So. CNN’s Jim Acosta is out at CNN. Acosta told his viewers that “after giving all of this some careful consideration and weighing an alternative time slot CNN offered me, I have decided to move on.” USA Today headlined his departure this way: “Why is Jim Acosta leaving CNN? Anchor, Trump critic warns not to ‘bow down’ to tyranny.” (RELATED: Pity the Media?) USA Today reported this from Acosta on a trip to Cuba. (Acosta is of Cuban descent.) “[I] had the chance to question the dictator there, Raul Castro, about the island’s political prisoners,” Acosta said on air. “As the son of a Cuban refugee, I took home the lesson … it is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant. I have always believed it’s the job of the press to hold power to account.” OK. Full stop. First, I knew Jim when at CNN myself. We disagreed on politics but I found him a likable, nice guy as a colleague. (A description, I should add, that fits all the rest of my CNN colleagues.) In departing CNN, though, Jim Acosta, unintentionally one suspects, has put his finger on exactly what’s wrong with the so-called “mainstream” media. Here again, is Acosta saying that “it is never a good time to bow down to a tyrant” and that “it’s the job of the press to hold power to account.” He is also quoted as saying: “Don’t give in to the lies. Don’t give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth. And to hope, even if you have to get out your phone, record that message,” he said. “I will not give in to the lies. I will not give in to the fear. Post it on your social media, so people can hear from you, too.” Amazing. What Acosta ignores completely, whether deliberately or unconsciously, is this question. Which is: Who holds the powerful press to account? And if it’s “never a good time to bow down to a tyrant” then three cheers to those who refuse to bow down to the tyranny of a self-absorbed, all-powerful press. What better illustration of refusing to bow down to the tyranny of the press than that famous showdown between Acosta and President Trump at a long ago Trump press conference. Trump called the mass flow of illegals over the U.S. Southern border an “invasion.” And right there is where Acosta decided to play press tyrant. Instead of simply noting the fact — say again fact — that this was the president’s view — which is a journalist’s job — Acosta decided to play the opponent, the tyrant, and get into a quite public verbal tussle with the president. Lecturing him that he, Trump, was wrong in describing the massive crowd of illegals coming across the border as such. Trump, to his considerable credit, would have none of it. To borrow from Acosta, Trump was not going to “bow down” to the tyranny that Acosta was representing. That is the tyranny of the liberal media. Acosta was not a journalist simply reporting the facts of what Trump said. Instead, Acosta took on the role of political opponent, trying to use the power of his position to shut down Trump’s point of view. All of this is one small piece of evidence that Jim Acosta is hell and gone from the basics of journalism — telling his audience the who, what, and why facts of whatever person and event the journalist is covering. (RELATED: The Total Collapse of the Washington Post) Acosta is not a journalist. He is a commentator masquerading as a journalist. It must be said that Acosta is not alone in this masquerade. Far from it. And right there is the central problem with today’s so-called “mainstream media.” Its participants are not about “just the facts” journalism. They are about partisanship — and usually left-wing partisanship. That, in short, is why these “journalists” detest networks like Fox News, Newsmax, and News Nation. Not to mention conservative talk radio. (And yes, full disclosure, I am a Newsmax contributor.) The blunt reality here is that for a very long time, leftists ran the tyranny of a powerful media unchallenged. “News” was ill-disguised left-wing propaganda. And woe betide the politician who chose to take on the tyranny of that media. And taking on Acosta, as Trump did at that press conference, was exactly an example of a political figure with the guts to stand up to the tyranny of a powerful media. Will Acosta’s departure from CNN change any of this? Don’t hold your breath. The sad fact of American journalism is that it overwhelmingly tilts left. (RELATED: Biden FCC Lets Biased Media Off the Hook at the 11th-Hour — New Trump Chair Says No) Back there in 2021, National Review focused on its founder, William F. Buckley Jr., saying this: Sixty-six years ago, an upstart public intellectual founded this publication with a rallying cry. National Review, William F. Buckley wrote in 1955, “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” This was, and still is, a noble calling, especially at a time when so few are willing to stand athwart an ascendant progressivism that seems intent on erasing all social mores and extinguishing our nation’s rich cultural heritage and dynamism. By 1967, this very The American Spectator was on its road to creation as a conservative media outlet by our own estimable founder R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. Conservative media was here to stay, with talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Newsmax eventually appearing. In short, the conservative media that was established in response was the reality that conservatives were not going to be steamrolled by the tyranny of liberal media. So when Acosta says “Don’t give in to the lies. Don’t give in to the fear. Hold on to the truth” and “Who holds the powerful press to account?” And it’s “never a good time to bow down to a tyrant” he seems amazingly unaware that he himself is a representative of the tyranny that is the liberal media. Acosta appears now, per some reports, to be headed to Substack. But wherever he is headed, it is a safe bet that Jim Acosta will continue to represent the tyranny of a powerful left-wing tyranny. And not regret a single moment of it. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: RFK Jr: Like Father, Like Son Senator Murphy Steps In It Trump’s Triumph: America’s Golden Age Begins The post Jim Acosta and the Tyranny of the Liberal Media appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Less than two weeks into this second Trump presidency, the fearmongering has already reached fever pitch. “He can’t do it!” the critics have invariably howled in decrying President Donald Trump’s landmark day-one executive order upending the status quo on birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The usual suspects in the punditocracy say Trump’s order is “blatantly unconstitutional” and that it “violates settled law.” Perhaps it’s even “nativist” or “racist,” to boot! Like the Bourbons of old, pearl-clutching American elites have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Because when it comes to birthright citizenship, the virtue signaling and armchair excoriation is not just silly — it’s dead wrong on the law. Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on birthright citizenship is legally sound and fundamentally just. The maestro of Mar-a-Lago deserves credit, not condemnation, for implementing such a bold order as one of his very first second-term acts. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The clause’s purpose was to overturn the infamous 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and thereby ensure that Blacks were, and would forever be, full-fledged citizens. But Blacks were here from America’s beginning. The ruinous slavery debate aside, in 1868, Blacks were thus universally viewed — unlike, for example, American Indians — as “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (Congress did not pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which finally granted birthright citizenship to American Indians, until 1924.) Our debate today thus depends on whether, in 1868, aliens — legal or illegal — were considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They weren’t. In the post-Civil War Republican-dominated Congress, the 14th Amendment was intended to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had passed two years prior. Rep. James Wilson (R-Iowa), then House Judiciary Committee chairman and a leading 14th Amendment drafter, emphasized that the amendment was “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle.” Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), the principal author of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, described it as “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” In other words, the 14th Amendment formalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And, the citizenship clause of that law reads: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” In other words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” necessarily excludes those “subject to any foreign power.” As then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) said during the 14th Amendment ratification debate, “subject to the jurisdiction” means subject to the United States’ “complete” jurisdiction — that is, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” The 14th Amendment thus constitutionally requires that neither legal nor illegal aliens be afforded birthright citizenship. (Whether Congress passes additional rights-bestowing laws of its own volition is a separate matter.) This understanding was unchallenged for decades. In the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, Justice Samuel Miller interpreted the citizenship clause as “intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” And, in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, Justice Horace Gray held that “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” It’s true that Gray inexplicably reversed course in an oft-cited 1898 case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Over a powerful and compelling dissenting opinion joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, Gray held that there is some level of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens. But even in that wrongfully decided case, the court emphasized that its holding was limited to children of “resident aliens” who were under “the allegiance” of the United States. The court repeatedly emphasized that its holding only applied to those legitimately “domiciled” here. In no world whatsoever does Gray’s pro-birthright citizenship opinion in Wong Kim Ark apply to children of illegal aliens. Eighty-four years later, in Plyler v. Doe, the court dropped a superfluous footnote indicating that Wong Kim Ark applies to the children of illegal aliens too. But this nonbinding footnote from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., a leading liberal, does not the “law of the land” make. Fourteenth Amendment-mandated birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is, at best, a live and unsettled legal debate. But the original meaning is quite clear: The amendment’s draftsmen would have been aghast at the notion that people who broke our laws and entered our soil illegally could then be afforded birthright citizenship for their children. The drafters likely foresaw, as so many today do not, the tremendous perverse incentives induced by such an ill-conceived policy. The so-called legal eagles are wrong. And Trump, yet again, is right. READ MORE from Josh Hammer: The Cold Civil War Is Over. We Won. Has Trump 2.0 Learned From Trump 1.0? Andrew Breitbart, Mark Zuckerberg, and the Two-Way Politics-Culture Street To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM The post Donald Trump Is Emphatically Correct About Birthright Citizenship appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

With the 2024 election cycle behind us, Michigan politicos have their sights set on the state and national seats that will be up for grabs come 2026. In addition to open races for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, Michigan will have a vacant Senate seat available after Democrat Senator Gary Peters announced this week that he will not seek reelection. As Democrats look to solidify Gretchen Whitmer’s progressive legacy, Republicans are eager to win back control of their state. Both parties have reason to hope: President Donald Trump beat Vice President Kamala Harris by 1.4 points in the battleground state this fall, but Democrat Senator Elissa Slotkin edged out Republican candidate Mike Rogers by 0.3 points.  It remains to be seen whether this mismatched outcome was a sign of conservative resurgence in Michigan — and a lasting Republican realignment sparked by Trump — or a one-off underperformance by Democrats peddling “brat” to Rust Belt union workers. A lot can happen in two years. And with so many open seats, Michigan’s 2026 election could come down to strategically running the right candidates for the right roles.  Race for the Governor’s Mansion  Several individuals have already put in early bids to succeed Whitmer as governor. Republican state Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt is the first Republican to launch a campaign, though former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has formed a campaign committee for a potential run.  Both men have years of experience in Michigan politics. Nesbitt has held leadership roles during his time in both branches of the Michigan legislature, and he served in Gov. Rick Snyder’s cabinet. And Cox was a Detroit-area prosecutor before serving as attorney general from 2003-2011. He previously ran for governor in 2010, earning 23 percent of the primary vote. On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced her gubernatorial aspirations last week, though her roll-out was plagued by missteps. Benson announced her campaign to run for governor in the lobby of a government building, violating state law “prohibit[ing] government officials from using public resources for political activities.” The Michigan Republican Party has filed a complaint calling for immediate investigation.  Then, on Jan. 23, Star Trek actor George Takei endorsed Benson for “Governor of Minnesota,” expressing confidence that “she will tackle the challenges facing Minnesota with the same determination and spirit she exhibits as Minnesota’s Secretary of State.” Takei subsequently corrected his Facebook post, but the damage was done.  So far, Benson does not face challengers in the primary race — in no small part due to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan’s decision to run for governor as an independent, not a Democrat. The popular Motor City mayor is betting that the political strategy that has helped him revitalize Detroit can appeal to state-wide voters.  Duggan is no conservative and has supported Whitmer and other Democrats. But he has navigated the demands of his former party’s leftward vanguard with caution, notably maintaining support for law enforcement amid popular calls to defund the police. “I angered some in my own party by giving Detroit police officers a well-deserved $10,000 raise and putting 300 more officers on the street,” Duggan said. Just this week, he angered progressives again by committing to cooperate with the Trump administration’s actions to combat illegal immigration.  The first white mayor of Detroit since the 1970s, Duggan has coaxed the city back to life from its 2013 bankruptcy. Last year, the city saw its first population increase since 1957. Safe to say, Duggan is doing something right — and Michigan residents in both parties have taken note.   Jostling for the Open Senate Seat Though other Michigan politicians were rumored to be considering a gubernatorial run, some have shifted attention to the U.S. Senate after Gary Peters announced that he will retire at the end of his term.  Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has not made any formal decisions regarding the upcoming election cycle, but his 2020 move from Indiana to Northern Michigan was seen by many as a strategic relocation with an eye toward his political future. First rumored to be a gubernatorial contender, Buttigieg is now “taking a serious look” at running for Senate.  Should he run, however, “Mayor Pete” may fail to connect with Michigan voters. Not only is he a recent transplant to the state, but his progressive social values are far out of step with those of most rural Michiganders. An example? The famous 2021 photo of Pete and Chasten Buttigieg posing in a hospital bed as if one of them had delivered the twins they adopted. And, on the policy front, Buttigieg’s support for electric vehicles as part of the Biden administration is likely to be a liability in a state where Motor City often determines elections. Not to mention, Detroit auto workers weren’t impressed by him in a recent union hall meeting when Buttigieg couldn’t answer the worker who asked, “Now that you’re a Michigander, who do the Lions play Sunday?” Among politicians with experience in the state, Whitmer has indicated that she is not interested in running for the open seat. But Democrats who have served alongside her are considering the position. Michigan’s Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist II is reportedly eyeing the seat, though he was previously rumored as a potential gubernatorial candidate. Should he run for Senate, Gilchrist would receive sizeable financial backing from the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel — best known outside the state for shrieking at the DNC that the Supreme Court can “pry this wedding ring off of my cold, dead, gay hands” — is a potential contender for the seat as well. And state Senate Majority Whip Mallory McMorrow, another DNC media darling, has “not ruled out a run for either governor or the Senate.” On the Republican side, Mike Rogers may reprise his campaign after a marginal loss to Elissa Slotkin this November. The Daily Signal reported that Rogers is “taking an increased look” at the opportunity.  A reporter for the Hill shared on X/Twitter that a GOP source shared four possible contenders: Rogers, Rep. Bill Huizenga, Rep. John James, and former Colts head coach Tony Dungy. Huizenga has served in Congress since 2011 following three terms as a state representative. James is beginning his second term in the House of Representatives after running for Senate twice. In 2020, he ran a competitive race against the incumbent Peters, losing by only 1.7 points. And Dungy, who led the Colts to a Super Bowl victory, would be a true dark horse contender for the seat.  Playing Party Politics Peters’s decision not to seek reelection comes just one cycle after Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s retirement. Stabenow, a four-term senator, carefully engineered the transfer of power from retiring Michigan senators — including herself — to avoid messy primary battles and preserve Democrat dominance.  When Sen. Carl Levin retired in 2013 after 34 years in the Senate, he and Stabenow endorsed Peters to fill the open seat more than a year before the primary, before any other Democrat launched a campaign. Receiving the early nod from party leaders, Peters was unopposed in the 2014 primary election.  Then, upon Stabenow’s retirement, she used the same strategy, “personally steer[ing] several of those interested in taking her Mitten State seat toward different positions that will soon open up,” Politico reported two months after Stabenow announced that she would not seek reelection.  Stabenow coordinated with Senator Chuck Schumer, who told “anyone that would listen that Slotkin was well-funded and forcing her to spend big in a contested primary would hurt the party.” Prior to her slim November victory, Slotkin secured an easy win over actor Hill Harper, who entered the race without Stabenow’s blessing.  Now that Stabenow herself is out of power, it remains to be seen whether Democrats keep her savvy strategy to avoid primary spending fights — an angle that Republicans would do well to adopt as they consider the future of the Great Lakes state. Meanwhile, the deeper bench of potential Democratic candidates could create the liability of a crowded primary field.  Regardless, we know that Republican Rep. Jack Bergman isn’t looking for a new job, especially not in the Senate: “I still work for a living … I still eat solid food and I don’t take afternoon naps.”  READ MORE by Mary Frances Devlin:  Bishop Uses Bully Pulpit to Beg Trump to ‘Have Mercy’ on Illegal Immigrants Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton: Porn Doesn’t Have to Be ‘Inevitable’ Pope Francis Gets His Man in Washington  Mary Frances (Myler) Devlin is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. Born and raised in Northern Michigan, she graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022. Follow her on X/Twitter @maryfrandevlin.  The post Battleground Michigan Is Up for Grabs Again in 2026 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Michael Snyder, End Of The American Dream: At this moment, we are witnessing an epic struggle for dominance between the United States and China.  A technological arms race is raging, and the Chinese are beginning to pull ahead.  I realize that this may be difficult for many of you to believe, but if you […]

by John W. Whitehead, Rutherford Institute: “If one company or small group of people manages to develop godlike digital superintelligence, they could take over the world. At least when there’s an evil dictator, that human is going to die. But for an AI, there would be no death. It would live forever. And then you’d have […]