Democrats are increasingly bringing anti-law enforcement violence into the political conversation. It seems that parties in American history are somehow justifying this level of bold rhetoric and violence.
During a House Homeland Security Committee Hearing I participated in on Wednesday, I presented my testimony. It included direct quotes from Democrats calling for violence and pointed out an astonishing 830% increase in attacks on immigration and customs enforcement agents. I pleaded with Democrats to refrain from inciting threats against law enforcement.
The Democrats’ intentions were clear. They intentionally delayed the hearing, made it tedious for the public, and turned contentious debates into monotonous C-Span reruns.
That’s when Rep. Benny Thompson (D-Miss.) lost his cool.
After just a minute into my testimony, he interrupted me, calling for a vote to remove my statements from the record. His attempt failed, and I continued with my remarks.
For context, Thompson chaired the January 6th Selection Committee, which aimed to denounce President Trump for riots he didn’t instigate. Trump had clearly told his followers to go home peacefully. Yet, when I countered Thompson and his colleagues with their own words, revealing their actual desire for violence, he attempted to silence me.
We already knew he was a hypocrite, and he confirmed that.
What exactly triggered his outburst? Perhaps it was my quoting the Democrat who stated that “blood is needed to attract the attention of the media and the public,” or the one who told activists to prepare for “violence.” It’s uncanny, really.
Then there was the reminder of Rep. Lamonica McIver (D-N.J.), charged with obstructing a federal officer at an ICE facility. And I shook my head at the list of attacks on Department of Homeland Security officials across various cities like Alvarado, McAllen, Portland, and San Francisco.
I didn’t even bring up the numerous quotes from Democrats labeling DHS executives as “Nazis,” “terrorists,” or “Gestapo.” I had documentation piled up but chose to focus only on key points during my five minutes to testify.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)—who arrived late and left early—continued the trend. He claimed ICE was “terrorizing” undocumented immigrants and accused them of imprisoning families rather than separating them. Ironically, he seemed oblivious to his contradiction regarding the very policies he criticized.
The hearing stretched over seven hours.
Democrats deliberately played procedural tricks to waste time, holding votes on unrelated subpoenas. It was all transparent—the dullness was designed to bore the public and transform critical debates into mundane C-Span reruns. Remarkably, a Democrat didn’t direct a single question at a Republican witness until the very end.
I had paid little attention until then.
When Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) mentioned my name, I thought, honestly, she was a staff member. I didn’t recognize her at all; she could have been a representative from one of those lesser-known territories.
She seemed to struggle reading from her notes while trying to frame rhetorical questions that might lead to something significant. Then she capitalized on her moment.
She asked if I would elaborate on the detention facility case.
I made it clear—I wasn’t about to accept her framing. Yes, I stand by the law that allows for the detention of undocumented individuals during removal proceedings. Her response was dramatic; it was as if I had slammed the brakes on her aspirations. Her eyes widened in disbelief.
She then attempted to pivot, referencing whether Democrats had the authority to step into the ICE facility and call it “surveillance.”
I reminded her about my extensive writings on the subject—Here at Blaze News. I clearly stated that Democrats should not expect to just walk into federal detention centers as if they’re some sort of oversight monitors. I was actually advocating to keep them out.
Then she brought up Jeffrey Epstein.
Initially, I appreciated her linking the discussion of undocumented immigrants to sex trafficking, but the dialogue quickly shifted. She accused me of changing my position on the Epstein investigation to fit the Trump administration’s narrative.
That was a misjudgment.
Axios has criticized the decision since the case closure announcement, reaching out through various channels—broadcast, print, social media, and more. I’m standing my ground. I called her out because she was misrepresenting facts. The clip gained traction, and I was pleased it did.
If Ansari had taken a moment to read my previous work, particularly over at Blaze News, she might have sidestepped this embarrassment. Perhaps that’s a lesson for her.
