by dap | Jul 11, 2025 | Fox News
In a bold, but constitutionally sound move, New York City Mayor Eric Adams has announced a new policy banning the wearing of face masks in certain public spaces. Predictably, the usual critics have begun to hyperventilate—equating this common-sense public safety measure with an assault on civil liberties. But reports that some Jewish groups are not on board have been greatly exaggerated. Many, if not most, mainstream groups do support the bill, and in fact, the very groups named by anonymous sources have actually come out publicly in support of mask bans generally, and in one case this mask ban in particular. A sober review of the facts and the law reveals an initiative far less scandalous and far more important than the haters would have you believe: a responsible effort to protect not just Jewish citizens but all New Yorkers while staying well within the bounds of
.
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to anonymous public demonstrations via concealed identity. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained in Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 356 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004), “The Supreme Court has never held that freedom of association or the right to engage in anonymous speech entails a right to conceal one’s appearance in a public demonstration. Nor has any Circuit found such a right.”
That case involved the KKK—an organization notorious for exploiting anonymity to intimidate and terrorize. And yet the principle applies universally: in a civil society, especially one dealing with rising crime, antisemitic threats, and politically charged tensions spilling into our streets, the state has a compelling interest in being able to identify individuals in public spaces.
New York, like many major cities, is facing a crisis of rising
. From antisemitic mobs vandalizing Jewish businesses to coordinated flash mob robberies, bad actors are abusing face coverings—not for public health, but to evade accountability. Mayor Adams’ policy isn’t about targeting peaceful protestors. It’s about stopping those who hide behind the veil of anonymity to harm others or break the law. That’s not just smart policy — it’s basic governance. And the law is squarely on his side.
Mayor Adams is not banning speech. He is not targeting any viewpoint. He is simply saying that in a free society, public
. That’s a narrow, content-neutral regulation of conduct, not a restriction on expression—and well within the constitutional framework laid out by the Supreme Court.
It is well established that the government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on
—especially when public safety is at stake. In fact, during the COVID-19 pandemic, courts made clear that even mandatory mask laws could be constitutionally enforced. Surely the inverse—a prohibition on masks in contexts where they pose a public safety threat—is just as lawful. When demonstrators march with masks, they hinder law enforcement’s ability to maintain order and investigate crimes. And that’s not just theoretical- both NYPD and DA officials have cited multiple instances where masked agitators used anonymity to provoke violence, destroy property, or evade arrest.
Even the ACLU, when it’s being honest, will admit that the First Amendment is not a suicide pact. Rights exist in balance with responsibilities. And the right to speak does not automatically translate to a right to conceal one’s identity in a public square during a moment of high tension.
To those worried about a possible chilling effect: there are better ways to
than encouraging lawlessness. People have every right to voice dissent. They do not have a constitutional right to do so while dressed for anonymity in a way that frustrates law enforcement and endangers the public. The best remedy for offensive speech is more speech, not more masks. Civil disobedience has always required courage—and that includes the willingness to stand behind your convictions, quite literally, with your face uncovered. From Martin Luther King Jr. to Soviet refuseniks, the history of protest is a history of public witness, not masked mobs.
Mayor Adams has done what responsible leaders must: balance liberty with security, transparency with protection. He has not banned protests. He has not censored speech. He has merely said that if you want to speak in public, you must do so with your face uncovered—just like millions of brave Americans have done throughout our history, marching for justice without hiding who they are.
The reality is this: When people feel unsafe walking the streets or riding the subway, the whole idea of an open society begins to crumble. Order is not the enemy of liberty. It is its precondition. We live in a democracy, not a masquerade.
And it’s time we start acting like it.
by | Jul 11, 2025 | The Daily Caller
‘It is dangerous’
by dap | Jul 11, 2025 | Fox News
HANNITY – Fox News host rips into Democrats voting against President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’.
HUGH HEWITT – When the ‘conspiracy’ just isn’t there.
CBO GOT IT WRONG, AGAIN – Trump’s economic bill set to generate trillions in surplus, not debt.
SACRED SILENCE – How state law could force priests to choose between jail or excommunication.
RADICAL TAKEOVER – New Democrat bill threatens to bring Seattle’s failed homeless policies to you.
RAYMOND ARROYO – Fox News contributor checks out President Donald Trump’s sense of humor.
MAKE AMERICA BEAUTIFUL AGAIN – Let’s restore our natural legacy from sea to shining sea.
TRUE COLORS – Teachers union behind closed doors at annual convention.
THE BIG SECRET – What high school students discovered about consumer financial protection.
CARTOON OF THE DAY –
by dap | Jul 11, 2025 | Fox News
I wrote recently about the
of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions. Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by one as an “imperial judiciary” model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson’s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain
for the far-left Biden appointee.
“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do,” Jackson told
.
Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license. The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself.
Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the
over what was described as “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day.
She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in order to condemn Trump, his supporters, and his policies.
I
wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary.
District Court Judge
an Obama appointee who previously presided over Trump’s election interference case, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning January 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons, but
that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge
also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions,
“[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for
in Trump cases and
to banish January 6 defendants from the Capitol.
Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to
on Trump’s priorities and policies:
“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”
For Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor
in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court’s decision on
. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston.
Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy’s conflicting order and wrote the new order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only directed agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch.
However, Jackson could and would.
The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice.
The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have
of what I called the era of “celebrity justices,” where members seem to maintain political constituencies at public events.
Such speeches not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric.
Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary.
The “opportunity to tell people how I feel” can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being “one of nine” is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you.
Opinions must remain “opportunities” to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.
by dap | Jul 11, 2025 | Fox News
America’s natural grandeur, wide-open spaces and vast frontiers have inspired patriots for generations. As Americans pushed west, we learned to work with the land. We established
to protect the diverse geography that spans the nation and fuel economic prosperity. And we united around the desire to conserve America’s beauty and natural resources for generations to come.
But for the last several decades, the environment has become engulfed in partisan culture wars. As a result, our nation’s leaders have increasingly failed to enact durable, long-lasting, and
A subject matter that once transcended partisan politics and brought leaders from all sides together has seen little to no substantial progress in the modern political era.
These years of mismanagement, regulatory overreach and neglect have left America’s natural resources in crisis. We’ve seen glimmers of hope with overwhelming bipartisan support for
like the “Great American Outdoors Act.” But issues with broad support nationwide remain trapped in partisan gridlock.
Today, the
is in $23 billion of debt. Poor forest management is exacerbating already catastrophic wildfires, costing our country between $394 billion and $893 billion annually. Unnecessarily stringent restrictions are stripping hunting and recreational access to public lands. Our nation’s ecosystems and wildlife populations are in a state of disrepair. And America’s water infrastructure no longer provides our agricultural industry and communities with the resources they need to flourish.
It should have never come to this — and it’s time to right the ship. We are dedicated to putting every American first by prioritizing conservation, restoring our lands and waters and protecting our nation’s outdoor heritage.
That is why President Donald Trump signed an executive order to “Make America Beautiful Again.” This order is a monumental first step to restoring America’s natural beauty through bold leadership, innovation and commonsense policies.
The order establishes the
which will give a politically diverse set of elected leaders, experts, nonprofits and other decision-makers with a wide variety of backgrounds a seat at the table. The commission will then submit a comprehensive strategy outlining recommended actions for achieving long-term conservation success.
The
will bring federal and state officials, private sector leaders, conservation organizations and tribal governments together to develop policy strategies for conservation. This executive order turns the nation’s attention to the protection of our natural beauty and the expansion of our outdoor heritage.
This commission provides an opportunity for us to protect water resources, restore forests and natural habitats, reduce waste and pollution, recover America’s wildlife, enhance hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation on public lands, building environmental resilience and security, and advance conservation education and global leadership.
The purpose of establishing this commission is to develop commonsense solutions and kick-start action that all Americans can agree is much needed and long overdue. Getting that job done requires bipartisan, inter-agency partnerships — bringing folks together to discuss their personal experiences and insights regarding environmental efforts, working to reach compromises and forming unlikely alliances around our shared love of nature.
America’s conservation legacy has faded over the last few decades — but our pride for our nation’s beauty lives on. As we celebrate the kickoff of America’s 250th birthday, we are not only filled with pride and patriotism for this great nation, we are also reminded of our great responsibility to leave this democracy more beautiful than we found it.
We understand that it is our duty to conserve our natural resources, to be good stewards of our land, and to create long-lasting policies that actually work for the environment, the economy and the American people. From sea to shining sea, the natural majesty of the United States of America must be protected and passed down to future generations.
We are kickstarting the restoration of our country’s conservation legacy with this executive order. But the real work starts now as we come together to do all that we can to preserve our natural beauty, conserve our natural resources and Make America Beautiful Again.
