Over the past decade, companies have increasingly mandated the use of mail-order pharmacy warehouses instead of traditional pharmacies. Aggressive business tactics and the 2020 COVID lockdowns boosted the popularity of mail-order prescriptions. Today, patients who try to fill their prescriptions at a traditional pharmacy often face declined insurance claims or significantly higher costs, effectively pushing them toward mail-order options.

These mail-order prescription warehouses all have major distribution hubs in Arizona.

Higher temperatures can speed up degradation, render drugs partially or completely ineffective, or even alter their composition into poisons.

Despite the brutally hot climate, Arizona legislators used tax credits to incentivize huge mail-order pharmacies like Amazon and pharmacy benefit managers including Express Scripts, CVS Caremark, Walgreens, Humana, and United Health to build massive pharmacy centers in the Phoenix area. Pharmacy warehouses ship out tens of millions of prescriptions every month to many other states via UPS, FedEx, and other delivery services.

It is an incredibly lucrative business. Pharmacy benefit managers barely existed 25 years ago, but today, three are Fortune 10 companies. In 2022, PBM revenues reached $1.25 trillion, much of which comes from patients enrolled in taxpayer-funded Medicare and Medicaid programs. Humana alone receives some 85% of its income from government programs.

These companies claim to bring about prescription drugs cost savings, but recent findings by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability have called into question whether these “savings” are going to American taxpayers or to the PBMs themselves.

But that isn’t the only problem.

Pharmaceuticals are fragile, organic substances. Even under ideal storage conditions, they undergo chemical alterations and expire. Higher temperatures can speed up degradation, render drugs partially or completely ineffective, or even alter their composition into poisons.

That’s why the United States Pharmacopeia Sec. 659 requires non-refrigerated drugs be kept between 68 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit, with maximum allowable excursions of 58 to 86 degrees, provided these periods do not exceed 24 hours.

Needless to say, Arizona and other states’ summers frequently exceed 86 degrees.

In 2023 alone, Arizona had 53 days during which the temperature hit or exceeded 110. And that number doesn’t account for the significant oven-like greenhouse effect of non-air-conditioned UPS, FedEx, and U.S. Postal Service delivery trucks and mailboxes, with delivery taking about a week to reach patients.

Data published by San Francisco State University geosciences faculty shows that the inside temperature of a vehicle will almost double after an hour in the sun. Even with mild outdoor temperatures (70-80 degrees), vehicle temperatures can exceed the maximum allowable USP/FDA limit after just 20 minutes. While some PBMs will occasionally include “temperature controlled packaging,” experiments and consumer reports indicate their failures.

Pharmaceuticals are the most strictly regulated industry in the world, so why is this being ignored?

There are two reasons.

The first is that in 2017, concurrent with the expansion of massive mail-order pharmacies, the USP changed its five-decade-old temperature requirements for pharmaceuticals.

The USP’s new rule was announced without any data, bibliography, or scientific justification. It stated that drugs may now exceed the established excessive heat maximum of 86 degrees by an additional 18 degrees, as long temperatures “average out” according to a convoluted “mean kinetic temperature” formula.

The trouble is that the MKT formula is outdated. It was established in 1971, and it’s based on the Arrhenius Equation, which dates back to the late 1800s. Moreover, the original MKT studies never considered temperatures above 87 degrees and are of questionable applicability to all 150,000 available drug products they now regulate.

That’s because the MKT formula was created to hypothesizemicrobial replication in perishable foods like milk and butter under mild variations in room temperatures — not to assess the stability of prescription drugs baking in the back of delivery trucks during Arizona summers, which routinely exceed even the expanded USP’s maximum temperature of 104 degrees.

The second reason is the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy.

The FDA is the primary regulatory authority for all things pharmaceutical, with three exceptions: pharmacist licensure, inventory, and storage. Temperature is a component of storage and thus falls under the authority of state pharmacy boards.

Because Arizona’s burgeoning PBM warehouses ship millions of prescription drugs across many states, the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy’s neglect could be affecting patients both in Arizona and across the country, potentially rendering medicines less effective, ineffective, or toxic.

Arizona’s Pharmacy Board is unelected, appointed by and only accountable to Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs. It’s time for her to take immediate steps to protect patients from these temperature extremes.

GOP-backed ‘reform’ in South Carolina would cement public health tyranny

On the grim four-year anniversary of the lockdowns, it’s striking to realize that Republican legislatures were active in 2020 but did nothing to stop the overreach. Surprisingly, few states have changed their laws to prevent a repeat. What’s more, South Carolina is close to going a step farther by not advancing key medical freedom laws and instead may give a new health care czar the power essentially to declare martial law.

Two bills — H. 4927 and S. 915 — have sailed through their respective chambers with no opposition beyond the South Carolina Freedom Caucus. The legislation would create the Executive Office of Health and Policy run by a Fauci-like health czar to replace the disparate powers of the current state public health system, directed by the Department of Health and Environmental Control, an agency that is not accountable to the governor.

While it’s a good idea to have one agency responsible to the governor, the goal should be to reduce, not increase, its power. The South Carolina legislation actually worsens the current system.

For example, section five of the House bill prescribes the following:

All sheriffs and constables in the several counties of this State and police officers and health officers of cities and towns must aid and assist the Director of the Department of Public Health and Environmental Control and must carry out and obey his orders, or those of the Department of Public Health and Environmental Control, to enforce and carry out any and all restrictive measures and quarantine regulations that may be prescribed.

The bill’s proponents would say the state can already compel sheriffs to enforce tyrannical measures. That’s exactly the problem! Any reorganization of these agencies should remove oppressive powers, not conform them to a shiny new system. We need more freedom, not less. The state health department should only advise, not have power over our lives, liberties, and property.

H. 4927 passed the House with a vote of 91-18 on the last day of February. Attempts to take out the controversial powers over sheriffs didn't succeed, with a similar vote count. The Senate passed its version a week before, with only one dissenting vote. Now, the bills are moving to conference for reconciliation. Republican Governor Henry McMaster says he’ll sign the final bill. Despite voter backlash, it's uncertain whether the Senate will have the nerve to change the provision concerning sheriffs. But why would Republican legislators want to consider such legislation at all?

The bill purports to consolidate several different state agencies — the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services, the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Mental Health, and the Department on Aging, along with DHEC — under the new umbrella office. And it’s good that the governor would have greater authority over it. But focusing on structure rather than powers and policy of the state public health agency is like focusing on the finger of someone who points to the moon rather than the moon itself.

South Carolina has barely nibbled around the edges of public health tyranny four sessions into the COVID travesty. Legislators have only banned the shutdown of houses of worship — nothing else.

They have not prevented businesses from mandating dangerous shots. They have not prevented hospitals from violating human rights and mandating masks. They have refused to consider all the conservative legislation redressing these issues.

That is not unique, unfortunately, to red states. What’s peculiar in South Carolina is that Republicans are making public health policy worse.

This legislation doesn't actually cut the size of government. It keeps all existing roles in the Department of Health and Environmental Control and other agencies and even adds a new layer of bureaucracy.

When asked about the cost, Rep. Bill Herbkersman (R), the bill's sponsor, couldn't provide a number. The bill is so complex that its financial impact is still unknown. In a committee meeting, Herbkersman, who chairs the Healthcare Subcommittee on Ways and Means, confessed that the bill's touted streamlining wouldn't eliminate even one job.

So if it doesn’t limit public health tyranny and doesn’t streamline or cut the health bureaucracy, then what is its purpose? Same as ever: cronyism and tyranny.

Rather than installing the new secretary and his agency in the existing DHEC building, the legislation would move $352 million in funding to rent new expensive office space in Columbia, near the baseball stadium on Otarre Parkway. Why would they do this if the entire point is to consolidate resources? Well, the new building they will rent is owned by Bill Stern, a big donor to McMaster. Stern led the ceremony at the governor’s inauguration in 2023.

If the only problem with the legislation was its cost, I’d be willing to pay off their cronies to buy my freedom. The reality is that South Carolina’s proposed “reforms” are part of a national effort to introduce health czars into every state, which may be why the bill is over 70 pages, which is long for state government. It turns out that House Republicans have paid $3.2 million to Boston Consulting Group, which does business with the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to write the legislation.

We wonder why most red states went along with COVID fascism for way too long, given that Republicans dominate the legislatures and governors’ offices. The fact that they refuse to recognize their mistakes and are, in fact, making those mistakes worse simply shows that unless we get active in primaries this year, we won’t have many red states in which to seek refuge during the next biomedical crackdown.

Horowitz: Tennessee lawmaker introduces the single most important bill for the life of our Constitution

What happens when the federal government promulgates a blatantly unconstitutional and life-altering regulation on our life, liberty, and property that no reasonable person can believe is within the confines of the constitutionally enumerated powers? What happens if a federal court invents a right out of whole cloth, such as mandating gay marriage upon the states two years after conceding it’s a state issue? Are we completely at the mercy of that edict and forced to embark on the impossible task of amending the Constitution the government or the court just illegally amended? Hell no. And a Tennessee representative is leading the charge with a new bill that will restore the constitutional balance of power once and for all.

The federal government is only supreme over state laws if its laws are “in pursuance” of the Constitution. If we allow the federal government’s actions to be supreme – not just in a gray area of dispute, but when they are unambiguously unconstitutional – then we quite literally have no Constitution. If the federal courts are the final arbiters of the Constitution, then again, we have no separation of powers to speak of. This is the era we are living through today, and if there is ever any hope of restoring the Constitution, we must follow our founders, who believed that the Constitution rests in the whole of the people.

Sure, within their respective spheres of influence and leverage, all branches of the state, federal, and county governments have certain specified or implied powers. But no one branch is supreme over the others (other than the Supreme Court over the inferior courts within its branch of government). Our founders envisioned that the people would jealously guard their constitutional rights and, through the three levels of local, state, and federal governments, would use their respective powers and influence to fight for the Constitution rather than surrendering to any one branch’s usurpation of it. The Supreme Court was not regarded as the final authority on a fundamental constitutional question affecting the whole of the people. The law of the land is the Constitution itself, not any single branch. (See more about judicial supremacism vs. constitutional decompartmentalism here.) (You can listen to my podcast series here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

In Tennessee, Rep. Bud Hulsey (R) introduced a bill (HB 726) that would involve the people, all branches of the state government, and the county governments in constitutional interpretation affecting vital policies when they believe the federal government is clearly wrong. Either the governor may issue an executive order declaring the federal policy void; any member of the legislature can trigger a floor debate and vote to nullify the policy; a state court may declare said policy unconstitutional if it arises during the course of a legitimate case or controversy; any combination of 10 local governing authorities – either through their respective executives or legislative branches – may submit a petition for nullification that triggers a vote in the legislature; and any group of 2,000 registered Tennessee voters may submit a similar petition triggering an automatic legislative vote on nullification.

Once such a bill passes (or a policy is implemented by the governor via executive order), it would be unlawful for any state or local official to assist or fund the policy in any way. When factoring in the constitutionality of a federal policy from any of the three branches, the state legislature must consider the plain text of the Constitution, the ratification debates, state constitutions, the original members of Congress and the Supreme Court, and statements on natural law by philosophers whose wisdom was drawn upon by the framers of the Constitution.

This law would have no statute of limitations, meaning that it could trigger a debate and vote on any law of Congress, executive policy, or precedent from a court ruling.

This is one of the most beautifully written bills I’ve seen in a long time. It would finally restore constitutional supremacy by calling upon the whole of the people and all their respective branches of government to scrutinize governmental policies against an original standard constitutional interpretation. Constitutional interpretation was given over to every elected state and federal official as well as the judges of the courts, who all swear an oath to uphold the federal Constitution in addition to the state constitution.

This bill is a fulfillment of exactly what our founders had in mind when the federal government usurps powers belonging to the states or the people. Sure, there is no state veto on legitimate federal authority over simple disagreement with the policy. But even Alexander Hamilton, the chief proponent of federal power himself, makes it clear that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution only applies to lawful federal powers. "It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land," wrote Hamilton in Federalist #33.

The entire foundation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s power to get involved in constitutional interpretation, as opposed to merely interpreting statute, is built upon Marbury v. Madison. In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall said that it would be “immoral” and “a crime” to issue an opinion contrary to the Constitution. That applies to the other branches of state and federal governments as well.

Since World War II, and accelerating in our times, the federal agencies and courts have remade our lives with social transformation without representation. Those two branches have absolutely no law-making authority, even if their policies comported with the Constitution, which they usually don’t. So what are we supposed to do? Sit back and take it? The Tennessee constitution has a provision similar to that in many state bills of rights repudiating this notion. "That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind," reads Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of Tennessee.

Every officeholder has a responsibility to exercise his powers only in concert with the way he understands the Constitution. During his sixth debate with Stephen Douglas during the 1858 race for Senate in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln asserted: “Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it.”

Obviously, during a time of constitutional stability, it makes sense that some would believe that the few gray-area disagreements should be decided by the federal courts and deference should be given to the supremacy of federal powers over the states. But in this post-constitutional and indeed post-humanist and post-enlightenment era, if we are going to unilaterally disarm in front of any unambiguous assault on our way of life, we are the ones guilty of perpetuating the unconstitutional power-grabs.

Now a half-century into the complacency of the conservative movement and the perfidy of the GOP, there is no silver bullet to winning back our freedom and way of life. But this Tennessee bill is probably the closest thing to that multiplying force for good that we’ve been looking for.

Horowitz: How GOP governors must stop the OSHA clot-shot mandate in its tracks

It's not shocking that many blue-state voters swept Democrats out of power in favor of Republicans in parts of the country previously untouchable by the GOP. Nor is it shocking that Biden responded to the election drubbing by doubling down on his tyrannical policies. What is shocking, however, is the lack of GOP resolve to completely neutralize the needle rape mandate even in red states, other than crying to the courts for help.

It was for this very moment that our founders created a layered federalist system. If one entity seized the federal power, the states would remain a check and balance on unconstitutional behavior. Governors would be wise to meet at a conference and declare that any mandate on the people or businesses of their states is null and void. That is exactly what our founders would have done.

Too many people erroneously interpret Article VI's Supremacy Clause as a green light for any action taken by the federal government to supersede state law. However, they are forgetting one phrase of that clause. Article VI, Clause 2 states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." In other words, something that is clearly out of the bounds of federal powers enumerated in Art. I Sec. 8, even if passed by Congress, much less a rogue federal agency like OSHA, is not supreme over state law.

It's not that our founders never envisioned that a president might want to act like a tyrant; it's that they never saw states and the people rolling over and being obsequious to every tyrannical executive edict. Even Alexander Hamilton, the greatest proponent of a robust federal government, made it very clear that unconstitutional edicts would be ignored by the states without having to cry to the federal courts, which the founders feared might also be in cahoots with the federal executive. "It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land," wrote Hamilton in Federalist #33. "These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."

Hamilton reiterated this point in Federalist #78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Again, he said this about a legislative act – imagine what he would think of a bureaucratic act affecting bodily integrity.

Madison even went so far as to suggest that people would take up arms. In Federalist #46, he stated that in the event of the federal government clamping down on individual rights even with a military (much less career OSHA bureaucrats), "the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger" via the power of "citizens with arms in their hands"who would be fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [state] governments possessing their affections and confidence."

During the North Carolina ratification convention, many delegates were particularly skeptical of ceding power to the federal government and were concerned about the creation of a dictatorship that would crush the state. James Iredell, the lead federalist in the state, who eventually became an original member of the Supreme Court, laughed off the notion that the federal government could succeed when the state and the majority of the people unify behind opposing it. In a speech before the convention on July 29, 1788, he conceded that with the creation of any new government you run the risk of abuse, but that should not cause concern because "the only resource against usurpation is the inherent right of the people to prevent its exercise. This is the case in all free governments in the world." He predicted, "The people will resist if the government usurp powers not delegated to it."

Commenting on the Guarantee Clause of Art. IV, Section 4, whereby the federal government must guarantee the states "a republican form of government," Tench Coxe made it clear that any usurpation of republicanism would be treated as treason by those who perpetrate it. "From thence it follows, that any man or body of men, however rich or powerful, who shall make an alteration in the form of government of any state, whereby the powers thereof shall be attempted to be taken out of the hands of the people at large, will stand guilty of high treason," declared the Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

Well, here we are today, with an unelected federal agency proclaiming a mandate on the businesses and bodies of citizens in all 50 states with power that clearly could never have been vested in any government, much less the national government. The Biden administration is mandating that we place something into our bodies that has already proven unsafe and 100% ineffective for its stated purpose of stopping transmission of COVID-19. If our founders' vision of states serving as a check on federal tyranny is not actualized here, especially in light of 19 months of executive edicts without a legislative process, then we should cease calling ourselves a free society.

How is it that governors in states with supermajorities in the legislature and where Biden has a dismally low approval rating are scared to simply say NO? Merely filing a lawsuit and exempting just state government employees from the mandate is not good enough. They need to counterbalance the federal mandate on business with an even stronger mandate to overrule it.

Here is a way they can effectively push back against the feds with a united front, beginning with the convening of special sessions of their respective state legislatures:

Not only ban business mandates in state law, but offer employees a cause of action in state court to sue for damages (with no caps) for vaccine injury or injury from mask-wearing. That will outweigh the magnitude of federal fines on the other side.
Force businesses, with the threat of fines, that decide to listen to the feds to at least apply federal workplace injury law that OSHA is blatantly ignoring. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1904, employers are required to record side effects of workers who are vaccinated by mandate. OSHA publicly admitted that in order to "encourage COVID-19 vaccinations" and because the agency does not "wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination," it is suspending this requirement through May 2022. States must promise to enforce this law.
While threatening companies with the stick of lawsuits, states should offer the carrot of paying for any potential federal fines levied against the businesses by OSHA.
Make it a felony for anyone to share information about vaccination status with the federal government. This is similar to what New York did with its "Green Light" law, making it a felony to share information with ICE. If blue states could do this for illegal alien sex offenders, in violation of legitimate federal immigration powers, then most certainly states can do this to protect American rights in the face of immoral and illegal human rights violations. Page 135 of the OSHA edict "requires that employers provide employees and their designated representatives access to relevant exposure and medical records" of other employees. Such an act needs to be punishable with 10 years in prison.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously wrote in his letter from the Birmingham jail, "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." It's that simple. We are sick of these Republican governors stating that something is immoral and unlawful but then countenancing even the most immoral and unconstitutional executive edicts as if they are constitutional statutes. It's to match their rhetoric with deeds.

Horowitz: What we expect from GOP governors and legislators in this crisis

This is it. This is why our founders created a layered approach to government — for this very nightmare scenario we are confronted with today. The question is whether the Republican governors and legislators will rise to the occasion.

We all knew this was coming. Yesterday, the Biden regime announced a full federal requirement to get the waning, leaky, and risky COVID shots that are so ineffective that they already need a third shot. In following Israel's lead, the Biden administration is not only mandating the shot on the federal workforce, but anyone who works for a private company with more than 100 employees. But the difference is that, unlike in Israel, we have state governors who can and must interpose between the feds and the people.

There has quite literally never been anything this tyrannical foisted upon us in our lifetime. The shots come with a tremendous amount of risk, particularly to those who already had the virus, which in parts of the country is already a majority of people. They haven't even fully studied the effects on pregnant women, menstrual cycles, and myocarditis in young people, yet the mandate is preceding the science.

At the same time, it is very likely that the mass vaccination with a leaky vaccine is causing a quasi-Marek's disease enhancement syndrome, which can make the virus even worse, under what is known as the "imperfect vaccine hypothesis." As PBS noted in a 2015 article on the leaky chicken vaccine, which causes vaccinated birds to transmit the virus to unvaccinated birds and kill them with higher viral loads, the Marek's disease vaccine "has helped this chicken virus become uniquely virulent." Sound similar to what we are experiencing today in Israel with a worse viral spread than ever before?

As PBS noted, "To test the imperfect vaccine hypothesis in humans, you would need [to] monitor the vaccine response for either a large or isolated population for a long time. … Does the vaccine merely reduce symptoms, or does it also keep patients from getting infected and transmitting the virus?"

Well, we already have the answer to that in the first human vaccine in human history to not only be used in middle of a pandemic, but to be leaky and very narrow spectrum. How can this be continued without first ruling out the growing prospect that the mass vaccination with a flawed shot is making the pandemic worse?

This is where the red states come into play. Republicans hold 27 governorships, 23 trifectas, and 19 supermajorities in state legislatures. The governors in those states must immediately convene emergency sessions of the state legislatures and request that they pass a bill prohibiting the implementation of the federal mandate within the states. While they are at it, they should also punish any medical board or pharmacy that gets in the way of the true solution to COVID, which is early treatment with cheap repurposed drugs. To put teeth into their new state laws, legislators must empower state troopers and the National Guard to arrest any federal employee or agent seeking to enforce a mandate violating human rights.

How much longer will these elected Republicans sit out the Super Bowl of liberty vs. tyranny? These same governors and state legislatures allowed our economies to be destroyed, trillions of dollars to be flushed on worthless and painful voodoo measures, and individual liberty to be crushed, only to make the virus worse than ever before. They got the lockdowns, they got the masks, and they got endless payouts to Big Pharma for dangerous drugs like remdesivir while crushing any cheap therapeutics. Now, they have very high vaccination rates in most parts of the country and are demanding boosters. They had their chance to experiment with our liberties; now it's time for any red state worth its name to pull the plug on the tyranny.

No, "see you in court" is not the appropriate response to this tyranny, Gov. Noem. More must be done.

South Dakota will stand up to defend freedom. @JoeBiden see you in court.
— Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) 1631218458.0

The courts have already greenlit vaccine mandates. They have not only sided with COVID fascism for a year and a half — including blocking lifesaving treatment for people without options — they are now upholding "rights" of county governments to violate people's bodily integrity. So, the same courts that ignore any lawsuit on mask and vaccine mandates will immediately grant an injunction to county governments who seek to upend decisions made by governors and state legislatures to protect freedom.

Indeed, the courts are part of the problem. If the federal government declared that all employers must ban people of a certain race or creed from employment, would state governments cry to the courts? No! The governors would discover their executive powers and teach a civics lesson in Federalist #33. In that essay, written by none other than Alexander Hamilton, the chief proponent of federal power himself makes it clear that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution only applies to lawful federal powers.

"It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land," wrote Hamilton in Federalist #33.

James Madison in Federalist #46 explains the recipe for how to accomplish this. Madison predicted that a federal encroachment would easily be mitigated by state action, because "the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand." What is the winning formula?

The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

Indeed, this is what happened with the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens. There is no more legitimate federal power than protecting the national sovereignty from invaders, yet the states that were united behind protecting illegal aliens were able to thwart ICE at every turn. Deportations in California plummeted to a near standstill during Trump's presidency because of the success of this movement. Ultimately, local government predominates ... when it wants to.

So, if leftist local governments are capable of creating a sanctuary on behalf of illegal alien sex offenders and gang members, why can't Republicans secure a sanctuary to protect the bodily integrity of Americans?

Horowitz: North Dakota legislators introduce bill to block Biden’s illegal executive edicts

"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require." ~Sec. 2, North Dakota Declaration of Rights

A group of North Dakota legislators have taken up the call for states to reassert control over the Constitution, as the Biden regime continues to rule by executive fiat, often promulgating unconstitutional orders infringing upon civil rights. This is the key to thwarting a wholesale slide into national despotism and ensuring that there are some places for Americans to go and enjoy the blessings of liberty. The question is whether leaders in those legislative chambers as well as Gov. Doug Burgum will pick up the mantle, not to mention Republicans in other states.

Recently, Rep. Tom Kading and eight other Republicans in the North Dakota House introduced HB 1164, which would task the attorney general with reviewing the constitutionality of the president's executive orders. If any of his orders are deemed to be unlawful, this bill would prohibit any state or county agency or publicly funded organization from enforcing the edict.

The list of issues covered under the bill are:

Pandemics or other health emergencies.
The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil.
The regulation of the agriculture industry.
The use of land.
The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards.
The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Thus, an easy first candidate for such legislation is Biden's recent mask mandate, which unconstitutionally prohibits humans breathing without cloths on their mouths and noses inside any public transportation, including in-state ride-shares and taxis. The CDC created an entire criminal offense for something that never passed Congress.

What if Congress decides to pass a bill that is unconstitutional? HB 1282, introduced by Rep. Sebastian Ertelt, would take this a step farther by proposing a "Committee on Neutralization of Federal Laws" to recommend whether a given law or regulation is unconstitutional. Upon the recommendation of this committee, consisting of state legislative leadership and their appointees, the legislature would pass a concurrent resolution on whether to nullify the law or edict. Until the resolution is passed, state and county agencies would be prohibited from enforcing the law or regulation at issue.

These bills should serve as a model for all 31 GOP-controlled legislatures, especially in the 23 states where there are also Republican governors. I hear so many conservatives acting despondent and either resigned to tyranny or calling for secession or even a civil war. But the solution implied in these bills would keep the union loosely intact while peacefully maintaining a constitutional sanctuary for those who still value constitutional freedoms. This is the best way to peacefully and gradually separate blue and red America into their respective cultural, economic, and governing choices so we can live together more agreeably as a federal union.

North Dakota Republicans control the Senate 40-7 and the House 80-14. If this were a Democrat state passing a sanctuary bill for illegal aliens, the bill would pass in a day. Given that the rights of American citizens are on the line, Senate leaders Randy Burckhard and Rich Wardner should bring this bill to the Senate floor, and Speaker Kim Koppelman should bring the bill to the House floor immediately. North Dakota has an opportunity to lead the nation in liberty, if only all the Republicans in the state would govern the way they campaign.

Madison predicted in Federalist #46 that a federal encroachment would easily be mitigated by state action, because "the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand." What is the winning formula?

The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

In other words, public outrage, state and local officials refusing to enforce it, and correspondence with counterparts in other states together in unison would prevail over federal tyranny.

South Dakota already has a similar bill to HB 1164 targeting Biden's executive lawmaking. Rep. Aaron Aylward of Harrisburg, South Dakota, introduced HB 1194, which would set up an executive board to review the constitutionality of executive orders pertaining to the six issues laid out in the North Dakota legislation. With a 32-3 majority in the Senate and a 62-8 majority in the House, South Dakota Republicans have the strongest majorities since the Eisenhower era. The Dakotas, as well as many other parts of the country, can easily become constitutional sanctuaries.

Additionally, county commissions, prosecutors, and sheriffs should also seek to criminalize enforcement of unconstitutional edicts at the county level.

Let's be very clear: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution subordinates states to follow only laws that are pursuant to the Constitution on issues that were given over to the federal government to determine. However, if the federal government blatantly violates the Constitution, especially in a way that harms individual liberty, even Alexander Hamilton, the great supporter of a powerful national government, said that states should ignore it. "It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land," wrote Hamilton in Federalist #33. "These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."

Well, if it was good enough for Hamilton, it should be good enough for states with strong Republican majorities in the legislature.

There is no doubt that Biden's presidency will take a bite out of our economy, especially with his cancelation of the international pipeline going through North Dakota. But if tyranny itself takes root and grows within the boundaries of these solid red states, then we as conservatives have nobody to blame but ourselves and our own complacency.

These are the definitive recordings of 35 favorite Christmas carols: Don't argue, just listen

Because nobody doesn't love a list and everybody is an expert nowadays, I've compiled a list of the definitive recordings of 35 of the most loved classic Christmas carols.

Don't agree? That's OK — you're allowed to be wrong. (Spoiler alert: There are zero Josh Groban or Pentatonix songs on this list. If you find that upsetting, this probably isn't the list for you anyway. Just click on something else.)

Merry Christmas! And happy listening:

#1: SILENT NIGHT — Dean Martin

This one was a gimme — that way we don't start out the list fighting.

***

#2: HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY LITTLE CHRISTMAS — Ella Fitzgerald

Yes, I know, I know, Judy did it first for "Meet Me in St. Louis"; however, that does not make it the best. If you think Garland's rendition is better than Ella's, you're probably also a Liza Minnelli fan.

***

#3: JOY TO THE WORLD — Whitney Houston

Now, a lot of people will tell you that Mariah Carey has cornered the market on this old hymn, but that's only because she was hitched to Sony's Tommy Mottola when she cut the holiday album that features the song. If Whitney were still around today and able to get the press Mariah does, I'm pretty sure everybody would be saying "Mariah who?" when it was time to drop the needle on "Joy to the World."

***

#4: IT'S THE MOST WONDERFUL TIME OF THE YEAR — Andy Williams

If you fight me on this one, we can't be friends.

***

#5: THE CHRISTMAS SONG — Nat King Cole

C'mon. Mel Torme wrote the song (with Bob Wells) and gave it to Cole to sing, knowing he was the guy to make this song unforgettable. Other people can roast their chestnuts all they want — many have done it well — but Cole's take will never be topped. Ever.

***

#6: HARK! THE HERALD ANGELS SING — Amy Grant

Truthfully, Jewel's arrangement of "Hark!" is superior, but the problem is ... Jewel, the woman who sings like she has marbles in her mouth and can't decide if she's going to do an adult voice or a little girl voice. Advantage: Grant.

***

#7: ADESTE FIDELES — Celine Dion

No one really knows who wrote "O Come, All Ye Faithful," but anyone with any sense knows who did best. (Though I have to give a nod to David Osmond's strong performance on Glenn Beck's "Believe Again" album.)

***

#8: WHITE CHRISTMAS — Bing Crosby

There's a reason this Crosby record is the best-selling single in the world — not just in the holiday genre, but best-selling single of all time. Nothing has ever topped it, and it's likely nothing ever will.

***

#9: RUDOLPH, THE RED-NOSED REINDEER — Gene Autry

Yes, Burl Ives was the narrator for the TV special. Yes, I get a warm, fuzzy feeling from Ives' record. No, it's isn't the best version. That belongs to The Singing Cowboy.

***

#10: IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK A LOT LIKE CHRISTMAS — Johnny Mathis

Crosby and Como both killed it when they recorded this song, but the Mathis version has the edge — not just in quality but also culturally with its inclusion in "Home Alone 2," which gave it a massive surge in popularity.

***

#11: I'LL BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS — Perry Como

Is there really any question? No. No there isn't.

***

#12: JINGLE BELLS — Frank Sinatra

Don't question this one either: Frank knows people who know how to hurt people. (Well, at least, he used to.)

***

#13: SANTA CLAUS IS COMIN' TO TOWN — Jackson 5

The Boss would say different. But you and I know the truth.

***

#14: ANGELS WE HAVE HEARD ON HIGH — Mormon Tabernacle Choir

The "Gloria, in excelsis Deo" chorus requires a powerful choir. Good luck finding a choir more powerful than the one the LDS folks put together.

***

#15: FROSTY THE SNOWMAN — Jimmy Durante

The Ronettes produced a very good version and it gets way more airplay, which is a shame: Durante's recording is a musical number Rankin & Bass actually got right.

***

#16: A HOLLY JOLLY CHRISTMAS — Burl Ives

This is Ives' song. No one else should even try to sing it.

***

#17: WINTER WONDERLAND — Perry Como

Admit it, you were expecting me to say Darline Love here. It's OK. It's a normal and fairly logical guess. But it also happens to be incorrect. Not only did Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass cut a version that was better (though wordless), both of Perry Como's versions (here and here) are objectively better. Here is the track from his 1946 album "Perry Como Sings Merry Christmas Music."

***

#18: LET IT SNOW! LET IS SNOW! LET IT SNOW! — Lena Horne

Lots of artists have made great "Let It Snow!" records (including Harry Connick Jr., who deserves a mention). But none of them ever reached the smoothness — and, frankly, sexiness — of Lena Horne's.

***

#19: THE FIRST NOEL — Third Day

It's a more modern version of an old hymn with some cool rhythm. It's also the best version ever recorded.

***

#20: SILVER BELLS — Elvis Presley

After The King walked out of the studio the day he laid this down, there was no reason for anyone to ever bother trying to do it better.

***

#21: SLEIGH RIDE — Ella Fitzgerald

You want me to say Arthur Fiedler & The Boston Pops Orchestra. Not gonna happen. Lady Ella owns this — and always will.

***

#22: DECK THE HALLS — Ashley Hess

Ashley Hess is not likely a name you recognize at first. But if you're a Glenn Beck fan, you'll remember this after a quick listen. And then you'll agree.

***

#23: GOD REST YE MERRY GENTLEMEN — Barenaked Ladies

Here's one that had me going back and forth for hours. Everything Nat King Cole touched was superb, so I could easily put his recording here and be done with it. But ... the Barenaked Ladies put a spin on this classic that has just the edge needed to bump it ahead of Cole.

***

#24: THE TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS — John Denver & The Muppets

The LP of this 1979 Christmas special (which has never been released on home video) is full of great music. The most notable is the Muppet Gang's clever rundown of the many gifts the writer's obnoxious "true love" gave him. Bah-dum-bum-bum.

***

#25: ANGELS FROM THE REALMS OF GLORY — Julie Andrews

If you like Andrews' style, you'll absolutely love all of her Christmas songs. Her best Christmas record happens to also be the best version of that song.

***

#26: DO YOU HEAR WHAT I HEAR? — Perry Como

I know he's already got a couple wins on this list, but I've got to give Como this one, too, with Andy Williams coming in a close second.

***

#27: IT CAME UPON A MIDNIGHT CLEAR — MercyMe

Another modern take on a hymn. On first listen, you'll disagree with me on its ranking. But then you'll listen again and again and be forced to admit that, well, the fat Blaze editor was right once more.

***

#28: LITTLE DRUMMER BOY — Bing Crosby & David Bowie

It's a beautiful song — it's also the strangest Christmas song. Crosby and Bowie's awkward video didn't help make it less weird. But you can't argue with the talent they brought to the studio when it was time to record.

***

#29: WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS — Alvin and the Chipmunks

Every Christmas music list is required to include Alvin and the Chipmunks. It's scriptural.

***

#30: ROCKIN' AROUND THE CHRISTMAS TREE — Leann Rimes

"Brenda Lee!" you're shouting as you read this. "You're nuts!" I'm shouting back. Lee's famous record doesn't have 1 percent of the feel (or talent, for that matter) that Rimes' does.

***

#31: O LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM — Andy Williams

I was torn on this one — all the way up until it was time to post this. My brain tells me to go with Mahalia Jackson's soulful version. But my heart says this is another song that The King of Christmas just nailed.

***

#32: WHAT CHILD IS THIS? — Vince Guaraldi Trio

Guaraldi's "Charlie Brown Christmas" album is arguably the best complete holiday album ever produced. No one has ever made "Greensleeves" sound better.

***

#33: GOOD KING WENCESLAS — Ames Brothers

Though a lot of folks will say The Velvet Fog's jazzy turn on this tale of a ruler who looked out for others should be tops, I've got a soft spot in my heart for the Ames Brothers' record. The majesty of the music sets the tone for understanding the lesson we can learn from Wenceslas.

***

#34: O HOLY NIGHT — David Phelps

Here's another hymn that could have gone to a couple artists. Critics have rightfully celebrated Celine Dion for her rendition, but David Phelps really brought it home. (Plus, Celine is Canadian, so the thought of giving her more than one song on this list was nauseating.)

***

#35: MY FAVORITE THINGS — Tony Bennett

No one has ever explained to me how this became a Christmas song. Julie Andrews really made it famous on "The Sound of Music," and since then, scads of very notable vocalists have covered it for Christmas — no one better than Bennett. (Barbra Streisand can get bent.)

This post originally ran Dec. 25, 2019.