SCOTUS Finally Cracks Down On The Schools Secretly Transing Kids
The Supreme Court has reminded the country that no school bureaucracy can override parents' fundamental rights.The Supreme Court has reminded the country that no school bureaucracy can override parents' fundamental rights.Deportation Is The Only ‘Due Process’ Illegal Aliens Deserve
How can there be a legal injury in removing a citizen of Somalia, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Mexico, or any other country, from the U.S.?When Bernie Sanders and I agree on AI, America had better pay attention
Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned recently in the London Guardian that artificial intelligence “is getting far too little discussion in Congress, the media, and within the general population” despite the speed at which it is developing. “That has got to change.”
To my surprise, as a conservative advocate of limited government and free markets, I agree completely.
AI is neither a left nor a right issue. It is a human issue that will decide who holds power in the decades ahead and whether individuals retain sovereignty.
As I read Sanders’ piece, I kept thinking, “This sounds like something I could have written!” That alone should tell us something. If two people who disagree on almost everything else see the same dangers emerging from artificial intelligence, then maybe we can set aside the usual partisan divides and confront a problem that will touch every American.
Different policies, same fears
I’ve worked in the policy world for more than a decade, and it’s fair to say Bernie Sanders and I have opposed each other in nearly every major fight. I’ve pushed back against his single-payer health care plans. I’ve worked to stop his Green New Deal agenda. On economic policy, Sanders has long stood for the exact opposite of the free-market principles I believe make prosperity possible.
That’s why reading his AI op-ed felt almost jarring. Time after time, his concerns mirrored my own.
Sanders warned about the unprecedented power Silicon Valley elites now wield over this transformational technology. As someone who spent years battling Big Tech censorship, I share his alarm over unaccountable tech oligarchs shaping information, culture, and political discourse.
He points to forecasts showing AI-driven automation could displace nearly 100 million American jobs in the coming decade. I helped Glenn Beck write “Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s Terrifying Next Phase” in 2023, where we raised the exact same red flag, that rapid automation could destabilize the workforce faster than society can adapt.
Sanders highlights how AI threatens privacy, civil liberties, and personal autonomy. These are concerns I write and speak about constantly. Sanders notes that AI isn’t just changing industry; it’s reshaping the human condition, foreign policy, and even the structure of democratic life. On all of this, he is correct.
When a Democratic Socialist and a free-market conservative diagnose the same disease, it usually means the symptoms are too obvious to ignore.
Where we might differ
While Sanders and I share almost identical fears about AI, I suspect we would quickly diverge on the solutions. In his op-ed, he offers no real policy prescriptions at all. Instead, he simply says, “Congress must act now.” Act how? Sanders never says. And to be fair, that ambiguity is a dilemma I recognize.
As someone who argues consistently for limited government, I’m reluctant to call for new regulations. History shows that sweeping, top-down interventions usually create more problems than they solve. Yet AI poses a challenge unlike anything we’ve seen before — one that neither the market nor Congress can responsibly ignore.
RELATED: Shock poll: America’s youth want socialism on autopilot — literally
When Sanders says, “Congress must act,” does he want sweeping, heavy-handed regulations that freeze innovation? Does he envision embedding ESG-style subjective metrics into AI systems, politicizing them further? Does he want to codify conformity to European Union AI regulations?
We cannot allow a handful of corporations or governments to embed their subjective values into systems that increasingly manipulate our decisions, influence our communications, and deter our autonomy.
The nonnegotiables
Instead of vague calls for Congress to “do something,” we need a clear framework rooted in enduring American principles.
AI systems (especially those deployed across major sectors) must be built with hard, nonnegotiable safeguards that protect the individual from both corporate and governmental overreach.
This means embedding constitutional values into AI design, enshrining guarantees for free speech, due process, privacy, and equal treatment. It means ensuring transparency around how these systems operate and what data they collect.
This also means preventing ideological influence, whether from Beijing, Silicon Valley, or Washington, D.C., by insisting on objectivity, neutrality, and accountability.
These principles should not be considered partisan. They are the guardrails, rooted in the Constitution, which protect us from any institution, public or private, that seeks too much power.
And that is why the overlap between Sanders’ concerns and mine matters so much. AI is neither a left nor a right issue. It is a human issue that will decide who holds power in the decades ahead and whether individuals retain sovereignty.
If Bernie Sanders and I both see the same storm gathering on the horizon, perhaps it’s time the rest of the country looks up and recognizes the clouds for what they are.
Now is the moment for Americans, across parties and philosophies, to insist that AI strengthen liberty rather than erode it. If we fail to set those boundaries today, we may soon find that the most important choices about our future are no longer made by people at all.
The UK is now cracking down on ... words? England edges toward full-blown speech police state
Before the Magna Carta, the King of England was the law. After, he was under the law. It created the principle of due process, habeas corpus protection from arbitrary arrest, and limited taxation without consent.
“Rule of law, jury trials, rights of the accused, limits on government, protection of property, accountability of leaders — all of that comes from the Magna Carta,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”
“That gave birth, 500 years later, to us and our ideas,” he says.
However, now all of that is changing.
“The birthplace of the Magna Carta is now thinking about getting rid of jury trials and arresting more than 12,000 people every year for what they call speech crimes — 12,000,” Glenn says.
“In 2023, Russia arrested 4,000 people for speech crimes against the Russian military for Ukraine — 4,000 in Russia, 12,000 in England. The number I saw, and we don’t have all the numbers, but the number I saw that were arrested for speech crimes in China was 120,” he continues.
“Not for violence, not for theft, not for treason — 12,000 in England for words,” he adds.
But it gets worse, as the prime minister is “floating the idea of eliminating” most jury trials.
“It’ll only be for murder, manslaughter, oh, and something else like that,” Glenn says.
“This goes against the Magna Carta, the lawful judgment of your peers. OK? That is the safeguard that stands between you and an out-of-control state. This is the first and ancient firewall against tyranny. It is what makes England, England,” he continues.
“And if England, of all places, tosses that aside, what does the word ‘free’ mean anymore? OK? What does it mean? You can’t speak, and you have no jury trial of your peers. Wait, what?” he says.
“First of all, understand this: A nation that polices speech is not free. A nation that dissolves juries is not just unfree; it’s prepping for something worse, because the entire architecture of the Western world, the liberty that we have, rests on a single radical belief,” he says, adding, “The truth does not need a king.”
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Republican senator takes aim at JD Vance: 'What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment'
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky once again bucked his party, this time taking aim at Vice President JD Vance.
The Trump administration claimed to have successfully struck a Venezuelan drug boat on Tuesday, killing 11 traffickers identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Vance and other high-profile Republicans championed the strike, calling it the "highest and best use of our military."
'Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?'
Vance experienced pushback from the usual suspects like Brian Krassenstein, who called the strike a "war crime." Vance promptly responded by saying, "I don't give a s**t what you call it."
While the left raged on about Vance's comments, Paul joined the chorus.
Paul criticized the military action for not providing the Venezuelan alleged drug traffickers due process before being killed.
"JD 'I don’t give a s**t' Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the 'highest and best use of the military,'" Paul said in a post on X. "Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation??
"What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial."
Paul's criticism was met with backlash from some of his Republican colleagues who accused Paul of "defending foreign terrorist drug traffickers."
RELATED: Jasmine Crockett's jaw-dropping defense of criminals: 'They literally are trying to survive'
"What's really despicable is defending foreign terrorist drug traffickers who are *directly* responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in Kentucky and Ohio," Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said in a post on X. "JD understands that our first responsibility is to protect the life and liberty of American citizens."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Meet The Man Suing To Stop No-Fault Divorce In Texas
A Texas man is suing to prevent his wife from divorcing him, citing violation of the 14th Amendment and more.Send Violent Illegal Aliens To Live With Judge Concerned About Their Safety
Rogue federal judge wants robbers, rapists and murderers to have 'time to express any concerns they might have.'Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win
The GOP doesn’t resemble a big tent any more — it looks more like a boundless landfill. No shared vision or coherent guiding principles bind the party’s disparate factions beyond not having a “D” next to their names. That’s why it’s impossible to pass a reasonable budget bill that cuts spending without including massive subsidies for high-tax blue states.
The rift between the Freedom Caucus, the K Street crowd, RINOs, and the Trump White House remains unbridgeable. So what’s the realistic path forward on budget reconciliation?
With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in LA.
Focus on the one issue that unites the base: immigration enforcement.
Riots in Los Angeles this week have made the case for an immigration-only reconciliation bill even stronger. The public sees the connection. The urgency is obvious. And President Trump, understandably frustrated by the calendar — it’s June and he hasn’t signed a single major legislative win — wants action now.
But cramming unrelated tax and health care provisions into one big, bloated bill guarantees disaster. Good members will face a bad vote. So why not act decisively?
Split the immigration provisions from the rest. Make them tougher. Pass the bill right away, while the chaos in L.A. is still at the front of everyone’s mind. Save the fiscal brawls for later.
The math of an immigration-focused bill
The current draft of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes about $185 billion in new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and new and improved border infrastructure. It also tacks on another $150 billion in defense spending — a top White House priority.
Even strong provisions need offsets. But in a party this fractured, cutting spending isn’t just difficult — it’s practically taboo.
Still, by limiting the bill to the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon spending and scrapping the tax components, Republicans would only need to offset $335 billion over 10 years.
RELATED: How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?
That’s well within the realm of possibility. They could hit that number using the consensus cuts and immigration reforms already in the bill. No gimmicks. No sleight of hand. Just political will and a sense of timing.
The current bill would generate about $77 billion in new revenue from immigration-related fees and taxes on remittances. It saves hundreds of billions more over the next decade by cutting off illegal aliens from Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps.
Republicans should go farther and ban illegal aliens from claiming the child tax credit — a move that could save another $50 billion.
Instead of loading the first reconciliation bill with a jumble of unrelated and divisive provisions, Republicans should focus on consensus items: national security, enforcement of sovereignty, and policies that put Americans first.
If the Republicans were more ambitious, they would use this bill to repeal the Green New Deal. Funding illegal immigration and the Green New Deal were the Biden administration’s two most transformative and unpopular policies. Target both. Pass the bill right away. Deliver a win that matches the mandate voters gave Trump — and give the president a badly needed legislative victory.
Enforcement money isn’t enough
Throwing $180 billion more at enforcement won’t solve the immigration crisis. Spend a trillion on deportations, and it still won’t matter if courts continue to block action.
Even in Trump’s rare Supreme Court wins on immigration, the justices insisted every illegal alien must receive due process — despite deportation being a civil process, not a punishment.
No president can litigate his way out of an invasion. Even with favorable rulings, Trump won’t deport enough illegal immigrants before the next Democrat takes office. That’s the hard truth.
Now is the moment to fix it.
Americans are watching a violent, coordinated invasion unfold in real time. The bill should formally declare an invasion — and include an amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to strip judicial review from deportation cases involving noncitizens and, ideally, legal permanent residents.
Under that reform, the administration’s removal decisions would stand. No federal judge could second-guess them. No more delays, appeals, or lawfare.
Roy’s amendment would transform the first reconciliation bill into a singular focus on Trump’s most unifying, necessary, and popular campaign promise. It would hand him a quick, clean victory while the nation remains fixated on the border invasion.
RELATED: Americans didn’t elect Trump to bust SALT caps or overhaul Medicaid
So why not just split the agenda into two bills and get on with it?
Here come the usual GOP excuses. Let’s knock them down one by one.
Excuse 1: “We only get one bite at the apple.”
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claims Republicans must use reconciliation just once to avoid the Senate filibuster.
But Democrats already broke that precedent in 2021, pushing through two separate reconciliation bills with a green light from the Senate parliamentarian, who noted that reconciliation should be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”
But ultimately, this isn’t the parliamentarian’s call. The decision rests with President Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). If Biden’s team could do it, so can we.
Excuse 2: “Without this bill, Americans face massive tax hikes.”
This line is pure fearmongering. The 2024 election wasn’t about taxes. MAGA never revolved around tax cuts for their own sake — that was the old GOP. Yet somehow, this bill morphed into another tax-centered mess.
The truth? Most tax provisions in the current draft — from an expanded child tax credit and higher standard deduction to new breaks for seniors, overtime, and tips — enjoy broad bipartisan support.
No Democrat wants to get blamed for letting these expire. Even in a lame-duck session, they wouldn’t allow a public tax hike. The only serious dispute involves the top marginal rate. Trump has already signaled he’s open to a modest increase if it means getting the rest of the agenda passed.
And let’s be honest: The current bill isn’t exactly Reaganesque. It’s loaded with progressive goodies, including an obscene expansion of the SALT deduction.
Even the pro-tax-cut Tax Foundation calls the bill’s economic impact weak and overly complicated. This isn’t a bold, pro-growth package — it’s a muddled compromise.
The irony is that ending taxes on tips — perhaps Trump’s most prized tax provision — already passed the Senate 100-0. Why not pass that and similar provisions in the House and place it on Trump’s desk without wasting budget reconciliation?
Excuse 3: “We can’t include policy provisions in a budget bill.”
Critics claim the Byrd Rule blocks the inclusion of policy reforms — like immigration or judicial changes — in a reconciliation bill. That excuse doesn’t hold up.
The original House-passed bill included a provision that barred states from regulating artificial intelligence. That isn’t budget-related. That is pure policy.
By comparison, a provision removing judicial review from deportation cases would directly cut costs by eliminating thousands of court hearings. That’s a legitimate budgetary angle — and far more defensible than regulating AI through backdoor channels.
The Byrd Rule exists, yes. But the party in power determines what gets through. The president and Senate leadership can overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats did it. So can we.
Fast-forward to this week: The streets of Los Angeles are on fire again. And instead of seizing the moment to deliver on the most urgent national priority, Miller is using anti-ICE violence to ram through a bloated mega-bill — all because it includes ICE funding.
But if solving immigration were the real goal, Republicans would just split the bill already. They’d put the judicial reform language in the first package. And they’d pass it immediately.
With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in L.A.
No, you’re not a ‘xenophobe.’ You’re just awake.
America is on fire — again. But this time, it’s not just cities burning — it’s our identity.
In Los Angeles, mobs of masked agitators — many waving the Mexican flag, others clutching Palestinian flags, and some burning the American flag — have taken to the streets, firing guns into the air, hurling rocks at ICE vehicles, blocking traffic, and setting fires.
America doesn’t need a savior. It needs a reckoning.
Where is the outrage from the media? Where are the helicopters? The FBI raids? The solitary confinement cells? When a handful of peaceful Americans entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a great many politely walking between velvet ropes, they were branded “insurrectionists.” Grandmothers were hunted down. Veterans were jailed without bail. But in Los Angeles, when foreign nationals tear through city streets waving foreign flags, they’re “demonstrators.”
Give me a break.
Illegal alien anarchy
What we saw in California over the weekend was the result of an illegal invasion. And it isn’t new. These aren’t “immigrants.” A great many are illegal aliens — a term defined by law — who have broken federal immigration law, ignored due process, and poured over our borders with the help of a regime that has openly defied the Constitution.
I personally know families who have tried for years to bring a spouse or child to America the legal way. They wait. They pay. They follow the rules. But if you’re an educated Christian refugee from Africa or a skilled engineer from India, you’re told to stand in line. Meanwhile, if you’re a cartel mule from Honduras or a “gotaway” with a gang affiliation, you get flown around the country on the taxpayers’ dime.
We’ve abandoned every principle that once defined American immigration: Learn English. Pledge allegiance. Assimilate. Respect the flag.
Instead, we have mobs chanting slogans that would have triggered national security alerts a decade ago. Now they trigger hashtags. And while President Trump is calling out the National Guard, California’s “leaders” stall, the courts shrug, and citizens remain unprotected.
This isn’t incompetence. It’s sabotage.
Our rights usurped
And the most dangerous part? We’ve been living under a kind of soft martial law for decades.
Since 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure quietly restructured the judiciary under a corporate framework that operates outside the Constitution. These rules merged law and equity courts, nullifying constitutional guarantees and opening the door for administrative tyranny in family courts, juvenile courts, and beyond.
Don’t believe me? Try asserting your First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment rights in a family court. You’ll be laughed out of the room — if your children haven’t already been taken based on an anonymous tip and a judge’s rubber stamp.
If martial law is officially declared, the Constitution is suspended. That’s not conjecture — that’s legal doctrine. Read Ex parte Milligan (1866), in which the Supreme Court ruled that martial law cannot be imposed where civilian courts are open. Guess what? They’re not “open” any more — they’re rigged, corrupt, and run by private bar guilds with no accountability to the people.
RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front
It’s an old tactic. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag fire to suspend civil liberties and pass the Enabling Act. In 1992, Peru’s President Alberto Fujimori used a wave of urban chaos and domestic terrorism to declare martial law and dissolve the legislature. In post-9/11 America, we got the Patriot Act, a surveillance dragnet sold to us under the guise of “security.” Now we’re watching the same script play out again — engineered chaos followed by calls for federalized control and, eventually, constitutional suspension under the banner of “safety.”
Welcome to the final phase of the coup.
While MAGA people wait for Trump to ride in on a white horse, they miss the point: He’s not going to save us. He can’t. No one man can reverse decades of infiltration, judicial fraud, and corporatist collusion.
And note to MAGA: Trump gave immunity to the creators of the COVID-19 vaccine, and his “one big, beautiful bill” is fraught with overspending and a government AI takeover, in which all participants have been granted immunity for wrongdoing for a decade.
We’re done being silent
America doesn’t need a savior. It needs a reckoning.
It needs state nullification, legal rebellion, and mass resistance.
If waving a Mexican or Palestinian flag while burning the Stars and Stripes makes you feel at home, then I’ve got a simple solution: Go home.
Because this isn’t your country. You didn’t build it. You’re not assimilating. You’re here to take, not contribute.
And to my liberal neighbors still crying about how “un-American” it is not to allow these criminals to stay: What’s un-American is letting our Constitution be shredded. What’s un-American is flooding our cities with criminals while veterans sleep under bridges.
What’s un-American is weaponizing immigration to collapse a sovereign nation.
We’re not xenophobes. We’re patriots, and we’re done being silent.
Democrats’ due process ploy EXPOSED: Mark Levin slams their agenda of one-party rule
Democrats are screaming incessantly about “due process” these days. Every time the Trump administration moves to deport an illegal immigrant — even one with the most egregious criminal history — suddenly, they’re all about individual rights and the Constitution.
“If you're a multi-time wife-beater, MS-13 member, human trafficker, like this guy Garcia that the Democrats circled around — due process. If you're hundreds of Venezuelan gang members, terrorists sent here by Maduro, the Marxist genocidal maniac in Venezuela — due process,” sighs Mark Levin. “Except when Donald Trump was in that star chamber of a courtroom … in Manhattan.”
Nobody cared about due process then.
“[Trump] was denied due process repeatedly. He didn't even know exactly what he was being charged with,” Levin reminds us.
The truth is glaringly evident: Democrats are for due process only when it suits their agenda, and in the case of illegal immigration, it does.
“They opened our borders; they brought in every kind of person on the face of the earth into this country, including the worst of the worst … because their goal is to change America. If that means a little bit of despotism and crime and little bit of raping and murdering and people dying from drugs, so be it,” says Levin. “The goal is one-party rule by the Democrat Party.”
But with every deportation, the goal of “altering the citizenry so the citizenry supports the Democrat Party” slips a little farther away.
Blubbering over the constitutional right of due process has become the weapon they’re using to fight back, and Democrat-appointed “rogue judges” are wielding it.
“A lot of these judges are trying to deliver for the Democrat Party because they were appointed purposely by Biden and Obama with the help of Schumer … to thwart Trump, and that's exactly what they're trying to do,” Levin explains, calling it "judicial despotism.”
And as for due process for illegal aliens, it “isn't in the Constitution,” says Levin, arguing that the clause “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” applies to American citizens.
Unfortunately, our Supreme Court has been wishy-washy on this issue — sometimes ruling in favor of the Trump administration, sometimes in favor of the left-wing judges.
“It depends if you're 25 yards from the beach that you came in on or the border; depends how long you've been here; it depends on this; it depends on that,” says Levin. “You would think such a fundamental right as they explained to us of due process would be pretty clear, pretty simple, pretty understandable, but it's not.”
“And so what the Democrats are trying to convince you to do” is “support is the broadest possible due process rights," he adds.
But it has nothing to do with freedom or rights.
“Power — that’s what they want,” Levin warns.
To hear more of his commentary, watch the clip above.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com