China successfully attempted to “infiltrate and compromise” the Biden family and the Obama White House‚ a former business associate of Hunter Biden testified Tuesday before a House committee looking into allegations of influence peddling. Tony Bobulinski‚ who worked with Hunter Biden before blowing the whistle on what he has alleged to be a massive influence-peddling scheme involving President Joe Biden‚ made the remarks during his opening statement to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. Bobulinski alleged that the elder Biden “enabled” a lucrative business arrangement involving his son Hunter and a major energy company tied to the Chinese Communist Party. He also testified that “Joe Biden’s immediate family members were enriched to the tune of tens of millions of dollars” made from conducting business with shady counterparts‚ including some based in adversarial nations‚ during and after Biden’s eight years as vice president. “The Chinese Communist Party through its surrogate‚ China Energy Company Limited‚ or ‘CEFC’—a CCP-linked Chinese energy conglomerate—successfully sought to infiltrate and compromise Joe Biden and the Obama-Biden White House‚” Bobulinski told House investigators‚ according to a transcription of his opening statement. “I want to be crystal clear: from my direct personal experience and what I have subsequently come to learn‚ it is clear to me that Joe Biden was ‘the Brand’ being sold by the Biden family‚” he said‚ adding: “Joe Biden was more than a participant in and beneficiary of his family’s business; he was an enabler‚ despite being buffered by a complex scheme to maintain plausible deniability.” After Hunter Biden sent a threatening WhatsApp message in which he invoked his father’s power to a CEFC China Energy associate in July 2017‚ another company connected to CEFC—which since has ceased to exist—wired $5 million to an enterprise linked to the younger Biden in August 2017‚ according to the House Oversight committee. Biden has asserted that his father wasn’t “financially involved” in his business dealings. The Biden family’s involvement with CEFC China Energy began as early as 2015‚ when Joe Biden was still serving the Obama administration as vice president‚ Rob Walker—another former business partner of Hunter Biden’s—said in Jan. 26 testimony to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. Walker testified that Joe Biden stopped by a luncheon at a Washington hotel attended by his son‚ Walker‚ and numerous CEFC businessmen sometime in early 2017‚ shortly before a Shanghai-based company connected to CEFC paid Walker’s LLC approximately $3 million. Walker described Biden’s appearance at the luncheon as innocuous and the fact that a company linked to CEFC China Energy made the payment afterward as a coincidence. “Joe Biden was aware of the CEFC transaction‚ enabled it‚ and had a constitutional responsibility and obligation to the American people to shut it down before it began‚” Bobulinski said in his opening statement Tuesday. Walker testified Jan. 26 that his LLC subsequently paid about $1 million of the $3 million payment received from the CEFC-related energy company to Hunter Biden‚ his uncle James Biden‚ and Hallie Biden‚ the widow of the president’s other son‚ Beau‚ who died in 2015. This assertion called into question the senior Biden’s claims on the presidential campaign trail in 2020 that he never discussed his son’s business dealings with him. The White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment. This report originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Hunter’s Former Partner Says China Tried to ‘Infiltrate and Compromise’ Biden Family‚ Obama White House appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It is impossible to understand what is happening to America—and to the rest of the West—without understanding the most dynamic ideology of the last hundred years: leftism. We need to begin with the understanding that leftism (or “progressivism”) and liberalism are not only not the same ideologies‚ they are in fact opposed to each other on virtually every major issue. Leftism and liberalism have only two things in common: One is belief in big government‚ which‚ given that individual and societal liberty decline as the state grows‚ is a significant similarity. The other Left-liberal commonality is antipathy to the Right. This is even more important than commitment to big government because it explains why liberals vote for the Left despite the fact that liberals differ with far more left-wing positions than with conservative positions. Unlike the Left‚ most liberals love their country. Unlike the Left‚ most liberals do not believe that there are more than two sexes/genders; that prepubescent boys and girls who claim they are members of the other sex should be given hormone blockers; that girls under 21 should be allowed to have their breasts surgically removed; or that men who say they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. So‚ too‚ liberals do not believe that capitalism is evil‚ that America is systemically racist‚ that all whites are racist‚ that Israel is the villain in the Middle East‚ and that Zionism is racist. So‚ then‚ given that those leftist positions are as destructive as they are absurd‚ how are we to explain leftism? This question has preoccupied me all my adult life. It is why I was one of fewer than 10 graduate students in all of Columbia University to major in what was called “Communist Affairs.” (I was a fellow at the Russian Institute at Columbia’s School of International Affairs.) In other words‚ I have studied the Left all my life. Early on‚ I recognized that the Left opposes liberty—the clearest example being that wherever the Left gains power‚ whether at a university or in society as a whole‚ it suppresses free speech—and that it destroys everything it touches. But while I (and many others) have always understood that the Left (again‚ not liberalism) has always‚ everywhere‚ been a force for evil‚ I needed to understand why. How can people believe that men give birth; that a country to which more than 4 million black people have emigrated and which twice elected a black president is systemically racist; that the freest country in the Middle East‚ one in which millions of Arabs live as equal citizens‚ is the villain‚ while its barbaric enemies are worthy of support? Here are some answers: Throughout their history‚ Americans have had three great providers of meaning: family‚ religion‚ and patriotism. Leftists lack the latter two (indeed‚ they seek to get rid of them)‚ and increasing numbers of them lack the first. Since human beings cannot live without meaning—it is as great a need as food‚ and even greater than sex—they seek meaning elsewhere. So they create new meanings through creating secular religions: socialism‚ communism‚ feminism‚ environmentalism‚ DEI (diversity‚ equity‚ inclusion)‚ “anti-racism‚” anti-Zionism‚ LGBTQIA+ pride‚ and trans activism‚ among others. All these are united by one overarching aim: destroying the institutions of Western civilization (e.g.‚ religion‚ art‚ music‚ the nuclear family‚ moral norms‚ schools and universities‚ free speech‚ capitalism‚ even medicine). Those of us who appreciate Western civilization and wish to preserve it (while‚ of course‚ correcting its flaws) cannot understand why anyone would want to destroy it. That is a major reason it is so difficult for non-leftists to understand the Left. After decades of mulling this over‚ I think I have discovered one answer that is not obvious even to all leftists. What opened my eyes are the Left’s beliefs that men can become women and women can become men; men give birth; there are more than two genders/sexes; men who say they are women should be placed in women’s prisons‚ women’s colleges‚ and women’s shelters; men who say they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports; and children should be taken to drag queen shows. All these positions represent … chaos. The Left’s trans-positions are the most obvious areas of Left-induced chaos‚ but there are many others. These include the Left’s contempt for the ideal of the nuclear family (i.e.‚ a married mother and father and children); its support for defunding police; its raising the dollar value of stolen goods that qualifies as a felony‚ which can only incentivize theft; and its support for progressive district attorneys. Fighting crime represents order; crime represents chaos. And why does leftism seek chaos? Because the Left hates the opposite of chaos: order. And order ultimately represents a religious view of life. Order represents divine order. The proof is that no religious people say‚ “Men give birth.” Not all secular people believe men give birth‚ there are more than two sexes‚ men can compete in women’s sports‚ children should be exposed to drag queen shows‚ or children should be given hormone blockers if they claim to be a member of the other sex. But only secular people believe those things. Virtually no one who believes in the Bible and the God of the Bible believes them. We believe in a God-created social order. Chaos is the normal state of the world. The second verse of the Bible states that the world was in a chaotic state. God then made order. Which is why the Left is undoing it. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post The Left and Chaos appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you’re not looking to date this Valentine’s Day‚ be grateful. It’s a disaster out there. Pair the lingering effects of the sexual revolution‚ of a world where too often sexual pleasure is prioritized over relationships founded on love and giving‚ with Big Tech’s noxious dating apps‚ where algorithms seem far better at perpetuating singledom than finding people soulmates‚ and you’ve got a hellscape. Yes‚ conservatives—and all Americans who value the family—rightly fret over the state of marriage in the United States. The number of 40-year-old Americans who never have been married is higher than ever at 25%‚ according to Pew Research Center. The number of births per woman has plummeted to 1.6. Nor is that because women want fewer children: Almost half of women want three or more children‚ according to Gallup. For conservatives‚ who rightly view the family as the foundation of society‚ these numbers are horrifying—and a siren that our culture is languishing‚ our social ties dissipating. Loneliness is on the rise‚ and unsurprisingly‚ so are addiction rates and suicide rates. But as an unmarried woman in my 30s‚ I also realize there’s no quick fix to this situation—and that married Americans are often unaware of how bleak the current dating landscape can be. Ultimately‚ if we’re going to have more healthy marriages‚ we need to change our dating culture. Take this new lawsuit‚ which highlights just how insane the current dating world is. The plaintiff‚ Nikko D’Ambrosio‚ alleges he was defamed in a private Chicago Facebook group for women‚ called “Are We Dating the Same Guy?” Facebook groups with this name began sprouting up in 2022‚ allowing thousands of women to swap information—rarely of the flattering variety—about local single men. Although this seems like a recipe for idle gossip‚ it was also a way for women to warn other women of the bad behavior of particular local men so they could avoid them. D’Ambrosio says he was defamed in the Chicago Facebook group‚ but was unable to join it to defend himself or get the moderators to remove the posts about him. In one post mentioned in his lawsuit‚ a woman wrote: “Very clingy very fast. Flaunted money very awkwardly and kept talking about how I don’t want to see his bad side‚ especially when he was on business calls.” Another woman wrote: “I went out with him a few times just over a year ago—he told me what I wanted to hear until I slept with him and then he ghosted … I’d steer clear.” (The term “ghosted” refers to when a romantic interest stops responding to all forms of communication without announcing a breakup or an end of contact.) These Facebook groups of women who warn each other about bad men are hugely popular: Over 200 such groups with 3.5 million members exist worldwide‚ according to a GoFundMe by Paola Sanchez‚ the founder of this network of groups (and a defendant in the lawsuit). The groups’ wild popularity is just another sign of the desolate dating landscape in modern times. Online dating apps promise a world of romantic fulfillment and the ability to find a soulmate who shares your values‚ lives locally‚ and may be contacted from your living room. But instead of romantic fulfillment‚ online daters are finding disappointment—and betrayal. According to a 2023 study‚ co-authored by Stanford University professor Elias Aboujaoude‚ almost two-thirds of Tinder users are either married or in a romantic relationship. (Tinder‚ an extremely popular dating app known for promoting casual flings‚ disputes the findings of the survey.) Even when would-be partners aren’t married or hiding a girlfriend‚ it doesn’t mean they’re exactly pure of heart‚ seeking to find meaningful romantic relationships. Online dating has spurred a plethora of phrases to describe bad behavior. In addition to “ghosting‚” there’s “lovebombing‚” which refers to a man or woman being effusively romantic and/or discussing a long-term future‚ before abruptly and suddenly withdrawing contact. There’s also “breadcrumbing‚” which is when a person tries to keep a romantic interest engaged by sending very occasional messages without committing more fully. Or there’s also the awful experience of being sent‚ to use a popular crude term that aptly describes it‚ a “dick pic.” According to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey‚ 56% of women and 25% of men ages 18 to 49 say they’ve received an unsolicited‚ sexually explicit image or message. Bring on the wedding bells‚ am I right? It’s no wonder that millions of women are trying to avoid emotional pain and find out whether other locals on Facebook can speak to a man’s character. (Although men have formed some groups of their own to judge women’s character‚ those groups appear far less popular.) But of course‚ it’s not that women are necessarily always being fair or honest‚ either: Are the men they are bashing on these groups always guilty? Is crucial context being left out? The outcome of D’Ambrosio’s lawsuit isn’t certain. (In the interim‚ D’Ambrosio was convicted for tax fraud.) And although I don’t think that that these women’s Facebook groups are the answer to today’s dating woes‚ I do think they highlight just how awful things are right now. But even if two people are able to find each other and start dating‚ it’s a more complicated path to marriage these days. Searching for monogamy? You might be surprised by a romantic partner’s desire to explore polyamory—after all‚ a third of singles have been in a nonmonogamous relationship‚ according to a 2023 survey by the dating site company Match. Nonmonogamy isn’t the only way the zany ethics of the sexual revolution continue to infect romance. Pornography is changing men and women and what they sexually desire. In her 2022 book “Rethinking Sex‚” columnist Christine Emba recounted attending a holiday party and being asked by another woman‚ whom she hadn’t met before‚ what she thought about choking during sex. The woman was struggling because she liked everything else about the new guy she was seeing—he was attractive‚ had a good job‚ and was smart—but she couldn’t seem to shake the unease she felt about being choked during sex‚ even though she had consented to it. Nor is this woman alone in her quandary. A fifth of women said they’ve been choked during sex. You know what wasn’t in the fairy tales I read growing up? A discussion between Cinderella and her fairy godmother about whether she should overlook the fact that Prince Charming could be turned on only by acting violently toward her. Yet‚ in our porn-saturated world where men (and yes‚ some women) seem to need more and more extreme and horrific sexual actions to feel pleasure‚ this is where we’re at. Of course‚ I’ve sketched a bleak picture—and to be fair‚ some singles are still finding love and pursuing marriage in today’s world. Among adults who are married or in a serious romantic relationship‚ 10% of them met that person online‚ according to Pew Research Center. Yet overall‚ the dating landscape desperately needs improvement if we want to improve marriage rates. For instance‚ even for singles who reject dating apps‚ the apps still have infected today’s dating world. Online and app dating has made it less likely that a young adult will approach another young adult who is a stranger; after all‚ the norm increasingly is that you meet someone online‚ not in real life. Approaching someone in real life can be seen as being “creepy”—which is unfair and awful‚ but I understand why some are reluctant to do it. If you are living in a “Benedict Option” world‚ as writer Rod Dreher advocates in his popular book‚ there’s no guarantee of finding a spouse. In religious circles‚ women tend to outnumber men. As former Sen. Rick Santorum‚ a Pennsylvania Republican known for championing family values‚ said during a recent Heritage Foundation panel on working-class Americans: “I wish I had a nickel for every young woman I know who’s just amazing—in their 20s and 30s and they can’t find a marriageable man. It’s pathetic. It’s awful. We’re just destroying our own culture‚ and we don’t talk about it. We as conservatives don’t talk about it.” We don’t. Of course‚ based on anecdotal evidence‚ marriageable single men are out there‚ but they can be hard to find—and‚ frankly‚ are too few. Furthermore‚ religious men and women aren’t immune from the temptations of porn and other scourges of modern life; it’s not clear‚ even if such people are single‚ whether they are in a state to be a good spouse. Of course‚ none of this is to claim that every single person is perfect and has zero responsibility for remaining single. Some are too picky. Some women‚ no doubt‚ place too much emphasis on height and income‚ while some men place too much emphasis on looks. Both sexes struggle with the Hollywood-popularized idea of soulmates. It’s easy to think‚ particularly with the seeming abundance of matches on dating apps‚ that someone out there has the perfect personality‚ body‚ and temperament that will make you optimally happy. This is a noxious myth that forgoes the real joys of marriage for a fantasy of happily ever after. And of course‚ there’s also a noble tradition in Christianity of being single for the sake of leading a life more focused on God. While marriage is a good for many‚ I’d never claim all people should strive to get married. So where does this leave us? As conservatives look to advocate marriage‚ it’s not enough to talk about its importance. We need to talk about healthy marriages. We need to talk about how porn warps imaginations (and hearts). We need to look at the bruised‚ wounded singles of today and not say‚ “Why aren’t you married?” but “Is there a way I can help?” Maybe it’s married couples setting up mutual friends. Maybe it’s all of us praying. Maybe it’s helping a friend who is struggling become a better person—which will benefit the culture whether he ultimately gets married or not. Maybe sometimes it is‚ if asked for advice by a single friend‚ to gently nudge them away from excessive pickiness. Maybe it’s married couples with decades of success mentoring younger couples‚ helping them learn how to communicate and love in a healthy way. Maybe it’s criticizing the dating landscape of today and saying‚ who is happy? Can sexual pleasure really be worth all this? Maybe it’s showing there can be a different way where you prioritize a selfless love‚ not just sexual pleasure. Maybe it’s more recently married couples‚ who survived today’s dating landscape‚ sharing how they kept hope and persisted. Maybe it’s married couples being more honest about what each has compromised on for a spouse instead of furthering the soulmate myth with gauzy social media photos and holiday cards. Maybe it’s them talking more vulnerably about dating‚ about how sometimes an amazing love story starts not with fireworks‚ but with a slight interest that then blossoms into something greater—and perhaps more enduring than fireworks. We don’t want people to slap a ring on it just because they hear marriage is good. We’re not looking for more divorces and lonely marriages and toxic marriages. We’re not looking to bring children into bad situations. Instead‚ we need to present something more compelling: an alternative vision. Not talk of marriage as it is in fairy tales and in Hollywood movies‚ but as it is in real life. We need to talk about the beauty and the growth in a marriage where each spouses prioritizes the other one‚ where they tackle real challenges by honest conversations and genuine goodwill. We need to talk about how sexual pleasure is often found more in marriages and relationships that follow traditional norms‚ not in sleeping around. And we need to build up singles who are trying not to cave into the wretched norms of the 2020s and yet who perhaps feel they are looking at never getting married as a result. It’s so‚ so ugly out there in dating today. That’s a tragedy—and it’s going to take more than singles to fix it. If we want a culture with more and better marriages‚ we need to work together to make dating better. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Dating Crisis Fuels Marriage Crisis appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The House on Tuesday voted for a second time to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas after the first vote failed last week. This time‚ Republicans received the outcome they sought. “Tonight’s vote was a vote for law and order in our communities‚ and a vote to restore the rule of law at our southern border‚” Rep. John Joyce‚ R-Penn.‚ told The Daily Signal.   On Tuesday night‚ 214 House members voted in favor of impeaching the DHS secretary‚ and 213 voted in opposition. No Democrats voted in favor. Three Republicans‚ Reps. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin‚ Ken Buck of Colorado‚ and Tom McClintock of California‚ also voted for a second time against impeachment. “Our nation’s southern border has descended into crisis due to Secretary Mayorkas’ willful and systemic refusal to comply with federal immigration laws‚” Joyce said. “By purposely neglecting to carry out the laws he was appointed to uphold and enforce‚ Secretary Mayorkas has allowed more than 10 million illegal immigrants to enter our nation under his watch.”  Customs and Border Protection has encountered more than 8.5 million illegal aliens at or between America’s ports of entry since the start of the Biden administration in late January 2021. CBP has also confirmed more than 1.7 million known “gotaways” have crossed the border. Additionally‚ it is impossible to know how many illegal aliens have crossed the border entirely without detection.  The exact number of illegal aliens released into the interior of the U.S. isn’t publicly reported. But during a closed-door meeting Jan. 8 with Border Patrol agents in Eagle Pass‚ Texas‚ Mayorkas reportedly said that more than 85% of the illegal aliens encountered at the border are released into the country.    “Thousands of illegal aliens have been pouring across the border every single day‚” said Rep. Bob Good‚ R-Va.‚ adding that this has allowed “cities to be overrun‚ Americans to be beaten and killed by criminal gang members‚ and hundreds of thousands to die from fentanyl overdoses.” In a statement Tuesday night‚ DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said “House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at our border.” Mayorkas becomes the first Cabinet secretary to be impeached since 1876.  Tuesday’s vote was held one week after a House vote to impeach Mayorkas failed. With Republicans holding 219 seats in the House and Democrats with 212‚ plus four vacancies‚ Republicans could not stand to lose many votes. During the first vote‚ three Republicans‚ Gallagher‚ Buck‚ and McClintock‚ voted with all Democrats against impeaching Mayorkas. That tied the vote 215 to 215.   In a tactical move‚ Rep. Blake Moore of Utah changed his vote to “Nay‚” bringing the final vote to 214 to 216 against impeaching Mayorkas. Moore’s actions allowed the House to bring the articles of impeachment back to the floor for a second vote Tuesday night. Per House rules‚ a tie vote automatically loses in the House.   Rep. Steve Scalise‚ R-La.‚ was out last week for cancer treatment‚ but returned to the House this week and gave Republicans the one additional vote needed to impeach Mayorkas.   During an interview on Sunday with NBC’s “Meet the Press‚” Mayorkas acknowledged that there is a crisis on the border‚ but said the Department of Homeland Security does not “bear responsibility for a broken system.” Mayorkas added that “fundamentally‚ Congress is the only one who can fix it.”  What Happens Next? Now that the House has impeached Mayorkas‚ the two charges go to the Senate‚ which has the authority to convict and remove Mayorkas from office after a trial. Conviction on the charges in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote‚ which is unlikely given the fact that Democrats control the Senate.  Republicans hold a total of 49 seats in the Senate and Democrats hold 48‚ but three independents vote with Democrats. Road to Mayorkas’ Impeachment Rep. Chip Roy‚ R-Texas‚ has called for Mayorkas’ impeachment for more than two years. House Republicans should “push to impeach Mayorkas for failing to faithfully execute the laws‚” Roy wrote on X‚ then Twitter‚ in July 2021 after a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border in McAllen‚ Texas.   In August 2021‚ Rep. Andy Biggs‚ R-Ariz.‚ first filed articles of impeachment against Mayorkas. In February 2023‚ Biggs filed “a new and exhaustive article of impeachment” against the Homeland Security chief. And in June 2023‚ Rep. Clay Higgins‚ R-La.‚ introduced his own articles of impeachment against him.   Last month‚ the House Homeland Security Committee released two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas. The committee’s decision to move forward followed a five-phase investigation‚ led by Chairman Mark Green‚ R-Tenn.‚ in which 10 public hearings examined topics under the following titles:   “DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Dereliction of Duty.”    “DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas Has Emboldened Cartels‚ Criminals and America’s Enemies.”    “The Devastating Human Costs of the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Open-Borders Policies.”    “The Historic Dollar Costs of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Open-Borders Policies.”    “The Massive Waste and Abuse Enabled by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.”     “The House Committee on Homeland Security’s investigation and subsequent impeachment proceedings demonstrated beyond any doubt that Secretary Mayorkas has willfully and systemically refused to comply with the laws of the United States and breached the public trust‚” Green said in a statement Tuesday night. “As a result‚” Green continued‚ “our country has suffered from an unprecedented border crisis that has turned every state into a border state‚ causing untold suffering in communities across our country. With this vote‚ Congress has made clear that we will not tolerate such lawlessness.” Why Impeach Mayorkas? The House voted Tuesday on two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas. The House’s first article alleges that the homeland security secretary has failed to secure America’s border and enforce immigration laws‚ instead executing policies that incentivize illegal immigration.    “Mayorkas has failed to uphold his constitutional duty of keeping our border secure‚” Rep. Michael Guest‚ R-Miss.‚ said in a video message Tuesday. “He has failed to uphold his oath to protect our nation‚ and he has breached the public trust by repeatedly lying to Congress and the American people.”  The House’s second article of impeachment contends that Mayorkas is in breach of the public trust and knowingly has made false statements to Congress and the American people.  In April 2022‚ Roy asked Mayorkas during a hearing: “Will you testify under oath right now: Do we have operational control [of the border]‚ yes or no?”       “Yes‚ we do‚” Mayorkas responded.      The Secure Fence Act of 2006 defines operational control of the border as “prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States‚ including entries by terrorists‚ other unlawful aliens‚ instruments of terrorism‚ narcotics‚ and other contraband.”     During a hearing in July‚ Roy argued that Mayorkas was being dishonest with the American people when he claimed to have operational control of the border even as thousands of illegal aliens a day were crossing it.   The Secure Fence Act “provides statutorily that operational control is defined as preventing all unlawful entries into the United States‚” Mayorkas said in defending his record during a Senate hearing in March 2023. He added: “By that definition‚ no administration has ever had operational control.”   Roy also has argued that Mayorkas knowingly lied to the American public in September 2021 regarding allegations that Border Patrol agents on horseback were seen and photographed “whipping” Haitian illegal aliens who had crossed the Rio Grande into the U.S. “We know that those images painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism‚” Mayorkas said during a press briefing after the alleged incident.   Roy explained during a July 2023 hearing that it later came to light that Mayorkas was informed before the press conference that the photographer who took the photographs of the purported “whipping” had observed no such activity. Instead‚ Border Patrol agents were using the reins of their horses to control the animals‚ as they were trained to do.    What Foes of Impeachment Say In a letter to the House Rules Committee that was released last week‚ top attorneys at the Department of Homeland Security called House Republicans’ articles of impeachment against Mayorkas “a dramatic departure from over two centuries of established understanding and precedent about the meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution and the proper exercise of that extraordinary tool.”   The DHS lawyers’ 38-page letter argues that the impeachment effort was driven by politics‚ not policy‚ and is “unprecedented.”   Their letter also argues that Mayorkas’ took his actions “in good faith” and they are “consistent with law.” Finally‚ it calls the charge that Mayorkas has broken public trust a baseless allegation. This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post BREAKING: House Votes to Impeach Mayorkas appeared first on The Daily Signal.

MS Society Kicks Out 90 YO Volunteer For Not Understanding DEI Pronoun Usage

Drake‚ 50 Cent‚ other Recording Artists are Registered to Vote with Same Houston-Area Address

Orangutans‚ chimpanzees‚ bonobos‚ and gorillas share many traits with humans‚ and now it seems we can add teasing to the list. Playful teasing‚ that is‚ the kind that emerges in human babies before they can speak and that may have been a crucial stepping stone to humor in the human lineage (not that it's always been so good... have you seen the world's oldest bar joke?). Play encompasses many behaviors‚ but teasing is one we Homo sapiens can get a jump on before we’re ready to walk and talk. We see it in babies as young as eight months old‚ and since it doesn’t require language‚ it figures we might find it in other species.“Great apes are excellent candidates for playful teasing‚ as they are closely related to us‚ engage in social play‚ show laughter and display relatively sophisticated understandings of others’ expectations‚” said post-doctoral researcher and the first author of the study‚ Isabelle Laumer‚ in a statement.In what must have been one of the more joyful observational studies‚ a team of researchers analyzed footage of social interactions between apes‚ paying special attention to the animals’ body movements‚ facial expressions‚ and actions. They also looked for indicators of intention‚ such as whether the “teaser” waited for a response from the "teasee"‚ and if they were directing their behavior at one or multiple individuals. Among the confirmed wind-up merchants were orangutans‚ chimpanzees‚ bonobos‚ and gorillas‚ which were found to engage in teasing behaviors in tandem with what looked like play. A lot of the playful teasing appeared to center around provoking a response or trying to get another individual’s attention‚ something anyone who’s ever looked after a five-year-old will no doubt be familiar with."It was common for teasers to repeatedly wave or swing a body part or object in the middle of the target’s field of vision‚ hit or poke them‚ stare closely at their face‚ disrupt their movements‚ pull on their hair‚ or perform other behaviors that were extremely difficult for the target to ignore‚" added senior author of the study Professor Erica Cartmill.Yes… harrowingly familiar.Silverbacks look serious‚ but even they can't resist playful teasing.Image credit: Max BlockAs for why the banter of apes is a concern for us humans‚ understanding how and where the early elements of humor emerged among primates can teach us about our own evolution. Given the integral role that joking plays in human interactions today‚ it figures that it took the lineage a while to adapt our craft. “From an evolutionary perspective‚ the presence of playful teasing in all four great apes and its similarities to playful teasing and joking in human infants suggests that playful teasing and its cognitive prerequisites may have been present in our last common ancestor‚ at least 13 million years ago‚” concluded Laumer. “We hope that our study will inspire other researchers to study playful teasing in more species in order to better understand the evolution of this multi-faceted behavior. We also hope that this study raises awareness of the similarities we share with our closest relatives and the importance of protecting these endangered animals.”The study is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The Democrats (and Politico) have a problem. In the wake of Special Counsel Robert Hur's report which did not charge President Joe Biden with improperly storing classified documents‚ not because he was innocent but because Hur judged him too senile due to age to be sent to trial‚ there was more urgency than ever among liberals to replace Biden on the 2024 presidential ticket. But how to do it? Politico's senior politics editor‚ Charlie Mahtesian‚ and his colleague‚ Steven Shepard‚ came up with a highly problematic "Plan B"  chock full of wishful thinking on Monday in‚ "Democrats Might Need a Plan B. Here’s What It Looks Like." Their concern about Biden's electability in swing states was blatantly evident: So far‚ Democrats have vigorously avoided any discussion of a Plan B for their presidential nominee. But special counsel Robert Hur’s report may have forced their hand. Fairly or not‚ Hur’s stinging characterization of President Joe Biden as a “well-meaning‚ elderly man with a poor memory” and “diminished faculties” has thrust the president’s age and mental fitness into the debate. Coupled with the widespread perception that Biden is too old for another term and the fact that he frequently trails former president Donald Trump in swing state polling matchups‚ it’s raised serious questions about whether Biden is positioned to lead the party in November — and whether Democrats need a contingency plan. Strap on your seatbelts because you might fall out of your chairs laughing at the Politico "Plan B": Because of procedural and political hurdles‚ it would not be easy to simply swap him out. The likeliest outcome is that Biden stays on the ticket. But it is also possible to envision different scenarios where the party does indeed nominate someone other than Biden at its August convention or even picks an alternative afterward to compete in a historic general election. Here’s how it would work. The truth is that a backup strategy can only be deployed if Biden voluntarily steps aside — or is physically unable to stand for nomination. At the moment‚ despite the anxiety within the party‚ there’s no dispute: Biden is on a glide path to the Democratic nomination. His longshot rival‚ Rep. Dean Phillips‚ has warned for months about the risks of nominating Biden yet has failed to gain traction. The Minnesota Democrat has largely been ostracized from the party for even broaching the sensitive subject. The big flaw of "Plan B" was assuming that Biden would voluntarily step aside. That assumption failed to consider the role of Jill (DOCTOR Jill) Biden who many suspect wanted to keep Joe in the White House at all costs. They deduced that the problem would be Biden's pride: Short of incapacitation or a highly unlikely convention floor revolt from delegates already pledged to Biden and loyal to the president‚ there is only one practical Plan B. And that’s Biden himself agreeing to hand over the baton. He is a proud man whose ego has been shaped by the experience of winning election to the Senate in his 20s and then being denied the presidency several times before finally securing it; convincing him he’s in an increasingly untenable position and needs to stand down won’t come easy. But wait! There is a "Plan B" hack that just might work according to Politico! Unfortunately‚ it involved even more wishful thinking for Biden to step down: But there is a path that enables him to leave with dignity and on his terms. It begins with letting the Democratic primary campaign run its course‚ ending June 4‚ the date the last group of states holds its primaries. Biden would finish as the undisputed victor‚ with far more than the 1‚968 pledged delegate votes necessary to claim the nomination. And then Biden would announce he would not accept the nomination and release his delegates to back a different nominee. He could insist he’s still fit to serve out another term but that he accepts the public’s concerns with a president who would be 86 at the end of a second term. He could remind voters that he has always said he was a bridge to a future generation of Democratic leaders. The economy is on track‚ he could note‚ and argue that he defeated Trump once and protected American democracy. He met his duty. Better not remind voters who allowed the border to turn into an existential crisis for America. And now Politico‚ after presenting the wishful thinking scenario of Biden voluntarily declining to run again‚ crashed up against the problem of the Border Czar known as Vice President Kamala Harris: The thorniest issue will be Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden’s delegates do not automatically attach to her in his absence. Her poor approval ratings and her performance in the 2020 primaries have not inspired confidence. But the party will be acutely aware of the risks of alienating Black voters. OOPS! Perhaps it is time to switch to a Plan C? Politico didn't stop there in their "What If?" visions of a Plan B including this: Alternatively‚ what if Biden pushed through the doubts and was nominated at the convention in late August‚ but was then unable to compete in the November election? What if Politico did what it was supposed to do by covering politics as it was happening rather than providing advice to the Democrats via "What if?" wishful thinking and Plan B scenarios?

CBS News cut 20 jobs as part of a mass layoff by parent company Paramount Global.

C.S. Lewis’ seven-book “Chronicles of Narnia” culminates in “The Last Battle‚” a thinly disguised adaptation of the book of Revelation and the end of the world as detailed therein. Heavy with Christian symbolism‚ the story centers around a false deity — purportedly the great lion Aslan but in actuality a witless donkey named Puzzle wearing a lion’s skin as part of a clever ruse by a talking ape named Shift — in whose name great evils are undertaken that precipitate Narnia’s ultimate destruction. A lesson of “The Last Battle” is that well-meaning people can be manipulated by having their otherwise sound belief systems weaponized against them in service of immoral ends. Puzzle (as directed by Shift) is an archetypal false prophet‚ and even when in the story King Tirian readily recognizes Shift’s fabrications‚ Narnia’s population is unable to acknowledge the truth given its unwillingness to defy even a fake Aslan. Resistance to tyranny and the dead hand of conformist narrative flows from the bottom up. One can think of “The Last Battle” as a darker‚ more spiritual variation on “The Emperor’s New Clothes‚” the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale in which a ruler is fooled by con men into believing he is wearing beautiful clothing invisible only to the dim-witted‚ and the townspeople play along for fear of being thought dull. In each tale‚ there are strong social and cultural currents that reinforce people’s willful suspension of disbelief for fear of disfavor or sanction‚ and knaves and fools alike play upon respect for authority or obeisance to a duty-based value system for their own nefarious purposes. Sadly‚ contemporary life is replete with real-world manifestations of this same phenomenon. Perhaps the starkest example in recent years is the secular sainthood bestowed upon Greta Thunberg‚ a Swedish “climate activist” with high-functioning autism and OCD but no academic expertise in climatology or any related scientific field. The moral authority invested in a troubled child of no accomplishment‚ long on conviction‚ fitful hysterics‚ and little else‚ embodies the triumph of emotion over reason. The message‚ having been predetermined‚ validates the messenger. In an era of waning religious beliefs‚ it’s unsurprising that performative outrage has not only drawn a significant audience but also insulated its purveyors from critique‚ as with organized religion of yore. The cult of Greta has been fazed neither by her reluctance to target major non-Western polluting nations like China and India nor a recent foray into geopolitics with her strident anti-Israel stance following the October 7 Hamas terror attacks against Israel. Once anointed‚ saints are not to be questioned. Alongside this denial of objective truth and reification of false idols is the triumph of narrative. Consistent with feelings’ newfound primacy over critical thinking‚ narrative — a veritable hop-skip away from rank gaslighting — has today largely replaced fact-based investigation‚ the scientific method‚ and deductive reasoning. When paired with emotion‚ narrative is particularly noxious‚ as it cloaks a conclusion drawn from intuition or fervor with an inductive‚ reverse-engineered form of reasoning that hijacks the authority of traditional linear argument to augment its legitimacy. This is related to recent trends in which language is co-opted in service of a given concept’s antonym. Witness the use of “equity” for “equality” or what constitute today’s “anti-fascists.” It is easy to lose hope in an era in which objective truth remains discernible and in plain sight to some (or even many) but unacknowledged by “thought leaders‚” elites‚ and institutions of all types. The herd instinct and desire to conform without imperiling one’s privileges or social capital can constrain even the bravest souls from challenging accepted narratives. While elites may be too hopelessly bubbled to apprehend the world as it is — or far too invested in the manner of storytelling endemic to their respective tribes and fearful of the consequences of acknowledging objective truths — a reality-based world endures‚ if we will only use the senses and cognition available to us. Consider the samizdat prominent in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War‚ which sustained dissident activity in the face of brutal repression of free expression and other forbidden activity by communist authorities‚ to hearten us. The human spirit’s desire for freedom and love of truth are irrepressible. Even if people are forced to live under totalitarian oppression for a significant period — as was the case in the Soviet Union‚ for seven decades — the “truth will out.” The signal takeaway of the Soviet era is an instructive one for our time: No institution or corporatist collection of interests can be expected to self-reform voluntarily. Resistance to tyranny and the dead hand of conformist narrative flows from the bottom up. We each have an individual responsibility for seeing things as they are‚ speaking the truth‚ and refusing to be complicit with “approved” viewpoints and interpretations of events. In an election season‚ one can expect the dial of orthodoxy to turn still farther. The dotard in chief will sport his lion’s skin‚ and we will be expected to believe that he is in command of his administration‚ if not always his faculties. We will be told that “the border is secure‚” the “adults are back in charge‚” the Middle East region is “quieter today than it has been in two decades‚” “trans women are women” and thus should be allowed to compete in women’s sports‚ and that “diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion” are really about diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion‚ among other fairy tales. Having begun with one of my favorite childhood authors‚ I’ll close with another. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears‚” George Orwell wrote in “1984.” “It was their final‚ most essential command.” Against the Party‚ let objective truth‚ and its expression‚ be our sword and shield against the false prophets and idolaters of our time.