In a now viral dust up on Monday’s edition of CNN NewsNight, the audience’s favorite Republican commentator Scott Jennings exploded on leftist extremist Emma Vigeland of the so-called Majority Report, for her refusal to condemn Hamas while claiming Israel invaded Gaza like Russia invaded Ukraine. Jennings also called out host Abby Phillip for not allowing a debate against Vigeland’s assertions while trying to rush to a commercial, a point he would win on (and was seemingly covered up on CNN’s transcript website). Almost halfway through the show, during a conversation about recent negotiations between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about the War in Ukraine, Vigeland injected Israel in conversation. She essentially compared Israel to Russia and bloviated about how America didn’t have a moral standing because we’re allied with the Jewish state: I do think that the kind of elephant in the room here is the United States completely losing, and the Biden administration is immensely complicit in this as well, moral standing throughout the world due to our complicity in the genocide in Gaza. Which has made it very difficult for us to speak to Ukrainian sovereignty and having a bully like the Russian government invading their sovereign territory. Vigeland used to be with the leftist extremists of The Young Turks, a media outlet named after one of the heinous groups who carried out the Arminian Genocide; a genocide her former boss at the organization, Cenk Uygur had denied for many years.   .@ScottJenningsKY was all of us when liberal Emma Vigeland compares Russia invading Ukraine to Israel going to Gaza to wipe out Hamas after October 7 "A bully," you say! pic.twitter.com/mVFwl4TReY — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 30, 2025   Citing some unnamed doctor she supposedly had on her show, and who’s credentials she didn’t share with the CNN panel, Vigeland claimed the already overly inflated death toll number provided by Hamas may actually be higher. “And this will go down as one of the worst crimes in the history of humanity that our government, the Biden administration and the Trump administration, are complicit in,” she whined. Jennings exploded. “October the 7th was fine. Unbelievable,” he declared. “I don't understand. Israel's our ally. Not a single word in your speech for the atrocities that were committed on October the 7th.” “Not a single word for the idea that Israel has every right to defend itself. Not a single word for the fact that Hamas right now is killing people inside of Gaza, their own people,” he continued to call her out. “You seem to say it all at the feet of Israel, a democratic ally in your own country, and you have no negative word excuse for the terrorists who raped and murdered and kidnapped, zero.”   WOW: @ScottJenningsKY absolutely explodes on liberal Emma Vigeland after she claims Israel invaded Gaza just like Russia invaded Ukraine... "We have to debate this, Abby. Oh, we don't have time for the anti-Israel propaganda?" "Unbelievable. October the 7th was fine? Yeah,… pic.twitter.com/vK6OtmDtGF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 30, 2025   Vigeland said Israel “shouldn't be” our ally despite it being the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. She also demanded, “We should cut off arms tomorrow.” Amid Jennings’ condemnation of Vigeland, he called out Phillip for allowing Vigeland to spout off but disallowing any rebuttal, before getting her to break: JENNINGS: We have to debate this Abby. VIGELAND: We actually don’t. PHILLIP: We don’t have time. JENNINGS: Oh, we don’t have time for the anti-Israel propaganda? We have time for the anti-Israel propaganda? PHILLIP: We don’t have time to debate it unfortunately. JASON RANTZ: Saying Hamas was wrong at any point during this conversation? JENNINGS (mocking Vigeland): October the 7th was fine. Unbelievable. PHILLIP: Listen, we know that there's plenty of disagreement on that, I'm sure. VIGELAND: No, I never said that. JENNINGS: Well, we let it unspool for two minutes, but, sure, I mean, honestly -- PHILLIP: Okay, have a quick word, Scott. That exchange was obfuscated on CNN’s official transcript for the show. Jennings’ dressing down of Phillips’ bias was brushed over with a “(CROSSTALKS)” label. Sure there was some shouting at that time, but that exchange was easily audible. Hence why it was included in the NewsBusters’ transcript below.     The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN NewsNight December 29, 2025 10:25:56 p.m. Eastern (…) EMMA VIGELAND: I do think that the kind of elephant in the room here is the United States completely losing, and the Biden administration is immensely complicit in this as well, moral standing throughout the world due to our complicity in the genocide in Gaza. Which has made it very difficult for us to speak to Ukrainian sovereignty and having a bully like the Russian government invading their sovereign territory. We had a doctor on our show who spoke about how the death toll is in the hundreds of thousands at this point, because the numbers that are currently being reported are only the numbers of the death toll of people who have been counted in the hospital. There are hundreds of thousands of people presumed dead, suffocating to death, crushed to death under rubble because of United States' bombs. And that's across this administration. And Trump here who did get this ceasefire that he touts all the time in October. But when you look at the actual numbers here, Israel has violated it hundreds of times since that period, multiple times a day, killed at least 400 Palestinians during that period. And this will go down as one of the worst crimes in the history of humanity that our government, the Biden administration and the Trump administration, are complicit in. [Crosstalk] SCOTT JENNINGS: We have to debate this Abby. VIGELAND: We actually don’t. ABBY PHILLIP: We don’t have time. JENNINGS: Oh, we don’t have time for the anti-Israel propaganda? We have time for the anti-Israel propaganda? [Crosstalk] PHILLIP: We don’t have time to debate it unfortunately. JASON RANTZ: Saying Hamas was wrong at any point during this conversation? JENNINGS (mocking Vigeland): October the 7th was fine. Unbelievable. PHILLIP: Listen, we know that there's plenty of disagreement on that, I'm sure. VIGELAND: No, I never said that. JENNINGS: Well, we let it unspool for two minutes, but, sure, I mean, honestly -- PHILLIP: Okay, have a quick word, Scott. JENNINGS: Well, I just -- I don't understand. Israel's our ally. [Looks to Vigeland] Not a single word in your speech for the atrocities – VIGELAND: It shouldn't be. JENNINGS: -- that were committed on October the 7th. VIGELAND: We should cut off arms tomorrow. JENNINGS: Not a single word for the idea that Israel has every right to defend itself. Not a single word for the fact that Hamas right now is killing people inside of Gaza, their own people. You seem to say it all at the feet of Israel, a democratic ally in your own country, and you have no negative word excuse for the terrorists who raped and murdered and kidnapped, zero. VIGELAND: B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group says they're committing genocide. JENNINGS: And you still don't. You still don't. PHILLIP: We got to go. Reena Ninan, thank you very much for being here. Coming up next, the D.C. pipe bomb suspect confesses what investigators are now learning about his motives. That's next.

One of the most consequential developments of 2025 has received far less scrutiny than it deserves: the steady surrender of executive authority to an unelected judiciary.President Trump was elected to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, yet his administration increasingly behaves as if federal judges hold final authority over every major policy decision — including those squarely within the president’s constitutional and statutory powers.Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.By backing down whenever district courts issue sweeping injunctions, the administration is reinforcing a dangerous precedent: that no executive action is legitimate until the judiciary permits it. That assumption has no basis in the Constitution, but it is rapidly becoming the governing norm.The problem became unmistakable when federal judges began granting standing to abstract plaintiffs challenging Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to protect ICE agents under attack. Many assumed such cases would collapse on appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court last week declined to lift an injunction blocking the Guard’s deployment in Illinois, signaling that the judiciary now claims authority to second-guess core commander-in-chief decisions.Over the dissent of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, the court allowed the Seventh Circuit’s decision to stand. That ruling held that violent attacks on ICE agents in Chicago did not amount to a “danger of rebellion” sufficient to justify Guard deployment and did not “significantly impede” the execution of federal immigration law.That conclusion alone should alarm anyone who still believes in separation of powers.No individual plaintiff alleged personal injury by a Guardsman. No constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiff was the state of Illinois itself, objecting to a political determination made by the president under statutory authority granted by Congress. Courts are not empowered to adjudicate such abstract disputes over executive judgment.Even if judges disagree with the president’s assessment of the threat environment, their opinion carries no greater constitutional weight than his. The commander in chief is charged with executing the laws and protecting federal personnel. Courts are not.If judges can decide who has standing, define the scope of their own authority, and then determine the limits of executive power, constitutional separation of powers collapses entirely. What remains is not judicial review but judicial supremacy.And that is precisely what we are witnessing.Courts now routinely insert themselves into immigration enforcement, national security decisions, tariff policy, federal grants, personnel disputes, and even the content of government websites. The unelected, life-tenured branch increasingly functions as a super-legislature and shadow executive, vetoing or mandating policy at will.RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty ImagesWhat, then, remains for the people acting through elections?If judges control immigration, spending, enforcement priorities, and foreign policy, why bother holding congressional or presidential elections at all? The Constitution’s framers never intended courts to serve as the ultimate policymakers. They were designed to be the weakest branch, confined to resolving concrete cases involving actual injuries.Trump’s defenders often argue that patience and compliance will eventually produce favorable rulings. That belief is not only naïve — it is destructive.For every narrow win Trump secures on appeal, the so-called institutionalist bloc on the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — uses it to justify adverse outcomes elsewhere. Worse, because lower courts enjoin nearly every significant action, the administration rarely reaches the Supreme Court on clean constitutional grounds. The damage is done long before review occurs.Consider the clearest example of all: the power of the purse.Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill explicitly defunding Planned Parenthood. The bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law. Under the Constitution, appropriations decisions belong exclusively to Congress.Yet multiple federal judges have enjoined that provision, effectively ordering the executive branch to continue sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers in defiance of enacted law. Courts have not merely interpreted the statute; they have overridden it.That raises an unavoidable question: Does the president have a duty to enforce the laws of Congress — or to obey judicial demands that contradict them?Continuing to fund Planned Parenthood after Congress prohibited it is not neutrality. It is executive acquiescence to judicial nullification of legislative power.The same pattern appears elsewhere.Security clearances fall squarely within executive authority, yet the first Muslim federal judge recently attempted to block the president from denying clearance to a politically connected lawyer. Immigration, long recognized as a sovereign prerogative, has been transformed by courts into a maze of invented rights for noncitizens — including a supposed First Amendment right to remain in the country while promoting Hamas.States fare no better. When West Virginia sought to ban artificial dyes from its food supply, an Obama-appointed federal judge intervened. When states enact laws complementing federal immigration enforcement, courts strike them down. But sanctuary laws that obstruct federal authority often receive judicial protection.Heads, illegal aliens win. Tails, the people lose.RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back Moor Studio via iStock/Getty ImagesWhat we are witnessing is adverse possession — squatter’s rights — of constitutional power. As Congress passes fewer laws and the executive hesitates to assert its authority, courts eagerly fill the vacuum. In 2025, Congress enacted fewer laws than in any year since at least 1989. Meanwhile, judges effectively “passed” nationwide policies affecting millions of Americans.This did not happen overnight. Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.It is not.Trump cannot comply his way out of this crisis. No president can. A system in which courts claim final authority over every function of government is incompatible with republican self-rule.The Constitution does not enforce itself. Separation of powers exists only if each branch is willing to defend its role.Right now, the presidency is failing that test.

A Hall of Fame basketball player says that mandatory service would help Americans with discipline and structure.Compulsory service is required in many first-world countries, like South Korea, Finland, and Sweden. While duties and service time vary, many believe the requirement can foster a more responsible citizenry. 'Learn how to defend yourself. Shoot and handle guns properly.'A former NBA player and champion, 6'10" Dwight Howard recently called upon President Trump to consider implementing a mandatory term of service for Americans."I honestly feel like the president should make one year of service mandatory for everyone born in America," Howard wrote on X. "A lot of other countries do it. And I think it would help with discipline and structure." Howard then asked, "I'm curious what yall think[:] would this help America or nah[?]"RELATED: NBA players finally drop brutal truth bombs on WNBA stars: 'It should be common sense' — (@) Howard responded to a few reader remarks, including one who suggested such service could be performed during summers while a student is in high school.In response, Howard revealed his stance on the duration for service."Everyone should do a year," he wrote.Another reader suggested mandatory customer service work for Americans, such as working in "retail, serving, bartending," or answering phones. That notion saw Howard remain steadfast in his opinion that Americans should perform military service."I think military service would be better," he replied. "Learn how to defend yourself. Shoot and handle guns properly. The bond and respect for each other would go up."RELATED: Rookie NFL QB declared the new Obama — and the 'most powerful black man since 2009' Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images Following his NBA career, Howard played basketball overseas in the T1 League in Taiwan, where he again became a star. Perhaps this is where his inspiration came from, as Taiwan has a mandatory 12 months of military training for males ages 18-36, according to World Population Review.Howard has discipline and law enforcement in his family's background; an archived USA Basketball profile notes that his father, Dwight Sr., was a Georgia state trooper as of 2007. According to Sky News, approximately 80 countries have some form of mandatory service or conscription. Some countries reportedly have mandatory service for women, as well, such as Sudan, Morocco, Mozambique, North Korea, and Sweden.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

"9-1-1. What is your emergency?"When crisis strikes, Americans in big cities and rural landscapes alike trust that first responders such as firefighters and EMTs are just a phone call away. However, recent spikes in costs and wait times associated with fire trucks have left fire departments across the country scrambling to make do with what they have — sometimes to the detriment of public safety.'Your profits have grown five times over the last five years, $250 million, but nobody can get their equipment!'Much of the problem appears to stem from a massive consolidation of fire apparatus manufacturers nearly 20 years ago. This consolidation "effectively created a duopoly" that severely restricted competition, according to a recent op-ed from Kansas City, Kansas, Fire Chief Dennis Rubin and retired New Haven, Connecticut, Battalion Chief Frank Ricci, who together have more than 60 years of field experience.The problem has grown so wide in scope that it has drawn the attention of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. On April 3, 2025, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Management Chairman Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ranking Member Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sent a letter to the executives of Rev Group, Oshkosh Corporation, and Rosenbauer, which collectively corner between 70% and 80% of the fire-truck market share.In just the past few months, multiple class-action lawsuits have been filed against these companies alleging anti-trust law violations, and Hawley claimed at a subcommittee hearing in September that their "business models are identical."One such "identical" tactic the companies appear to have taken, according to the lawmakers, is to delay fulfilling orders on purpose to keep costs and demand artificially high.Just six short years ago or so, Rev Group, for example, had a backlog of fire equipment orders totaling about $1 billion, with an expected wait time of 12 to 18 months, the New York Times reported in February. Now, however, the company backlog total has quadrupled, and wait times have jumped to two or three years."Your profits have grown five times over the last five years, $250 million, but nobody can get their equipment!" Sen. Hawley railed to Mike Virnig, president of REV Fire Group, at the September hearing."What have these gigantic corporations done with all that market power? Well, they have hiked prices, restricted supply, and created a dangerous backlog of firefighting equipment," added Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).Furthermore, even when departments can get the equipment, it shows no "discernible improvements in technology," the letter said.RELATED: Retired Florida firefighter shot and killed by cops investigating 'horrific' child sex abuse material Rubin and Ricci argued that this alleged market manipulation has had serious consequences. In the summer of 2023, so many pumper fire trucks were out of commission in Kansas City, Kansas, that firefighters were forced to use SUVs and a borrowed brush truck that lacked essential tools."Based on the lack of fire truck repair parts, our fire department in Kansas City, Kansas, has been negatively impacted on several occasions. This situation is not acceptable!" Chief Rubin — who previously served as chief of the department in Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. — told Blaze News in a statement."The impact is real, and it directly affects ability to deliver the level of service the public counts on every day," added P.J. Norwood, retired deputy chief in East Haven.'It is wrong when private equity companies deliberately distort the efficient operation of the free market.'A spokesperson for Oshkosh indicated to Blaze News that disruptions to supply chains during COVID and customization are two major factors that can help account for the rise in prices and delayed orders."Depending on the options a customer chooses, producing a single fire truck can take up to 7,000 hours, with an average of approximately 2,000 hours," the spokesperson said."We acknowledged the lead time problem as soon as it emerged, and we have made — and will continue to make — historic investments to increase throughput," Dan Meyer, vice president of sales at Oshkosh's Pierce Manufacturing, told Sens. Hawley, Kim, Warren, and others at the September hearing."We know customers want and deserve shorter lead times, and the manufacturers who can accomplish that will win their business. Pierce is determined to meet our customers’ needs, which is why our company is committed to investing in our people and our manufacturing capabilities to reduce lead times and best serve the firefighter community."Rubin and Ricci do not deny that specific customization demands from so many municipalities remain a major problem, and they encourage the adoption of "a more standardized production model, with separate lines for urban, suburban, or rural, and custom builds" to address this issue. They also believe that states and cities ought to revisit their bidding procedures to root out any unfair practices that further drive up prices.Still they view the limited competition at the manufacturing level as the main cause."We must champion American manufacturing that wins on competition and merit — not monopolistic tactics," Ricci told Blaze News."There’s nothing wrong with earning a profit, but it is wrong when private equity companies deliberately distort the efficient operation of the free market on the one hand — and then fire departments rig the bidding process on the other," added Yankee Institute President Carol Platt Liebau. "If legislators aren’t willing or able to ask the tough questions, then of course it’s the taxpayers — as always — who are exploited and ripped off."Rev Group, Rosenbauer, and Sen. Kim's office did not respond to a request for comment. Sen. Hawley's office directed Blaze News to his statements at the September hearing.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

OM-GEE! Joey Jones OWNS Smug 'Radical Centrist' Using Brett Favre to Accuse GOP of Being Fraud Hypocrites

New HUD Audit Exposes Biden-Era Funds to Non-Citizens and Deceased Recipients

Trump’s Deportation Plan Just Scored a Major Win: Court Rules Admin Can Use Medicaid Data on Illegals

Holiday Travel Chaos in Europe As Authorities Forced to Shut Down Chunnel

Shamans' New Ayahuasca Alert: Maduro Gets Trumped Out of Power in 2026

Report: CBS News Alumni Circulate Petition With Mind-Blowing Demand for CEO Amid '60 Minutes' Fallout