After the vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas failed‚ host of CBS’s The Late Show‚ Stephen Colbert‚ and NBC’s Late Night host‚ Seth Meyers‚ took the time on Wednesday to celebrate and hail the “heroic return” and “dramatic” return of Democratic Rep. Al Green from the hospital that doomed the vote. Colbert recalled‚ “Republicans thought they could lose three of their votes and still win the impeachment vote. But they did not count on the heroic return of Texas Democratic Congressman and businessman werewolf‚ Al Green.”     Enjoying Republicans struggle‚ Colbert continued‚ “The GOP was counting on Green not showing up because he was in the hospital recovering from abdominal surgery. But he learned about the impeachment vote while watching television‚ so he grabbed an Uber to the Capitol. That takes a lot of guts‚ some of which might still be in the back of that Uber. Then he arrived on the floor of Congress still in a hospital gown with no shoes. Turns out‚ he was wearing one boot‚ but he left it in Mike Johnson's ass.” Over on NBC‚ Meyers reached for the WWE analogy‚ “Amazing‚ so basically‚ one surprise Democrat screwed the Republicans by showing up at the last minute‚ like Stone Cold Steve Austin interrupting a wrestling match. Although Democratic Congressman Al Green's entrance was actually more dramatic than Stone Cold's‚ as he was in the hospital recovering from emergency abdominal surgery last Friday and Republicans therefore assumed he wouldn't be present for the vote‚ but he was.” Meyers proceed to extensively quote the New York Times’s account of Green’s actions‚ including quotations from Green himself‚ “'I was determined to cast the vote long before I had no idea how close it was going to be‚' Mr. Green said in an interview on Tuesday' night from his hospital bed‚ where he had returned shortly after voting. I didn't come assuming that my vote was going to make a difference. I came because it was personal.'” Clearly‚ Meyers was a fan‚ “Whoa‚ ‘I came because it was personal‚’ delivered from a hospital bed after making a surprise last-minute appearance to cast a deciding vote is one hell of a line. I mean‚ who's gonna play Al Green in the movie about this? Schwarzenegger?” Meyers continued his adoration for Green by doing a Schwarzenegger impression‚ “Hello‚ my name is congressman Al Green from Texas. And I came because it is personal. Now I must return to my hospital bed. But just remember‚ like I always say‚ 'I‚ Al Green‚ will be back.' You know me for my tan socks.” Colbert and Meyers should get their laughs in now because Republicans may try again later and the border is still a mess. Here are transcripts for the February 7-taped shows: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 2/7/2024 11:40 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Here's what happened. Republicans thought they could lose three of their votes and still win the impeachment vote. But they did not count on the heroic return of Texas Democratic Congressman and businessman werewolf‚ Al Green. The GOP was counting on Green not showing up because he was in the hospital recovering from abdominal surgery. But he learned about the impeachment vote while watching television‚ so he grabbed an Uber to the Capitol. That takes a lot of guts‚ some of which might still be in the back of that Uber. Then he arrived on the floor of Congress still in a hospital gown with no shoes. Turns out‚ he was wearing one boot‚ but he left it in Mike Johnson's ass.  *** NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 2/8/2024 12:45 AM ET SETH MEYERS: Amazing‚ so basically‚ one surprise Democrat screwed the Republicans by showing up at the last minute‚ like Stone Cold Steve Austin interrupting a wrestling match. Although Democratic Congressman Al Green's entrance was actually more dramatic than Stone Cold's‚ as he was in the hospital recovering from emergency abdominal surgery last Friday and Republicans therefore assumed he wouldn't be present for the vote‚ but he was. Here's how it went down according to the New York Times.  "Three House Republicans had already cast votes against impeaching Mayorkas‚ and based on attendance at the previous vote‚ the GOP could afford no more. Then‚ like a scene out of a political thriller‚ Representative Al Green‚ Democrat of Texas‚ appeared at the last moment to cast a surprise ballot from a wheelchair‚ wearing blue hospital clothing and tan socks. He voted no. Mr. Green's vote was decisive. It tied up the measure‚ 215-215‚ and handed a stunning defeat to Speaker Mike Johnson. 'I was determined to cast the vote long before I had no idea how close it was going to be‚' Mr. Green said in an interview on Tuesday' night from his hospital bed‚ where he had returned shortly after voting. I didn't come assuming that my vote was going to make a difference. I came because it was personal.'  Whoa‚ "I came because it was personal‚" delivered from a hospital bed after making a surprise last-minute appearance to cast a deciding vote is one hell of a line. I mean‚ who's gonna play Al Green in the movie about this? Schwarzenegger? [SCHWARZENEGGER IMPRESSION] "Hello‚ my name is congressman Al Green from Texas. And I came because it is personal. Now I must return to my hospital bed. But just remember‚ like I always say‚ 'I‚ Al Green‚ will be back.' You know me for my tan socks. [NORMAL VOICE] You know‚ it's an impression that's so good that sometimes I will admit we force it  

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear arguments in the case of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling to remove former President Trump from the ballot for “insurrection” despite not being found guilty on Thursday‚ ABC’s Good Morning America was fearful that the conservative Supreme Court would side with Trump and “decide” the 2024 election like they supposedly did in 2000. Chief Washington Correspondent Jon Karl tried to quell their fears and hoped for a “unanimous” decision. “They're going to hear arguments about whether former President Trump can be banned from the ballot for his actions surrounding January 6th‚” announced former Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos. Despite the fact that trials were still ongoing and Trump had yet to be found guilty of committing “insurrection” against the United States‚ Senior national correspondent and noted Trump hater‚ Terry Moran claimed that Trump not only did Trump “incite” the rioters but participated in the attack himself: Should Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election‚ including his participation in the attack on the Capitol‚ his incitement of that attack on January 6th‚ keep him off the 2024 presidential ballot? And this all comes down to one clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution passed right after the Civil War‚ which holds that no person who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection can hold public office afterwards. “The Colorado Supreme Court‚ in the case brought by six voters there‚ took a look at that clause and ruled that Trump must be removed from the ballot in that state. In Maine‚ the secretary of state did the same thing. And other states are considering it‚ too‚” he hyped before weakly admitting that‚ “other states have rejected the idea.”     Following Moran’s report‚ Stephanopoulos invoked Bush v. Gore and claimed the Supreme Court “decided the 2000 election” and was the source of most of his fears in 2024. FACT CHECK: False. Multiple recounts‚ including one by the liberal Miami Herald‚ found that President George W. Bush did win Florida. Karl conceded that‚ on the surface‚ Stephanopoulos did have cause for concern since “this Supreme Court is a conservative court.” “Three Trump justices. It's a court that's been mired in some controversy‚” he added. But Karl attempted to quell his colleague's fear by noting times they ruled against Trump: But while it is a conservative court‚ this has not been a Trump court. In fact‚ this court has repeatedly ruled against Donald Trump or shown Independence from him. Think about it. Trump expected his justices‚ as he considered his justice‚ to help him overturn the election results. They rejected the efforts in that Texas case in December of 2020. The January 6th Committee wanted his White House records. Trump went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to block them from getting them. The Supreme Court ruled for the January 6th Committee. They even ruled prior to that to allow Congress to get his tax records. “So‚ the court has shown real independence from Trump‚” Karl reassured Stephanopoulos. “You know‚ looking at this‚ let's hope this decision is not one that breaks down on party lines.” Noting that there was still the case about whether or not presidents had absolute immunity‚ which Trump promised to take to SCOTUS‚ Karl proclaimed: “Two unanimous decisions would be nice.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America February 8‚ 2024 7:02:32 a.m. Eastern GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: First‚ it’s a historic day at the Supreme Court. They're going to hear arguments about whether former President Trump can be banned from the ballot for his actions surrounding January 6th. Senior national correspondent Terry Moran is at the Supreme Court. Good morning‚ Terry. TERRY MORAN: Good morning‚ George. The justices will hear the arguments in this monument case‚ the biggest elections case since Bush vs. Gore back in 2000. The question: Should Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election‚ including his participation in the attack on the Capitol‚ his incitement of that attack on January 6th‚ keep him off the 2024 presidential ballot? And this all comes down to one clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution passed right after the Civil War‚ which holds that no person who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection can hold public office afterwards. The Colorado Supreme Court‚ in the case brought by six voters there‚ took a look at that clause and ruled that Trump must be removed from the ballot in that state. In Maine‚ the secretary of state did the same thing. And other states are considering it‚ too. While still other states have rejected the idea. (…) 7:04:21 a.m. Eastern STEPHANOPOULOS: Terry brought up the Bush v. Gore case which decided the 2000 election. In some ways‚ this is far more consequential than that. JON KARL: This is a huge moment for the Supreme Court. It is a huge moment for the country. And look‚ George‚ this Supreme Court is a conservative court. Three Trump justices. It's a court that's been mired in some controversy. But while it is a conservative court‚ this has not been a Trump court. In fact‚ this court has repeatedly ruled against Donald Trump or shown Independence from him. Think about it. Trump expected his justices‚ as he considered his justice‚ to help him overturn the election results. They rejected the efforts in that Texas case in December of 2020. The January 6th Committee wanted his White House records. Trump went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to block them from getting them. The Supreme Court ruled for the January 6th Committee. They even ruled prior to that to allow Congress to get his tax records. So‚ the court has shown real independence from Trump. You know‚ looking at this‚ let's hope this decision is not one that breaks down on party lines. STEPHANOPOULOS: No question what you're saying is true. But this is also a court that is not going to be eager to appear to decide the 2024 election. KARL: I mean‚ absolutely not. And think about how long we saw the repercussions from the Bush v. Gore case‚ which was so controversial and made the court seen as so much more of a partisan body. And John Robert‚ Chief Justice Roberts‚ clearly made it clear that he wants the court to be not seen as yet not another political institution. He talks about how‚ you know‚ there aren't Trump justices or Bush justices or Obama justices. There are judges of the law. So‚ yes‚ he is not going to want to get mired in this. He's not the only one. So yes‚ Trump is going to try to go to the Supreme Court almost certainly. He said he's going to appeal the question of whether or not he has absolute immunity. So‚ you could have two cases central to this election‚ absolutely central to this election decided by this Supreme Court. STEPHANOPOULOS: See if they can come up with some kind of balancing there. KARL: I mean‚ two unanimous decisions would be nice.

As a controversial border security bill is held up in Congress‚ President Joe Biden is claiming he’s done all he can to keep the southern border secure‚ blaming Trump and Republicans in Congress for border woes ("I've done all I can do‚ just give me the power‚” etc.).  Yet even liberally slanted PolitiFact noted Biden used his executive powers to end President Trump’s "Remain in Mexico" program that required some asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting their U.S. hearings. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) claimed Biden doesn’t need new authority to decrease illegal border crossings and spelled out how on X. The PBS NewsHour has consistently ignored those facts to keep the scrutiny spotlight 100% upon Trump and congressional Republicans. Anchor Geoff Bennett on January 29 accused Trump of “trying to tank this agreement‚ urging the House speaker‚ Mike Johnson‚ not to support it.” After a clip showing Trump saying he found it “a very bad bill” that should be killed‚ Bennett responded. Geoff Bennett: So‚ [NPR’s Tamara Keith]‚ the politics of this are so transparent. I mean‚ it appears that for Donald Trump‚ the problem of immigration is more politically useful than an immigration solution. Being cynical about Republicans wanting "the issue" is permitted. Being cynical about the Democrats opening the border and liking massive immigration (for political reasons) is forbidden. On Monday’s NewsHour‚ anchor Amna Nawaz gushed along with the show’s “Politics Monday” duo of Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and Tamara Keith of National Public Radio. Amna Nawaz: ….Amy‚ what this bill proposes is incredibly consequential‚ one of the biggest pieces of legislation for immigration in three decades in this country. The fact that the president was willing to go as far as he was‚ what does that say to you? Amy Walter‚ The Cook Political Report: ….we’ll really get a sense for whether or not‚ for example‚ if Republicans lose‚ this strategy of just blaming everything on Biden may not work. Nawaz also interviewed Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on Monday‚ one of the senators who negotiated the bipartisan border bill‚ and gave a shout to radical-left members aggrieved accusation of extremism. Nawaz: You’ve faced some criticism from your fellow Democrats as well‚ progressives in particular. The caucus chair‚ Pramila Jayapal‚ said Democrats are giving in to extremist views. [!] She said President Biden and Senate Democrats have fallen into the same trap again. Are you worried that the bill could alienate your progressive base? On Tuesday‚ Nawaz lamented the bipartisan border bill may already be a goner because of conservative opposition and congressional reporter Lisa Desjardins could not see the logic: Lisa Desjardins: This is a real moment of logical disconnect. It does seem that the votes technically are there to open up debate on this bill‚ but when Senate Republicans met behind closed doors last night and today‚ they decided they would not support actually opening up this bill. There are a few reasons for that‚ and part of it has to do with the pressure on them over the border. A lot of it has to do with election-year politics. There is a debate still over the roots‚ of course‚ of the border crisis itself‚ but when it comes to the reasons that this bill offering a solution was pulled‚ Republicans today looked at each other and sort of blamed each other for it. Desjardins quoted the president. Joe Biden: All indications are this bill won't even move forward to the Senate floor. Why? A simple reason: Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump thinks it's bad for him politically. He'd rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it. Whatever Trump’s purely political aims may be‚ the actual sitting president can make moves to help secure the border. Biden simply prefers to blame Trump and the GOP during an election year‚ with the eager help of the mainstream media. These segments were brought to you in part by taxpayers like you. Transcripts are available‚ click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 2/5/24 7:40:39 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Amy‚ what this bill proposes is incredibly consequential‚ one of the biggest pieces of legislation for immigration in three decades in this country. The fact that the president was willing to go as far as he was‚ what does that say to you? Amy Walter‚ The Cook Political Report: Well‚ I think it says that Democrats know‚ including the president‚ how problematic this issue is for their party going into an election year. What I find even more interesting‚ and it's going to be a really interesting test for the issue of immigration‚ is next week. There's a special election in a congressional district. This is George Santos' seat on Long Island. The issue of immigration‚ not surprisingly‚ is playing a starring role with the Democrat there taking a position that sounds very much like Joe Biden‚ talking about being able to have more border security‚ supporting this plan that just was released by the Senate. The Republican candidate and Republicans in general attacking the plan‚ she has not supported the plan‚ and attacking the Democrats‚ including this one‚ as being part of the open border party. In other words‚ by the time next Tuesday comes around‚ and by Wednesday‚ when we have the results of the election‚ we will have at least our first‚ our very first test for whether this issue and the way Democrats are talking about it‚ the way Republicans are talking about it‚ which side can claim some sort of political victory. Again‚ it's a special‚ so we can't draw too many conclusions‚ but we will really get a sense for whether or not‚ for example‚ if Republicans lose‚ this strategy of just blaming everything on Biden may not work. Tam‚ how are you looking at this? I mean‚ Republicans have probably their best shot at immigration reform. They have been clamoring for it for years. Tamara Keith: Right. Amna Nawaz: If this fails to go through because they're under pressure from President Trump‚ does that blow back on them from their base? Tamara Keith: Not from their base. I don't think it would blow back on them from their base. I mean‚ there is this argument that if this is the crisis they say it is‚ that it has to be dealt with right now — and this is an argument that you're hearing from people like James Lankford. If it has to be dealt with right now‚ then why wait until after the election? Why wait until‚ in theory‚ Trump is in office? And then you might still have a divided government‚ and you might not get this. So you're still — you're — at the best-case scenario‚ you're pushing this a year out‚ and worst-case scenario potentially way more gridlock. But Trump has made it abundantly clear that he does not want this. He was back out on the air today saying it's terrible‚ calling it amnesty‚ all of these things that it isn't. But it is a compromise. It is not the bill that former President Trump would want to sign. It's not the bill that the speaker of the House would author. But it is something that‚ in theory‚ if it actually could get to a floor vote‚ which it may not get in the Senate and it is even less likely to get in the House‚ it is something that could pass. It would be sort of a coalition of moderates and national security hawks‚ and it's a random coalition. You would lose all the people on the left and on the far right‚ but it could potentially pass. It may not get a chance to have that audition. PBS NewsHour 2/6/24 7:16:58 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: The Senate border compromise unveiled fewer than 48 hours ago has already hit a legislative wall. Senate Republicans today announced they will block the long-negotiated proposal that would address the border crisis and provide aid to Ukraine and Israel. The bill drew sharp opposition from House Republicans‚ who spent much of today debating whether to impeach the homeland security secretary. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins and our team have been working sources in both chambers. She joins us now live to report on where things stand. Lisa‚ this bill has not even been debated. The debate hasn't even begun over the border deal. Republicans are blocking it already. Why is that? And also how final is that block? Lisa Desjardins: This is a real moment of logical disconnect. It does seem that the votes technically are there to open up debate on this bill‚ but when Senate Republicans met behind closed doors last night and today‚ they decided they would not support actually opening up this bill. There are a few reasons for that‚ and part of it has to do with the pressure on them over the border. A lot of it has to do with election-year politics. There is a debate still over the roots‚ of course‚ of the border crisis itself‚ but when it comes to the reasons that this bill offering a solution was pulled‚ Republicans today looked at each other and sort of blamed each other for it. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): We wanted to secure the border. That is why we are voting no. This does more harm than good‚ and that's not James Lankford's fault. That's Leader McConnell's fault. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Things have changed over the last four months‚ and it's been made perfectly clear by the speaker that he wouldn't take it up even if we sent it to him. And so I think that's probably why most of our members think we ought to have opposition. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA): They did not send us a border security measure. They didn't. They sent us a supplemental funding proposal that has immigration reform‚ but not real border security reform‚ and so that's why it's a nonstarter. Lisa Desjardins: A waterfall of blame here‚ some blaming McConnell‚ some blaming the speaker‚ the speaker blaming the Senate. But‚ clearly‚ there is something else at work here. Democrats‚ for their part‚ including President Biden‚ say what happened is much more simple. Joe Biden‚ President of the United States: All indications are this bill won't even move forward to the Senate floor. Why? A simple reason: Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump thinks it's bad for him politically. He'd rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it. Lisa Desjardins: Now‚ there is not a plan B for either how to deal with the border crisis or for Ukraine funding. The House tonight may take a vote on a separate bill on Israel funding. That may not pass. So we're not clear what happens on any of these issues‚ if there can be progress on any of them in coming days or weeks. Amna Nawaz: Lisa‚ meanwhile‚ as we mentioned earlier‚ a rare vote planned in the House today to impeach the Department of Homeland Security secretary‚ Alejandro Mayorkas. Where does that stand? Lisa Desjardins: Amna‚ this is incredibly close. I am speaking to you at the exact second that we're waiting to see if House Republicans even bring up this vote. They have teed it up. This is the previous vote closing out now. They are expected to bring up this impeachment vote next. But I have to tell you‚ from my reporting Amna‚ I don't think House Republicans have the vote‚ the majority vote‚ to pass it. As we have said on this program‚ there is an incredibly narrow margin in the House for Republicans. They can lose only two members and pass things with only Republican votes. We know of at least two members who are against this. And‚ today‚ the National Fraternal Order of Police came out with a letter saying Alejandro Mayorkas in their view has actually helped things‚ that he is someone who respects law and order. Now those Republicans who want to impeach him say instead that Mayorkas has had a willful disregard for federal law. And‚ indeed‚ they say he lied to Congress as well. Mayorkas denies that. He says this is political. A real test for House Republicans in a major effort tonight. We should know in the next hour or so what happens.

A group of GOP lawmakers are calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice to “halt” any efforts disposing of criminal evidence of five innocent babies. The move comes just a few days after it became clear that the DOJ attempted to hide potential criminal evidence that’s part of an ongoing investigation regarding five baby bodies found at a Washington D.C. abortion clinic. In 2022‚ a group of pro-lifers happened upon the dead bodies of five preemie sized babies along with the remains of over 100 pulverized first-trimester babies. The “D.C. Five‚” as they’ve been called‚ look to have been victims of third trimester abortions or infanticide. Some of them were completely intact while others were ripped apart. On Monday The Daily Signal released a piece indicating that the DOJ knew that these babies were likely killed illegally but urged the D.C. Medical Examiner to dispose of their bodies anyway. While the babies are still part of ongoing investigation‚ it seems to make no sense that the DOJ would encourage this unless they were trying to cover up the fact that these babies were killed illegally which‚ at this point‚ wouldn't be too surprising given the past record of the DOJ siding with abortion. The group Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU) who found the D.C. Five has been extremely vocal about this injustice and have repeatedly called on our government to do something. On Wednesday they even held a vigil for the babies outside of the D.C. Medical Examiner's office. Also on Wednesday‚ a group of 45 representatives signed a letter calling on the DOJ to “halt” any efforts to destroy those five babies bodies.  Spearheaded by Representative Pat Fallon (R-Texas)‚ the letter indicates that it looks like Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act were “both possibly violated‚ and that at least one child was likely a victim of a partial-birth abortion.”  The letter went on to say that even after two years‚ autopsies still haven't been performed and proper investigation hasn’t been done. “An investigation must be conducted on what happened in the Washington Surgi-Clinic to these children to determine if a crime was committed‚” the letter indicated.  Here’s how the letter concluded: We demand that you immediately halt plans to dispose of these children‚ as they may well be evidence of a crime‚” the lawmakers wrote in a Wednesday letter first obtained by The Daily Signal. “We further demand you stop stonewalling and finally conduct a thorough investigation into the deaths of these children to determine what truly happened‚ and to hold any lawbreakers or murderers accountable. At the end of this investigation‚ we encourage a respectful burial of the babies. Signees included representatives like Gary Palmer (R-Ala.)‚ Ronny Jackson (R-Texas)‚ and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).  In an exclusive conversation with The Daily Signal‚ Martin Cannon‚ who is representing the pro-life activists charged by the DOJ‚ indicated that if nothing is done soon to stop the DOJ from destroying this evidence‚ “they will dispose of the babies” very soon‚ possibly by the end of this week. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) said it best when he told The Washingon Examiner that “When they were alive‚ these babies deserved to be treated with respect and compassion. Now‚ after their violent slaughter‚ justice must be tenaciously pursued with a thorough investigation into the details surrounding their brutal deaths — no cover ups!” Ted Cruz echoed Smith’s words when he said: Destroying evidence is a grave threat to the rule of law‚ and it is another tragic chapter in the Biden DOJ’s sad history of having two justice systems. The Medical Examiner should reject the DOJ’s lawless order to destroy evidence and instead conduct a proper investigation into whether these late-term abortions violated the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act‚ or‚ at minimum‚ allow for an autopsy by an outside group.  It is heartbreaking to think about what these babies likely went through and it’s disturbing to realize that our very own Department of Justice seems to care more about covering up their brutal deaths to keep an abortion clinic in business rather than providing actual justice for these babies.  

This Butterscotch Fudge is only two simple ingredients and is always a hit. Super versatile and one your family will love! If you love fudge like we do‚ you will want to try this Five Minute Fudge! It’s such a wonderful recipe and always a hit‚ especially during the holidays. ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE...

Survivalist prepping requires hard work‚ preparation‚ and a practical mindset. You’ll spend plenty of lonely hours rigging up generators and may have to forgo social activities to ferment foods like tempeh. The post Surviving with Sanity: The Overlooked Importance of Leisure in Prepping appeared first on Survivopedia.

Colorado's Supreme Court‚ which comprises seven Democrat-appointed justices‚ decided to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's ballots in December at a Democrat-aligned group's urging. The reason given: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment concerning insurrection supposedly covers the presidency and Trump's actions qualified. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the Republican front-runner's appeal on Thursday morning. The high court's ruling will likely impact the efforts by other blue states to deprive voters of a choice in the 2024 election. It will likely also serve to further politicize the court ahead of another contentious election. Trump's defense so far Trump's legal team has so far argued that: "Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits individuals only from holding office[.] ... It does not prevent anyone from running for office‚ or from being elected to office‚ because Congress can remove a section 3 disqualification at any time"; The Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause by "flouting the statutes governing presidential elections"; Trump did not engage in insurrection‚ especially not "'insurrection' as understood at the time of passage of the Fourteenth Amendment [which] meant the taking up of arms and waging war upon the United States." Rather he engaged in political rhetoric‚ not unlike that routinely employed by Democratic lawmakers on the Hill; Section 3 is inapplicable to the president. "To find that section 3 includes the presidency‚ one must conclude that the drafters decided to bury the most visible and prominent national office in a catch-all term that includes low ranking military officers‚ while choosing to explicitly reference presidential electors"; and Congress is the proper body to "resolve questions concerning a presidential candidate's eligibility‚" not a partisan state court. Who's looking to eliminate voter choice in Colorado? Blaze News previously reported that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington brought the case against Trump on behalf of six Colorado voters. Among the six voters named in the suit are Norma Anderson‚ Michelle Priola‚ Claudine (Cmarada) Schneider‚ and Krista Kafer. Priola is the wife of Democratic state Sen. Kevin Priola. Kafer is a Never-Trumper Denver Post opinion writer. Schneider is a registered Republican and former congresswoman for Rhode Island who reportedly endorsed Barack Obama in 2008‚ Hillary Clinton in 2016‚ and Joe Biden in 2020. CREW is a partisan activist group that touts itself as a government watchdog‚ which was optimized as an attack dog for the Democratic Party by Media Matters founder David Brock in advance of the 2016 election. The move to eliminate the Republican front-runner from contention in Colorado was executed under CREW's current president Noah Bookbinder. Bookbinder was until recently a member of the Biden Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Advisory Council. Federal Election Commission records indicate he repeatedly dumped money into Democratic causes‚ including former President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. Through the courts In September 2023‚ the six voters with CREW's backing filed a complaint requesting Trump's removal from the primary ballot. Their complaint suggested it would be "improper" and a "breach or neglect of duty" for Colorado's Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold to allow Biden's top rival to make it onto the 2024 ballot. This complaint made its way to the district court. Colorado District Court Judge Sarah Wallace ruled against the effort to ban Trump from the ballot‚ noting Section 3 did not apply to the president. Wallace did‚ however‚ agree with the petitioners' assertion that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Dissatisfied with the result‚ the petitioners successfully appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court‚ which ultimately ruled in a 4-3 decision that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6‚ is ineligible to be president‚ and cannot therefore appear on the ballot. The court stayed its decision until the U.S. Supreme Court could weigh in. A spokesman for the Trump campaign‚ Stephen Cheung‚ noted that the Democratic appointees "issued a completely flawed decision." "We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits‚" added Cheung. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and fast-tracked it‚ ostensibly to deliver a decision before the Colorado and Maine primaries in March. A recent Democratic poll shows Biden's popularity dropping off in Colorado ahead of the election. 58% of registered voters hold an unfavorable opinion of the geriatric president. Axios noted that even in the solidly blue state‚ Biden's lead over Trump has dropped to single digits in a hypothetical general election contest. Trump continues to lead Biden nationally in the polls. The latest Morning Consult poll had the Republican up by five points. Possible impact The Associated Press indicated that a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court affirming that Trump engaged in an insurrection might start a chain reaction whereby various other states could keep the Republican front-runner off their ballots. Already similar efforts to spare the 81-year-old Democratic president from serious competition in the forthcoming elections have been undertaken in Maine‚ California‚ and Michigan. Maeva Marcus‚ the director of the Institute for Constitutional Studies at George Washington University‚ told the BBC‚ the "rationale" behind the Colorado ruling would "hold for the general election." While such an outcome would be advantageous for the incumbent president‚ longtime Democrat David Axelrod has expressed concern. Blaze News reported last month that the Obama campaigner said‚ "I do think it would rip the country apart if he were actually prevented from running because tens of millions of people want to vote for him." Axelrod added‚ "You know‚ he's only gained since he started getting indicted. What you thought might be kryptonite for him has been battery packs. This is a big one for him." In addition to disenfranching voters‚ the decision may also impact the court. Raoul Berger Professor of Law Emeritus Stephen Presser noted in January that "when the Supreme Court inevitably corrects Colorado and Maine’s misguided decisions — as it must — Trump’s critics will attack it as arbitrary and undemocratic. One can’t help but speculate that the Colorado and Maine decisions might be calculated to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court itself." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Beloved talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw recently visited the U.S.-Mexico border and revealed that U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents gave him their estimates of how many illegal border crossings have actually occurred‚ along with solutions on how to solve the issue.Upon the conclusion of his trip‚ McGraw told Fox News' Sean Hannity that the Biden administration's border policies have been encouraging bad behavior."One of the most fundamental psychological principles is you don’t reward bad behavior‚" McGraw‚ a psychologist‚ said.The doctor explained that he wanted to speak to border agents who were spearheading the defense of the border and find out what the real issues were in handling such an influx of illegal immigrants."These guys are fighting a morale battle‚ because they can’t get what they need‚" he reported. "And I wanted to know what’s happening down here? What’s really going on? We hear this number‚ 6 million people have come across under the current administration."But McGraw noted that the illegal encounters at the border were actually much higher than what is officially reported‚ according to his sources."I talked to experts down there that say that number is a myth‚ that it’s closer to 13 million to 14 million that have come across."On a mission to find solutions‚ the famous host revealed that border agents didn't say they needed more funding‚ resources‚ or even more Border Patrol agents. Rather‚ they simply expressed that current U.S. federal law needs to be applied and enforced."We don’t need more legislation. We just need the laws that are on the books to be followed. We need to be allowed to do our job and we can get this under control right now‚" McGraw relayed. "I wanted to know what's happening down here‚ what's really going on." @seanhannity @MeritStMedia @FoxNews #BorderCrisis #Immigration #DrPhil — (@) Dr. Phil also described the different reactions evoked by particular law enforcement agencies: Texas state officials arrest and deport illegal border-crossers‚ while federal agents perform a catch-and-release method."The interesting thing that shocked me‚ Sean‚ if [illegal aliens] run into someone in a brown uniform‚ that’s a Texas Department of Public Safety border guard‚ they get arrested‚ they get put in jail‚ and they get returned‚" McGraw said‚ according to Daily Fetched. "If they run into a green uniform‚ that is a federal‚ they get money and a court date that’s seven to 10 years down the road‚ and they get released into the country."McGraw added that if the illegal immigrants see a brown uniform‚ "they hide." If they see a green uniform‚ "they run toward it." We\u2019re seeing smashing records for illegal immigration by wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open the Texas border security infrastructure.#WeveGotIssues @MeritStMedia #DrPhil — (@) Days earlier‚ McGraw was pictured at the border wall in Eagle Pass‚ Texas‚ and was heard describing the sheer mass of illegal immigrants who have crossed the border under President Biden's administration."More than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed the Texas southern border in just three years. That's more than the population of 33 different states in this country‚" McGraw said. The doctor also placed blame at the feet at the vice president for failing to adequately address the problem."And what about our vice president‚ Kamala Harris? ... Did you know she's our country's immigration czar? Guess how many times she's been to the border? Once‚" McGraw explained. Dr. Phil is in Eagle Pass delivering a message about the influx of illegal migrants crossing into the USA.\n\nhttps://t.co/gYX9M3utTm — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

More than 30‚000 migrants with possible ties to terrorism or other “nefarious activity” were released into the United States in the last 15 months‚ according to data obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.Customs and Border Protection data reviewed by the news outlet revealed that Border Patrol agents logged 20‚287 encounters with special interest aliens in fiscal year 2023 and another 12‚114 so far in fiscal year 2024. The Department of Homeland Security’s Lexicon Terms and Definitions described SIAs as a “foreign national originating from a country (determined by individual Components) identified as having possible or established links to terrorism.”A 2019 archived webpage from the DHS website explains that migrants could be labeled SIAs “based on an analysis of travel patterns” that are “known or evaluated to possibly have a nexus to terrorism.”“This does not mean that all SIAs are ‘terrorists‚’ but rather that the travel and behavior of such individuals indicates a possible nexus to nefarious activity (including terrorism) and‚ at a minimum‚ provides indicators that necessitate heightened screening and further investigation‚” the DHS stated.According to the agency‚ “SIAs are not simply people who ‘traveled from a country that had terrorism’” but those “who have obtained false documents‚ or used smugglers to evade security across multiple countries.” Additionally‚ some SIAs “have engaged in criminal activity that could pose a danger to the United States‚ and some are found to have links to terrorism after additional investigative work and analysis by CBP personnel.”The over 30‚000 SIAs allowed into the interior of the United States in the last 15 months were given future court dates‚ the internal CBP data obtained by the DCNF revealed. The data also found that SIA encounters at the southern border increased 600% from fiscal year 2021 to 2022.The DCNF reported that the majority of the SIAs encountered in fiscal year 2023 were from Turkey‚ Russia‚ Afghanistan‚ and Somalia‚ the data showed. So far‚ the top nationalities of SIAs encountered in fiscal year 2024 include Turkey‚ Afghanistan‚ Bangladesh‚ and Russia.In fiscal year 2023‚ 169 individuals on the FBI terror watch list attempted to cross the southern border‚ according to CBP reporting.A DHS official called the increase in SIA encounters surprising. “It worries me‚ depresses me‚ infuriates me‚ frustrates me‚” the official told the DCNF.The DHS did not respond to a request for comment‚ the DCNF reported.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sen. Josh Hawley was mobbed this week by members of the leftist group Code Pink — so-called feminists evidently rankled by the Missouri Republican's ongoing support for Israel. Hawley responded with an unflinching condemnation of terrorism that not only drove the radicals raving mad but prompted them to show their cards. The incident unfolded Wednesday afternoon in the Senate Hart building — the same building where Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin's former staffer filmed himself engaging in sodomy without legal consequence. A rabble of Code Pink leftists protesting Israel's war on Islamic terrorism were camped out in the hall‚ yelling at various lawmakers as they made their way over to vote on potential aid for Israel‚ Ukraine‚ and Taiwan. When came Hawley's turn down the hall‚ a woman wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh snapped her fingers in Hawley's face‚ saying‚ "Don't give us your talking points." In one video of the incident‚ another protester can be seen attempting to lower the snapping hand of the woman in the keffiyeh. However‚ she proceeds to wag a finger at Hawley‚ saying‚ "You are unbelievable." Hawley responds‚ "The state of Israel has a right to defend itself." One Code Pink protester‚ ostensibly the group's co-founder Medea Benjamin‚ chimes in‚ "So does Palestine!" The woman in the Palestinian scarf counters that Israel's self-defense is "not defense." "And I won't call for a ceasefire until Hamas is eliminated‚" continues Hawley. The senator's invocation of the terrorist group prickles the woman in the keffiyeh‚ who leans over with widened eyes to say‚ "Hamas will never be eliminated." "Eliminated!" Hawley adds. As the protester feverishly yells out after Hawley‚ calling him "foolish‚" Hawley sets her straight: "You're an anti-Semite. ... If you guys had your way‚ there'd be a second Holocaust. That's what you want. Pro-terrorist." — (@) In another video of the exchange‚ Hawley can be heard saying to the Code Pink protesters‚ "I wish I had an Israel flag to wave." Code Pink has long campaigned against Israel and supported so-called Palestinian liberation. The so-called feminist group appears keen to overlook the barbaric treatment of women‚ girls‚ and non-straights in Gaza and the West Bank‚ just as it has glossed over the crimes committed against humanity by the communist regime in Beijing — which Code Pink stresses "is not our enemy." Code Pink has made explicit its support for Palestinian violence against Israel and refers to the Oct. 7 terror attacks‚ which left thousands of Israelis and dozens of Americans dead and thousands more wounded‚ as "resistance." The group states on its website that the Hamas terror attacks "must be understood in the context of resistance to a 75-year Israeli occupation‚ in which a Jewish state was violently established on stolen Palestinian land." According to Code Pink‚ "Israel cannot 'defend' itself. "Israel's use of violence only enforces an oppressive occupation. Conversely‚ Palestinians resisting their oppression act defensively‚ as they have been victims of offensive attacks by Israel since its illegitimate inception in 1948‚" says the group's website. In recent weeks‚ Code Pink has called on the Biden administration to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees despite clear indications that 12 UNWRA employees participated in the October attacks. Hawley is apparently not the only senator the pro-terrorism group heckled this week. They also mobbed Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)‚ Ted Cruz (R-Texas)‚ John Fetterman (D-Pa.)‚ John Kennedy (R-La.)‚ and others. Cruz and Rubio responded especially forcefully. Cruz said‚ "So why are you not troubled with Hamas terrorists? ... Killing Hamas makes Israel safe." When the Code Pink protesters pressed Rubio on the deaths of children in Gaza‚ the Florida senator replied‚ "Hamas is responsible for killing all those children. ... Hamas kills children. Hamas is an evil organization. I hope Israel destroys Hamas. That's what I hope and I wanna help Israel destroy Hamas." — (@) Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!