A core tenet of conservatism is captured by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the last of the Bill of Rights crafted by James Madison. It’s simple and succinct: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is better known as federalism, which is a central principle of American conservatism. Conservatives believe in limited government. They oppose unnecessary centralization in Washington, D.C. They argue that decentralized, local government closer to the problem at hand is typically better, more efficient, and more helpful. The principle of subsidiarity represents this well. I’ll quote my friends from the Acton Institute: [T]he principle of subsidiarity … holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State. When Ronald Reagan heard of subsidiarity, he considered it a mere statement of common sense. Connecting the principle of subsidiarity to the 10th Amendment, conservatives strive for a balance between excessive central governance in Washington and excessive governance by the states. James Madison so believed in such a balance that scholars refer to it as “Madison’s Middle Ground.” Among his fellow founders, Madison’s middle ground stood between Thomas Jefferson’s preference for state governance and Alexander Hamilton’s preference for a strong federal government. Reaching this middle ground has been a matter of fierce debate since the late 1700s. It reached its most vociferous point, of course, during the Civil War. In more recent times, liberal presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson pushed more powers toward the federal leviathan in Washington. By the 1990s, Republicans like Newt Gingrich in the House and Democrat President Bill Clinton found common middle ground in areas such as decentralizing and block-granting welfare. The reality is that liberals invoke states’ rights all the time. Never a calming voice in these debates are liberals, especially left-wing race-baiters, which unfortunately describes most modern progressives. Anytime that a conservative properly invokes states’ rights, a liberal maniac jumps forward to hyperventilate and howl “Jim Crow! Racism!” at the top of his or her lungs. These voices of unreason insist that any invocation of states’ rights is “code language” or a “dog whistle” for racism. Max Boot did this with remarkable crassness in his awful biography of Ronald Reagan. (See: Paul Kengor, “Max Boot’s Reagan Is the Worst Book of the Year.”) When a conservative appeals to basic 10th Amendment federalism, the unhinged liberal accuses the conservative of being a closet Confederate racist. (RELATED: What’s Really Causing the Minnesota ‘Insurrection’?) And yet, here’s where such behavior from liberals gets even more maddening: The reality is that liberals invoke states’ rights all the time. Progressive Confederates To that end, I commend to readers three recent pieces we published at The American Spectator, which yet again affirm this point. Our Ellie Gardey Holmes published a disturbing piece on the latest crazed abortion actions of the heretical Catholic governor of New York, Kathy Hochul. Ellie notes that last week Hochul’s pals in the New York state Senate “passed a bevy of pro-abortion legislation that seeks to ensure abortion is funded and protected to the maximum extent possible. This included funding travel, meals, and lodging for women seeking abortions.” (RELATED: New York State Serves Up Insanity on Egg Freezing) I’ve followed this mess for quite a while. I had written about Hochul’s offer to provide such “services” back when Roe was reversed with the 2022 Dobbs decision. Hochul was so incensed that she dashed to the cameras to make a most generous offer to women outside of New York in pro-life states. Hochul urged them to come to New York, where they would be warmly treated to abortions. “Abortion access is safe in New York,” declared Hochul. With a grim grin, Hochul morbidly savored: “To the women of Texas, I want to say I am with you. Lady Liberty is here to welcome you with open arms.” She vowed: “We will help you find a way to New York.” As for any federal authorities who might want to halt this interstate commerce, Gov. Hochul effectively had a two-word rejoinder that would thrill any Jim Crow racist: “States’ rights!” (See: Paul Kengor, “The Democrat States’ Rights Supremacists.”) Yes, states’ rights. For Hochul, it was time to assert state supremacy uber alles. To hell with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was Albany to the rescue—not only for women in the Big Apple, but from Austin, Dallas, Houston. Lady Liberty would cradle them (but not their babies) in her arms.  The states’ rights fanaticism of this liberal Democrat governor is echoed by liberals in the New York legislature. They, too, are states’ rights nuts. They urge women from every state to come to New York with every cost covered to kill their unborn babies. Are the nattering nabobs at the New York Times calling out this states’ rights hypocrisy by their progressive brethren? Hardly. From every left-wing outpost, there’s a new slogan to cheer. Do you hear them, dear reader? Listen: “States’ rights! States’ rights! States’ rights!” Except that their battle cry isn’t actually new at all. Liberals invoke states’ rights constantly. I noted last year how the left-wing governor of Maine, Janet Mills, and her progressive legislature went full-Jefferson Davis in defying federal law by rejecting President Trump’s new Title IX rules barring biological men from beating girls in women’s sports. “See you in court,” Mills told President Trump defiantly. And if the Supreme Court ever overturns Obergefell as it did Roe, you can expect liberals to become states’ rights fanatics for marriage laws. They’ll legalize same-sex “marriage” in all their states and tell the feds the issue is none of their damned business. Washington has no authority over them! Liberals are not thoughtful enough to discern their contradictions. Do they not see the hypocrisy in their invoking of states’ rights that they blast conservatives for invoking? No. Liberals are not thoughtful enough to discern their contradictions. Liberalism is based not on rational thinking but emotion — pure, unbridled, raging, child-like emotional outbursts. Our R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. had them pegged long ago when he dubbed it “infantile liberalism.” That brings us to another current example of their states’ rights extremism on full display: Gov. Tim Walz’s Minnesota. Like Golden Boy Gavin Newsom in California or any number of other liberal governors, Walz (as well as Minneapolis’ left-wing mayor) is fully defiant of federal law when it comes to illegal immigrants in his midst. As he fights the feds, left-wing activists from all over America dash to Minnesota to cheer him on and join the rebellion against Washington. (RELATED: Minnesota and the New Nullification Crisis) The hypocrisy of Walz was captured nicely in a piece last week by our Jeffrey Lord, aptly titled, “Tim Walz: The New Jefferson Davis.” Jeff writes: For those who read history, there is a recall of a long-ago politician, this one a U.S. senator who was so taken with the notion of rebelling against the federal government and a Republican president that he resigned his seat as a U.S. senator from Mississippi and was selected to be president of the new Confederate States of America. And in that capacity, he marshaled the forces of anti-federal government dissidents to formally fight the Union forces led by Republican President Abraham Lincoln. In today’s America, there is Minnesota’s Democrat Governor Tim Walz following the path of Jefferson Davis, marshaling the forces of violent anti-federal government ICE protestors to fight federal government ICE employees led by another Republican president, Donald Trump.  Also making this point for The American Spectator is Josh Hammer, who in his article, “The Rise of the New Confederacy,” writes: “In echoing the discredited theories of yesteryear, Ellison, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and the rest of the state’s top Democratic brass have emerged as modern reincarnations of Jefferson Davis and George Wallace. They wouldn’t see it that way, naturally.” (RELATED: The Rise of the New Confederacy) No, they wouldn’t. They’re not smart enough to connect the dots. And don’t make the mistake of thinking they are smart enough. Liberals are not shrewd Machiavellians playing multi-dimensional political chess. Their ideological worldview is driven by emotion. Thus, on one hand, they’ll scream “racist!” at any conservative invoking the 10th Amendment while they themselves become the most strident states’ rights Confederates. Let’s accuse them of what they accuse conservatives of. Behold: Confederal liberals. READ MORE from Paul Kengor: A Haunt of Demons Shuts Its Doors … The Fall of Margaret Sanger’s ‘Clinic’ Mike Reagan, Twice Adopted, Rest in Peace TCM Remembers — And So Do I Image licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s PR team has been planning this week for months. This is the week that three publications, Vogue, the New Yorker, and the New York Times, were given the go-ahead to publish splashy profiles of Newsom that reveal details from his memoir, which is set to be published later this month. The three publications were offered personal interviews, staged photoshoots, early access to his memoir, and, in two cases, interviews with his family members. All of this makes Newsom’s rise to the top of the Democratic field look like the outcome of a meticulously managed effort to make his candidacy seem inevitable, rather than the result of organic momentum. Newsom is not — as his book would like to portray — a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, but rather a political product who has the whole establishment class working in lockstep to choreograph his presidential rise. It’s the same story today as it was when Willie Brown and John Burton and Gordon Getty and the whole San Francisco political class handed him his position as mayor of San Francisco and groomed him to rise even further in politics. In his PR team’s effort to tightly control the governor’s image and promote this narrative of inevitability, they selected writers who would fawn over Newsom in breathless fashion. (RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s Democrat Fangirls) Just look at how much of a joke the Vogue profile is. Titled “Gavin Newsom Is Setting His Own Rules,” the article begins by calling the governor “embarrassingly handsome.” Could there be a more embarrassing way to begin a piece?: Let’s get this out of the way: He is embarrassingly handsome, his hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence as he delivers his final State of the State address. That was a lot. But it truly gets worse the longer the piece goes on: It must drive Trump nuts. Newsom: lithe, ardent, energetic, a glimmer of optimism in his eye; Kennedy-esque. Argh! What is this? This must be satire, a joke to see how far the Democratic establishment class can go in demanding that Newsom be selected as the presidential candidate. This goes on in just as ridiculous a fashion. We learn Newsom has an “executive strut.” That he is a “self-made millionaire” (he really isn’t). That his tone is “temperate.” He is at one point described in a single sentence as “Immaculate.” Soon thereafter, he is described as — and I’m not entirely sure what this means — “Fantastic at gab, like a windup doll.” We are also treated to this lovely description: “As he spoke, late-summer sun slanted in through the windows, bathing Newsom in an oh so California magic-hour glow.” (RELATED: Gavin Newsom Plots Memoir to Recast Personal Scandals) There are more physical descriptions of the 58-year-old governor. He has a “lanky frame.” The writer, Maya Singer, thinks he looks perfect everywhere, too: “If Newsom has been spotted disheveled in public, show me the proof.” This is made all the worse by the fact that the piece is interspersed with model shots of Newsom taken by Annie Leibovitz, the photographer who’s supposed to be the best at capturing the softness of a person’s visage. The piece also includes long excerpts from Newsom’s interviews with the writer, but it’s clear she thinks that’s all way less interesting than describing him as “lithe” and “lanky.” I couldn’t help but notice that the New Yorker’s usually hard paywall is absent on the article, allowing its impact to be much wider. The New Yorker piece pretends to be more serious, but it’s just as in love with Newsom. It tries to argue that Newsom is an exceptionally talented politician and also seeks to provide a defense of his past bad behavior. I couldn’t help but notice that the New Yorker’s usually hard paywall is absent on the article, allowing its impact to be much wider. The article describes the governor as “one of the Democrats’ best hopes for pulling together a shattered country.” Its physical descriptions of the governor are only slightly more restrained than Vogue: “He was dressed in a white shirt, dusky-blue suit trousers, and a blue tie knotted, with two crisp dimples, into a four-in-hand.” He is “coiffed” and “has cultivated the air of an accidental politician.” The article quotes one of Newsom’s megadonors, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, without noting the monetary relationship: “He understands that California is one of the leading places for the U.S. to try to compete with China.” There are several unique anecdotes featured in the New Yorker article, showing the extent of access the writer was provided in exchange for this fawning profile. In one episode, Newsom is described as dreamily wishing to have spent more time on self-study of the liberal arts than on reading policy all day. “How many books I could have read!” exclaims Newsom. “Literature! Philosophy! I think about my life, honestly. I could have gone through the Library of Congress. I could have been someone! I could have wisdom!” Further on in this window into Newsom’s daily life that the New Yorker writer has been afforded, the governor starts spouting allusions to the Walt Whitman poem “O Me! O Life!” The New Yorker writer then features Newsom quoting Walt Whitman later that night in his victory speech, celebrating the passage of his ballot proposition allowing California to gerrymander its districts. In this way, Newsom’s quoting of Whitman comes across as a supposedly organic and brilliant use of literature: “My call tonight, in the spirit of Whitman, who talked about ‘the powerful play goes on’ — we all must contribute a verse,” said Newsom. Newsom’s sister, Hilary, was evidently dispatched to the New Yorker writer to explain the governor’s marriage to Kimberly Guilfoyle. She simply says regarding the marriage, “Oh, God,” before going on to explain that Newsom’s heart was “locked” because of their mother’s illness during this time. In the New Yorker piece, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Newsom’s wife, becomes the antidote to the problems that led Newsom to drink heavily and have an affair with a married mother. Siebel Newsom, it is stated, allowed Newsom to “express himself.” The New York Times piece serves to pump up Newsom’s narrative that his success is not due, as I contend in my own biography of Newsom, to his family’s connections and his role in San Francisco’s high society. “Mr. Newsom emphasizes in his memoir, through various anecdotes, that it was his work ethic that led to success in sports, business and politics,” says the Times piece. “But he does not deny that his father’s friends were helpful along the way.” The article, to its credit, notes that Newsom refused to discuss in his book his relationship with a 19-year-old when he was 38 and San Francisco’s mayor, which is something that I cover at length in my own book on Newsom. The governor’s defense of the relationship that he provides to the New York Times is: “That one was always colored in as something that it wasn’t.” This week, Newsom also made a showy announcement that his book tour — essentially his shadow presidential campaign — will kick off in red states. In doing so, Newsom is sending the message that he believes his presidential campaign can win the electoral votes of states that have been going to Republicans. His political adviser, Lindsey Cobia, told Politico: “It is very much on purpose to not start with the typical New York, DC, Philly stops…. We are being quite intentional in going into red states first.” Newsom’s first stop will be in Nashville, Tennessee, and will be followed by events in Atlanta, Georgia, and Rock Hill, South Carolina. By carefully orchestrating himself as the inevitable candidate nearly three full years before the presidential election, Newsom runs the risk of peaking too soon. It might be hard for organic momentum to grow around him when it feels like allegiance to him is being demanded. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Newsom Confesses His Disturbing Role in the Euthanization of His Mother Gavin Newsom’s ‘Self-Puffery’ Gets Him in Trouble With David Axelrod An AI Bubble Could Pop Newsom

A pattern is emerging — and it’s no longer subtle. Money flows into the cities with the most chaos. Not despite the disorder, but because of it. These are the cities where politicians virtue-signal, undermine law enforcement, and sell decarceration as empathy. This isn’t random. It’s funded. And it’s been building since 2016. You can see it on the ground. In Minneapolis, anti-ICE protests didn’t look spontaneous. Marchers carried professionally printed signs and oversized, coordinated banners — the kind you’d expect at a national corporate conference, not a grassroots rally. (RELATED: Some Obvious Truths From Minnesota) They wore police-grade gas masks. They used encrypted apps and coordinated technology to track ICE agents in real time — sharing locations, vehicle descriptions, and alerts as operations unfolded. This has been widely reported as a tactic used by organized activist networks responding to federal enforcement. (RELATED: Anti-ICE Activists Block Minneapolis Roads) So ask the obvious questions. Who paid for the banners? Who paid for the gear? Los Angeles followed the same script this past summer. Pallets of bricks were neatly packaged and dropped off across the city — placed near overpasses where police were positioned below. Officers were suddenly attacked from above as bricks were hurled down at them. Police were forced to retreat to their vehicles to avoid serious injury or death. (RELATED: Skewed Reporting From Los Angeles) That does not happen by accident. Police cars were destroyed. Businesses were looted and windows shattered. Entire neighborhoods were surrendered to mob rule. We’ve seen this model before. Not models — one. That didn’t look like justice. It looked like money. Grant-funded chaos. During the 2020 Black Lives Matter “summer of love,” cities burned under the banner of racial justice while corporate donors and foundations poured in millions. In the years that followed, several BLM founders were federally indicted over alleged financial crimes tied to those donations. (RELATED: 5 Years On, What the Media Need to Know About George Floyd) That didn’t look like justice. It looked like money. Grant-funded chaos. Billions of dollars flow through foundations and political networks into city governments willing to play along. When they don’t, that same money is used to install district attorneys whose policies mirror those of radical public defenders — regardless of the consequences for public safety. (RELATED: Who’s Paying for the Minneapolis Protesters?) In New Jersey, Governor Mikie Sherrill demanded ICE agents be taken “off the streets immediately,” calling them “unaccountable” and “lawless” — not as a protester, but as a sitting governor attacking federal law enforcement on record. In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner went further. On video, he claimed he would “hunt down” ICE agents — despite having no jurisdiction over them. (RELATED: Philadelphia DA Krasner’s Wreckless ‘Nazi’ Rhetoric) He outranks no one. He has no authority. This is first-year law school material. In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has aligned himself with figures who promoted defunding-the-police policies and used dehumanizing rhetoric toward law enforcement, while advancing taxpayer-funded ideological initiatives. During a recent winter blast, 17 homeless New Yorkers froze to death even as city leadership staged public photo-ops highlighting political priorities rather than emergency response. Families were left to grieve without answers. What do you say to those families? Or do deaths only matter when there’s a grant attached? At this point, the question isn’t whether this is happening. It’s why. The answer’s not complicated. It’s financial. Donald Trump didn’t enter politics to get rich. He already was. Members of Congress are different. They are public servants — and public service was never meant to be a pathway to personal enrichment. Yet questions persist about how some lawmakers amass fortunes far beyond what a congressional salary supports. That scrutiny has recently focused on Ilhan Omar, whose financial disclosures and reported rise in net worth have fueled public debate about how such wealth is accumulated while in office. (RELATED: The Spectacle Ep. 308: Ilhan Omar: Queen of Corruption) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez built a brand around “Tax the Rich,” then attended the Met Gala in a designer gown bearing the slogan. In 2025, the House Ethics Committee ordered her to repay more than $2,700 for improperly accepted gifts tied to the event — even while finding no intent to violate the rules. Public servants are not supposed to live like elites. I don’t say this as a pundit. I say it as someone who was one. When I worked at Allegheny County Pretrial Services in Pittsburgh, millions of dollars began flowing in under the banner of “bail reform.” Eventually, that funding approached $20 million. The condition was simple: downplay risk — meaning erase it entirely. We were expected to tell magistrates that violent offenders were not dangerous. That a man who nearly beat someone to death — even with dozens of prior arrests — posed no threat to the community. We recommended release. They walked out. Many returned — some just hours later — charged with attempted homicide or worse. Criminal history is the strongest predictor of future violence. We were instructed to argue the opposite. This was the cost of the funding. Meanwhile, the police were exhausted. Battered. Demoralized. Two years after the funding began pouring in, my director — a woman in her 50s with two college-aged children — built a home worth over one million dollars. Luxury vacations followed: Disney, Colorado, Hawaii — bragged about openly while innocent people were attacked by offenders who never should have been released. Every time the jail population dropped, another large check arrived. Now the fraud is coming into view: fake daycares in Minnesota. A winery that never existed. Taxpayer money funneled into ideological programs while basic public safety collapsed. Lawlessness was the distraction. Paid chaos. Bullhorns. Banners. Gas masks. Bricks. Ask yourself the only question that matters: Where do you think they came from? READ MORE from Kelly Rae Robertson: When Law Enforcement Becomes Political Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Spain has just announced the regularization of half a million undocumented immigrants. Pedro Sánchez published an article in the New York Times on Thursday (“I’m the Prime Minister of Spain. This Is Why the West Needs Migrants”), congratulating himself on the measure — but his piece included several inaccuracies and omissions, as well as a bunch of nonsense, as is usual from the author. In reality, the proposed regularization will affect closer to one million undocumented immigrants, a figure that could soon rise to two million thanks to family reunification policies. While this is theoretically a matter for each state, Giorgia Meloni has asked the EU to halt the regularization to prevent a surge of undocumented migrants in the Mediterranean. This is an irresponsible project that the social-communist government is pushing through by force, using the legal mechanism of a decree-law to bypass debate in Congress, where it lacks the support to pass. This is exactly the same as what dictators do. Sánchez leans on the argument that Spain was once a country of emigrants, but that’s a trap. Sánchez leans on the argument that Spain was once a country of emigrants, but that’s a trap: yes, Spaniards emigrated to the Americas and other parts of Europe in the 20th century seeking prosperity, but that migration was far more orderly and regulated. Most left Spain with state-managed contracts. By contrast, Spain was then a poor but European and stable country, whereas a significant portion of today’s immigration comes from failed states, extreme structural poverty, or war — and, unlike Spaniards who were heading to Switzerland or Argentina, many arrive with minimal willingness to adapt, unless you consider machete attacks in the streets a literal friendly invitation to mix with Spanish blood. Spain needs immigration with guarantees — people coming with work contracts, no criminal record, and willing to adapt. Otherwise, public services teeter on the brink of collapse, and sustaining the Welfare State will become increasingly difficult. For instance, since 2000, the population has grown by 20 percent, while per capita investment in infrastructure has dropped 38 percent. These figures are central to the debate in Spain following a recent train accident that killed 46 people and exposed the deterioration of the railway system under Sánchez’s administration. Crime is also a major concern. The government will not require criminal record certificates from undocumented immigrants benefiting from this measure — only a sworn statement denying any criminal activity. Police unions consider this a bad joke. Furthermore, Sánchez’s social policies encourage many immigrants not to work. Once regularized, an unemployed immigrant will have access to the minimum living income, regional aid, housing assistance, full public healthcare, and school meal grants for their children. Often, the difference between working or not is earning $330 more while dedicating 40 hours a week to a low-quality job. Immigrants know perfectly well that if they work, they lose the benefits. Sánchez claims Spain is enjoying a period of prosperity, but family economics tell a different story: the cost of groceries has risen 45.6 percent since 2019, Sánchez has imposed more than a hundred new taxes during his term — with 80 percent of the burden falling on the middle class and self-employed — and net wages have fallen by an average of 2.5 percent. He ends his article with an appeal to charity, which brings to mind one of Javier Milei’s most famous videos from before he became president. I’ll skip the 50 or so curse words delivered in barely 15 seconds and focus on the message: “If those in government want to do charity, let them do it with their damn money.” Not even the socialist supporters of regularization dare answer this question: What message are you sending to future immigrants after granting legal status to those who entered by breaking the law and violating our borders? Anyway, I, just like Sánchez, have found a fair and quick solution to this situation: let the New York Times, which willingly acts as the megaphone for Europe’s biggest liar, host that one million illegal immigrants in its offices. That’s a win-win. Everyone’s happy. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Nobody Is Worrying About Conservative Environmental Policies Confessions of a Hospital Hypochondriac Diary of a Very Dark Tuesday

Four people in Indiana are dead following a crash involving a semi truck on Feb. 3, 2026. The driver of the semi truck, Bekzhan Beishekeev, is a 30-year-old illegal immigrant from Kyrgyzstan who was paroled into the country under the Biden administration’s CBP One app, according to a statement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS also stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Beishkeev and took custody of him on Feb. 5, 2026. “He will remain in ICE custody pending immigration proceedings,” they added. Indiana State Police and the Jay County Sheriff’s Office responded to reports of a crash at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, according to local media reports. The crash occurred when the semi truck, driven by Beishkeev, allegedly swerved into the opposite lane and collided with a van. Passengers Henry Eicher, Menno Eicher, Paul Eicher, and Simon Girod, 50, 25, 19, and 23, respectively, were declared dead at the scene. All of them were residents of Bryant, Indiana, and were members of the state’s Amish community. The driver of the van, Donald Stipp, 55, was seriously injured and is being treated at a hospital in Fort Wayne, Indiana. (RELATED: Privilege Lost Isn’t Oppression — It’s Justice) In addition to being paroled into the country under the Biden administration, DHS also stated that Beishkeev was given a commercial driver’s license by Pennsylvania. “These decisions have had deadly consequences and led to the death of four innocent people in Indiana on Tuesday… It is incredibly dangerous for illegal aliens, who often don’t know our traffic laws or even English, to be operating semi-trucks on America’s roads. These sanctuary governors must stop giving illegal aliens commercial driver’s licenses before another American gets killed,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. (RELATED: Keep On Truckin’ — If You Are Rightly Licensed) The incident has garnered national attention. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt slammed the incident in a press conference at the White House on Feb. 5, 2026, saying that “[t]his is another tragedy that could have been prevented if not for the wide-open border” and chastised the media present in the room for not covering it more thoroughly. Indiana U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, a Republican, also weighed in, posting on X, “4 men from Indiana were killed this week because of an illegal Joe Biden allowed into the country. Husbands, fathers, sons all gone. We must deport every illegal and get them off our roads!” Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro responded to criticism of his state’s policies in a statement to Fox News, with spokesman Alex Peterson saying that [e]very person who applies for a non-domiciled commercial driver’s license issued by PennDOT must provide proof of identity and proof of their legal presence in the United States. That information is verified by the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, administered by Kristi Noem and the United States Department of Homeland Security. The individual in question had legal status in Kristi Noem’s database when the license was issued in July 2025 and still shows as eligible to receive a license as of today. Kristi Noem should focus on minding the shop in her own agency, as her incompetence and operational failures seem to be matching the scale of her moral failures as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Numerous bills in the current Congress have been proposed to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. These include H.R. 5108, S. 2774, and H.R. 5330, which would threaten federal funding to states that choose to offer such licenses. Most applicable to this case is H.R. 5863 from New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, appropriately titled the No CDLs for Illegals Act. This bill is specifically focused on prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), the type that Beishekeev had. None of these bills have become law. Several Republican-led states, including Florida, have passed legislation refusing to honor out-of-state driver’s licenses given to illegal aliens.  These legislative actions have been precipitated by a series of high-profile crashes by truck drivers illegally residing in the United States. For example, in December 2025, it was reported by Fox News that Indian national Rajinder Kumar, an illegal immigrant alleged by authorities to be guilty of criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment for his role in a fatal Oregon crash that killed two, was given a work authorization by the Biden administration and given a CDL by the state of California. He was hardly alone in that: according to a statement by DHS, during Operation Midway Blitz, 146 illegal immigrant truck drivers were arrested in northwest Indiana. The top states issuing CDLs to these individuals were Illinois, California, and New York, the agency added. READ MORE from Stephan Kapustka: Business as Usual on Pennsylvania Ave A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms Is as Conservative as Game of Thrones Gets One Year In: Trump’s Show of Force

The European Union has been censoring speech against globalist New World Order policies such as replacement migration.

from Revolver News: Ever since the 2020 fiasco, Americans have been told to stop asking questions about elections. Questioning outcomes is somehow “dangerous” to the Dems’ precious democracy. If you ask for clarity or an investigation, it’s treated like some kind of traitorous sabotage. And yet, the doubts haven’t gone away. In fact, they’ve only […]

from ZeroHedge: The AI era already feels like a dystopian fever dream straight out of a bad sci-fi novel, but leave it to a software engineer to push the accelerator straight into the abyss. Enter Alexander Liteplo, the software developer behind RentAHuman.ai, a freshly launched platform that lets autonomous AI agents “search, book, and pay” actual […]