On Wednesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department finally did what every prior administration (including Trump 1.0) for the past three decades refused to do—enforced the federal immigration law that bans states from providing in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless they provide the same benefit to citizen-students from any state.  That same day, Texas cried uncle, agreed with the government, settled the case, and entered into a consent decree. Here’s the background. On June 4, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Texas to enforce a statute that was passed by Congress in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1623, states that “an alien who is not lawfully present … shall not be eligible on the basis of residence … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” In simple language, this means that any state that wants to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens can only do so if it offers in-state tuition to citizens or lawful residents of other states as well.      Texas legislators weren’t alone in passing an in-state tuition law for illegal aliens that violates federal immigration law.  According to Ballotpedia, as of 2021, another 16 states and the District of Columbia all provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens through state laws while charging out-of-state students higher tuition. Another seven state university systems authorize in-state tuition for illegal aliens. We first wrote about this problem in 2011 in a Heritage paper, “Providing In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens: A Violation of Federal Law.” Back then, 12 states were violating federal law—and the number has simply expanded since then.  As we pointed out, these states weren’t just violating federal law; they were encouraging illegal immigration, treating students U.S. citizens from out of state unfairly, and forcing their taxpayers to subsidize the education of illegal aliens. We have reiterated the point several times since then (see here, here, and here). Although this law was passed in 1996, every administration, Republican and Democrat, from George W. Bush to Joe Biden, refused to enforce it, failing in their fundamental obligation to enforce the law. For thirty years, they were responsible for allowing American college students and their bill-paying parents to be cheated and treated worse than illegal aliens.  Parents who tried to sue over this issue were repeatedly defeated in the courts because multiple judges said there was no private right of action under the statute. The only viable plaintiff was the federal government—a fact that put even greater onus on the Justice Department to fulfill its obligation to enforce the law. But this shameful record of neglect finally changed with the lawsuit filed against Texas. To the credit of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, they immediately settled the case, entering into a consent decree that finally corrected the problem created by the Texas legislature. In that consent decree, already approved by Judge Reed O’Connor, Texas acknowledges that its state laws that provide in-state tuition to “aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States, violate the Supremacy Clause and are unconstitutional and invalid.” This happened in large part because of the executive orders that Trump issued on Feb. 19 and Apr. 28—“Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.” The first order directed federal agencies “to ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.” The second order directed federal officials—like the attorney general—to go after “state and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful.” In our 2011 paper, we said that the “President and the Attorney General have an obligation to enforce the provisions of the United States’ comprehensive federal immigration regulation—including the federal law prohibiting state colleges and universities from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens” when they don’t provide the same benefit to citizen students. Now, parents and their kids—who have been treated with disrespect and forced to subsidize the tuition costs of illegal aliens—have finally achieved justice. But they shouldn’t have had to wait 30 years for a president and an attorney general who were willing to fulfill their obligation and do what it takes to protect them. And that’s just one state down. Fifteen to go—not including the nation’s capital.  The post DOJ Sues Texas to Enforce Law Prohibiting States from Offering Illegal Aliens In-State Tuition—And Wins appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NYT: Republicans Raising Energy Prices By Shunning 'Clean' Energy

All That Glitters Isn't Gold - It Might Be a Car Carrier Named 'Midas' Burning at Sea

CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joined The Situation Room on Wednesday morning to freak out over President Trump’s rescission package that asks Congress to revoke funding for PBS and NPR. According to Stelter, not only would such a move cause local affiliates to “suffer as well,” but he also hyped PEN America saying the real reason for the move was about “discouraging real news.” Co-host Pamela Brown wondered about the rescission’s chance of success, “So then are there any Republicans who have signaled that they will support keeping this funding? How do we expect this to play out?”     Stelter hyped one Republican in particular, using her to try to shame others: That's definitely the key question, and some public media executives are cautiously hopeful that they can sway a few Republican moderates, especially in the Senate. We know the House is going to take up this proposal next week, but, in the Senate, that's the big question mark. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is already on the record saying that she will fight to preserve the funding for Alaska's radio and TV stations. She has already publicly opposed Trump on this issue. Are there three other senators who might join her? That is a big question. Like I mentioned, it's the smaller stations that will be hurt the most, but even big stations like New York City, say they would suffer as well. New York Public Radio telling listeners overnight, quote ‘To put it bluntly, this kind of funding from the feds is what keeps the lights on, keeps our signals on the air and keeps the entire public media system working as a whole.’” A proper media analyst would wonder why public media keeps predicting such calamitous outcomes while they simultaneously claim that taxpayers only provide a tiny fraction of their funds. Nevertheless, Stelter rolled right along: So those are the arguments that lawmakers are now going to be hearing both from public media officials, as well as possibly from listeners and viewers. We know that Trump and his allies have said that this broadcasting is biased, that it should not be getting federal funds for biased content. PBS and NPR disagree with that, but they say ultimately this is not an issue of saving money. As PEN America said in a statement today, this is about intimidating journalists and trying to discourage real news. So those are the battle lines. The battle lines are now drawn in this one. Somehow, the actual quote from PEN America was worse than Stelter’s paraphrasing: ‘This request isn’t about fiscal responsibility, but about punishing independent journalism. It’s a blatant attempt to sway or silence media outlets that don’t align with the president’s preferred narrative, a tactic he’s already used repeatedly,’ said Tim Richardson, program director for journalism and disinformation at PEN America. ‘Simply put, it’s viewpoint discrimination aimed at undermining editorial independence protected by the First Amendment. This request would disproportionately harm rural states and local communities that rely on public media as a trusted source of information. Congress must reject this attack on truth and a free press, and stand up for the millions of Americans who depend on PBS and NPR for credible reporting and vital cultural programming. We call on all Americans to let their congressional representatives know that they value the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and to urge Congress to reject this rescission package.’ If Richardson wants to play the Constitution game, maybe Stelter could ask him to point the section of the Constitution that authorizes the foundation of domestic public media outlets. That would also be the same PEN America that reported 2,532 books were banned during the 2021-22 school year only to have the Heritage Foundation report that 74 percent were actually available in the school libraries they were supposedly banned from. Additionally, it is frustrating to watch Stelter, who never hesitates to point out what he sees as problems with conservative media or bias at places like Fox News, just rhetorically shrug his shoulders and suggest bias at NPR and PBS is just a matter of opinion. Here is a transcript for the June 4 show: CNN The Situation Room 6/4/2025 11:55 AM ET PAMELA BROWN: So then are there any Republicans who have signaled that they will support keeping this funding? How do we expect this to play out? STELTER: That's definitely the key question, and some public media executives are cautiously hopeful that they can sway a few Republican moderates, especially in the Senate. We know the House is going to take up this proposal next week, but, in the Senate, that's the big question mark. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is already on the record saying that she will fight to preserve the funding for Alaska's radio and TV stations. She has already publicly opposed Trump on this issue. Are there three other senators who might join her? That is a big question. Like I mentioned, it's the smaller stations that will be hurt the most, but even big stations like New York City, say they would suffer as well. New York Public Radio telling listeners overnight, quote "To put it bluntly, this kind of funding from the feds is what keeps the lights on, keeps our signals on the air and keeps the entire public media system working as a whole." So those are the arguments that lawmakers are now going to be hearing both from public media officials, as well as possibly from listeners and viewers. We know that Trump and his allies have said that this broadcasting is biased, that it should not be getting federal funds for biased content. PBS and NPR disagree with that, but they say ultimately this is not an issue of saving money. As PEN America said in a statement today, this is about intimidating journalists and trying to discourage real news. So those are the battle lines. The battle lines are now drawn in this one. BROWN: They certainly are. Brian Stelter, thanks so much.

This week, the Department of Defense made an unprecedented move: They renamed a ship, originally christened the USNS Harvey Milk. According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s memo, the goal was to ensure “alignment with president and SECDEF objectives and SECNAV priorities of reestablishing the warrior culture.” And predictably, the radical left went insane. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose district encompasses San Francisco -- the home of Harvey Milk -- called it “a surrender of a fundamental American value: to honor the legacy of those who worked to build a better country ... a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.” Part of this supposed legacy was the creation, in 2018, of the John Lewis-class replenishment oilers, designated to be named after various civil rights leaders, including Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But this idea is rather stupid in the first place. First off, these figures are not exactly anonymous. There are currently two public schools named after Milk (one in San Francisco and one in New York), despite the fact that he was a scurrilous figure who had sex with a 16-year-old runaway while he was in his 30s and rather prominently supported murderous cult leader Jim Jones. A film was made about his life starring Sean Penn, who won an Oscar for the hagiography. Traditionally, U.S. Navy ships have been named after places (USS Ohio) or presidents (USS Ronald Reagan) or military heroes (USS John Paul Jones) or ideas (USS Enterprise or USS Hope) or even Native American tribes (USS Seminole). The reason for these naming conventions is obvious: They are not polarizing. If you name a ship after John F. Kennedy or Doris Miller, you’re not offending anyone; we can all acknowledge JFK’s presidency and Doris Miller’s World War II heroism. But that’s not what happened with the USS Harvey Milk. When the name was announced, radical state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-Calif., explained, “When Harvey Milk served in the military, he couldn’t tell anyone who he truly was. Now our country is telling the men and women who serve, and the entire world, that we honor and support people for who they are.” That, of course, is a strange proposition for the United States military, which is fundamentally not about honoring people for “who they are” but for what they do -- and given that the topic is ship-naming, what they do ought to be at least tangentially related to the question of military readiness. The Trump administration’s renaming is part and parcel of a broader shift away from the censorious wokeness that crippled military recruitment and led to an astonishing diminishment in the perception of our military strength. It turns out that young men don’t really want to join a military that is more focused on cultural signaling than lethal efficiency -- and our enemies are far more sanguine about a military that focuses on which interest groups to placate than a military that focuses on victorious deadliness. Hegseth, in short, is right: If the purpose of branding is to establish a vision of the thing being branded, we are far better off with a USNS Daniel Daly -- a ship named after one of the most decorated Marines in American history -- than with a USNS Harvey Milk. What’s more, the Trump administration’s refreshing willingness to say the obvious is a credit to the White House and the secretary of Defense. No, our military ought not be a canvas for the latest social revolutionary fad. We don’t need a USNS RuPaul. We need an America united by our reverence for our citizen warriors -- and that means honoring the universal icons who remind us of their bravery and sacrifice.

Instead of learning good old-fashioned self-awareness — which is free — Democrats are planning to spend $20 million in a futile attempt to understand why they’re failing to attract male voters. BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere doesn’t need to look much farther than a video posted to social media during the Biden era of the four gay men from “Queer Eye” visiting the White House and talking to former Vice President Kamala Harris while wearing beards and dresses. “This is one example, maybe not relating to guys too closely, OK?” Stu says. “This is the type of stuff that reaches people too, right? Like, as much as I know everyone loves my breakdowns of trade tariff tables, maybe a guy with a full beard, dressed in a dress, meeting the vice president of the United States hits their social media feed a little bit more.” But still, Democrats can’t seem to put their finger on what the issue is and are now looking into recruiting male voters at the gym. “Do you even vote, bro?” Stu mocks. “Yes, look for new voters in the one place that no one ever wants to talk. No one wants to. No one wants to be approached at the gym. ‘Hey, who are you going to vote for in the next election? Shouldn’t it be a guy in a dress?’” While Stu feels he has the experience to back up his advice, the women of “The View,” particularly Joy Behar, feel they know men a little better. Behar claimed that rather than spending $20 million on attempting to attract male voters, the Democrats could instead “reclaim men” and “just teach them not to be such sexists.” “Again, totally going to work,” Stu scoffs. And it's not just their failure to attract men that's concerning for the Democrat Party, but their failure to attract people who aren't mentally ill. A recent article written by Nate Silver illustrates this point well, as he points out that one of the biggest differences between liberal and conservative voters is that 20% of liberals reported having "excellent" mental health, but 51% of conservatives reported "excellent" mental health. 45% of liberals said their mental health was poor, while only 19% of conservatives said their mental health was "poor." “If you think about the way that the left looks at the world, that everybody’s an oppressor,” Stu explains, “that’s a dark world. It’s a depressing world at some level.” “Seeing the world that way, well, I’m not surprised that maybe you have a negative relationship with mental health,” he adds. Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Arizona Senate passed legislation in a 17-11 party-line vote last month that would prohibit the communist Chinese regime or one of the enterprises under its direct control from purchasing, owning, or acquiring an ownership interest of 30% or more of property in the state, including property of strategic significance around U.S. military sites. Lawmakers stressed within the text of the bill that it was necessary to "halt or reverse the influence operation of the Chinese Communist Party that poses a risk to the national security of the United States"; "to protect the critical infrastructure of this state"; and to protect Arizona's "military, commercial and agricultural assets from foreign espionage and sabotage" in order to "place this state in a significantly stronger position to withstand national security threats." 'Governor Katie Hobbs continues to violate her oath of office.' Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs evidently disagreed — and that disagreement has earned her more disgust from Arizona Republicans. RELATED: Agroterrorism plot? Chinese nationals arrested for smuggling potential bioweapon into US: FBI Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. Photo by DIRK WAEM/BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images Hobbs vetoed the bill sponsored by Arizona Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp, claiming it was "ineffective at counter-espionage and does not directly protect our military assets." The governor added that the bill "lacks clear implementation criteria and opens the door to arbitrary enforcement." Shamp lashed out at Hobbs over her decision, noting that "with every politically motivated veto of public safety legislation put on her desk by Republicans, Governor Katie Hobbs continues to violate her oath of office she swore to uphold by endangering the lives and livelihoods of all Arizonans." "SB 1109 was a commonsense security measure to ensure enemies of the United States would not have easy access to our military bases and critical infrastructure to carry out harm," Shamp continued. "It is utterly insane that Arizona's top elected official would rather be an obstructionist against safeguarding our citizens from threats than to sign legislation giving our state a fighting chance at proactively preventing attacks," she added. Beijing has provided America with plenty of cause in recent years to suspect ill will and continued sabotage. China has, for instance, sent spy craft over the U.S. mainland; operated illegal police stations on American soil; threatened diplomats; dispatched agents to execute espionage and political destabilization missions; reportedly provided terrorist cartels with illicit fentanyl precursor chemicals and pill press equipment; admitted to orchestrating significant cyberattacks on American institutions and critical infrastructure; engaged in numerous military provocations; and watched with interest as party members gobble up American properties. According to the Annual Threat Assessment report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in March, "China stands out as the actor most capable of threatening U.S. interests globally." The America First Policy Institute noted last year that the communist Chinese regime's acquisition of American land is accelerating, and Arizona might be a prime target on account of the military installations it is home to, including Barry M. Goldwater Range, Davis-Monthan, and Luke Air Force bases. 'Governor Hobbs’ veto of SB 1109 hangs an "Open for the CCP" sign on Arizona’s front door.' "Hobbs is a total disgrace," added Shamp. A statement posted to the X account of U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) similarly suggested that Hobbs' "latest insane veto leaves Arizona’s critical infrastructure, including Luke Air Force Base, vulnerable to espionage and surveillance risks from nearby foreign-owned farmland." The statement suggested that state Republicans' goal could alternatively be realized at the federal level. RELATED: Rubio to 'aggressively' revoke Chinese nationals' student visas to eviscerate CCP's spy invasion Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) introduced the No American Land for Communist China Act in February. The bill, which presently appears to be inert, would prohibit any agent of the Chinese regime and any business under its control from purchasing real estate located adjacent to covered federal lands. Various other bills have been introduced in recent years that would prevent elements of the Chinese regime from acquiring land, in most cases farmland or land near military sites. Karrin Taylor Robson, a Republican attorney who is running to unseat Hobbs in next year's gubernatorial election, vowed to prevent the Chinese Communist Party from getting "a single acre" if elected governor. Michael Lucci, the founder and CEO of State Armor, a foreign policy outfit that helps states combat the influence of the CCP, said in a statement to Fox News, "Governor Hobbs’ veto of SB 1109 hangs an 'Open for the CCP' sign on Arizona’s front door, allowing Communist China to buy up American land near critical assets like Luke Air Force Base, Palo Verde nuclear power plant, and Taiwan Semiconductor’s growing fabrication footprint." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As the decade came to a close, rock acts joined R&B artists for an amazing array of future classic rock greats, and a Broadway musical yielded 4 smash hits. The post Top Radio Hits 1969: Pour a Little Sugar on It, Honey appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Borderlands 2 stands out from the rest of the series and its spin-offs. It's a refinement of the ideas introduced in the first game, which blended Diablo 4-style gear chasing with traditional shooter design in a manner that's since been iterated on by everything from Destiny 2 to The Division 2. And, with Borderlands 4 fast approaching as the latest entry to the series, it remains a great option for anyone curious to see why Gearbox's take on the post-apocalyptic genre became so popular in the first place. It's also, luckily, completely free on Steam right now for a limited time. Continue reading Borderlands 2 is suddenly completely, 100% free, but you don't have long MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Borderlands 3

The Democratic Party’s experience with Jean-Pierre probably won’t produce any transformative realizations, but it should.