Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president



How much longer will Congress and the executive branch keep bowing to rogue judges?

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered the federal government to continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. She warned that cutting funding could cause women to “suffer adverse health consequences,” face more unintended pregnancies, and go without treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power.

Congress had already voted to end the funding. The law is on the books. It went through the full legislative process and was signed by the president. But Judge Talwani believes her opinion overrides all of that. She not only reinterpreted the law, she ordered the appropriation of funds to a private abortion business.

That crosses a major constitutional line.

Judges don’t have the power of the purse. They can’t spend money. They can’t fund private organizations. Only Congress can do that. Yet that core principle of the separation of powers now seems optional. We are left with a system where unelected judges act as legislators, executives, and arbiters — and no one challenges them.

Too many conservatives hesitate to confront this reality. They’ll cheer when Trump ignores Congress on TikTok but wring their hands when he considers defying an unlawful court ruling. But judicial opinions don’t carry binding force simply because a judge wrote them. Presidents and lawmakers swear the same oath to the Constitution as judges do. They don’t swear loyalty to the judiciary.

If a court orders the government to fund Planned Parenthood in direct defiance of a law passed by Congress, and the executive branch complies, then we no longer have a functioning constitutional system. We have a judiciary with a veto power over the other branches.

This didn’t start with Talwani’s ruling, and it won’t end here. Judges now routinely issue sweeping decisions that affect the entire country, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that supposedly reined in nationwide injunctions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito warned that lower courts would continue to defy precedent unless checked. They were right.

The time for deference is over. If Trump continues to honor every lawless edict from every federal judge, he only encourages more of the same. He entrenches the notion that judges make law and everyone else must obey.

RELATED: Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them

Prasong Maulae via iStock/Getty Images

Imagine Congress passes and Trump signs a reconciliation bill that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or Planned Parenthood funding. Under Judge Talwani’s logic, the courts could simply declare the law unconstitutional and order the executive branch to act against it — up to and including spending money Congress never appropriated. That’s not judicial review. That’s a judge acting like a one-woman super-legislature with a gavel and a god complex. Where does it end?

It never ends. Earlier this month, a judge in California ruled that ICE cannot carry out “roving” immigration enforcement in parts of the state’s Central Valley. The ruling lacked any constitutional basis. The judge simply decided too many illegal immigrants were being arrested and declared the enforcement itself a violation of rights — despite no evidence that a single American citizen had been wrongfully detained.

Rather than overturn the decision, the Ninth Circuit grilled government attorneys about whether ICE had an arrest quota. The implication was clear: Immigration enforcement itself is now suspect.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power. Congress holds the purse strings. The executive enforces the law. Judges interpret the law in individual cases. That’s the constitutional design.

Abraham Lincoln, in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, warned against treating court opinions as absolute. If citizens and lawmakers accept every ruling without question, Lincoln said, they prepare themselves to accept the next decision “without any inquiry.”

That mindset leads to tyranny. Not suddenly, but step by step.

The judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. It was designed that way. It has no army. It has no budget. Its legitimacy depends on its restraint. When judges cast that aside, the other branches must respond.

Otherwise, we will find ourselves governed not by the Constitution but by the whims of unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure.

If Trump does not confront the courts, we will be obliged to implement any rule from any judge who shares the same beliefs as Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d hate to see what the next decision looks like.

What's so great about 'separation of church and state'?



Freedom of expression, universal suffrage, and separation of church and state. Our country prides itself on these foundational principles.

In fact, for many Americans, the document enshrining these principles has become an object of almost religious veneration. The Constitution is no mere legal agreement, but a sacred covenant between people and power, a reminder that no king or cleric can rule over us without our consent.

The church historically has always possessed and asserted its temporal powers. It rebuked kings. It crowned emperors. It waged wars, both literal and spiritual.

But what if I told you that some of these foundational principles themselves are the root cause of the current tyranny you’re facing?

Fathers know best?

Let’s take the separation of church and state, for example. The founding fathers, influenced by the Enlightenment, were pioneers of the democratic republic system, meaning they harbored a strong distaste for the theocratic monarchies that populated the European nations for much of the medieval and early modern eras. They saw the union of throne and altar as a source of corruption and oppression.

Many, though not all, leaned toward a rationalist or deist conception of God, meaning they conceived of God as one who designed the universe but refrained from interfering in human affairs. They admired natural law, not revealed law. They were wary of ecclesial authority, especially when it mingled with politics.

So they did something radical: They stripped the church of temporal power. Their primary aim, we’re sometimes told, was the promotion of religious freedom. But that’s simply not the case. The primary objective was to remove the church’s power in government affairs.

RELATED: Yes, Ken Burns, the founding fathers believed in God — and His 'divine Providence'

Interim Archives/Boston Globe/Getty Images

Domesticating God

For this reason, they saw fit to design a country that domesticated God, keeping Him confined to the church building. The rest of society and the government, in turn, were to be packaged within a professional secularist framework. “God” was not to meddle with the affairs of men. Hence, the separation of church and state.

Except, that’s not what really happened. A separation never really occurred. It was more of a replacement.

Religious vacuum

Sure, the church lost its temporal powers. But something else filled the religious vacuum. Something else always fills the religious vacuum. Remove one orthodoxy, and another takes its place. And that alternative orthodoxy was secular liberalism.

Instead of priests, we have an endless array of “highly qualified” experts and bureaucrats telling us what the truth is (and inversely what the heresies are). Instead of a bishop crowning a king, we have TV stations announcing the results of our newly elected leaders. Instead of trusting God, we trust “science.”

And then we wonder why we’ve gone so astray. We ask ourselves why we’ve lost all sense of tradition and God. Why does it feel like morality is made up on the spot? Why do our traditionally Christian institutions seem powerless to resist the tides of culture?

It’s because, from the beginning, we accepted the premise that God should not interfere with the affairs of men.

Head and body

I’m aware I speak harshly. But I’m also speaking truly. I grew up believing in the concept of separation of church and state. But the older I get, and the more I peel back the layers of history, the more I realize it was the wrong move. The founding fathers were simply wrong.

Ask yourself what a church is. Is it just a house of worship? No, it’s more than that, right? It’s the body of Christ, after all. So if Christ is head of the church, how is His body serving Him? What action is the body taking? What powers does the body possess? Jesus Christ isn’t just a brain floating in a vat. As head of the church, He has a fully operational and functional body that bends the world to His whim.

The church historically has always possessed and asserted its temporal powers. It rebuked kings. It crowned emperors. It waged wars, both literal and spiritual. It wrestled with the powers of the world, and often won. It has always had real power. It’s only today in our modern society that we believe it belongs nestled away in a hall full of pews.

Secular vision

And yet we are so immersed in secularism that we can barely recognize it as one ideology among others. It is simply "reality," a reality that distorts our understanding of the past. As Andrew Willard Jones writes in "Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX,"

Our own vision is secular. Even when we acknowledge the importance of religion, we do so from within the assumption of the secular: that reality itself is ultimately free of the religious. Religions come and go; they are relative. The secular is permanent; it is absolute and universal. To us, the secular is the field on which the game of history—including religious history—is played. Within this secular vision, religion as a sociological category is often considered inessential to the concept of society itself. In this view, religious societies are, in a sense, accidentally religious: their religion can fade away. Secular societies, for their part, do not seem to have a religion proper to themselves at all, even if some individuals within them are religious.

Imagine you were in the middle of a nasty divorce. Ask yourself, could the church overrule the court? In Revelation 2:14, Jesus reprimands the church of Pergamum for tolerating sexual immorality. What is no-fault divorce except for legalized adultery? Yet today, our churches passively accept it and are unable to demand any kind of legal standing in court. Do we think we’re any different than the church of Pergamum?

Likewise, the state has redefined marriage to include same-sex unions. Where is the separation there? Where was it when the state invaded the church’s sacramental territory?

The truth is that the separation of church and state has never been real. It is an illusion. The state always imposes and enforces a theology, whether it’s Christian or not. Which means that the state is the church. And the church is the state. I would go so far as to say that the church cannot be even classified as the church unless it is the state.

If we want a re-emergence of Christendom, it means the church needs to once again wield state power. There’s no getting around it.

Levin: The left wants to SMASH the Constitution — here’s the proof



The Democrats might claim they want to preserve the Constitution, but the radical leftists they platform clearly couldn’t be less interested.

One of those radical leftists is Elie Mystal, an American political commentator, who reveals his own rewriting of the Constitution in a recent segment on “The View.”

“When Democrats come into office, they come in with, like, super glue and tape, and so they try to put things back together. So I thought about writing 10 constitutional amendments that would be super cool if we had,” Mystal told the ladies on the panel.

“I was like, ‘No, no, no. We need to smash the things that they like. We need to smash the things that are holding this country back,’” Mystal continued. “And so I came up with 10 laws that we could just be rid of. Not reform, not update for the modern era. Ten things that we can smash if we ever are allowed to get power again that would make this country better tomorrow.”


“So this guy’s saying that we need to smash everything that you and I stand for,” Mark Levin of “LevinTV” says, disturbed. “It’s just this hate America stuff, it’s just incredible.”

In his segment on “The View,” Mystal claimed that everything put into law before the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed should be ignored.

“Even the 1964 Civil Rights Act? We should ignore that, too?” Levin asks. “See, the 1964 Civil Rights Act preceded the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because that was actually called the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and they were subsequent to the 1866 Civil Rights Act. And they were also subsequent to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

“The 13th Amendment officially abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment ensuring that all freed slaves, black people, would be treated like citizens. The equal protection clause and due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to every single state through the 14th Amendment,” he continues.

“Should we ignore those, too? Well, who voted for them? Mostly white people and mostly white legislatures. You get my drift? In fact, who fought the Civil War? Obviously blacks fought, too. The overwhelming majority of the soldiers in the North were white. See, this race game doesn’t exactly play out like they hope, wish that it would.”

“Think about this idiot,” he continues, adding, “He thinks he’s clever. It’s because he doesn’t have anybody with an IQ over a pickle in order to respond to him.”

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.

Step aside, Never-Trumpers — the president has his mandate



Never-Trumpers on both sides of the political aisle are raging over Trump’s plan to use recess appointments to expedite filling his Cabinet and bypass lengthy confirmation processes. Since Cabinet confirmations took an average of 30.9 days during his first term, Mark Levin of “LevinTV” doesn’t see a problem with his approach.

“A president needs to be able to push back. Now, some of them will do it in the wrong way, some of them will do it in a way that damages the Constitution. Trump hasn’t done anything yet, other than announce that he plans to do it,” Levin says.

“I’ve taken this position: There are a couple nominees that I’m not hot on, but who cares? I’m not president,” he continues, adding, “I think he should be able to have his team. He believes this is the team he needs to get things done, to accomplish what he said he was going to accomplish.”


Trump didn’t get a chance to accomplish what he planned during his first four years as president, as Democrats immediately jumped down his throat with investigations and impeachment hearings.

“He’s lived through that, and he said, ‘Not this time. I get four years; that’s all I’ve got,’” Levin says.

“My eyes are wide open about this. I don’t think there’s any liberty issue or constitutional crisis issue,” he adds, noting that other presidents have done the same thing — like former President George W. Bush and his recess appointment of John Bolton as the acting ambassador to the United Nations.

“Of all people, Barack Obama was abusing the process,” Levin explains. “The courts said, ‘No, no, that’s not right.’ But they didn’t eliminate it, they didn’t torpedo it, it’s still there.”

“Donald Trump isn’t creating the practice of a recess appointment for a Cabinet officer or any other officer. The issue isn’t whether it’s a Cabinet officer or any other officer; the issue is whether the Constitution provides him with the ability to do it,” he continues. “And as has been the practice, the answer is ‘yes.’”

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.

Bill Maher destroys Gen Z criticism of the Constitution: ‘What the f*** have you done?’



In a recent broadcast on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Maher took a surprising stance in fierce defense of the U.S. Constitution.

“Constitution Day was last week. It’s an actual federal holiday, but no one noticed despite the fact that it’s probably the greatest legal document ever. Is it flawed? Of course; it was written by humans,” Maher told his audience before criticizing the education system for the lack of importance placed on the document.

“Only 14% of 8th graders are proficient in history now, and only 22% in civics, which may be why four in 10 Gen Zers say that the authors are best described as ‘villains,’” he continued, adding, “It’s amazing since in 1776, Alexander Hamilton was 21, and James Madison, 25. Joe Biden was only 30.”

“America’s Founders, they were the Gen Z of their day. And when they were your age, they started a country. What the f*** have you done?” He then asked.

Maher went on to note that our Founders made compromises, like slavery, calling history “complicated” while “Gen Z reasoning is not.”

“They think they’re pure, but they’re really just simplistic. They know two things: White people did some very bad things and ... no, that’s it. That’s all they have,” he finished to cheers.

Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” is impressed, exclaiming, “Really good, wow.”

“Not only a defense of the Constitution but of the Founders as well,” Keith Malinak agrees.

“For Bill Maher to understand and explain that, that’s incredible,” Gray adds.


Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn DESTROYS the New York Times for calling the Constitution a THREAT



The mainstream media is at it with its nonsense again, and this time it's calling the United States Constitution — our country’s founding document — “dangerous.”

The absurd notion is laid out in a New York Times op-ed titled “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” The subhead also reads, “One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document.”

Glenn Beck is horrified.

“It should be a threat to our politics,” he says, before reading more of the New York Times anti-American drivel.

“The United States Constitution is in trouble after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election,” the article begins.

“Really, is that when it became in trouble?” Glenn asks. “I’m thinking back, you know, a little bit before Donald Trump. Like, I don’t know, Woodrow Wilson.”

The article goes on to say Trump is attempting to “satisfy his personal ambitions” and make his “authoritarian inclinations abundantly clear.”

“Now, let me ask you, who is the one that is currently talking about the redesign of the Supreme Court? I mean, by the way, I just want you to know that that’s what dictators always do. That is the last step to a banana republic. That is the point of no return, when you have the president or the prime minister or whoever changes the makeup of the Supreme Court,” Glenn explains.

Meanwhile, the current presidential candidate for the Democrats was ushered into the position without having a single vote cast for her.

“Totally normal, constitutional, and totally normal,” Glenn jokes.


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.

Ranking the WORST Supreme Court Justices on Religious Liberty | Ep 482
play icon

Ranking the WORST Supreme Court Justices on Religious Liberty | Ep 482

Sage Steele: Another Day, Another Woke-Based Sidelining | Ep 363
play icon

Sage Steele: Another Day, Another Woke-Based Sidelining | Ep 363

Yes, The Senate Can Convict Trump After He’s Left Office, But Would That Be Prudent?

Like William W. Belknap, Trump was impeached while in office and will be tried when out of it. If a conviction is prudent will be for the Senate to decide.
The Threat of Emergency Socialism | Guest: Sen. Mike Lee | Ep 86
play icon

The Threat of Emergency Socialism | Guest: Sen. Mike Lee | Ep 86