House Democrats unanimously voted against a resolution Tuesday formally condemning the destructive anti-ICE riots that took place in Los Angeles, California. The resolution narrowly passed the House, with 217 Republicans voting in the affirmative while 206 Democrats voted in the negative. The riots protesting ICE deportations in Southern California involved rocks being hurdled at law enforcement and attendees waving foreign flags. 'Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not.'Even as multiple cars burned in a news clip, one anchor described the riots as "relatively peaceful" and "relatively calm," reminding many viewers of the "fiery but mostly peaceful" BLM riots of 2020, according to CNN.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries took issue with the resolution, saying he "will not be lectured by extreme MAGA Republicans about questions of law and order." He also disagreed with the classification, saying there was "unrest" but refusing to acknowledge that it was a riot.RELATED: Republican senator makes a stunning admission: 'I can't be somebody that I'm not' Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images Notably, the resolution "recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully" and "condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement." Despite claiming to hold the same values outlined in the resolution, Jeffries and his 205 colleagues voted against the resolution.RELATED: Republicans clash with Democratic lawmakers defending violent anti-ICE rioters Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images California Republican Rep. Young Kim spearheaded the resolution, emphasizing the distinction between peaceful protests and outright chaos and lawlessness. "Peaceful protests are a constitutional right, but vandalism, looting, violence, and other crimes are not," Kim said. "Protecting public safety shouldn’t be controversial, which is why I am leading the California Republican delegation in a resolution to support law and order as we continue to see unrest." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (I) tried to make his case against campaign contributions on the right in front of Joe Rogan, but the popular podcaster shut him down quickly.Sanders made his pitch against large campaign contributions made by tech billionaire Elon Musk while being interviewed by Rogan on his show.'I think that's probably the worst decision that the Supreme Court has ever made.'Sanders got Rogan to agree that the U.S. has a "corrupt campaign finance system" and then went on to assail the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court."What it says is, 'You're a billionaire. You have now the constitutional right because your money is your freedom of expression,' right?" Sanders explained."So you don't like Bernie Sanders. You can put millions or hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign and express your view about how terrible Bernie Sanders is, and you can buy that election, right?" he added. "That's your constitutional right.""Right," Rogan said."I think that's probably the worst decision that the Supreme Court has ever made. So what is the result of that decision?" Sanders said.RELATED: Bernie Sanders' aide lashes out at women of 'The View' for segment calling him sexist "The result of that decision, let's take us to where we are today, is that Elon Musk, and I know Elon was on your show," Sanders continued, "... He spent $270 million to elect Trump as president. I think that's absurd, that any one person ...""What's the most someone donated towards the Harris campaign?" Rogan interjected."They spent a lot of money on Harris as well," replied Sanders."They spent $1.5 billion just over the course of a couple of months," Rogan responded."You got it!" Sanders said. "I'm not here to say it's just a Republican — that's my point here."Rogan went on to ridicule the powers that would try to defeat any campaign financing reform, which delighted Sanders.A video clip of the debate went viral on social media, with one post garnering more than 1.4 million views in a few hours.Rogan has previously said that he was a supporter of Bernie Sanders as president, but he dropped a surprise endorsement for Trump in the last days before the 2024 election.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — and even some Republicans, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — are calling President Trump’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities unconstitutional because he didn’t get congressional approval. They point to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires congressional authorization for prolonged or substantial military actions unless responding to an imminent attack, as evidence that his actions were unjustified.AOC and Democratic Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) have even gone so far as to claim that the strikes are an impeachable offense.To get clarity on the issue, Glenn Beck brought in Gabriel Noronha, president of Polaris National Security and former State Department special adviser for Iran. “Did the president need to have congressional permission before striking Iran over the weekend?” Glenn asks.“No, he did not,” is Noronha’s candid answer.“It would have been nice to have. It strengthens the president's hand when he does have congressional authorization for the use of military force. But the Constitution grants him the powers as commander in chief to take all necessary actions, especially in a limited fashion like he just did,” he explains.Glenn agrees, adding, “They never said anything about ISIS when he went after ISIS and shut them down, right? ... Why all of a sudden is this one so different than all of the limited strikes we have seen from all of the presidents recently?”Noronha reiterates Glenn’s frustration, pointing to “Libya 2011” as well as “ISIS 2014-15,” where “more intense” versions of the “the same scenario” played out, but “Democrats didn't say anything” about needing congressional approval.Why the sudden pearl-clutching?“The reason here,” says Noronha, “is because they want to find something to attack President Trump for, but there's nothing on the policy because [the strikes] went so well, so they're going onto the legal crutch just because they don't have anything else.”Ironically, Congress has had multiple opportunities to prevent presidents from attacking Iran. Noronha, who was “in Congress for four years,” says he witnessed at least “a dozen” attempts to “strip the president of the ability to attack Iran,” and every single time, they failed.“They always said, ‘No, we want the president to have the ability to strike Iran if and when it's necessary,”’ he tells Glenn.But when it comes to Donald Trump specifically, there’s always been a double standard.“Congress is so radicalized now,” says Glenn. “They're marching in the streets with people who are burning our cities to the ground.”To hear more of the conversation, watch the video above.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.

Rep. Eric Swalwell Lies Again About 'Deported' 4-Year-Old to Slam VP JD Vance

Texas Teen Karmelo Anthony Indicted for First Degree Murder in High School Stabbing Shocker

Jake Tapper and Chuck Todd Arrive at a 'New' Conclusion About Joe Biden Known to Most for Years

Drill, California — Drill!

'Life Long Democrat' Wants to Be Convinced to Stay in the Party - Former Dem Strategist Can't Answer

Fake News Fail: CNN Exposed For Bad Iran Strike Reporting

Ukrainian official Oleksandr Merezhko withdrew his Nobel Peace Prize nomination for President Donald Trump, citing Trump's shifting focus from the Ukraine war to the conflict between Israel and Iran and a sense that Trump is appeasing Russia rather than pressuring it toward peace, Newsweek reported.