It’s only fair to give credit where credit is due. Former Democrats who now comprise the socialist base of that party are very good at inciting people to vent their collective spleen on the streets of America. But that doesn’t mean they know much about other things, particularly when it comes to economic matters.   The Indivisible Project—the muscle behind the No Kings protests—has a good track record of turning out protesters who dislike President Donald Trump. Now, they’re after a scalp, an actual policy win, one that hinges on market economics. To that end, Indivisible launched a boycott campaign last month against Spotify, the popular platform for music, podcasts and other programming.   In an email sporting the subject line, “Hey Spotify, stop streaming hate,” Indivisible sought to rally its forces to punish the digital entertainment service. “Spotify is running ads recruiting agents for ICE. Let that sink in,” began the email. “A platform built to connect creators and listeners is helping an authoritarian regime build up its secret police force.” A Spotify spokesperson said the ads, which also air on Pandora, HBO Max, Hulu, YouTube and elsewhere, fully comply with their advertiser policies.   Incensed by these help-wanted ads for immigration officers, Indivisible instructed its followers to push back against what it called “fascist propaganda,” with immediate, tangible action. “We’re asking anyone who subscribes to Spotify Premium to cancel your subscription until Spotify stops running ICE ads.” Their ire may sprout from the fact that the ads are working; the Department of Homeland Security reports 175,000 applicants and about 18,000 job offers so far.   What’s not working is the boycott. When Spotify announced its third quarter earnings on Nov. 4, Investors Business Daily reported, “Spotify earned the equivalent of $3.84 a share on sales of $4.99 billion in the third quarter.” For context, IBD noted that, “In the year-earlier period, Spotify earned $1.54 a share on sales of $4.22 billion.” It was an earnings beat on the top and bottom lines, as Wall Street investors might say.   But the news gets even worse for Indivisible. According to IBD, “The Stockholm-based company added 5 million premium subscribers,” and ended the quarter, “with 281 million paying subscribers worldwide, up 12% year over year.” The plea for liberals to cancel their Spotify subscriptions is falling on deaf ears.  The Indivisible campaign, based on a single advertisement, was doomed to fail from the start. Urging people to boycott Spotify and forgo its podcasts like Joe Rogan, Pod Save America, and NPR’s ‘Up-First’, among many others, is analogous to telling liberals to cancel MSNBC for selling advertising time to My Pillow. The point of a product boycott is to target an advertiser or program, not an entire media platform. As for Spotify’s music offerings, did Indivisible really expect listeners to abandon Taylor Swift, Drake and Bad Bunny just because of an ad people may not ever hear?   No failed boycott would be complete without a soupçon of ridiculousness and Indivisible does not disappoint. The group’s No Kings protest last month was a flop in Spotify’s home country of Sweden, which has an actual king. King Carl XVI Gustaf and the Swedish monarchy have poll numbers American politicians would die for. Once protest organizers recognized their blunder, they had to change the name to No Dictators. Several dozen people showed up. So much for brand management.   Indivisible used hyperbolically libelous rhetoric in an attempt to convince people to boycott something they love, produced by a company in a foreign country they insulted and doesn’t care about them, over an advertisement they don’t like. Indivisible may be good at rage rallying but not so much when it comes to understanding the fundamental laws of boycott economics.   This episode may account for why Indivisible and its No Kings subsidiaries aren’t promoting anything other than clinging to grievance. If an organization cannot execute something as simple as an economic boycott, it’s not likely they’re very good at anything other than community organizing. But do not underestimate these people and their core competency of inciting mobs. In this regard they are best of breed among domestic agitators, and they are not to be trifled with.   Indivisible’s humiliating boycott failure will further energize them to continue doing what they do best—fomenting the kind of tumult that’s made it a preeminent and dangerous brand in American politics, and which we ignore at our peril. Community organizing skills may not be any good at promoting peace and prosperity but remember, it was good enough to elect a president.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Humiliating No Kings Boycott Failure appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Here's What Bluesky is Saying About Chuck Schumer

Last Friday night, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, granted a request by the Trump administration, to temporarily stay a lower court ruling, which ordered the government to fully fund SNAP for the rest of this month, until the First Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on the case. ABCNews.com reported it straight on Friday:  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the pause will remain in effect until the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a judgment on the matter. Jackson is the justice assigned to emergency applications out of the 1st circuit, and her order did not refer the matter to the full Supreme Court. Yet mysteriously, when it came time to report on this story, Justice Brown Jackson's name was no where to be found on several news shows including some of the Sunday shows. I wonder why that happened! Let's start with the fact that Brown Jackson is probably the most liberal Justice on the Court. The fact that she ruled in favor of a request from Trump, even temporarily, a ruling that according to the narrative that has been put forth by the Democrats and the left wing media, is starving children, certainly provides incentive for omission. On their Saturday evening newscasts, CBS and NBC did not mention her name, while reporting on the story.    Over on NBC, anchor Jose Diaz-Balart introduced the report on the decision by saying, "Across the country tonight, the impacts of the government shutdown are growing even more dire for millions of people going without food assistance, after a Supreme Court order impacting the SNAP program." And inside the package itself, it was more of the same, "In a late Friday night order, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court decision that had  ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefit payments by Friday..."   Saturday on CBS Weekend News, White House reporter Willie James Inman did his part to put the decision on the entire Supreme Court, claiming that those who depend on SNAP are "In limbo as the Supreme Court temporarily blocks full payments of the SNAP benefits program, at least for now....Late last night the Supreme Court granted an emergency order temporarily halting a lower court ruling for the government to pay up." That was followed by a clip from a woman who claimed "If we don't get SNAP until the shutdown is over we could end up literally starving!" Can't have Justice Brown Jackson's name mixed up with that!    Interestingly enough, Saturday's edition of PBS News Weekend did mention the Justice by name. The process was explained step by step by Amy Howe of SCOTUS Blog, and it included mentioning Brown Jackson "Shortly before 9:30.. last night, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued that administrative stay." She also explained why it was left up to her to issue a ruling, "Justice Jackson is what's known as the Circuit Justice for the First Circuit, which means that all the emergency requests go initially to her... And she said the reason I'm issuing this stay now is because we expect the First Circuit to act quickly, and so she put the federal judge's ruling on hold for 48 hours after the First Circuit acts."   I should mention that on Sunday's edition of ABC's World News Tonight, they did mention Brown Jackson by name in their report And if you were wondering about NBC's Meet The Press, or CBS's Face The Nation, it was all about the Supreme Court decision, no specific Justice was revealed. On ABC's This Week, congressional correspondent Jay O'Brien did tell us that it was Justice Brown Jackson who issued the decision on Friday night. Look, had Justice Clarence Thomas or Brett Kavanaugh, or any of the conservatives on the Supreme Court made this decision, the media would have had a field day, playing into their agenda and ripping the court for giving Trump everything he wants, playing a part in 'starving kids', etc.. But not only was Brown Jackson's name left out of these reports on the decision, there was really no criticism of the decision itself, because to do so, would have forced these "journalists" to fess up and admit who made the decision. This is more of what we've found is "conspiciously vague" TV reporting on the shutdown. It's bad journalism. 

Overnight, a small group of Democrats proved that their party was in the driver’s seat of the longest U.S. government shutdown by crossing the aisle and voting with Republicans to reopen the government. The multimillionaires of ABC News’s The View were so bitter about federal workers getting paid and SNAP recipients getting food that they were raging and screaming into the cameras. The majority were angry over Democrats giving up their political leverage against Republicans following their electoral victories last week. One of them even shouted: “I want an opposition party!” At the top of the show, moderator Whoopi Goldberg tacitly admitted that it was Democrats who were holding out during the government shutdown, and whined that “eight senate Democrats threw in the towel by siding with the GOP to advance a vote that could lead to the government reopening.”   The View finally admits that it was Democrats who were holding up the vote to keep the government open, and now they're very upset that 8 Dems broke ranks and sided with Republicans to make sure people could put food on the table: WHOOPI: The biggest sticking point in the… pic.twitter.com/wv1TUaPw8r — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 10, 2025   Despite those eight Democrats proving that the left was the group digging their heels in and shutting down the government, co-host Sunny Hostin was desperate to keep the false narrative (that Republicans were responsible) going: Let's be clear. The Republicans run the House. The Republicans run the Senate. The Republicans run the White House. The Republicans run the Supreme Court, as far as I'm concerned. This was a choice by Republicans to cut snap benefits! This was a choice Republicans to cut ACA subsidies! This was a choice by the Republicans to gut the federal government and federal employment! Democrats had nothing to do with it. “I want an opposition party!” screamed Hostin, herself a multimillionaire. “I think the Democrats caved! I think the Democrats let down the American people!”   Desperate to cling to a narrative that was just shattered, Sunny Hostin is still insisting that Republicans were the ones who shut down the government and RAGES at Democrats for giving in: "This was a choice by Republicans to cut SNAP benefits! This was a choice by Republicans… pic.twitter.com/q3DtEjLOKd — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 10, 2025   Hostin, who didn’t need to worry about putting food on her table, started shouting “shame” at Democrats: You know, you do something like this. Shame on you the first time. You do it twice, three times, four time, shame on me. Shame on the Democrats for even believing that the Republicans will, you know, even vote on it! There's no guarantee in this new deal. That there's going to be a vote. There's no even commitment to have a vote. So, the bottom line is the Democrats went into a after a blue wave, the American people saying we do want to opposition. We – The working people want the Democratic Party to fight for them. And now they just caved and surrendered. “I think Chuck Schumer, his days are over! If he cannot keep his caucus together – If he cannot keep his caucus together, he needs to go, he needs to be replaced,” Hostin declared, proving herself to be the more outraged on the set.   Sara Haines notes that no one on the cast receives SNAP benefits or healthcare subsidies - but gets interrupted by Hostin, who asserts she has family members on SNAP. Sunny is a multimillionaire. Why isn't she helping her family members? pic.twitter.com/CtevYahrRD — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 10, 2025   Pretend independent Sara Haines tried to take the counter position that it was better to reopen the government because people where suffering and couldn’t feed their families, and that Democratic opposition wasn’t actually helping anyone. Hostin jumped down her throat (Click “expand”): HAINES: I disagree with you Sunny for this reason. What you rattled off. The Republicans run the executive branch, the legislative, the judicial according to you. They have all the power right now. The problem here is it's a privilege to say, ‘our food's not affected, our health insurance. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: There are people in my family that receive SNAP benefits! HAINES: I’m not saying – I’m not meaning family. We’re all effected by – as we go out. I’m saying right here to say it's a privilege that they don't have healthcare and now they don't have food. The people are struggling so much, our food banks all week in our towns were at the food bank. We were delivering non-stop and kept getting notifications ‘they're empty again,’ ‘they’re empty again.’ Opposition? People can vote in a blue wave and say but opposition, when you have no power, is not helping us at all! They need food on the table. We need our flights back up in the air. The holidays are coming. People can’t afford Christmas. HOSTIN: The Republican Party should have done it! If Hostin really did have family members on SNAP, why wasn’t she using her millions to help her family out? In 2023, she took the side of subway menace Jordan Neely and claimed she would have given him all her money freely; and tired to say the other passengers had no humanity in them.   Ignorance or insidious misinformation? Hostin clashes with Haines and insists that Republicans could have opened the government without Democratic Party votes: HAINES: Opposition? People can vote in a blue wave and say but opposition, when you have no power, is not helping us at… pic.twitter.com/VSYfhmoxgn — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 10, 2025   Hostin and fake Republican Ana Navarro teamed up to use incendiary rhetoric against Trump and Republicans that could incite even more assassination attempts against those on the right, suggesting the right was okay with people dying without healthcare: NAVARRO: If people lose insurance, if people drop out of insurance, not only will it be the death of Obamacare, it will be the death of Americans! Because people will not go get screenings. People will get diagnosed with later stages of cancer and this will cost lives! And we must demand better starting with Donald Trump! [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: And we're not going to get better, because with Donald Trump the cruelty is the point! He does not care! It's a Republican choice!   Screaming at the top of her lungs, Hostin continues to RAGE at Democrats for thinking they were helping federal workers. She shouts that they should have just let the workers duke it out in court: "With Donald Trump, the cruelty is the point! He does not care! It's a Republican… pic.twitter.com/WvsJffOecS — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 10, 2025   Hostin would go one to monopolize more of their airtime by insisting that the solution for federal workers who were drawing on their savings was to pursue expensive and drawn out legal battles. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin clapped back by noting that SNAP recipients couldn’t put food on their tables: HOSTIN: So, the fact that the Democrats traded in their vote to get federal workers working again is ludicrous! Let the courts do their job! Go through courts and let the courts do their job! FARAH GRIFFIN: No, it’s to get SNAP benefits out! People can't eat. People can't afford the holidays. Goldberg ended the segment by touting how Senator John Fetterman (D-PA), who was one of the Democrats who voted with Republicans, would be on the show the next day and how it gave them the opportunity to attack him.   The View says they're excited to have Senator John Fetterman on the show tomorrow so they can attack him over voting to reopen the government. pic.twitter.com/QCH4OKw4l1 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 10, 2025   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View November 10, 2025 11:02:29 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So, let us tell you what's been going on. The biggest sticking point in the longest U.S. government shutdown has been Democrats demanding that Republicans negotiate to extend healthcare subsidies that are about to expire. But last night, eight senate Democrats threw in the towel by siding with the GOP to advance a vote that could lead to the government reopening and they tried to explain themselves to their unhappy colleagues. (…) 11:03:45 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: So, I mean, you know. 50-50 chance of negotiating healthcare subsidies. I just remember all of the people who are coming in and hoping that people would vote them in and say, ‘yes, you can be this person, you can be judge or you can be this.’ And they all said, ‘no, we're not going to mess with anything. We're going to leave everything as it was.’ I have no faith they're not going to negotiate and come back to the table. And, you know, I'm glad that folks may be – because again, we have seen, you say this is going to happen and then it doesn't happen. So, surprise me and show me that this is really that people are going to get their money. That people are going to get the money that they are entitled to. It's not a gift. They're entitled to this money during the shutdown, when there's a shutdown. You're entitle today that money. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. There’s a contingency fund for that. GOLDBERG: This idea that they're giving in and giving this as a gift, it's not a gift. You know. I don't understand. So, is he right that Americans wanted Democrats to keep fighting. This would -- and you know, people will get rehired supposedly. Federal workers and reinstate SNAP benefits but a 50-50 chance of extending the subsidies, I don't believe it. (…) 11:06:46 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: Let's be clear. The Republicans run the House. The Republicans run the Senate. The Republicans run the White House. The Republicans run the Supreme Court, as far as I'm concerned. This was a choice by Republicans to cut snap benefits! This was a choice Republicans to cut ACA subsidies! This was a choice by the Republicans to gut the federal government and federal employment! Democrats had nothing to do with it. I want an opposition party! I think the Democrats caved! I think the Democrats let down the American people! And like you, Whoopi, I have absolutely no faith that the Republican Party will come to the negotiating table in good faith. You know, you do something like this. Shame on you the first time. You do it twice, three times, four time, shame on me. Shame on the Democrats for even believing that the Republicans will, you know, even vote on it! There's no guarantee in this new deal. That there's going to be a vote. There's no even commitment to have a vote. So, the bottom line is the Democrats went into a after a blue wave, the American people saying we do want to opposition. We – The working people want the Democratic Party to fight for them. And now they just caved and surrendered. I think Chuck Schumer, his days are over! If he cannot keep his caucus together – If he cannot keep his caucus together, he needs to go, he needs to be replaced. SARA HAINES: I disagree with you Sunny for this reason. What you rattled off. The Republicans run the executive branch, the legislative, the judicial according to you. They have all the power right now. The problem here is it's a privilege to say, ‘our food's not affected, our health insurance. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: There are people in my family that receive SNAP benefits! HAINES: I’m not saying – I’m not meaning family. We’re all effected by – as we go out. I’m saying right here to say it's a privilege that they don't have healthcare and now they don't have food. The people are struggling so much, our food banks all week in our towns were at the food bank. We were delivering non-stop and kept getting notifications ‘they're empty again,’ ‘they’re empty again.’ Opposition? People can vote in a blue wave and say but opposition, when you have no power, is not helping us at all! They need food on the table. We need our flights back up in the air. The holidays are coming. People can’t afford Christmas. HOSTIN: The Republican Party should have done it! (…) 11:11:12 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: …while he [Trump] refuses to fund SNAP benefits and you know what we are doing with this deal?! We are changing one group of suffering American, the federal workers and the SNAP benefits, for another one! Because people have no idea how much they're going to need to pay for health insurance! The premiums have gone out and they are up 100, 200, almost 300 percent in some cases. If people lose insurance, if people drop out of insurance, not only will it be the death of Obamacare, it will be the death of Americans! Because people will not go get screenings. People will get diagnosed with later stages of cancer and this will cost lives! And we must demand better starting with Donald Trump! [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: And we're not going to get better, because with Donald Trump the cruelty is the point! He does not care! It's a Republican choice! The last thing I'll say about the federal workers, there's a 2019 law that requires the federal government to pay federal workers! GOLDBERG: You must! It's the law! HOSTIN: It’s the law! So, the fact that the Democrats traded in their vote to get federal workers working again is ludicrous! Let the courts do their job! Go through courts and let the courts do their job! ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: No, it’s to get SNAP benefits out! People can't eat. People can't afford the holidays. (…)

Just like they waited until either Joe Biden had bumbled in the June 2024 debate or he was out of office to admit he wasn’t in charge of his faculties, the “Big Three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC awoke Monday morning by telling viewers it was Democrats who had a “whole strategy” to “drive the country into a shutdown,” but lost out when eight defectors “back[ed] away from what they’ve been demanding” on ObamaCare subsidies. Having done plenty of heavy lifting for the left in this shutdown, ABC’s Good Morning America was predictably miffed their team caved, leaving them hanging: Surprise, surprise! ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ is BIG MAD at Senate Democrats for having caved on the government shutdown, “back[ing] away from what they’ve been demanding all along....extending expiring ObamaCare subsidies so health insurance premiums don’t rise for millions.”… pic.twitter.com/l0atrOqCpG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 10, 2025   Scott tried to make it better by relitigating the fight about food stamp payments and whether the Trump administration could be forced to pay them out in a shutdown, but it came off more like coping with their loss. Also crestfallen, NBC’s Today was arguably even more despondent over this betrayal. They similarly admitted Democrats caused the shutdown, saying health care subsidies were “the reason Democrats had pushed for the shutdown in the first place” and that seven Senate Democrats were the ones who “decided it was time to bring the shutdown to the end” and the suffering of hungry Americans: WATCH: Now the truth can be told! NBC’s ‘Today’ trots out correspondent Ryan Nobles to admit Democrats shut down the government with many still mad Republicans “did not do enough to meet their demands” on ObamaCare subidies, “which is the reason Democrats had pushed for the… pic.twitter.com/vvGgJ65abM — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 10, 2025   After Nobles’s package mixed up Nevada’s Democrat senators, senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson continued this theme of openly admitting it was the left all along who caused Americans to go without food and paychecks: NBC’s Hallie Jackson concedes on the ‘Today’ show that enough Senate Democrats decided over the weekend that “their whole strategy to shut down the government” “wasn’t working” Jackson warned Democrats might shut down the government AGAIN in January if they decide to pitch… pic.twitter.com/OCgdX0hO4k — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 10, 2025   She then stated her thoughts on why the liberal base is incensed with Democrats, pointing to the fact that they’ve avoided any real blame for the shutdown in polling and swept last week’s elections in California, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia: NBC’s ‘Today’ laments Democrats caving on the government shutdown even though they haven’t been “taking the blame” and saw “a series of wins last week on election night”.... Savannah Guthrie: “[T]here is a real division within the Democratic caucus. There were those who wanted… pic.twitter.com/0w0sfWFrEe — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 10, 2025   Over on CBS Mornings, their lead-off report didn’t say the quiet part out loud. Political correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns merely said the procedural vote “was a huge moment towards ending this government shutdown and it’s going to take a few more hurdles this week in order for the government to reopen.” “Eight members of the Democratic caucus joined Republicans Sunday night in voting to move ahead with a government funding bill...The move...would fund the government through January 30, reverse the layoffs of federal workers during the shut down, and guarantee back pay. It also includes three longer-term funding bills, including additional money for SNAP or food assistance benefits,” she added. Huey-Burns only framed the ObamaCare subsidies as “a key demand from Democrats” before emphasizing it would take a few more days for the government and any services to return to full sound. In turn, SNAP (or food stamp) payments would “still be in limbo” and more strain on food banks that “saw a flurry of traffic this weekend.” This was all she would offer on why most Democrats oppose reopening the government: DOKOUPIL: Can you explain why some prominent Democrats are angry and against voting for this? HUEY-BURNS: Yeah, frustration is the word we’ve been hearing because this didn’t include any health care policy that they had been fighting for. Ro Khanna, a congressman from California — a prominent one — said that Chuck Schumer should resign because of this. And, notably, outside of Washington, you’re hearing a lot of frustration as well. Governor — California Governor Gavin Newsom called this a betrayal and a capitulation[.] The show’s second hour began with Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), one of the five Senate Democrats who flipped from wanting to keep the government closed to support its reopening. Unfortunately for Shaheen, she faced some tough questions, starting with this: OUCH: CBS’s Tony Dokoupil calls out the Senate Democrats who flipped their votes from no to yes last night to reopen the government, wondering “what was” shutting down the government for over 40 days “all for” since they weren’t able to get Republicans to cave.... Dokoupil:… pic.twitter.com/7hM2lIJF6t — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 10, 2025   It got worse with Dokoupil spitting more facts about who caused the shutdown: CBS’s Tony Dokoupil openly tells Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen that it was her party who chose to “drive the country into a shutdown” and have now angered their base by “not keeping your word” to them they’d keep it closed until they got what they wanted.... Dokoupil: “There’s… pic.twitter.com/NUL8tBdCed — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 10, 2025   Co-host Gayle King joined the conversation, focusing on members of Congress having been paid during the shutdown (click “expand”): KING: What does this say to you that every year it seems like we’re having this conversation, if it’s not resolved, then the can is kicked down the road. Why is this so difficult? Number one; and number two, why can’t we come up with a way that Congress, you guys don’t get paid until these people get paid. It seems to me, if they had that kind of scenario, they would work this stuff out. I keep thinking, suppose we weren’t paid here at CBS when we didn’t do anything wrong, but the people making the decisions are still getting paid. I wrestle with this. It makes no sense when I see what is happening to the government workers in this country. So the first question I said, why is this so difficult? SHAHEEN: Well, what I hear most from my constituents is, why can’t you just work together to address the problems facing this country? I think this bipartisan agreement gives us an opportunity, hopefully, to turn the page on that, but we do need a long-term way to address the fact that we should not be putting workers at risk, the people of this country at risk when we have policy disagreements and I think there’s real interest in trying to do that, and I hope there is real — a real commitment, what we’ve heard from many of our Republican colleagues in the Senate is that they’re willing to work on health care. Now we can hold them accountable. We’re going to have a vote. We’re going to see if they’re really willing to work on it, and if they’re not, the people of America can hold them accountable. Dokoupil closed by wondering what she thinks about Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) future as the leader of Senate Democrats (click “expand”): DOKOUPIL: A lot of people in your own party think [Schumer] should be out of a job. Ro Khanna is one person who is saying that this morning. You worked with him to get to this moment of potential breakthrough. What do you make of the criticism? Do you think his days are numbered as leader? SHAHEEN: Well, I think the House members who are critical should stay focused on what they can do in the House to ensure that we have a vote on health care and to make sure that we hold Speaker Johnson and President Trump, who are responsible, accountable for where we are. The fact is — DOKOUPIL: Well, Senator — SHAHEEN: — what this agreement is going to do is it’s going to force Speaker Johnson to bring the House back in. He’s been out since the beginning of September. It’s going to force him to come back in and to deal with health care and all kinds of other issues. DOKOUPIL: Senator, I apologize for — I could have — I said, Ro Khanna, I could have said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I could have named a whole bunch of people. There’s people on the Senate side as well. SHAHEEN: And as I said, they should stay focused on who is responsible for this problem. It’s not Chuck Schumer. It’s Speaker Johnson, it’s President Trump. It’s the Republicans who have refused to have a vote on health care. Now, we have this opportunity, and we’re going to take it, and the people of America will have a chance to see who is on their side. To see the relevant transcripts from November 10, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

When women are told that the biggest issue they face is their self-esteem — not their sin — it doesn’t bring them closer to God or make them more likely to walk through the church doors on Sunday.Instead, it leaves them feeling like they can find that kind of advice anywhere.“Why would you go to church and sacrifice your free time if you’re going to hear the same message anywhere?” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey asks ex-Green Beret and Virginia delegate Nick Freitas, noting that they’re simply being told what “they want to hear.”And women aren’t the only ones being fooled. “Do you feel like that also might be happening among the Andrew Tate acolytes of the world who say, ‘Okay, in order to attract these young men, we have to not be like Jesus was. We have to be crass, and we have to be rude, and we have to be arrogant, and we have to be materialistic, and we have to be promiscuous, and we have to talk about women like they’re objects ’cause that’s real masculinity’?” she asks.Freitas agrees, calling the approach symbolic of the “manosphere.”“So, I think there’s two things that we have to recognize whenever we talk about what we might call the manosphere — Andrew Tate, Justin Waller, some of these other guys, Fresh and Fit. ... The first thing that we need to recognize is the reason why they resonated so much with young men was not simply because all these guys have admirable accomplishments in their own right,” he explains.“But they tend to be strong. They tend to be wealthy, and they tend to, you know, women tend to be attracted to them, right? So, these are all things that, if you’re a young man without a spiritual basis in your life, you’re looking at these things going, ‘I want that,’” he continues.“The most important component, though, is a lot of young men felt like those guys were sticking up for them when nobody else would,” he says, noting that “men associate loyalty with love.”“And so, a lot of young men look at guys like Andrew Tate, and they say, ‘That guy had my back when none of you people in the church were mentioning any of this. And now the first time you want to come up and talk about the problems with masculinity, you want to bash Andrew Tate, the one guy that had my back,’” he explains.“And so, the way I think we need to approach something like that is certainly not by excusing what I believe is disastrous, sinful, and ultimately not genuinely masculine behavior, but I think we need to recognize the source of the problem and from whence it comes,” he adds.Freitas also explains that the “masculinity” that the manosphere pushes is “hedonistic masculinity,” which says that “you should dominate for the sake of your own pleasure.”“Essentially, your will to power is the highest moral standard that you can appeal to. That is not in line with Christianity at all,” he says, adding that in order to be in line with Christianity it would have to be “sacrificial in nature.”“The thing that I would tell young men is, I can appreciate that Andrew Tate is fit, right? I can appreciate that the man can fight. ... But if you really want something that’s going to give you ultimate meaning and purpose, ... you get that when you recognize that there is a God,” he explains.“He has a meaning and purpose for your life,” he continues, adding, “and he requires you to be strong because it is a difficult world.”Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

An Illinois mother has been charged with criminal sexual assault and possession of child porn after she allegedly had a baby with her daughter's teen friend, according to multiple reports.The Washington Police Department arrested Robyn Polston, 43, on Nov. 3. Polston is being detained without bail while her case is pending, according to the New York Post.'Officers were able to get search warrants for the boy’s phone and found several images, allegedly showing him and Polston engaged in sexual activity.'Polston was charged with two counts of criminal sexual assault with a victim between the ages of 13 and 17 and two counts of possession of child pornography, according to a court filing People magazine obtained. If convicted on all charges, Polston faces up to 60 years in prison.Local law enforcement said officers launched an investigation in February after Polston gave birth to a baby in January, WMBD-TV reported.A probable cause affidavit stated that Polston told investigators that the father was a man in his 20s, who she claimed hadn't seen the baby since the child was born.However, investigators noticed that the baby's middle and last name on the birth certificate and other records matched the name of a teen, according to court documents filed last week in Tazewell County Circuit Court.Investigators said the 14-year-old victim attended a junior high dance with Polston's daughter in May 2023, according to the affidavit. Polston served as a chaperone at the dance, court documents said.The probable cause affidavit also said the boy moved out of state but returned to the Central Illinois area for a visit in April 2024 — approximately 40 weeks before Polston gave birth to the baby.In August 2024, the teen moved back to live with the family of a "friend," according to the affidavit.RELATED: Shocking texts allegedly reveal sinister plan by teacher and her boyfriend to groom, sex traffic her student Citing the affidavit, WKRC-TV reported that law enforcement officers discovered "a large number of sexually explicit images and videos depicting [the alleged victim] and Polston."WMBD reported, "Officers were able to get search warrants for the boy’s phone and found several images, allegedly showing him and Polston engaged in sexual activity. Some of the pictures were clearly taken by her, the affidavit stated."Citing prosecutors, WEEK-TV reported that Polston and the alleged victim "used burner phones under fake names to protect their identities, and she allegedly tried to get the minor to participate in a cover-up."A DNA test confirmed that Polston and the alleged victim are the parents of the newborn baby, according to the affidavit.Polston is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 4.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sanity Prevails at the Olympics: 'Women's Sports Is About to see a Sharp Decline in Testicle Injuries.'

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Vows Dems Will Try to Keep the Shutdown Going While Blaming Republicans

Illinois Senate Dem's Double-Jab Brag Backfires: 'Lazy Virtue Shilling' Ratios Him into Oblivion