The Trump State Department, headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has reportedly implemented a policy stating that any U.S. outposts in the country and abroad may fly only one flag: the United States flag. Flags that were flown at the behest of the Biden administration such as the LGBT pride flag and Black Lives Matter flags will no longer be flown, although the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) emblem and the Wrongful Detainees Flags are permitted to be flown. The order states, according to The Washington Free Beacon, which obtained a copy, “Starting immediately, only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad, and featured in U.S. government content. The flag of the United States of America united all Americans under the universal principles of justice, liberty, and democracy. These values, which are the bedrock of our great country, are shared by all American citizens, past and present. … The U.S. flag is a powerful symbol of pride and it is fitting and respectful that only the U.S. flag be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestically and abroad.” A State Department employee transgressing the new policy will “face disciplinary action, including termination of employment or contract, or reassignment to their home agency.” CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT In April 2021, then-Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken authorized U.S. embassies and consulates to fly the rainbow pride flag on the same pole as the American flag. “According to the cable and a State Department official, Mr. Blinken authorized diplomats to fly the pride flag  before May 17, which is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, and to continue their display at diplomatic outposts through the month of June,” The New York Times reported. In June 2021, the U.S. embassy in Nassau “raised the rainbow Pride Flag to honor the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons in The Bahamas and around the world,” the State Department stated. “The widely recognized rainbow flag will fly from the flagpole of the U.S. Embassy in Downtown Nassau, and at the Chief of Mission Residence on Sanford Road.” “The administration also raised the Black Lives Matter flag at the U.S. embassy and consulates in Brazil to celebrate Black History Month in February 2022,” the Free Beacon noted.

'Let me read to you what the Constitution says'

Tuesday's Final Word

On Friday's Erin Burnett OutFront, the show played a report by correspondent Natasha Chen in which she informed viewers of the difficulties caused by electric cars during the Los Angeles wildfires. It turns out that the batteries used by electric cars have their own environmental consequences when they catch fire, creating hazardous pollution and a blaze that is much more difficult to extinguish than in gas-powered cars. Host Erin Burnett recalled the air pollution she has experienced visiting the site as she set up the report: And while the flames in the actual neighborhoods are now contained, the air is toxic. I can tell you, when we stood amongst that charred rubble, it's a smell that stays with you. And one of the reasons is the sheer numbers -- well, just all the nastiness that burned, but the number of cars that caught fire. Specifically, you could see all these electric vehicles that could have been burning far longer than a gas-powered car because of the batteries. Chen began her pre-recorded piece: Scattered amongst the ruins of California's devastating wildfires sit countless Teslas and other electric vehicles, most left behind by owners forced to flee from the fast-moving flames. The charred EVs are a grim reminder of a new frontier facing firefighters and residents when battling wildfires and the daunting environmental challenges in cleaning up some of the remains. After a clip of Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) speaking with CNN's Kyung Lah and admitting that the electric cars create additional problems that must be dealt with, Chen recalled that California has a higher proportion of residents who drive electric cars, and then was seen speaking with EPA official Robert Rezende to fill viewers in on some of the problems: CHEN: San Diego fire battalion chief Robert Rezende is a member of the EPA's Lithium-ion Battery Taskforce. He says the surge in batteries in homes and in EVs creates a new layer of complexity in firefighting. REZENDE: As the batteries start to burn, they actually release flammable gases like hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and then they also release their own oxygen, and so smothering the fire doesn't really work in these situations. Putting a bunch of water on them doesn't really work in these situations. CHEN: Rezende says a normal gas-powered car fire can be managed in five to fifteen minutes, but putting out an EV fire could take two to twelve hours. Their back and forth continued: REZENDE: So the battery just kind of has to run its course, and its chemistry needs to be consumed before it will stop being on fire. CHEN: If there is a vehicle that's burned out right now in one of these wildfire zones in L.A. that was an EV, is it possible that, if the battery is intact, it could still reignite? REZENDE: Yes. CHEN: Because of reignition, he says it could take a swimming pool's worth of water to fully extinguish an EV battery fire. CNN's willingness to give negative publicity to electric cars which are usually promoted by liberals may have been motivated by the fact that Trump ally Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla, and CNN then got to invoking Musk's criticism of Democrats over the fires: Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been hypercritical of the state's response to the wildfire, claiming that "the immense loss of homes in L.A." is a result of "overregulation" and "bad governance" in the state. Musk even wrote that "it's over for Gavin" when reposting a Truth Social message from President-elect Donald Trump calling for Newsom to resign. The CNN reporter went on to inform viewers that Musk has made substantial contributions to efforts to deal with fires in California. Transcript follows: CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront January 17, 2025 7:56 p.m. Eastern ERIN BURNETT: And while the flames in the actual neighborhoods are now contained, the air is toxic. I can tell you, when we stood amongst that charred rubble, it's a smell that stays with you. And one of the reasons is the sheer numbers -- well, just all the nastiness that burned, but the number of cars that caught fire. Specifically, you could see all these electric vehicles that could have been burning far longer than a gas-powered car because of the batteries. Natasha Chen is out front. NATASHA CHEN: Scattered amongst the ruins of California's devastating wildfires sit countless Teslas and other electric vehicles, most left behind by owners forced to flee from the fast-moving flames. The charred EVs are a grim reminder of a new frontier facing firefighters and residents when battling wildfires and the daunting environmental challenges in cleaning up some of the remains. GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): We're in a little bit of a different world now today with batteries -- not just car batteries but battery packs, people with solar -- those Tesla wall batteries. So the hazmat side of this has been made a little bit more complicated. CHEN: Just last month, the EPA approved the state's ambitious plan to end the sale of new gas-operated vehicles by 2035. California has seen a surge in electric vehicles over the last decade. There were more than 3,000 EVs per 100,000 residents in California in 2023, the highest per capita of any state in the U.S., according to the Department of Energy. CHIEF ROB REZENDE, SAN DIEGO FIRE DEPARTMENT: Twenty, thirty years ago, when these things were not present in these fires, you didn't have to think about that. CHEN: San Diego fire battalion chief Robert Rezende is a member of the EPA's Lithium-ion Battery Taskforce. He says the surge in batteries in homes and in EVs creates a new layer of complexity in firefighting. REZENDE: As the batteries start to burn, they actually release flammable gases like hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and then they also release their own oxygen, and so smothering the fire doesn't really work in these situations. Putting a bunch of water on them doesn't really work in these situations. CHEN: Rezende says a normal gas-powered car fire can be managed in five to fifteen minutes, but putting out an EV fire could take two to twelve hours. REZENDE: So the battery just kind of has to run its course, and its chemistry needs to be consumed before it will stop being on fire. CHEN: If there is a vehicle that's burned out right now in one of these wildfire zones in L.A. that was an EV, is it possible that, if the battery is intact, it could still reignite? REZENDE: Yes. CHEN: Because of reignition, he says it could take a swimming pool's worth of water to fully extinguish an EV battery fire. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been hypercritical of the state's response to the wildfire, claiming that "the immense loss of homes in L.A." is a result of "overregulation" and "bad governance" in the state. Musk even wrote that "it's over for Gavin" when reposting a Truth Social message from President-elect Donald Trump calling for Newsom to resign. But with Tesla selling more electric cars in the California market than anywhere else in the nation, Musk has also been providing resources to assist in recovery efforts, positioning Starling-equipped cyber trucks and free Wi-Fi in areas of need, and providing helpful resources to first-responders. REZENDE: Tesla has -- they have also developed some video training for first responders, so we share those with our fire department. CHEN: Rezende says that he's in conversations with the EPA about their initial plans to come through and clean up hazardous waste in the burned areas, including all the batteries that you find in home products and electric vehicles. And that process could take a very long time, so if people are allowed to come back to properties in the near future, he said, "Just be aware that it may not be 100 percent cleared, wear a mask, and be careful where you walk," Erin.

PBS News's contempt for space entrepreneur Elon Musk, a relatively new but influential figure in President Donald Trump’s orbit, is resoundingly obvious. But PBS may have gone dangerously overboard in a 3:55 p.m. Inauguration Day post on “X” (which Musk happens to own) with a smear worthy of MSNBC at its worst, claiming “Billionaire Elon Musk gave what appeared to be a fascist salute Monday while making a speech at the post-inauguration celebration for President Donald Trump at the Capital One Arena.” The long X post claimed: Billionaire Elon Musk gave what appeared to be a fascist salute Monday while making a speech at the post-inauguration celebration for President Donald Trump at the Capital One Arena. “Some elections are important, some are not. But this one, this one really mattered and I just want to say thank you for making it happen,” Musk said before putting his hand on his chest and then raising it in a salute that appeared similar to the “Sieg Heil” used by Nazis at their victory rallies. “It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured," Musk said…. Included in the 33-second clip (but absent from the text above) is all the explanation any fair-minded journalist would need. After Musk says “…and I just want to say thank you for making it happen. Thank you,” at the :19-second mark puts his right hand to his heart and then snaps his right arm outward, following up by saying “my heart goes out to you.” In other words, he was metaphorically throwing his heart to the crowd. Needless to say, there aren’t many fair-minded journalists at taxpayer-funded PBS these days. (Bonus: Regular PBS guest, hysteric leftist historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, doubled down on the Nazi smear, forwarding PBS's X post and adding, pompously: "Historian of fascism here. That was a Nazi salute - and a very belligerent one too.")

Does the Kids Online Safety Act threaten free speech? As an ex-Google whistleblower who caught YouTube red-handed when it manually manipulated search results for abortion, I know a thing or two about threats to free speech. KOSA is not a threat to free speech.What should we make of the “experts” who claim that KOSA threatens free speech? These people envision themselves as brave truth-tellers and whistleblowers, taking a bold and unpopular stance in defense of free speech. But let’s contrast my whistleblowing to their whistleblowing.At a certain point, these 'experts' are re-enacting the Principal Skinner 'out of touch' meme from 'The Simpsons.' As people like Elon Musk and Jonathan Haidt throw their weight behind KOSA and KOSA passes the Senate on a 91-3 vote, perhaps the 'experts' should take a step back and ask if they’re out of touch. If you want to whistleblow like I did, you simply cannot make hand-wavy claims about censorship. You need to prove it with specific evidence. Whistleblowing — even when done for the right reasons — entails major personal and career risks; it’s not as glamorous as many people think.In my case, I found the “smoking gun”: the exact code change that altered YouTube’s search results for abortion. This change was made mere hours after a pro-choice writer for Slate sent an email to YouTube, complaining that the search results were too anti-abortion. (Ironically, this writer, April Glaser, now works as a tech journalist for NBC News.)But what about these brave whistleblowers who oppose KOSA? First, many of them exist in a bubble where taking this stance would advance, not hinder, their career. But putting that aside, this actual whistleblower would ask a simple question: What specific evidence do you have? Where is your smoking gun?You don’t have to do any sort of undercover investigation like I did. The legislative text of KOSA is publicly available; the evidence is in plain sight. To find that smoking gun, two things are required. First, you need to cite the specific part of the legislative text that threatens free speech. Second, you need to explain — in specific and practical terms — how that text would threaten free speech.If you fashion yourself an “expert,” then what I’m asking should not be difficult. But many “experts” are simply not up to this task. After Elon Musk and X endorsed KOSA, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression accused X of supporting a “government takeover of online speech,” also referring back to FIRE’s past statement opposing KOSA.In this statement, FIRE claimed that KOSA lets the government “enforce vaguely defined requirements for social media accounts that may belong to users under 17.” But what specific requirements in KOSA are vague? FIRE doesn’t say. There certainly is a vagueness issue here, but it’s not that KOSA is vague. FIRE’s criticism of KOSA is hopelessly vague. Ironic.Other critics, like Shoshana Weissmann of the R Street Institute, claim that “KOSA will require age verification.” To understand the problem with that argument, you just need to read the bill. The legislative text explicitly says that nothing in KOSA “shall be construed to require ... a covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality.”In the high-stakes environment of whistleblowing against Google, holes in my argument like that would have shattered my reputation and credibility. But I guess the low-stakes environment of being a tech policy “expert” in D.C. works differently.(Some critics have instead argued that KOSA “effectively” requires age verification — as if the word “effectively” will magically fix the defects in that argument. Perhaps if we examined the emanations coming from the penumbras of KOSA, we could find this mythical requirement for age verification. Or, we could apply some common sense. If, for example, the Tide Pod challenge goes viral on social media, do you need to verify the age of every user to deal with that problem? Obviously not.)At a certain point, these “experts” are re-enacting the Principal Skinner “out of touch” meme from "The Simpsons." As people like Elon Musk and Jonathan Haidt throw their weight behind KOSA and KOSA passes the Senate on a 91-3 vote, perhaps the “experts” should take a step back and ask if they’re out of touch. No, it’s Elon Musk, Jonathan Haidt, and those 91 Senators who are wrong.If the “experts” could have one legitimate claim to authority, it’s that — in theory at least — they would know the legislative text of KOSA better than Elon or Haidt. But what happens when they resort to punditry and fearmongering claims instead? At that point, it’s a question of whether people believe the “experts” or whether they believe Elon. And most people will believe Elon.