The Ohio House of Representatives voted Wednesday to override Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of a bill that would protect children from irreversible transgender sex-change procedures and medical interventions‚ such as puberty blockers and hormones. The state’s House of Representatives met Wednesday afternoon to vote 65-28 to override the governor’s veto. It now heads to the state Senate. Activists and organizations that backed the bill were quick to celebrate the news on Wednesday. “Ohio and the entire nation have spoken‚” said Center for Christian Virtue Policy Director David Mahan in a statement. “It’s not okay to chemically sterilize and mutilate children‚ and no clinic can transform little girls into little boys with pills and scalpels. Additionally‚ HB 68 will protect women’s and girls’ privacy rights and guarantee them a fair playing field and the opportunity to win athletic scholarships.” “I want to thank Representatives Click and Powell for courageously championing this legislation‚ and Speaker Stephens for acting swiftly to protect our kids from the dangerous consequences of Governor DeWine’s veto of HB 68‚” he added. “I now urge the Senate to do the same.” ? The Ohio House voted (65-28) to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of HB 68! The override effort now moves to the Ohio Senate. pic.twitter.com/WcQU3cUSIp— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) January 10‚ 2024 But organizations opposing the legislation‚ such as the American Civil Liberties Union‚ condemned the override. “This state-sponsored vendetta against some of Ohio’s most vulnerable young people is beyond cruel‚” said the ACLU of Ohio in an “X” post. “We stand in solidarity with all trans youth.” “This bill bans gender-affirming care for trans youth &; restricts participation in sports matching their identity‚” added the Human Rights Campaign in another “X” post. “Even after Ohioans told politicians to leave medical decisions alone‚ they put themselves in control.” NEW: The Ohio House has overridden Gov. DeWine’s veto of HB68. This bill bans gender-affirming care for trans youth &; restricts participation in sports matching their identity.Even after Ohioans told politicians to leave medical decisions alone‚ they put themselves in control. pic.twitter.com/CoopOSpIFC— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) January 10‚ 2024 On Friday‚ DeWine issued an “emergency” executive order to ban sex-reassignment surgeries for minors (but not hormones and puberty blockers) just one week after he vetoed House Bill 68‚ the Enact Ohio Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act would ban cross-sex hormones and so-called puberty blockers for children‚ measures DeWine’s executive order apparently omits. The bill would also have addressed fairness in women’s sports‚ an issue DeWine’s executive order also did not address. “Although I vetoed … House Bill 68‚ I stated clearly in my veto message that I agreed with the General Assembly that no gender-transition surgeries should be performed on anyone under the age of 18‚ and I directed agencies under my purview to draft rules to ban this practice in Ohio‚” DeWine said in his Jan. 5 executive order. He also declared that “an emergency exists requiring the immediate adoption of rules 3701-59-06 and 3701-83-60 of the Ohio Administrative Code.” According to the executive order‚ the regulations “would prohibit gender-transition surgeries on anyone under the age of 18 in Ohio’s hospitals and health care facilities‚ including ambulatory surgical facilities.” National organizations such as Catholic Vote and the Alliance Defending Freedom commended Ohio legislators for standing up for the state’s parents. “DeWine has turned his back on the values of Ohio families‚ but we are grateful to have safeguards such as this to protect the future of Ohio’s children‚” Logan Church‚ the political director of CatholicVote‚ said in a statement. “CatholicVote engaged our grassroot supporters throughout the state to urge their representatives to vote the right way‚ and we will continue that initiative with the Senate. We hope the Senate promptly follows in the House’s footsteps to preserve the principles Ohioans hold dear.”  Matt Sharp‚ senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom‚ emphasized: “Now and always‚ young people deserve the loving embrace of family members who guide them toward this truth rather than be subjected to risky‚ often irreversible‚ and life-altering experimentation and drugs. These approaches are dangerous‚ as they block healthy puberty‚ alter hormonal balance‚ and remove healthy organs and body parts.” “No one has the right to harm children‚ and‚ thankfully‚ states have the power—and duty—to protect them‚” he added. “Now‚ we urge the Ohio Senate to act and join over 20 other states and several European countries in fighting for truth and curtailing the deployment of harmful surgeries and drugs that are devastating countless lives.” Tyler O’Neill contributed to this report. 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 Ohio House Votes to Override Governor’s Veto of Bill Protecting Kids From Transgender Surgeries‚ Hormones appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Republicans conducted a hearing Wednesday to press the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alexjandro Mayorkas for allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter the United States.  During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Mark Green‚ R-Tenn.‚ lawmakers discussed the need to impeach and remove Mayorkas from office in the wake of the historic crisis at the nation’s southwest border. After holding more hearings conclude‚ the panel is expected to advance articles of impeachment targeting Mayorkas and vote on whether to send them to the full House for consideration. Here are some key takeaways from the hearing. Green Makes Case for Impeachment Green‚ the committee chairman‚ insisted that what’s at stake isn’t just policy differences.  Rather‚ the Tennessee Republican said‚ Mayorkas intentionally created conditions for chaos at the border that led millions of illegal immigrants from around the world to cross into the country from Mexico. In an op-ed published by Fox News just before the hearing‚ Green laid out his case for impeaching and removing Mayorkas. He wrote that for three years‚ an “unprecedented and wholly avoidable crisis” unfolded at the border that was intentionally caused by Mayorkas. “This is a crisis of epic proportions‚” Green wrote. “Between Feb. 1‚ 2021 [and] November 2023‚ Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has recorded more than 8.1 million encounters of inadmissible aliens at our borders nationwide‚ including more than 6.7 million at the southwest border alone.” Green recounted those numbers at the House hearing. He said Mayorkas repeatedly had misled the American public and Congress‚ and that his own investigation found over 100 instances of such misleading in the homeland security secretary’s previous testimony. Green said that at one hearing‚ Mayorkas claimed to have “operational control” of the southwest border as defined by federal statute‚ but this was false. Mayorkas then told another “lie‚” Green said‚ when he said that he doesn’t use the statutory definition of operational control to arrive at that conclusion. “Secretary Mayorkas’ refusal to follow the law is sufficient grounds for impeachment proceedings‚” Green said. “The constitutional history is overwhelmingly clear on this subject. The Founders designed impeachment not just to remove officials for criminal behavior‚ but those guilty of such gross incompetence that their conduct had endangered their fellow Americans‚ betrayed the public trust‚ or represented a neglect of duty.” Democrats Call Impeachment a Republican Gimmick  Rep. Bennie Thompson‚ D-Miss.‚ said in his opening statement that Republicans’ plan to impeach and remove Mayorkas is about appealing to campaign donors.  Republicans began their “so-called investigation” of Mayorkas after an event with donors‚ Thompson argued. “It is now campaign season‚ and Republicans rolled out impeachment proceedings against Secretary Mayorkas like a preplanned‚ predetermined political stunt that it is‚” he said. “This is not a legitimate impeachment.” The procedure is all about throwing “red meat” to the Republican base to keep donors’ dollars flowing‚ Thompson said. Thompson also contended that it was Republicans who blocked more funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection‚ an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans are going after Mayorkas‚ he said‚ because they don’t like President Joe Biden’s border policies. Republicans are “angry that [the Biden] administration won’t take babies from their moms or put kids in cages like the last administration‚” Thompson said. Mayorkas has done an excellent job keeping the border secure‚ he concluded. “Despite what Republicans would have you believe‚ Secretary Mayorkas is enforcing immigration law‚” the Mississippi Democrat said. Witnesses Cite Mayorkas’ Border Failures Witnesses invited to speak at the House hearing argued that the border has spun out of control during Mayorkas’ time at the helm and the situation since February 2021 has endangered Americans.  Most of the witnesses were state attorney generals who have dealt with problems created by illegal immigration. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen‚ a Republican‚ said that the problems at the southern border would create problems for any administration‚ but that Mayorkas and the Biden administration “poured gasoline” on the fire. Knudsen said the flow of illicit drugs through the U.S.-Mexico border has decimated communities and empowered criminals. Great progress had been made under President Donald Trump‚ he said‚ but Mayorkas’ leadership of the Department of Homeland Security eroded that progress. The most obvious result of the rollback of the Trump administration’s border policies‚ Montana’s attorney general said‚ is the explosion of fentanyl and methamphetamines in his state. “In 2020‚ drug task forces in Montana seized 6‚663 doses of fentanyl‚” Knudsen said. “In 2021‚ the first year of Secretary Mayorkas’ watch at the border‚ that quantity exploded tenfold to 61‚000 dosage units of fentanyl.” By 2022 that number had tripled‚ he said‚ the state seized 190‚000 doses of fentanyl from the drug cartels. This number likely hit half a million doses in 2023‚ based on current estimates‚ he said. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond‚  Republican‚ explained how the legalized marijuana business in his state has been taken over by criminal operations of foreign nationals‚ mostly from China and Mexico. “The one thing these criminals have in common is that they have no regard for our laws or public safety‚” Drummond said. “Criminal illegal immigrants are not content with only producing black market marijuana; they also produce and distribute fentanyl‚ and they also engage in sex trafficking and labor trafficking.” It is time for “accountability‚” Drummond said‚ and Oklahomans shouldn’t have to live under “constant threat from criminal foreign nationals.” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey‚ also a Republican‚ said that Biden administration policies under Mayorkas made it easier for illegal immigrants to enter the country and the result is chaos for states now dealing with the mess. Mayorkas‚ Bailey said‚ “tried to define the problem away by simply making something that was once illegal [into] something legal‚ without congressional authorization.” Green‚ as committee chairman‚ asked the three state attorneys general whether they thought Mayorkas had failed to enforce or subverted laws passed by Congress.  “Yes‚” each answered.  A Problem That Congress Must Solve Rep. Dan Bishop‚ R-N.C.‚ spoke about how the attorneys general of Texas and Louisiana sued Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security‚ arguing that the agency blatantly violated congressional statutes. The Supreme Court ruled in June that it had no standing in the matter. However‚ Bishop read from Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent‚ in which he wrote that it was essentially up to Congress‚ not the courts‚ to deal with the executive branch if it operates in violation of the law.  Alito included the use of impeachment. “Alito said Congress is going to have to go to war with the executive‚” Bishop said in summing up. What is happening under Mayorkas have been “square violations of the law‚” the North Carolina Republican said‚ and Congress must address those violations. “They will either be dealt with by this Congress to vindicate the rule of law or we will surrender rule of law to the rule of man‚” Bishop said. 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 4 Key Takeaways as Lawmakers Discuss Impeaching Mayorkas Over Border appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The primary election season is about to start‚ and the country is just 10 months away from the general election‚ which will determine control of the White House‚ Congress‚ and state and local offices. With the increased use of mail-in ballots and early voting‚ voters will be returning their ballots weeks‚ if not months‚ before the traditional November election day. And since much has changed about the way Americans vote‚ it’s more important than ever that measures be implemented that inspire confidence in the fair and impartial administration of our elections. To best assess and compare the laws affecting election administration‚ The Heritage Foundation has released a revised Election Integrity Scorecard as of January 2024 that outlines the best practices for running secure elections. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) In 2021‚ The Heritage Foundation began tracking the laws of every state (and the District of Columbia) governing the conduct of elections—local‚ state and federal—and ranking them in its Election Integrity Scorecard. State performance was based on 48 best-practices criteria and scored on a 100-point scale. After three years of reviewing laws and corresponding with state election officials‚ most of the original concerns remained evergreen‚ but a few new problems arose.  To keep abreast of the latest challenges affecting election integrity‚ we have amended one of our best practices and added two new ones. The amendment addresses interstate agreements to share voter registration information. These agreements are indispensable to prevent voters from illegally voting in more than one state. Since the demise of the Kansas-Missouri Interstate Crosscheck Program in 2017‚ the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) has been the only organized means for states to share voter registration information.  Thus‚ the Scorecard previously asked only whether states were members of ERIC or not.  Since 2022‚ several member states have left ERIC because ERIC has steadfastly refused to address some legitimate concerns that they have raised‚ such as ERIC’s history of sharing state data with third-party‚  partisan organizations. The Heritage Foundation outlined many of these problems with the ERIC program in an April 2023 analysis‚ “Maintaining Accurate Voter Registration Rolls: The Need to Rehabilitate the ERIC Program or Form an Alternative.” Accordingly‚ the Scorecard now credits not only ERIC-member states‚ but also those states that have finalized agreements with other states outside the ERIC network to share voter registration information.  One point is awarded for a single agreement; two points are awarded for agreements with four or more states‚ thus encouraging the development of alternatives to ERIC and rewarding states that enter into multiple agreements‚ increasing the robustness of their systems. As of this writing‚ nine states have agreements with at least one other state; four states (Alabama‚ Florida‚ Georgia and Virginia) have already concluded agreements with four or more states. More are expected this year.  We have added a new best practice to the Scorecard this year: Election audits. Annual audits performed by outside experts are the long-standing (often legally obligatory) norm for the whole spectrum of public and nonprofit entities. Yet the administration of elections has been largely immune to this sort of thoroughgoing oversight.  States can address this and should require comprehensive audits‚ as outlined in another Heritage analysis‚ “Best Practices and Standards for Election Audits.”  The revised Scorecard asks whether states perform postelection tabulation audits to ensure that votes were counted correctly. As of now‚ 46 states plus the District of Columbia perform some type of tabulation audit after their elections. A second audit criterion checks whether officials audit compliance with state “procedures and processes‚ or an effective portion of them‚ to verify that state and federal election laws and regulations were followed‚ including those requiring maintenance of an accurate voter registration list.” Only 11 states perform such audits with any frequency.     The second new best practice that we have added concerns whether or not a state or any of its political subdivisions use ranked choice voting. This confusing process—in which voters make multiple candidate selections and officials then perform multiple tiered rounds of ballot counting‚ making voting and the administration of an election much harder—was scarcely used at any level of government until roughly 10 years ago‚ when it became the fascination of certain left-wing elements.  In practice‚ as explained in a 2019 Heritage study‚ “Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice‚” ranked choice voting has been opaque and error-prone. Its adoption creates additional operational challenges for election administrators who have hardly been infallible running traditional elections. Ranked choice voting’s supposed democracy-enhancing qualities have yet to materialize anywhere outside of its proponents’ websites.  The revised Scorecard gives one point to any state‚ 32 in all‚ where no ranked-choice voting occurs at the state or local level. A formal statutory ban is ideal‚ but not necessary. However‚ no credit was given if any locality in the state uses ranked choice voting.  So‚ while only Alaska and Maine have adopted ranked-choice voting at the statewide level‚ many states failed to earn the point because political subdivisions—often major metropolitan areas like Seattle‚ Minneapolis and New York City—unwisely use ranked choice voting.  So‚ how did the states do? The good news is that many states worked assiduously throughout 2023 to address the best practices criteria in the Scorecard. As of January 2023‚ the top performing states were Tennessee (88)‚ Georgia (84)‚ Missouri (83)‚ Alabama (82) and South Carolina (79).  As of the beginning of this year‚ the top performing states (using the slightly revised criteria) are Tennessee (90)‚ Georgia (83)‚ Oklahoma (82)‚ Florida (81) and South Carolina (81).  Among the top overall performers‚ Oklahoma was the biggest mover‚ earning seven additional points and climbing seven spots in the rankings.  Further down the list‚ even bigger moves occurred‚ none more dramatic than Nebraska’s vault of 23 points and 12 places in the overall rankings‚ driven by the Cornhusker State’s adoption of new voter ID laws.  Elsewhere‚ North Carolina improved nine points and moved up six places‚ while both Indiana and Ohio improved by eight points and moved up five places. On a less positive note‚ a number of states went in the wrong direction‚ but the point swings tended to be less dramatic.  Minnesota is the outlier here‚ losing six points and falling eight places due to that state’s adoption of automatic voter registration and a permanent absentee-ballot list‚ both of which—as the Scorecard explains—decrease the security of the election process. This year‚ 2024‚ seems poised to be a momentous year for the election process. State legislatures‚ many just now beginning their annual sessions‚ still have an opportunity to take up further legislative reforms that bring confidence‚ transparency and fairness to the administration of elections. Their constituents deserve no less. 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 Election Year Brings Fresh Criteria for Election Integrity‚ Improvements by States appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. John Kennedy‚ R-La.‚ is upset because Sen. Rand Paul wants to limit federal flood insurance. But Paul‚ R-Ky.‚ is right. In my new video‚ Paul says it “shouldn’t be for rich people.” That should be obvious. Actually‚ federal flood insurance shouldn’t be for anyone. Government has no business offering it. That’s a job for … the insurance business. Of course‚ when actual insurance businesses‚ with their own money on the line‚ checked out what some people wanted them to insure‚ they said‚ “Heck‚ no! If you build in a dangerous place‚ risk your own money!” Politically connected homeowners who own property on the edges of rivers and oceans didn’t like that. They whined to congressmen‚ crying‚ “We can’t get insurance! Do something!” Craven politicians obliged. Bureaucrats at the Federal Emergency Management Agency even claim they have to issue government insurance because‚ they say‚ “There weren’t many affordable options for private flood insurance‚ especially for people living in high-risk places.” But that’s the point. A valuable function of private insurance is to warn people away from high-risk places. Yet instead of heeding that warning‚ politicians said‚ “Don’t worry. Since private companies won’t insure you‚ we will.” Of course‚ the politicians claimed they’d price the insurance properly so they wouldn’t lose taxpayer money. “We must [do] everything we can to protect taxpayer dollars‚” said then-Sen. Wayne Allard‚ R-Colo. But‚ as Paul points out‚ “Like most things in government‚ they continue to lose money.” So far‚ the government has lost $36 billion of your money. Yet they still insure people who can’t get private insurance. Kennedy thinks that’s fine. “The first role of government is to protect people and property‚” he shouts from the Senate floor. “I thought this is what libertarians believe.” No‚ Senator‚ we believe government should protect our right to life‚ liberty‚ and the pursuit of happiness‚ and then leave us mostly alone. By insuring risky property‚ Paul points out‚ “You’re actually doing the opposite of what you would think government would want to do; you’re promoting bad behavior.” Exactly. Years ago‚ federal flood insurance encouraged my bad behavior. I wanted to build a house on a beach. When I asked my father to help with the mortgage‚ he said‚ “No! Are you crazy? It’s on the edge of an ocean!” Dad was right. It was a dumb place to build. But I built anyway‚ because federal flood insurance‚ idiotically‚ guaranteed that I wouldn’t lose money. I enjoyed my house for 10 years‚ but then‚ as predicted‚ it washed away. It was an upsetting loss‚ but thanks to Uncle Sam‚ I didn’t lose a penny. I’m grateful. But it’s wrong that you were forced to pay for my beach house. Paul is right to say that people with second homes “should not get insurance through the government.” Actually‚ no one should get flood insurance through the government‚ but Paul fears that his irresponsible colleagues won’t approve killing the handout altogether. Instead‚ he just proposes limiting the handout to primary residences. It would be a start. But even this slight reform is too much for Kennedy‚ who says‚ “If you earn enough to buy a second home‚ we shouldn’t discourage that.” No‚ we shouldn’t. But we shouldn’t subsidize it with taxpayer money. Doesn’t he get the difference? Federal flood insurance is like buying drunk drivers new cars. Adding to the idiocy‚ there is no limit on how many times the government will give away your money. “One home in Virginia‚” says Paul‚ “they’ve rebuilt the house 41 times!” I took your money once. I apologize for taking it‚ but when my government offers me a handout‚ I feel stupid not taking it. Let’s get rid of federal flood insurance and all subsidies that encourage people to do foolish things. COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. 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 Flooded With Good Intentions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a chaotic day of political theater on Capitol Hill Wednesday‚ the House Oversight and Accountability Committee advanced a contempt of Congress resolution against the president’s son‚ Hunter Biden.  The House Judiciary Committee advanced its own contempt resolution earlier the same day. The two committees are involved with the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden‚ along with the House Ways and Means Committee. NEW: Judiciary Committee's Hunter Biden Contempt of Congress report is now bipartisan — adopting an amendment to reassert Congress' inherent contempt authority to fine‚ detain‚ or imprison individuals who refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena. https://t.co/2Mr2FScU0x— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) January 10‚ 2024 The full House will vote on the contempt resolutions as early next week.  After a full day of intense debate‚ beginning at about 10 a.m. and stretching to just before 6 p.m.‚ the Oversight Committee approved the resolution on a party-line vote of 25-21. After openly defying congressional subpoenas‚ the younger Biden surprisingly showed up in the Oversight Committee’s hearing room ahead of the contempt vote with two lawyers. This prompted Democrats to say he should be given a chance to speak publicly. However‚ after significant shouting by committee members at each other‚ Hunter Biden and his lawyers left.  The president’s son expects to follow a different set of rules‚ said Rep. Byron Donalds‚ R-Fla.  “He has the gall to come here and show up‚ and then when the Democrats are saying‚ ‘Hey‚ he wants to speak‚’ he leaves‚” Donalds said. “The man has been subpoenaed by Congress. … He should be held in contempt. There was a subpoena. He did not answer it. Any other American would be held in contempt by Congress.” ?BREAKING: Our Committee has passed a resolution recommending the House of Representatives find Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for defying a lawful subpoena. pic.twitter.com/t4bNmUIcVw— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) January 10‚ 2024 The committee was filled with partisan fireworks from the outset.  “You’re the epitome of white privilege‚ coming into the oversight committee‚ spitting in our face‚” Rep. Nancy Mace‚ R-S.C.‚ said to Hunter Biden shortly after he and his lawyers entered the committee hearing room.  Rep. Jared Moskowitz‚ D-Fla.‚ leapt to Hunter Biden’s defense.  “We can hear from Hunter Biden right now‚” Moskowitz said. Mace jumped in to say‚ “Hunter Biden should be arrested right here.” If approved by the full House‚ with a narrow Republican majority‚ the matter will be referred to the Justice Department. Contempt of Congress is a violation of the law‚ similar to contempt of court. Last year‚ two former White House officials under President Donald Trump—Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon—were convicted of contempt of Congress for declining to attend closed depositions by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.  Three House committees are conducting an impeachment inquiry into the president over evidence of influence peddling by family members that brought some $20 million from foreign individuals and entities‚ including from Russia and China‚ into shell companies owned by Biden family members.  On Dec. 13‚ the day the subpoena directed him to appear before the Oversight Committee for a closed-door deposition‚ Hunter Biden instead gave remarks outside the Capitol‚ defying the subpoena. His lawyer‚ Abbe Lowell‚ said his client would appear on his terms and in public testimony only.  That same day‚ White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the president “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say.”  On Wednesday‚ Jean-Pierre was asked if the president knew that Hunter Biden would show up on Capitol Hill. “Hunter‚ as you all know‚ is a private citizen‚ he is not a member of this White House‚ he makes his own decisions‚ like he did today about how to respond to Congress‚” she said. Democrats on the panel insisted Hunter Biden’s presence proved he was willing to cooperate with Congress.  Committee members shouted over one another.  Hunter Biden and his lawyers walked out of the room when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‚ R-Ga.‚ began to speak.  “Hunter Biden is terrified of strong conservative Republican women because he can’t even face my words as I was about to speak to him‚” Greene said. “What a coward!” Outside the hearing room‚ Hunter Biden stood next to Lowell‚ also accompanied by California lawyer and ally Kevin Morris.  “Hunter Biden was and is a private citizen‚” Lowell told reporters as the first son stood silent. “Despite this‚ Republicans have sought to use him as a surrogate to attack his father.”  Lowell added‚ “The question there is‚ what are they afraid of?” Rep. Gerald Connolly‚ D-Va.‚ excoriated Republicans on the committee and cast Hunter Biden as a victim in an investigation of the president. “You can’t go after the principal‚ so you go after the people around him‚” Connolly said. “This is mean-spirited‚ cruel‚ and beneath the dignity of this body.” Rep. Mike Waltz‚ R-Fla.‚ noted that Democrats who argued Hunter Biden should be able to choose the terms of cooperation with a subpoena did not have the same view in previous investigations.  He first noted that Donald Trump Jr. gave five depositions to congressional committees behind closed doors.  “Let’s talk about precedent for a moment of a president’s son abiding by lawful subpoenas of the Congress‚” Waltz said. “Donald Trump Jr. came before this body‚ he came before the House Intelligence Committee‚ he came before the House Judiciary Committee‚ he came before the Senate Intelligence Committee twice‚ he came before the so-called Jan. 6 Committee‚ all behind closed doors‚ where lawyers can sit down‚ both sides of the aisle‚ and have a conversation‚ go through documents‚ under oath‚ which is the precedent for any committee.” Several Democrats on the committee brought up allies of former President Trump who did not comply with the subpoenas of the House Jan. 6 Committee.  Waltz brought up an example to Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin‚ D-Md.‚ who was also a member of the Jan. 6 Committee: “When Steve Bannon agreed to testify publicly‚ you argued‚ sir‚ that he should have to sit for a closed-door interview‚ just like every other witness. Somehow‚ Hunter Biden‚ because he’s a Biden‚ should be held to a different standard.” 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 Biden Makes Surprise Appearance Before Oversight Committee Advances Contempt Resolution appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Read the original post "Best Green Juice Recipe + Juicing on a Budget" on A Modern Homestead. Sticking to a budget while trying to get fresh produce into your diet can be tricky at the best of times. And even harder when you're trying to do a juice cleanse. Here are 20 budget-friendly fruits and veggies with high juice yields to help you save money! Plus‚ get my favorite EASY green juice... Read More The post "Best Green Juice Recipe + Juicing on a Budget" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

Fetterman Unplugged: He's Based Now and He's Talking

American Sailor Sentenced for Selling Secrets to China

Amazon Video and Game Divisions Suddenly Not Prime Employment Territory

The globalist‚ anti-free speech World Economic Forum released a hypocritical and hysterical “risk report” warning of alleged “misinformation” emanating from artificial intelligence ahead of elections in multiple countries. As countries including the United States gear up for elections within the next two years‚ the World Economic Forum (WEF) classified “misinformation and disinformation” as posing the most severe short-term global risk in a hefty “global risks” report. So-called “misinformation” generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in particular could encourage “[m]istrust in elections‚” WEF scaremongered‚ “threatening democratic processes.” WEF specifically identified the 2024 U.S. election as among the top six at-risk national elections for AI-generated “misinformation‚” and praised tyrannical Communist China’s authoritarian AI regulation of “false information.” “These global control freaks never really come right out and say what is actually at risk‚ instead nebulously defining ‘global risk’ as ‘the possibility of the occurrence of an event or condition which‚ if it occurs‚ would negatively impact a significant proportion of global GDP‚ population or natural resources‚’” said MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider. “Obviously what they really are concerned about are voices that run contrary to their left-wing narrative.” Labeling content is not sufficient to stop “violence or radicalization” surrounding elections‚ WEF announced‚ though it did not specify solutions to this alleged impending crisis. WEF did argue that the “capacity of social media companies to ensure platform integrity will likely be overwhelmed‚” indicating that the organization perceives current Big Tech censorship as insufficient. The organization clarified its anti-free speech attitude in an endnote citation reinforcing the idea that AI content moderation — i.e. censorship — is positive but insufficient. “Despite the potential benefits that AI can play in content moderation‚” WEF’s endnote explained‚ “Social media manipulation” remains a risk‚ per WEF’s NATO source. WEF’s campaign against free speech didn’t end there‚ as it advocated for government regulation of speech. The organization’s report approvingly referred to AI content regulation by the Communist Chinese government‚ which is infamous for its harsh censorship regime. According to WEF‚ “requirements in China to watermark AI-generated content may help identify false information‚ including unintentional misinformation through AI hallucinated content.” As MRC Free Speech America previously highlighted‚ China’s draft AI regulations demanded that AI reflect “socialist values.” While admitting that government regulation is unlikely to keep up with AI development‚ WEF later advocated for regulation as a potential solution. WEF urged governments to address “censorship” and “AI technologies” through “[n]ational and local regulations‚” and “AI-enabled misinformation” through “education initiatives.” The WEF talks a big game about combating so-called misinformation‚ yet‚ in the same report‚ the organization made extravagant claims about the alleged threats of human-triggered climate change‚ despite evidence to the contrary. WEF ranked these threats as top long-term global risks‚ despite evidence from recent studies and experts that man-made climate change is a low or non-existent long-term threat. For example‚ Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr. John Clauser has assured people that there is no climate crisis. In addition‚ a 2022 study found evidence that fossil fuels were not driving global warming‚ and surface station measurements indicate that the globe is in a cooling — not warming — period. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.