The “360,000 Amigos” thumbnail

The “360,000 Amigos”

/in , , , , , , /by

By Center For Security Policy

President Biden and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts have been dubbed the “Three Amigos.” We should call the scheme he announced on the eve of their meeting this week the “Three-Hundred-and-Sixty-Thousand Amigos.”

That’s the number of aliens expected to be brought here this year from four deeply problematic countries through a gambit that is arguably illegal and certainly unauthorized by Congress. As first revealed by the author of Overrun, Todd Bensman, the administration is now enabling people who would otherwise have paid cartels to smuggle them into this country to skip that expense and grave danger.

Instead, they’ll be authorized in their home countries to “lawfully” migrate, then flown here equipped with work papers and money – all at U.S. taxpayer expense. This process may obscure, but will only exacerbate today’s border catastrophe.

Court-ordered injunctions and impeachment proceedings can’t come soon enough.

This is Frank Gaffney.

AUTHOR

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Founder and Executive Chairman.

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Radical K-12 Reform: Pay Homeschoolers thumbnail

Radical K-12 Reform: Pay Homeschoolers

/in , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Governments should focus on funding effective education.

What if we just cut through the morass of programs and take all the money being provided at the federal and state level and put it into individual student endowment accounts?

The late 1970s in the United States was a time of surprising deregulation. It was the beginning of the end for the telephone monopolies. Those inside the regulated industries, and the regulatory agencies, warned of doom and disaster if competition were allowed. The doomsayers were wrong. The free market provided solutions that were impossible to forecast. Competition and the profit motive brought out the best that humans can create.

Communications solutions today are employing far more people than the old phone monopolies, and are delivering services never dreamed of in that era. The forecasts of disastrous unemployment and system collapse if the phone monopolies were opened to competition were totally and completely wrong.

K-12 is the phone monopoly of our time.

This seems like the best time in years to truly reform K-12. However, the focus seems to be on charter schools, leaving behind thousands of students in poorly performing districts, and most proposed solutions leave out homeschooling.

The fundamental problem is the lack of competition. There is a simple way to introduce it.

Individualised investment

Instead of pouring money into the local school monopolies, the solution is to simply endow individual students. Open the door to the free market in a meaningful way.

We should create an individual educational endowment fund for each K-12 student. Student endowment funds would pay out annually for students who achieved minimum grade level knowledge, including to the parents of homeschooled students. The determination of minimum achievement would be through testing, with the tests also from free market providers.

Providers for students who did poorly would not be paid, leaving twice the annual amount available next year to educators who could catch them up. Seriously underperforming students would accrue several years of catch-up funding, providing extra incentive for the type of personalised attention that would benefit them. Military veteran servicemen and women teaching small groups of students, developing personal relationships, can change lost kids into enthusiastic young adults.

Opening educational services to the free market will allow for practical job-related instruction and college level courses to be included as providers fight for market share.

Competition among educational providers will make full use of technology, will provide useful training for actual jobs, and will deliver far more education for the same money. Gamification will keep students involved in ways that existing K-12 material can’t touch.

Instead of leaving dropouts to fend for themselves, the funds should remain on deposit indefinitely, allowing those who get their act together after some time in the adult world to get an education.

Modelling the idea will show that existing school structures and transportation fleets will be used, more than with charter schools. Most school systems will continue as they are, but a new element of potential competition will focus their efforts.

Essential pruning

A major early effect might be defunding some inner-city school systems, with the carry-over of endowment funds providing an incentive to corporate providers. These districts are a disgrace, but there is almost no way to change them now. Defunding poor performance in a way that will bring new providers could work.

The new providers will be renting space and transportation for their offerings in most cases from existing school districts. Just as with telecom deregulation, it will take several years to see the full impact, but requiring minimum accomplishment for payout will protect students and taxpayers as solutions evolve.

Homeschooling pods will explode, but those kids will still participate on local sports teams, and transportation to practice (and back) will also be rented from existing fleets by their parents.

Special needs students would still have extra funding, but at an individual student level.

Let’s end the monopoly. Let’s open the door to competition.

Unleash technology, but pay only for results.

Homeschoolers would be an unstoppable force for reform if a realistic plan to pay them existed. The endowment idea would do it.

Stark contrast

I was radicalised on this issue by an experience with a black tow truck driver. When I was in the Army during the era of the draft, my platoon had a bunch of black guys from inner-city Detroit. Our off-duty pastime in Germany with no English language TV was reading paperback novels. They were traded over and over, and it was common to see everyone on his bunk with his head propped up reading. The black guys read effortlessly.

Recently I needed a tow, and a black tow truck driver did a good job hooking me up and handling his equipment. He was a solid guy, the same type as the guys I knew in the Army. As we rode to the destination, he said he had graduated from one of the big inner city high schools.

When we got to the destination, he asked me to help him do the paperwork, and as we worked through it, I discovered that he could hardly read. This is ridiculous. These schools are a disgrace. Here is a guy who will probably never be able to read effortlessly because of terrible, crappy inner-city schools he was stuck in.

The black guys in my platoon from inner city Detroit went to schools that didn’t have unions in the 1950s and 1960s. School management was adequate at that time to produce acceptable results. They became the Motown generation that led to ending segregation and providing great music that I still enjoy.

Preference falsification among Democrat voters on K-12 has created a situation where explosive change can occur. The Overton Window can suddenly shift. K-12 seems to be that issue.

What is needed is a practical method. Endowment Accounts provide that method.

There is no way to fix the current K-12 situation beyond radical demonopolising. I can see a future where school infrastructure is owned by large competitive providers in much the same way Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, etc. operate today, fighting for market share by providing educational services that work and that kids and parents want.

This is a great opportunity to apply technology and dramatically improve the way we educate our children.

AUTHOR

Richard Illyes is a retired electronic designer and programmer in rural Texas south of Houston. He is an active pilot and flight instructor and flies off a grass strip at his place outside Alvin, where… More by Richard Illyes

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

House Passes Rules Package. Here’s What Conservatives Won thumbnail

House Passes Rules Package. Here’s What Conservatives Won

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Twenty House Republicans who initially opposed a Kevin McCarthy speakership extracted a slew of concessions from the Californian in exchange for their votes, devolving power away from chamber leadership and back toward rank-and-file members as well as themselves personally.

On the 12th and 13th speaker ballots, 15 Republicans flipped to support McCarthy. They cited negotiations between the Californian’s allies and some of the holdouts that will give members of the House Freedom Caucus representation on key committees, cut spending, and schedule key bills for votes. The complete terms of the agreement have not been fully released, although bits and pieces have been made public. The process has rankled some members of the Republican conference who argue that the agreement gives the Freedom Caucus an unfair level of influence in the lower chamber.

The official House rules package, which all but one Republican voted for, passed Monday. It includes a single member motion to vacate the chair as well as a requirement that tax increases receive 60% support before becoming law. The rules also require that legislation have only one subject, and give members 72 hours to read bills. Republicans are also creating a new Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government under the House Judiciary Committee.

“You are going to have to trust the people that are put on this committee, and I’ll tell you what, if there’s something fishy going on, I’ll come out of the SCIF and tell you, but a lot of it will be behind closed doors, it will be classified information. If we find anything illegal or unconstitutional, we will bring it forward,” Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie told Tucker Carlson of the committee.

However, most provisions negotiated by the leadership team and the GOP holdouts are not included in the rules package voted on by members.

“It has to do with personnel, how members of the conference will be appropriately distributed to key committees. It is about policy imperatives. There are critical issues that we must address,” North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop told reporters Friday.

McCarthy named Florida Rep. Byron Donalds to the GOP Steering Committee over the weekend, making him the second Freedom Caucus member, along with Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko, on the panel. The Steering Committee doles out committee assignments to the Republican conference writ large. The Steering Committee chose Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, also a member of the Freedom Caucus, to lead the House Homeland Security Committee on Monday. Green beat out Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a McCarthy ally and staunch critic of the Freedom Caucus, for the gavel.

“They should be represented like all the other caucuses, but they shouldn’t have more than other members have. We should have equal representation on these committees,” New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis told The Dispatch of Freedom Caucus committee appointments. “I think that’s probably where a lot of members will draw the line.”

pic.twitter.com/c380OTUQn5

— Rep. Mary Miller (@RepMaryMiller) January 7, 2023

Another provision, intended to balance the federal budget within 10 years, would freeze the Fiscal Year 2024 budget at FY2022 levels. This could lead to steep defense cuts, since the FY 2022 budget included $782 billion in defense spending, while the FY2023 budget raised that number to $858 billion. Key Republicans like incoming Appropriation Committee chairwoman Kay Granger of Texas are pledging to oppose any defense cuts, although the plank still has some members nervous.

“We don’t want to go back to sequestration. That would be very damaging to our military in a very dangerous world,” incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul of Texas told the Daily Caller.

“What we need to have conversations on is how that breaks down into defense and non-defense. Those still have to be had. I can tell you it won’t be on the backs of our troops,” Florida Rep. Mike Waltz added.

Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales cited the possibility of defense cuts in a Sunday interview explaining his lone GOP opposition to the rules package.

“When you have aggressive Russia and Ukraine, you’ve got a growing threat of China in the Pacific, you know, I’m going to visit Taiwan here in a couple of weeks, how am I going to look at our allies in the eye and say, I need you to increase your defense budget, but yet America is going to decrease ours,” he told Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

7 Key Reforms in New House Rules

What Stalling McCarthy Really Showed Us; Brazilian Protesters Raid Their National Congress

Here’s Why 15 Republicans Flipped Their Support To Kevin McCarthy

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

In 2022, The IRS Went After the Very Poorest Taxpayers thumbnail

In 2022, The IRS Went After the Very Poorest Taxpayers

/in , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

And so many of them vote Democrat — Stockholm Syndrome.

I am sure they are comforted in their freezing beds in the knowledge that Ukraine is living large on their dime.

In 2022, the IRS Went After the Very Poorest Taxpayers

By: Liz Wolfe, Reason Magazine, January 5, 2023: (thanks to Van):

Despite $80 billion in new funding, the agency is living up to its reputation of hassling low-income taxpayers over rich people.

On Wednesday, Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) released data provided to it by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on audits performed by the agency in fiscal year 2022. Despite the infusion of new funding earmarked for the IRS via last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, the agency continued historic trends of hassling primarily low-income taxpayers, with relatively few millionaires and billionaires getting caught up in the audit sweep.

“The taxpayer class with unbelievably high audit rates—five and a half times virtually everyone else—were low-income wage-earners taking the earned income tax credit,” reported TRAC, noting that the poorest taxpayers are “easy marks in an era when IRS increasingly relies upon correspondence audits yet doesn’t have the resources to assist taxpayers or answer their questions.”

In fact, “if one ignores the fiction of auditing a millionaire through simply sending a letter through the mail, the odds that millionaires received a regular audit by a revenue agent (1.1%) was actually less than the audit rate of the targeted lowest income wage-earners whose audit rate was 1.27 percent!”

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in August 2022, directed $80 billion worth of new funding over the next decade to the IRS so it could hire 87,000 new workers, purportedly to better target millionaire and billionaire scofflaws. The Biden administration and credulous journalists claimed that this would in no way increase audits for those making under $400,000 annually—suspect assurances not provided within the text of the actual bill. This increased capacity meant only those at the top would be targeted, supporters insisted. But this ignores how the IRS’s incentives work and how agencywide reform might be too heavy of a lift.

Correspondence audits—which are conducted via mail, and are the type frequently used when interacting with the poorest of taxpayers—are much easier and cheaper to conduct than other types of audits. Plus, the earned income tax credit is easy to get wrong. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that new hires with experience in the field will take almost three years of ramp-up time, with more junior new hires taking longer. The lag time between 2022’s infusion of funding, and legitimately increased capacity, will be enormous—if the agency can even snag the best in the industry when TurboTax and H&R Block will surely be swelling their own ranks. It makes sense that, given a dearth of experienced auditors not likely to be fixed soon, the agency would rely on the easiest and least time-consuming types of audits.

But be suspicious of the idea that an infusion of cash will solve longstanding problems within the IRS. This is, after all, the agency that sent $1.1 billion in child welfare payments to the wrong people over the course of merely five months during the pandemic. It’s the agency that was hacked back in 2015, resulting in the personal information of more than 700,000 taxpayers being compromised. It’s the agency that has been foolishly going after Americans who hold $10,000 or more in a foreign bank since 2010, never mind the fact that many of them are middle-class expats, not folks with yachts in the Mediterranean. And it’s the (leaky) agency that enabled the richest Americans’ intimate financial information to be thumbed through by ProPublica readers. It will take more than a little cash to fix all this, and, as the IRS’s competence and tenacity increase, so too will the tenacity of the vast infrastructure of accountants and lawyers hired by the rich to creatively minimize their tax burdens.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEET:

Watch: Newly-elected Speaker Kevin McCarthy: “I know the night is late, but when we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 new IRS agents.” pic.twitter.com/1IAbz27NsR

— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) January 7, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here’s What Concessions Were Made in Battle for Speaker of the House thumbnail

Here’s What Concessions Were Made in Battle for Speaker of the House

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

We shall see, won’t we? But huge props to the Freedom Caucus for getting it done.

The 20 restored a rule that allows the House to vote to fire specific federal government employees…

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) January 7, 2023

Newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had to make numerous concessions to win over a holdout group of populist Republicans in order to secure their votes. Here are the key concessions McCarthy had to make, including what some Republican strategists say is the key one—allowing just one member to move to vacate the speaker’s chair, giving McCarthy a fragile grip on power.

In a 20-minute speech following the vote, McCarthy laid out his priorities for the 118th Congress, including securing the southern border, combating “woke” indoctrination in American schools, and unleashing domestic energy production.

The House now plans to vote on a hefty rules package, which includes a series of concessions that the 20 holdout Republicans pushed for.

Some GOP strategists hailed the rule changes as a major win for the House Republicans Conference—the party caucus for Republicans in the House of Representatives—saying it marks the first time in decades that they have independent authority from leadership.

McCarthy’s road to the gavel was rocky, involving 14 rounds of failed votes before the 15th round brought victory. In order to secure the support of the holdout Republicans, McCarthy had to offer a series of concessions.

Republican strategists say the key concession is found in subsection “q” of the new House rules package (pdf). It reinstates a centuries-old rule allowing just one member to move to vacate the speaker’s position.

Such a motion would be made via a so-called “privileged resolution,” which supersedes all other business except adjournment.

“Anyone, anywhere, any time,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said on Thursday on Capitol Hill, commenting about the power this concession grants to members to try and oust their speaker in a vote of no confidence.

Were this motion to be invoked, McCarthy would need a majority of 218 votes to remain as House speaker.

“This effectively neuters McCarthy

“This might be one of the biggest conservative victories since @DaveBratVA7th,” she added, referring to former Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who in 2014 as a Tea Party-backed economics professor delivered a major shock to establishment Republicans by defeating then House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in a primary, with Brat hammering him as soft on immigration.

While the move-to-vacate concession has received perhaps the most attention, members of the Freedom Caucus—of which most of the holdout Republicans are members—won another major compromise in the form of more seats on key committees.

Freedom Caucus Representation on Rules Committee

McCarthy has committed to giving members of the Freedom Caucus more seats on the powerful House Rules Committee.

The committee exerts tremendous power in Congress by setting the terms of debate, deciding what amendments can be added to draft legislation, and determining what gets sent to the floor—or blocked.

The Rules panel usually operates as a tool of the speaker but with more representation, conservatives will gain the ability not only to help bring key amendments to the floor on their priority issues—like government spending or abortion—but they’ll also have more opportunities to have their voices heard.

It’s unclear how many seats on the 13-member Rules panel will be given to Freedom Caucus members, with Time reporting that it’s four, though it did not cite a source, while Politico reported it’s three, citing anonymous sources.

In recent Congresses, the majority party held nine seats on the panel and the minority four.

The incoming chair of the Rules Committee, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told Politico that “we’ve had plenty of Freedom Caucus members before” and that “we’ll be fine.”

Overall, McCarthy agreed to a number of reforms in House procedures that empower the rank-and-file members and reduce the power of the speaker.

Hard Line on Debt Limit

Another of McCarthy’s high-profile concessions to conservatives contained in the draft rules package involves agreeing to replace the current “pay-as-you-go” requirements with a “cut-as-you-go” measure.

This would prohibit the consideration of legislation that increases mandatory spending within a five-year or ten-year budget window.

The draft rules package also repeals the so-called “Gephardt Rule,” setting up a separate vote on the debt limit. Currently, with the rule in place, the House automatically sends a joint resolution to raise the debt ceiling when the House adopts a budget package, with the change giving conservatives more scope to push for reduced spending.

“They’re going to say that unless they have very steep spending cuts in domestic programs … they won’t vote for it,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told The Independent.

Republicans are still reeling from last month’s passage of the mammoth $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill, with many objecting to both the price tag and process, with Freedom Caucus members expressing the most vehement opposition.

Spending Reduction

Two other budgetary measures in the draft rules package involve restoring a point of order against a net increase in budget authority for amendments to general appropriations bills and restoring a point of order against budget reconciliation directives that raise net direct spending.

The draft rules package also restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority (from a simple majority) vote on increasing the tax rate, another win for conservatives who oppose Washington’s freewheeling tax-and-spend initiatives.

Another measure involves provisions for spending reduction account transfer amendments and requires all general appropriations bills to have spending reduction account sections.

Other concessions include one that would require 72 hours before a bill could come up for a vote and establishes several panels to investigate various issues of concern, including setting up a subcommittee on “weaponization” of the federal government.

The proposal for the subcommittee comes after Republicans recently signaled that they want a top-to-bottom investigation of the FBI after the so-called “Twitter Files” disclosed that the agency pressured Twitter to censor Americans’ free speech.

Before the rules package can be voted on, the process requires that members are first sworn in.

“If McCarthy tries to back out of any concession, he won’t have the votes for any rules package and we’re back to a stall. Congress can’t move without a rules package affirmed,” Ellis said in a post on Twitter.

Process requires the vote for speaker to happen first, member swearing-in, then rules package; however, if McCarthy tries to back out of any concession, he won’t have the votes for any rules package and we’re back to a stall. Congress can’t move without a rules package affirmed.

— Jenna Ellis 🍊🦅 (@JennaEllisEsq) January 7, 2023

“Bottom line: With this rules package, the 20 have achieved an historic accountability oversight and check on leadership and the Speaker’s power,” she continued. “I would consider this a TOTAL WIN for Gaetz & Co, the MAGA movement, and therefore America. Declare victory and let’s get to work!”

Attorney Jenna Ellis, who represented the 2020 Trump campaign, said in a post on Twitter.

This effectively neuters McCarthy. The original 20 have a pact that if McCarthy does anything outside his promises, they will vote to not retain and he’s gone.

— Jenna Ellis 🍊🦅 (@JennaEllisEsq) January 7, 2023

Rep. Andrew Ogles Reveals What Concessions Were Made in Battle for Speaker of the House

By: The Epoch Times, January 7, 2023:

Although not yet sworn in, first-year Congressman Andrew Ogles from the Tennessee Fifth District found himself in the middle of a historic maelstrom when he arrived in Washington on Dec. 31, 2022, in the company of his family.

But Ogles knew a bit of what he was getting into because he had already become a member of the Freedom Caucus and was already involved in the ongoing negotiations that, as of this writing, seem to have vastly reformed the way the U.S. Congress will do business in exchange for allowing Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to become Speaker.

Ogles should be known to many Epoch Times readers for his participation in the unique primary debate—using domain experts instead of journalists to ask the questions—sponsored by this company in concert with the Nashville Republican Women.

Little did we know, nor probably did he, that Ogles would end up being one of the 20 to instigate this monumental change they say will return the Congress to the original intention of the Founders as The People’s House.

I spoke with Ogles by phone the night of Jan. 6, 2023, before the roll call vote during which, it was said, two of the remaining rejectionists who couldn’t accept McCarthy personally would absent themselves so that the magic number would be lowered and the new Speaker could go over the top.

Apropos, Ogles informed me that what many had guessed was true. His absence from voting in a previous round was also planned. He waited to see that all was going according to plan before stepping forward to flip his vote to McCarthy after the initial round.

For Ogles, the basis of all the negotiations was to establish the rules of the game in Congress that had been altered over the years beyond recognition. As he pointed out, the rules of a game almost always determine the winner.

He shared with me a list of some of what has been roughly negotiated to date. The devil, as always, is in the details.

  1. As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda.
  2. A “Church” style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people.
  3. Term limits will be put up for a vote.
  4. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them.
  5. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’”
  6. COVID mandates will be ended as will all funding for them, including so-called “emergency funding.”
  7. Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same.

That’s all Ogles would tell me for now, but there is undoubtedly more in ongoing negotiations that could continue even after the final Speaker vote. No word, from him anyway, on committee assignments or agreements, although there are discussions on positions for Freedom Caucus members. Ogles did acknowledge his own interest in the Financial Services Committee, due to his economic background, or the Judiciary Committee.

No word either, so far, of a different kind of Jan. 6 investigation, unless that is intended to be wrapped into the new “Church” Committee.

I asked Ogles if there would be bad blood, as many are warning, after these days of heated negotiation. He denied it. The Republican majority, he said, was too small to afford that, and they all knew it.

Knowing human nature, I wouldn’t have completely believed him on that one had I not heard the resounding and welcoming applause given for every flipped vote. Many of those who voted for McCarthy were one hundred percent in favor of the changes negotiated by the 20, who may well be rewarded in the history books for their initiative.

What has been going on is being referred to as “chaos” by Democrats and the media, including, regrettably, many at Fox News and other supposedly right-leaning outlets. Still, others claim this has been a victory for the “extreme right, imposing their views.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEET:

The 20 restored a rule that allows the House to vote to fire specific federal government employees…

— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) January 7, 2023

RELATED ARTICLES:

McCarthy’s Concessions to Freedom Caucus and What They Mean

Kevin McCarthy Elected Speaker After Making Major Concessions To Freedom Caucus On 15th Vote After Extraordinary Fight on House Floor

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Officially Declares Himself A Dictator thumbnail

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Officially Declares Himself A Dictator

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky has officially signed a controversial new law expanding his administration’s control over Ukrainian news media, much to the concern of media unions and press freedom organizations who accuse the Eastern European leader of stifling free speech.

The terrible consequences of this U.S. funded bloodbath.

Ukraine’s Zelensky Signs Anti-Free Speech Law, Tightens Control Over Media

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reduced freedom of speech in his country by expanding government control

By: Andrew White, Valient News SXervice, January 3, 2023:

krainian President Volodimir Zelensky has officially signed a controversial new law expanding his administration’s control over Ukrainian news media, much to the concern of media unions and press freedom organizations who accuse the Eastern European leader of stifling free speech.

According to a report by the Hill, Zelensky’s new law allows his National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council, made up of his own appointees and those appointed by parliament, to have more control over what Ukrainian news outlets and journalists report on.

With the signing of his new law, Zelensky’s regulatory agency “can effectively shut down news sites that aren’t registered,” alleges The Kyiv Independent.

The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine in a statement last month claimed the controversial law posed a “threat” to press freedom in Ukraine, comparing it to similar laws in “the regime of dictatorial Russia.”

“Such powers are clearly excessive,” the organization wrote. “No one has yet managed to tame freedom of speech in Ukraine. It won’t work this time either.”

The law comes after Zelensky’s 2019 law, which gave the government regulatory authority over the media in his first year in office.

Zelensky has been battling accusations of authoritarianism, particularly after he criminalized his most popular opposition parties and banned his country’s largest Orthodox church.

BlackRock will be advising Zelensky on “reconstruction” funding for Ukraine, Valiant News reported. Perhaps coincidentally, a senior BlackRock executive currently sits as a top advisor to the US Treasury Department on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

In a press release last Wednesday, Zelensky, who recently appeared in front of Congress to demand even more money for Ukraine, revealed that he had a conference call with Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Zelensky Bans Ukrainian Orthodox Church

BlackRock Will Partner With Ukraine To Help Attract Investors, Rebuild Country, Zelenskyy Says

Secretary of State Blinken: We Had to Surrender to the Taliban for Ukraine

In 2019, 40 Democrats Called Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion a Terrorist Org. Now They Send It Billions

Defense Department Records Reveal U.S. Funding of Anthrax Laboratory Activities in Ukraine

“Ukraine Effort”: Billions to Ukraine Was Laundered Back to Democrats Via FTX

Finland Says Ukraine Arms Ending Up In Hands Of Criminal Gangs

Biden’s WWIII: US Military Forces ‘Fully Prepared’ to Cross into Ukraine

MASS PROTESTS ACROSS EUROPE Against Food, Energy Prices, EU Green Edicts, Ukraine War

Ukraine’s Democrat Money Launderer Zelensky Demands America Nuke Russia

Biden Regime to Provide Ukraine an Additional $1.1 Billion in Aid But Snubs Florida, Silent If He’ll Help Florida For Hurricane Damage

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Flees Winter Storm, Stays at Island Home of Wealthy Donors thumbnail

Biden Flees Winter Storm, Stays at Island Home of Wealthy Donors

/in , , , /by

By Discover The Networks

President Joe Biden escaped winter’s chill with a trip to St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he and First Lady Jill are staying at the home of wealthy donors, according to the Daily Wire.

The Bidens will celebrate New Year’s Eve in the tropics as much of the country digs itself out of a massive Arctic blast and flight cancellations leave thousands of travelers stranded.

“As they have done previously, the President and the First Lady are staying at the home of their friends Bill and Connie Neville,” the White House told reporters. Bill Neville is a tech executive and his wife Connie is a self-employed designer.

The Bidens are not paying to stay at the villa, which has an in-ground pool and direct beach access, and their vacation comes a few weeks after the Nevilles’ names appeared on the celebrity-packed guest list for the president’s first state dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron on December 1.

Federal Election Commission records show more than $10,000 in contributions in 2020 by “William” Neville and Connie Neville from the Virgin Islands to Biden for President, the Biden Victory Fund.

“Hunter’s laptop and other evidence show Biden’s record of converting his public office into private gain,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, according to the New York Post. “So it is no surprise Biden is getting a free luxury vacation from a wealthy donor who ‘coincidentally’ received primo White House state dinner tickets.”

Joe Biden

153 Known Connections

Reacting to Trump Supporters Swarming the Capitol: Biden Calls Them “Thugs,” “Domestic Terrorists,” and “White Supremacists” and Says That Police Are Racist

On January 7, 2021 — in response to a January 6 incident where several hundred Trump supporters had swarmed into the Capitol building in Washington to protest what they viewed as an illegitimate presidential election outcome — Biden made the following remarks to the nation:

“Yesterday, in my view, was one of the darkest days in the history of our nation…. They weren’t protesters — don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob of insurrectionists, domestic terrorists…. The past four years, we’ve had a president who’s made his contempt for our democracy, our Constitution, the rule of law clear in everything he has done. He unleashed an all-out assault on our institutions of our democracy from the outset. And yesterday was the culmination of that unrelenting attack.

“He’s attacked the free press who dared to question his power, repeatedly calling the free press ‘the enemy of the people.’ Language at the time he first used it, I and others said, has long been used by autocrats and dictators all over the world to hold on to power…

“And then yesterday … Inciting a mob to attack the Capitol, to threaten elected representatives of the people of this nation, and even the vice president, to stop the Congress from ratifying the will of the American people in a just-completed free and fair election….

To learn more about Joe Biden, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: NYC Mayor Flees City Ahead of Storm: ‘I Deserve Private Time’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

In 2019, 40 Democrats Called Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion a Terrorist Org. Now They Send It Billions thumbnail

In 2019, 40 Democrats Called Ukraine’s Nazi Azov Battalion a Terrorist Org. Now They Send It Billions

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

One thing is certain: the full extent of the ties between Ukraine and the posturing, self-righteous, desperately corrupt, hypocritical and self-serving U.S. Democrat establishment is not publicly known, and may never be known. But what we do know should have brought that entire establishment crashing down years ago. First, there was Hunter Biden’s $50,000-a-month job with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma despite his having no experience whatsoever in the industry. This was an obvious instance of influence-peddling despite all the ongoing attempts to explain it away. Then there are the allegations that the U.S. government sent taxpayer money to Ukraine, which then invested in the discredited cryptocurrency firm FTX, which then donated millions to Democrats. The heated denials of any wrongdoing in the latter case recall the denials of the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop. And there is much more, including the fact that yesterday’s Ukrainian Nazi terrorists are now U.S. taxpayer-funded heroes of freedom.

The facts have gotten little attention, but the independent journalism site Kanekoa News reported as long ago as last June that “on October 16, 2019, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee’s counterterrorism subpanel, Rep. Max Rose (NY), led a letter signed by forty Democrats asking the State Department why they had not placed Ukraine’s Azov Battalion on the U.S. list of ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ (FTOs).” The irony couldn’t be richer, for now the New York Times, that reliable organ of far-Left opinion, refers to “Ukraine’s celebrated Azov Battalion,” and claims that “the group’s defense of the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol — the southern port city decimated by Russian forces in the first months of the war — has become a powerful symbol of the suffering inflicted by Russia and the resistance mounted by Ukraine.”

Every last Democrat who condemned the Azov Battalion likely reads and respects the Times, and every last one of them also would likely prefer us all to forget that they once likened the Azov Battalion to the Islamic State (ISIS) and noted that it “openly welcomes neo-Nazis into its ranks.” The Democrats’ 2019 letter added that “the 115th Congress of the United States stated in its 2018 omnibus spending bill that ‘none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.’” But that was when Volodymyr Zelensky was widely regarded as some kind of ally or tool of the Left’s Emanuel Goldstein of the day, Donald Trump; after all, the first Stalinist show trial impeaching the America-First president took place over a phone call to Zelensky. So it was in the Democrats’ interest to play up the Nazi element in Ukraine, just as it is in their interests now to pretend that element doesn’t exist.

The Democrats’ letter even declared “Azov has been recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens for years according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Yet now it seems as if there is no limit to the taxpayer billions that must be funneled to these gallant Ukrainian defenders of freedom. Is anyone exercising any kind of oversight at all? Is Azov still “recruiting, radicalizing, and training American citizens”? Is our taxpayer money now being used to fund such activities?

Among the stalwart Democrat solons and defenders of the people signing the letter were Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Eliot Engel and Gregory Meeks of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green of Texas, Ro Khanna of California, and Rep. Al Green. None of them have any curiosity about any of this at all? Now they’re all just certain that Ukraine is 100% on the side of the angels and that there are no Nazis, zero, zip, nada, who are benefiting from American largesse to Zelensky and company? Back in 2018, Ro Khanna, in high moral dudgeon, declared: “White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world. I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.” How about now? Kanekoa News reports that on March 10, 2022, Khanna “deleted a tweet saying, ‘the U.S. has been complicit in the rehabilitation and spread of neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Enough is enough! Our government must stand up to the Azov Battalion and other fascist groups.’”

So apparently our government no longer must stand up to the Azov Battalion and other fascist groups. Instead, you and I have to pay for them. Is all this so that Democrats can line their pockets via money-laundering schemes akin to the alleged FTX arrangement? We may never know, since the officials who are supposed to be looking out for our interests are all corrupted themselves. The scammers and money launderers, whatever specifically they are doing or not doing, have a free hand.

AUTHOR

Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Blinken: We Had to Surrender to the Taliban for Ukraine

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Bidenomics: Nasdaq: -33%; S&P: -20%; Dow: -9%; Bonds: -12% thumbnail

Bidenomics: Nasdaq: -33%; S&P: -20%; Dow: -9%; Bonds: -12%

/in , , , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

“Americans have lost $13.5 trillion in household wealth.” — Julio Gonzalez, @TaxReformExpert

As we approach January 1st, 2023 Americans have now had nearly two years of Biden’s Build Back Better agenda.

As a tweet by Carlos Löwenbraü put it, “If U hate Trump after this 24 month shitshow your commitment to stupidity is impressive.”

We must agree.

We have labeled those who elected Biden “the depraved electorate.” The depraved are the 87% of Democrats who give Biden and his administration, “positive marks for the job he is doing.” The “depraved electorate” are willfully ignorant of what is really happening around them.

Our enemies are all taking advantage of this American fool while they can.

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a Biden presidency that to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement of this depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their leader.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Biden, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Biden, who is after all, merely a fool.

It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made and now defend him as their president!

Time to focus on the depraved electorate who defend, encourage and support Biden, the prince of fools.

Will November 2024 be a reckoning? Will the electorate give us a conservative president and majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate?

If not gird your loins. Armageddon is coming!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Florida’s Scott and Rubio voted NO—Here’re the Quisling Republicans who Voted YEA on the $1.7 Trillion Omnibus Bill thumbnail

Florida’s Scott and Rubio voted NO—Here’re the Quisling Republicans who Voted YEA on the $1.7 Trillion Omnibus Bill

/in , , , , /by

By Royal A. Brown III

The 4,155 page, unread, outrageous $1.7 trillion Omnibus Bill passed in the Senate with 18 RINOs voting along with all Democrats in Support. McConnel and Shelby lead the establishment Republican charge and both should be totally ASHAMED of this overspending which hamstrings the new Republican House thru Sep. 2023.

This outrageous bill also funded every Democrat priority including another $45 billion to corrupt Ukraine bringing total to over $150 billion, an amount which exceeds the entire Ukrainian GNP.

When is any member of Congress going to explain to the American taxpayer what U.S. National Security Interests are being protected by all this financial support to Ukraine along with other billions in modern U.S. warfighting equipment which reduces our own defense capabilities?

These gifts to Ukraine don’t come without a high cost to Americans by adding to the unchecked inflation and rising consumer price index. What corrupt, illegal money laundering is continuing without a modicum of accountability of how these funds are being spent?

We Floridians are grateful to see that both of our Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio voted against this bill.

A close examination of the list of those who voted for it reinforce that many are the same establishment RINOs who voted with Democrats as follows:

  • To impeach the President of the United States Donald J. Trump;
  • To impose more red flag law gun control thru the misnamed Safer Communities Act;
  • To confirm Secretary of Homeland IN-SECURITY Mayorkas;
  • Are quislings accepting funding from Bill Gates;
  • To make it more difficult to decertify stolen elections;
  • To pass the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act;
  • Have poor performance scores by various conservative scoring organizations. See: Scorecard 117 | Heritage Action For America Freedom Index 117-2.

These culprit Senators (some of whom have announced retirement) have the audacity to call themselves conservative Republicans. They have again increased the overreaching power of the federal govt’s control over we the people; hurt the middle class; dampened liberty; reduced previous prosperity; caused higher costs of living for Americans; failed to secure our national sovereignty and put America first, etc.

©Royal A, Brown III. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES: Here Are A Dozen WOKE Horrors In Massive Omnibus Plunder

Full List: How Senators Voted on the $1.8 Trillion Omnibus Package

Senators that voted for the $1.7 T Omnibus bill funding Fed Govt thru Sept. 2023 including 18 Republicans and all Democrats:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the bill include 29 Republicans and 0 Democrats – 3 Republicans did not vote:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Senators that did not vote:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Leahy Amendment

Sen. Leahy’s amendment to “amend the description of how performance goals are achieved, and for other purposes” was approved in a 65–31 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Paul Amendment

Sen. Paul’s amendment, “increase the voting threshold for budget points of order,” was rejected in a 34–63 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Johnson Amendment

Sen. Johnson’s amendment, which would have eliminated all earmarks in the bill, was rejected in a 34–63 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Another Johnson Amendment

Johnson’s amendment to restrict money for the Department of Homeland Security to transport illegal aliens within the United States was rejected in a 47–50 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Sinema Amendment

Sen. Sinema’s amendment, which would have appropriated additional money for immigration enforcement, was rejected in a 10–87 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Lee Amendment

Lee’s amendment, which would have prevented ending Title 42, was rejected in a 47–50 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Lankford Amendment

Sen. Lankford’s amendment, which was to “establish a rule of construction relating to religious entities,” was defeated in a 44–53 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Braun Amendment

Sen. Braun’s amendment, to “eliminate a waiver of state immunity,” was rejected in a 40–57 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Cassidy Amendment

Sen. Cassidy’s amendment, to force employers to provide accommodations to pregnant mothers, was adopted in a 73–24 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Merkley Amendment

Sen. Merkley’s amendment, which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to include breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace, was agreed to in a 92–5 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Klobuchar Amendment

Sen. Klobuchar’s amendment, to add the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act to the omnibus, was adopted in a 88–8 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Gillibrand Amendment

Sen. Gillibrand’s amendment, to establish a supplemental fund for the World Trade Center Health Program, was agreed to in a 90–6 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Menendez Amendment

Sen. Menendez’s amendment, to allocate money to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, was adopted in a 93–4 vote.

Senators that voted for the amendment:

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.)

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.)

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.)

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.)

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.)

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.)

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.)

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.)

Senators that voted against the amendment:

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

Senators that did not vote on the amendment:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)

AUTHOR

Zachary Stieber

Reporter

Zachary Stieber is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in Maryland. He covers U.S. and world news.

Omnibus Spending Bill Secures Border…of Islamic Terror State thumbnail

Omnibus Spending Bill Secures Border…of Islamic Terror State

/in , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

Omnibus bills are a disaster and this $1.7 trillion pork sandwich is no exception. It does however secure the border. Of every other Islamic country in the Middle East.

In another section, the behemoth bill requires $410 million to “remain available” to reimburse Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and Oman for “enhanced border security.” At least $150 million of that must go to Jordan, according to the bill.

Lebanon, these days, is an Islamic terror state controlled by Iran’s Hezbollah. And yet, for some incomprehensible reason, we keep funding their security arrangements.

Jordan is only so much better. It’s due to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood at some point.

I’m not sure why we’re funding border security in Egypt, Tunisia or Oman for that matter. Oman is a reasonably wealthy oil state with a GDP of over $300 billion for a population of 5 million.

Do we really need to be covering their border security?

What about our border security which the Biden administration is fighting to dismantle by suing to get rid of Title 42?

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED TWEET:

President Joe Biden was asked “do you think the southern border is secure?”

He walked away with no answer. pic.twitter.com/qRd2qBeEot

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) December 23, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Nominating Antisemitic Ambassador, Biden Condemns Antisemitism

Minnesota: Hamas-linked CAIR weighs in on the inclusion of Muslim holidays in the school calendar

In Iran, So Many of the Murdered Turn Out to Be ‘Suicides’

Qatar threatens EU gas supply over accusation that Qataris bribed officials in Brussels

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Here’s The List of Sleazebag Republicans Who Betrayed Us and Voted For Obscene Omnibus thumbnail

Here’s The List of Sleazebag Republicans Who Betrayed Us and Voted For Obscene Omnibus

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

The Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to the obscene omnibus 70-25. Here are the craven quislings in the GOP who voted for this corrupt, crippling crushing debt.

GOP in favor:

Roy Blunt, Missouri

John Boozman, Arkansas

Shelley Capito, West Virginia

Susan Collins, Maine

John Cornyn, Texas

Tom Cotton, Arkansas

Lindsey,Graham, South Carolina

Chuck Grassley, Iowa

Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi

Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

Jerry Moran, Kansas

Lisa Murkowski, Alaska

Rob Portman, Ohio

Mitt Romney, Utah

Mike Rounds, South Dakota

Mark Rubio, Florida

Richard Shelby, Alabama

John Thune, South Dak0ta

Tommy Tuberville, Alabama

Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Todd Young, Indiana

The 31 nay votes on the omnibus. pic.twitter.com/11zFsoxsKz

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) March 11, 2022

Sorted lists of Republican NAY and Democratic YEA votes on omnibus. pic.twitter.com/AavEO3fh6Y

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) December 12, 2014

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

OBSCENE SPENDING: “This “Omnibus” Is One of The Ugliest, Least Transparent…” “Extortion”

‘F*cking Insanity’: Massive Congressional Spending Bill Says Border Patrol Can’t Spend Funds On Border Security

Massive Omnibus Bill Earmarks DOJ Money To Prosecute Pro-Lifers

RELATE TWEET:

McConnell & his RINOs helping Biden gut America#TheGreatAmericaShow

Omnibus Bill Gives DOJ $212.1M Increased Budget to Prosecute January 6 Prisoners https://t.co/JYmORLbfBX via @BreitbartNews

— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) December 21, 2022

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘The Border Is Not Open,’ Says White House Press Secretary thumbnail

‘The Border Is Not Open,’ Says White House Press Secretary

/in , , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

Hours before the Supreme Court paused the end of Title 42 (scheduled for Wednesday) until the Tuesday after Christmas, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre achieved new levels of Orwellian Newspeak on Monday for insisting, repeatedly, that the southern border was not “open.” And further, she argued that anyone claiming the border was open was actually aiding the Mexican cartels who commit human trafficking.

“I want to be very clear here,” Jean-Pierre said, “The fact is that the removal of Title 42 does not mean the border is open. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply doing the work of these smugglers who, again, are spreading misinformation, and which are — which is very dangerous.” And, in case the preposterous comment could be mistaken for a flubbed sentence, she emphatically repeated the point four additional times.

Something like a door is open when it is possible to pass through. Something is closed when it isn’t possible to pass through. Border Patrol is encountering around 200,000 migrants per month (2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2022). They apprehend them (except for criminals, the migrants usually surrender themselves), process them, and then release them into the U.S. Over the weekend of December 9-11, border patrol encountered more than 7,000 migrants in the El Paso sector alone, and was forced to release hundreds into the streets of El Paso to clear out room in the processing facility for new arrivals. For these migrants, passing through the border (from the Mexico side to the U.S. side) was possible. For these migrants the border was open.

The Biden administration doesn’t deny that migrants cross the border. As the state attorneys general, who requested a stay from the Supreme Court, wrote in their filing, “DHS [The Department of Homeland Security] estimates that daily illegal crossings may more than double from around 7,000/day to 15,000/day once Title 42 is terminated.” DHS divisions such as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) collect and respond to real-time data proving that the border is open.

I don’t know for certain what Jean-Pierre meant by saying, “the border is not open,” as she never explained what she meant by the term. Based on the context, Jean-Pierre seems to argue 1) if potential migrants hear that the border is open, they will be more likely to come; 2) if migrants come, smugglers are likely to exploit them; therefore 3) migrants must not hear that the border is open. She never argues that calling the border open is factually incorrect. Rather, she claims that calling the border open is morally wrong because it will put migrants in harm’s way.

Jean-Pierre’s claim that “the border is not open” is based upon a worldview assumption that telling the truth can sometimes be wrong if it leads to bad effects.

That same assumption underlies much of the rationale for “transgender-affirming” care. The oft-repeated argument goes, persons questioning their biological sex should be affirmed in making the transition because if they experience opposition or “hate” (any form of non-affirmation or less-than-effusive affirmation) they will be driven to commit suicide. But that claim is unsubstantiated, and frequent repetition is not proof.

Similarly, Jean-Pierre’s effects-based argument for lying about the border does a poor job calculating the effects. One might ask, why do potential migrants hear that the border is open? Because, in fact, it is. This is confirmed by all sorts of official and media reporting, first- and second-hand experiences, and the various effects an open border causes (the opioid epidemic, for example). We live in the information age and have a free press, after all. If the border were closed, would potential migrants hear that it is open? Perhaps smugglers might spread such misinformation, as Jean-Pierre suggests. But those reports would lack credibility in the absence of corroborating evidence. Reports about the openness of the border rely on the underlying facts of the situation.

In other words, the best way to persuade migrants that “the border is not open” is to close the border. Trying to shame everyone into pretending something is true that isn’t won’t accomplish anything.

Christians should be cautious about ever rationalizing a lie because of the effects it produces. If “on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36), how much more weighty are the lies we are tempted to tell? God always tells the truth. In fact, “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18), whereas the devil “is a liar and the father of lies,” and those who lie are his children (John 8:44). Our corrupted hearts might deceive us into believing that a lie is justified because it might get us out of a scrape, or sooth another’s feelings, or otherwise produce a good effect. But Jesus tells those who are truly his disciples, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

So, if the Biden administration wants us to say that “the border is not open,” they should make it so.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘F*cking Insanity’: Massive Congressional Spending Bill Says Border Patrol Can’t Spend Funds On Border Security thumbnail

‘F*cking Insanity’: Massive Congressional Spending Bill Says Border Patrol Can’t Spend Funds On Border Security

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

The massive congressional spending bill released Tuesday would bar Customs and Border Protection (CBP) funding from going toward border security as the agency sees record numbers of illegal immigrants.

The bill states that the $1,563,143,000 in funds allocated to CBP for “Operations and Support” can’t be used “to acquire, maintain, or extend border security technology and capabilities, except for technology and capabilities to improve Border Patrol processing.” The bill was introduced in the Senate Tuesday and needs to be passed in order to avert a government shutdown.

Former CBP Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan called the funding restriction “fucking insanity,” in a statement to the DCNF.

“They finally put down in black and white what we’ve been saying for two years- they don’t care about securing our borders or stopping their deadly open border policies. Just throwing money at the crisis to get better and more effective at processing and releasing illegal aliens,” Morgan said.

The lack of funding for border security comes as illegal immigration, drug seizures and encounters of individuals on the terror watchlist are surging at the southern border.

CBP officers encountered a record of more than 2.3 million migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2022. During that time, CBP also caught a record of 98 individuals on the terror watchlist and seized more than 14,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl.

Federal border authorities have also encountered a surge in illegal immigrants of “special interest,” who come from countries of particular national security concern and “possibly have a nexus to terrorism.”

“At this point, they might as well change the name of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to U.S. Customs and Border Processing. Seriously, all the Biden administration wants CBP to do is process migrants or watch them come across with a drone or camera,” Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Head of Government Relations and Communications RJ Hauman told the DCNF. “Every border security funding stream in a spending bill needs firm conditions to use the money properly, rather than enabling a system that functions as a lawless, greased up turnstile into the United States.”

CBP didn’t respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLRE: EXCLUSIVE: ‘Unacceptable’: Texas GOP Rep Demands Mayorkas Answer To Data ‘Miscalculations’ After DCNF Reports

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Philadelphia Fed: Job Gains This Year OVERSTATED by 1.1 Million, It Was Only 10K thumbnail

Philadelphia Fed: Job Gains This Year OVERSTATED by 1.1 Million, It Was Only 10K

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

In the aggregate, 10,500 net new jobs were added during the period rather than the 1,121,500 jobs estimated by the sum of the states; the U.S. CES estimated net growth of 1,047,000 jobs for the period.

Anyone who believes anything coming out of government agencies is not just gullible, they’re a danger to themselves (and invariably all of us).

Have you wondered how everyone is broke, yet somehow the Biden economy is on fire, creating all these jobs? Turns out, that was all a massive lie, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve admits. (What totally convenient post-election timing!) https://t.co/r0pQaoiOLg

— Tara Servatius (@TaraServatius) December 16, 2022

Job Gains This Year Overstated by 1.1 Million, Philadelphia Fed Reveals

By Andrew Moran, The Epoch Times, December 16, 2022:

Labor data might have been overcounted by as much as 1.1 million jobs earlier this year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia revealed in a new quarterly report.

According to the regional central bank’s second-quarter “Early Benchmark Revisions of State Payroll Employment” report (pdf), researchers’ estimated employment changes that occurred between March and June were different in 33 states and the District of Columbia compared to the data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

During this period, Philadelphia Fed researchers found that there were higher adjustments in four states, lower changes in 29 states and the nation’s capital, and lesser revisions in the remaining 17 states. This included a 4.1 percent drop in payroll employment in Delaware and a 1.2 percent decrease in jobs in New Jersey.

As a result, employment gains might have been overcounted by more than 1.1 million.

“In the aggregate, 10,500 net new jobs were added during the period rather than the 1,121,500 jobs estimated by the sum of the states; the U.S. CES [Current Employment Survey] estimated net growth of 1,047,000 jobs for the period,” the report stated.

This also means that payroll jobs were flat in the March-to-June span. In addition, current estimates indicate that employment growth was 2.8 percent in the four months since June.

E.J. Antoni, a research fellow for Regional Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, tells The Epoch Times that this “feels like another pyrrhic victory.”

“The Philly Fed data aligns well with the household survey that shows a flat job market since March, contra the robust growth from the establishment survey,” he said. “The seasonal adjustments to the monthly headline jobs numbers this year from BLS have been abnormally large to the upside. December’s number will have to revised down 30% more than normal to essentially balance out the earlier large upward revisions. Job growth was technically ‘front loaded’ in 2022.”

The Philadelphia Fed explained how its calculations differ from how the BLS crunches the figures.

“The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has developed early benchmark estimates of monthly state payroll employment on a quarterly basis to predict the subsequent annual benchmark revisions by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Our process enhances the monthly Current Employment Survey (CES) payroll employment data with the more comprehensive Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) payroll employment data. The CES provides a timely estimate of monthly state employment data, but the QCEW follows about five months later with a more complete picture, covering more than 95 percent of all employers. Our methodology was adapted from an approach pioneered by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and modified to accommodate all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” the regional central bank noted in its methodology explainer (pdf).

Will this force the BLS to revise its figures lower in the coming months?

BLS Caught Overcounting

Critics have charged that there is something wrong with the monthly jobs report.

The BLS report is comprised of two chief surveys: establishment (businesses) and household. The former has recorded stronger-than-expected growth for most of 2022, while the latter has been roughly flat. Since March, the divergence has skyrocketed to 2.7 million workers.

The main explanation for this gap is that the BLS allows double counting. This means it will count every extra job a person possesses as another payroll. The household component does not permit this feature.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Lame-Duck Congress Pushes Omnibus Spending Disaster – $ 1.65 TRILLION

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Zelenskyy’s Wife Drops $40,000 in Christmas Shopping Spree in Paris thumbnail

Zelenskyy’s Wife Drops $40,000 in Christmas Shopping Spree in Paris

/in , , /by

By The Geller Report

“Let them eat Medovik!”

They don’t even attempt to hide the corruption. The Democrat thieves have taught them well.

Today the lame duck Democrat congress are hammering out another billion dollar ‘omnibus’ bill raping the America taxpayer for Ukraine.

French Social Media Erupts as Store Clerk on Avenue Montaigne Reports Zelenskyy’s Wife Having €40,000 Christmas Shopping Spree in Paris

By | Sundance |December 14, 2022:

Olena Zelenska, wife of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, traveled to Paris France for a three-day visit December 12-14. As reported by Le Monde, “Members of the Ukrainian government will also come, including Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, and several ministers in charge of reconstruction, including Yulia Svyrydenko (economy), Oleksandr Kubrakov (infrastructure) and German Galushchenko (energy).”

Additionally, the Biden administration is trying to push congress to pass another $38 billion spending package for Ukraine to bring the total spent well over $100 billion.

If the reporting is accurate, the spending spree comes at a bad time optically, as Mrs. Zelenska’s husband Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is simultaneously asking the European Union to provide more financial support for the embattled country.

Additionally, the Biden administration is trying to push congress to pass another $38 billion spending package for Ukraine to bring the total spent well over $100 billion.

Mrs. Zelenskyy Christmas shopping in glitzy Paris stores and dropping €40,000 while her husband bangs his tin cup isn’t exactly a good look.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

BREAKING: Olena Zelenska, wife of Ukrainian President Zelensky, reportedly spent €40000 on a shopping trip in Paris while visiting the country to plead for more support for Ukraine, store employees have claimed online.

— SGM World News (@SGMWorldnews) December 14, 2022

L’épouse de Mr Zelensky, Olena Zelenska, de passage à Paris aujourd’hui, aurait dépensé 40000€ lors d’un passage d’1h dans un magasin de l’Avenue Montaigne… (Source fiable : Employée du magasin en question en charge de l’encaissement des clients). pic.twitter.com/LI0gebySn2

— De Fabron Olivier (@DeFabron) December 12, 2022

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Migrants Make The Economies They Move To A Lot Like The Ones They Left thumbnail

How Migrants Make The Economies They Move To A Lot Like The Ones They Left

/in , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

Ponder the implications of this for mass Muslim migration into Europe. And those implications are by no means solely economic.

by Charles Fain Lehman, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2022:

Imagine that you are a U.S. immigration officer, handing out green cards to the would-be Americans of the world. You have before you two applicants who look almost completely the same; for some arcane, unspecified bureaucratic reason, you can only approve one of them. They’re both well-educated by American standards, both bringing identical families, both passed their background checks.

The major difference is their nation of origin. One is from a nation with a strong tradition of rule of law, free markets, and democratic pluralism. The other is from a country where kleptocracy, autocracy, and socialism are standard. The difference, in other words, is the character of the society that your two would-be immigrants come from. The question is: Should this difference matter?

The basic argument of The Culture Transplant, the new book from George Mason University professor Garett Jones, is that at least in the aggregate, the answer to this question is “yes.” The marginal immigrant, to be sure, may not matter. But Jones shows, through an engaging and digestible tour of the academic literature, that people bring their national character with them when they migrate; that those values persist for up to several generations; and that some values really are better for societal flourishing than others, so the values immigrants bring matters a great deal.

To reach this conclusion, Jones relies on a fairly diverse set of evidence. Much of the basis for his argument, though, is drawn from the so-called deep-roots literature. That research, in essence, looks at what today’s countries were like 500 to 2,500 years ago, in terms of level of governance, agricultural development, and technological development. It observes that what a country was like hundreds of years ago is a strong predictor of how developed it is today. More to Jones’s point, it observes that what a country’s people were like hundreds of years ago predicts what they are like today.

The point here is that, for whatever reason, certain fundamental facts about a civilization—i.e., its level of development—are both highly relevant to its performance on the centuries timespan and transplantable from one place to another. One plausible explanation is that whatever determines this outcome inheres in the people from those civilizations, who carry it with them and “transplant” it wherever they migrate.

Indeed, Jones reviews extensive research that shows immigrants often look more like their ancestors than the countries they arrive to, even several generations after arrival. If your ancestors believed in things conducive to development—social trust, cooperation, fairness, etc.—then you probably do too. And those beliefs matter for how the country you now live in does.

What are the concrete implications of this view? Jones offers two. One is that the countries with the highest rates of innovation—China, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States—should be extremely cautious about changing the population composition through migration. These countries produce the overwhelming majority of the world’s progress, and if progress is a function of your country’s composition, then we should care a lot about keeping their current mix, because otherwise all of humanity loses out….

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Regime Denies Gov. DeSantis’ Request for Emergency Funds for Hurricane Ian Victims thumbnail

Biden Regime Denies Gov. DeSantis’ Request for Emergency Funds for Hurricane Ian Victims

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Billions for Ukraine dictatorship, nukes for Iran but Americans get ….. the middle finger.

Biden’s FEMA denies Ron DeSantis’ request for emergency funds for Florida’s Hurricane Ian victims

Governor Ron DeSantis has announced that the state will pay $25 million to help rebuild homes after the extensive damage caused by Hurricane Ian.

The Post Millenial, December 2022:

Following FEMA’s denial of Florida’s request for emergency funds to help rebuild homes destroyed by Hurricane Ian, Ron DeSantis announced that the state will provide up to $25 million for emergency relief, according to Florida’s Voice.

“We’re not just gonna sit there and take no for an answer […] We’re gonna figure out what we can do […] We wanna cut through bureaucracy.” pic.twitter.com/NmgwV9RGnc

— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) December 5, 2022

“Unfortunately, we got word last week that FEMA had denied our request for funding our state-led housing initiatives, citing their quote ‘limited authority,’” DeSantis said during an announcement in Southwest Florida, the region where Hurricane Ian made landfall.

“We’re not just gonna sit there and take no for an answer,” he said, “we’re gonna figure out what we can do.”

“We wanna cut through bureaucracy,” he continued, “we wanna bring relief to impacted Floridians, regardless of whether FEMA wants to be a part of that.”

FEMA responded to DeSantis’ request in a December 2 letter, saying “Due to the limited authorities FEMA has to approve and pay for this type of work, as well as our inability to confirm that authorizing this policy expansion would achieve the intended outcomes for disaster survivors, your request is denied.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

WATCH Fake Doctor Jill Biden Urges All Americans To Get ANOTHER Covid Shot Before Christmas

FBI Agent Testifies About Bureau’s Involvement in Social Media Censorship

The Greatest Gaslight in History

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Soros-Funded Nonprofit Gets $12 Mil from U.S. to Empower Workers in Latin America thumbnail

Soros-Funded Nonprofit Gets $12 Mil from U.S. to Empower Workers in Latin America

/in , , , , , /by

By Judicial Watch

The Biden administration is giving a nonprofit partially funded by leftwing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) $12 million to strengthen labor rights and empower workers in three Latin American countries. The U.S. taxpayer dollars will go to the Solidarity Center, a Washington D.C.-based group closely allied with OSF as well as the country’s largest union conglomerate, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). The Solidarity Center’s mission is to help workers across the globe fight discrimination, exploitation and systems that entrench poverty. It claims to accomplish this by empowering workers to raise their voice for dignity on the job, justice in their communities and greater equality in the global economy.

The group will use the $12 million to “strengthen democratic, independent workers’ organizations in Brazil, Colombia and Peru,” according to the Department of Labor (DOL) announcement issued this week. The project will bolster unions and advocate for the full and free exercise of collective bargaining rights and freedom of association, the agency writes, adding that the focus will be on underserved communities and advancing gender and racial equity. Specifically, the American taxpayer dollars will support activities that improve respect for the rights of Brazil’s Afro-Brazilian, migrant, women and LGBTQI+ workers in the digital platform economy and the manufacturing sector. In Colombia, the focus will be on increasing the capacity of women, migrants, and indigenous people to organize and advocate for workers’ rights. In Peru, the goal is to improve access to mechanisms for labor rights compliance in the mining and agriculture sectors, particularly for indigenous and migrant workers.

The Solidarity Center, which claims to be the largest U.S.-based international worker rights organization, also operates in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Most of its funding comes from Uncle Sam, but private groups like OSF also contribute generously. In 2020, the Solidarity Center received nearly $39 million in federal awards, according to its latest annual report. In 2019, the center got over $36 million from the U.S. government. Additionally, the group gets millions annually in “other revenues” that are not broken down. However, records obtained by Judicial Watch show that the OSF has given a lot of money to the Solidarity Center in the last few years. In 2020, the latest available reporting period, OSF gave the Solidarity Center $980,000. In 2019 the center received $785,000 from OSF and in 2018 it got $400,000 from the Soros nonprofit that has dedicated billions of dollars to leftist causes around the world. Soros’s global foundation explains that the grants are for economic equity and justice, access to justice for migrant workers in the U.S., to improve labor rights in Mexico and Central America, and the empowerment of vulnerable workers in the domestic and agricultural sectors in the Middle East.

The U.S. government has long funded Soros groups as well as those with close ties to them like the Solidarity Center. Judicial Watch has reported on it for years and obtained records that show the disturbing reality of American taxpayers financing Soros’s leftwing plots abroad. This includes uncovering documents showing State Department funding of Soros nonprofits in Albania to attack traditional, pro-American groups and policies; U.S. government funding of Soros’s radical globalist agenda in Guatemala , Colombia, Romania and Macedonia. The cash usually flows through the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Details of the financial and staffing nexus between OSF and the U.S. government are available in a Judicial Watch investigative report. Domestically Soros groups have pushed a radical agenda that includes promoting an open border with Mexico, fomenting racial disharmony by funding anti-capitalist black separationist organizations, financing the Black Lives Matter movement and other groups involved in the Ferguson Missouri riots, weakening the integrity of the nation’s electoral systems, opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts and eroding 2nd Amendment protections.

RELATED ARTICLE: Another Biden Family Corruption Cover-up Is Unraveling

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hunter Biden’s Firm Took $10M in Forgiven COVID Loans, Donated $1M Back to Dems thumbnail

Hunter Biden’s Firm Took $10M in Forgiven COVID Loans, Donated $1M Back to Dems

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

‘This Is How We Wash Our Money’

This is taxpayer money, your hard-earned money used to destroy, your family, your country. It’s all so dirty and systemic – and the GOP is silent. There is only the uni-party. We need a second party.

‘This is how we wash our money’: Hunter Biden’s fmr. firm took $10M in forgiven COVID loans, donated $1M back to the Dems

By: Melissa Fine |Biz Pac Review | December 3, 2022 |

Scratch at pretty much anything Hunter Biden has touched, and it seems you’ll likely find a scandal.

No one knows this better than the New York Post’s Miranda Devine, who broke the now notorious “laptop from hell” story for her outlet years ago, and now she’s revealed that the first son’s former employer, law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, took a whopping $10.14 million loan — the largest single loan among 300 of the top law firms investigated by Open the Books, a nonprofit dedicated to transparency — from the Paycheck Protection Program.

And while one hand of the law firm was securing that, the other was donating nearly $1 million to Democratic candidates, according to an independent investigation.

“Boies partners and employees donated nearly $1 million in federal campaign cash during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, including $213,966 to Biden’s presidential campaign,” Devine writes.

What’s more, the multi-million-dollar loan was forgiven in 2021.

Meanwhile, Devine reports, “the firm — headed by longtime Joe Biden donor David Boies — billed $480 million to clients in 2020 and 2021, and equity partners each earned $4.5 million.”

Biden joined the Boies firm in 2010 and received an annual salary of $216,000. Devine characterizes the “of counsel” position as “a ‘no-show’ job that did not require him to keep regular office hours or attend meetings.”

There’s no word on whether Hunter kicked half of his Boies salary back to his “Big Guy” dad.

As BizPac Review reported in 2020, before the validity of the famed laptop had been confirmed, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sounded the salary alarms, presenting a then-unverified text message from Hunter to his daughter to the Daily Caller that read, “All during the time that I’ve been disrespected, I’ve been the one who has supported this family for 30 years, and unlike pop I’m not going to require you to give half of your salary to me.”

America’s Mayor was promptly smeared as a disinformation agent for reporting what we now know is the truth.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Spike in Deaths After Vaccine Rollout

Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.