Controversy has broken out in a suburb near Cleveland‚ Ohio‚ between a police officer and the police chief after the officer decided to take another job and the police chief said he could not take his police K9 with him. Shaker Heights police officer Chad Hagan‚ who has worked with the six-year-old German shepherd‚ named Igor‚ since 2018‚ said that he told Police Chief Wayne Hudson that he was considering other law enforcement opportunities; he wanted a job enabling him to work closer to home. Hagan’s wife Danielle said‚ “First thing that was said to him by the chief was we need to figure out what we’re going to do with Igor. That kind of struck Chad the wrong way. He wasn’t saying he was leaving. So‚ when that happened he was like ‘well wow’…That kind of a slap in the face.” “We offered $10‚000 of our own money and to be honest‚ I guarantee Chad would have paid more than that. But‚ the chief came back and said no financial number will be considered‚” she continued‚ adding‚ “He’s been with us through our first home‚ our forever home‚ marriage‚ having a baby. Been with us through everything.” The City of Shaker Heights issued a statement offering their side of the story. They stated: In November‚ Officer Hagan told Shaker Heights Police Chief Wayne Hudson that he would be resigning to take a position with another department and that he wanted to take Igor. Even though Igor has an expected three or four years of service before likely retirement‚ as an accommodation‚ the Chief offered Officer Hagan the option to stay only two more years with the SHPD and then permit Igor to retire. Officer Hagan rejected this offer. The city added‚ “Officer Hagan proposed purchasing Igor. However‚ according to the City’s laws‚ the City’s administration‚ including the Chief‚ has no authority to sell the dog.” The city then quoted a 2019 city ordinance that states‚ “A City Police officer who leaves the City’s canine unit while the Police Dog assigned to the officer is still fit for duty forfeits the right to purchase the animal under this section.” “It was intended to follow a State law enacted in 1998 (Revised Code Section 9.62)‚ to allow an officer to purchase their canine for $1.00 if the “Dog is injured in the line of duty‚ becomes disabled and is unfit for duty‚ or grows too old to be fit for duty…” the city said‚ adding‚ “An unnamed “local and national group of individuals” has accused the Chief of retaliating against Officer Hagan and of acting out of spite and with vindictiveness. Chief Hudson‚ in fact‚ tried to convince Officer Hagan to stay with the SHPD and met with the Officer in a respectful hearing that included leadership staff. Further‚ the Chief acted within the law in declining to sell Igor to the officer.” This story has received international attention‚ and petitions are out‚ but still no results! Please pass this around! A Shaker Heights‚ Ohio Police Officer‚ Chad Hagen‚ is moving his family to another city‚ and gave Police Chief Wayne Hudson his 2-week notice on Thanksgiving.… pic.twitter.com/ys5PSlfkAH — 🇺🇸ProudArmyBrat (@leslibless) December 10‚ 2023 A petition launched to keep Igor with the Hagan family claimed Hudson told Hagan‚ “It (K9 Igor) is a tool and there is no financial amount that would be considered.” Igor is presently kept in a kennel until further arrangements can be made. Here's where K9 Igor has been sent to continue his service… #SaveK9Igor pic.twitter.com/24HbO01lhh — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) December 11‚ 2023

Harvard University’s highest governing body is standing by its president‚ Claudine Gay‚ amid backlash to her troubling testimony before Congress on anti-Semitism and newly revealed plagiarism allegations.  The Harvard Corporation‚ a 12-member group‚ is one of the university’s two governing bodies‚ along with the Board of Overseers‚ and is regarded as the more powerful body since it is responsible for overseeing Harvard’s academic and financial resources. After meeting on Monday night‚ the Harvard Corporation released a statement Tuesday morning making clear that it remains committed to supporting Gay’s leadership. “As members of the Harvard Corporation‚ we today reaffirm our support for President Gay’s continued leadership of Harvard University‚” the Harvard Corporation‚ which Gay is a member of‚ said in a statement signed by all 11 of Gay’s fellow board members. “Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing.” Gay took heat for the answers she gave Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) during testimony before the House last week. After she was asked by Stefanik if “calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct‚” Gay responded‚ “It depends on the context.” “It does not depend on the context‚” Stefanik shot back. “The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign.” Then on Sunday‚ journalist Chris Rufo published a report outlining what he indicated to be three instances of plagiarism from Gay‚ per Harvard standards‚ in her dissertation‚ “Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Policies.” Gay has defended her integrity amidst the plagiarism allegations and apologized for how she handled her congressional testimony. Now‚ the Harvard president can count on the university’s board to defend her.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The statement from the Harvard Corporation said an independent review of three of her articles was conducted “at her request‚” and the results of the analysis “revealed a few instances of inadequate citation.” Gay stands accused of lifting “nearly verbatim” from a paper by Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam called “Race‚ Sociopolitical Participation‚ and Black Empowerment.” After the alleged plagiarism was reported on Sunday‚ The National Association of Scholars called for Gay’s resignation‚ but the university’s board says the “inadequate citations” did not violate Harvard’s standards. “In this tumultuous and difficult time‚ we unanimously stand in support of President Gay. At Harvard‚ we champion open discourse and academic freedom‚ and we are united in our strong belief that calls for violence against our students and disruptions of the classroom experience will not be tolerated‚” the Harvard Corporation’s statement added. “Harvard’s mission is advancing knowledge‚ research‚ and discovery that will help address deep societal issues and promote constructive discourse‚ and we are confident that President Gay will lead Harvard forward toward accomplishing this vital work.” Amanda Prestigiacomo contributed to this report. 

Pop superstar Taylor Swift donated $1 million to the Tennessee Emergency Response Fund at the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee. Relief organization CEO Hal Cato confirmed Swift’s financial contribution to the fund‚ per The Tennessean. Donations will provide victims with financial assistance‚ food‚ temporary housing‚ debris clean-up‚ and animal sheltering‚ plus other needs. Destructive storms devastated the region over the weekend as several tornadoes swept through Tennessee and Kentucky. At least six people died due to the severe weather‚ including two children. Besides the confirmed deaths‚ more than 50 people were injured and buildings were damaged due to the storms. There were also sustained power outages in the area. Local Nashville outlet WZTV reported that 13 tornadoes touched down in the region. “This is devastating news and our hearts are broken for the families of those who lost loved ones‚” Clarksville Mayor Joe Pitts said in a statement on Facebook. “The City stands ready to help them in their time of grief.” This isn’t the first time Swift provided aid to natural disaster victims in Tennessee. Even though the “Blank Space” singer hails from Pennsylvania‚ she has a property in Nashville and previously said that the state feels like her home. She donated money in March 2020 following deadly tornados in the region. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “Nashville is my home and the fact that so many people have lost their homes and so much more in Middle Tennessee is devastating to me‚” Swift wrote in her Instagram Story at the time.  Swift also recently donated to a Michigan food bank‚ Gleaners‚ during an Eras Tour stop in Detroit. “Taylor Swift’s support of food banks across the country comes at such a critical time for so many emergency food providers — when resources are down‚ and need is up‚” Gleaners rep Kristin Sokul told the Detroit Free Press. “The space in her heart will empower households across Southeast Michigan to live happier‚ healthier lives and elevate the important issue of food security so others who have the ability to help can be inspired by her example. The entire Gleaners team is so grateful for this incredible gift‚” she said.

A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that times have never been worse for religious liberty in America. Over the last few years‚ headlines have blared alarmist rhetoric such as “Religious Liberty Under Threat‚ at Home and Abroad” or “Freedom of religion is as threatened today as it was in 1791.” Anyone who has donated a dollar to a conservative cause is likely to have received a flood of fundraising emails suggesting that religious freedom will disappear if they do not donate to one organization or another.  It is easy to understand why someone may think religious liberty is headed in the wrong direction without doing further research. Fortunately‚ there is much more to the story. While there is still improvement to be made‚ and it remains worthwhile to support legitimate religious liberty organizations‚ we are closer to entering a golden age of religious liberty law than we are to seeing that right extinguished. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is a worthy case study.  One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch‚ and a sour decision on Lemon v. Kurtzman spoiled establishment clause cases for half a century‚ until Kennedy v. Bremerton brought a fair return to Establishment Clause jurisprudence. In Lemon v. Kurtzman‚ the Supreme Court held that issuing financial relief to religious schools constituted an impermissible “establishment” of religion. For the next 50 years‚ the Lemon test was the law of the land. Under that test‚ a law must 1) have a secular purpose 2) not advance nor inhibit religion 3) not cause excessive entanglement of government and religion. A corollary to this rule was that any action which seemed to “endorse” religion was also unconstitutional. Lemon was so ambiguous that some government entities were deterred from offering any benefits — including those available to every other citizen — to religious people. Lemon also empowered anti-religious zealots to threaten or even sue any government that so much as allowed a Rabbi to light a Menorah in a public park‚ or grant a zoning permit to a synagogue. The Court slowly but surely endeavored to ameliorate the harm of Lemon. Over the last few decades‚ the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to apply Lemon in many cases where it seemed to be the governing law. For example‚ Lemon was interpreted to not apply in cases involving legislative prayer‚ public displays of religious objects‚ and the use of public school facilities for religious activities after school hours. Unfortunately‚ because the court never explicitly stated that Lemon was reversed‚ lower courts continued to apply its strict rule. While religious litigants were very likely to win at the Supreme Court‚ the vast majority of cases never reach the Supreme Court. Religious Americans were left at the mercy of lower court judges‚ many of whom continued to apply Lemon in a merciless manner and fell influence to rampant‚ anti-religious sentiment. It is unknown how many religious Americans simply gave up when a city told them that Lemon prevented it from allowing them to exercise their religion. Lemon was finally laid to rest in October 2021 with Kennedy v. Bremerton‚ a landmark case that held that the football coach of a public high school did not violate the Establishment Clause by engaging in silent prayer after games. The case garnered significant media attention‚ with many claiming that Kennedy was somehow indoctrinating the faithful players who decided to pray with him.  Really‚ in an age where young people are consistently rejecting traditional values for the instant gratification provided by our digital-driven world‚ the faith demonstrated by Coach Kennedy and those who chose to pray with him‚ should have been met with respect. Coach Kennedy’s prayers took the form of a silent kneel on the 50-yard line after the completion of a game. The players who joined him weren’t necessarily even praying to the same God‚ but taking time after a game to express their gratitude in a powerful display of unity and faith. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP In its decision on Kennedy v. Bremerton‚ the Supreme Court affirmed that Lemon’s “ahistorical‚ atextual” approach had long been dead‚ although it had not yet explicitly stated so. Nevertheless‚ the Court’s delay in stating the fall of Lemon‚ and lack of clarity from Establishment Clause cases leading up to it‚ caused unnecessary suffering for religious communities. Although Kennedy eventually won his case‚ he was initially fired from coaching the team he loved‚ suffered public ridicule‚ and had his faith questioned in front of the entire nation. In Gagliardi v. The City of Boca Raton Florida‚ Lemon was invoked to delay Jewish residents from building a synagogue. After years of delay and deprivation from their access to worship‚ the synagogue finally won in Court. The decision in Kennedy ensures that anti-religious reactionaries will no longer be able to invoke Lemon to strip sincere religious communities of their rights and dignity. In Kennedy’s wake‚ the Court instructed that‚ going forward‚ Establishment Clause cases would be decided by “reference to historical practices and understanding.” Although exactly what will come from the new precedent has yet to be decided‚ American history‚ from its very founding‚ is rooted in religious freedom and recognizing pluralism‚ so it will be significantly better than Lemon. Lower courts will no longer be able to force religious litigants to forgo their convictions in the name of the Lemon test. With Lemon officially gone in Kennedy’s wake‚ Establishment Clause jurisprudence has gone from sour to sweet. We should continue to fight to fully protect religious freedom‚ but we should also celebrate and acknowledge how much progress has been made. Instead of letting headlines of standout cases drive us to hysteria‚ we should let them galvanize us into action. * * * Bella Brannon is a Junior at UCLA studying Public Affairs‚ Religion‚ and Digital Humanities. She is the Editor-In-Chief of Ha’Am‚ researched bias in artificial intelligence with the School of Technology Law and Policy‚ and spent the summer interning with the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty. The views expressed int his piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A Minneapolis man who maintained his innocence for 19 years has been freed from prison following a judge’s ruling that his original trial was unfair. Marvin Haynes‚ 35‚ was released from prison on Monday after serving 19 years in prison for the murder of 55-year-old Randy Sherer back in 2004‚ the Associated Press reported. His release came after a judge ruled that eyewitness evidence used in Haynes’ trial was unreliable‚ an issue on which the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office agreed with defense attorneys. “I just want to thank everybody that supported me through this whole journey‚” Haynes told reporters outside the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater after he was released. “And now y’all can recognize that I’m actually innocent.” Haynes was 16 when he was accused of killing Sherer‚ a clerk in a flower shop. After he was convicted in 2005‚ Hayes exclaimed in court that he “didn’t kill that man!” He looked at the jury as he yelled‚ adding‚ “They’re all going to burn in hell for that.” His attorneys have argued that detectives pressured witnesses to point the finger at Haynes by threatening them‚ The New York Times reported. Detectives also reportedly ignored evidence that pointed away from Haynes as the killer and an improperly conducted photo lineup. The sole witness in the crime was initially shown a photo lineup that did not include Haynes. When she picked a photo and said she was 75-80% sure that was the killer‚ police learned the chosen man had been in a different state at the time of the killing‚ so the witness was shown a second lineup. This one included an old photo of Haynes with short hair‚ which he had since grown long. The witness didn’t identify Haynes this time around but did identify him as the killer during a third lineup and in her trial testimony‚ the AP reported. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP The Innocence Project assisted in Haynes’ release‚ with attorneys from the organization showing in court that Haynes did not match the description of the killer‚ who was much older than Haynes at the time‚ as well as larger and taller. After being released‚ Haynes said at a news conference with his attorneys‚ family‚ and even Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty‚ who works for the same prosecutor’s office that convicted Haynes in 2005. Haynes said at this conference that he hopes to get a job‚ and the first thing he would do is visit his mother‚ who had a stroke several years ago. “I shed tears‚” he said‚ according to the AP. “I haven’t cried so much in 19 years. I’m so excited. Overwhelmed with emotion.” Moriarty also spoke at the press conference. “We inflicted harm on Mr. Haynes and his family‚ and also on Randy Sherer‚ the victim‚ his family‚ and the community‚” she said. “We cannot undo the trauma experienced by those impacted by this prosecution. But today we have taken a step towards righting this wrong.”

After a Massachusetts Democrat congressman — who is also a Harvard University alumnus — slammed Harvard President Claudine Gay for claiming she supported free speech to bolster her inaction against calls for the genocide of Jews‚ Harvard canceled an event at which the lawmaker was to speak. On December 8‚ Harvard’s conservative John Adams Society was supposed to hold a discussion on the future of U.S.–China relations‚ featuring Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and Ro Khanna (D-CA). The event was co-sponsored by the journal American Affairs. One month prior‚ on November 6‚ David Vega of the John Adams Society‚ booked a room; he received an email from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences that confirmed the event and the room in which it was to be held‚ as Sohrab Amari — who reviewed the email — wrote in The American Conservative. Auchincloss’s chief of staff communicated with Christine Haverty‚ director of events management‚ who reportedly replied‚ “Thank you! For this‚ you would work with the team planning the event and Harvard University Police‚” adding‚ “They are wonderful!” “On Nov. 27‚ Haverty introduced the congressional team to Sgt. Andy Gilbert of Harvard Police to coordinate security‚” Ahmari noted. “A few days later‚ Harvard Police informed the organizers and the congressional team‚ ‘We’d like to let you know that [Harvard Police] is still in the planning stages for this event‚ and we will be coordinating a planning meeting in the coming days.’” On December 5‚ Harvard confirmed the event‚ Ahmari pointed out. That same day Gay gave her testimony. Gay started her testimony by saying‚ “I have sought to confront hate while preserving free expression…. The free exchange of ideas is the foundation upon which Harvard is built.” Later‚ when Rep. Elise Stefanik asked Gay if “calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct‚” Gay responded‚ “It depends on the context.” On December 6‚ Auchincloss and fellow Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Seth Moulton‚ also a Harvard alumnus‚ released a statement which read‚ “Harvard ranks last out of 248 universities for support of free speech. But when it comes to denouncing antisemitism‚ suddenly the university has anxieties about the First Amendment. It rings hollow.” On December 7‚ Ahmari stated‚ the student organizer for the event reportedly received an email from the associate director for student organizations that claimed the event was canceled because American Affairs was a non-Harvard entity. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “A Harvard spokesman claimed that the university has ‘no record of an event registration request‚’ notwithstanding the registration confirmation reviewed by The American Conservative and dozens of back-and-forth emails between organizers and Harvard staff‚ all predicated upon the fact that the event is registered and moving forward‚” Ahmari concluded.

I’ve never heard a cow scream until this video‚ and I’ve got to say… it’s nothing like I was expecting! When approached‚ it’s not uncommon for cow mothers to provide a bit of a warning signal. While cows are sweet creatures‚ mothers get protective! This cow scream is a hilarious sign to back up! This image is from TikTok. You can tell by the waving of her tail and‚ of course‚ by her holler that she is NOT pleased! “Wow. Never seen an angry cow. I did not think they did that‚” commented one surprised viewer. Seriously‚ who knew? This cow scream caught us all off guard‚ huh? “I have grown up around cows I have never seen them moo with this anger‚” commented another viewer startled by this mama cow’s reaction. Even with a farm background‚ they hadn’t seen this before! As always‚ be careful when approaching a large animal. It’s important to make sure they’re comfortable. This cow was clearly feeling a tad ornery! Hilariously‚ one viewer commented‚ “You got beef with beef.” Check out the full video for yourself and hear this surprising cow scream below. Warning: there’s a little PG-13 language involved! @615_to_the_farm #bigpissed #shehatesme ♬ original sound – Lesley McDonald The featured image for this post is from TikTok. The post Have You Ever Heard A Cow Scream? It’s Downright Hilarious‚ And A Bit Creepy. appeared first on InspireMore.