'Non-binary' fired after hanging 'trans' flag at Yosemite sues Trump administration



A probationary wildlife biologist for Yosemite National Park who identifies as "non-binary" covered the side of El Capitan with a gargantuan trans-activist flag last year to protest the Trump administration's reality-affirming policies regarding gender.

Shannon Joslin, a female resident of El Portal, California, found out the hard way that actions have consequences — and was fired.

'Demonstrating without a permit outside of designated First Amendment areas detracts from the visitor experience.'

The LGBT activist filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday, demanding her job back and claiming that the Department of the Interior violated her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The protest

Joslin and several other climbers rigged a 55'x35' trans activist flag roughly one-third of the way up El Capitan on May 20, 2025, where it flapped for hours.

According to her complaint, Joslin came up with the idea to rig a flag on El Capitan as a "statement in support of trans people," then worked over the course of multiple weeks with other activists to "stake out the technical logistics of fixing a sizable flag to the rock face."

In the corresponding press release where she boasted about the protest, Joslin indicated that those responsible were "social workers, public servants, parents, and neighbors."

She told Climbing.com, "Calling congressmen and writing representatives feels like yelling into the void. We have this f**king microphone that is El Cap."

RELATED: 'Just chaos': Heroes who stopped 'trans' killer at Rhode Island hockey game speak out

El Capitan. Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Wyn Riley, a drag queen who goes by "Pattie Gonia," was among the supporters of the protest. In a May 22, 2025, propaganda video featuring several clips of Joslin securing the flag, Riley said, "The Trump administration and transphobes would love to have you believe that being trans is unnatural."

"Call it a protest; call it a celebration," continued Riley. "We are bringing elevation to liberation."

The complaint alleges that Joslin was off-duty "at all times during the preparation for and placement and display of the trans pride flag."

The fallout

Documents show that Joslin received a notice of termination in late July indicating that she was out of a job effective Aug. 12, 2025.

The letter provided a reminder that the purpose of the two-year trial period that started for Joslin on Sept. 10, 2023, is to "determine whether newly appointed Federal employees are suitable for successful service in the areas of conduct and performance."

"During your trial period, you have failed to demonstrate acceptable conduct," continued the letter. "Specifically, on or about May 20, 2025, you participated in a small group demonstration in an area outside the designated protest and demonstration area without permit as required by 36 CFR 2.51 and thus circumvented rules applicable to all park visitors."

Neither the Department of the Interior nor the National Park Service would comment on the specifics of the relevant personnel actions.

However, they both shared a statement with Blaze News noting, "We take the protection of the park's resources and the experience of our visitors very seriously and will not tolerate violations of laws and regulations that impact those resources and experiences."

"Yosemite National Park was designated by Congress to highlight the beautiful natural and cultural features of the area," continued the statement. "No matter the cause, demonstrating without a permit outside of designated First Amendment areas detracts from the visitor experience and the protection of the park. To safeguard the protection of visitors, visitor experiences, and park resources, many demonstrations require a permit."

The lawsuit

Joslin's lawsuit, in which she is referred to with plural pronouns, complains about Trump's rebuff of gender ideology and reality-affirming policies; claims that Joslin has faced "medical, financial, personal, and professional harm" as the result of her termination; and alleges that the decision to fire her violated the "First Amendment by selectively targeting for retaliation specific forms of expression based on content and viewpoint."

The lawsuit — which lists the NPS, the Interior Department, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants — also alleges that the National Park Service used a press release regarding the stunt from Joslin's protest group against her, suggesting that doing so was a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974.

The "non-binary" activist not only wants her old job back but damages and a declaratory judgment that "Defendants' collection and use of information about Dr. Joslin's protected First Amendment activity was unlawful."

Joanna Citron Day, one of Joslin’s attorneys, said in a release, "If Dr. Joslin had hung a flag the administration liked, they would be working at Yosemite today."

Regardless of the colors, Yosemite National Park maintains its prohibition for "any person or group to hang or otherwise affix to any natural or cultural feature, or display so as to cover any natural or cultural feature, any banner, flag, or sign larger than fifteen square feet (e.g., 5 feet x 3 feet)."

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

​'I don't think that's relevant': American tennis star shuts down reporters fishing for anti-Trump answers​



A 24-year-old professional tennis player reminded reporters that politics has nothing to do with her sport.

Amanda Anisimova, born in New Jersey to Russian immigrants, is the No.4-ranked player in the Women's Tennis Association, just behind fellow American Coco Gauff.

'I don't think that's relevant.'

After a straight-set victory in the second round of the Australian Open, the American spoke to members of the media in Melbourne, Australia.

Lodged between questions regarding her recent performance was an oddly political query about how it feels to be representing America.

"I've been asking a lot of the American players just how it feels to play under the American flag right now. And I'm curious how you feel," a male reporter asked, using significant vocal fry.

Anisimova did not take the bait, replying, "I was born in America, so I'm always proud to represent my country. And yeah, a lot of us are doing really well, and it's great to see a lot of, you know, great athletes on the women's side, on the men's side."

Anisimova was likely referring to the current success her compatriots are having on the tour. Americans hold three of the top six positions in the women's tennis rankings currently, with several more in the top 30.

"I feel like we're all doing a great job representing ourselves," Anisimova added.

However the reporter wasn't ready to let the topic die just yet.

RELATED: 'It's not fair': No. 1 women's tennis player states obvious truth about transgender athletes in women's sports

"Sorry. Um, just to clarify a little," the man continued. "I mean, sort of in the context of the last year of everything that's been happening in the U.S., does that complicate that feeling at all?"

Anisimova seemed to think the follow-up question was unworthy of an answer.

"I don't think that's relevant," she said with a smirk.

Fans who watched the press conference on YouTube sided unanimously with the young star and pointed out that the press conference culminated with yet another political question. In fact, it was nearly identical to the first.

"America is a, you know, divided place at the moment, euphemistically," another male reporter prefaced. "Do you ever find it difficult or distracting to play under the American flag at the moment?"

Anisimova again brushed the question off.

RELATED: Tennis player labeled 'racist' for scolding black opponent after match: 'I was NEVER racist'

Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images

"I mean, I'm not planning to, you know, switch my nationality or represent a different country. I was born there, so it's not something that comes to my mind."

Women's tennis can be strangely political at times.

In fact, the WTA does not showcase the flag of its ranked players if they are from Russia. This includes world No.1 Aryna Sabalenka and No. 7 Mirra Andreeva. Three more Russians in the top 50 do not have Russian flags on their official WTA profiles either.

The same does not apply to Ukrainian athletes, as No. 20 Marta Kostyuk and No. 28 Dayana Yastremska have their flag proudly next to their names.

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

Michigan's El-Sayed Boasted of Refusing To Face American Flag for National Anthem During Iraq War

Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate in the Democratic primary for Michigan's open Senate seat, boasted that, when he was a college athlete, he refused to face the American flag during the national anthem because he opposed the Iraq war.

The post Michigan's El-Sayed Boasted of Refusing To Face American Flag for National Anthem During Iraq War appeared first on .

Yes, Trump’s flag-burning executive order is constitutional



In 1989, Justice Antonin Scalia cast the deciding vote to overturn the conviction of Gregory Lee Johnson, who was arrested and found guilty of violating a Texas statute after he burned the American flag outside the Republican National Convention.

The author of the 5-4 opinion was Justice William Brennan, the leading liberal and advocate for the “living Constitution” on the Supreme Court. For conservatives, it was one of the two most widely criticized votes of Justice Scalia’s illustrious career (the other being his vote refusing to recognize that parents have a natural, constitutionally protected right to direct the upbringing of their children).

The president’s executive order is not only much needed and long overdue, but is also very likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court when the inevitable challenges arise.

But the opinion by Brennan, which Scalia joined, is not as absolute as it has subsequently been portrayed.

The historical context

It specifically held that Texas violated the First Amendment by prosecuting Johnson “in these circumstances” — that is, expressive conduct or symbolic speech as part of a political protest that was not designed to incite a crowd (nor did it have that effect). It also held that the “government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word.” Only laws directed at restricting the communicative nature of expressive conduct implicate the First Amendment, and even then they can be upheld for a valid governmental interest.

Texas offered two governmental interests in defense of its flag-burning statute: 1) preventing breaches of the peace and 2) preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity. The court rejected the second because it was related to the suppression of expression, and it rejected the first because “it was not implicated” in the case.

That is the important caveat in Texas v. Johnson that President Donald Trump’s executive order, “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag,” seeks to capitalize on.

A needed change

After articulating why the flag is such a cherished symbol, one for which “many thousands of American patriots have fought, bled, and died to keep ... waving,” the order asserts, “Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative,” and is “a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against our Nation.”

It then invokes the Texas v. Johnsoncaveat: “Burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot. American Flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth.”

The order correctly points out that the Supreme Court “has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to ‘fighting words’ is constitutionally protected.” And it laudably directs the attorney general to prioritize the enforcement of civil and criminal laws against flag desecration, quite correctly limiting it to flag-burning conduct that causes harm “unrelated to expression” in order to be consistent with the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson.

RELATED: College students say American flag symbolizes ‘genocide,’ ‘extremism,’ ‘injustice,’ and ‘sins’ we’ve committed against others

Photo by BRANDONJ74 via Getty Images

Maintaining precedent

After 35 years of timid responses to the flag-burning case, in which elected officials and law enforcement at every level thought flag-burning was constitutionally protected no matter the circumstances (an erroneous view repeated ad nauseam by many critics of the president’s order), President Trump has taken a long-overdue stand to protect the flag. He is seeking to safeguard it from those who would burn it to incite violence, provoke with “fighting words,” or more broadly, seek to intimidate Americans from expressing patriotism and applauding American exceptionalism.

The incitement, fighting words, and intimidation exceptions have sometimes themselves been limited to acts targeting particular individuals rather than groups. But as the Supreme Court recognized in Virginia v. Black, a cross-burning case that was decided 14 years after Texas v. Johnson, the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily protect such conduct when targeting groups rather than specific individuals.

The aggressive use of American flag-burning as a tactic of incitement and intimidation, which has been on display in cities across the country in response to President Trump’s efforts to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, demonstrates that “in these circumstances” (as distinct from the milquetoast circumstances at issue in Texas v. Johnson), the president’s executive order is not only much needed and long overdue, but is also very likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court when the inevitable challenges arise.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on the American Mind.

Trump cracks down on anti-American flag-burners with potential jail time



President Donald Trump on Monday signed several executive orders to restore the rule of law across the nation, including action to protect America’s “most sacred and cherished symbol.”

Trump signed “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag” to prevent the desecration of the Stars and Stripes.

'The president is right to be concerned about the desecration of one of the proudest symbols of our nation.'

“Would you listen to this? This is very important,” Trump stated during Monday’s signing in the Oval Office.

“All over the country they’re burning flags.”

“Through a very sad court, I guess it was a five-to-four decision, they called it freedom of speech,” the president stated, referring to the Texas v. Johnson Supreme Court case in 1989.

“When you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we’ve never seen before. People go crazy,” he continued.

“If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exit. No nothing.”

The White House contended that burning the flag is “a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against our Nation” that “may incite violence and riot.”

RELATED: Trump moves to end radical left’s cashless bail to restore law and order nationwide

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“American Flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth,” the administration added.

According to the EO, those who desecrate the American flag could face charges related to burning restrictions, disorderly conduct, or destruction of property.

Anti-immigration-enforcement protesters have held several demonstrations this year where they have burned American flags.

Trump’s latest executive action has sparked bipartisan debate about whether flag-burning should be protected under the First Amendment.

RELATED: White House hammers liberals for gaslighting about LA riots: Burning cities isn't justice — it's chaos

Photo by Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

“The president is right to be concerned about the desecration of one of the proudest symbols of our nation. This executive order will eventually allow the Justice Department to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit — and potentially overturn — a prior precedent saying that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected 'speech' under the First Amendment,” Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow and manager with the Heritage Foundation, told Blaze News.

Journalist Christopher Rufo highlighted how some individuals have been prosecuted for burning or damaging Pride flags.

“I'm sorry, but as long as this is the status quo, I'm not going to work myself into a state of hysteria about Trump's executive order on burning the American flag,” Rufo wrote in a post on social media.

He noted that he is “sympathetic to the argument that burning the American flag is protected speech.”

Trump also signed on Monday two executive orders that aim to eliminate cashless bail systems across the United States.

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

The Founders Are Weeping: Every Democrat Must Disavow the 'No Kings' Insurrectionists Who Defiled Democracy

Democrats and journalists trembled with rage in 2024 when the New York Times unearthed a photo (taken three years earlier) of an upside-down American flag flying outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who said the flag was briefly turned upside down by his wife in response to a dispute with a neighbor.

The post The Founders Are Weeping: Every Democrat Must Disavow the 'No Kings' Insurrectionists Who Defiled Democracy appeared first on .

LGBT activists find devious way to hoist their colors despite flag bans in Salt Lake City, Boise



Months after the Trump administration announced that "only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad," Republican lawmakers in Idaho and Utah passed restrictions on which flags could be flown at state government buildings and at schools.

While the laws prohibit virtually all nonofficial flags, irrespective of political persuasion and significance, leftists raged over their potential inability to continue hoisting sex- and race-themed flags over American soil, flaunting the success of their cultural imperialism.

Democratic mayors in Boise and Salt Lake City have apparently found a way to continue flying non-straight activists' colors without having to continue directly violating the law: adopt the LGBT flags as official city emblems or incorporate their elements into official flags.

'Clear waste of time and taxpayer resources.'

Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall proposed adopting three new city flags "in addition to the traditional Sego Lily Flag, on Tuesday to most accurately reflect the values of the City and its residents."

Salt Lake City Mayor's Office

According to Mendenhall's office, the first flag would represent the city's transvestite population "and a commitment to seeing and celebrating their lives"; the second would represent the city's non-straight residents "and broader acceptance of this community"; and the third would represent the "history of Juneteenth and the City’s Black and African American residents."

"Our City flags are powerful symbols representing Salt Lake City's values," said Mendenhall. "I want all Salt Lakers to look up at these flags and be reminded that we value diversity, equity and inclusion — leaving no doubt that we are united as a city and people, moving forward together."

Salt Lake City council unanimously approved the designs on Tuesday evening, reported the Associated Press.

Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz (R) characterized the devious workaround as a "clear waste of time and taxpayer resources."

'You're a bunch of fricking commies breaking the law.'

"This law is about keeping government spaces neutral and welcoming to all," said Schultz. "Salt Lake City should focus on real issues, not political theatrics."

Blaze News previously reported that the Boise City Council put making the Progress Pride flag an official city flag to a vote Tuesday evening, one week after Boise Mayor Lauren McLean suggested to state Attorney General Raul Labrador that the flag ban was "legally defective and unenforceable as written."

The council ultimately voted 5 to 1.

According to Boise State Public Radio, one opponent of the measure yelled, "You're a bunch of fricking commies breaking the law," adding, "You think gay people are the only people who are entitled to anything?"

The lone vote against the resolution came from Council Member Luci Willits, who emphasized that her role as an elected official was to follow the law and suggested that the "legislature will come in, and it will slap a huge fine on the city of Boise, and Boise will have to pay it."

"That will limit what we can spend on things that we have control over, like police and fire and libraries and parks and all the things that make Boise what it is today," added Willits.

"Removing the flag now after years of flying it proudly would not be a neutral act," said Council Member Meredith Stead. "It would signal a retreat from values we've long upheld and send a disheartening message to those who have found affirmation and belonging through its presence at city hall."

Mendenhall and McLean apparently spoke Tuesday morning to discuss their respective plots to undermine their states' legislatures and fly the activist colors.

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

Woke Boise mayor tosses Appeal to Heaven flag aside like trash, raises LGBTQ flag in defiance of state law



The radical mayor of Boise, Lauren McLean, took time on Easter Sunday to crumple up an Appeal to Heaven flag like trash so she could hoist an LGBTQ flag unobstructed at city hall in direct defiance of a new Idaho law.

Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed into law H.B. 96, which strictly regulates the flags that counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in Idaho may fly on public property. The law mainly permits only those flags representing the U.S., the military, the state of Idaho, schools, and Indian tribes.

Despite this new law, Boise has continued to fly the "Progressive Pride" flag, depicting the rainbow associated with non-heterosexual identities, the colors affiliated with so-called transgenderism, and black and brown stripes that pay fealty to non-white skin colors.

"We will continue flying it because we are a safe and welcoming city that values all comers," McLean said in a statement.

'Now this is a mayor. We gotta re-elect her. She stands for all the people.'

Early Sunday morning, some area activists attempted to beat McLean at her own game. They brought a ladder, positioned it on the city flagpole, then proceeded to make some changes to the flags blazing there, video showed.

For one thing, the two men placed black trash bags over the Pride flag and a flag promoting organ donation.

They also clipped to the pole an Appeal to Heaven flag made famous during the American Revolution. Because of its official association with the state of Massachusetts, the Appeal to Heaven flag does not violate H.B. 96, the Idaho statesman said.

Later that morning, undeterred by the attempts to bring Boise into compliance with the new state law, Mayor McLean and an assistant went to the flagpole and restored the flags to the way they were.

Far from passively rearranging the flags, McLean took a knife of sorts and cut part of the Appeal to Heaven flag before her assistant finished the job, tearing away the flag and the black bags covering the Pride and organ-donation flags. McLean then balled the flag up into one of the black trash bags and tossed it on the ground like garbage.

Their actions were so politically charged that the Idaho statesman criticized McLean's lack of "respect" for a flag "which has a lot of historical significance for Americans." Yet McLean was so nonchalant about it all that at one point, she paused and wished some passersby a "happy Easter."

Pam Hemphill — a rabid leftist who claims to have previously supported President Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda but who now takes every opportunity to excoriate MAGA and trumpet Democratic talking points — filmed McLean and her assistant and could barely contain her enthusiasm for their woke flag stunt.

"I am so happy. ... This is wonderful," Hemphill gushed.

"Now this is a mayor. We gotta re-elect her. She stands for all the people," Hemphill continued, even as McLean and the assistant basically ignored her.

Hemphill also characterized her detractors as "idiots" and "haters." "All you know is propaganda and hate," she said.

Mayor McLean has managed to flout H.B. 96 so brazenly because the law is basically toothless. Even Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford, whose office has been bombarded with complaints about the flag mess in Boise, has admitted there's little he can do.

"The law, as it stands, doesn’t provide any enforcement mechanism," Clifford said in a statement posted to social media.

Clifford further noted that criminal laws generally "apply to individuals, not institutions," but H.B. 96 applies mainly to local governments and government bodies.

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, also acknowledged that "the law does not allow for criminal prosecution in this situation."

"I cannot prosecute conduct that is not a crime, and I will not distort or stretch Idaho law to invent one. What I can do — and am actively doing — is reviewing every available civil legal option under Idaho law in response to this situation," he added.

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

'No brainer': Utah becomes first state to ban rainbow flags in both schools and government buildings



LGBT activists' cultural imperialism may have reached its zenith during the Biden years when their "Progress Pride" flag was prominently displayed on the White House with American flags relegated to a secondary status on either side.

Now, with the country under different leadership, conservatives flexing more muscle legislatively, and key narratives crumbling, non-straight activists appear to be losing ground as signaled by legislation advanced in Utah and Idaho last week.

Months after the Trump administration announced that "only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad," Utah Republicans successfully passed legislation on Thursday banning the rainbow flag as well as other activist flags from all government buildings and schools.

Utah state Rep. Trevor Lee's (R) House Bill 77 prohibits state entities and employees from displaying a flag in or on the grounds of government property with a number of exceptions including Old Glory; an official Utah state flag; a historic version of the American or state flag; a municipal flag; a U.S. military flag; the National League of Families POW/MIA flag; a country flag; a tribal flag; an official university or public school flag; and an Olympic flag.

It appears that the only ways to lawfully get a rainbow flag into the classroom is to have it grafted onto an exempted flag, to accept the $500 fine for each day of noncompliance, to overturn the law, or to depict the flag by means other than an actual flag, such as on a lapel pin or a sticker, which activist groups routinely distribute to students.

The bill became law on Thursday without Republican Gov. Spencer Cox's signature.

"This was a no brainer bill to run," wrote Lee. "Tax payer funded entities shouldn't be promoting political agendas. This is a massive win for Utah."

'All this bill does is add more fuel to the fire.'

Cox, who vetoed six bills this year, indicated that he did not similarly veto HB 77 because Republicans would override him in the Utah House of Representatives, where they outnumber Democrats 61-14.

While acknowledging that the law "is neutral on the types of flags in question" — highlighting that MAGA flags are now similarly prohibited in schools and government buildings — Cox suggested that the ban was insufficient to eliminate "culture-war symbols in a place that should be apolitical," namely public schools.

"By simply requiring the removal of flags only, there is little preventing countless other displays — posters, signs, drawings, furniture — from entering the classroom," Cox wrote in a letter to state lawmakers, where he emphasized his love for the so-called LGBTQ community. "Furthermore, the bill is overly prescriptive on flags themselves. To those legislators who supported this bill, I'm sure it will not fix what you are trying to fix."

After suggesting that a better regulatory route for Republicans to depoliticize the classroom is the Utah State Board of Education, Cox claimed that "the bill goes too far when applied to local governments."

"All this bill does is add more fuel to the fire, and I suspect it will only ratchet up the creative use of political symbolism (for example: lighting used in place of flags)," added the governor.

'Fly flags that unite and don't divide.'

LGBT activists outside the state government similarly bemoaned the enactment of the flag law.

The Salt Lake City-based Utah Pride Center thanked Cox in a statement Friday, noting, "While we understand the complex political reality that this bill would likely have been passed regardless of the governor's decision, we are deeply saddened to see it move forward into law."

Troy Williams and Marina Lowe, the executive and policy directors of Equality Utah, said in a release that HB77 "sets a dangerous precedent."

Enraging a similar variety of activist, Idaho legislators passed legislation last week prohibiting government entities from flying flags besides the American flag and a handful of official flags, including those representing American military branches and government entities.

House Bill 96 passed the state House in landslide votes and now requires the signature of Republican Gov. Brad Little. Little signed a similar bill into law on March 19, which prohibits the display of unauthorized flags and banners that "promote political, religious, or ideological viewpoints" on public school property.

"The ultimate goal is for us to fly flags that unite and don't divide," said Idaho state Sen. Ben Toews (R), reported the Idaho Statesman.

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

Democrats Stage Nationwide ‘Insurrection’ Featuring Upside-Down Flags

After a smear campaign affiliating the upside-down American flag with 'insurrection' and 'extremism,' leftists are -- by their own definition -- acting pretty insurrection-y themselves.