Over one dozen Republican lawmakers have threatened to boycott the “unsanctioned quasi-hearings” occurring in the House Oversight and Rules Committee, the Houses&#8217; powerful investigative body that can oversee the federal government. 
According to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-oversight-republicans-threaten-to-boycott-quasi-hearings-say-committee-isnt-complying-with-remote-business-rules">Fox News</a>, which obtained a copy of the letter sent to Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the lawmakers contend that remote briefings have been marred with procedural violations and technical issues, and call upon the committee to begin meeting in-person, as the current situation remains “unworkable” on a day-to-day basis. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The House should be doing the people&#8217;s business in person.
America is getting back to work, and so should we.
But if Dems can&#8217;t bring themselves to do that, they should at least follow the rules that they put in place and stop trampling minority rights.<a href="https://t.co/sQ7YoaglSq">https://t.co/sQ7YoaglSq</a>
— Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) <a href="https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1265634235416707072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 27, 2020</a></blockquote>
“Rather than continue a pattern of unfair remote proceedings that inhibit the Minority and confuse the American People, we urge you to bring the Committee back to regular order. Barring this approach, we urge you to acknowledge that the Speaker has declared the House to be in a ‘covered period,’ pursuant to H. Res. 965, and follow Chairman McGovern’s procedural expectations,” reads the letter, which refers to the procedural expectations established by the House Rules Committee.  
 
“You must abandon these quasi-hearings and move the Committee into compliance with the McGovern guidelines. There is a playbook ⁠— albeit a murky one ⁠— that we must follow at this point,” the letter continues, and later adds: “If you will not stop the weekly fake hearings and move toward the framework laid out in H. Res. 965 and the accompanying McGovern guidelines, the Republican Members will be forced to consider abstaining from these violative proceedings.&#8221;
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-house-republicans-sue-pelosi-for-defying-231-year-constitutional-tradition-with-proxy-voting-pelosi-responds">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) filed a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), accusing the majority in Congress of breaking centuries of historical precedent by allowing a single member of Congress to vote on behalf of up to ten other members not in the Capitol. 
“It is simply impossible to read the constitution and overlook its repeated and emphatic requirement that Members of Congress actually assemble in their respective chambers when they vote, whether on matters as weighty as declaring war or as ordinary as naming a bridge,” reads the lawsuit, which later adds that the in-person voting “requirement is no less mandatory in the midst of a pandemic.”
The House voted along party lines to allow the Speaker to enact the rule change, and Pelosi can extend the proxy voting period based on public information provided by the sergeant-at-arms. As of Tuesday evening, 59 Democrats and no Republicans <a href="https://clerkpreview.house.gov/ProxyLetter#AllProxies">filed letters</a> designating another member of Congress as their proxy. 
In a statement made after the lawsuit was filed, Pelosi accused the House Republicans of engaging in a “sad stunt,” and that the Constitution supported the move she made as falling under the power of each Chamber to enact its own procedural rules.
“House Republicans’ sad stunt shows that their only focus is to delay and obstruct urgently-needed action to meet the needs of American workers and families during the coronavirus crisis,” said Pelosi. “The House’s position that remote voting by proxy during a pandemic is fully consistent with the Constitution is supported by expert legal analyses. Further, the Supreme Court made clear over a century ago that the Constitution empowers each chamber of Congress to set its own procedural rules.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

House Oversight Committee Hearing On Coronavirus Preparedness And Response

Republicans Threaten To Boycott House Oversight Committee’s ‘Unsanctioned Quasi-Hearings’

House Republicans

Nancy Pelosi

House Republicans are demanding that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) call the House back into session on time, ending the weeks-long recess and returning to work, and they&#8217;re taking to the House floor Tuesday afternoon to force recognition.
The House and Senate have been in recess since the beginning of April, but many Congressional legislators &#8212; including a number of Senate Republicans &#8212; are still in Washington, D.C., handling the after-effects of passing massive coronavirus relief packages like the CARES act, which included the Paycheck Protection Program that ran out of funds last week.
Republicans, <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2020/04/21/house-republicans-declare-war-on-recess-488984?cid=su_tw_hu">Politico reports</a>, believe the extended recess, which has Pelosi working from her mansion in San Francisco, California (home of the $24,000 SubZero side-by-side refrigerator/freezer), is forcing them to the outside of legislative negotiations &#8212; and they want back in.
&#8220;A group of House Republicans traveled back to D.C. early and are planning to seek recognition on the floor during today’s pro forma session,&#8221; Politico reported Tuesday. &#8220;Their mission: they want to ask about &#8216;the status of the House reopening&#8217;&#8230;while also drawing attention to Democratic leadership’s decision to keep lawmakers away from the Capitol while small business aid has stalled.&#8221;
The problem, the legislators, led by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), say, is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is being left to negotiate with Democratic leadership for the House and Senate &#8212; a situation that carves other legislators, like Mast and his House Republican colleagues, out of the process.
This is especially troubling for those House Republicans who feel they should have a say on any deal struck to the extend the Paycheck Protection Program, and the opportunity to object to Democrat plans to force a bill through the House without presenting it to individual Members for approval.
Mast is one of only a few Republicans pressing for a mutiny, and those same Republicans know they have little leverage over Pelosi, who has a substantial enough majority in the House to control how legislation passes. But even President Donald Trump appears to be on their side. Last week, he repeatedly chided Pelosi for holing up in her home in San Francisco, and demanded she and others return to duty in Washington as &#8220;essential workers.&#8221;
And Republicans may get their wish &#8212; thanks to some far-left Democrats.
According to reports that emerged Tuesday morning from Roll Call and elsewhere, Democrats, who have struck a tentative deal with Senate Republicans on extending the PPP, are being forced to call the House back into session on Thursday, at least to pass the compromise bill.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other members of the progressive &#8220;squad&#8221; are refusing to assent to the negotiated legislation because it fails to extend bailouts to city and state governments in addition to small businesses and health care facilities, dashing Pelosi&#8217;s hopes of unanimous consent.
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a subscriber.

Brian MAst

Mutiny! House Republicans Demand Pelosi Call Congress Back Into Session, Force Dems Back To Work

Coronavirus

Someone prepare House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for some bad news: her impeachment efforts boosted the popularity of congressional Republicans so that now more Americans approve of congressional Republicans’ job performance than congressional Democrats’ performance.
That news comes from the <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/287633/approval-congressional-republicans-tops-democrats.aspx?utm_source=alert&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=morelink&amp;utm_campaign=syndication">latest Gallup poll</a> released on Tuesday, the first time Gallup has asked that question since the Dec. 18 impeachment of President Trump in the U.S. House of Representatives. 40% of respondents approved of congressional Republicans while 35% approved of congressional Democrats.
Gallup noted:
<blockquote>The rating for Republicans in Congress has risen six percentage points <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/268097/approval-members-parties-congress.aspx">since late October</a>, before the impeachment of President Donald Trump in the U.S. House of Representatives. Over the same period, congressional Democrats&#8217; approval rating has edged down three points and disapproval has climbed five points, from 57% to 62%. In general, congressional Democrats have historically had slightly higher job approval ratings than congressional Republicans.</blockquote>
Gallup pointed out that Republicans&#8217; approval of congressional Republicans rose 13 points to 76% since October while Democrats&#8217; 65% approval remained at the same general plateau.
Gallup also found that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell&#8217;s took a leap upward since October, when it languished at 27%; it now rests at 33%. Gallup stated, “Although, on a relative basis, McConnell&#8217;s favorability is not particularly high, it is his highest rating since Gallup&#8217;s first reading in 2010.”
Meanwhile, Pelosi&#8217;s unfavorable rating has risen from 50% in October to 55% now, almost as high as it was before the 2010 midterm elections when GOP retook the House, when it was 56%. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer? His 46% unfavorable rating is the highest it has ever been.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) was more popular with Democrats than Republicans. 56% of Democrats approved of him but only 23% of Republicans agreed. His favorable rating has risen 19 points with Democrats and plunged 22 points among Republicans.
Plenty of warnings were issued to the Democrats that an impeachment of Trump might backfire; in November FOX Business&#8217; Stuart Varney stated, “Time to set a few things straight about impeachment. Number one: it is a purely political strategy. The Democrats intend to damage the president as much as possible right before the election. It is entirely partisan; all Republicans voted no; all but two Democrats voted yes. No matter what the lawyers say, this is not a legal issue. Are we prepared to remove this president from office on the basis of a phone call to the Ukraine? Don’t be fooled by legalisms; that is a political question.”
Varney continued, “Two: Impeachment has little or no impact on the stock market; investors are not dancing to Speaker Pelosi’s tune; investors care about profits and the economy; trade and employment. This impeachment drive hasn’t scared Wall Street; Trump doesn’t scare Wall Street, but if Sanders or Warren look likely to win next year, watch out below … Number three: There will be a backlash. Unless a real ‘high crime’ is revealed, the impeachment drive will fail in the Senate, and when it fails, voters will ask what the Democrats achieved. All they’ve done is damage a president that they hate. That’s where I’m coming from. Impeachment is all vicious politics. It will fail, and voters won’t forget.”
Video of Varney’s prescience below:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MIYGG6uNN1o" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

US-POLITICS-VOTE-MIDTERMS-DNC

Pelosi’s Impeachment Effort Backfires. Congressional GOP Now More Popular Than Dems. She Was Warned.

Congress

Impeachment

President Donald Trump&#8217;s approval rating is now 49% according to <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/trump-job-approval-personal-best.aspx">polling company Gallup</a>, a personal best for Trump and the highest he&#8217;s received in the Gallup poll since he took office in 2017.
The president is also doing remarkably well among both Republicans and self-described independents, notching an astounding 94% approval rating among those affiliating with the GOP and 42% among independent voters, up five points since early January. And the needle is moving in the president&#8217;s direction on impeachment.
&#8220;The Jan. 16-29 poll was conducted in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial that will likely result in the president&#8217;s acquittal. The poll finds 52% of Americans in favor of acquitting Trump and 46% in favor of convicting and removing him from office,&#8221; Gallup reported Monday.
The Senate impeachment trial appears to have helped the president among undecided and independent voters, as has his response to the crisis in Iran, his recent landmark achievements on foreign trade (including a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada and progress on a trade deal with China), and widespread satisifaction with the direction of the American economy.
Gallup reports that American confidence in the economy is &#8220;higher than at any point in the past two decades,&#8221; and satisfaction with the direction of the country is higher than at any point in the last 15 years &#8212; and that&#8217;s across the board (and the aisle).
&#8220;Sixty-three percent of Americans now approve of the way Trump is handling the economy, up six points from the prior reading in November,&#8221; Gallup says. &#8220;It is the highest economic approval rating not only for Trump, but for any president since George W. Bush enjoyed stratospheric job approval ratings in the first few months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.&#8221;
Trump is so beloved, at the moment, that he&#8217;s buoying Republicans.
&#8220;As Trump&#8217;s job approval rating has improved, so has the image of the Republican Party. Now, 51% of Americans view the Republican Party favorably, up from 43% in September. It is the first time GOP favorability has exceeded 50% since 2005,&#8221; Gallup says.  &#8220;Additionally, the poll finds 48% of Americans identifying as Republicans or leaning toward that party, compared with 44% Democratic identification or leaning.&#8221;
Democrats are seeing an approval ratings dip, down four points since earlier in January, and fewer people are openly identifying as Democrats &#8212; just 44%.
Oddly enough, Gallup, which tends toward the middle of the road among polling outlets, is polling Trump better than Rassmussen, which traditionally favors Republicans and has, generally, been friendly to the current president. Rassumussen has Trump at 48%, still doing quite well.
Although this week is likely to bring good news for Trump overall &#8212; the Iowa Democratic caucus still does not have a winner and the president expects to be acquitted by the Senate on Wednesday &#8212; the Gallup poll portends a better election outlook than the Trump campaign likely had previously. Democrats may be hell-bent on defeating Trump&#8217;s bid to retake the White House in 2020, but as long as the economy remains strong, the president will retain goodwill in battleground states like Indiana, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Arizona, where the economy is a top concern.
&nbsp;

Trump.

Trump Bump! President’s Approval Rating Rockets To Personal Best Amid Impeachment

Donald Trump

Multiple Democrats voted against Democrats&#8217; first article of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, while no Republicans defected and supported the Democrats&#8217; partisan effort.
On the first article of impeachment, &#8220;abuse of power,&#8221; Democrats voted 228–2, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.
The final vote on the first article of impeachment was 230–197–1.
The vote on the second article of impeachment, &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">obstruction of Congress</a>,&#8221; concluded with even more Democrats defecting from their party and voting against impeachment.
The final vote on the second article of impeachment is Democrats voted 228–3, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.
The final vote on the second article of impeachment was 229–198–1.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
ABC reports: bipartisan vote was against impeachment<a href="https://t.co/mueiS6u1Xu">https://t.co/mueiS6u1Xu</a> <a href="https://t.co/nYJhzLjvlP">pic.twitter.com/nYJhzLjvlP</a>
&mdash; RNC Research (@RNCResearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1207482975576834049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Current Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii did not vote for either of the Democrats&#8217; partisan articles of impeachment and instead voted present.
Gabbard said, &#8220;I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Dem HI Rep Gabbard on her “present” vote on impeachment: I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.
&mdash; Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1207477655643271169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump now becomes the third president in U.S. history to be impeached and becomes the only president to ever be impeached in a purely partisan effort while there was a bipartisan effort in opposition to impeachment.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) responded to the partisan impeachment by writing on Twitter, &#8220;Today will be remembered as the day your House Democrat majority voted to impeach President @realDonaldTrump for a crime they couldn’t find and a case they couldn’t prove. You won’t forget. And neither will we.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today will be remembered as the day your House Democrat majority voted to impeach President <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> for a crime they couldn’t find and a case they couldn’t prove.
You won’t forget. And neither will we.
&mdash; Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1207478863472799744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, a constitutional attorney by training and a former Fifth Circuit law clerk, responded to Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment by writing on Twitter, &#8220;They are realizing all of Alexander Hamilton’s worst fears that he expressed in The Federalist No. 65. He presciently warned against this precise scenario.&#8221;
Hamilton <a href="https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-65">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.</blockquote>
Trump was at a campaign rally when the impeachment vote occurred and he responded to it by saying, “I don’t know about you, but I’m having a great time.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Trump says it doesn’t feel like he’s being impeached.
“I don’t know about you, but I’m having a great time”
&mdash; Brent Scher (@BrentScher) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1207482008563310592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
White House social media director Dan Scavino noted additional remarks from Trump: “With today’s illegal, unconstitutional and partisan impeachment, House Democrats are declaring their deep hatred and disdain for American Voters. This lawless and partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democrat Party!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨MOMENTS AGO🚨 “With today’s illegal, unconstitutional and partisan impeachment, House Democrats are declaring their deep hatred and disdain for American Voters. This lawless and partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democrat Party!” President Donald J. Trump <a href="https://t.co/Z78vcBEQ7n">pic.twitter.com/Z78vcBEQ7n</a>
&mdash; Dan Scavino (@DanScavino) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1207491373965959168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-pelosi-forced-to-stop-democrats-from-cheering-impeachment-vote-taking-selfies">WATCH: Pelosi Forced To Stop Democrats From Cheering Impeachment Vote, Taking Selfies</a>

Pelosi Nadler

Multiple Democrats Vote Against Impeachment, Only Democrats Vote For It

Democratic Party

Republican Party

U.S. House of Representatives

Idaho Republican Representative Russ Fulcher on Wednesday read off a list of crimes that he said President Donald Trump committed as the House debated impeachment on the floor of the House of Representatives.
&#8220;In a day heavy in verbal debate, I chose to use my time to enumerate in detail every high crime and misdemeanor committed by the President of the United States,&#8221; Fulcher began. &#8220;I will do so now.&#8221;
For the next 20 seconds, Fulcher stood in silence until his time expired and did not name a single crime committed by the president.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
My thoughts on the Democratic impeachment proceedings against President Trump: <a href="https://t.co/MjB0RY1Lt0">pic.twitter.com/MjB0RY1Lt0</a>
&mdash; Rep. Russ Fulcher (@RepRussFulcher) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepRussFulcher/status/1207445607780143104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Democrats are expected to vote to impeach Trump late on Wednesday for what they claim is abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The move to impeach Trump was sparked by a whistleblower over a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
During Democrats&#8217; impeachment hearings, witnesses did not substantiate Democrats’ claims  as multiple witnesses, including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEyaUW9UvAY&amp;feature=youtu.be">Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1196955065782800385">Senior NSC official Tim Morrison</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1196955065782800385">Ambassador Kurt Volker</a>, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ambassador-sondland-strikes-at-democrats-impeachment-narrative-trump-told-me-he-wanted-no-quid-pro-quo">Ambassador</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rep-mike-turner-gets-witness-to-admit-bombshell-debunks-cnn-headline-in-real-time">Gordon Sondland</a> all testified that there was no quid pro quo during the phone call.
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Adviser, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-lt-general-in-white-house-releases-statement-on-trump-ukraine-call">said</a> in a statement: “I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky. As an exceedingly proud member of President Trump’s Administration and as a 34-year highly experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.”
Yet, when Democrats filed articles of impeachment against Trump they did not mention &#8220;bribery&#8221; or the &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; that they alleged happened and that was the catalyst for their entire impeachment efforts.
The following is the transcript between Trump and Zelensky: 
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn&#8217;t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It&#8217;s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I&#8217;m able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
The President: (laughter) That&#8217;s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it&#8217;s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn&#8217;t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it&#8217;s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn&#8217;t say that it&#8217;s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I&#8217;m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike&#8230; I guess you have one of your wealthy people&#8230; The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you&#8217;re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it&#8217;s very important that you do it if that&#8217;s possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that&#8217;s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what&#8217;s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There&#8217;s a lot of talk about Biden&#8217;s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it&#8230; It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I&#8217;m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she&#8217;s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I&#8217;m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It&#8217;s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.
President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.
The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we&#8217;ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.
The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.
The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you&#8217;ve done. The whole world was watching. I&#8217;m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

Russ Fulcher

WATCH: Republican Congressman Reads Off List Of Crimes Committed By Trump

As National Review <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-u-s-representatives-call-on-barr-to-prosecute-obscene-pornography/">reports,</a> a small group of Republican lawmakers have sent a letter calling for Attorney General Bill Barr to enforce obscenity laws as a way to fight hardcore pornography. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana explains that pornography causes measurable harm in a number of significant ways:
<blockquote>Child pornography is <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/child-pornography-basic-f_b_4094430">on the rise</a> as one of the fastest-growing online businesses with an annual revenue over $3 billion.The <a href="https://www.asacp.org/whitepaper/ASACP-whitepaper-9-10-2010.pdf">United States</a> has nearly 50% of all commercialized child pornography websites. Pornography is ubiquitous in our culture and our <a href="https://www.10tv.com/article/children-being-exposed-pornography-through-parents-internet-searches-2019-jul">children are being exposed</a> at younger ages. <a href="http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV169.pdf">Nine in every ten</a> boys under the age of 18 have seen porn. <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5507751/NSPCC-offers-counselling-children-young-11-addicted-porn.html">Children</a> are struggling with pornography addiction.</blockquote>
For these reasons and others, several states have already declared pornography a public health crisis, as the lawmakers mentioned in their letter. To be clear, what they are requesting is the enforcement of existing laws that would help to tamp down some forms of pornography. They are not calling for new laws to be put on the books. Personally, I&#8217;d hope that this is a first step towards a wider-ranging war on hardcore porn, though that&#8217;s not what the lawmakers are advocating. At the very least, this should be the beginning of a conversation about the proliferation of hardcore porn, and the government&#8217;s role in addressing the problem.
But this is not a conversation most people want to have. Of course, you&#8217;d expect those on the political Left to resist any effort to restrict or ban porn. After all, that&#8217;s the side that generally supports explicit sex education for children, child drag queens, trans kids, and so on. They are committed to exposing children to all manner of sexual confusion and degeneracy at increasingly younger and younger ages. The real shame is that many on the Right are just as likely to valiantly stand up for the rights of internet pimps and smut peddlers. Any talk of porn restriction is waved off with slogans about &#8220;limited government&#8221; and declarations about the ineffectiveness of prohibition.
<iframe title="It’s Time for a War on Porn | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 386" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8DxLxTwXBGI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I agree that government should be limited. I also agree that the government can&#8217;t go around prohibiting everything that the bureaucrats currently comprising it happen to dislike. But I still think there is a role for the government to play in the porn problem. I&#8217;ll explain why.
The most common defense of porn is that it&#8217;s a matter involving consenting adults and has no effect on anyone else. If this were true, I&#8217;d probably agree that the government has no place in restricting it, even if it is morally objectionable. However, this is not only untrue — it is laughably untrue. First of all, the <a href="https://fightthenewdrug.org/by-the-numbers-porn-sex-trafficking-connected/">link</a> between the sex trafficking industry and porn is well established. The porn viewer may assume that the figures on the screen are acting consensually, but the fact is that, at least some of the time, they are not. The viewer may also assume that the people involved are all adults (unless he&#8217;s intentionally accessing child porn, which is a <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20050818005532/en/Illegal-Child-Pornography-Fastest-Growing-Internet-Businesses">billion dollar industry</a> in its own right), but sometimes they are not. The viewer simply has no way of knowing whether he&#8217;s watching the rape of a trafficked woman, or the abuse of a minor, or a consensual act between sober and clear-minded adults. But he&#8217;s not too concerned, as long as he gets what he wants out of the deal.
This is reason enough for, at a minimum, much heavier regulation on internet porn. It&#8217;s true that sex trafficking and child porn are both illegal already, but legal porn provides a platform for both. It&#8217;s impossible to sufficiently fight trafficking and child porn without heavier regulations on the types of porn that allegedly involve neither. But even if this significant concern could be put to the side, the case for regulating or banning porn would remain. That&#8217;s because porn — even consensual, adult porn — harms children.
On average, children are <a href="https://www.netnanny.com/blog/the-detrimental-effects-of-pornography-on-small-children/">first exposed</a> to hardcore porn at the age of 11, if not sooner. This exposure is not neutral in its impact. Children are <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-33/may-2014/how-pornography-harms-children--the-advocate-s-role/">damaged in quantifiable ways</a>, affecting their emotional and psychological development, their attitude towards themselves and others, their behavior, and their ability to form healthy sexual relationships in the future. Porn even <a href="https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-changes-the-brain/">produces neurological changes</a> in the brain. Is there not, at minimum, a reason to consider involving the state in this assault on our children&#8217;s minds and bodies?
Consenting adults may well have the right to do what they want with each other in the privacy of their homes. But do they have a right to film it and then publish it on a forum where children in elementary school might easily access it? Where does this right originate? God? Did God instill in all humans the inalienable and sacred right to publish footage of their orgies on the internet for all to view? If God did not, then from where or what does this right spring? Perhaps we should consider the possibility that there is no such right. It is a privilege that society can either choose to grant or not. Now the question is whether the privilege of adults to post their sexual escapades online is more important than the privilege of children to be protected from the profound psychological harm caused by exposure to such escapades.
You might argue that this is something for parents, and not government, to handle. But this argument ignores the reality of the situation. Parents cannot possibly shield their children from a porn epidemic that is so ubiquitous and accessible. Even if they restrict all internet access in their own homes, and refuse to allow their children to have phones with internet access (a wise move, to be sure), all it requires is one friend whose parents have not taken that step. And every kid will have at least one friend like that — probably many more than just one. This is a problem that parents cannot handle on their own. That&#8217;s why the state may have a role.

Google search sex

WALSH: A Group Of Republicans Want The Government To Start Fighting Hardcore Pornography. They’re Right. Here’s Why.

Human Trafficking

Sexuality

William Barr

Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee voiced their concern on Tuesday over how secretly Democrats have been conducting the impeachment process of President Donald Trump.
&#8220;This has been a closed-door, unfair, and unprecedented process. Tens of millions of Americans should know that their member of Congress has had no access to any of the transcripts. In fact, no member has been able to read every transcript,&#8221; Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) told reporters during the weekly GOP press conference.
Stefanik, a two term member of the Intelligence committee, revealed that to date, Democrats have only made the testimony from two witnesses even available to committee members &#8212; that of U.S. special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Even then, Democrats have severely restricted the availability of transcripts.
<iframe title="House Republican Leadership Press Conference" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6XFbJ170KPg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&#8220;We were notified this week at our staff level that they would only be printing one transcript for every single member, whether you&#8217;re on the committee or not, and you would have to read it with a member of Democratic staff,&#8221; Stefanik explained. &#8220;That is unprecedented and unfair.&#8221;
The New York congresswoman further questioned how Democrats are able to voice their support for the impeachment proceedings when they do not even have access to the evidence.
Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), who also serves on the Intelligence Committee, echoed Stefanik&#8217;s alarm on House Democrats&#8217; secrecy, which he referred to as abusive process.
&#8220;It is absolutely essential that to preserve Democracy that we have an impeachment process that is open and transparent, where the American people can see what is occurring,&#8221; Turner said. &#8220;And here today, we have an impeachment process that&#8217;s occurring in secret without any real action that is even happening from the House.&#8221;
&#8220;The House has not taken action to open an impeachment process, nor has any committee, nor has the House taken a vote for the process to be undertaken in secret,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;We have an unbelievable abusive process that is occurring.&#8221;
The Ohio lawmaker put forth that the proceedings have been detrimental to the American people, who are not only left in the dark on what is occurring, but who are also receiving false information from the news media that even members of Congress are not legally able to correct.
&#8220;In addition to it being secret where the American public does not have the ability to watch the witnesses or those who are questioning them, each member, in the manner in which they have structured this, is restrained who does have access to the information, from telling anyone anything that&#8217;s happening behind closed doors,&#8221; Turner explained.
&#8220;I am prevented from going to my constituency in Ohio and telling them what&#8217;s happening behind closed doors in the Intelligence committee, of which I am a member,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;As the media reports news leaks of what has occurred, many of which are absolutely inaccurate and false, members of Congress have no ability to stand in front of you and give you the correct information so that you can report it.&#8221;
Turner also noted that since even Congress has been denied the ability to review the documents, the overwhelming majority of lawmakers who are either advocating for or against impeachment have not seen the evidence that has enabled them to knowledgeably come to that conclusion.

US-POLITICS-PRESS CONFERENCE

WATCH: GOP Intelligence Committee Members Sound The Alarm On How Secretly Dems Are Leading The Impeachment Process

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer warned on Tuesday that the growing number of Texas Republicans retiring from Congress could signal a larger issue with the party&#8217;s ability to win over voters in the Lone Star State.
&#8220;Republicans should be worried,&#8221; Fleischer told Fox News host Sandra Smith. &#8220;What happened in the 2018 election, if that&#8217;s any indication, is that Republicans have a problem particularly in college educated, suburban areas around Dallas, Houston, et cetera.&#8221;
Fleischer harkened back to his role in the 1990&#8217;s serving as the spokesman for the House of Representatives&#8217; Ways and Means Committee under former Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX). At the time, Archer served as the representative for Texas&#8217; 7th Congressional district, preceding former President George H.W. Bush.
&#8220;[The district is] one of the most college educated districts in America,&#8221; Fleischer said. &#8220;After being Republican for some-30 years, it flipped to Democrat in 2018. This is worrisome.&#8221;
Fleischer&#8217;s remarks come only a day after the sixth House Republican in Texas revealed that he will not be seeking re-election after his term expires.
&#8220;It has been a great honor to serve the people of the 13th District of Texas as their congressman for the last 25 years. They have given me opportunities to serve the nation in ways I could have never imagined, including as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee,&#8221; Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) wrote on Twitter. &#8220;We are reminded, however, that &#8216;for everything there is a season,&#8217; and I believe that the time has come for a change. Therefore, this is my last term in the U.S. House of Representatives.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;It has been a great honor to serve the people of the 13th District of Texas as their congressman for the last 25 years. They have given me opportunities to serve the nation in ways I could have never imagined, including as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. (1/2)
&mdash; Mac Thornberry Press (@MacTXPress) <a href="https://twitter.com/MacTXPress/status/1178684292857237504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Thornberry was first elected to the House in 1994 and is one of the longest-tenured Texans in Congress. He won his district in 2018 after receiving more than 80 percent of the vote and the seat is not considered to be at risk of flipping Democrat after he steps down.
However, out of the 25 House Republicans representing Texas districts when President Donald Trump was sworn into office in 2016, only 11 are poised to still be in Congress when the upcoming election cycle concludes.
In what the media has dubbed the &#8220;Texodus,&#8221; six House Republicans have announced their retirements since July. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), revealed that he would not be seeking re-election to the 22nd Congressional District, turning that district into a top-tier battleground going into 2020. Reps. Mike Conaway, Will Hurd, Kenny Marchant, and Bill Flores made their own retirement announcements shortly after Olson.
Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-house-minority-leader-brushes-slew-gop-molly-prince">has dismissed</a> the slew of retirements as an opportunity for &#8220;new blood&#8221; to go through the party.
&#8220;There&#8217;s a difference between an election year and a midterm year,&#8221; Fleischer said. &#8220;This one&#8217;s got a presidential election cycle coming out, so you&#8217;ve got much heavier turnout in Texas of a Republican base than you did in 2018, but still, I think Texas is a warning sign to Republicans about suburbia, about college educated voters and women, and they need to keep their eye on it.&#8221;
&#8220;They&#8217;ve got to do better with those groups,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Texas is still a red state &#8212; it has a little purple tinge to it [but] presidential level, I&#8217;m not worried about Texas at all, but these House retirements are tough on Republicans.&#8221;

Prominent Republicans Address The Republican Jewish Coalition Spring Meeting

Ari Fleischer Sounds The Alarm On Texas Republican Retirements

Ari Fleischer

Texas

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) is refuting claims that he is the first House Republican to support an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, clarifying that he supports the oversight process, not impeachment.
While speaking with local media outlets last week, the Nevada congressman reportedly expressed concern over Trump&#8217;s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
&#8220;Let&#8217;s put it through the process and see what happens. I&#8217;m a big fan of oversight, so let&#8217;s let the committees get to work and see where it goes,&#8221; Amodei said at the time. &#8220;Using government agencies to — if it&#8217;s proven — to put your finger on the scale of an election, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s right. If it turns out that it&#8217;s something along those lines, then there&#8217;s a problem.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I now have a full appreciation of how the President feels. My full statement here: <a href="https://t.co/DhZV6DUztl">https://t.co/DhZV6DUztl</a>
Have a nice weekend.
&mdash; RepMarkAmodei (@MarkAmodeiNV2) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkAmodeiNV2/status/1177718458823446529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Following Amodei&#8217;s exchange with reporters, the <a href="https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/amodei-on-trump-impeachment-inquiry-lets-put-it-through-the-process-and-see-what-happens">Nevada Independent</a> swiftly published an article stating that Amodei supports the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, making him the first member of the Republican caucus to do so (Michigan Rep. Justin Amash is also on board with impeachment but identifies as an &#8220;independent&#8221;).
Amodei, however, released <a href="https://amodei.house.gov/news-releases/amodei-releases-statement-on-resolution-expressing-congressional-oversight-into-democrats-impeachment-inquiry/">a statement</a> specifically pointing to the aforementioned story, written by reporter Humberto Sanchez. He further highlighted Sanchez&#8217;s claim that Amodei &#8220;supports the House&#8217;s inquiry into whether President Donald Trump should be impeached, but is withholding judgment on whether Trump has crossed the legal line.&#8221;
&#8220;This is absolutely an accurate statement in the sense that the House and Senate have both unanimously supported this resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the whistleblower complaint received on August 12, 2019, by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, should be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives,&#8221; Amodei said in a press release. &#8220;It is also accurate that the White House supports this same resolution.&#8221;
&#8220;In no way, shape, or form, did I indicate support for impeachment,&#8221; his statement continued.
Amodei further noted that his feelings towards the situation were best described by his Nevada colleague Sen. Catherine Cortez-Mastro (D-NY) who told reporters earlier in the week, &#8220;I think from all of that information, we have to follow the facts and figure out what happened here.&#8221;
&#8220;Anyone who reads Sanchez&#8217;s article and thinks that somehow there is a vote to convict before the process has played out — as called for by the resolution unanimously supported by everyone concerned — is simply, individual fantasy,&#8221; Amodei&#8217;s statement continued. &#8220;I now have a full appreciation of how the President feels. Have a nice weekend.&#8221;
A spokesman for the Nevada lawmaker also explained to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/28/amodei-denies-he-was-first-house-republican-back-impeachment-inquiry/">The Washington Post</a> on Saturday that supporting Pelosi&#8217;s inquiry means that &#8220;you stand with the 223 Democrats who have made it clear that if we were to vote right this second today to impeach Trump, they would vote yes before any sort of process has transpired.&#8221;
The spokesman further noted that Amodei supported a resolution put forward by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy which condemned Pelosi&#8217;s launch of an impeachment inquiry without a formal vote by the House.
&#8220;Again, prior to any such process playing out, the congressman does not support impeachment in any way, shape or form,&#8221; the spokesman added.

House Republicans Hold Closed Conference Meeting On Immigration

GOP Lawmaker Denies He Supports Impeachment After Media Reports He Does

House GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) took a jab at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Wednesday after the California congresswoman tried to spin a recent Democratic loss as a win for the party.
&#8220;I was particularly interested to see Speaker Pelosi say that in her view that the Democratic candidate won the campaign in North Carolina, but just lost the election,&#8221; Cheney told reporters during the weekly GOP leadership press conference. &#8220;And we really look forward to the Democrats winning an awful lot more campaigns like that because we feel very good about coming up with the wins in the election cycle.&#8221;
Cheney&#8217;s remarks come nearly a week after Pelosi praised House candidate Dan McCready after his unsuccessful run to represent North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District. McCready, a Democrat, lost by two points in the consistently red district — therefore far outperforming prior Democratic candidates in the district.
&#8220;I&#8217;m very proud of Dan McCready, he&#8217;s a great patriot. He&#8217;s an independent voice for the district that he would have represented,&#8221; Pelosi said at the time. &#8220;It&#8217;s too bad he&#8217;s not coming here, but he did a great job.&#8221;
&#8220;Actually, he came out ten points higher than our last three presidential candidates, so he won the campaign,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;He didn&#8217;t win the election, but he won the campaign.&#8221;
Pelosi officially swore in McCready&#8217;s Republican challenger, now-Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), on Tuesday evening. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC), who won a special election on the same day as Bishop, was also sworn in. With the addition of the two North Carolina congressmen, the House is finally at full strength.
While updating reporters on the Republican conference following Congress&#8217; August recess, Cheney noted that the GOP is energized to not only prevent the government overreach promoted by the Democratic Party, but also to retake the House majority in 2020.
&#8220;We have a record of accomplishment for the American people … that our folks are going to be focused on and running on from economic growth, national security, regulatory reform,&#8221; Cheney said. &#8220;It&#8217;s a long list of very real deliverables for the American people that we&#8217;ve seen from President [Donald] Trump and from the Republicans.&#8221;
The Wyoming lawmaker also took aim at her Democratic colleagues for shirking their constitutional responsibilities in pursuit of impeaching Trump and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
&#8220;[House Democrats] have been flailing around for a reason to impeach — I&#8217;d say blatantly trampling on the Constitution in doing that, and flailing around for a target,&#8221; Cheney said. &#8220;We all saw that in these last few days with what The New York Times did to Justice Kavanaugh.&#8221;
Accordingly, the Times published a report earlier in the week alleging that a friend of the Supreme Court justice pushed his genitalia into the hands of a female student while attending a party at Yale University in the 1980s. After publication, the newspaper issued an editor&#8217;s note stating that the alleged victim reportedly did not recall the incident.
While the omission received widespread backlash, the majority of Democratic presidential candidates continued to call for Kavanaugh&#8217;s impeachment over the flubbed report.
&#8220;[They&#8217;re] completely sliming Justice Kavanaugh in a way that doesn&#8217;t rise to any standard of journalism and obviously was just an absolute continued attack on him that they ought to be ashamed of,&#8221; Cheney added.

liz_cheney.jpg

Liz Cheney Trolls Pelosi: Republicans ‘Look Forward To Democrats Winning An Awful Lot More Campaigns’

2020 Election

Liz Cheney

Media Bias

New York Times

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley wrote an open letter on Tuesday endorsing an organization aimed at electing Republican women to federal office who would help prevent the enactment of far-left policies like those espoused by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
In an email to more than 600,000 members, Haley praised the work of Winning For Women (WFW), a not-for-profit grassroots organization founded in 2017 to identify female Republican leaders and build infrastructure to assist them while running for federal office.
&#8220;You may not hear much about them in the news, but Republican women are stepping up across the country to run for office,&#8221; Haley wrote in an email. &#8220;From veterans and business owners, to doctors and lawyers — these women are smart, they are qualified, and they are standing up for politics that makes our country stronger.&#8221;
&#8220;Without WFW PAC, we&#8217;ll continue to see liberal women like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected to Congress, only to apologize for our American values and promote dangerous policies like socialism, Medicare for All, and the Green New Deal,&#8221; she continued.
Haley has been sharply critical of the far-left policies that the self-proclaimed &#8220;radical” congresswoman promotes, especially regarding foreign policy.
Haley slammed Ocasio-Cortez in May after the avowed democratic socialist refused to condemn socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro&#8217;s brutal repression in Venezuela.
&#8220;When a reporter asked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez if the Maduro regime is legitimate, she offered this non-answer: &#8216;I defer to caucus leadership on how we navigate this,'&#8221; Haley said at the time. &#8220;A simple &#8216;no&#8217; would have sufficed.&#8221;
&#8220;WFW PAC is fighting to send strong conservative women to Washington who will get things done,&#8221; Haley’&#8217;s email continued. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important than ever to support strong conservative women who will stand up for America and advocate for job growth, free markets, strong national defense, and border security.&#8221;
Accordingly, the WFW political action committee has received over the years a host of high-profile donors, including former White House official Linda McMahon, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, financiers Robert and Rebekah Mercer, TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/25/republican-women-congress-donors-244172">Politico</a>.
The organization aims to serve as a counterweight to EMILY’s List, a PAC founded to elect pro-abortion Democratic female candidates to office.
Republican women are still largely the minority in Congress. In the 2018 midterm elections, only 37 women won House seats — only two of whom were Republicans. There are currently only 13 female Republicans serving in the House of Representatives — a number which both WFW and House Republican leadership hopes to grow.
&#8220;We have to work very hard as Republicans to convince more women to run for office, but also to convince more women to vote for us,&#8221; House GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney said in July. Cheney, who serves as the highest-ranking female in the House, added that &#8220;attracting women voters is crucial.&#8221;
Haley, however, is largely seen as a leading conservative woman in the Republican Party. Only months after leaving the Trump administration at the end of 2018, the former South Carolina governor launched Stand For America, an advocacy group that promotes &#8220;public policies that strengthen America&#8217;s economy, culture, and national security.&#8221; The move prompted speculation that Haley might be positioning herself for a 2024 presidential run.

nikki_haley.jpg

Nikki Haley Endorses Women’s Organization With The Hopes Of Electing More Female Republicans

Nikki Haley

On perhaps no cultural issue has the Right more clearly waved the white flag than it has on the issue of marriage. The National Organization for Marriage, which for years existed as the leading organization pushing back against the homosexual rights movement&#8217;s ahistorical revisionism and redefining of marriage, is now hard-pressed to galvanize a grassroots movement in favor of restoring conjugal marriage. Never mind that the ludicrous 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case that bastardized the Fourteenth Amendment in an astonishing black-robed power grab to constitutionalize same-sex nuptials and impose it upon a divided citizenry, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, had all the jurisprudential heft of the <a href="https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15235/">infamous Dred Scott diktat</a>. Rare is the social conservative, these days, who seems enthused about trying to chip away at Obergefell&#8216;s (il)legal foundation; most pro-conjugal marriage social conservatives resist the temptation to go on the offensive and are instead content to defensively crouch and demand <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47964/hammer-conservatives-must-make-their-arguments-josh-hammer">values-neutral pluralistic religious liberty &#8220;tolerance.&#8221;</a>
But such a defensive posture is unwarranted and, indeed, ultimately unjustifiable. Much like our <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47249/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">efforts to protect the unborn</a> from Roe v. Wade&#8216;s legal regime of state-sanctioned genocide of an entire sub-class of human beings, marriage as a socially defined one-man/one-woman institution is worth fighting for in both the cultural and legal arena. America was quite conscientiously founded under the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">natural law tradition</a>, and there is no more natural biological fact than the reality that every child born in this Earth is born to one (non-trans) mother and one (non-trans) father. And to the extent there is nascent social science data on the question of outcomes for the children of heterosexual and homosexual parents, that data is, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/13/there-is-no-harm-caused-by-same-sex-parenting-studies-suggesting-otherwise-are-skewed">at best for the Left</a>, a <a href="https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-regnerus-study-social-science-new-family-structures-met-intolerance">mixed bag</a>. We will know much more in future decades, as our grand and godless social experiment in marriage revisionism plays out in real-time, but there is already <a href="https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16760/">no shortage of warning signs</a> for the revisionists.
The phenomenon of the broader Right&#8217;s capitulation on the marriage issue has been exacerbated by our debilitating <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49913/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">crisis of judicial supremacy</a> — the erroneous and anti-constitutional notion that the idiosyncratic ukases of our unelected black-robed masters in what Alexander Hamilton called the <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp">&#8220;least dangerous&#8221; branch</a> ought to be treated not merely as ad hoc legal judgments, but as broader political rulings that &#8220;bind&#8221; the populace. The danger of judicial supremacy cannot be exaggerated: How are <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/preamble">We the People</a> to remain constantly vigilant against tyranny if that tyranny comes not in the form of legislators and executives who can be held accountable at the ballot box, but in the form of judicial usurpers who accomplish with the stroke of a pen what the cultural Left could not otherwise accomplish over decades?
The Right cannot unilaterally disarm in the culture war. The Left makes overt moral argumentation to advance a compelling narrative as to their (dystopian, pagan, and positively harrowing) vision of the good life. Why on Earth are <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47964/hammer-conservatives-must-make-their-arguments-josh-hammer">we on the Right not doing the same</a>, as New York Post Op-Ed Editor Sohrab Ahmari <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47839/hammer-limited-defense-sohrab-ahmaris-assault-josh-hammer">asked earlier this year</a> of National Review Senior Writer David French? In what world does retreating to pleas for Anglo-American common law procedural niceties suffice, given the gravity of the cultural task at hand and the totalitarian nature of the contemporary Left?
It seems that longtime Straussian jurisprudential luminary Hadley Arkes agrees, based on a recent <a href="https://americanmind.org/essays/does-the-right-dare-fight/">disquisition</a> published at the indispensable <a href="https://americanmind.org">American Mind</a> online journal. Arkes urges conservatives to aggressively wage the culture war on at least four issues: Marriage, sexual orientation, transgenderism, and abortion. But it is Arkes&#8217; advice on marriage that is most provocative — and which deserves the most careful attention for congressional lawmakers due to its potential to publicly clarify the obvious <a href="https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/the-wild-ideas-of-social-conservatives/">slippery slope</a> upon which the marriage revisionists have so <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage/index.html">unabashedly embarked</a> (emphasis added):
<blockquote>What I have in mind is the proposal for a Defense of Monogamous Marriage Act (DOMMA). That would simply enact another version of the Defense of Marriage Act, but with these components: That neither the federal government nor the states would be obliged to recognize as a &#8220;marriage&#8221; a union of more than two people. That proposal made its way to the staff of Paul Ryan when he was Speaker in the last Congress, and I was told that the Speaker would make a decision on bringing the matter to the floor if a sponsor could be found for the bill.
For the leadership the prospect was intriguing, for they couldn&#8217;t guess how Democrats would vote on such a bill. On the one hand, the Democrats don&#8217;t want to come out explicitly for polygamy, but on the other they are reflexively opposed to virtually any measure that would cast a moral judgment on the way that people act out their sexuality. As for the courts, the Supreme Court could not strike down this bill without virtually licensing polygamy. In the meantime, we would establish — in the face of Justice Kennedy&#8217;s dubiety — that Congress does indeed have the authority legislate on this subject of marriage.
There were two conservative congressmen who were willing to consider acting as sponsors of the bill, but both men had other troubles of their own and they didn&#8217;t survive their primaries. Still, the proposal is as sound and as provocative as it ever was in testing the constitutional argument. What remains is finding the conservative congressman with the nerve to introduce it.</blockquote>
I have discussed over the years the marriage debate with many, many people — likely more supporters than opponents of same-sex marriage. I have never once heard an intellectually defensible rationale articulated as to why, once the biological and conjugal element is eliminated from the marriage definition, the definition must be capped at solely two individuals. After all, the only reason we God arrived at two in the first place is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to procreate.
The Defense of Monogamous Marriage Act (DOMMA) is a brilliant piece of legislative mischief that would force Democrats to directly confront the societal hell that they have begun the process of unleashing. And it will force Democrats to ponder the reality that perhaps not all sexual desires and proclivities ought to be treated equally under the law. Perhaps love does not necessarily always &#8220;equal&#8221; love. The DOMMA would also nudge back against the judicial supremacist paradigm and represent a salutary attempt by Congress to check the judiciary. After all, as James Madison told us in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp">The Federalist No. 51</a>, our constitutional structure revolves around the notion that &#8220;[a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition.&#8221;
All we need is a few culture-warring congressmen to take the legislative initiative. Any takers?

newlyweds.jpg

HAMMER: CULTURE WAR: Conservatives In Congress Should Push A ‘Defense Of Monogamous Marriage Act’

Conservatism

Homosexuality

LGBT

National Organization for Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage

Supreme Court

Traditional Marriage

House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney criticized her Democratic House colleagues on Tuesday for shirking their constitutional responsibilities in their pursuit of impeaching President Donald Trump.
&#8220;I know our members come back energized for having spent the work period with constituents who themselves are very energized and recognize the stakes that we’re facing here,&#8221; Cheney told reporters during the Republican leadership&#8217;s weekly briefing. &#8220;And I would say that is a significant contrast to where the Democratic caucus is and the extent to which you have had particularly the Democratic members in vulnerable seats who have a huge disconnect between what their constituents want, why their voters sent them to Washington, and what is happening here with the Democratic caucus.&#8221;
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fq54vqkj8Xo" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
&#8220;You&#8217;ve got members who went home — who are Democrats — who promised they were going to bring jobs back, who promised they were going to work across the aisle, who promised they were going to find common sense solutions to the problems their constituents are facing,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;And instead, what we have all seen is a terribly radical dangerous agenda coming out of the Democrats and one that we&#8217;re going to see continue, certainly.&#8221;
Cheney&#8217;s remarks came after the U.S. House of Representatives returned to Washington, D.C., after its August recess.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) announced earlier in the week that the Committee would take up a procedural resolution setting the groundwork for the formal advancement of impeachment hearings.
More than half of the Democratic caucus has come out in favor of opening an impeachment inquiry. House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), however, has been reluctant to embrace her caucus&#8217; demands, even as the calls grow louder. Democrats largely gained the majority in the House after a wave of moderates were elected to purple districts during the 2018 midterm election cycle.
With the 2020 election on the horizon, Pelosi, as well as many of the Democratic Party&#8217;s moderates, fear that voters&#8217; distaste for impeachment could put the majority back in the hands of Republicans.
&#8220;We are already seeing that now &#8230; in terms of the kinds of substance that they are focused on,&#8221; Cheney said. &#8220;Their efforts to kill fossil fuels, their efforts to fundamentally violate the Second Amendment of American citizens, and their absolute determination to go down the path of impeachment.&#8221;
&#8220;On impeachment what we&#8217;re seeing, and they&#8217;re speaking very publicly about this on the record to many of you, that their first effort at impeachment seems not to have worked,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;So, now they&#8217;re looking for another path to impeachment.&#8221;
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, also slammed Democrats only hours earlier for continuing an impeachment push in order to score political points. Collins, who works alongside Nadler on the Committee, called the procedural move &#8220;pitiful.&#8221;
&#8220;They have been determined to impeach this president at all costs since he was elected regardless of the Constitution,&#8221; Cheney added. &#8220;They are fundamentally failing to abide by and live up to their constitutional responsibilities, turning impeachment into an absolutely political endeavor.&#8221;

Liz Cheyney

WATCH: Liz Cheney Criticizes Democrats For Not Representing The Needs Of Their Own Constituents

Jerrold Nadler

House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) dismissed any worries that House Republicans might have any trouble retaking the majority after a wave of his rank-and-file members announced their retirements during the August recess.
&#8220;Well, let&#8217;s think about retirements here — when you look at retirements, it is very sad when someone wants to depart … [but] it&#8217;s good to have new blood going through,&#8221; McCarthy told Fox News host Bill Hemmer on Monday.
The minority leader harkened back to former Rep. Ted Poe&#8217;s (R-TX) announcement in 2017 that he would not be seeking re-election when his term expired. Poe was chairman and vice chairman of multiple subcommittees on the prestigious House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He also sat on the House Judiciary Committee.
<div class="embed video fluid-video">Watch the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a></div>
At the time, Poe&#8217;s resignation was considered a blow to the party, but he was ultimately succeeded by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), a former Navy SEAL who is now considered to be one of the party&#8217;s rising stars.
&#8220;I was very sad when Ted Poe departed in the last Congress,&#8221; McCarthy said. &#8220;But who followed him? Dan Crenshaw.&#8221;
As Congress comes back into session after the summer recess, 15 Republicans have already announced they will be stepping down, either at the end of their term or months beforehand. While some districts, such as those currently represented by Reps. Will Hurd (R-TX) and Pete Olson (R-TX), are expected to be top-tier battlegrounds going into 2020, the majority of Republican vacancies are in safely red districts.
McCarthy also praised Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the latest to announce his resignation, as a &#8220;tremendous congressman,&#8221; but noted that he has been serving for more than four decades. Sensenbrenner is currently the second-longest serving member in the U.S. House of Representatives and his district is considered a Republican stronghold. The Wisconsin lawmaker won re-election in 2018 by more than 20 points.
&#8220;All of these [retirements] have a basis, but there&#8217;s no concern in the basis of whether we’re going to gain the majority back,&#8221; McCarthy said. &#8220;Thirty-one Democrats sit in seats that President [Donald] Trump carried; we only have to win 19 [seats]. Democrats had to win 23 [seats] in the last cycle. We have fewer seats to gain with a bigger playing field to go.&#8221;
The Republican minority leader also pointed to Army veteran and Houston-area businessman Wesley Hunt, who is running to take back Texas&#8217; 7th Congressional District after Rep. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (D-TX) flipped it blue during the 2018 election cycle. Fletcher and nine-term incumbent Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) were neck-and-neck throughout the duration of their 2018 campaigns, but Fletcher ultimately edged out a victory by just over 12,000 votes.
&#8220;A West Point graduate, flew apaches,&#8221; McCarthy said of Hunt. &#8220;They just did a recent poll, he&#8217;s ahead in he poll running against the incumbent.&#8221;
&#8220;We have a transformation that’s happening in the Republican Party with new blood coming in that&#8217;s only going to make the team stronger,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I know that is what&#8217;s going to carry us to the new majority.&#8221;

WATCH: House Minority Leader Brushes Off Slew Of GOP Retirements: There’s ‘New Blood’ Coming In

Kevin McCarthy

This week, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42306/conservative-favorite-rep-chip-roys-maiden-floor-josh-hammer">conservative favorite</a> freshman congressman Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) spearheaded a stirring <a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-chip-roys-letter-speaker-pelosi-sticking-spending-caps">letter</a> that sounds the alarm on the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/45131/hammer-republicans-need-be-adults-and-talk-about-josh-hammer">dire fiscal situation</a> currently facing the United States federal government. As Conservative Review <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/house-conservatives-sign-letter-urging-pelosi-not-blow-spending-limits-new-budget/">notes</a>, fellow signatories include Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Ken Buck of Colorado, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Justin Amash of Michigan, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, and Warren Davidson of Ohio.
The letter, which merely pleads that Congress actually stick to its current prescribed spending limits and not blow through previously agreed-upon spending caps, <a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-chip-roys-letter-speaker-pelosi-sticking-spending-caps">reads as follows</a>, in relevant part:
<blockquote>
We write to respectfully request that you only bring forward spending measures which adhere to the budget caps put in place by the Budget Control Act (&#8220;BCA&#8221;) of 2011, as amended. 
As you know, our nation recently surpassed $22 trillion in debt. With every hour that passes, we add $100 million to that figure. That is unconscionable. That must end. 
We know that if we simply hold to current spending levels &#8212; even assuming today&#8217;s historically low interest rates &#8212; spending on interest alone will surpass defense spending within 5 years. Medicare is slated to run out of funds by 2026 and Social Security is slated to run out of funds by 2035.
The good news is that current law is on our side to restrain spending. Congress should hold overall spending to the caps levels already in place while ensuring our men and women in uniform have the tools necessary to do their job. Doing so would be a modest step on a path towards balancing the budget. 
We respectfully request that you adhere to the existing spending caps currently in law in order to preserve our ability to defend our nation, protect our seniors, and pass down a strong Republic to the next generation of Americans.
</blockquote>
As Conservative Review <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/house-conservatives-sign-letter-urging-pelosi-not-blow-spending-limits-new-budget/">explains</a>, the Budget Control Act of 2011 &#8212; known in D.C. circles at the time as &#8220;sequestration&#8221; &#8212; &#8220;was originally passed with enforcement mechanisms to control spending and the debt.&#8221; Since then, however, it has been a bipartisan recurring Washington habit to continually raise spending limits and the debt ceiling.
Rep. Roy, since joining the House in January, has consistently been the conservative firebrand that <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/23/chip-roy-house-freedom-caucus-221737">many predicted</a> he would be. In January, as The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42306/conservative-favorite-rep-chip-roys-maiden-floor-josh-hammer">reported</a>, he devoted his maiden House floor speech to railing against how Mexican cartels have acquired &#8220;operational control&#8221; of our southern border:
<blockquote>
&#8220;In my visit to the border, one thing is clear,&#8221; Roy said. &#8220;Dangerous cartels are calling the shots &#8230; the cartels have operational control of the border. That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re sending our guys down on the river, in the Rio Grande, to do to defend this nation. So it&#8217;s time for us to put partisanship aside to secure our border.&#8221;
&#8220;This body has repeatedly authorized assistance to our allies to help them secure their borders,&#8221; Roy continued, after describing the success of security walls built by such allies as Israel. &#8220;But at the same time, the House is crippled with inaction in securing our own [border].&#8221;
</blockquote>

House Conservatives Sound Alarm In Letter To Pelosi

The newest U.S. House of Representatives caucus to receive formal approval has been revealed: The <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-form-anti-socialism-caucus">House Anti-Socialism Caucus</a>.
Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT) <a href="https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-chris-stewart-creates-anti-socialism-caucus">announced</a> in February via press release that he intended to form the new caucus.
&#8220;Socialism is a folly,&#8221; Stewart said. &#8220;Not only is it doomed to fail wherever it rears its head, it leaves a wake of destruction in lives and freedoms lost. So much time has passed from the fall of the Iron Curtain that many have internalized &#8212; or never experienced&#8212; [s]ocialism&#8217;s ultimate price. If we fail to recall those dangerous times, the primitive appeal of socialism will advance and infect our institutions.&#8221;
Stewart&#8217;s February press release further <a href="https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-chris-stewart-creates-anti-socialism-caucus">noted</a> the age gap between those who seem sympathetic to socialism and those who do not.
<blockquote>
Socialism&#8217;s swift rise as the preferred alternative to capitalism among American&#8217;s youth is alarming. Recent polling shows 53% of American millennials favoring a socialist society to a capitalist one, compared to only a quarter of Americans over age 55. This is generally attributed to the [oldest] generation&#8217;s direct experience with this failed experiment.
</blockquote>
Last week, Stewart received the formal blessing of the House to create the Anti-Socialism Caucus. He tweeted, &#8220;Just received approval from the House for the formation of the Anti-Socialism Caucus. This caucus will defend individual liberty &amp; free markets and highlight the dark history of socialism.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Just received approval from the House for the formation of the Anti-Socialism Caucus. This caucus will defend individual liberty &amp; free markets and highlight the dark history of socialism.
&#8212; Rep. Chris Stewart (@RepChrisStewart) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepChrisStewart/status/1113552438102044679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
According to a statement made from Stewart to Nate Madden of <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/house-republicans-launch-anti-socialism-caucus">Blaze Media</a>, the new caucus has seven original members: Republican Reps. Brad Wenstrup (OH), Guy Reschenthaler (PA), Rob Bishop (UT), Bill Flores (TX), Vicky Hartzler (MO), Roger Williams (TX), and Ralph Norman (SC).
As Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-form-anti-socialism-caucus">notes</a>, the time for the formation of such a caucus truly is now:
<blockquote>
Ideas such as &#8220;Medicare-for-all&#8221; and the Green New Deal &#8212; a massive government intervention to combat climate change and income inequality &#8212; have quickly gone from fringe ideas to litmus tests for Democratic presidential candidates. Meanwhile, self-described &#8220;democratic socialists&#8221; like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have floated tax rates as high as 70 percent for rich Americans.
</blockquote>
A Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/socialism-rising-plurality-of-democrats-think-it-would-be-good-for-us-to-move-toward-socialism-according-to-fox-news-poll">poll</a> conducted in January showed that a higher percentage of Democrats polled (40%) supported a move away from capitalism and toward socialism than did those who would oppose such a move (34%).
As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42998/ocasio-cortez-omar-tlaib-take-democrats-anti-ryan-saavedra">reported</a> in February, moreover, many of the same young Democrats seeking to make the party more socialist are also seeking to make the party more anti-Israel (if not outright anti-Semitic):
<blockquote>
A trio of far-left Democrats are normalizing blatant anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party as leaders in the party idly stand by and refuse to condemn their actions and statements.
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) &#8212; all new members of Congress &#8212; have all defended anti-Semites or espoused anti-Semitic positions over the last several months. &#8230;
Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib belong to Justice Democrats, a federal political action committee, which far-left Vox describes as &#8220;a left-wing group whose mission is to drag the Democratic Party left by making life miserable for incumbents&#8230;threatening them with progressive primary challengers.&#8221;
</blockquote>

House Conservatives Form New ‘Anti-Socialism Caucus’

Leftism

Progressivism

Socialism

As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Amanda Prestigiacomo <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43933/democrats-stop-republicans-saving-infants-born-amanda-prestigiacomo">reported</a> last month, Senate Democrats blocked Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)&#8217;s proposed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/130/text?fbclid=IwAR3fIHwjTXUCVESYYAutjsailWvpvvqhfrpvr3gpn81LVmEmgpMZFSePs-A">Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act</a> &#8212; which would have mandated that doctors attempt to keep alive babies who survive botched abortions, instead of allowing them to die.
&#8220;The bill amends the criminal code to &#8216;prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion,'&#8221; The Daily Wire noted.
But only three Senate Democrats &#8212; Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), and Doug Jones (D-AL) &#8212; voted for the bill. The final tally was therefore 53-44 in the senior chamber &#8212; seven votes shy of the 60 votes needed to pass.
Now, as Conservative Review&#8217;s Nate Madden <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/house-republicans-plan-another-push-force-vote-anti-infanticide-legislation/">reports</a>, House Republicans are planning to pick up where Senate Republicans left off:
<blockquote>
House Republicans are making another move to get the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the floor of the chamber for a vote, but there&#8217;s another big hurdle they&#8217;ll have to clear.
Tuesday morning, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise announced that a discharge petition for the bill, which failed in the Senate, will be filed on April 2. The catch? It&#8217;ll have to be signed by a majority of House members to get the bill to the floor.
With the current House makeup, that will require all Republicans and 20 Democrats to sign the petition.
Right now, there are currently three vacancies in the House. With 197 House Republicans, the magic number for a majority is 417, instead of the 418 required under normal circumstances. That leaves Republicans with a lot of ground to cover.
When the House voted on another major pro-life bill last session, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, just three Democrats broke ranks to vote to ban abortions after 20 weeks at the federal level: Reps. Dan Lipinkski, D-Ill., Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Collin Peterson, D-Minn.
</blockquote>
&#8220;BREAKING &#8594; I&#8217;ll be filing a discharge petition on @RepAnnWagner&#8217;s Born Alive bill on April 2nd,&#8221; tweeted House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA). &#8220;This petition will bypass Nancy Pelosi &amp; force a vote on the floor to #EndInfanticide if a majority of members sign on. Tell your representative to sign this petition! #LetUsVote.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
BREAKING &#8594; I&#8217;ll be filing a discharge petition on <a href="https://twitter.com/RepAnnWagner?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepAnnWagner</a>&#8216;s Born Alive bill on April 2nd. This petition will bypass Nancy Pelosi &amp; force a vote on the floor to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EndInfanticide?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#EndInfanticide</a> if a majority of members sign on. Tell your representative to sign this petition! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LetUsVote?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LetUsVote</a>
&#8212; Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1110553465904947200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The bill stands very little chance of passing, due to Republicans being in the House minority. Instead, the purpose of the bill is likely to merely put on record House Democrats as to whether or not they support a federal mandate opposing actual, post-birth infanticide.
As The Daily Wire also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43933/democrats-stop-republicans-saving-infants-born-amanda-prestigiacomo">noted</a>, Sasse&#8217;s bill had been introduced in response to a spate of late-term abortion bills that gained ground in key blue states across the country. Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam appeared to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42839/watch-democratic-va-governor-endorses-murder-born-ben-shapiro">endorse actual infanticide</a>, and New York signed an extremely permissive late-term abortion law.
<blockquote>
The past few months have highlighted the Democrats&#8217; abortion radicalism. As previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42846/these-8-states-allow-abortion-moment-birth-amanda-prestigiacomo">reported</a> by The Daily Wire, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic Democrat, recently signed and celebrated the passing of the euphemistically-named Reproductive Health Act, which legalizes abortion up to the moment of birth, loosens restrictions on who can perform abortions, and strips the murder of the unborn (including the murder of wanted babies) from the state&#8217;s criminal code.
</blockquote>

Congressional Republicans Plan A New Push For Anti-Infanticide Legislation

Abortion

Steve Scalise

For the past two weeks, one GOP congressman has been on a mission to release transcripts of government officials who testified to Congress behind closed doors regarding the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, began releasing transcripts into the congressional record on March 8, starting with the closed-door testimony of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr. Collins took to the House floor <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/collins-releases-bruce-ohr-transcript/">to explain his decision to release the transcripts</a>, asking, is &#8220;the only &#8216;collusion&#8217; among agency personnel who hated the president and started this investigation?&#8221;
Collins said that the transcripts were &#8220;pertinent to a congressional investigation,&#8221; but the investigation was ended after Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. Collins said further that the committee had given the DOJ time to review and redact information related to national security, but received little response from the department, so they made minor redactions and released the transcripts.
The 268-page transcript from Ohr&#8217;s testimony revealed that Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson and ex-British Spy Christopher Steele <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/collins-releases-bruce-ohr-transcript/">used Ohr</a> to get their salacious claims about Russia collusion into the federal government. Ohr also revealed that, contrary to what House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff has said, the FBI had received reports from Steele as early as July 2016, not September 2016, as Schiff claimed.
Further, Ohr testified that Steele continued to feed him information after the ex-spy was no longer a credible source for the FBI. The FBI would interview Ohr as a backdoor to Steele&#8217;s intel.
Four days after releasing Ohr&#8217;s testimony, Collins returned to the House floor to <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/collins-releases-lisa-page-transcript/">publicly release</a> former FBI lawyer Lisa Page&#8217;s testimony.
&#8220;The American people deserve to know what transpired in the highest echelons of the FBI during that tumultuous time for the bureau,&#8221; Collins said at the time.
The Page testimony <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44587/obama-doj-told-fbi-not-charge-hillary-lisa-page-ryan-saavedra">was explosive</a>, as she had not been publicly interviewed by the committee or anyone else after her text messages with then-fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an affair, were revealed.
In her testimony, Page revealed that the FBI&#8217;s Russia investigation really was an &#8220;insurance policy&#8221; in the unlikely event that Donald Trump was elected president, and that investigators had only a &#8220;paucity&#8221; of evidence in the beginning, which they still used to launch investigations into the president. Page also suggested that it was President Barack Obama&#8217;s Justice Department that essentially told the FBI not to find Hillary Clinton responsible for &#8220;gross negligence&#8221; in regard to classified information being sent over her unsecured, private email server.
Two days after releasing Page&#8217;s testimony, Collins <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/collins-releases-peter-strzok-transcript/">released Strzok&#8217;s</a>. In his testimony, Strzok revealed that he <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/14/peter-strzok-deleted-lisa-page/">deleted communications</a> between himself and his mistress, Page, prior to being removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s investigation, but did so for &#8220;personal&#8221; reasons. He claimed to have deleted personal communications regarding his affair, but some of those messages showed anti-Trump sentiments and discussed the &#8220;insurance policy&#8221; of investigating &#8220;collusion&#8221; if Trump won the election.
On Sunday, Collins <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/17/rep_doug_collins_on_page_mccabe_and_strzok_loretta_lynch_has_some_explaining_to_do.html">told Fox News host Maria Baritomo</a> that he was planning to release more transcripts. Baritomo asked if Jim Baker, the former FBI lawyer who is now <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-top-fbi-lawyer-james-baker-under-criminal-investigation-for-media-leaks">under criminal investigation for leaking to the media</a>, was on the list for future transcript releases.
&#8220;There will be more transcripts released. Baker will be one that we&#8217;re looking at releasing,&#8221; Collins responded.

GOP Congressman Releasing Transcripts From Closed-Door Testimonies Of Russia Probe Investigators

Peter Strzok

Russia

As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43486/house-judiciary-committee-democrats-target-private-josh-hammer">The Daily Wire</a> has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44083/elections-have-consequences-house-passes-major-gun-josh-hammer">reported</a>, the U.S. House of Representatives last week passed a substantial gun control bill &#8212; H.R. 8, dubbed the &#8220;Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019&#8221; &#8212; that would expand background checks for private firearm transfers. The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/44083/elections-have-consequences-house-passes-major-gun-josh-hammer">noted</a> last Thursday:
<blockquote>
[T]he measure, which seeks to implement what gun control partisans on the Left often refer to as &#8220;universal background checks,&#8221; would expand background checks for firearm sales to also include private firearm transfers. There would be some minor dispensations, including firearm transfers among close relatives and loaning a firearm to be used by a gun owner&#8217;s friend or relative while at a shooting range.
</blockquote>
H.R. 8 passed the full House by a 240-190 margin. It attracted five Republican co-sponsors, although the vast majority of those voting for the measure were Democrats.
House Democrats last week also <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/house-passes-second-new-gun-control-bill-two-days/">passed</a> H.R. 112, which would require federally licensed firearm dealers to wait ten days &#8212; as opposed to the prevailing status quo of three days &#8212; to receive an answer from the federal government-managed National Instant Criminal Background Check System before proceeding with a legal sale. H.R. 112, dubbed the &#8220;Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019,&#8221; passed the full House by a 298-228 margin.
At the time, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), a strong opponent of H.R. 112, indicated his stance that he was not sure whether the bill was motivated more by &#8220;incompetence or malice.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If you&#8217;re familiar with the process of buying a gun from an FFL, that might raise an eyebrow.
It did for <a href="https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepDougCollins</a>, who noted that the proposed new NICS procedures the bill creates could be used to create a never-ending wild goose chase for prospective buyers. <a href="https://t.co/U0E1ILOdm9">pic.twitter.com/U0E1ILOdm9</a>
&#8212; Nate Madden (@NateOnTheHill) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateOnTheHill/status/1101137253861130240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 28, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Now, as Nate Madden of Blaze Media <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gop-rep-collins-counters-dem-gun-control-efforts-bill-beef-gun-crime-enforcement/">reports</a>, Collins is firing back with his own pro-law enforcement gun <a href="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/0275399506e2bdd8fe2012b77/files/0e6949af-8ad7-494c-b517-b4a001a72575/02_25_19_MVP_Act_Bill_Text.pdf">bill</a>. Collins&#8217; bill seeks to better equip law enforcement with having the tools they might need to prevent mass shootings.
<blockquote>
Titled the &#8220;Mass Violence Prevention Act,&#8221; the bill&#8230;seeks to better pre-emptively identify potential mass violence situations and prosecute gun crimes, rather restrict gun transactions between law-abiding citizens, as the two bills passed earlier this week would do.
The bill would further empower law enforcement to enforce the laws that are already on the books with more tools and stronger sentences for lawbreakers and is being presented as an alternative to the gun control measures put forward by House Democrats.
</blockquote>
Collins&#8217; office released a <a href="https://republicans-judiciary.house.gov/press-release/collins-introduces-mass-violence-prevention-act/">press statement</a> last week, which reads in part:
<blockquote>
It&#8217;s cruel to advance legislation that ignores the factors contributing to gun violence when tragedies like Columbine, Parkland and Aurora, Illinois have showed us again and again what we need to do to keep communities safe. Authorities have missed opportunities to stop mass shootings before they start, and the Mass Violence Prevention Act combats that disturbing trend by ensuring local, state and federal law enforcement can better share information and coordinate responses to potential threats of mass violence. The MVP Act would also reduce the flow of firearms into the black market, where we often see violent criminals buying their weapons and circumventing background checks.
</blockquote>
With Republicans now in the House minority and House Democrats already having successfully passed two gun control bills out of Congress&#8217;s junior chamber, the Mass Violence Prevention Act faces uncertain legislative prospects.

Menu