The cast of MSNBC’s Morning Joe kicked off their Thursday show by declaring that Republicans not passing aid for Ukraine puts them on the same side as Vladimir Putin so‚ by their own logic‚ not even an an hour later they aligned themselves with Hamas as they demanded President Joe Biden go around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and undermine the Israeli war effort. Against the news that Israel is creating a buffer zone inside Gaza‚ Politico White House Bureau Chief Jonathan Lemire asked President Emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations Richard Haass‚ “Is it time that whatever funding deal does or get done‚ to start putting conditions on aid to Israel?” Haass did not explicitly say yes‚ but it is clear he sympathizes with the view‚ “this is another example where the United States is saying things and it is being rebuffed and it makes us look weak‚ would be the generous word. It makes us look feckless and quite honestly as you go around the world‚ a lot of people who were sympathetic to Israel on October 7th‚ appreciative of American support‚ think we've essentially lost the narrative and we've been so unconditionally supportive‚ that it’s a mistake.”     Haass then ran through three options the U.S. could do. The first was‚ as Lemire suggested‚ “tie some strings‚ say we won't give you this kind of ordinance‚ you don't need these large weapons‚ or if we give them to you‚ you can't use them against these kind of targets‚ that sort of thing. Or in this case‚ you say‚ you can't use American aid to build a buzzer zone inside of Palestinian territory‚ that'd be one thing.” Secondly‚ Haass floated the idea of abandoning Israel at the United Nations‚ “Secondly‚ in the United Nations‚ rather than abstaining or vetoing resolutions‚ why don’t we think about‚ what is it we can put forward ourselves‚ what kind of resolution critical might we support.” Third‚ Haass apparently thinks that if Netanyahu was replaced then things would be dramatically different as he endorsed a plan that if the roles were reversed would have MSNBC screaming about foreign interference‚ “Most important‚ I think the president has to finally acknowledge that Bibi Netanyahu is not a partner. Bibi Netanyahu has an agenda that’s all about Bibi Netanyahu. It is not even good for Israel‚ I would argue‚ let’s put that aside‚ but it’s not good for the United States‚ not good for this relationship.” Haass insisted that: He has to go over his head. The president needs to give a speech to the Israeli people‚ essentially saying‚ where you are‚ what needs to change in your short-term policy‚ what needs to change over the long-term‚ how the United States is with you‚ but you've got to do things that are not only in the interest of this relationship‚ in your own self-interest and he's got to be sensitive. The Israelis are still not ready to talk about certain issues given the trauma of October 7th‚ but the president has to start shaping the political context in Israel.  Continuing‚ Haass claimed this is really not that controversial‚ “Good news is‚ Joe Biden is far more popular in Israel than Bibi Netanyahu. He has an enormous opportunity to shape the conversation and the context of what will ultimately be an Israeli election.” Biden has higher approval ratings than Netanyahu because he’s a foreigner who thus far has ignored people like Haass and the rest of Morning Joe. Co-host Joe Scarborough chimed in to add that it’s Netanyahu’s fault that Israel’s critics demand it let Hamas off the hook‚ “Well‚ and you know‚ Richard‚ the problem is‚ Bibi Netanyahu has done just about everything he can do to blow the goodwill that‚ not just the United States‚ but the world‚ for the most part‚ was giving to Israel and we support Israel‚ like you said. Joe Biden has always supported Israel.” He then falsely added‚ “But Bibi Netanyahu is the guy that‚ again‚ knew this attack was coming‚ had information on it for a year‚ had Qatar continue to fund‚ you know -- they've given billions to Hamas. In September‚ said‚ yeah‚ keep giving them money.” There is no evidence that Netanyahu saw any of the documents circulating among Israel’s national security apparatus that Hamas was planning such an attack.  Here is a transcript for the January 25 show: MSNBC Morning Joe 1/25/2024 6:46 AM ET JONATHAN LEMIRE: Is it time that whatever funding deal does or get done‚ to start putting conditions on aid to Israel? RICHARD HAASS: You're right‚ first of all‚ this is another example where the United States is saying things and it is being rebuffed and it makes us look weak‚ would be the generous word. It makes us look feckless and quite honestly as you go around the world‚ a lot of people who were sympathetic to Israel on October 7th‚ appreciative of American support‚ think we've essentially lost the narrative and we've been so unconditionally supportive‚ that it’s a mistake.  There’s only three things we can do‚ Jonathan. One is with—as you suggest‚ tie some strings‚ say we won't give you this kind of ordinance‚ you don't need these large weapons‚ or if we give them to you‚ you can't use them against these kind of targets‚ that sort of thing. Or in this case‚ you say‚ you can't use American aid to build a buzzer zone inside of Palestinian territory‚ that'd be one thing. Secondly‚ in the United Nations‚ rather than abstaining or vetoing resolutions‚ why don’t we think about‚ what is it we can put forward ourselves‚ what kind of resolution critical might we support.  Most important‚ I think the president has to finally acknowledge that Bibi Netanyahu is not a partner. Bibi Netanyahu has an agenda that’s all about Bibi Netanyahu. It is not even good for Israel‚ I would argue‚ let’s put that aside‚ but it’s not good for the United States‚ not good for this relationship.  He has to go over his head. The president needs to give a speech to the Israeli people‚ essentially saying‚ where you are‚ what needs to change in your short-term policy‚ what needs to change over the long-term‚ how the United States is with you‚ but you've got to do things that are not only in the interest of this relationship‚ in your own self-interest and he's got to be sensitive. The Israelis are still not ready to talk about certain issues given the trauma of October 7th‚ but the president has to start shaping the political context in Israel.  Good news is‚ Joe Biden is far more popular in Israel than Bibi Netanyahu. He has an enormous opportunity to shape the conversation and the context of what will ultimately be an Israeli election.  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well‚ and you know‚ Richard‚ the problem is‚ Bibi Netanyahu has done just about everything he can do to blow the goodwill that‚ not just the United States‚ but the world‚ for the most part‚ was giving to Israel and we support Israel‚ like you said. Joe Biden has always supported Israel. But Bibi Netanyahu is the guy that‚ again‚ knew this attack was coming‚ had information on it for a year‚ had Qatar continue to fund‚ you know -- they've given billions to Hamas. In September‚ said‚ yeah‚ keep giving them money. 

While the media largely kept the focus of Tuesday’s primary voting in New Hampshire on the Republicans jockeying for the nomination‚ over on the Democratic side‚ President Biden had a launch a last-minute and desperate write-in campaign to prevent being upstaged by challenger Congressman Dean Phillips (MN). Phillips managed to score nearly 20 percent of the vote despite the liberal media barely covering his campaign; and during NewsNation’s coverage that evening‚ co-anchor Chris Cuomo pointed out how the liberal media didn’t want to show him any “love.” Contrary to how most of the liberal media tried to talk about Phillips sparingly‚ he was brought up multiple times by the NewsNation anchors. Cuomo and co-anchor Dan Abrams even called out the liberal media for largely refusing to give him the time of day‚ essentially suppressing his campaign: CUOMO: You know‚ the problem for Phillips is I don't know how much of the media wants to love him up. ABRAMS: Particularly not the left-wing media. CUOMO: That's right. And create a race with Biden the way they do on the right. With the votes still being tallied‚ at one point in the night‚ Phillips had an impressive 25 percent of the vote. “He's got about 25 percent of the vote. Obviously‚ Joe Biden is a write-in candidate because he's not even on the ballot. But nevertheless‚ 25 percent for one alternative Democrat‚” Abrams marveled.     Former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) called the performance “pretty big” considering Phillips was “a guy that got no attention‚ nobody even listened to or paid attention to.” “But he overperformed. People didn't expect 25 percent out of him‚” he praised. “There are an awful lot of Democrats who don't want Joe Biden. And there's a lot of Republicans who don't want Donald Trump‚” Hogan added. “About 70 percent of people country don't want either one of them and they don't want a rematch.” A few minutes later‚ Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf warned that Phillips’s strong showing despite the deck being stacked against him should be setting off alarm bells at the Democratic National Committee headquarters: Non-performance by the President versus Dean Phillips; something Chris Cuomo said earlier in the break. You know‚ and before that. Dean Phillips‚ the guy to watch‚ apparently‚ I mean‚ that's a story for tomorrow: Dean Phillips against the incumbent president of the United States getting those kinds of numbers. Unfortunately‚ Hank‚ as NewsBusters reported‚ Phillips’ overperformance was not mentioned by the broadcast networks Wednesday morning. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Decision Desk ’24: The New Hampshire Primary January 23‚ 2024 8:54:37 p.m. Eastern (…) DAN ABRAMS: What do you make on the Democratic side‚ Dean Phillips? He's shown – he's got about 25 percent of the vote. Obviously‚ Joe Biden is a write-in candidate because he's not even on the ballot. But nevertheless‚ 25 percent for one alternative Democrat. LARRY HOGAN (R-former Maryland governor): And I think it's pretty big. And I think the fact that they had to scramble at the last minute to do this write-in campaign because Biden was worried. A guy that got no attention‚ nobody even listened to or paid attention to got 25 percent. There are an awful lot of Democrats who don't want Joe Biden. And there's a lot of Republicans who don't want Donald Trump. About 70 percent of people country don't want either one of them and they don't want a rematch. ELIZABETH VARGAS: Yeah‚ Dean Phillips did spend a lot of time and ener— I mean‚ and I mean‚ while the rest of the country may not have heard of Dean Phillips‚ although I’ve had him on my show several times as have you [gestures to Abrams]. HOGAN: I know Dean Phillips. We’ve worked together with him. He’s a smart guy. VARGAS: But New Hampshire knew him well because he was— HOGAN: But he overperformed. People didn't expect 25 percent out of him. (…) 9:06:30 p.m. Eastern VARGAS: You've been delving into the demographic trends that you're seeing in New Hampshire. And you just said to me a moment ago‚ that there’s a lot of bad news for Democrats you're seeing in what you're looking at tonight. What is it? HANK SHEINKOPF (Democratic strategist): I'm not turning my Democratic registration yet‚ but it would be a good time to check it out. I look. Non-performance by the president versus Dean Phillips; something Chris Cuomo said earlier in the break. You know‚ and before that. Dean Phillips‚ the guy to watch‚ apparently‚ I mean‚ that's a story for tomorrow: Dean Phillips against the incumbent president of the United States getting those kinds of numbers. (…) 10:40:12 p.m. Eastern CHRIS CUOMO: You know‚ the problem for Phillips is I don't know how much of the media wants to love him up. ABRAMS: Particularly not the left-wing media. CUOMO: That's right. And create a race with Biden the way they do on the right. (…)

Why does this keep happening? A book titled “Let’s Talk About It” is available at the Oak Creek-Franklin School District's East Middle School in Wisconsin‚ according to a post from Libs of TikTok. The book teaches kids about masturbation and why to watch porn‚ and provides incredibly graphic drawings and descriptions of sex. Again‚ this book is available at a middle school. The book came out in 2021 and is described as “The Teen's Guide to Sex‚ Relationships‚ and Being a Human.” On Amazon‚ the book is recommended for kids 14-17‚ who are generally high school-aged students. I guess Wisconsin thinks its younger students at the middle school are mature enough to read about touching yourself. I’d have to disagree. Honestly‚ I don't think a student of any age should be able to read a book like this. Quite frankly‚ I don't even think a book like this should exist‚ and it certainly shouldn't be available in tax-funded schools.  According to five images posted by Libs of TikTok‚ the book looks like it came straight out of a PornHub library. One page encouraged readers to watch porn to “explore kinks and fantasies.” It even reminded teens to look up their favorite interviews with porn stars‚ find where they post their content‚ and pay to watch their porn. Again‚ this is being read by middle schoolers‚ generally aged 11-13. Another page talked about reproduction…kinda. Basically‚ it told readers how to make a baby and why having a penis in your vagina “is a powerful way to feel good and bond with another person.” And‚ of course‚ it included an image of the act. The third page Libs of TikTok posted was a very‚ very‚ very detailed tip sheet for male masturbation. I refuse to get into detail‚ but the page talked about and showed all sorts different methods of pleasuring oneself‚ with all different types of pee pees and tips (no pun intended). It was at this moment I began to feel nauseous thinking about the fact that young kids have access to this content.  The next page talked about porn…again. It even showed a drawing of a man orally gratifying another man with a stage light shining on them‚ telling young readers that porn is a “fun sugary treat.” The fifth page was also nauseating. It talked about female masturbation and also provided incredibly graphic images that I really don't want to talk about. Related: Moms Read Explicit Library Books To School Board In response to Libs of TikTok’s tweet exposing East Middle School for allowing this book‚ users online were furious.  “Every single person that had any amount of involvement in allowing this book to be inside of Oak Creek schools needs to be investigated and then placed in handcuffs and put in jail for a very very long time. They are coming after our kids and it needs to end‚” Right Angle News pointed out.  Another user wrote‚ “Absolutely disgusting what government school ‘curriculum’ has turned into these days‚” and another said‚ “Anyone making this available to kids should be locked up.” One user even pointed out that the author of the book‚ Erika Moen‚ spent time in a mental hospital.  Her substack states that in 2019 she “spent a month in the mental hospital’s Intensive Outpatient Program‚ followed by six months in their Dialectical Behavioral Therapy program for ‘rewiring broken brains.’” So they’re literally giving kids porn written by admitted mental… pic.twitter.com/u5PyEvcGSw — Midwest Mom (@badlibtakes) January 25‚ 2024 The school district did turn its tweets on private‚ likely due to backlash they received.  I pray for the day these types of books stop becoming available to kids. Until then‚ homeschooling is about to become a heck of a lot more popular.  Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Drag Queen Mocks Jesus's Birth &; More Leftist Degeneracy How disturbed do you have to be as a person where you see this filth and go‚ "Yeah‚ this looks normal to me." pic.twitter.com/nzTbj6HMsn — MRCTV (@mrctv) January 23‚ 2024  

A California woman avoided serving any jail time for the fatal stabbing of her boyfriend. The defense argued that the woman stabbed her boyfriend 108 times because she had suffered a marijuana-induced psychotic episode. The unnerved family of the slain man has reacted to the judge's decision. Bryn Spejcher‚ 33‚ was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the killing of her boyfriend‚ Chad O'Melia‚ 26‚ in December. Spejcher faced four years in prison for fatally stabbing her boyfriend 108 times in 2018. On Tuesday‚ Ventura County Superior Court Judge David Worley ruled that Spejcher would avoid any jail time. The judge sentenced her to "100 hours of community service in the form of educating others on marijuana-induced psychosis and two years of formal probation‚" according to the Los Angeles Times. Judge Worley argued that the drug-induced psychosis caused Spejcher to have "no control over her actions." O'Melia's family were dismayed by the California judge's ruling and warned that it had set a dangerous precedent. "He just gave everyone in the state of California who smokes marijuana a license to kill someone‚" said Sean O’Melia‚ Chad's father. Shane O’Melia‚ Chad's brother‚ was frustrated that Spejcher had been out on bail since her arrest in 2018. “It’s been five and a half years where she has got to live with her family and we get to live with a box of ashes‚” Shane said‚ according to KTLA.Spejcher's lawyer‚ Bob Schwartz‚ commended Worley for doing "the right and courageous thing." During the sentencing‚ Spejcher told the O'Melia family‚ "My actions have ripped your family apart. I am broken and aching inside. I hurt that you never see Chad again."Spejcher and O’Melia reportedly met each other at a dog park. After dating for just a few weeks‚ the pair smoked marijuana at his apartment in Thousand Oaks on the night of May 27‚ 2018. Spejcher allegedly suffered from a cannabis-induced psychotic episode and stabbed O'Melia 108 times with different knives. Police responded to the stabbing in the early hours of the following day. "When law enforcement arrived shortly after midnight‚ O’Melia was covered in a pool of blood‚" the Ventura County Star reported. "Spejcher was screaming hysterically and holding a knife she plunged into her neck. Law enforcement officers used a Taser and several baton blows to disarm her."O'Melia was pronounced dead at the crime scene. Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko said in a statement that Spejcher experienced "an adverse reaction to the marijuana and suffered from what experts call Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder."According to the National Library of Health: "A diagnosis of Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder is given when one or both of hallucinations and delusions are present‚ the hallucinations and/or delusions developed during or soon after cannabis intoxication‚ the disturbance does not occur exclusively during the course of a delirium‚ and the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social‚ occupational‚ or other important areas of functioning."During the trial‚ Spejcher's defense attorneys claimed Bryn was "involuntarily intoxicated" and accused O'Melia of pressuring and intimidating her to take the last bit of marijuana from the bong. Like Blaze News? Circumvent the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here! Woman who stabbed man over 100 times won't face prison time www.youtube.com

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) is going to have to wait for the United States Supreme Court before she can officially remove Donald Trump from her state's ballot.On Wednesday‚ the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower-court ruling that halted Trump's removal from the Maine ballot. Bellows‚ who is not a lawyer‚ decided last month that that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. She reached that conclusion after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified.Trump appealed Bellows' decision‚ and a lower court ruled that Bellows would have to wait until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the novel issue before removing Trump from the ballot. Bellows then appealed that decision because she wanted to force Maine courts to make a ruling before the state's primary election on March 5. But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court unanimously upheld the lower court ruling. The justices wrote in their opinion:The Secretary of State suggests that there is irreparable harm because a delay in certainty about whether Trump’s name should appear on the primary ballot will result in voter confusion. This uncertainty is‚ however‚ precisely what guides our decision not to undertake immediate appellate review in this particular case.The political world now waits for the Supreme Court to issue the final word in the matter. The justices will hear oral arguments on Feb. 8‚ and they will likely expedite their ruling because the election is less than a year away.Bellows‚ meanwhile‚ has vowed to abide by the ruling of the court‚ the Associated Press reported. While legal scholars debate whether the 14th Amendment applies to the office of the presidency or whether Trump participated in an "insurrection" — a crime with which he has not been charged — the former president has a plethora of legal arguments at his disposal to defend himself from the ballot removals. It is widely expected‚ therefore‚ that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An explosive lawsuit filed in a Bronx court last November claims that some inmates and staff at Rikers Island prison had been running a prostitution ring‚ that the staff members involved encouraged a straight male inmate to identify as trans to have better access to the women's facility‚ and that New York Department of Corrections officials knew all about the scheme.According to a report from Reduxx‚ the civil lawsuit was brought by a female former Rikers inmate identified only as Rose Doe. In December 2021‚ Doe was placed in the Rose M. Singer Center‚ the only women's unit at the prison. Shortly after she entered the facility‚ a male inmate was placed there as well under the pretense that he identified as transgender.However‚ almost immediately after his arrival‚ the male inmate allegedly proudly boasted that he was neither transgender nor gay and had only pretended to be trans so that he could join the women's ward and "have sex" with female inmates. When he entered the women's facility‚ he had a "full beard‚" the lawsuit claimed‚ and manifested no outward signs of "feminine or non-binary traits."What's more‚ the man may have been placed in the women's center as part of an intra-prison prostitution ring run by inmates and corrupt employees. "Upon information and belief‚ the male inmate in question‚ was a heterosexual male [hereafter 'the perpetrator'] who was instructed to claim that he was transgender by DOC staff so that he could stay in the female dorm where he would have access to female inmates" that he could then pimp out‚ the lawsuit stated.At the time he entered the women's dorm‚ he was under investigation by the DOC for his alleged involvement in the prostitution ring‚ the suit claimed. He had also already been under investigation for at least five separate allegations related to prison rape‚ though whether he was accused of assaulting men or women is unclear. One of the defendants listed in the lawsuit allegedly admitted that the male inmate was placed in the women's center "because he had already been kicked out of every other dorm and had nowhere else to be housed."Rose Doe claimed she learned firsthand how dangerous the man can be. On the afternoon of April 6‚ 2022‚ Doe reported to prison officials that the male inmate had made inappropriate comments and grabbed her rear end in the bathroom. Doe's report must have been so convincing that the acting warden emailed staff to say that the male inmate "was not a suitable fit" in the women's area and to ask prison rape investigators to visit the facility the following day.It was too late. According to Doe‚ the male inmate pulled down her pants while she was sleeping that night and viciously raped her‚ choking her as he did so. Other inmates awoke and began fighting the male inmate to bring the assault to a halt‚ she claimed. Doe added that just two days before the alleged assault‚ she had witnessed her attacker coax a mentally disabled female inmate into performing sex acts on him.Despite the serious allegations‚ prison officials delayed performing a rape investigation on Doe for 10 hours‚ the lawsuit said. It also indicated that she was denied mental health and medical treatment for this incident and a diet suitable for her diabetes‚ negligence that rendered her weak and made her particularly vulnerable to attack.These violations of New York State Public Health Law were "born of a desire and/or conspiracy to cover up and destroy evidence of the sexual assaults that [staff] knew had taken place‚" the suit insisted.Doe was released from Rikers Island in August 2022. The male inmate in question left the prison a year later and transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility‚ described on its website as "a maximum security level facility for males‚" where he remains today.H/T: the Post MillennialLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Now is the moment in history to apply Justice Robert Jackson’s famous adage‚ “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Except‚ in the context of the Supreme Court in effect declaring an open border invasion on Texas‚ the Constitution is on our side. The court and the Biden administration are abrogating the charter‚ which is why Texas must ignore both of them‚ protect its people‚ and follow the Constitution. Texas is experiencing an invasion of several million people per year coming from 150 countries. The Compact Clause in Article I‚ section 10 states clearly‚ “No State shall‚ without the Consent of Congress‚ lay any Duty of Tonnage‚ keep Troops‚ or Ships of War in time of Peace … or engage in War‚ unless actually invaded‚ or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” The Supreme Court’s ruling on the motion carries zero persuasiveness. Given the cartels‚ drugs‚ violent criminals‚ and third world masses storming cities like Eagle Pass every day‚ the magnitude of today’s invasion is greater than any scenario our Founders could have envisioned when they implied that a state can downright employ ships and troops to conduct war. Most certainly‚ under this scenario‚ Texas would be justified in taking purely defensive actions‚ such as building razor-wire barriers that the Border Patrol wants to dismantle at the behest of the cartels and smugglers. We have a dispute between two independent units of government. The federal executive branch is flouting well-established laws to facilitate an invasion of Texas. The Texas executive branch (with support from its legislature) wants to repel that invasion with barriers. Under these circumstances‚ Texas has the right to defend its territory by force. As future Chief Justice John Marshall said during the debate on the Compact Clause on June 16‚ 1788‚ “This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary." Remember‚ Governor Greg Abbott in 2020 set up checkpoints on the roads leading into Texas from Louisiana to screen people and enforce the mandatory quarantine‚ as if Louisiana were an international border. The federal government and the courts had no problem with it. Suddenly‚ when it comes to invaders‚ foreigners have more rights than Americans do. In comes a federal district court and rules that Border Patrol has the right to remove Texas’ razor-wire fence on the banks of the Rio Grande River. The Fifth Circuit enjoined that ruling and said the feds could not interfere with Texas’ border barriers in Eagle Pass. But on Monday‚ Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and three other liberals in temporarily reinstating the circuit court ruling as the courts deliberate the merits of the case. Texas is right on the merits and the morals. Abbott swore the same oath to the Constitution as Joe Biden and Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches (only over the inferior courts). The Constitution is supreme. And when it’s clear that Texas is abiding by the proper reading of the Constitution‚ its leaders must block the feds from destroying the barrier. The Founders did not give the Supreme Court a police force for a reason. The court issues opinions‚ which are supposed to persuade the other branches based on the quality of its facts and analysis. This is why Hamilton in Federalist 78 said that the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch because it has “neither force nor will.” As Eleventh Circuit Judge William Pryor (who would have made a better justice than Barrett) once explained‚ respect toward the Supreme Court must be earned. “Hamilton’s point was that we must depend upon the persuasiveness of our written opinions to command the respect of our fellow citizens‚” Pryor wrote in 2006. “In that way‚ we have the foremost responsibility of safeguarding our independence.” During the fight over Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during an open rebellion‚ Attorney General Edward Bates explained that each branch of government must use its powers in concert with what it knows to be the law regardless of the Supreme Court. “That is the sum of its [judicial] powers‚ ample and efficient for all the purposes of distributive justice among individual parties‚ but powerless to impose rules of action and of judgment upon the other departments‚” Bates argued.In this case‚ the Supreme Court’s ruling on the motion carries zero persuasiveness. And because it cannot block the Texas National Guard from constructing barriers‚ Abbott can and must continue to thwart the invasion. Although Texas is not a separate branch of the federal government‚ it is an independent state and must also follow the Constitution when it runs into conflict with the Supreme Court or other branches of government. While the federal courts can decide individual criminal and civil cases‚ they ultimately do not rule over other branches of government when there is a clear disagreement on constitutional interpretation. As James Madison said near the end of his life‚ “Each [department] must in the exercise of its functions be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it.” It’s true that states are bound by the Supremacy Clause to follow “the Laws of the United States.” But that’s only when the laws are “made in pursuance” of the Constitution. In this case‚ not only are the administration’s border policies‚ buttressed by the high court’s ruling‚ not in pursuance of the Constitution‚ they stand in contravention to the laws of the United States established in the Immigration and Nationality Act. In one of his final speeches before his death‚ Justice Antonin Scalia asked the audience: “Do you think the American people would ever have ratified the Constitution if they had been told‚ ‘The meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is’?” The question is no longer rhetorical.

With governments around the world asserting ever-increasing authority while proving less competent every day‚ the newly elected president of Argentina told a gathering of global elites in Davos‚ Switzerland‚ last week a truth they surely found harsh if they listened at all: Freedom is humane and productive‚ and coercion is inherently destructive. Despite its proponents’ fine-sounding ideals‚ “socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that has failed in all countries where it’s been tried out‚” Javier Milei told the World Economic Forum meeting‚ noting that “it also murdered over 100 million human beings.” It was good of Milei to mention that‚ as the globosocialist WEF crowd seems to have forgotten it. In contrast with the failures of socialism‚ the benefits of freedom are obvious. “Countries that have more freedom are 12 times richer than those that are repressed‚” Milei said. “The lowest [income] percentile in free countries is better off than 90% of the population in repressed countries. Poverty is 25 times lower‚ and extreme poverty is 50 times lower.” In the face of these obvious facts‚ socialists pose the specter of “market failure‚” the idea that governments have to control the economy because markets don’t always work. Milei bluntly said that’s false: “There are no market failures.” Milei is right. “The market” is not a machine that can be adjusted and perfected by force. It is the entirety of voluntary exchanges of goods and services in a particular geographical or otherwise designated area‚ a world of human endeavor in which people exchange goods and services each for their own benefit. These actions benefit people because when two parties freely agree on an exchange‚ it is because they both perceive it as being the best deal they can make. In that way‚ markets distribute resources to their most economically efficient and humanly preferred uses‚ via the price mechanism. Prices show the value people place on each of the countless goods and services on offer and thereby help determine what products and services people will invest in and how much real and human capital should be dedicated to them. That is why socialism and the heavy hand of government cause the misery Milei mentioned: Their actions distort the messages of the price system‚ thereby decreasing the overall value of human endeavor. Interfere enough‚ and you get the dismal results Milei cited. As Ronald Reagan noted in his first inaugural address‚ “In this present crisis‚ government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Milei does Reagan one better‚ observing that government is always the problem. “If transactions are voluntary‚ the only context in which there can be market failure is if there is coercion‚ and the only one that is able to coerce generally is the state‚ which holds a monopoly on violence‚” Milei told the WEF. “Consequently‚ if someone considers that there is a market failure‚ I would suggest that they check to see if there is state intervention involved. And if they find that that’s not the case‚ I would suggest that they check again‚ because obviously there’s a mistake. Market failures do not exist.” It is important to note that government actions can be justified if aimed at social causes considered to be more important than the optimal production of goods and services. Among these‚ most of us would include protection from foreign invasion‚ control of crime‚ adjudication of disputes‚ provision of public rights of way‚ and so on. These actions‚ however‚ are not justifiable as remedies for mythical market failures‚ and their proponents are lying or deluded if they make that claim. Government action imposes costs. The only honest course is to acknowledge those costs and debate whether the benefits justify them. The debate over the existence of market failure is not a trivial matter of semantics or obscure economic theory. It is of monumental importance because if there were such a thing as market failure‚ governments would be justified in all sorts of interference in the production of goods and services‚ to “save” us from that “failure.” As Milei notes‚ however‚ there is no such thing. The public has a right — and in democratic polities the duty — to require that every single instance of government interference be justified by specific benefits to the whole public (and not just special interests). Politics is about the choices a people and their government make as to how much to interfere with “the life project[s] of others‚” to use Milei’s apt term. It inherently risks destruction and often creates disaster on an enormous scale. Having assumed the presidency only last month‚ Milei‚ a self-professed libertarian and “anarcho-capitalist‚” is only the most recent of many pro-market conservatives elected to high office all around the world. With countless countries being run into the ground by coercive‚ collectivist‚ self-styled do-gooders — including the United States — people all across the globe are increasingly expressing discontent with big government. The trend of our time is not mythical market failure but real government failure. Milei’s words to the WEF should serve the global elites as both an admonition and a warning.

As a border state‚ Texas takes the brunt of the illegal immigration crisis we’re experiencing in our country. The Biden administration‚ or‚ in the words of Sara Gonzales‚ the Biden “regime‚” has disregarded immigration laws and welcomed millions of illegal aliens into the nation at the expense of the American people. Back in December‚ Biden threatened to sue Texas if it implemented an immigration law called SB4 that would allow state and local law enforcement to arrest and prosecute those entering the country illegally. Texas didn’t comply‚ choosing to exercise its Constitutional right to self-defense‚ and now‚ Biden is moving forward with the lawsuit. On Monday‚ the Supreme Court ruled that federal border agents be permitted to cut and remove razor wire Texas had set up to prevent illegal crossings. The fact that the Biden administration “has the audacity to sue in this matter really should tell you what they think of you ... how they prioritize you and your safety as an American citizen‚” says Sara. In response to Biden’s unabashed breach of constitutional law‚ Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a statement declaring‚ “Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself‚” which “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes.” According to Jason Buttrill‚ Abbott’s letter is so compelling‚ “it should be framed right next to [Lt. Colonel William Barret Travis’ letter]” in which he vowed to fight for Texas’ sovereignty until “victory or death.” Abbott’s statement “could be copied to every other red state ... that's sick of the bullcrap‚ that's sick of crime going unpunished‚” Jason tells Sara‚ adding that they’re going to come after other rights as well‚ including those outlined in the First and Second Amendments. “This is the way through ... to say that the states are sovereign. There is a federal law of the land‚ but if you will not enforce it‚ you give us no choice; we will go our own way [and] screw you if we have to.” Sara is encouraged by Abbott’s response as well‚ considering thus far he’s been “weak in action at the border.” “It’s time to fight fire with fire‚” she says‚ and we “have the constitutional authority to do so.” Want more from 'The News &; Why It Matters?'To enjoy more rundowns of the top stories of the day‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

The same day the United Auto Workers union officially endorsed President Joe Biden for re-election‚ the union president admitted that a "great majority" would not be voting for Biden in the 2024 presidential election.During his endorsement of Biden‚ UAW President Shawn Fain said that the autoworkers faced a choice between supporting "someone who stands up with us and supports our cause" in President Biden or "someone who will divide us and fight us every step of the way" in President Trump."If our endorsements have to be earned‚ Joe Biden has earned it‚" he added‚ according to the BBC.However‚ the union leader also told Fox News that same day that a "majority" of members would not vote for Biden. Speaking to host Neil Cavuto on Fox Business‚ Fain reiterated his belief that Biden is a better representation of his union."President Biden stood there with us on the picket line‚ unlike President Trump in 2019 when GM was on strike for 40 days and he was completely nonexistent. He was silent on the issue‚" Fain told the host."It's very clear to us who stands with working-class people in this country and who stands against them‚" he added. .@UAW President Shawn Fain on endorsing Biden for re-election in 2024 — (@) However‚ after Cavuto pointed out that Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had benefited from the union vote in the past‚ the UAW president seemed to admit that he didn't think a majority of his union members would vote to re-elect Biden."Many of your own members now‚ Shawn‚ are very big Trump supporters. ... A good many of them are at Trump rallies and are MAGA enthusiasts; how do you feel about that?" Cavuto asked."It's democracy in action. Look‚ let me be clear about this‚ a great majority of our members will not vote for President Biden; yes‚ some will. But that's the reality of this‚" Fain stated."The majority of our members are going to vote their paychecks‚ they're going to vote for an economy that works for them‚ and they're going to vote for a president — when you look at these two presidents‚ the choice is very clear about which one stands up with the working class and stands up for labor and which one stands for the billionaire class‚ and that's his base." UAW Union Boss and Joe Biden lackey Shawn Fain admits that the vast majority of his rank-and-file membership will be voting Trump:\n\n"A great majority of our members will not vote for President Biden...the majority of our members are going to vote their paychecks." — (@) Fain declined to agree with the host that electric vehicles were being pushed by manufacturers despite the automobiles not hitting projected sales numbers. He also stated that the UAW are strong environmentalists.This‚ despite auto giant Ford recently cutting production of its electric F-150 Lightning trucks in half.In 2023‚ Fain helped the UAW secure a 25% general wage increase and a 150% increase for temporary workers over the life of their new contract. Additionally‚ the automaker's starting wage increased by about 68% and its top wage by roughly 33% through the new agreement.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!