ActBlue donor arrested for allegedly threatening to torture and slaughter 6 Supreme Court justices



An ActBlue donor shot President Donald Trump on July 13. Another ActBlue donor allegedly attempted to assassinate him on Sunday.

It turns out the Alaska man who was arrested Wednesday for allegedly threatening to torture and slaughter six U.S. Supreme Court justices and some of their family members was also an ActBlue donor with over 80 contributions to the Democratic fundraising outfit to his name.

The Department of Justice announced Thursday that Panos Anastasiou, 76, has been charged with nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce.

The DOJ refrained from indicating which six justices on the high court — which has a 6-3 conservative majority — were targeted.

"We allege that the defendant made repeated, heinous threats to murder and torture Supreme Court Justices and their families to retaliate against them for decisions he disagreed with," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "Our justice system depends on the ability of judges to make their decisions based on the law, and not on fear."

According to the indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anastasiou sent over 465 messages to the Supreme Court through a public website between March 10, 2023, and July 16.

These messages allegedly "contained violent, racist, and homophobic rhetoric coupled with threats of assassination by torture, hanging, and firearms, and encouraged others to participate in the acts of violence."

Six justices on the court certainly angered a great many radicals with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The indictment noted that some of the threats were intended to intimidate the six unnamed justices and retaliate against them for actions they had taken in their official capacity as federal justices.

Anastasiou allegedly threatened to hang a specific justice from an oak tree, to lynch another, and to kill a third by "putting a bullet in his ... head." He is also accused of threatening to behead, strangle, and/or drown all six, as well as gun down their family members.

Although it's unclear what six justices may have done to draw the ire of the Democratic donor, six justices on the court certainly angered a great many radicals with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Numerous pro-abortion extremists engaged in hate crimes and terror attacks after the ruling, targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, churches, and individuals.

After a draft of the Dobbs opinion was leaked, Nicholas John Roske of California — who goes on trial next year — was apparently caught near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house with a gun and a knife and charged with attempted murder.

Roske allegedly claimed he was going to give his life a purpose by killing the justice, reported the Washington Post.

During part of the period that Anastasiou was allegedly making the threats, Democrats in Washington, D.C., were actively attacking those conservative Supreme Court justices who appeared unwilling to give them their desired results in cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in June, "[Justice Samuel] Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy," reported The Hill.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tweeted, "Alito answered like a movement activist. Movement activists have their role but it's not on the Supreme Court."

Blaze News previously reported that on the basis of a misleading New York Times story, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) accused Justice Samuel Alito in May of "sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists."

House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) was among the Democrats happy to demonize Alito.

Clark — whose adult son was arrested and charged in January 2023 with assault and battery on a Boston police officer — said in May 23 statement, "Justice Alito has displayed flags at his homes that support insurrection against our government, promote religious nationalism, and attack free and fair elections."

"This is not just another example of extremism that has overtaken conservatism. This is a threat to the rule of law and a serious breach of ethics, integrity, and Justice Alito's oath of office," continued Clark.

This would not be the first time in recent memory that heated Democratic rhetoric resonated with an extremist.

Blaze News previously highlighted that the suspected would-be Trump assassin arrested Sunday directly quoted Democratic rhetoric. Prior to his arrest, Ryan Routh posted about how "DEMOCRACY is on the ballot" this election. This is one of Kamala Harris' go-to lines.

If convicted, then Anastasiou faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for each of the nine counts of threatening the justices and a maximum penalty of five years in prison for each of the latter 13 counts.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained

Supreme Court lets Biden admin off the hook for suppressing free speech it deemed 'misinformation'



Missouri v. Biden, the case that became known as Murthy v. Missouri before the U.S. Supreme Court, came about in response to the Democratic administration's well-documented efforts to shut down critics and questioners of its COVID-19 policies and preferred narratives during the pandemic — policies and narratives that have largely been demonstrated in the years since to have been unfounded, ruinous, or both.

The states of Missouri and Louisiana were joined by other plaintiffs, including the coauthors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, in taking legal action against President Joe Biden, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Anthony Fauci, and various Biden administration officials.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, who heard the case before it was kicked up to the high court, suggested the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits in establishing "that the Government has used is power to silence the opposition."

Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden's policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature.

Three of the so-called conservative justices on the Supreme Court joined Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in concluding Wednesday that neither "the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant."

Barrett penned the majority opinion, noting, "The plaintiffs rely on allegations of past government censorship as evidence that future censorship is likely. But they fail, by and large, to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants' communications with the platforms."

'The successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.'

Barrett cast doubt on the causal link between the Biden administration's many efforts to have those with dissenting views censored online and social media platforms' ultimate censorship efforts.

The former Notre Dame professor indicated that of all the individual plaintiffs, health care activist Jill Hines of Health Freedom Louisiana made the "best showing of a connection between her social-media restrictions and communications between the relevant platform (Facebook) and specific defendants (CDC and the White House)."

"That said," continued Barrett, "most of the lines she draws are tenuous, particularly given her burden of proof at the preliminary injunction stage — recall that she must show that her restrictions are likely traceable to the White House and the CDC."

"The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics," Barrett said in her conclusion. "This Court's standing doctrine prevents us from 'exercis[ing such] general legal oversight' of the other branches of Government."

The majority reversed the injunctions against the Biden administration's various censorious elements.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, in which he stated, "If the lower courts' assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years."

'Free speech in America, for the moment, is dead.'

"Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government ... and speech that advances humanity’s store of knowledge, thought, and expression in fields such as science, medicine, history, the social sciences, philosophy, and the arts," wrote Alito, adding that the speech stifled by the Biden administration fell "squarely into those categories."

Alito acknowledged that private entities are not subject to the First Amendment, but government officials cannot coerce them to suppress speech. He emphasized that there is ample evidence the Biden administration did just that and noted further that the majority shirked the duty to tackle the free speech at issue in Murthy, thus permitting "the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think."

Alito slammed the efforts by Biden's cabal of high-ranking bureaucrats as "dangerous," noting both their censorship was "blatantly unconstitutional" and that the country may come to regret the majority's decision.

Contrary to the liberal justices' understanding, Alito also indicated that in the case of Hines, she had indeed made the requisite showing of traceability, adding that the presence of censorship on the social media platforms prior to direct governmental involvement did not subsequently complicate shows of causality as otherwise suggested.

"For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech," Alito noted in his conclusion. "Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent."

Bhattacharya noted on X following the court's ruling, "The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn't like."

"This now also becomes a key issue in the upcoming election. Where do the presidential candidates stand on social media censorship? We know where Biden stands since his lawyers argue that he has near monarchical power over social media speech," continued Bhattacharya. "The court ruled that the plaintiffs (Missouri and Louisiana, as well as me and other blacklisted individuals) lacked standing to sue. This means that the Administration can censor ideas & no person will have standing to enforce the 1st Amendment. Free speech in America, for the moment, is dead."

Other supporters of free speech denounced the outcome.

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, among them, said, "The Court majority has rubber-stamped a way for the federal government to censor speech that it doesn't like. The Court is telling would be censors: you can't directly censor speech but if you pursue a sophisticated plan with enough subtlety you can get away with doing indirectly what the Constitution clearly ... forbids you from doing directly."

Blaze Media cofounder and nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck wrote, "The Supreme Court has ruled that, practically, the government can continue pressuring social media companies to censor Americans. This is an absolute gut punch."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court Erases Loophole That Kept Foreigners Inside The U.S. Illegally

"[The law] does not allow aliens to seek remission of removal orders in perpetuity based on arguments they could have raised in a hearing that they chose to skip"

The endgame is nigh for the Democratic public-private campaign against Justice Alito



The Democratic establishment has in recent months waged a concerted public-private campaign to neutralize conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democratic lawmakers and their allies in the media have admitted that part of what's driving this campaign is the need to swing upcoming rulings in their favor. After all, the cases under consideration related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, may prove consequential in November.

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, recently indicated that the broader purpose is "to try to combat virtually the only check remaining on the Democrat Party's political power."

A senior Republican aide told Bedford that Democrats' overall strategy is fourfold:

First, incentivize justices to defect and change their rulings. Second, delegitimize the Court’s outputs. Third, provide political cover for aggressive ethics reforms that are stalking horses for bureaucratic controls to kneecap the Republican majority, such as mandatory recusals on the basis of unevenly applied ethical standards. And fourth, create the political conditions necessary for court-packing.

Desperate, per this scheme, for Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves, Democratic operatives have manufactured scandals, drummed up outrage, and applied scrutiny and standards to the conservative justices they would not otherwise put to Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

With little runway left and a trail of failures behind them, Democrats are now leaning into the latest manufactured scandal over Justice Alito and Martha-Ann Alito's secretly recorded remarks at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3.

While false-flagger Lauren Windsor of Democracy Partners completes her media grand tour pushing Democrats' preferred narrative, fellow travelers in the Senate are attempting to advance a so-called SCOTUS ethics bill to effectively force Alito's submission.

Flags and failures

Blaze News previously reported that Obama hagiographer Jodi Kantor initiated the latest public-private campaign on May 16 with a piece in the New York Times entitled, "At Justice Alito's House, a 'Stop the Steal' Symbol on Display."

The so-called "Stop the Steal" symbol in question was the American flag, which Martha-Ann Alito flew upside-down "in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

While it was clear Justice Alito had nothing to do with the distressed flag, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and others were evidently ready for Kantor's report, immediately seizing upon it as an opportunity to demand that Alito both apologize and recuse himself.

Democrats ramped up their pressure campaign while the Times and other liberal publications leaned further into the false narrative — that the flying of the flag had something to do with the January 2021 Capitol protests, that Justice Alito possibly flew the flag, and that the justice was therefore ideologically compromised.

When the false flag narrative failed to yield results, the public-private campaign tried a new angle, sounding the alarm over Justice Alito's divestment from Anheuser-Busch InBev months after it became clear the company would not soon recover from the boycott over its collaboration with a transvestite activist. What to nonpartisans may have registered as a sound investment decision was to leftist publications "suspicious" — more evidence that Alito should not be making decisions.

'I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request.'

That spinoff scandal similarly didn't take.

Kantor then penned another alarmist piece — this time aided by former Bellingcat research director Aric Toler and former Washington Post researcher Julie Tate — concern-mongering about "An Appeal to Heaven" flag allegedly flying above Alito's New Jersey beach house.

The suggestion was this flag, which flew outside of San Francisco's Democratic-controlled city hall for 60 years until late last month, was again an insurrectionist symbol reflecting poorly upon the conservative justice.

Not only was this line of attack similarly ineffective, it led to Justice Alito telling Sens. Durbin and Whitehouse he would not be recusing himself.

"A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal," wrote Alito. Having previously referenced the disqualification provision in the court's code of conduct, the justice added, "I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request."

Democrats, growing desperate — especially after the Times undercut the previous flag narrative with details about Alito's rabid leftist neighbor — began to dream up new ways to kneecap Alito.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) penned an op-ed in the New York Times, suggesting the Biden Department of Justice can lean on the high court to help Democrats get their way.

Barring a total collapse of the separation of powers and a clampdown by the Biden DOJ, Raskin and other Democrats' campaign to control the court from the sidelines appeared dead in the water; however, on Monday, Lauren Windsor put some wind in their sails.

Secret recordings

Lauren Windsor is a self-described "advocacy journalist" on the team at Robert Creamer's Democrat-aligned Democracy Partners. Creamer, who previously pleaded guilty to tax violations and to bank fraud, is the husband of Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.).

Democracy Partners has served numerous Democratic groups across the country and leftist lawmakers such as Sens. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). It has also worked for clients such as Anheuser-Busch, Wikimedia, GLAAD, Human Rights, the American Federation of Teachers, and ActBlue.

Windsor, a partner at Democracy Partners and the executive director of the Democratic-aligned dark money group American Family Voices, helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 to smear then-candidate Glenn Youngkin ahead of the Virginia gubernatorial election. She has also spent time in recent years attempting to dox Project Veritas operatives.

Rather than create another fake hate rally this election season to help Democrats, Windsor claimed to be a religious conservative and secretly recorded brief conversations with Justice Alito last year and again on June 3. In the most recent instance, Windsor also recorded a conversation with Mrs. Alito.

Despite the anticipation and subsequent spin, Windsor not only failed to catch the Alitos saying anything damning but helped to further undermine the public-private campaign's previous narrative.

In the secret recordings, Alito notes that: The left and right disagree on "fundamental things that really can't be compromised"; there will likely be a victor in the culture war; American citizens ought to "heal this polarization because it's very dangerous"; and the Supreme Court is "not a law enforcement agency" and therefore cannot be weaponized against criminal leakers.

Mrs. Alito, alternatively, makes clear that: She is an agential woman whose decisions about what flag to fly are not determined by her husband; Justice Alito cautioned her against flying the supposedly controversial flags; she entertained the thought of flying a Sacred Heart [of Jesus] flag in response to a nearby LGBT activist flag; she finds comfort in Psalm 27 and is unshaken by her vilification in the press; and she might ultimately hold the liberal media accountable for alleged defamation with legal action.

While the recordings were relatively benign, the private side to the campaign has stressed that the couple's comments are, again, compromising and demonstrative of Justice Alito's inability to be impartial.

Public-private swan song

Windsor desperately attempted to provide other Democrats with the spin they needed, telling MSNBC's Alex Wagner, for instance, "The American people deserve to know: Is the Supreme Court so compromised that we do not really have impartiality? ... I think, hearing it from his mouth, that he cannot be impartial, that there are things that cannot be compromised, that needs to be fuel for journalists and for Congress to say, 'Okay, well, tell us what are the things that can't be compromised?'"

— (@)

Windsor repeatedly suggested in other interviews that Alito's observation of the incommensurability between contemporary liberal and rightist worldviews constitutes an admission that he himself cannot be objective — a talking point the Associated Press and other publications have adopted.

'His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy.'

Speaking to NewsNation's Chris Cuomo, Windsor said that in terms of holding the Supreme Court accountable, "I think extreme measures are warranted."

Once the false-flagger had set the narrative with the help of Rolling Stone, CNN, and other liberal outfits, Democratic lawmakers did their part.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in response to the recordings, "Stomach turning & scary. Such repugnant threats of revenge reveal a mindset — apparently shared by Alito himself, since he's declined to disown it. Also unacceptable is Roberts' lack of leadership & Congressional inaction because of Republican resistance."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, "Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy," reported The Hill.

"I am most concerned about the appearance that Justice Alito has prejudged cases that will come before him," continued Warren. "That is one of the biggest sins that a judge or justice can commit, and his willingness to align so publicly in the middle of a hotly contested political battle is deeply worrisome."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tweeted, "Alito answered like a movement activist. Movement activists have their role but it's not on the Supreme Court."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) indicated that Democrats would seek to advance their so-called ethics bill via unanimous consent Wednesday, reported The Hill.

"I don't rule out any tactic at this point. Our initial effort is to enact the law that passed the committee 11-10. We're going to try to do that this week with a [unanimous consent request]," said Durbin.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to block the effort, telling NBC News, "I will object."

The proposed legislation, the so-called "Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023," cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in a party-line vote last July but has not yet been brought to the floor for a vote.

The bill would greatly advance the public-private campaign's cause by expanding the circumstances under which a justice must be disqualified and require the high court to both adopt a code of conduct for justices and establish procedures to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct.

While liberal justices have ethics issues all their own, Senate Democrats have indicated who the real target of the bill is.

"Alito is becoming a loose cannon turned on the Court itself. He mocks ethics," said Blumenthal. "Really discouraging — in fact, outrageous — that Roberts is implicitly condoning Alito’s behavior, so demeaning to the Court & degrading to himself."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, "These are people who want to destroy public confidence in all of our institutions and they are focused on the Supreme Court in particular."

The Hill indicated Cornyn has made clear the bill won't go anywhere, at least this week.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) said the bill amounts to another attempt "by the left to delegitimize the court."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats' media allies once again think they've nailed Justice Alito on something damning



Undaunted by weeks of duds, exponents of the public-private campaign to neutralize Justice Samuel Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court believe they've finally got their hands on a bombshell: an audio recording wherein Alito can be heard both expressing a hope for healing in the face of political polarization and acknowledging that in the culture war underway, one side might ultimately prevail.

This time around, the sensational headlines were made not by Obama hagiographer Jodi Kantor at the New York Times but rather by leftist blogger Lauren Windsor, a self-described "advocacy journalist" on the team at Robert Creamer's Democrat-aligned Democracy Partners who helped the Lincoln Project stage a fake white supremacist rally in 2021 to smear then-candidate Glenn Youngkin ahead of the Virginia gubernatorial election.

Pretending to be a religious conservative at the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3, Windsor approached and surreptitiously recorded brief conversations with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito.

As with the various flag stories pushed by the Times and other liberal publications, Windsor's apparent aim — and that of Rolling Stone, the libelous publication first provided the audio recordings, which are now on X — is to paint Alito as ideologically compromised and incapable of dealing with cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump.

The trouble for Windsor and other Democratic-aligned public-private campaigners is, once again, that notwithstanding their framing and manufactured hoopla, the recording is relatively benign. In fact, it undermines the public-private campaigner's previous narrative and reveals Justice Alito has no aspirations of weaponizing the high court, even against criminal leakers.

Windsor, taping Alito without his consent — legal in D.C., which is a one-party consent state — suggested at the outset that her imaginary husband implored her to "tell Justice Alito that he is a fighter and we appreciate him and he has all the grit."

After blowing more smoke, Windsor raised the matter of political polarization and how to repair it.

"Considering everything that's been going on in the past year, you know, as a Catholic and as someone who, like, really cherishes my faith, I just don't know. I don't know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end," said Windsor. "I think that it's a matter of like, winning."

Justice Alito said, "I think you're probably right. On one side or the other, one side or the other is going to win. I don't know."

"I mean, there can be a way of working a way of living together peacefully," continued the justice. "But it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. They really can't be compromised. It's not like you're going to split the difference."

In response to Justice's Alito's observation regarding the incommensurability between contemporary liberal and rightist worldviews, Windsor stated, "It's just, I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument. Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness."

Justice Alito responded, "I agree with you. I agree with you."

'It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us and so they have really eroded trust in the court.'

Upon the justice's supposedly controversial affirmation that the country should aspire toward spiritual purity and virtue, the remainder of the first audio clip concluded with Windsor bloviating.

In a second recording, apparently taken last year, Windsor again asked Justice Alito about how to remedy political polarization in America, to which he responded, "I wish I knew. I don't know. It's easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us and so they have really eroded trust in the court."

"I don't know, I really don't know," continued Justice Alito. "American citizens in general need to work on this, to try to heal this polarization because it's very dangerous. I do believe it's very dangerous."

When Windsor began to beat around the bush about possible judicial activism, Justice Alito said, "I don't think it's something we can do. ... We have a very defined role and we need to do what we're supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us."

Later in the secretly recorded 2023 conversation, Windsor asked whether the radical who leaked a draft of the Dobbs decision would ever be "ferreted out." Justice Alito dispassionately reminded Windsor that such work is neither the business of the high court nor within its authority.

"We're not a law enforcement agency, you know," said Justice Alito. "So, law enforcement agencies can issue subpoenas and get search warrants and all that sort of thing, but we can’t do that. So, you know, our [U.S.] marshall, she did as much as she could do. But it was limited."

While in both secretly recorded conversations, Justice Alito said nothing compromising, Rolling Stone suggested, "Alito's comments add to the controversy surround the conservative justice."

Liberal publications, likely cognizant they were serving up another nothing-burger, leaned on Windsor's surreptitious recording of a conversation with Martha-Ann Alito at the same June 3 event last week — even though they ultimately reveal Justice Alito works to maintain neutrality as well as the perception of neutrality while respecting his wife's autonomy.

Windsor expressed sympathy for the ordeal the liberal media had put Mrs. Alito through, to which the justice's wife said, "It's okay! It's okay! ... It's okay because if they come back to me, I'll get them. I'm gonna be liberated, and I'm gonna get them."

Mrs. Alito clarified that by this, she means that she may seek to hold the liberal media accountable for perceived defamation.

Windsor asked about the manufactured scandal over the inverted flag at her house and Appeal to Heaven flag at her beach house. Mrs. Alito made clear that contrary to the presumption of "femi-Nazis," she is an agential woman whom Justice Alito "never controls," thereby bolstering Justice Alito's previous statements following the New York Times' false flag reports.

Later in the conversation, Windsor noted, "They're persecuting you and you're like a convenient stand-in for anybody who's religious."

"Look at me. Look at me. I'm German, from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I'm gonna give it back to you," said Mrs. Alito. "And there will be a way, it doesn't have to be now, but there will be a way, they will know. Don't worry about it. God — you read the Bible — Psalm 27 is my psalm. Mine. Psalm. 'The Lord is my God and my rock. Of whom shall I be afraid?' Nobody."

When the question about polarization came up, Mrs. Alito allegedly said leftists "feel ... they don't think," then noted, "I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month. ... And [Justice Alito] is like, 'Oh, please don't put up a flag.' I said, 'I won't do it because I'm deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense, I'm putting it up and I'm gonna send them a message every day. Maybe every week, I'll be changing the flags."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

San Francisco flew the 'Appeal to Heaven' flag for 60 years — then along came the New York Times' smear campaign



Democrats and their allies in the liberal media launched a smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito earlier this month in an effort to prompt his recusal from upcoming cases related to former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 protests.

Jodi Kantor, running lead on the initiative for the New York Times, failed to land a decisive blow with her May 16 flag story, which the Washington Post had years earlier wrote off as a nothing-burger. Meatless, but desperate for results, Kantor found another flag to concern-monger about: the "Appeal to Heaven" flag, also known as the Pine Tree Flag, which had apparently been flown above Alito's beach house in New Jersey last year.

This line of attack proved similarly ineffective. Alito told Democrat Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island that he personally flew neither flag and that he would not be recusing himself, prompting Democrats to rage impotently.

Democratic lawmakers' feelings and the New York Times' remaining credibility were not the only casualties in the unsuccessful smear campaign.

The offending "Appeal to Heaven" flag has effectively been transmogrified in the popular liberal imagination from a patriotic banner — designed by an aide-de-camp to then-General George Washington and flown by proud Americans ever since — to a loathsome symbol of an imagined wrong.

It has 'since been adopted by a different group — one that doesn't represent the city's values.'

The "Appeal to Heaven" flag was one among a collection of 18 flags reflecting different moments in American history flown in Civic Center Plaza outside San Francisco City Hall. According to the SFist, despite being flown for 60 years with "zero controversy," the flag has been removed by the city's Recreation and Park Department.

The flag's fate appears to have been sealed not only by its presence among the myriad of different banners present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 but on account of is recent association in the Times with a Supreme Court justice detested by the left.

City parks officials told the San Francisco Chronicle in a statement that whereas the flag originally signified the "quest for American independence," it has "since been adopted by a different group — one that doesn't represent the city's values."

The "Appeal to Heaven" flag has been replaced by an American flag, which also appeared at Justice Alito's home and at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The flag's removal comes just days after users on social media indicated Democrats were effectively whipping stones at Alito from a glass house and months after a Palestinian flag was sent up a pole at the Golden Gate Bridge.

According to the U.S. National Park Service, the "Appeal to Heaven" flag "became familiar on the seas as the ensign of the cruisers commissioned by General Washington and was noted by many English newspapers of the time."

Republican Illinois state Rep. Chris Miller's office noted years before the flag became controversial:

The pine tree had long been a New England symbol being depicted on the Flag of New England flown by colonial merchant ships dating back to 1686. Leading up to the Revolutionary War it became a symbol of Colonial ire and resistance. The colonists resented the restrictions on the timber used for their needs and livelihoods. Prohibitions were disregarded and they practiced 'Swamp Law,' where the pines were harvested according to their needs regardless of statutes.

In New Hampshire enforcement led to the Pine Tree Riot in 1772, one of the first acts of forceful protest against British policies. It occurred almost two years prior to the more well-known Boston Tea Party protest and three years before open hostilities began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The pine tree was also used on the flag that the Colonists flew at the Battle of Bunker Hill in June 1775.

The flag was subsequently adopted by the Massachusetts Navy and used until 1971.

Concerning San Francisco's quiet removal, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) joked online, "'Quick, we can't let the unwashed masses see that the Appeal to Heaven flag isn't a call for violent insurrection!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Justice Alito told Democrats to pound sand. Now, Raskin wants the Biden DOJ to pressure the court.



The New York Times kicked off a smear campaign earlier this month over a neighborly dispute and an American flag at Justice Samuel Alito's house. The attempted character assassination spawned several others, all ostensibly penned with the aim of undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court and shaming Alito into recusing himself from cases in which Democrats and their fellow leftists are politically and emotionally invested.

Democratic lawmakers used the false flag reports to great effect, demanding that Alito not only step aside from cases related to former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 protests, but that he apologize for supposedly "disrespecting the American flag and sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists."

All their chest-beating, hyperbole, and unfounded allegations were for nought — just as their similar efforts were last year — for Justice Alito told Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin (Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) very politely in a Wednesday letter to pound sand.

"A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal," wrote Alito. Having previously referenced the disqualification provision in the court's code of conduct, the justice added, "I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request."

Rep. Jamie Raskin (R-Md.), certainly motivated by political considerations and keen to affect upcoming SCOTUS decisions, returned to the liberal newspaper where the latest smear campaign against Alito began, writing an Wednesday op-ed entitled, "How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases."

Raskin suggested that the Biden Department of Justice can lean on the high court to help Democrats get their way.

After recycling the Times' insinuations and characterizing his and other partisans' demands as a "groundswell of appeals," Raskin wrote, "The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump's constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law."

Raskin suggested that the Biden DOJ and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution and the "federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455," which requires possibly prejudiced judges to recuse themselves at the start of proceedings.

According to Raskin, who was silent in April on the matter of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's partiality in the Idaho case related to gender, "When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforcerecusal standards."

The Democrat further insinuated that the concerns previously manufactured in the pages of the Times amounted to reasonable doubts about Alito's impartiality, which in lesser courts might ordinarily warrant recusal.

He then wrapped up his op-ed by likening Supreme Court justices to umpires, noting that an umpire would not be "allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team" — ostensibly another smear against at least one justice's wife.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New York Times undermines its own false-flag narrative, outing Justice Alito's neighbor as a rabid leftist



Two weeks after her attempted character assassination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in the New York Times and in the wake of multiple concern-mongering spin-offs, Obama hagiographer Jodi Kantor has effectively blown up her own narrative.

On Tuesday, Kantor provided additional details about the neighbors central to her original report as well as about their encounters with Martha-Ann Alito. In doing so, Kantor has provided strong indications that Justice Alito and his 70-year-old wife were likely victims of a years-long harassment campaign by Biden supporters at their Fairfax County, Virginia, home.

Moreover, Kantor's latest report in the Times appears to indicate that Mrs. Alito's alleged flag inversion had nothing to do with the Jan. 6 protests and everything to do with the antagonism directed her way by a 30-something attempted actress who was living with her mother down the street.

Background

Democrats and their allies in the liberal media have worked tirelessly in recent weeks to pressure Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from cases that may prove consequential in the upcoming election.

The Alito-focused prong of this public-private attack extends from a May 16 story published in the New York Times concerning allegations about the Jan. 17, 2021, flying of an inverted American flag at the Alito residence — a story Robert Barnes of the Washington Post reportedly did not bother with at the time because it was clear that Justice Alito was not involved.

Justice Alito recently made clear again to the Times that he was not involved; that the flag was "briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

Despite the apparent interpersonal nature of the dispute, Kantor managed to construct a narrative wherein the American flag was somehow a "Stop the Steal" symbol and Alito was linked to the Jan. 6 protests — on the basis of unnamed neighbors' interpretation of the inverted flag as "a political statement by the couple."

To flesh out this narrative, Kantor turned to leftist "experts" in her original piece as well as in a follow-up. Democratic lawmakers then stepped in to do their part.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) both demanded that Alito recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump.

Jeffries went farther than his colleague, demanding that Justice Alito "apologize immediately for disrespecting the American flag and sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists."

'At minimum, he must recuse himself from any cases involving January 6th, Donald Trump, and the security of our elections.'

After Kantor concern-mongered in a subsequent piece about Justice Alito's alleged flying of the beloved "An Appeal to Heaven" flag — a flag commissioned by George Washington that was for centuries flown by the Massachusetts Navy — Democrats doubled down on their attacks.

Blaze News previously reported that House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) — whose transvestite son was arrested and charged in January 2023 with assault and battery on a Boston police officer — claimed, "Justice Alito has displayed flags at his homes that support insurrection against our government, promote religious nationalism, and attack free and fair elections."

Clark, apparently now concerned about threats to the rule of law, added, "At minimum, he must recuse himself from any cases involving January 6th, Donald Trump, and the security of our elections. Anything less will tarnish our judicial system and democracy."

The radicals down the street

In her Tuesday follow-up, Kantor revealed Emily Baden to be one of the neighbors central to her original piece.

Baden is an unaccomplished actress and the "liberal and proud of it" daughter of Barbara Baden, a former Public Broadcasting Service vice president. Emily Baden moved in with her retired mother on Alito's block in 2020.

In the follow-up, Kantor attempted to contrast the account provided by Baden and her unnamed husband with that previously provided by Alito to Fox News.

Alito told the host of "Fox News Sunday," Shannon Bream, that a neighbor had a "F*** Trump" sign within 50 feet of where children await the school bus. When the justice's wife expressed concern about the sign, the neighbor allegedly "engaged in vulgar language, 'including the C-word.'"

After that exchange, Alito indicated Mrs. Alito flew the inverted flag "for a short time."

Baden disputed the timeline, suggesting that she instead called her 70-year-old neighbor the C-word weeks after the flag was taken down and months after putting up the first of her crude signs.

'When they got home [to Barbara Baden's house], they displayed a political sign they had made from torn-up Amazon boxes, saying 'BYE DON' on one side and "F*** Trump" on the other.'

The Times noted, "The couple participated in Black Lives Matter protests in Washington, propped up Biden-Harris signs, and on the Saturday in November when the election was called, whooped and danced in the streets of the nation's capital. When they got home [to Barbara Baden's house], they displayed a political sign they had made from torn-up Amazon boxes, saying 'BYE DON' on one side and 'F*** Trump' on the other."

According to Baden, she encountered Mrs. Alito shortly after Christmas 2020. Mrs. Alito allegedly thanked Baden for taking down the vulgar sign, which had apparently blown over several weeks after its erection on Barbara Baden's lawn. When expressing gratitude, Mrs. Alito allegedly indicated that she had found the sign to be offensive.

Emily Baden apparently responded to Mrs. Alito's gratitude with hostility, indicating that her crude cardboard sign would stay up.

When Jan. 6 rolled around, Emily Baden put up new signs, which reportedly read, "Trump Is a Fascist" and "You Are Complicit." The leftist, who by that time knew full well who lived down the block, claimed the signs were not targeted at the Alitos but rather at Republicans in general.

Despite an apparent effort to paint Baden as a victim of Mrs. Alito's alleged glares, unheard comments, and alleged yelling, the Times' report includes an image of Baden and her nameless husband harassing the Alitos, holding signs outside the justice's home that read, "Abort SCOTUS," "Alito was @ JAN6," and "Fascist Alito."

The couple had reportedly staged at least one protest at the Alitos' home despite having moved out of Barbara Baden's house.

The indication that Emily Baden was not only a radical leftist but antagonistic toward the Alitos over the course of months and years provides greater context for why the justice's elderly wife might have felt the need to signal distress in a traditional manner. At the very least, Kantor's report appears to justify Robert Barnes' reasons for originally ignoring the story: The dispute was interpersonal and did not directly involve Justice Alito.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New York Times’ hit piece on Justice Alito fails; only reveals NYT needs a history lesson



When Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife flew an upside-down American flag over their home, the New York Times was not happy.

Now, the New York Times is upset with the justice again — this time because he flew an "Appeal to Heaven" pine tree flag outside his New Jersey beach home. The Times is claiming this is a popular symbol among January 6 “insurrectionists.”

While the New York Times clearly has no idea what they’re talking about, they’re in luck. Because Glenn Beck does know what he’s talking about, and he’s here to give them a much needed history lesson.

“That was the symbol of New England since the 16th century. Why? Because New England had big pine trees. Why was that important? Because they could build ships and build them for England or whoever and ship giant masts, which were hard to find because nobody had the giant pine trees that New England had,” Glenn explains.

The flag is also symbolic of “the Great Peacemaker,” who was with the Iroquois Indians. The peacemaker had convinced warring nations to bury their weapons under a pine tree.

“So, it is also the symbol of the tree of peace,” Glenn says. “It was also on the coinage produced by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and it became the symbol of the colonial iron resistance as well as a multi-tribal support for independence now,” he adds.

The phrase “Appeal to Heaven” is also an expression of the right to revolution, which Glenn jokes comes from the “outrageous killer John Locke.”

“Let me just boil this down,” he explains. “This flag is first a sign of the pine tree as trade, okay? It is also a sign of peace among the Indians. It is then added to that ‘the appeal to heaven’ comes from John Locke and what he wrote in 1690. It was a refute of the theory of the divine right of kings.”

Glenn has his own interpretation of the flag, and it’s not a symbol of insurrection.

“I always interpreted that flag as an appeal to heaven for common sense and for help. Please Lord, help us, and it would go right along with an upside-down flag,” he explains, adding, “We’re in distress. Can we please look to God and beg for his mercy and guidance. How unbelievably controversial is that.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.