House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said his committee could clear legislation in the next two weeks to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions.   In an interview with Just the News, Jordan said sanctuary jurisdictions include 11 states, 18 major cities and three counties, as well as the District of Columbia. He said this represents about one-third of the nation’s population.   “We’re looking at passing a bill to deal with this sanctuary jurisdiction issue,” Jordan said. “We think we’re going to have a markup in two weeks in our committee to address this. That may be, well, you know, there’s various ways to look at it.”  A sanctuary jurisdiction declares that it will not cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement, and in some cases places restrictions on federal immigration authorities’ capacity to conduct enforcement in public spaces.   Jordan brought this up amid the chaos in the Twin Cities region. Jordan wasn’t specific on how the legislation would work, but said it would involve a requirement that state and local law enforcement contact federal law enforcement when they encounter criminal illegal aliens.   He said the sanctuary jurisdictions make it difficult for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to apprehend illegal aliens when they are released from state and local detention centers.  “They got a guy in their jail. ICE knows it’s an illegal migrant who’s also been charged with some other crime; they get a notice saying it’s a detainer notice saying, ‘Hey, if you’re going to let this guy out, just give us a heads-up. Give us 48 hours. We’ll come and arrest him there at the jail,’” Jordan said.   “Instead, they release him to the streets. That’s a problem there,” Jordan continued. “We should work at some way in our federal law that you can’t do that. You have to work with federal law enforcement, when you have that scenario.”  The post Jordan Vows Crackdown Bill on Sanctuary Cities, States appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dems Score Another Epstein Scalp: Obama's White House Counsel

As Democrats Keep Dropping Like Flies From Epstein Ties, They Keep Calling Trump a 'Pedophile'

Even in those without symptoms of long COVID, the virus could leave its silent footprint on the brain.

The Obama-era 2009 Endangerment Finding is no more. This is what it means for Americans.

RIP to a true legend.

POLL: What was the worst media quote of the week? (Vote below)   POLL: Worst Media Quote of the Week Don Lemon: Our democracy can be gone in a second under Trump Kathleen Parker: Trump has taken a page from Hitler's Mein Kampf Jimmy Kimmel: GOP is protecting pedos and rapists, while illegals are raising your kids@TJTAW44 @Justine_Brooke pic.twitter.com/PwJHow2pAu — Media Research Center (@theMRC) February 12, 2026   NOMINEES:    Don Lemon: “Our Democracy Can Be Gone In a Second” Under Trump  “We are watching an administration right now that treats the Constitution not as a covenant but as an inconvenience. That they don’t have to abide by. ‘This is inconvenient and this is getting in our way.’ It’s authoritarianism and we need to be careful because the very little that’s left in our democracy can be gone in a second – if it’s not too late already.”— Former CNN anchor Don Lemon’s speech at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, February 7.    Kathleen Parker: Trump Has “Taken a Page” from Hitler’s Mein Kampf “He’s [Donald Trump] still clinging again to the 2020 — we know it was a fully regular election he lost. And he can’t let it go because I think he’s taken a page from Mein Kampf, frankly, you know, the saying that if you say — tell a big lie often enough and repeat it, then people will believe it.”— Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker on PBS’s News Hour, February 6.    Jimmy Kimmel: Republicans Are Protecting “Pedophiles” and “Rapists,” While Attacking Illegals Who Are “Raising Your Children” Rep. Lisa McClain: “And you know what the Democrats want to do? Let’s release them into your communities. And let’s celebrate the criminals. Let’s villainize the ICE agents and celebrate the people who are raping your children.”Host Jimmy Kimmel: “I think she meant to say raising your children? I mean, listen, could you imagine how ignorant these people are screaming about pedophiles and rapists while members of their own party seem to be doing everything they can to protect the pedophiles and the rapists in the Epstein files.”— ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, February 10.     Sponsored by James P. Jimirro

This Pistachio Bread is so easy to make and has a wonderful flavor! Perfect for any occasion! ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE We have always been big fans of pistachios! So this was a great choice and it’s made with a cake mix so it’s different but great and comes together quickly. This recipe makes...

A Massachusetts city in the Greater Boston area has made abundantly clear that it will not be dominated by the sensitivities of activists — those whose apparent discomfort with America's Christian inheritance has them fighting to hide civic symbols of courage, honor, and bravery.Dealt a legal setback in October, the city of Quincy is now asking the state's top court to weigh in on the matter of an angel and a saintly firefighter.Saints and iconoclastsQuincy Mayor Thomas Koch commissioned renowned sculptor Sergey Eylanbekov to design two 10-foot-tall bronze statues heavy with cultural and historical significance to honor police and firefighters outside their new public safety headquarters.While the city had erected other statues by Eylanbekov without issue, this time was different as the new statues also carried religious significance — one depicting Florian, a 3rd-century firefighting Roman Christian, and the other depicting the winged archangel Michael stepping on the head of a demon.The statues have many fans in the community, including Quincy Police Chief Mark Kennedy, who indicated he feels "honored" by the Michael statue, and Quincy Firefighters Local 792 president Tom Bowes, who said, "Florian embodies the values that are most important to our work as firefighters: honor, courage, and bravery."Not all were, however, pleased.'If beautiful art has religious meaning to anyone, it must be hidden away from everyone.'The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State joined a handful of locals in suing last May to block the installation.Among the plaintiffs are:a Unitarian social justice warrior; a self-identified Catholic who finds the "violent imagery" of good triumphing over evil to be "offensive"; a local synagogue member who suggested the images "may exacerbate the current rise in anti-Semitism"; an Episcopalian who believes that walking past such statues would amount to "submission to religious symbols"; and a lapsed Catholic who suggested the image of Michael stepping on the head of a demon was "reminiscent of how George Floyd was killed."Their lawsuit claimed that "affixing religious icons of one particular faith to a government facility — the city's public safety building, no less — sends an alarming message that those who do not subscribe to the city's preferred religious beliefs are second-class residents who should not feel safe, welcomed, or equally respected by their government."The complaint strategically neglected to mention the significance of Michael in other religions, in the Western literary canon, and pop culture. Similarly, it largely glossed over Florian's potential secular appeal, emphasizing his recognition by Catholics as a saint.RELATED: 'Scandal': Abortion radical's appointment at University of Notre Dame has local Catholic bishop outraged Detail from 17th century painting of Michael vanquishing Satan. Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images via Getty ImagesMayor Koch emphasized in an affidavit that "the selection had nothing to do with Catholic sainthood, but rather was an effort to boost morale and to symbolize the values of truth, justice, and the prevalence of good over evil."The plaintiffs evidently saw things differently as their complaint suggested the statues' installation "will not serve a predominantly secular purpose," but rather to "promote, promulgate, and advance one faith, subordinating other faiths as well as nonreligious traditions."SetbackNorfolk Superior Court obliged the iconoclasts in October, blocking the planned installation of the already purchased and completed statues while the case proceeds.Judge William Sullivan, a Democratic appointee, said in his ruling that "the Complaint raises colorable concerns that members of the community not adherent to Catholicism or Christian teaching who pass beneath the two statues to report a crime may reasonably question whether they will be treated equally."The judge suggested further that the statues "serve no discernable secular purpose.""Although defendants argue that the public has an interest in inspiring the city's first responders in carrying out their work to maximum effectiveness, the court does not conceive the ability, commitment, and enthusiasm of members of the Quincy Police and Fire Departments to serve the communities will be appreciably undermined if the two statues are absent for the duration of this litigation," added Sullivan.The ACLU — which has alternatively defended the erection of satanic displays on public grounds — celebrated the ruling with Massachusetts chapter staff attorney Rachel Davidson thanking Sullivan for "acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause."Onwards and upwardsThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court agreed last month to hear an appeal of the lesser court's ruling — an opportunity welcomed both by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the city of Quincy."We look forward to defending Quincy’s plan to honor our brave first responders at the Massachusetts high court," Mayor Koch said at the time.The city — represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Quincy solicitor James Timmins — filed a brief with the SJC on Wednesday, making mince meat of the activists' arguments and underscoring the statues' permissibility under the law.The brief reiterated that the statues have a secular purpose; their primary effect will not be to advance religion; and their prohibition based on religious hostility would violate the U.S. Constitution.The brief noted further that the plaintiffs lack standing "since merely observing public symbols one finds disagreeable is not a cognizable injury" and that "the placement of inanimate statues as public art on a public building does not implicate direct support of religion in any manner, let alone the subordination by law of some faiths to others."To prohibit the statues would also be "at odds with the robust history of public display of other symbols with religious significance" in the state, said the brief.There are, for instance, statues of Moses and "Religion" in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courthouse; a statue of Pope John Paul II — a Catholic saint — in the Boston Common; and a statue of Quaker martyr Mary Dyer outside the Massachusetts State House in Boston."The ACLU’s theory in this case is tragically simple: If beautiful art has religious meaning to anyone, it must be hidden away from everyone," Joseph Davis, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney for the city of Quincy, said in a statement."The ACLU’s radical rule flouts our nation’s civic heritage and decades of court decisions," continued Davis. "The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court should reject the ACLU’s Puritanical demands and make clear that artworks don’t have to be purged from the public square just because they might make someone think of religion."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

WATCH As Keith Ellison Suddenly Realizes He Just Told the TRUTH About Dems and Illegals and Can't Spin It