New York Times columnist Margaret Renkl may be based in Nashville, but she’s as contemptuous of Trumpers and Red Staters as any of the paper’s Manhattan-based writers, as shown in her latest self-important trashing of an American holiday: “The American Flag Belongs to Me, Too, and This Year I’m Taking It Back.” She reminisced how in her younger days, “We were all proud to be Americans, even if we didn’t agree about which aspects of our sprawling, messy democracy merited pride.” Not anymore though, with Old Glory now hijacked by the Red Staters, in all their irredeemable tackiness. Take a drive through any red state, and you will see American flags flying above truck stops, dangling from construction cranes, stretched across the back windshields of cars, emblazoned on clothing and, of course, waving from front porches -- and not just on the Fourth of July. “The sheer volume of American flag paraphernalia that white people seem to own boggles my mind,” tweeted the Times columnist Tressie McMillan Cottom last month. “I assume it just sort of flows to them & they aren’t buying all of it? I’m not sure.” I’m pretty sure white people are buying this stuff. But not all of us. Old Glory has become such a strong feature of Trump rallies that many liberals have all but rejected it, unwilling to embrace the symbol of a worldview that we find anathema…. The majority of Americans did not want the Court to overturn Roe. They don’t want to be surrounded by guns. They are deeply worried about climate change. With these Supreme Court rulings, the law of the land no longer reflects the will of the people who live here. But it isn’t the Supreme Court’s job to reflect current polling data, but to preserve states’ rights and individual freedoms. The overruling of Roe v. Wade means that from now on, abortion laws will reflect the will of the legislatures and citizens of the various states. Renkl let her contempt show through. I am struggling terribly with this reality. I have staked my entire worldview on the belief that people are mostly good, even when we don’t agree with one another, but I find myself now fighting a raging internal battle not to hate everyone whose decisions, large and small, have led to this political moment. Renkl described being outside the Supreme Court when in 2015 when it announced its decision that gay marriage was a constitutional right. It reveals how contingent love of country is to liberals: America is worth celebrating to the extent its governmental branches are making decisions they approve of. I will also never forget what happened next: The jubilant crowd began to sing the national anthem. ….This is my country, too, and I will not surrender it to a vocal minority of undemocratic tyrants. So this Fourth of July weekend, my husband and I have hung up an American flag again for the first time in years. It’s right next to the front door, and it does not symbolize MAGA lies or MAGA tyranny…. Beside Renkl's American flag flies the Pride flag, of course. This isn’t the first national holiday Renkl has marred with obnoxious commentary. Her Memorial Day 2021 column condemned her fellow Americans for “refus[ing] to give up social gatherings.” Yet she previously hailed the public protests after George Floyd’s killing!

On Sunday’s Media Buzz on the Fox News Channel, host Howard Kurtz opened his show by ripping into the media’s hyper partisan coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Kurtz compared the media’s freak outs to their reaction after the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage, as well as the orignial ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973.  “The way the mainstream media have framed, reported and commented on the reversal or Roe. They leave absolutely no doubt they view it as a terrible tragedy by a rogue Supreme Court. It's pretty obvious what they think” Kurtz announced at the top of the show.  “So I decided to compare the coverage to a high court ruling that unleashed a tsunami of media praise, the legalization of same-sex marriage seven years ago” he added.      Kurtz recalled how “The New York Times ran 12 pictures of gay couples kissing and embracing under the headline equal dignity” after the court legalized gay marriage nationwide. “The paper called the ruling the culmination of decades of litigation and activism that set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country,” he added.  He continued to expose the media’s glowing support for the same sex marriage decision:  In a Times follow-up, there was revelry and soul searching on gay pride day. The story saying such cities as New York City and San Francisco promised a sort of social catharsis, a bicoastal toast to the nation's rapid shift on gay rights and an extended curtain call for the movement that drove it. Now, The Washington Post front page story said the decision rewarded years of legal work by same-sex marriage advocates and pointed to the vexing challenge now facing Republican presidential candidates and the GOP itself, how to get in step with modern America. Kurtz also dug up old newspapers from January 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided to inform viewers how much more biased the media has gotten in the 49 years since:  We also looked at the coverage of the original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and while it was overshadowed by the death of LBJ, it reflects an era that newspapers mainly took a just the facts approach. The Washington Post story quoted the majority, then the minority opinions in the 7-2 ruling back to back.  Now, one New York Times front-pager called Roe a new set of national guidelines that will result in broadly liberalized anti-abortion laws in 46 states, but the second story on the front page cited leaders of the Catholic church assailing the ruling while birth control and women's activists praised it. And the first quotes in that story were from the Cardinals in New York and Philadelphia calling Roe shocking, horrifying and an unspeakable tragedy for this nation. Kurtz ended by remarking “what's undeniably clear is times have changed.” That is certainly true. Back then the media at least attempted to be fair and hide their liberal biases and opinions. Now the leftist media are full blown activists for the leftist agenda. Whether it’s abortion, immigration, or government run healthcare, the media is more than happy to carry water for the left.  Thankfully we have Fox News and other conservative outlets speaking the truth.  To read the transcript of this segment click “expand”: FNC’s Media Buzz July 3, 2022 10:59:54 a.m. Eastern HOWARD KURTZ: The way the mainstream media have framed, reported and commented on the reversal or Roe. They leave absolutely no doubt they view it as a terrible tragedy by a rogue Supreme Court. It's pretty obvious what they think. So I decided to compare the coverage to a high court ruling that unleashed a tsunami of media praise, the legalization of same-sex marriage seven years ago.  Now personally, I have no problem with that ruling. I think it's widely accepted by the majority of Americans, but this is about the coverage and the injection of raw opinion into news stories. The New York Times ran 12 pictures of gay couples kissing and embracing under the headline equal dignity.  The paper called the ruling the culmination of decades of litigation and activism that set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country. Polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the rulings.  In a Times follow-up, there was revelry and soul searching on gay pride day. The story saying such cities as New York City and San Francisco promised a sort of social catharsis, a bicoastal toast to the nation's rapid shift on gay rights and an extended curtain call for the movement that drove it.  Now, The Washington Post front page story said the decision rewarded years of legal work by same-sex marriage advocates and pointed to the vexing challenge now facing Republican presidential candidates and the GOP itself, how to get in step with modern America.  We also looked at the coverage of the original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and while it was overshadowed by the death of LBJ, it reflects an era that newspapers mainly took a just the facts approach. The Washington Post story quoted the majority, then the minority opinions in the 7-2 ruling back to back.  Now, one New York Times front-pager called Roe a new set of national guidelines that will result in broadly liberalized anti-abortion laws in 46 states, but the second story on the front page cited leaders of the Catholic church assailing the ruling while birth control and women's activists praised it. And the first quotes in that story were from the Cardinals in New York and Philadelphia calling Roe shocking, horrifying and an unspeakable tragedy for this nation. What's undeniably clear is times have changed.

Over the past couple of days, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has been giving a preview of how journalists and other liberals are going to keep trying to blame gerrymandering for Republican power no matter what the facts are. As he fearmongered about the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that state legislatures can overrule the popular vote and the courts by choosing their electors for presidential elections, he incorrectly claimed that state legislatures in Arizona and Pennsylvania have been heavily gerrymandered, making the bodies very right wing. On Thursday's At This Hour with Kate Bolduan, Toobin claimed: And what that means is that these legislatures -- especially in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Arizona -- which are very conservative and very much gerrymandered by the legislatures can do whatever they want. And they can't be reviewed -- their decisions can't be reviewed by the state courts. It's a license to these very conservative state legislatures to decide and resolve elections any way they want... He made similar claims again on Friday's New Day show. But, in fact, Arizona has been using independent commissions to redraw its districts since 2002. Pennsylvania also recently used a commission to redraw its districts for the next decade. Two Democrat leaders joined a GOP leader and the commission's independent chair approved new lines 4-1, leaving the state's Republicans complaining about the new lines. And Arizona's legislature in recent years has only had narrow Republican majorities. And in Wisconsin, it is arguable that the new districts were adopted even-handedly since the state supreme court sided with the Democratic governor on the congressional districts while siding with the Republicans on state legislative districts. It's not as cartoonish as Toobin presents it. And on Friday, Toobin also claimed that the Pennsylvania state legislature tried to help Donald Trump but were stopped by the courts even though the Republican leaders released a statement refusing to choose the electors for Trump and argued against a legislature just choosing the electors in defiance of the state's popular vote, citing state law. On Friday, Toobin claimed: Pennsylvania has a very conservative, right-wing legislature, which was trying to help Donald Trump in the post-election period, but the court said, "No, you have to follow the law, and you can't just make up new rules as you go along to help the candidate you like." The courts were a check, as they are, in our system. If this independent legislature law -- that's the doctrine of law -- were in effect -- the legislature could have done whatever it wanted, including declare Trump the winner, notwithstanding the fact that Biden won by tens of thousands of votes. This misinformation from CNN was sponsored in part by Colonial Penn and Liberty Mutual. Their contact information is linked. Transcripts follow. Click "expand" to read more.  CNN's At This Hour June 1, 2022 11:10 a.m. Eastern JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: What the decision means in real terms is that little to nothing is going to be done about climate change. And that's what Justice Kagan's dissent is really about, is that this is punishing the planet because of the legal theories of the conservatives on the court. KATE BOLDUAN: Adding to this, Joan, is a little bit of -- I'm going to call it a head scratcher and you tell me if I'm wrong. Is it surprising that the court even took -- took up this EPA case since neither of the actual regulations in question in this case are currently in effect? JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Kate, your premise is they shouldn't have taken it up. That's right. It's not surprising given how aggressive they've been on this topic. Back in 2016, one of the last acts that the late Justice Antonin Scalia took was to vote against the clean power plan just as a kind of emergency injunction, and Justice Elena Kagan notes that, from the start, this court has obstructed this original Obama plan and now, of course, is making it harder for President Biden to do anything. So it was surprising in that there is actually no policy in place -- not by either President Obama or even former President Trump who wanted to roll it back with his own plan. So that part was surprising, but it was aggressive, and it fits with this pattern. And that's why Justice Kagan said this is -- she uses the word "frightening" -- this is such a "frightening" decision given the scope that it does here. And clearly this step by step move toward really tying any administration's hands on regulation, particularly here for environmental protection, that's so important. (...) TOOBIN: What this case asserts is that only the legislature can decide how legislation -- how elections are conducted, and the courts are not allowed to intervene at all. And what that means is that these legislatures -- especially in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Arizona -- which are very conservative and very much gerrymandered by the legislatures can do whatever they want. And they can't be reviewed -- their decisions can't be reviewed by the state courts. It's a license to these very conservative state legislatures to decide and resolve elections any way they want, including the drawing of district lines. BOLDUAN: The landscape is already gerrymandered and unfair. It's -- this feels like heading towards the Wild West (...) CNN's New Day July 1, 2022 6:21 a.m. Eastern TOOBIN: At least four members of the court have said state courts have no right to intervene. And so what that means is, in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, these extremely right-wing legislatures with strictly gerrymandered seats can make any sort of rules they want in legislatures in their states without any sort of oversight from the courts. Which would give them carte blanche to draw districts and maybe even simply declare the winners of state races. It's an enormously important case for how elections were conducted all over the country. BRIIANNA KEILAR: Because explain, Jeffrey, how that could have come into play in 2020 and how it might come into play in 2024, depending on how they rule. TOOBIN: For example, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has a very conservative, right-wing legislature, which was trying to help Donald Trump in the post-election period, but the court said, "No, you have to follow the law, and you can't just make up new rules as you go along to help the candidate you like." The courts were a check, as they are, in our system. If this independent legislature law -- that's the doctrine of law -- were in effect -- the legislature could have done whatever it wanted, including declare Trump the winner, notwithstanding the fact that Biden won by tens of thousands of votes.

Saturday’s New York Times led with Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak analyzing the ideological trend of the Court in “What We Learned This Term About the Supreme Court’s Shift to the Right” -- a shift that has come about via the addition of three conservative justices appointed by President Trump. The banner print headline, “Court’s Term Was Its Most Conservative Since 1931,” was accompanied by a large graphic sorting justices from left to right, liberal to conservative. The paper's own ideological slant was clear from paragraph one: The Supreme Court moved relentlessly to the right in its first full term with a six-justice conservative majority, issuing far-reaching decisions that will transform American life. It eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, recognized a Second Amendment right to carry guns outside the home, made it harder to address climate change and expanded the role of religion in public life. But those blockbusters, significant though they were, only began to tell the story of the conservative juggernaut the court has become. By one standard measurement used by political scientists, the term that ended on Thursday was the most conservative since 1931. “The data provide stunning confirmation of the Republican-conservative takeover of the Supreme Court,” said Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at the University of Southern California who oversees the Supreme Court Database. From the paper's perspective, that's definitely not a good thing. An ACLU director was quoted whining, “the doomsayers got it exactly right, as the court traded caution for raw power.” The dynamic on the new court is different and lopsided, with six Republican appointees and three Democratic ones. The median justice appears to be Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, appointed by Mr. Trump to replace the more liberal Justice Kennedy.... Liptak made his sympathies clear: The court’s three liberals were perfectly aware that they had been marginalized by what Justice Sonia Sotomayor called, in dissenting from a decision that made it harder to sue federal officials for constitutional violations, “a restless and newly constituted court.” In their joint dissent in the abortion case, the three liberal justices said the court had replaced reason with power. Liptak reliably related: The court’s public approval is certainly plummeting. In a Gallup poll taken after the leaked draft of the abortion opinion but before the formal decision, for instance, public confidence in the court fell to 25 percent, the lowest in the nearly 50 years over which the survey has been conducted. Professor Grove said the court’s authority could not withstand a lasting loss of public trust. Liptak has been writing about the supposed decline of the Supreme Court’s credibility for at least 10 years, conveniently tracing the trend back to the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. In the Times' telling, public disapproval increases with every conservative ruling laid down. Oddly, the Court’s standing with the public wasn’t an issue during the body's decades of reliably liberal decision-making on abortion, education, affirmative action, religion, gay marriage, etc. In the early 1990s, the conservative movement hadn’t yet coalesced a judicial counterweight. Former Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse noted that a “hot-button” summer 1992 school prayer decision, lost by the conservative pro-prayer side 5-4, "disappointed conservatives." Greenhouse then asked rhetorically, did conservatives "inside or outside the Supreme Court, run crying to the press? They did not. The behind-the-scenes drama remained largely unknown….” Conservatives certainly didn’t protest the homes of justices or try to assassinate them. Only in recent years, with liberal activists wailing about dawning fascism, has the press developed faux-concern over the Court's public reputation.

Viral social media app TikTok says its employees who are based in China can access data from users in the United States. The New York Times obtained the company’s response to an inquiry from Republican senators in the United States that requested specifics into the data collected from the app. "Employees outside the US, including China-based employees, can have access to TikTok US user data subject to a series of robust cybersecurity controls and authorization approval protocols overseen by our US-based security team," TikTok's CEO Shou Zi Chew wrote in a response letter. Chew clarified that the data required “approval” based on data classification. "TikTok has an internal data classification system and approval process in place that assigns levels of access based on the data's classification and requires approvals for access to US user data," Chew added. "The level of approval required is based on the sensitivity of the data according to the classification system." The response is the latest in a recent wave of concern brought on by TikTok’s troubling ties to Communist China. Last year, NewsBusters reported that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, sold a stake to WangTouZhongWen Technology, a Beijing company owned by three state entities in China. The platform’s privacy policy currently allows it to share unlimited amounts of user data with ByteDance. “We may share all of the information we collect with a parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of our corporate group,” TikTok’s policy says.  In 2021, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) reintroduced the No TikTok on Government Devices Act to ban the social media app from official federal devices. Hawley said TikTok is “a Trojan horse for the Chinese Communist Party that has no place on government devices—or any American devices, for that matter” in a statement. He added: “TikTok has repeatedly proven itself to be a malicious actor[,] but Joe Biden and Big Tech refuse to take the threat of Chinese espionage seriously. It’s time for Congress to act.” Unsurprisingly, TikTok has downplayed its data sharing. “We employ rigorous access controls and a strict approval process overseen by our U.S.-based leadership team, including technologies like encryption and security monitoring to safeguard sensitive user data,” a TikTok spokeswoman told CNBC at the time. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the CensorTrack contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.