France has officially recognized Palestine as a legitimate state, marking a significant step in international diplomacy. Israeli leaders oppose this, as recognition by countries like France disrupts their plans which include removing the Palestinian people and expanding Israel. The somewhat abrupt decision by the French government aggressively advances a two-state solution, but this type of bold diplomatic action may be the only way to create meaningful checks on Israeli violence. While I've routinely been quite critical of Macron, we must applaud this decision and encourage other world powers to take a similarly uncompromising approach to reprimanding the Israeli government.

European Union and Chinese officials have recently met to work through their conflicting interests. EU officials are accusing the Chinese government of using unfair tactics like leveraging its abundance of rare earth materials to undermine competition. While the EU's concerns are legitimate, they, like other Western powers, will have to come to terms with the fact that China is a fully sovereign superpower that is not shy about advancing its interests. It's a new world, and the rulers of the old world order will have to come to terms with it.

Haiti has experienced severe political and social instability, and gangs have now taken nearly full control of the island nation. Kenyan forces have attempted to intervene at the behest of the U.N., but now Haiti is sending soldiers to Mexico for training amid surging gang violence. As is always the case, the people of Haiti are going to have to solve the problems of Haiti. This effort is a necessary step for Haiti, as Haitian forces need to be superior in their capacity to exert force in relation to the country's gangs. If Haiti’s legitimate forces are unable to be stronger than the gangs, then the country will always be ripe for chaos.

A lower court had issued a ruling that would weaken the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court has decided to block that ruling temporarily because it plans to take up a related case soon to provide guidance. The Voting Rights Act is a very tricky piece of legislation because it was absolutely necessary at the time it was put into place but was always meant to be temporary, as many of its features strain our constitutional system. Some say the conditions of the 1960s are not that far removed and the Act needs to stay in place as it is, but I think common sense skews towards suggesting it has done its job in resetting the behavior of the states who were misbehaving, and it is unlikely that there would be a return to 1960s-style voter repression. Even if that occurred, it is almost certainly the case that more legislation would be immediately enacted and enforced. The fervor around protection, I think, is part and parcel of an attempt to stoke fear in the public that we're always right around the corner from putting Black people in chains, but I think that's simply not true, and avoiding that narrative is more conducive for a smart discussion regarding this piece of legislation.

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, recently released evidence supporting her claim that the Obama administration engaged in a treasonous conspiracy to keep Trump out of the White House. The central issue was the use of intelligence to convince the American public that Trump was a Russian agent hell-bent on undermining American democracy. The CBC feels the need to defend Obama no matter what he does, and this is an example of the uncritical nature of their political behavior. Anyone that followed the situation closely is aware that, even if it stops short of treasonous conspiracy, the Obama administration behaved inappropriately in relation to the Russian agent allegation, and if we can't be honest, then we're going to have a real tough time being taken seriously.

The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against New York City challenging its sanctuary policies on immigration. Increasingly, immigration is looking like the central issue of our time in relation to the nature of our federalist system. While I'm a big fan of local autonomy, I'm very skeptical of the reluctance of local officials to cooperate with the feds. It's one thing to exert authority in one's sphere of influence; it's another to act as though the demands of the federal government don't matter. The position of the federal government does in fact matter, and local governments should cooperate, especially as the rules regarding immigration have always been a federal matter. Even more importantly, many of the cities most adamant about having this fight are struggling in a myriad of ways, as is the case for NYC.

California is perhaps the most aggressive state in trying to create restrictions on access to guns in the country, and recently, a federal court has blocked the state's attempt to regulate the purchase of ammunition. As someone that is really staunch about maintaining constitutional protections, and is of the mind that the constitution is pretty clear that the government ought not interfere unduly in our ability to exercise our right to be armed, I'm happy to see this rejected again. We have rights, and it's important that we think about solutions to problems regarding guns with respect to these rights because if we begin to become flippant about protecting our rights, we'll end up with no rights at all.

The mayor of Long Beach has proposed a $3.7 billion budget that includes funding for various projects. Major cities like Long Beach have to spend money, and I understand that, but this increasing turn towards huge sums of money to advance progressive projects seems like a recipe for a future fiscal disaster. Mayor Rex Richardson may be well-intentioned, but one of the things I can't help but question is - what is the role of the city? Because in my opinion the city can't be everything for everyone. Unclear projects related to equity and subsidizing housing for undocumented residents doesn't strike me as a critical priority or a fair use of taxpayer money, especially in a city that's not prospering economically.

Governor Tina Kotek wants to convene state legislators for a special session to determine the best funding sources for maintaining roads and the jobs of those who maintain them. Suggestions include raising per-mile taxes to generate the necessary revenue for upkeep. In my opinion, there is no more critical task for government than to maintain infrastructure, so hopefully they can find a way to secure the funding for these infrastructure projects without overburdening residents of the state too much.

Mayor Mike Johnston delivered his State of the City address, outlining an expansive vision while facing a $250 million deficit. However, like mayors elsewhere, he seems to be taking this moment to pick fights with the federal government and advance progressive policies which don't always have clear objectives and, in my mind, aren't in line with the priorities of city government. Chief among the priorities of the city government in Denver should be dealing with the ridiculously high cost of living and the troubling trends regarding public safety and public transportation.