Over there at Newsmax (where‚ full disclosure‚ I am a contributor) is this interesting — and telling — headline coming out of New Hampshire. It reads:  Trump Sets Record for Most Votes in N.H. Primary The story reports that Trump’s Tuesday victory “set a record for most votes received in the state’s presidential primary.”  Trump’s total was 163‚713 votes. The previous record-holder was on the Democrat side‚ with Vermont’s favorite socialist senator‚ Bernie Sanders‚ getting 152‚000 in his 2016 race against Hillary Clinton.  The rest of the field on this score on the GOP side is as follows‚ going all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower’s two runs in 1952 and 1956:  2016: Donald Trump: 100‚406 2012: Mitt Romney: 95‚669 2008: John McCain: 88‚713 2004: George Bush: 53‚962 2000: John McCain: 115‚490 1996: Pat Buchanan: 56‚874 1992: George H. W. Bush: 92‚271 1988: George H. W. Bush: 59‚290 1984: Ronald Reagan: 65‚033 1980: Ronald Reagan: 72‚886 1976: Gerald Ford: 55‚156 1972: Richard Nixon: 79‚239 1968: Richard Nixon: 80‚666 1964: Henry Cabot Lodge: 33‚007 1960: Ricard Nixon: 65‚204 1956 Dwight Eisenhower: 56‚464 1952 Dwight Eisenhower: 46‚661 All of which is to say‚ there’s a message in this particular Trump victory. That being that the Trump popularity on visible display at all those rallies‚ not to mention at election day voting sites in both New Hampshire and Iowa before that‚ mean something. That “something” is that the enthusiasm for his remaining opponent‚ ex-South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — and before that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — simply isn’t there. Haley can stay in the race as long as she wants and is able‚ but winning is clearly not going to be coming in her direction. The question at this point is: why? Why has Haley‚ and DeSantis and others before her‚ failed utterly to overtake the former president? The answer‚ it would seem to be clear‚ is that Haley and the others are simply — merely — candidates. Former President Trump‚ it should be clear by now to all‚ is not just a candidate. Trump is a movement. Only a serious‚ energized political movement could produce Trump’s New Hampshire numbers or his blowout‚ 30-point victory over DeSantis in Iowa. When Trump came down that Trump Tower escalator in 2015‚ few if any could see that the New York celebrity billionaire builder was going to lead a decidedly serious movement that would upend the way the American political Swamp did business. Clearly — and she is not alone — Nikki Haley still doesn’t get it. Here is this typical Haley approach to Trump‚ as reported by the Associated Press:  BLUFFTON‚ S.C. (AP) — Nikki Haley argued Monday former President Donald Trump causes too much chaos to be successful in a second White House term‚ reiterating her argument about the GOP front-runner at a large town hall in her home state of South Carolina. Got that? Cleaning the Washington Swamp and its good ole boy and girl way of doing business is just too important to be disrupted and cleaned up. And any attempt to clean it up is guilty of bringing “chaos.” In short‚ Haley is making it plain that‚ if elected‚ she intends to be one more Swamp creature‚ going along to get along to just be a good ole girl in the Club that is the Washington Swamp. No draining the Swamp for her‚ because that brings chaos. Back there in the Reagan era‚ the president nominated Judge Robert Bork for a Supreme Court seat. Bork was a decided conservative‚ seriously well qualified for the job. He was‚ to say the least‚ not a fan — much less a member of — the Swamp. And within hours of his nomination‚ all hell broke loose as the Washington Swamp turned on him in a blink. Why? Because Bork had a long record of taking on the Swamp Establishment.  In his book The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law‚ written after the uproar surrounding the defeat of his nomination‚ Bork wrote this:  The public campaign (to defeat his nomination)‚ designed to influence senators through public opinion polls‚ consisted of systematic distortion of my academic writings and my judicial record and‚ it must be said‚ employed racial and gender politics of a most pernicious variety. The ferocity of the attack‚ the ideological stance of the assailants‚ and the tactics they used all showed that the opposition knew they were fighting over more than one judge. They were fighting for control of the legal culture…. My nomination was…merely one battleground in a long-running war for control of our legal culture‚ which‚ in turn‚ was part of a larger war for control of our general culture. Bingo. And all these years later‚ that war has only gotten worse. (Ask Justice Brett Kavanaugh.) Which is exactly why the war on Donald Trump — in the legal and media establishments to name but two — is so intense. And as was true with Bork‚ anyone who is capable of taking on the Swamp will be targeted. Thus it is that Trump’s determined focus on draining the Swamp results in what Swamp dwellers see‚ as Nikki Haley calls it — “chaos” — refusing to do business as usual in the Swamp. The thinking here is that Trump’s decidedly evident movement is not going to let Haley win. They will turn out en masse to elect their champion. And‚ as seen in the Iowa and now New Hampshire results‚ they mean business. READ MORE: The Other New Hampshire Primary: No Debates‚ No Drama‚ No Biden The post Trump’s New Hampshire Triumph Breaks Records appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The adjective “Orwellian” can be overused in our political discourse. But how else to describe a situation in which the federal government abdicates its responsibility to secure the nation’s wide-open border and then‚ when a state steps up to help stanch the bleeding‚ is told by that same federal government to stop — and‚ for good measure‚ that its efforts to help secure the border via a new razor wire barrier will be undone? There really is only one apt word: “Orwellian.” On Monday‚ the Supreme Court voted 5-4 — with moderate Chief Justice John Roberts and center-right Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining their liberal colleagues — in favor of the Biden administration‚ which had requested that the court permit its Border Patrol agents to cut or remove protective razor wire fencing installed by Texas officials along the besieged Rio Grande. The court’s ruling is simply astonishing. In America’s federalist constitutional order‚ both the federal government and the states act as fully sovereign actors operating within their delineated spheres of legitimate governing authority. The federal government — which was itself initially created in the late 1780s by the then-preexisting states — is in no position whatsoever to demand that states deliberately undermine their own sovereignty. That is especially true when the federal government itself obstinately refuses to secure the nation’s territorial integrity‚ as has been the case throughout Joe Biden’s disastrous presidency. That both the federal government and the states may wield power as fully sovereign entities within our constitutional order is constitutional law 101. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2012 Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States‚ “As a sovereign‚ Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory‚ subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.” (In Texas’ current case‚ there is no relevant constitutional limitation or congressional imposition.) Later in his separate Arizona writing‚ Scalia continued: “[A]fter the adoption of the Constitution there was some doubt about the power of the federal government to control immigration‚ but no doubt about the power of the states to do so.” (Emphasis added.) Toward the end‚ Scalia approached his denouement: “But there has come to pass‚ and is with us today‚ the specter that Arizona and the states that support it predicted: A federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written‚ and leaves the states’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws?” It seems‚ sadly‚ that the answer is “yes.” Substitute “Arizona” for “Texas‚” and nothing else has changed today. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s reaction was swift and defiant. On Wednesday‚ Abbott released a statement in which‚ citing Scalia in Arizona‚ he lamented how the federal government “has broken the compact” that exists between it and the several states. He formally declared an “inva[sion]” under Article I‚ Section 10‚ Clause 3 of the Constitution. Such an express constitutional provision‚ which reflects the sovereign states’ inalienable right to self-defense‚ is necessarily supreme to any single order of the Supreme Court. Texas is therefore constructing new razor wire fencing. Texas is correct to stand its ground. First‚ the Supreme Court’s order more narrowly permitted Border Patrol agents to remove wire; it said nothing whatsoever about Texas officials’ ability to construct new wire. Second‚ even if there were a direct clash between Texas and the Court‚ Texas’s reliance on an express constitutional provision to declare an “inva[sion]” — and thus assert its unequivocal right to secure its borders — takes precedence over a Supreme Court edict. Finally‚ unless one erroneously accepts the illogical (and frankly un-American) premise of judicial supremacy‚ under which Supreme Court rulings represent the definitive and all-encompassing “law of the land‚” then one should support the state of Texas’ ability to independently interpret the Constitution for itself. To act as Texas has done is not to invoke the antebellum debate over “nullification” and resuscitate the ghost of John C. Calhoun. Texas’ action here is closer to “interposition‚” a legitimate constitutional concept explained by James Madison in The Federalist No. 46: “Were it admitted‚ however‚ that the federal government may feel an equal disposition with the state governments to extend its power beyond the due limits‚ the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments.” The mass invasion now transpiring at the U.S. southern border is illegal‚ immoral‚ and unsustainable. Its scope is truly unprecedented in our history‚ posing a mortal threat to the nation. God bless Greg Abbott and the great state of Texas‚ who rightfully cherish their sovereignty and righteously refuse to bend the knee to the most lawless presidential administration in American history. To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists‚ visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: After Iowa‚ It’s Time for Republicans to Rally to Trump Claudine Gay Is Not a Martyr A 2024 Wish List: Sanity at Home and Stability Abroad The post Texas Is Correct to Defend Its Sovereignty From the Border Invasion appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

After years of embracing woke ideology‚ beauty pageants may finally be recognizing the importance of promoting real women. Last week‚ Madison Marsh was crowned Miss America 2024. The 22-year-old from Colorado is a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and recently graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy. Marsh‚ who is the first active duty service member to win Miss America‚ told People magazine that she would not have won without her experience in the Air Force. “This just proves that you can be feminine while leaning into your leadership role‚” Marsh said. The U.S. Air Force recognized Marsh’s accomplishment in a post on X: “Congratulations to our very own #Airman‚ 2nd Lt. Madison Marsh‚ aka Miss Colorado — who was just crowned @MissAmerica 2024!” Marsh emphasized the importance of combining femininity with strength and pointed to her late mother as her biggest role model. “The big part about my mom that I really love was just her passion for service‚” she told People. “My mom really cared about giving back to communities and people.” Not the Only Conservative Winner Marsh’s crowning wasn’t the only strike against wokeism in pageantry. Hannah Neeleman‚ a popular social media influencer with 8.7 million followers who promotes family values‚ home cooking‚ and a homestead lifestyle‚ won the 2023 Mrs. America Pageant. A 34-year-old mother of eight‚ Neeleman spoke about what female “empowerment” means to her upon her win. “I have felt this feeling seven times now‚ as I bring these sacred souls to the earth‚” Neeleman said in response to the pageant’s final question. “After I hold that newborn baby in my arms‚ the feeling of motherhood and bringing them into the earth is the most empowering feeling I have ever felt.” Months after her Mrs. America win‚ Neeleman attended the Mrs. World Pageant‚ just weeks after giving birth to her eighth child.  While Neeleman has received a lot of backlash on the internet for her traditional lifestyle and large family‚ each of her posts has thousands of positive comments. Beauty Controversy Despite these steps in a positive direction‚ beauty pageants have faced significant controversy over the last few years. Since 2018‚ judging based on “physical appearance” has no longer been allowed in the Miss America competition. That was the same year a self-identified transgender woman entered the Miss Universe competition‚ while two others participated in the 2023 pageant. Viewership of the Miss America competition has also taken a hit in the last few years‚ eventually reaching an all-time low. In 2019‚ it fell to 3.6 million viewers‚ down from 27 million at its peak in 1954.  LGBTQ issues have also taken center stage at Miss Universe since 2022‚ when the Miss Universe Organization was bought by Thai business tycoon Anne Jakrajutatip‚ who identifies as a transgender woman.  “[It’s] extremely important‚ not just for me‚ but for all the women and trans women‚” Jakrajutatip said at the time. LGBTQ Nation published an article in November 2023 that said Jakrajutatip’s ownership signaled “a new era of inclusivity and empowerment.” That same month‚ the Miss Universe Organization‚ after facing years of financial troubles‚ filed for bankruptcy protection‚ and‚ on Jan. 24‚ Jakrajutatip sold off 50 percent of the stock shares to a Mexico-based company. The post Will Conservatives Win Back Beauty Pageants? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Pro-Biden Newsrooms Debate Censoring Trump

You Can't Defend 'Democracy' and the Administrative State

Texas Is Correct To Defend Its Sovereignty From the Border Invasion

You’re on Your Own Finding 2024 Campaign News

The Trick That Dropped Atlanta Crime

The State of Texas and the Founding Principles of the American Government

Nikki Haley's Strategies?