Hunter Biden Caved. Where Will House Republicans Go From Here?

Rebecca Downs reporting for Townhall 

It looks like Hunter Biden's deposition is one step closer to happening. The House Rules Committee was supposed to be considering a contempt resolution, though that didn't end up happening on Tuesday on account of the winter weather storm. Nevertheless, attorneys for Hunter and the House Oversight Committee and House Judiciary Committee are still making moves to make sure Hunter provides closed-door testimony he was subpoenaed for. 

Fox News' Chad Pergram called the update "a major turn of events," revealing a plan to have the House vote on Thursday to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) has shared that they are working with Hunter's attorney Abbe Lowell, offering "I think that they realize that we put ourselves in a position where we can win in court." Pergram also mentioned that "Comer says ground rules about [Hunter] hiding behind the Fifth Amendment are part of the negotiation."

"So no consideration by the Rules Committee means the House could stand down on its plan to hold Hunter Biden in contempt this week," Pergram also highlighted.

House Republicans are not the ones who are caving. Rather, that would be Hunter Biden. 

"Following an exchange of letters between the parties on January 12 and January 14, staff for the committees and lawyers for Hunter Biden are working to schedule Hunter Biden’s appearance. Negotiations are ongoing this afternoon, and in conjunction with the disruption to member travel and cancelling votes, the House Rules Committee isn’t considering the contempt resolution today to give the attorneys additional time to reach an agreement," a House Oversight Committee spokesperson explained in a statement for Townhall.

Last Wednesday, the two committees held markups on holding Hunter in contempt for skipping out on his December 13 deposition. The first son even made a brief appearance at the House Oversight Committee hearing on January 10, though he left when it was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA), but not before being called out by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC). 

Per the spokesperson's statement, and as we've covered, Comer and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) have engaged in back-and-forth communications with Lowell over the legitimacy of the subpoenas issued to Hunter. Although the chairmen are willing to work to bring Hunter in, their January 14 letter nevertheless seeks to make clear that the subpoenas were valid and Lowell's claims that they were not are without merit.

As for what House Republicans ought to do from here, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Monday's episode of "The Verdict" offered some advice on how to keep focused and not play into the Democrats' hands. 

The senator pointed to how Lowell's letter from January 12 may have explained why Hunter did show up last Wednesday, with Lowell claiming that the first son actually did comply by offering to appear for public testimony and coming in last week as well as because the subpoenas were invalid since the House had yet to finalize the impeachment inquiry into the president. Comer and Jordan's January 14 letter dismisses such claims, though, pointing out how that's inconsistent with federal court opinions. 

Cruz noted that the claims were "too clever by half, but that's their argument."

The senator also went on to urge House Republicans to reissue the subpoena, and to actually not hold Hunter in contempt, emphasizing Hunter "is not the target."

"Hold off a week. Issue the subpoenas right now and say you gotta wait to show up got a week to show up and delay the contempt vote by a week. If he shows up, don't hold him in contempt. Remember, and this is what I would urge," Cruz shared, speaking of how highly he still regards Republicans like Comer and Jordan. "Remember, remember, remember Hunter Biden is not the target," with co-host Ben Ferguson offering that would be the president. 

"And why is that? Because the evidence is growing every day that the President of the United States is corrupt," Cruz added, continuing to urge House Republicans not to focus on the legitimacy of the subpoenas that had been issued. 

Cruz warned that such a move would be "playing into the White House's hands" and is "what they want," explaining "they want a year of legal skirmishes over issues that don't matter. He says 'if you give me a subpoena, I will show up,'" as Cruz continued to stress that House Republicans should "issue it right now."

"Like we need to get the hearing moving fast. You do the deposition in a week, the hearing in three weeks. You got two weeks to study everything from the deposition. But let's be clear, it is January already. The White House's strategy is very simple: delay this past Election Day... run out the clock and so the House they’re great guys but they need to understand that that the Democrats are fighting this like street fighters, they need to be smart and savvy and move forward," Cruz continued as he further laid out advice. "I don't know if he'll show up or not. This may be a ruse. If you issue the subpoena on Tuesday, you give him one week and he doesn't show up in one week, vote on the contempt the next day, like you can speed this up. But if he's offering to surrender, give him a chance to do so."

As Cruz pointed out that Hunter has "made a series of life choices that were suboptimal," with many of them being "disastrously bad" for the president, he also stressed that that isn't the only narrative to go with, though. 

"The reason this is a matter of public concern, and I want to keep underscoring it because it's easy to lose focus," Cruz reminded, is not because of the drug problems or own personal crimes, especially since "if his name was Hunter Smith, no one would care." 

Rather, the reason Hunter Biden is still so important, Cruz offered, is "because the evidence, I think, is now overwhelming that he had a business for years, for decades of selling favors from daddy," which the senator called out as "official corruption," especially because Joe Biden served as the vice president and is now the president.

"And the evidence is growing, that it's not just Hunter profiting, it's the entire family. It is millions of dollars in his shell corporations, it is money laundering, that this is a family business," Cruz shared. 

The senator even revealed that he used to not like to use the phrase "the Biden crime family," though the evidence has convinced him it's an appropriate descriptor, even using some choice language to drive home his point. "And I gotta admit, as the evidence has piled up, if it ain't that I don't know what it is, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that's a duck damnit," Cruz candidly shared, before going on to repeat his advice to House Republicans once more. 

"And so, what I would encourage House Republicans is remember the focus the reason this matters is official corruption by the President of the United States. Everything else--Hunter at the end of the day, as a witness, he is a co- conspirator, he is a criminal, but he is also a witness to the corruption by the office holder. And that's where the focus needs to stay," Cruz stressed. 

X22, And we Know, and more- January 17

 

The Ukraine War Needed to End Yesterday

posted by Al Bienenfeld at American Thinker 

On July 25, 2023, Fox News Host Sean Hannity hosted a town hall meeting with Democrat presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. A seven-minute segment of that event primarily concerned the war in Ukraine and was entitled “America Wants War with Russia.” Being familiar with one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the post-World War II era, I listened intently to what the liberal presidential candidate had to say on the subject. He was quite knowledgeable and, in general, seemed to grasp the motivating imperatives which precipitated this mistake. In contrast, the “conservative” Hannity appeared clueless and maybe disingenuous. Six months later, as the endless war continues, that town hall remains relevant.

Kennedy focused on two specific items. One, the understanding that existed between Russia, the United States, and Germany regarding the reunification of Germany in 1989-91, and, two, the Minsk Accords. Kennedy’s main thrust was that the war in Ukraine was driven by American desire for a manageable war with Russia.

Kennedy summarized Germany’s reunification and America’s failure to live up to promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet head of state. The promise was that NATO wouldn’t expand beyond Germany’s eastern border. Our leaders later took the position that America’s and Germany’s oral promises had no legal basis. This is not sustainable in diplomatic understandings be they made in secret or announced publicly.

It’s just common sense that, if diplomats cannot rely on fellow diplomats’ representation, countries will struggle to negotiate to avoid war. Trusting America and Germany, the Soviet Union removed 300,000+ troops and thousands of heavy weapons. That was a good thing but, in contrast, the United States broke its word. By doing so, we gave Gorbachev’s successors good reason not to ever trust us again. There has existed an unnecessary estrangement ever since and this feeling is helping to drive us towards war.

The Minsk Agreements were an effort to establish peace in Ukraine and stop the fighting between ethnic Russians and Ukrainian civilians that started immediately after the 2014 coup. Washington represented the coup as a revolution despite it being orchestrated by Victoria Nuland, Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. George Friedman of STRATFOR declared this action was a coup.

While Kennedy’s summary contained errors in the dates of the Minsk agreements, he did get the narrative right. The first Minsk accord failed and led to the second. Russia guaranteed peace on behalf of the ethnic Russian eastern region of Ukraine called the Donbas, and the West, led by America, guaranteed it for the Ukrainian government.

Ultimately, the Donbas voted to leave Ukraine and declared for Russian sovereignty. The purpose was to have Russia send troops to their rescue. This was because the Ukrainian government had killed around 14,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbas region since 2015. In February 2022, the Kiev Government dramatically increased bombardment of the Donbas. This resulted in the 2/24/22 Russian invasion ordered by Putin.

Under Minsk 2, the West was to have restrained the Kiev government from such actions. Russia/Putin was to do likewise. The West dishonored their agreement. This was a direct provocation, as Kennedy argued, leading to war.

In a book on the Ukraine war written by Swiss intelligence officer Colonel Jacques Baud, “Operation Z,” he covers the massive uptick in shelling of the Donbas (pgs. 175-177). On pages 182-84, he lays out damning evidence that supports Kennedy’s main thrust that America and her allies drove Russia to invade.

On March 18, 2019, President Zelensky’s advisor and spokesman, Oleksei Arestovich, said in an interview on the Ukrainian channel Apostrof TV:

With a 99% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia. And if we don’t join NATO, Russia will absorb us completely within 10-12 years. That is the whole range we are in. Now go and vote for Zelensky!

Apostrof TV: And if you could choose, what would be best?

Arestovich: Of course, a big war with Russia and the move to NATO following the victory over Russia.

……...But the price of joining NATO is, in all likelihood, a full-scale conflict with Russia. A larger conflict than we have today. Or a series of such conflicts. But in that conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West. Weapons. Equipment. Assistance. New sanctions against Russia. Most likely, the introduction of a NATO contingent. A no-fly zone, and so on. In other words, we won’t lose it. This is a good thing.

How could Arestovich be so sure in 2019 of the Western support that ultimately occurred in 2022?

The answer is now obvious. The war in Ukraine had been planned for some time. Operatives in our State Department and Pentagon were most likely working behind President Trump’s back to orchestrate this. Why? An outdated philosophy that still sees Russia as the Soviet Union despite the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and German Reunification. The war’s purpose was to weaken Russia and diminish Putin’s stature, leading to his downfall.

Putin’s Russia is not the Soviet Union. The “experts” would have you believe he is plotting his European conquest. He is not. Putin’s immediate goal is survival. Remember, we have placed missiles in Romania and Poland that can deliver a nuclear strike on Moscow in ten minutes or less.

Republican Lindsey Graham has called for Putin’s assassination. We threatened him, not the other way around.

Russian GDP in 2022 was $2.24 trillion as compared to America’s GDP of $25.4 trillion and the European Union/NATO’s GDP of $16 trillion, which combined equal $41.4 trillion in GDP. Russia does not have the financial wherewithal to invade Europe.

However, Putin’s army (2 million, including 850,000 active soldiers, reserves at 1.15 million,) is large enough to slice through several countries—although he has not threatened to do so. He is building up his military in anticipation of the West attacking and is preparing for a defensive war. That being the case, he will not invade anyone based on his current mindset unless provoked.

America’s military numbers are 2.1 million, with 1.3 million active and 800,000 reserves, and the European Union/NATO forces stand at 2.23 million, 1,065,000 active, 700,000 reserves, and 450,000 militia. (These numbers, as well as GDP, reflect the top ten European armies: Italy, France, Germany, Greece, the U.K., Spain, Poland, Romania, Netherlands, and Portugal.) These nations would be the most affected by Russian aggression. Other NATO participants, such as Canada and Turkey, are questionable allies under current leadership. The smaller countries would participate but less significantly. Estimates of Russian forces vary excessively, which indicates that some numbers have been exaggerated for political purposes.

Having followed the events in Ukraine, the conclusion is that the quality of Western leadership is problematic. America is calling the shots but has failed. Russia fought a war of attrition, killing its way to victory. Baud states that Russians have mastered the “operational art.” (Battlefield tactics and adjustments within the overall operation.) Because of the Russian strategy, the war in Ukraine is hopeless. Ukraine can no longer field an army to challenge Russia.

Russia has what it wanted: The Donbas and Crimea. Who really wants the bombed-out cities?

Right now, the Biden administration is desperately trying to keep this war going to avoid having to admit a humiliating defeat in an election year. The Ukraine war needed to end yesterday.

Democrats Are Catching On That Political Violence Can Go Both Ways

Political violence isn’t a one-way street. It has taken Democrats too long to figure that out, and now it’s too late.

Eddie Scarry reporting for The Federalist

The accomplice media evidently got a new set of instructions from Joe Biden’s people that they need to start hyping up the possibility of violence coming from Republicans ahead of the election.

Democrats may finally have gotten the message that the threat of force isn’t a political tool that only they get to use, which is great news. Now that they’ve realized it, though, they’re trying to convince voters that it’s only a real problem when their opponents do it, namely (of course) Trump voters.

An article at the leftist Vox site at the start of the year acknowledged that threats of violence “are coming from across the political spectrum.” It said, however, that “the most important ones … emanate from the MAGA faithful.”

The New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie ominously predicted last week that the former president might “use the threat of violence to make officials and ordinary election workers think twice about their decisions.” On the same day, his neckbeard colleague David French claimed in a separate column that “while political violence is hardly exclusive to the right, the hostility and vitriol embedded in MAGA America is resulting in an escalating wave of threats and acts of intimidation.”

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner on Friday whined that Trump has “fanned the flames” of prior “acts of political violence.”

All of this immediately followed — purely by coincidence, no doubt — a series of public remarks by Joe Biden making a big show about how he strongly, seriously, emphatically condemns political violence (wink, wink).

The advantage Democrats have had in recent years is that, unlike independent and Republican voters, they know their activists put politics above everything else. For them, only one thing matters: getting their way. If that means destroying public property and private businesses, so be it. If a few people are hospitalized or die for it, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.

Intimidation and harassment are their default strategies. It’s their voters who screamed in the faces of perfect strangers for not wearing face coverings. It’s their voters who torched and trashed inner cities in the name of “racial justice.” It’s their voters who showed up to menace Supreme Court justices at their private residences. It’s their voters ginning up a second Holocaust over a religious conflict between two nations 6,000 miles away.

True, the other side showed on that one fateful day that it’s capable of taking things to the streets when things aren’t going so smoothly. But rather than Democrats saying to themselves, “Hmm, maybe we should all settle down some,” they proceeded to censor, prosecute, and disenfranchise their opponents.

If there has been any increase in violent threats from the right, Democrats have themselves to thank for it. They might do themselves a favor this time and knock it off before any of those threats are made good.

They chose to drive down this road. Now they understand it’s a two-way street.

FedGov to Spend $700K Reminding Girls Who 'Identify' as Boys That They Can Still Get Pregnant

posted by Ward Clark at RedStateVIP 

Just when you thought the Biden administration couldn't get any more ridiculous, now the Department of Health and Human Services, part of the executive branch and therefore under administration control, has announced they will spend $700,000 reminding 14-year-old girls who "identify as boys" that they are still, well, girls.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is awarding nearly $700,000 taxpayer dollars to back pregnancy prevention programs for young girls who identify as boys, warning that “heteronormative” sexual education is inadequate.

The $698,736 grant, which began in September 2023 and will continue until June 2027, according to government disclosures, will be allocated to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research, a non-profit that seeks to create “an inclusive teen pregnancy program for transgender boys.”

This is well to the left of ridiculous. The goal of teen pregnancy programs is, presumably, to teach teens how pregnancy happens, and that process is the same no matter which participating young person "identifies" as the boy, the girl, the five-spirit nonbinary googolplex, or whatever. Pregnancy is achieved when a sperm meets an egg and that egg implants in a uterus; and that's the only way that can happen. 

These are facts.

So why is HHS wasting taxpayer money on this? Money from taxpayers of a nation that is already facing $34 trillion in debt? Why won't the regular programs work, since we already have them? Of course, we can make a very good case for the schools not being involved in this at all, as these matters are more properly handled by parents. I can still remember the awkward look on the Old Man's face when he gave me "the talk." It was, I think, the only time I saw him embarrassed. But we got through it. And most kids who grew up around farms had these matters mostly sussed out by the time they were about ten years old.

The fact is, though, that the schools are involved; and now, they seem to be involved in spreading bunkum.

“Youth who are assigned female at birth … are at risk for negative sexual health outcomes yet are effectively excluded from sexual health programs because gender-diverse youth do not experience the cisgender, heteronormative teen sexual education messaging available to them as salient or applicable,” the award description claims.

“Data suggest that AFAB [assigned female at birth] trans-identified youth may be less likely to use condoms when having sex with people who have penises and are at least as likely as cisgender girls to be pregnant,” it goes on to say before adding that the “health inequity must be addressed.”

There's so much pseudoscientific woo in that statement that it's hard to address it all. But honestly, if these kids can't understand a simple message like "here is where the sperm come from, here is where eggs are, and if you want to avoid pregnancy, never the twain shall meet," then they need far more help than being reminded to use condoms, and honestly, we don't want them breeding anyway. But it is belaboring the obvious to point out that the program that simply states, "If you have a penis, put a condom on it," will work regardless.

But wait!  There's more!

But the award for nearly $700,000 taxpayer dollars is not the only action that the HHS has taken to push transgenderism. The Daily Wire previously revealed that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a subagency of the HHS, funded a study on the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment to the tune of $3 million despite transgender children’s hospitals admitting that the practice could result in permanent sterilization.

$3 million, when set against the federal budget, may not seem like all that much, but the amount isn't the point; the fact that HHS is spending even a red cent of taxpayers' money — money taken away from the productive of this nation, taken by threat of force (yes, really; try not paying your taxes for a while and see how long it takes for the government to send men with guns out looking for you) to spend on what any honest physician or biologist should already be able to tell you: Administering life-altering and quite likely harmful treatments to children is a bad idea. 

These are facts.

There is government waste, and then there is government waste, and this is all of that in spades.

Those who are pushing this agenda, an agenda that has plenty of the rest of us baffled, aren't about to stop. What's needed is a Congress that will defund this (along with the trillions in other wasteful spending) and a president who will clamp down on the nutbars in HHS.

My wife's late grandmother, a lady who outlived five husbands, raised two kids as a single mom in the '50s, and described herself as a "tough old broad" (she sure was), used to have a surefire method of preventing pregnancy: "Take two aspirin - and hold them between your knees." And sure, too much of the time, when kids are gonna, they're gonna — I should know, I was fourteen when my buddy's second cousin (who was most emphatically a girl) took me out behind the barn — but the basics of how to prevent pregnancy work every time, no matter who is "identifying" as what.

These are facts.

Nikki Haley Relying on Democrats in NH to Win Republican Primary and Keep Billionaire Donors Happy

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

I doubt there is another website on the internet with as deep a Nikki Haley research file as CTH [SEE HERE]. She even has her own drop down category box, which we created the moment Nikki Haley stabbed Sarah Palin in the back.  You see, Nikki Haley would not exist in the world of politics if Sarah Palin had not shown up to rally support for her in the 2010 SC primary race.  But immediately after gaining all the benefit, Haley dismissed Palin, much like Ron DeSantis recently dismissed President Trump.

Taking away all of the pretending, it was very clear several years ago that Nikki Haley was the DeceptiCon to watch in 2024.  You might remember in early 2016, when the GOPe was meeting in Sea Island trying to figure out how to defeat Donald Trump, they picked Nikki Haley to deliver the 2016 State of the Union rebuttal.  That speech was entirely constructed as an attack on candidate Donald Trump.

 

Haley was always going to be the DeceptiCon candidate because she has always been for sale.  Haley doesn’t have actual defined positions or policies; instead, she follows political orders and does whatever the donors and corporations tell her to do.  Nikki Haley is the prototypical UniParty politician, and it comes as no surprise her campaign focus is to use Democrats to change the demographic of the Republican New Hampshire primary.

The billionaires who back Nikki Haley want the status quo to remain.  They are pouring millions into her campaign for one purpose, to remove President Trump.   Her key moment is this upcoming New Hampshire primary race.  If she comes close or wins, they will keep funding her.  If she fails to win in New Hampshire, Haley will collapse quickly as her loss in her home state of South Carolina is virtually guaranteed.

(NBC) – Former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley is facing pressure from some of her top fundraisers to either seriously compete with, or outright defeat, Donald Trump in next week’s New Hampshire primary, after finishing third on Monday in the Iowa caucus.

“I would still like to see her get somewhere, but the mountain she has to climb is enormous,” Andy Sabin, a New York businessman and Haley fundraiser, told CNBC. “As much as I like Haley, I don’t even know what Trump could do to stop himself right now.”

Sabin plans to help raise money for Trump if Haley doesn’t make it through the primary season, despite previously telling CNBC he wouldn’t give the former president “a f—ing nickel.”

“He may be the only choice I have,” said Sabin.

Several Haley fundraisers who spoke to CNBC conceded that, unless she gets a very close second to Trump or manages to pull off an upset win in New Hampshire, the race could effectively be over for her after that. (read more)

However, all is not bad news.  “In Davos, Switzerland, a wealthy investment banking executive and Haley donor told CNBC on Tuesday that he’s now convinced Trump will be the Republican nominee and go on to defeat President Joe Biden in November.” 

Nikki Haley has one shot to keep the NEVER TRUMP money flowing…. New Hampshire. That’s it.

With the full support of the professional republican apparatus, and if she can fool enough republicans, and if the apparatus around her can find enough Democrats, then millions will be funneled into her campaign.   However, if she falls short in New Hampshire, it’s over.

The Nevada and South Carolina “NEVER TRUMP” groups will not align for Haley without a preceding victory in New Hampshire.

Want to get rid of Nikki Haley?  Crush her in New Hampshire.

Newest NATO Member Escalates Prosecution Of Christians To Supreme Court

Joy Pullman reporting for The Federalist 

Two prominent Christians prosecuted for quoting the Bible will be defending themselves to Finland’s Supreme Court after an appeal Friday from a Helsinki prosecutor.

“This court case is historic for freedom of expression and religion,” said Finnish Member of Parliament Paivi Rasanen, one of the two Christians prosecuted for publicly speaking what the Bible teaches about sex. “For the first time in a criminal case, the court has weighed in on whether teachings linked to the Bible can be brought forth and publicly agreed with.”

The case could reach the European Court of Human Rights, where its outcome would affect the world. This appears to be the first post-Soviet case in Europe of a government prosecuting Christians for their beliefs, legal analysts have told The Federalist.

Rasanen was hauled into court nearly five years ago, in 2019, for tweeting a picture of a Bible verse during a homosexual parade endorsed by Finland’s state church. When the government investigated Rasanen for her tweet, state prosecutors uncovered a booklet Rasanen, a medical doctor, had written explaining Christian views of sex. The booklet was published as part of a theological teaching series by Juhana Pohjola, a pastor who is now the bishop of a non-government-sponsored Lutheran church body in Finland.

So state prosecutors charged Pohjola with violating “hate speech” laws for publishing the booklet, and Rasanen with “hate speech” for writing it. Rasanen faces two additional criminal counts for stating Christian sexual theology on a radio show and her tweet. The prosecution wants the two Christians fined tens of thousands of Euros and their offending speech and writings erased from the internet.

The initial court and appeals court to hear the prosecution both unanimously voted to clear both Christians of all charges. In Finland, however, prosecutors can appeal non-convictions. Finland’s top prosecutor in Helsinki is using this case to pursue a precedent that would allow the government to criminalize quoting the Bible, reading it out loud, or publishing it in Finland, a historically Christian nation.

International organizations have backed the two Christians, including multiple U.S. members of Congress. Forty-five Lutheran church bodies have issued letters of support for the two Christians, and orthodox Lutheran bishops elected Pohjola chairman of the International Lutheran Council in 2022, partly in honor of his persecution. The Federalist interviewed Pohjola in 2021 and Rasanen in 2022 in the United States.

“The Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed all the charges in its ruling in November 2023 and stated that the intent of my writings and communication was not to defame or slander anyone, nor did they contain anything illegal,” Rasanen noted in a Jan. 12 statement. “Also, on 30th March 2022, the Helsinki District Court rejected all the charges against me and stated that my texts did not even contain the untruthful claims the prosecutor had put in my mouth.”

The prosecutor claims Rasanen believes homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, which Rasanen has publicly repudiated multiple times, including under oath in court and in 13 hours of police interrogations. This prosecution has given Rasanen and Pohjola an international platform for preaching orthodox Christianity’s teachings that all people are equally guilty before God and equally beloved and able to be redeemed by His Son, Jesus Christ, no matter what they have ever done.

Speaker Johnson's Spine Stiffens as Senate Republicans Try to Surrender on the Border

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

House Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing back on the immigration deal being negotiated between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate. That comes via a new report that includes several quotes from GOP senators urging Johnson to accept what they send over.

Speaker Mike Johnson is publicly and privately panning the Senate’s ongoing border and immigration negotiations. Senate Republicans are reminding him that it's the best deal he'll ever get.

Republicans senators said on Tuesday that they see only worse opportunities ahead to craft a border bill that can pass, given that Democrats who run the Senate and White House are now considering major changes to asylum policy, new expulsion authorities and perhaps even putting limits on presidential parole authority. If Republicans try to wait for a better deal after November's election, senators say, they could end up with GOP control over Congress and the White House — but Democrats who are in no mood to deal on the issue.

There are a lot of problems with the argument that this is the "best" deal Republicans can get. Namely, the fact that if a "deal" results in a worse situation, then it would be preferable to have no deal. 

So what's in the deal? We don't know for certain if the details have changed, but we know what the bullet points were just a few days ago. Johnson himself panned it online, giving a firm "no" to what was leaked. 

Over the weekend, Johnson posted on X “absolutely not” in response to a Fox News screen that criticized a potential border deal; Thune responded that “unfortunately, there's a lot of stuff leaked out there which doesn't reflect some of what’s being discussed and negotiated."

Thune is welcome to share with us what's inaccurate in the reporting on the deal. He didn't do that, though, which leaves us only with what we know so far. As RedState reported, the provisions shown (which Johnson reacted to) would be disastrous. 

Under this deal, every single person who is released from custody into the interior would receive a work permit. That would escalate the number of people rushing to the border because the chances of not only getting in illegally but also being given work authorization would be greatly increased compared to the current situation. Yes, this "deal" would actually have the opposite effect of slowing the crisis at the border. It is literally putting the carrot on the stick and waving it around.

Next, there's spending for lawyers for mentally incompetent illegal aliens, which you get to pay for, and then we get to the supposed "wins" for border hawks. The administration would be able to release 5,000 illegal immigrants into the interior a day while also giving them work permits as mentioned above. Again, we might as well start running ads in Central America telling people to come cross the border. 5,000 entries a day is 150,000 people a month, which is far more than historical norms without these new limits. 

Any deal that starts handing out work permits while allowing 150,000 entries into the interior a month (and that assumes the Biden administration honors the limit) would only escalate the rush of people arriving at the Southern Border. The only possible improvement in the deal would be an adjustment to asylum law that requires people to show up at a port of entry, but the devil is in the details. What happens to those who still cross between ports of entry? Are they automatically expelled? I highly doubt that would be the case. 

These are the kinds of things that matter when trying to decide whether this deal would actually be a downgrade from the status quo. That's hard to fathom, but as with all things in life, you can indeed take a terrible thing and make it even worse. To me, the biggest factor in securing the Southern Border is removing the incentives to come. From what we know so far about this deal, it doesn't do that. Not even close. 

Johnson is right to say no unless serious, substantive changes are made. If Democrats don't want that, then they can own the crisis heading into a major election. It's their choice.