Give Me Liberty or Give Me Democrats

A disturbing new poll reveals the Left’s authoritarian bent

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

In Real Clear Opinion Research, Carl M. Cameron’s article “Is Censorship a Partisan Issue” provides Democrats an exceptional opportunity to follow the facts. The Left will not like where it leads.

The article delves into a Real Clear Opinion Research poll that reveals the Left is the party hastening to embrace government censorship of free speech:

But the most glaring gap is between conservatives and liberals, i.e., between Republicans and Democrats.  On the issue of free expression, at least, Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats…

Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”

Further, within the responses, there is one disturbing, though not surprising, finding that reveals the basis for this finding and, indeed, of much of the overall contention roiling the citizenry; moreover, it is a finding which shows no signs of ratcheting anywhere but upward. To wit:

Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans.  Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.

That slightly over one-third of Democrats believe their fellow citizens have “too much freedom” not only explains their embrace of censorship, it also explains the policies and proposals the Democrats have endeavored to foist upon their fellow citizens. Now, it makes sense why the president and his Congressional almost never use the word “liberty” when discussing public policy issues or in their addresses; and, indeed, the Left’s overarching attempt to supplant “liberty and equality” with the DIE cult of “diversity, inclusion, and equity” as America’s foundational principles. And these radical, extreme, and dangerous Democrats are determined to do so by any means fair or foul, including the weaponization of government against all dissent.

Ominously, it is this 34% of Democrats that largely provides its activist base in government, academia, NGOs, the media and elsewhere. Thus, the Left’s most paranoid and rabid proponents of limiting the freedom of Americans are the most empowered to do it. From government mandated and coerced COVID vaccinations through the destruction of parental right to the imposition of the DIE cult and cancel culture, this segment of the Democratic party is making Americans’ lives miserable, and fraying the bonds of civil society.

Why are these one-third of Democrats intent on foisting their freedom-curbing “democracy” upon our republic? A leftist’s morally superior sense of self is based upon their political beliefs; thus, any dissent to one’s views is seen as a personal attack. This leads the Leftist to feel offended and, ultimately, threatened by people who disagree with them. Inevitably, they come to view the dissenter as a bad person; and seek to silence them. Of course, the Leftist will rationalize away their authoritarian mindset and behavior, and for good measure, project their sins upon the dissenter.

That one-third of one of our two major parties believe Americans have too much freedom, and more than that are willing to censor free speech, is an existential problem for a free republic founded upon self-evident truths and God-given rights. It is first and foremost a problem for the Democrats who, to their credit, do not agree with the 34% of aspiring Leftist authoritarians. Just as preventing the ascendance of the 14.6% of “Republicans” who agree with the Left that Americans have too much freedom is first and foremost a responsibility of the GOP.

Perhaps, then, there can be gleaned a glimmer of a silver lining in these otherwise distressing findings: there is a basis for a bi-partisan consensus among the anti-authoritarians of both parties – who while they have sharp disagreements over how and what shape it should take – agree that the goal is the promotion, not the reduction, of American freedom. To abandon this bipartisan accord is to progress into authoritarianism. After all, fundamental rights upon which Americans have traditionally agreed and staunchly defended include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- Oct 1st

 

BRUTAL TRUTH – The Modern Blood and Death Created by Current Tyrants

There’s no pretending or pulling punches in Neil Oliver’s monologue this week. In fact, the theme of blood and carnage weaves throughout the presentation as Oliver walks through some recent events in the UK, Canada, Ukraine and the United States.

Dissident Oliver puts the cost of this western global political effort into a very human context, and asks ‘what do we care about‘, as we allow this to continue.  The examples he cites are very real and very much related.  WATCH:

The NRA Taunts Biden's New 'Gun Violence Prevention Office,' Suggests Far More Accurate Name

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

As murder rates and other violent crime records continue to explode in large Democrat-run cities across America, Joe Biden has finally taken action — an action that only makes sense to the gun-grabbing left: the irrational creation of a new federal office called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. 

Prior to the White House announcement, Biden said in a statement:

Every time I’ve met with families impacted by gun violence as they mourn their loved ones, and I’ve met with so many throughout the country, they all have the same message for their elected officials: "Do something."

Yo, Joe — like all those times you've met with loved ones in New York City, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, and other Democrat cities where young Blacks are gunned down on a regular basis? Oh, wait — never mind. You've done nothing of the kind.

The office will be led by Kamala Harris —the most laughably ineffectual vice president in at least modern history — and longtime Biden aide Stefanie Feldman.  

Incidentally, I'd first launch into a short dissertation about how guns don't commit violence, which any rational, law-abiding gun owner knows, and I'd again remind the left that people commit violent acts — usually bad or mentally deranged people intent on doing bad or mentally deranged things — by any means available, but again, the sane among us already know it, by heart and rationale.  

Included in "the "sane among us" is the National Rife Association, which had a few mocking thoughts about Biden's new office, which we'll get to after this short clip of Joe's faux dramatic presentation:

As to be expected, the NRA blasted the new federal office, beginning with mocking the name — and suggesting a much more accurate title.

The Biden administration's new White House Office of so-called "Gun Violence Prevention" might as well be renamed the "Federal Office to Disarm Law-Abiding Americans and Defeat the NRA." One doesn't have to look far into Stefanie Feldman's social media to see biases and agenda: a barrage of over 20 posts aggressively targeting the NRA, combined with promises of "big, bold" executive action on gun control, paints a clear picture.

That it does.

Here's more on gun-grabber-wannabe Feldman:

A review of Feldman’s X account shows a handful of messages, going back to at least 2019, vowing to defeat the NRA, former President Trump and gun manufacturers, while others praised gun control activist groups that pledged support to Biden during the 2020 election. 

"Vote Biden. Defeat the NRA," Stefanie Feldman posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, in 2020, adding that, "The stakes are high."

"Brady is officially on Team Joe! Together, we’ll defeat Donald Trump. Then we’ll defeat gun manufacturers and the NRA," Feldman posted in March of 2020, referring to a gun control nonprofit supporting Biden's presidential campaign. 

"Biden will be the gun safety president. He's beaten the NRA before," she wrote in another post in January 2020. 

"Joe Biden isn't afraid of the NRA & gun manufacturers. He's defeated them twice before (background checks & assault weapons/high-cap mag bans). As president, he'll defeat them again. And, he'll repeal the non-sensical liability protection for gun manufacturers," she wrote in another post in 2019. 

The Democrats' Gun-Grabbing Clown Car, with Biden as its current hood ornament, is transparent as hell; from continuing to use concocted, inaccurate code terms like "assault rife" and "weapons of war," while virtually ignoring the real horrors of violent crime that continue in the streets of America's large cities.

And why do the Democrats turn a blind eye to the bloody streets of Chicago and elsewhere? Because those shootings run counter to their narrative — and as a result must necessarily be ignored.

The Bottom Line

The Democrat Party (as part of the far-left as a whole) is not dissimilar to a spoiled child. Give a small kid one piece of candy and he wants two — then another. He's never be satisfied. And neither are the Democrats.

From gun control to ever-increasing taxes to attacks against the moral fiber of America, today's Democrat Party will continue to eat the proverbial elephant (pun intended) one bite at a time, if the sane among us fail to stand strong and fight the far-left metastasis that threatens to destroy our country before our very eyes.

Here's the entire silly video — if you have the stomach to watch it.

The Democrats' 'No Evidence' Claim About Joe Biden's Corruption Now Requires Suspension of Disbelief

posted by Mike Miller at RedStateVIP 

The first tried in vain to sell Joe Biden's absurd mutually exclusive claims that, one, he has never discussed with his crackhead son the latter's overseas business ventures, and, two, that the crackhead son never did anything illegal or wrong. Obviously, daddy couldn't possibly know his boy didn't do anything wrong if he hadn't discussed with his boy what he'd done.

Question for my Democrat friends: How'd that all turn out? Hasn't aged well at all, has it?

Karine Jean-Pierre, arguably the most woefully inept White House press secretary in history, finally abandoned her silly efforts to sell Biden's mutually exclusive claims, shifting her shtick in late July to simply declaring Joe was never in business with Hunter: 

So, I've been I've been asked this question a million times. The answer is not going to change. The answer remains the same. The president was never in business with his son. I just don't have anything else to add.

Ah, KJP, but the answer did change — with your goal-post-moving statement that your boss was never in business with his wayward son, as opposed to your previous ad-nauseam claim that he had zero knowledge of Hunter's likely illegal shenanigans. 

As the evidence has continued to mount, the Democrats have stubbornly clung to the "no evidence" argument that Joe himself, despite the activities of other members of the Biden family, wasn't tied to the Biden Family Business. 

Two words: Frank Biden. 

As we reported on Friday, Frank Biden, Joe's youngest brother, repeatedly referred to Joe as "the big guy" — which confirmed that Joe was indeed the big guy, as referenced by two of Hunter Biden's former business partners who later said they received an email that included the line, "10 held by H for the big guy?" — shorthand for 10% held by Hunter Biden for Joe Biden.

It Gets Worse — or Better, Depending on One's Point of View

As we reported on Tuesday, Hunter Biden received more than $250,000 from Beijing — via wire transfers in mid-2019, which were addressed to Joe Biden's home address in Delaware. Oops.

Here's more:

Hunter Biden received wires originating in Beijing for more than $250,000 from Chinese business partners during the summer of 2019—wires that listed the Delaware home of Joe Biden as the beneficiary address for the funds, Fox News Digital has learned.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has been investigating the Biden family business dealings and Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in those ventures. 

As part of the investigation, Comer subpoenaed financial records related to a specific bank account and received records of two wires originating from Beijing, China, and linked to BHR Partners.

BHR Partners is a joint venture between Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca and Chinese investment firm Bohai Capital. BHR Partners is a Beijing-backed private equity firm controlled by Bank of China Limited. Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of BHR Partners.

Again, as I suggested in my headline, suspension of disbelief is required to actually believe that Joe Biden has not been up to his lying eyeballs in the Biden Family Business scandal for years. 

Finally, as we reported on Friday, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) announced he was issuing subpoenas for the bank records of Hunter, and James Biden — Joe's brother, promising to "follow the money." 

Another "oops," for sure.

The Bottom Line

As the Democrat Party continues to spin like an absurd top, it's become more than obvious that most Democrat lawmakers know damn well that Joe Biden is likely guilty of all or most accusations of wrongdoing. 

That said, their ridiculous protestations to the contrary are spewed solely for the consumption of Democrat voters.

These House Republicans Voted to Fund CISA’s Criminal Censorship and Election Interference

Anyone who votes to fund an unconstitutional agency 

that works to annihilate the First Amendment

 does not deserve to hold office.

Evita Duffy-Alfonso reporting for The Federalist

On Wednesday night, 109 Republicans voted against an amendment proposed by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) that would strip the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of 25 percent of its funding. CISA, a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security, has made a habit of censoring the American public and interfering in our elections by policing speech. According to federal lawmakers, CISA is the “nerve center” of federal government censorship.

CISA’s intended purpose is to prevent cyberattacks and defend the physical infrastructure of the country. Beginning in the run-up to the 2020 election, however, the agency pivoted its focus from foreign threats to domestic spreaders of so-called mis- and disinformation (code words for information deemed inconvenient to the state).

CISA Mind Control

In true Orwellian fashion, CISA officials use illegal powers to suppress information that they know to be true in order to preserve official government narratives and control the minds of the American public.

In addition to addressing mis- and disinformation, CISA directs the censorship of “malinformation,” defined by the agency as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

“In other words, malinformation is factual information that is objectionable not because it is false or untruthful, but because it is provided without adequate ‘context’ — context as determined by the government,” explained lawmakers on the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

The agency justifies censoring truth because it claims to be “protecting” the American public’s “cognitive infrastructure.” In the lead-up to the 2020 election, CISA began treating speech critical of American institutions as a threat to said institutions and the infrastructure of our country. Former CISA Director Chris Krebs, who served during the 2020 election cycle, cracked down on speech that called into question the integrity of the election by deeming it a threat to election infrastructure.

Today, current CISA Director Jen Easterly has expanded the agency’s efforts of securing institutional infrastructure to securing “cognitive infrastructure,” or, put differently, our minds. According to Easterly, Americans’ “cognitive infrastructure” is “the most critical infrastructure” the state must “protect.”

What Easterly really means, though, is not that the public’s minds are critical to protect, but that the public’s minds are critical to control. 

Meeting With Tech Giants

Missouri v. Biden revealed that ahead of the 2020 election, CISA agents facilitated meetings between Big Tech companies, and national security and law enforcement agencies to address “mis-, dis-, and mal-information” on social media platforms. As the election drew closer, CISA increased the frequency of these meetings.

During the meetings, CISA warned tech companies of potential foreign “hack-and-leak” operations that would threaten the integrity of the 2020 election. The valid Hunter Biden laptop story was subsequently censored because it was falsely portrayed as a “hack-and-leak” operation. 

Polls after the 2020 election indicate that had the Hunter Biden laptop story not been suppressed, Joe Biden might not have won the 2020 election.

Directing Censorship 

CISA, along with other government agencies, engaged in “switchboarding,” the process of directly forwarding offending social media posts to tech companies for them to censor. 

Many of these posts included tweets that called into question the integrity of the 2020 election. CISA particularly targeted citizens who criticized mass mail-in balloting for not being secure and for being disproportionately implemented to favor Democrats — two things that are indisputably true.

Indeed, in his May testimony to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Federalist Senior Contributor Benjamin Weingarten detailed how CISA “called for ‘swift removal of … posts and continued monitoring of [a] user’s account’ because said user had ‘claimed … that mail-in voting is insecure,’ and that ‘conspiracy theories about election fraud are hard to discount.’” 

Outsourcing Censorship

CISA collaborates with nongovernmental censorship organizations to outsource its speech policing and circumvent the First Amendment.

For example, the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), a private “anti-disinformation” organization, “was conceived by and created in consultation with CISA officials in the run-up to the 2020 election,” explained Weingarten. EIP’s goal was to fill the “critical gap” created by the Constitution’s limits on government agencies censoring “election misinformation originating from domestic sources within the United States.”

“That lack of ‘authority’ may have included both an inability for government agencies, to access social media platform data – as EIP did – as well as ‘very real First Amendment questions,’” Weingarten noted.

EIP lobbied tech companies to establish more oppressive content moderation policies. It flagged offending content and even “entire narratives” the organization deemed harmful. Ultimately, EIP was created to suppress “speech dubious of an unprecedented election given the sweeping, pandemic-driven changes made to the voting system that cycle, whereby the razor-thin final results in key states did not materialize for days,” Weingarten concluded.

EIP also has several partner organizations, one of which is Graphika, a Manhattan-based tech firm revealed by a Mint Press investigative report to have “been at the forefront of the establishment attack on alternative media.” Graphika has produced reports labeling outlets that are critical of the federal government as Russian, Chinese, or Iranian influence operations on American social media.

Essentially, Graphika exists to produce propaganda for the federal government’s propaganda, such as the deep state lie that the Trump campaign was infested with Russian assets and promoted by the Russian government.

CISA Must Be Defunded

CISA is an affront to the Constitution. It is a criminal organization that, along with the entire post-9/11 surveillance apparatus, has no right to exist in the United States of America. Reducing CISA’s budget by 25 percent is the least Republican members of Congress can do to address this wildly abusive and unconstitutional agency.

Even for selfish reasons, Republicans should be motivated to eradicate CISA. The agency interfered in the 2020 election to hurt Republicans and its censorship operations post-2020 are inhibiting efforts to fix the problems that plagued the last election cycle. This means that so long as CISA is in operation, the integrity of the 2024 election is in grave jeopardy. 

Perhaps, however, like CISA and its supporters in the Democrat Party, Republican members of Congress do not think that the American people can discern for themselves what is and is not true. It’s possible that these 109 representatives do not care about the oath they took upon entering office to “defend the Constitution,” and agree with CISA that the federal government must control — I mean protect — our minds.

As the saying goes, with friends like these, who needs enemies? 

The Republicans who voted to fund the unlawful Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are Aderholt, Carl, Roers, and Strong of Alabama; Ciscomani and Schweikert of Arizona; Crawford, Hill, and Womack of Arkansas; Calvert, Duarte, Garcia, Kiley, Kim, Obernolte, Steel, and Valadao of California; Bilirakis, Diaz-Balart, Dunn, Franklin, Gimenez, Lee, Mast, Rutherford, and Salazar of Florida; McCormick and Scott of Georgia; Simpson of Idaho; LaHood of Illinois; Baird, Banks, Buschon, Houchin, of Indiana; Feenstra, Hinson, Miller-Meeks, and Nunn of Iowa; Estes and LaTurner of Kansas; Guthrie and Rogers of Kentucky; Graves, Letlow, and Scalise of Louisiana; James of Michigan; Finstad, Fischbach, and Stauber of Minnesota; Ezell, Guest, and Kelly of Mississippi; Alford, Graves, Luetkemeyer, and Wagner of Missouri; Bacon, Flood, and Smith of Nebraska; D’Esposito, Garbarino, LaLota, Lawler, Malliotakis, Molinaro, Stefanik, and Williams of New York; Kean and Smith of New Jersey; Foxx, Hudson, McHenry, Murphy, and Rouzer of North Carolina; Armstrong of North Dakota; Johnson, Joyce, Miller, Turner, and Wenstrup of Ohio; Bice, Cole, and Lucas of Oklahoma; Bentz and Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon; Fitzpatrick, Kelly, Meuser, and Thompson of Pennsylvania; González Colón of Puerto Rico; Mace of South Carolina; Johnson of South Dakota; Fleischmann and Kustoff of Tennessee; Crenshaw, De La Cruz, Ellzey, Granger, Jackson, Luttrell, McCaul, Moran, and Van Duyne of Texas; Kiggans of Virginia; Newhouse of Washington; and Fitzgerald, Gallagher, Steil, and Van Orden of Wisconsin.

Bill Maher and His Writers Seem to Think Joe Biden Is Sane but Should Not Run Because Trump Can Beat Him

Duke reporting for RedState 

You know it must be a Saturday when the front page of RedState has a couple of stories about Bill Maher who is the host of Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO. In his first show back since the writers' strike ended and his false start of bringing back his show earlier this month Maher was raring to go and as usual, hit all sides with aplomb.

My colleague Bonchie  had this piece earlier about how Governor Ron DeSantis handled his appearance on the show: 

WATCH: Ron DeSantis Kills It on Bill Maher, Has the Lib Audience Cheering

It only took a few seconds for DeSantis to get his first round of applause, touting that he made vaccine mandates illegal in Florida. Given Maher's skepticism about left-wing COVID hysteria, that was a smart strategic play to soften the room before getting into the tougher questions. 

Maher took a few shots after, which shouldn't anger any Republican because that is the point of his show (everyone should learn to laugh a little more). DeSantis then got serious when pressed on what makes him unique in the field, noting that the nation needs actual accountability for the government's COVID regime, including mandates and lockdowns. The audience ate that up.

Next, Maher brought up the idea that DeSantis campaigned for supposed "election deniers" in 2022, including Kari Lake. He was ready, though, and turned the issue around on Democrats.

Maher then tried to trip DeSantis up and the Governor from Florida smahed the question with his answer.

MAHER: That's not a dealbreaker issue for you? That's not democracy?

DESANTIS: Well, okay, let's go back to 2016. Your friends in Hollywood were cutting ads telling the electoral college to vote against Trump in the electoral college because it was stolen. They said Russia stole the election. For years they said. So don't act like this is a unique thing in the modern history of the country.

True and brilliant.

Now here is where Maher will start to get a bit sketchy and his bleeding heart for feelings over obvious facts kicks in.

Someone has to convince President Biden that if he runs again, he’s going to turn the country back over to Trump and go and go down in history as Ruth Bader Biden, the person who doesn’t know when to quit and so does great damage to their party and their country. All of us who like Joe Biden have been struggling lately with the political situation in the Democratic Party, an incumbent we admire who acquitted himself well in the first term, but who even members of his own party don’t want to see run for a second. Despite a touching letter of recommendation from Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis. I kid. They shouldn’t have gotten shit for that. If you ask me, do I think Joe Biden can do the job of president? My answer is an unequivocal yes. He can do the job. Do I love everything? No. But that’s every president. But government work is done in small, quiet rooms like the Oval Office. And in that setting. Joe’s compassion and centuries of experience are pluses, and he’s generally made good decisions that got us out of Afghanistan, handled Ukraine, kept the economy chugging, finally got us rebuilding, infrastructure returned a sense of normalcy. There is a term for Joe Biden, but not two. Because while he can do the job, what he can’t do is run for it.

No one who truly thinks rationally and also believes that Joe Biden is capable of doing the job as President. No one. He is at best a caretaker for the office that needs to be taken care of and strictly monitored. I could spend the rest of this article just posting mess-ups that he has done in the public realm and you can't tell me that privately in the Oval Office, he's 100 percent different. Somehow, he is seen as strong and decisive and calmly giving orders to his staff.

The examples that Maher gives are quite telling that this is a man and a Presidency adrift.

Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was an absolute disaster and gave the green light for Putin to invade Ukraine because the Russian President recognized the guy in the Oval Office was bumbling already. The whole plan looked like it had been drafted on a cocktail napkin on K Street and somebody had spilled their drink on half of it but went ahead with it anyway.

Biden has never explained to the American people why supporting Ukraine and their fight to repel the Russians is in the American interest. That's mostly because Biden probably doesn't know where Ukraine is on a map, he just knows that it might have something to do with his kid and he is still ticked off that he left that laptop at a computer repair shop and never went back and picked it up. 

Also, if the economy chugging along is record high inflation food and gas prices soaring through the roof, and with seemingly no relief in sight, I'm glad Bill has millions in the bank to help absorb the cost of all these things for Biden's chugging economy. For the rest of America, it sounds like and looks like a chugging economy that's about ready to stall.

I don't really think Bill believes that's a sense of normalcy back in America he's just got to pay a little lip service to his natural base on the left whom he's been at odds for the past couple of years with how they've handled things. As I wrote earlier here today at RedState it seems that the only person in the country doing a worse job than Biden is the duly elected chair of the Michigan GOP.

Jonathan Turley Savages Democrat Lawmaker for Using 'Ad Hominem' Attacks During Impeachment Inquiry

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley fired back at Democrats who attempted to smear his character during the first day of the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in his son, Hunter’s shady foreign business dealings. During the proceedings, some Democratic lawmakers chose to engage in vicious attacks on Turley instead of making substantive arguments against the inquiry.

Turley penned an op-ed in which he criticized Democrats for using ad hominem attacks against him instead of discussing the impeachment inquiry. He noted that during his testimony, he “laid out the constitutional and historical baseline for impeachment inquiries” and noted that while he did not believe “that the current evidence would support an actual article of impeachment,” he contended that “the evidence clearly satisfied the threshold for an impeachment inquiry.”

Democrats on social media deceptively edited a video clip of Turley’s comments to make it seem as if he argued that Biden should not be impeached. He then brought up Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), who tried to make it seem as if Turley supported pedophiles and polygamists.

However, Krishnamoorthi did not challenge my analysis. He attacked me personally. In a truly bizarre moment, Krishnamoorthi denounced me as a defender of a criminal child molester and polygamist.

Krishnamoorthi waved around a copy of a 2006 op-ed in The Guardian and an op-ed in USA Today to paint me as a supporter of Tom Green, a polygamist who was convicted of child rape.

It was untrue and I attempted to respond, but Krishnamoorthi refused. He then quickly left the hearing.

However, later in the proceedings, Turley was given an opportunity to respond to Krishnamoorthi’s attack. He explains further in the article:

In 2006, I was representing the “Sister Wives” family—first in a criminal investigation into polygamy and then in an action challenging the underlying statute. I have spent my entire career opposing “morality legislation” criminalizing consensual relations between adults. For decades, I opposed the criminalization of homosexuality and supported same-sex marriage. As someone with libertarian views, I oppose society mandating moral codes to be imposed on individuals. These laws have often targeted religious and social minorities, including members of the LGBT community.

We prevailed in the Sister Wives lawsuit and the law was found unconstitutional. (The decision was later set aside on appeal on technical grounds.)

Turley also noted that he “did not defend polygamy as a practice” and recalled saying “I detest polygamy.” He also reiterated his contention that Green was “properly prosecuted for a child sex crime—just as a person in a monogamous marriage would be prosecuted.”

It was strange to have a liberal Democrat attack me for such work, but Krishnamoorthi clearly knew all of this when he started waving around the “evidence” that I was a pedophilic fellow traveler.

Former Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) used the same smears and bullying tactics. Back then, he was waving around lists of names of people who were to be blacklisted and condemned for holding opposing views.

I previously wrote how Democrats are increasingly adopting the tactics once used against the left during the Red Scare, including the use of blacklists and personal attacks to silence critics. Journalists, FBI agents, prosecutors, and whistleblowers have all been subject to these same ad hominem attacks.

What happened between Krishnamoorthi and Turley is not limited to the impeachment inquiry. Indeed, folks on the left have sought to employ personal attacks and blatant lies about their opposition to discredit them. In this case, the lawmaker’s motive seems clear: Democrats do not have valid arguments against the inquiry, so they are resorting to deflection and ad hominem attacks instead of discussing the issue head-on.

Nevertheless, despite Democrats’ protestations, the impeachment inquiry is happening. As Turley indicated, House Republicans likely do not have enough evidence to warrant impeachment proceedings, but they have more than enough to investigate the president. Chances are, they will find enough evidence of wrongdoing on Biden’s part to push through to the next phase: Actual impeachment hearings. To put it simply, it is probably a matter of when, not if, when it comes to impeaching their president.

Joe Biden’s Granddaughter Lived in White House While Representing Govt Interests of Peru

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

Sheesh, this family.  According to reporting from the New York Post, Hunter Biden’s oldest daughter, Naomi Biden, Joe Biden’s granddaughter, went to work for DC-based law firm Arnold & Porter immediately after Biden was inaugurated.

While working for the firm as an “international arbitration associate”, Naomi Biden represents the interests of Peruvians in an energy dispute and lawsuit.  Naomi Biden lived in the White House from August 2022 to March 2023.

No word on whether she registered under the laws of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).   The IRS investigators of Hunter Biden were blocked by the DOJ from interviewing Naomi.

This is multiple layers of sketchy.

(New York Post) – Hunter Biden’s eldest daughter Naomi worked as a lawyer on behalf of the government of Peru around the same time she was living at the White House with her granddad, President Joe Biden, a review of public records shows.

Naomi Biden, 29, joined the Washington DC-based law firm Arnold & Porter in January 2021 — the same month Joe Biden was sworn in as the nation’s 46th president.

She had previously been a Summer associate at the firm in 2019.

In September 2021 she appeared in a filing disclosing that she was providing legal representation for the government of Peru in a case brought by Worth Capital Holdings 27 LLC, which claimed the country was interfering in their operation of an oil refinery in the southern Amazon.

The company sought $590 million in damages. The case is still ongoing, and Naomi Biden’s specific role is unclear. (read more)

Feds Considered Sex Trafficking Charges Against Hunter Biden, Greene Demands Answers

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Documents released by the House Ways and Means Committee this week reveal that federal agents were looking into possible sex trafficking charges against  Hunter Biden. 

An October 2020 email between Justice Department Tax Division prosecutor Jack Morgan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf detailed nine cases of Hunter seemingly communicating with prostitutes or people who appeared to be prostitutes and arranging for their travel across state lines.  Those actions could be potential Mann Act violations, as Morgan notes. Hunter Biden is reflected as "SM" in the email. 

“Lesley: Attached are some, but not all, of the relevant documents related to SM and solicitation,” Morgan writes in the missive, referring to Hunter Biden as “SM.” 

“I summarize the contents below. The highlighted records are those that are most probative for Mann act purposes,” he adds. 

Morgan’s email highlights two cases where “likely” escorts traveled from Los Angeles and New York to meet with Hunter in Boston. 

In a third highlighted case, Morgan flagged a communication between Hunter and a woman who “self identifies as a “hooker’” that indicates the woman might have traveled from New Jersey to New York to see him. 

Two communications appear to have been discovered by Morgan that show Hunter messaging sex traffickers as well, denoted as “Trafficker #1” and “Trafficker #2,” in his email to Wolf.  

Morgan wasn't sure in some other communications but passed them along to Wolf for judgment because they were suspicious. 

In one case, Morgan wrote, “Text chain suggests that she traveled to Delaware and that SM paid money to her. In other texts, however, she states, ‘I’m not some hooker or escort.’”

IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler gave the email to the Committee. He's been alleging a cover-up and a slow-walking of the probe into Hunter Biden. He's testified as to the Mann Act questions to Congress and noted that there was "some flying people across state lines, paying for their travel, paying for their hotels." 

So then what happened to the case? Why were we then only treated to the sweetheart plea deal that then blew apart, given all the other potential things that could potentially have been charged? 

Ziegler's response is not encouraging as to how the DOJ then dealt with the question. 

“I know that they were compiling them together,” he added. “I don’t know what they ended up doing with them. I know there was an effort at some point to compile them, but I don’t know what ultimately happened with them.”

Like many things when someone has the magical "D" after their name, or they're Hunter Biden, things just seem to go away, whatever the evidence might be. 

This was an issue that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has been a pit bull over and keeps asking about. She and House Oversight Chair James Comer have been asking for a list of Hunter's prostitutes, to judge if they are victims under the Mann Act. Greene continues to pursue the question during the first day of the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden.  I wrote about a funny exchange that she had with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that was comedy gold 

But MTG also demanded answers to the Mann Act question.