackle perceived wrongthink on the right in the lead-up to the presidential election and subsequently launched the Virality Project, an initiative to tackle "the dynamics specific to the COVID-19 crisis." The narrative curation outfit received a $748,437 grant from the National Science Foundation in 2021 "to support research into the spread of misinformation on the internet" after having demonstrated its capabilities in the lead-up to the 2020 election. The SIO features in the Twitter Files as well as in a controversial case soon to be decided concerning some of the Biden administration's First Amendment violations. The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether the Biden administration violated the Constitution when it leaned on social media companies to censor and suppress Americans' protected free speech in an effort to advance preferred narratives during the pandemic and in the years since. The case in question, Murthy v. Missouri, got kicked up to the high court after Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana blocked various entities and personalities within the Biden administration from pressuring social media companies to censor "protected free speech" on their platform." Having observed that the Biden administration "seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth,'" Judge Doughty also prohibited further governmental collaboration with the "Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech." According to the ruling, the SIO and its narrative-curation spin-offs worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other elements of the federal government. 'Stanford and others, in collaboration with the federal government, established the EIP for the express purpose of violating Americans' civil liberties.' Renee DiResta, a Truman National Security Project fellow who long served as research manager at the SIO and allegedly worked for the CIA, allegedly admitted that the EIP was designed to "get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions" that would arise if CISA or other government agencies were to monitor and flag information for censorship on social media. The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government indicated in a November report that "Stanford and others, in collaboration with the federal government, established the EIP for the express purpose of violating Americans' civil liberties: because no federal agency 'has a focus on, or authority regarding, election misinformation originating from domestic sources within the United States,' there is 'a critical gap for non-governmental entities to fill.'" "EIP's managers both report misinformation to platforms and communicate with government partners about their misinformation reports," said Doughty's ruling. "Social-media platforms that participated in the EIP were Facebook, Instagram, Google/YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, Reddit, Nextdoor, Discord, and Pinterest." In the 2020 election cycle, the EIP processed 639 "tickets," 72% of which were related to delegitimizing the election results. Overall, social-media platforms took action on 35% of the URLs reported to them. One "ticket" could include an entire idea or narrative and was not always just one post. Less than 1% of the tickets related to "foreign interference." The tickets "encompassed millions of social-media posts" and sometimes flagged as "misinformation" truthful reports "that the EIP believes 'lack broader context.'" The EIP usually targeted content on the political right and allegedly "called for expansive censorship of social-media speech into other areas such as 'public health.'" The Virality Project assumed this role when it came to the pandemic. Matt Taibbi indicated on the basis of exposed SIO emails that after the "2020 election, when EIP was renamed the Virality Project, the Stanford lab was on-boarded to Twitter's JIRA ticketing system, absorbing this government proxy into Twitter infrastructure — with a capability of taking in an incredible 50 million tweets a day." Taibbi highlighted that in one email, the Virality Project recommended that social media platforms take action even against "stories of true vaccine side effects" and "true posts which could fuel hesitancy." The Virality Project, whose final 2022 report listed DiResta as principal executive director, apparently called for "more aggressive censorship of COVID-19 misinformation ... for more federal agencies to be involved through 'cross-agency collaboration,' and ... for a 'whole-of-society response.'" "The Virality Project also targeted the alleged COVID-19 misinformation for censorship before it could go viral," said the ruling. The ruling noted that like the EIP, the Virality Project predominantly targeted American content, in many cases without any evidence of it being false. Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Alex Berenson were among the Americans the Virality Project branded as purveyors of misinformation. According to Taibbi, the SIO-Twitter relationship amounted to the "ultimate example of the absolute fusion of state corporate, and civil society organizations." He dubbed the result the "Censorship Industrial Complex." Jumping ship Platformer indicated that DiResta left the SIO last week after her contract was not renewed. Another staff member's contract apparently expired, while others at the outfit have been allegedly told to find employment elsewhere. SIO's founding director and EIP co-founder Alex Stamos jumped ship in November, just months after he gave testimony in a transcribed interview before the House Judiciary Committee. According to Platformer, what remains of SIO will be "reconstituted" under the lab's faculty sponsor, communications professor Jeff Hancock. The outfit's Journal of Online Trust and Safety and corresponding conference will apparently continue, thanks in the former case to the funding of the Omidyar Network. The university has attempted to put a positive spin on the organization's ostensible dismantling, telling the newsletter in a statement, "The important work of SIO continues under new leadership, including its critical work on child safety and other online harms, its publication of the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, the Trust and Safety Research Conference, and the Trust and Safety Teaching Consortium." "Stanford remains deeply concerned about efforts, including lawsuits and congressional investigations, that chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research — both at Stanford and across academia," added the university. The House Judiciary GOP account suggested on X that this turn of events is a "BIG WIN," and Elon Musk said it was "progress." While many free speech advocates and victims of censorship similarly celebrated the news that SIO may be winding down, others indicated similar initiatives will crop up. Bret Weinstein noted, "The enemies of freedom will morph, and regroup, of course. We should expect them — and the natural immunity we now have should shut them down whenever and wherever the infection re-emerges." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stocks. In December 2018, the Trump administration outlawed bump stocks via an ATF rule that declared the device to be a "machine gun," thus making bump stocks illegal under federal law. The case, Garland v. Cargill, made its way to the Supreme Court after a U.S. district court initially ruled in the government's favor, a decision with which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. 'When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.' The central issue in the case is whether a bump stock device fits the definition of "machine gun." In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority because bump stock devices do not meet the statutory definition of a "machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C §5845(b)." Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Using the statutory definition of a machine gun — any firearm capable of firing "automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger" — Thomas explained why a bump stock doesn't satisfy the definition. He wrote: A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” With or without a bump stock, a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” All that a bump stock does is accelerate the rate of fire by causing these distinct “function[s]” of the trigger to occur in rapid succession. This is the critical distinction between fully automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms. Fully automatic firearms discharge all of their available ammunition with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms, on the other hand, fire only one round each time the trigger is pulled. A bump stock increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm by using the recoil of the firearm essentially to "bump" the trigger to the finger rapidly. But the core mechanics of the firearm — a single bullet discharged per trigger pull — are not modified. Importantly, Thomas wrote that even if a semi-automatic firearm equipped with a bump stock fired with a single function of the trigger, it doesn't do so "automatically." "[A] semiautomatic rifle cannot fire more than one shot 'automatically ... by a single function of the trigger' because the shooter must do more than simply engage the trigger one time. The same is true of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock," Thomas wrote. Moreover, Thomas noted the ATF changed its position on bump stocks after the 2017 Las Vegas mass killing despite having previously argued "on more than 10 separate occasions over several administrations" that bump stocks did not meet the statutory definition of "machine gun." Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion. The court's other two left-leaning justices — Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined her. Despite the majority's technical and mechanical explanation of why a bump stock does not satisfy the statutory definition of "machine gun," Sotomayor opened her dissenting opinion by making a significant accusation. "Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands," she claimed. "When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck," she added. However, unlike the majority, Sotomayor eschewed the technical mechanics of firearms — even writing at one point, "Regardless of what is happening in the internal mechanics of a firearm" — and tried to redefine the statute. She argued that a "single function of the trigger" actually means "a single action by the shooter to initiate a firing sequence." Moreover, Sotomayor fearmongered that the ruling "will have deadly consequences" while bemoaning that it "hamstrings" the government. But the one concurring opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel Alito, proves the ruling does no such thing. According to Alito, there is a "simple remedy" to outlaw bump stocks. "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law — and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation," Alito wrote. "Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act," he added. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mexican drug cartels are targeting wealthy, senior Americans with timeshares, according to a recent news release from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.The FBI reported last week that it has witnessed an uptick in timeshare scams against part-time owners. The scams are relatively complex and typically involve three phases, the bureau said. 'Robust network of fake company websites'Assistant Special Agent in Charge Paul Roberts stated, “Timeshare fraudsters aim to suck their victims dry, with devastating consequences to victims’ financial futures, relationships, and physical and emotional health.”“As the cartels further cement their control of this space, it’s especially critical that the FBI take the lead in addressing this threat to American seniors,” Roberts added.He noted that the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the Gulf Cartel, and the Sinaloa Cartel have operated these fraud schemes for over a decade. “Timeshare fraud has low overhead costs and minimal reinvestment, needing only a rental of small space, telecom setup, and English-speaking employees with access to resort databases,” Roberts explained. “There is lower perceived risk of prosecution and extradition for timeshare fraud but easy cash flow that goes directly into the Mexican banking system and obfuscates funds to facilitate money laundering activities.” The FBI reported that the scammers involved in the fraud scheme “do extensive research on their potential victims,” creating fraudulent documents and impersonating a number of individuals. The fraudsters deploy “high-pressure sales tactics and cyber-enabled fraud strategies” to trick their victims into believing they are from a trustworthy institution. One such tactic includes “mimicking legitimate entities’ email addresses and forging official documents,” Roberts noted.Roberts detailed the cartel’s three-step process.“In these initial communications with victims, the scammers often pretend to be U.S.- or Mexican-based third-party timeshare brokers or sales representatives in the timeshare, real estate, travel, or financial services industry,” he said. The scammers pressure victims to either exit their timeshare, rent it out, or invest in share certificates. They push the owners to pay upfront charges and taxes.“The scammers also leverage a robust network of fake company websites, business names and addresses, and registrations with government officials and trade groups to bolster their credibility,” Roberts remarked.Step one of the scheme concludes once the victim runs out of funds or becomes aware they have been defrauded. After some time, the scammers will contact the victims again, this time pretending to be an employee of a law firm that wants to help them recoup their losses.“The scammers often claim the initial scammers have been either charged with fraud or held civilly liable in a U.S.- or Mexico-based lawsuit, and that the victims are owed restitution in the settlement,” Roberts continued. “However, in order to access that restitution money, the victims are told they must pay legal or court fees to the law firms. The scammers then defraud the victims of a series of advance fees related to the settlement, again using fake documents to bolster their credibility.” In the final phase of their scam, fraudsters will impersonate government officials, including those from the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, Mexico’s Financial Intelligence Unit, or Interpol, the FBI stated.“Government impersonators claim that they’re contacting victims because they have access to criminal settlements and want to help them recoup their lost money,” the FBI wrote. “Or, impersonators try to scare victims into giving up even more cash. They do this by telling victims that their initial payments to timeshare fraudsters were deemed suspicious.”“The scammers then tell victims that the authorities determined their payments to timeshare fraudsters were ‘linked to money laundering or terrorist operations.’ They then threaten to either subpoena victims or send them to prison if they don’t pay additional money to ensure their payments are released and their names are cleared,” the agency explained.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The importance of the American flag, celebrated on this holiday, shines through in the story of one Civil War regiment.

While Gaza Pier Floats Away, Biden Spends $300 Million on Kenyan Police For Haiti