The centaur Chariklo has two dense rings orbiting it. In attempting to explain their survival astronomers have proposed a yet-to-be-detected satellite‚ which they say may be keeping the rings in line.Saturn’s rings have been known for almost four centuries‚ but in the last 50 years we have learned they are only the most dramatic examples of a common phenomenon. The Voyager probes revealed smaller ring systems around the other three gas giants. Between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune‚ the bookends of the gas giants are smaller objects known as centaurs. In 2013‚ the largest of these‚ Chariklo‚ briefly blocked the light of a star (known as an occultation). The star winked out to Earthly observers when Chariklo occulted it‚ but it also temporarily dimmed four other times‚ twice each before and afterwards. These dips revealed Chariklo’s own pair of rings‚ with orbits either side of 400 kilometers (240 miles) from the planet’s core.From the start there was puzzlement as to how an object with so little mass – Chariklo is only 250 kilometers (150 miles) in diameter and thought to be primarily made of ice – could hold onto rings. Since then‚ reanalysis of what were first thought to be rings around fellow centaur Chiron indicated rings could be common‚ without explaining them‚ before we learned Chiron’s rings are probably an evolving lumpy disk. Adding to the mystery‚ Chariklo’s rings are outside the centaur’s Roche limit‚ unless their density is much lower than that of Chariklo itself. Outside the Roche limit‚ rings should rapidly combine into moons.Subsequent occultations have confirmed the rings’ existence and shown the inner one blocks 10 times as much light as its companion‚ leaving astronomers to model what is going on. The moons Pandora and Prometheus and Saturn's F ring. These two moons‚ around 80 kilometers (50 miles) wide‚ keep the F ring‚ which would otherwise be too far out to survive‚ in line. It was thought something similar was happening with Chariklo‚ but only one moon may be required.Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute. Source: https://science.nasa.gov/resource/a-pair-of-shepherds/The Planetary Science Institute’s Dr Amanda Sickafoose is one of those tackling the problem. “Planetary rings will naturally spread or disperse over time. Chariklo exhibits two thin rings‚ a few kilometers in width‚” she said in a statement. In order for the rings to stay 7 and 3 kilometers (4 and 2 miles) wide‚ there needs to be “a mechanism to confine the material and prevent it from dispersing‚” she added.Sickafoose and co-author have shown that without such a mechanism the rings increase linearly in size with time‚ contradicting the dense‚ narrow bands indicated by the fairly brief drops in brightness. Unless we happened to see Chariklo almost immediately after the rings formed‚ something must be keeping the rings tight. The same modeling shows that a suitably positioned satellite would do this; one about 3 kilometers (2 miles) wide and weighing a few tens of billions of tons would do the trick. We couldn’t see such an object at this distance unless it happened to be perfectly positioned to also block out the star back in 2013.Simulated rings around Chariklo from this research‚ with an approximate 3-kilometer (2-mile) radius satellite in a 6:5 mean-motion-resonance‚ producing rings similar to those we have observed. Ring particles are shown in white.Image credit: Sickafoose &; Lewis‚ The Planetary Science Journal 2024 (CC BY 4.0)Previously it was thought two shepherding moons might be required.Sickafoose noted‚ “We think that the ring particles are primarily made of water ice‚ like those at the giant planets. We do not know the exact characteristics‚ such as how ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ the ring particles are when they collide‚ or the particle-size distribution.” Rings made of hard particles would be maintained indefinitely by the proposed moon‚ but outside the Roche limit soft particles would be much more likely to become moons themselves.An alternative explanation is a gravitational anomaly on Chariklo’s surface‚ and a rotation rate that allows the force of this anomaly to keep the rings in line. Although Sickafoose described the physics of the two scenarios as similar‚ such a mass concentration on the surface appears less in keeping with what we know about minor planets. On the other hand‚ it is far easier to imagine that an earlier ring turned into a moon‚ and then kept the remaining moons stable‚ something that is thought to explain Saturn’s F ring‚ maintained by the small moons Pandora and Prometheus. Although the idea of Chariklo having a moon may appear to resolve the mystery‚ Sickafoose’s recent re-evaluation of Chiron’s rings suggests we shouldn’t get too confident without more observations. If the two centaurs turn out to have quite different surrounds it will open up even more questions‚ such as which provides the better analog for Haumea‚ or Quaoar‚ and how many other arrangements exist.The study is published open access in The Planetary Science Journal. 

Most of us have marveled at parrots who can mimic a few words in human language‚ but have you ever encountered one that takes it to the next level? Picture this: a parrot so adept at communication that it can engage in a full-blown conversation with Siri‚ Apple’s virtual assistant. This isn’t just a figment... The post Parakeet activates Siri on owner’s phone and they most hilarious ‘conversation’ together appeared first on Animal Channel.

The Daily Signal released an exclusive piece Monday indicating that the Department of Justice advised a Washington D.C. medical examiner to dispose of aborted baby bodies in over to hide criminal evidence. In March 2022‚ a group of pro-life activists including Terrisa Bukovinac and Lauren Handy from the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising group‚ discovered the remains of five dead preemie babies as well as the remains of over 100 pulverized remains of first-trimester babies. The five older babies‚ who’ve since been named by mourning pro-lifers‚ look like they were brutally murdered late in their mothers pregnancy. It appears that two of the babies were murdered after they were born alive and that the other babies were victims of illegal partial birth abortions. This was at the same clinic in the Foggy Bottom of D.C. where abortionist Cesare Santangelo admitted that if he accidentally delivered a baby during an abortion‚ he’d leave it to die. D.C. doesn’t currently have any restrictions on how late a baby can be aborted in a pregnancy so‚ as The Daily Signal noted‚ “D.C. police shrugged off the matter” at the time. The death of those five babies needs to be investigated in order to determine whether the cause of death was the abortion or if the death occurred after they were already born‚ infanticide. The D.C. Medical Examiner as well as the DOJ have “stonewalled any questions about the babies’ death.” Now‚ nearly two years later‚ it appears that Biden’s DOJ has repeatedly told the D.C. clinic to dispose of the babies and reject any need for autopsies.  Attorney Martin Cannon who is representing pro-life activists who the DOJ charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act back in 2020‚ got a call from the D.C. Medical Examiners office on Monday. “Just today‚ I got a call from the medical examiner’s office indicating that the DOJ has advised them that there is no reason to keep those babies anymore‚” Cannon told The Daily Signal‚ “And the medical examiner’s office accordingly tells me that if we don’t have an order to the contrary‚ by the end of this week‚ a court order‚ they will dispose of the babies.” Cannon noted that he’s been in talks with a forensic pathologist who was considering examining the babies and that the D.C. Medical Examiner was on board but the pathologist ended up being unable to conduct the exam.  The information on how those babies died is vital information for the pro-life activists who found them. One of whom is currently in jail in Alexandria‚ Virginia. In just a few short weeks Handy will be sentenced for her charge of violating the FACE act. Lauren Handy was the one who had the aborted babies in her freezer in an attempt to save the remains so that the D.C. Clinic could be held accountable for their brutal murder. “The condition of those babies and the circumstances under which they died is still relevant to the case‚” Cannon said before noting that‚ “It’s pertinent to sentencing.” When word initially broke about the babies bodies being found‚ the National Abortion Federation even sent an email out attempting to help the DOJ cover up what happened. The group insisted that claims of infanticide were “false” and a copy of that email was released this week. 🚨BREAKING: Public records emails show @NatAbortionFed "assisting" @TheJusticeDept in case involving bodies of 5 late-term babies aborted at 3rd trimester NAF clinic in DC. Is NAF behind DOJ's new push to DESTROY the bodies‚ and cover up evidence of infanticide at a NAF clinic? pic.twitter.com/QerdBUwbpj — David Daleiden (@daviddaleiden) February 6‚ 2024 Cannon was also perplexed that the D.C. Medical Examiner even took such “stark marching orders from the DOJ.” If I understand the structure of things correctly‚ there’s no real reason the DOJ should have such sway over the examiner’s office. Beyond Lauren’s case‚ there is a general need to have these babies examined. There is literally exactly a 50% chance that two of these babies … there’s a 50% chance that each of them was born alive and left to die… There’s some chance that the others were subject to illegal partial birth abortions. Cannon noted that the DOJ “knows” that the way those babies died are “federal crimes” insinuating that the DOJ is trying to cover up the way those babies were killed. Biden’s Department of Justice is attempting to “burn” the bodies of those babies which would permanently destroy the potential criminal evidence of how they were killed. Many groups including PAAU are calling on Congress to intervene as these remains could be destroyed as early as February 13‚ LifeNews indicated.  

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) blasted a university-affiliated censorship AI project funded by the National Science Foundation for the purpose of silencing free speech. Cammack suggested  during a Tuesday Congressional hearing that the project was really just an attempt by University of Michigan censors to filter content they didn’t like away from prying eyes and to shield social media companies from liability for censoring. Cammack was sitting on the House Select Weaponization Subcommittee for a hearing on the weaponization of AI to censor online content. She was specifically referring to the contents of a grant proposal to the NSF sent from the University of Michigan to develop a service for its “WiseDex” tool that could identify the veracity of a piece of content on social media and screen it for “misinformation.” George Orwell turns over in his grave.  .@RepKatCammack exposes how National Science Foundation grants are used to dodge accountability‚ "get people off our backs"@JudiciaryGOP @Weaponization pic.twitter.com/iUcXQb6Db5 — Christian (@MonteCristo1837) February 6‚ 2024 In the grant proposal‚ researchers highlighted the supposed usefulness of “WiseDex” because of its potential for “externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship.” Instead of social media companies having to decide who is going to be censored‚ they can simply outsource the responsibility to third parties and “Get people off our backs for how we act on misinfo.” [Emphasis added.] The NSF gave a taxpayer-funded $750‚000 grant to the University of Michigan through its “Track F” program. The goals of the program were to create a “‘golden set service’ that determines what content is misinformation” and an API “that can tell a social media platform ‘for any content item’ how true that content is…”   “On their overview slide‚ the mission of their grant‚ as explained‚ was: ‘Our misinformation service helps policymakers at social media platforms get good PR for their actions on misinformation by having a clear benchmark for outcomes and eliminating the need to defend internal procedures‚’” Cammack highlighted‚ before appearing to cringe.  She continued‚ “The slide deck also notes that they ‘do things that we know work without backlash’ and then‚ ‘We push responsibility for difficult judgments to someone outside of the company.’ It goes on to say‚ ‘We get people off our backs for how we act on misinformation‚’”she said‚ continuing to cite from the grant. “And it goes on to say‚ ‘We eliminate the need to defend specific procedures.’” Cammack concluded:“Now this is an NSF-taxpayer funded project and they say‚ ‘We eliminate the need to defend specific procedures’ as though accountability is more of a suggestion‚ more of a yellow light.” Cammack’s remarks followed the release of a damning Weaponization Subcommittee interim report that revealed that the NSF spent $39 million on various “Track F” programs. The programs were launched by NSF on March 18‚ 2021‚ which was “...ultimately asking applicants to propose solutions involving AI-powered tools to help Big Tech combat misinformation…”    Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

The top left corner of Monday’s New York Times tackled the “book bans” in Idaho and Iowa. “Culture Wars Put Librarians On Front Lines‚” warned the headline. “Combating Book Bans and Threats of Jail.” Reporter Elizabeth Williamson began with how a “Rainbow Squad” of teenagers caused a ruckus at the library in Post Falls‚ Idaho. This went on for 2‚600-plus words and the entirety of page A-16. But wait – what about “book bans” or challenges from the Left? Are those not News‚ too? It turns out that Williamson had another story – this time from Maine‚ where the lefties tried to stop the “anti-trans” book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters by Abigail Shrier. But that story was about 800 words….and didn’t make the paper. That headline:  ‘My Heart Sank’: In Maine‚ a Challenge to a Book‚ and to a Town’s Self-Image The obvious question: Why wouldn’t the Times take these two stories and merge them‚ instead of highlighting the anti-conservative narrative and burying the opposite “book ban” activists? This underlines how the Narrative is everything. The comparatively hidden fraction would upset the Times subscribers‚ so that can’t be front-page material. A huge photo at the top of A-17 is the book Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. Over the cover of the book is Idaho librarian Denise Neujahr talking about her "Rainbow Squad" teens. "They're really good kids. It just makes me so sad that they have to go through all this hate. This is not what libraries stand for."  Naturally‚ Williamson and the Times chose to censor the actual disputed images and text. Their subhead was 'What Is Explicit Is Subjective‚" but this is how they summarized the book's contents: "The author‚ who is nonbinary‚ explores puberty and sexual identity in the book‚ which includes some drawings of nudity and sexual scenarios." So they won't show or describe Kobabe envisioning having her imaginary penis in mid-fellatio‚ as well as talk of masturbation and blow jobs. Conservatives are criticized for not even reading the "banned books‚" but the Times sheltered their own readers from the explicit content. Aren't leftists the open-minded ones?  The Maine story has a hero: the best way to demonstrate leftist censorship is to donate conservative books to the library and watch what happens:  Wealthy‚ liberal-leaning Blue Hill prided itself on staying above the fray — until the library stocked a book that drew anger from the left. Rich Boulet‚ the director of the Blue Hill Public Library‚ was working in his office when a regular patron stopped by to ask how to donate a book to the library. “You just hand it over‚” Mr. Boulet said. Boulet was sad when the book was Irreversible Damage‚ but in the spirit of the librarian lobby‚ decided to include it. (He didn't do it on his own. He was pushed.) Many transgender people and their advocates say the book is harmful to trans youth‚ and some have tried to suppress its distribution. “If I’m being totally honest‚ my heart sank when I saw it‚” Mr. Boulet recalled. There was community outrage. "One patron told him that if a trans youth checked out the book and died by suicide‚ 'that’s on you‚' Mr. Boulet recalled. Critical Facebook posts and negative Google reviews poured in." It's a fascinating story. It's too bad it couldn't make the "paper" edition. PS: The contrast in the American Library Association quotes in these two stories is the best cognitive dissonance: Anti-conservative front-pager: “We’re no longer seeing a parent have a conversation with a teacher or librarian about a book their child is reading‚” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone‚ the director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. “We’re seeing partisan groups demand the removal of books that they’re told are bad books‚ that they are not even reading‚ because they don’t meet the political or moral agenda.” Vs. Hidden leftist censorship story: Mr. Boulet appealed to the American Library Association for a public letter of support‚ which it offers to libraries undergoing censorship efforts. “They ghosted me‚” he said. Asked about the letter‚ Deborah Caldwell-Stone‚ director of the A.L.A.’s Office for Intellectual Freedom‚ said Mr. Boulet’s request had generated internal debate‚ and delay. “Our position on the book is‚ it should remain in the collection; it is beneath us to adopt the tools of the censors‚” she said in an interview. “We need to support intellectual freedom in all its aspects‚ in order to claim that high ground.” Months after Mr. Boulet requested the letter‚ Ms. Caldwell-Stone saw him at a conference and apologized.

When liberals cite racism in their effort to cancel certain Dr. Seuss books‚ former Reading Rainbow host LeVar Burton voices his approval. When conservatives try to regulate which books appear in school libraries‚ he appears on Tuesday’s edition of ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! to do a skit about how logic would dictate conservatives ban C.S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia and even restaurant menus with chicken strips. In the skit‚ Burton sits down with a group of children to discuss why certain books have been challenged. While he mocks conservative challenges‚ blurbs appear on screen to inform the viewers that what Burton is talking about is real. For example‚ “Why did they ban this book? Harriet the Spy. Why would anyone want to ban Harriet the Spy? Because it encourages spying.”     It’s a big country‚ there are going to be some people who are overzealous in this effort and the point of the skit was to lump in anyone who has problems with overly sexualized content with those who oppose stories with talking animals‚ “Charlotte's Web. Because talking pigs is disrespectful to God.” Burton then rolled off some other books‚ “Stella Brings the Family‚ gay dads‚ and Tango Makes Three‚ gay penguins‚ and this one‚ Stella‚ Read Me a Story [sic]‚ the last name of the author is literally the word ‘Gay.'" Two things should be noted on the last one. The first is that while Burton mocks conservatives for trying to ban a book authored by someone named “Gay‚” the on-screen blurb said it was a mistake. Second‚ if you’re going to mock conservatives for trying to ban a book‚ you should probably get the name of the book right‚ as the actual title is Read Me a Story‚ Stella. Burton and the children then took a “field trip” to a school board meeting where a caricatured version of a conservative mother was ranting at the board. Burton explained that‚ “You see‚ when two people love each other‚ they make a baby. They put that baby in school and then they come to meetings like this to yell about how books brainwash their kids into joining the woke hive mind. Let’s listen in.” The mother then questions the board‚ “Do you people know what The Chronicles of Narnia is even about? It's about a group of kids who go into a closet and then come out of the closet. As gay.” One of the kids then asked Burton if they could leave‚ and so the cast was transported back to the classroom where Burton asked‚ “So‚ what have we learned? After one child replies‚ “That pigs are spies and penguins are gay?” Burton again tried to mock conservative logic‚ but only proved he just doesn’t get it‚ “Exactly. Hey‚ before we go‚ I'd love to read an excerpt from the one book that will never be banned in America. It's called ‘Menu’ by The Cheesecake Factory. Chicken strips. Warm crab dip –” The mom from the school board meeting then suddenly appeared to accuse Burton of “reading about a chicken that strips!” Maybe one day Jimmy Kimmel Live! will talk to an actual conservative‚ but until then‚ it appears to be content with stereotypes enabled by hypocritical former PBS hosts. Here is a transcript for the February 6 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 2/6/2024 11:48 PM ET LEVAR BURTON: Now‚ it's time to play our favorite game‚ "Why did they ban this book?" Harriet the Spy. Why would anyone want to ban Harriet the Spy? Because it encourages spying.  CHILD: What?  CHILD 2: What?  BURTON: Charlotte's Web. Because talking pigs is disrespectful to God.  CHILDREN: What? BURTON: Exactly.  Stella Brings the Family‚ gay dads. And Tango Makes Three‚ gay penguins and this one‚ Stella Read Me a Story [sic]‚ the last name of the author is literally the word "Gay."  CHILD: What?  BURTON: For real‚ seriously.  CHILD 3: Just because of the last name?  CHILD 4: Are you dead serious?  BURTON: She's not even gay‚ she's married to a guy named David.  CHILD 5: See‚ there's no reason to ban it!  BURTON: So‚ right about now you're probably wondering how a book actually gets banned. Who's ready for a field trip?  CHILDREN: Me. BURTON: Okay‚ hold on tight.  SCHOOL BOARD ATTENDEE: We don't read any of that filth‚ okay? In my house we only read Reader’s Digest magazines from the 1980s because that's when America was good.  BURTON: This is a school board meeting where the banned book sausage gets made. You see‚ when two people love each other‚ they make a baby. They put that baby in school and then they come to meetings like this to yell about how books brainwash their kids into joining the woke hive mind. Let’s listen in.  SCHOOL BOARD ATTENDEE: Do you people know what The Chronicles of Narnia is even about? It's about a group of kids who go into a closet and then come out of the closet. As gay. CHILD 3: Can we leave?  BURTON: So‚ what have we learned?  CHILD 6: That pigs are spies and penguins are gay?  BURTON: Exactly. Hey‚ before we go‚ I'd love to read an excerpt from the one book that will never be banned in America. It's called “Menu” by The Cheesecake Factory. Chicken strips. Warm crab dip –  SCHOOL BOARD ATTENDEE: Hey‚ hey! This guy's reading about a chicken that strips! BURTON: I said “chicken strips.” SCHOOL BOARD ATTENDEE: Not in front of my kid‚ baby eater. Come here‚ we’re leaving. CHILD 4: You’re not my mom.

The state representative and former house minority leader who headlined the launch event of a Biden administration-funded censorship and indoctrination program is now disavowing the project after an MRC exposè on the subject.  Rhode Island Rep. Brian Newberry (R) once supported a so-called “media literacy” initiative created with over $700‚000 from President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and initially developed by Biden’s Department of State. Now‚ the Rhode Island Center for Freedom &; Prosperity has revealed that Newberry is calling for government officials to abandon the scandal-plagued program. In a January 2024 report‚ the MRC exposed how the Biden administration used taxpayer money from the DHS’s Targeted Violence &; Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) grant program to push censorship and leftist activism. The effort‚ titled “Courageous RI‚” was spearheaded by the University of Rhode Island’s Media Education Lab (the Rhode Island Lab) and Media Literacy Now‚ a leftist lobbying group. The duo used taxpayer money to commission blog posts disparaging former President Donald J. Trump‚ the “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) movement and the Second Amendment. The MRC also revealed that the Rhode Island Lab and Media Literacy Now are currently using the DHS funds to reward children to create social media posts advocating for censorship. Newberry minced no words in expressing his disgust about the program’s conduct. “Unfortunately‚ and to my disappointment‚ though not surprise…the partisanship‚ censorship‚ and bias that has been infused by the Courageous RI leadership proves that this program is not worthy of‚ nor legally defensible for‚ any government entity to support in any way.” Currently‚ “Courageous RI” is formally partnered with the Rhode Island Departments of Education‚ Health and State‚ as well as the office of United States Attorney Zachary Cunha. Courageous RI is also partnered with the left-wing gun confiscation group Moms Demand Action‚ which is funded by activist billionaire Michael Bloomberg.  Newberry acknowledged that he had attended the “Courageous RI” launch event. “I participated in the launch event one year ago upon being asked because I think the issue of media literacy and educating our children how to sift fact from fiction is important‚” Newberry admitted. “But I issued several warnings about how this program‚ while appealing in concept‚ could go off the rails if not managed properly.” Newberry‚ a Republican from North Smithfield‚ has served in the Rhode Island Legislature for over a decade. From 2011 to 2017‚ he was the Rhode Island House Minority Leader.     Rhode Island Center for Freedom &; Prosperity founder and CEO and former Major League Baseball (MLB) star‚ Mike Stenhouse highlighted the DHS misconduct in the Center’s Ocean State Current. Stenhouse’s reporting also showed how parental-rights advocacy “Parents United RI” raised the alarm about the “Courageous RI” program.  Stenhouse lambasted the Rhode Island Lab for using Biden administration grants to train teachers how to put censorship tools into American classrooms. “This sinister Biden administration initiative actually trains K-12 teachers to utilize censorship tools that discourage students from viewing content that the leaders of Courageous RI disagree with.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that they defund Biden’s whole-of-society approach to censorship. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

A pro-Palestinian male who entered the U.S. illegally was caught on video Sunday stealing a pro-Israel flag from a home on Long Island‚ New York‚ and then beating up the homeowner who confronted him‚ police said.What are the details?Aleks Binyaminov had been displaying an Israeli-American flag as well as a sign reading "We stand with Israel" in front of his Hewlett home after Hamas murdered his wife's cousin on Oct. 7‚ WCBS-TV reported.The station said Binyaminov's security cameras alerted him of a man walking up his driveway and then walking off with his pro-Israel display — after which Binyaminov got on his child's bicycle to get his property back."When I grabbed the flag away from him‚ he was saying ‘I’m from Palestine‚ you Jews are killing Palestinians‚'" Binyaminov recalled to WNBC-TV‚ adding that "he punched me in the face ... put me in a chokehold‚ and he head-butted me — that’s how I got a black eye."Nassau County Deputy Police Commissioner Kevin Smith noted to WNBC that "the subject continued to swing wildly and struggle with the victim and threw the victim to the ground."WCBS said Nassau County Police arrested 26-year-old Bechir Lehbeib‚ who they say illegally crossed the border into Arizona in November and was staying in a migrant shelter on Staten Island.Lehbeib told police he's from North Africa and took a bus to Hewlett to look for a job‚ WCBS added."Well‚ people who look for work don't usually do that in a residential area and then rip down people's flag and signs‚" Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman said‚ according to WCBS.Blakeman and Republican elected officials blasted border policies for the incident‚ WNBC reported.According to WCBS‚ Blakeman compared the flag-stealing and physical attack to the recent assault on NYPD officers in Times Square: "They spit on our flag‚ they trample on our values‚ and they commit crimes‚ and they do so at taxpayer expense."Binyaminov‚ a Russian native and immigrant‚ told WCBS that people "coming in should be vetted carefully. I never thought this would happen with me. As a Jew‚ we live here‚ all of us‚ happily without any problems. It feels a little bit disgusting that this happened to us."WCBS added that the suspect pleaded not guilty to hate crime‚ robbery‚ and assault charges‚ was ordered held on $50‚000 bail‚ and had to surrender his passport.According to the New York Post‚ the accused allegedly ranted to police that he hated Israeli Jews‚ made other hateful statements‚ and said‚ “If I see the flag of the people that killed my people‚ we will have a problem.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

"Fascist" has been the left's label of choice to silence their political opponents on the right. When people hear "fascists‚" they think of concentration camps — as they should. That is the way fascism usually ends. You must get rid of your political opponents. Unless you’re in a free state‚ you can’t have people who disagree with you. That's the first definition of freedom: being able to speak your mind. We made sure that was the first expression of freedom protected in our Bill of Rights. Freedom is antithetical to fascism‚ and real fascists snuff it out through suggestion‚ then intimidation‚ then the camps. If there is fascism in our country‚ it’s coming from the left. Being called a "fascist" is a grave pronouncement indeed‚ one that should not be given lightly. Yet leftists use it profusely whenever they want to silence their political opponents. But let me ask you this: Who are the true fascists? Which side of the political aisle is on the side of freedom‚ and which is actively fighting against it? Here's the dictionary definition of fascism: “a political philosophy‚ movement‚ or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader‚ severe economic and social regimentation‚ and forcible suppression of opposition.” Let's look at the first part of the definition: a movement that "exalts nation and often race above the individual." Tell me‚ who is elevating race above the individual right now? I dare you to tell me with a straight face that is the right. Every single person on the left is constantly telling us that skin color is the most important thing about you‚ that it defines your entire life. Your skin color tells you whether you're oppressed or not or whether you're a good person or not. Yet we’re the fascists? How about the second part of the definition? Which side of the political aisle "stands for a centralized autocratic government" with "forcible suppression of opposition"? Which party is about to lose its candidate from being on the ballot at all? What about the part of the definition that talks about "economic regimentation"? Which party is pushing for public-private partnerships that are the actual mechanics of fascism? In this framework‚ businesses are allowed to be "businesses‚" unlike under communism. They're even allowed to be private businesses — unless you disagree with the state. If you do‚ then they'll intimidate you and‚ eventually‚ make it impossible for your business to operate. That’s how public-private partnerships work. Who is pushing for those? If there is fascism in our country‚ it’s coming from the left. It's so obvious that it's no wonder why they need to target the right with “nationalism.” When we say we’re proud to be Americans‚ it’s not at the expense of the individual. In fact‚ it's because we defend the individual that we say we're proud to be Americans. The Declaration of Independence‚ the Constitution‚ and the Bill of Rights are all about the individual and his natural-born freedoms. Collectivism‚ on the other hand‚ is the end goal of fascism. It is always antithetical to freedom. That means if you are on the side of freedom‚ you cannot be a fascist. We are not fascists. The people imposing collective salvation are coming from the left. They are the ones willing to sacrifice individual freedom for the sake of their warped vision of a collectivist dystopia. They are the true fascists. Everything they're accusing us of‚ they're doing. They say we’re religious zealots who force our religion on children in schools. Yet they are the zealots who impose their woke religion on our children‚ and you will be excommunicated if you don't comply with the high priests. They demand that you stick to the dogma. We‚ on the other hand‚ call for school choice so that the individual parents can choose what type of education suits their children. They say the right is in bed with big business. Really? Name the corporation that stands by the right and waves that flag. Name a business that won’t get penalized for promoting conservative values. They are the ones who are in bed with public-private partnerships‚ ESG‚ medical monopolies‚ Big Tech‚ entertainment‚ and every other industry.They say we don’t care about immigrants‚ and yet under their policies‚ immigrants are being raped‚ trafficked‚ and sold as slaves by the drug cartels. All the while‚ cartels are profiting with billions of dollars from our open borders. And we are the ones who don't care about immigrants? They say we don't care about the poor. Really? Is Los Angeles a good example of the left caring for the poor? Or how about San Francisco? What is happening in those cities is absolutely disgraceful. They say we want chaos in the streets. Remember CHAZ in Seattle? How about the chaos Antifa wrought on our streets? The leftist politicians who gave these alleged "anti-fascists" a free pass were the ones who were trying to get rid of all of the police in their cities. Yet we're the ones who want chaos in the streets? They say we don't care about national security. Yet they’re the ones who have enabled 10 million people to come across our borders. In the same breath‚ they have the audacity to call us “terrorists” while bankrolling Hamas‚ Hezbollah‚ and Iran. Here's the last one: They say we're Nazis. They compare our campaign to stop taxpayer funding of sexually explicit books in our schools to Nazi book burnings. Yet on Monday‚ U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) revealed the House’s subpoena of Amazon‚ highlighting the Biden administration's efforts to address “propaganda” and “misinformation” in books for the online retailer. For the Biden administration‚ letting Americans read books that aren't approved by the political narrative is unacceptable. So who is the one that is censoring? Who’s burning the books? Who’s silencing their political opponents? Who’s pushing for collectivism? Who are the real fascists? Everything leftists are accusing you of‚ they really are. Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights‚ top stories‚ show prep and more delivered to your inbox.

When the first wave of mainstream AI panic descended on us in January 2021‚ right around when OpenAI announced its image generator‚ DALL-E‚ my first thought was: This is going to revolutionize fandom first‚ then satire. Integrating AI in these spaces wouldn't only democratize content creation to some extent (not as much as you'd think‚ though using AI still has a barrier to entry!) but also potentially blur the lines between official and fan-made or amateur content. If you could dream it or type it‚ you could see it. Not everyone was going to like it — and indeed‚ not everyone accepts artificial intelligence in their fan spaces‚ whether it's because it's a betrayal of the authenticity of relationships or they feel like it's otherwise exploitative — but there was no containing it. This suspicion was almost immediately vindicated. Websites like fanfiction.net and AO3 added "AI" tags for their stories; services like character.ai‚ which allow you to do an AI roleplay where you're communicating with your favorite fictional character or star‚ cropped up‚ and there was an explosion of AI-assisted fan art accounts on X‚ like the popular Neon Evangelion artist‚ @lucifel99. The satire space‚ too‚ saw immediate adoption of these new AI tools. Deepfaked videos of Ron DeSantis were the most seamless part of his campaign. It also reignited a familiar debate in fan spaces about the ethics of a tricky genre of fan work called real-person fiction. Where does reality stop and the imaginary take over? Jim McIsaac/Getty Images Real-person fiction‚ or RPF‚ is exactly what it sounds like: fan fiction and fan art based on real-world celebrities. Sometimes‚ RPF is harmless. Examples of this might include a portrait not based on an existing photo but that brings in elements from your imagination‚ a narration of a story the celebrity already told in which certain elements are fictional‚ or a comic strip depicting a made-up scenario. A fan of Sydney Sweeney might write about what he or she imagines Sweeney was like as a Universal Studios tour guide. For something to be categorized "real person fiction‚" it needs to be "transformative": that is‚ some part of it needs to be original fiction. Other times‚ though‚ RPF is more ethically fraught‚ both for the fandom and the entertainer depicted in writing or art. Baseball player Andy Pettitte sent a cease-and-desist letter to the fan site FanDomination.net for publishing a 20-page homoerotic story about him. The story was self-consciously fictional — it wasn't purporting to be true — but it was still tantamount to defamation for Pettitte. He's the only celebrity to date who's taken legal action over fanfic‚ and he might not have had a case had FanDomination not respected his wishes. But he's not the only person‚ both on the celebrity and fandom sides‚ to be alarmed by it. One commenter put it like this in 1992: When you create a universe‚ with characters and situations‚ you get to play god. The universe‚ the characters‚ the situations are all objects that a writer manipulates to her heart's content. When you write about real people‚ regardless of the situation‚ you have turned them into objects. Maybe this is neither good nor bad‚ but I feel that much of what past and current women's (and minorities) struggles are about‚ is a passion to NOT be objectified; to be viewed as individuals‚ as human beings‚ not things. More simply put: real-person fiction treats real people as fiction. Some people in fandom spaces have strong ethical concerns about that. It's objectifying; it potentially invades their privacy; and it may even have the power to sway the way people view them. But it's complicated‚ right? First of all‚ famous people are … well‚ famous. They're not ordinary people being speculated about by nosy‚ obsessive strangers. Selling your image to the public is part of the job description. Many of the legal protections are confined to people commercially benefiting from it. Then there's the fact that historical fiction has always been a thing‚ and so has art that draws on real-life subjects. Is there a meaningful difference between great works of historical fiction from Homer or Shakespeare and RPF? What about the "Tijuana bibles" circulated in the 1930s and '40s‚ featuring fictional erotic drawings and stories about Hollywood bombshells? The answers to this aren't as clear-cut as they might immediately seem. Fake celebrity sex tapes will alter what we understand to be real Johnny Nunez/Getty AI and the internet add another dimension to all this. Social media-bolstered context collapse means even works that are wholly fiction may be interpreted as real. When the New Yorker short story "Cat Person" went viral‚ many people didn't even register it as fiction — they thought it was a confessional essay and started dogpiling the main character. It was bizarre to see it play out in real time. What role do human errors like that play? Imagine if‚ instead of written erotica‚ the story about Pettitte was an AI-generated image that was openly fake – maybe it had a watermark or a warning – but interpreted as real for the same reasons the short story "Cat Person" was interpreted as factual. Would Pettite have a case then? Turns out he might — Taylor Swift did. Last week‚ an X user created and distributed deepfake pornography of Taylor Swift. In response‚ a group of U.S. senators introduced legislation aimed at making it illegal to distribute non-consensual‚ sexually explicit images created using artificial intelligence. The trick about this case is that the user who distributed these images didn't claim they were real. This wasn't "revenge porn." It was somewhere in the gray area between satire and RPF. But AI‚ with its ability to create hyper-realistic depictions of its subjects‚ pushes the boundaries of free speech. If this new bill goes through … who else and what else will it impact? In a world where celebrity sex tapes are common‚ will we even notice or care when they're created by computers?