As conservatives, we should celebrate America’s gold-medal hockey win over Canada. We should also reflect on it.

Why? Because we are a morbid bunch of doomsayers. Inside every silver lining, we see a cloud, and we never miss an opportunity to forecast how everything is about to go horribly wrong.

The God of hockey is also the God of nations. He can do a lot with one good man.

We are morbid because we are so analytical. We break things and situations down into their component parts. We measure. We estimate. We look at the numbers, and from the numbers, we draw our conclusions.

Numbers game?

The problem is that, when it comes to the culture, the numbers are rarely on our side. Let’s be honest, they haven’t been on our side for a while, but that’s why we should reflect on the United States’ victory over Canada.

Statistically, Canada outplayed the United States. Anyone who watched the last two periods could tell you: Man for man, America was getting outplayed.

It really just came down to the fact that we had one player they couldn’t beat: our goalie, Connor Hellebuyck. Canada outshot the United States in the last two periods 33 to 18. The numbers weren’t on our side, but the one man who mattered was.

RELATED: Raucous applause erupts for Olympic men’s hockey team at State of the Union: ‘What special champions you are!’

Photo (left): ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images; Photo (right): Leah Millis-Pool/Getty Images

‘God has a name’

More than 50 years ago, the future Pope Benedict XVI noted modern life’s tendency to reduce men to faceless statistics: “The machines that he himself has constructed now impose their own law on him: He must be made readable for the computer, and this can be achieved only when he is translated into numbers.”

“But,” he continued, “God has a name, and God calls us by our name. … For Him, we are not some function in a ‘world machinery.'”

In life, as in sports, victory does not always yield to the data. It just takes one good man to go into the breach; one man, completely outnumbered, who stands up when all others have fallen and says, “You cannot pass.”

Cultures aren’t defined by numbers. They are defined by people. So be courageous, be hopeful, and take a stand in the breach. The God of hockey is also the God of nations. He can do a lot with one good man.

​Lifestyle, Olympics, Hockey, Donald trump, Culture, Sports, Faith, Christianity, Conor hellebuyck, Pope benedict xvi, Usa! usa! usa! 

If Donald Trump put on a black robe tomorrow and issued an opinion in an intellectual property dispute between two tech companies, no one would treat it as binding law. So why are we expected to treat judicial policymaking on immigration and national security as untouchable — especially when lower courts now openly defy higher courts?

One of the most damaging misconceptions in American government holds that the Supreme Court is “supreme” over the political branches in all things. At most, its supremacy runs within the judicial hierarchy: It can overrule lower federal courts. The same goes for the courts of appeals, which are supposed to bind district courts within their circuits.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

That system, however, increasingly operates as a one-way ratchet for left-wing political outcomes.

On February 6, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally reaffirmed a basic legal principle: Illegal aliens seeking admission are not entitled to enter the country, demand release, and then litigate their way into residency while living freely inside the United States. The court upheld long-standing precedent and the plain text of U.S. immigration law, which requires detention of inadmissible aliens pending disposition of their cases.

Congress enacted that provision in 1996 for an obvious reason: to prevent people from entering illegally, receiving a notice to appear, and then disappearing into the interior.

Unlike American criminals who are entitled to bond hearings, illegal aliens are not being prosecuted for a crime. They can always voluntarily depart and live freely in their home countries. Being detained is a consequence of their initial invasion and their desire to litigate their way into our country.

Then came the district courts.

Just three days after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso-based George W. Bush appointee, ordered the release of aliens in five cases on the theory that they had “established roots” in the United States. What, then, was the point of the Fifth Circuit ruling? Cardone claimed in one case that it “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”

Likewise, on February 9, Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion. “The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote — about an illegal alien who entered the country in 2024.

Pause there.

The Fifth Circuit had just ruled that detention is mandated by statute even in cases involving aliens who entered long ago (including plaintiffs from 2001 and 2009). Yet a district judge somehow concluded that ruling does not apply to someone who crossed illegally in 2024. Worse, how can a district judge claim the Fifth Circuit did not account for the “constitutional” question when the appeals court’s ruling necessarily presumes ICE’s conduct is constitutional?

RELATED: The Fifth Circuit cracks down on the asylum excuse factory

ozgurdonmaz via iStock/Getty Images

These judges are cherry-picking language from select Supreme Court opinions about aliens with “established ties” while ignoring the far stronger body of law recognizing that illegal entrants have no right to remain in the country against the national will. The idea that someone can break into the country, evade enforcement long enough to create “ties,” and then use that evasion as a legal shield makes a mockery of popular sovereignty and of the Declaration’s first principles.

This also demonstrates, again, why the Trump administration cannot comply its way out of judicial supremacism. Even when it wins in higher courts, lower-court judges can repackage the same result in a new case and keep obstructing enforcement. Why should Trump defer reflexively to congressionally created judges who refuse to defer even to their own superiors within the judiciary?

That point came into focus in Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s dissent from his court’s decision to halt the deportation of a Peruvian family while the appeal proceeds. Referring to the Ninth Circuit as a “wackadoo” court, VanDyke described what he said has become an automatic practice: granting stays of removal even when Supreme Court immigration precedent clearly points the other way.

In effect, he argued, the court uses procedural orders and an ever-expanding shadow docket to nullify precedent without formally issuing rulings that openly defy it.

Because of the circuit’s heavy caseload, VanDyke wrote, judges adopted a “convenient, but unwritten, practice” of granting preliminary relief in the form of administrative stays pending review. Those stays often remain in place until the merits are decided. The result, he said, is a system that “disregard[s] Supreme Court precedent and award[s] automatic, extended stays of removal in utterly meritless immigration appeals.”

Defenders of the Ninth Circuit might say the court is overloaded and must rely on lengthy interim stays. VanDyke’s point, however, is that this indulgence appears uniquely generous in deportation cases. As he put it, the Ninth Circuit’s internal dialogue sounds like “a judicial Oprah Winfrey, confused by her own popularity.”

His satirical version of the court’s approach was devastating:

We are… (“You get a stay!”)… sincerely shocked… (“You get a stay!”)… by the… (“You get a stay!”)… number of… (“You get a stay!”)… utterly… (“You get a stay!”)… meritless… (“You get a stay!”)… immigration petitions… (“You get a stay! And you get a stay! And you get a stay!”)… that are filed… (“You get a stay!”)… in our court. (“Everyone gets a stay!”).

That is the point. When it comes to many liberal judges — who still dominate too many panels — law is often just a vehicle for politics. They will reach the result they want by whatever procedural route is available. You cannot simply “out-appeal” a judiciary willing to ignore controlling law while pretending not to.

RELATED: We escaped King George. Why do we bow to King Judge?

Valerii Evlakhov via iStock/Getty Images

A Politico review of thousands of ICE detention cases found that at least 360 judges rejected ICE’s broader detention policies in more than 3,000 cases, while just 27 judges backed those policies in about 130 cases. The overwhelming pattern is plain: Judges are sidelining the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Supreme Court’s plenary power doctrine, which affirms broad executive authority over the detention and removal of illegal aliens.

No Supreme Court ruling, by itself, will stop judges committed to creative procedural sabotage.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is grimly fitting that in an era when invaders are encouraged to dictate terms to citizens, inferior courts now side with them while dictating terms to superior courts.

If lower courts refuse deference to their judicial bosses, why should the president keep extending deference to either level when the law is on his side?

​Opinion & analysis, Immigration and customs enforcement, Immigration enforcement, The courts, Fifth circuit, Ninth circuit, Judicial supremacy, Judges, Lawlessness, Law and order, Supreme court, Constitution 

Members of a Florida community are demanding that police do more to investigate a woman after her boyfriend was arrested for allegedly beating to death her 3-year-old daughter.

Jeroen Jarrel Coombs, 32, was babysitting Paisley Brown along with four other children ages 1 to 9 years old at the couple’s trailer home in Citra on Thursday, according to the Marion County Sheriff’s office.

‘He advised that he had bound her hands with a robe tie and her legs with painter’s tape to prevent her from reaching into her diaper the night before.’

Police said they responded to the residence on 44th Avenue at about noon when they were called on a report that the girl was found unresponsive. Paisley was transported to a hospital, where she was declared dead.

An investigation found that Coombs had called the girl’s mother at about 10:58 a.m to tell her the child was unresponsive, but he did not call emergency services. Forty minutes passed until the 911 call was made.

The girl’s mother allegedly yelled, “My baby is gone!” after returning home and seeing Paisley limp in her high chair.

Police said one of the children at the home told them Coombs struck Paisley and “disclosed prior physical abuse” by the man.

Coombs allegedly admitted to injuring the child after he was confronted by police about ligature marks and bruises on the child.

“He advised that he had bound her hands with a robe tie and her legs with painter’s tape to prevent her from reaching into her diaper the night before,” police said. “Coombs claimed that he picked Paisley up while she was still bound and dropped her on the floor, causing her to begin gasping for air.”

Lt. Paul Bloom told reporters the man did admit, “I went too far. I took it too far.”

The other four children were placed in the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Coombs was charged with aggravated child abuse, but deputies said further charges are forthcoming. He is being held at the Marion County Jail without bail.

RELATED: Woman admits beating to death boyfriend’s 3-year-old son after horrific abuse, court records show

Dozens gathered on Saturday to protest and demand accountability for the mother of the child.

“I respect our law enforcement, but I’ve seen countless situations in Marion County where arrests are prolonged for months or even years,” protest organizer Carley Santana said. “I don’t think somebody should be walking free without at least being taken in, questioned, and determined [responsible] by a police officer.”

Paisley’s father, Robert Brown, addressed the crowd and said his daughter’s death was preventable.

“Paisley, she’s amazing. She’s a loving person, who’s always happy and goofy,” he said.

Police said they’re investigating why it took 40 minutes for Paisley’s mother to call 911 after learning that she was unresponsive.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Jeroen jarrel coombs abuse, Child abuse florida, Man beats girlfriends child to death, Child abuse murder, Crime 

While the State of the Union address is meant to showcase the presidential agenda, sometimes the moments that live on have little to do with policy. And according to BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, some of the most memorable come from other politicians stealing the spotlight themselves.

“This one I place in the gold medal position here is Nancy Pelosi ripping up President Trump’s speech,” says Wheeler.

In a clip from Trump’s past State of the Union address, Pelosi stands behind Trump as he takes in the applause from the crowd, ripping up a copy of his address.

“This was not an impromptu action that Nancy Pelosi took. This was not something that she did in the heat of the moment. This was not an unscripted emotional outburst. This was something Nancy Pelosi deliberately planned to do, knowing that it would be broadcast in the background internationally,” Wheeler explains.

“This was her response to President Trump. Nothing of substance, no alternative vision, just ripping him up,” she says, pointing out that the Democrats aren’t the only party to have had a politician throw a tantrum at a State of the Union address.

“When Barack Obama was president and he was attempting to debunk a Republican talking about Obamacare … Representative Joe Wilson, in, I think … the first public heckling of a president during the State of the Union address, shouted from the floor of Congress ‘You lie!’ at Barack Obama in 2009,” Wheeler explains.

Wheeler points out that in the video of Obama being heckled by Wilson, Pelosi’s “jaw actually drops.”

“‘You lie’ wins our silver medal for top moments from past State of the Union addresses. And coming in third, the bronze medal, we have to give to Marco Rubio,” she says.

This bronze medal is in honor of Rubio’s “very first meme.”

“This was back in 2013, so over a decade ago, he gave the Republican rebuttal to President Obama,” Wheeler says.

In his rebuttal, Rubio is clearly thirsty and awkwardly bends down to take a swig from a tiny water bottle.

“And that, of course, that moment eclipsed anything else that the president said or didn’t say,” Wheeler adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, State of the union, Nancy pelsoi, Joe wilson you lie, Obama, Barack obama, Joe biden, President trump, President donald trump, Viral moments