NDAA Fails to Stop Biden’s Purge of Military

/in , , , , , , , /by

“An inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”

Unsurprising.

While Republicans rolled back some of Biden’s military cuts and managed to end the vaccine mandate for the military, they failed to reinstate military personnel forced out due to the mandate, they did nothing about wokeness in the military, which at this point is so great a threat that spending hundreds of billions on weapons systems is practically surplus to requirements if there will be no one reliable to operate them.

And the military purge of “extremists” launched by Biden’s political operatives has not been checked.

The “big win” here is a non-binding statement criticizing the political purge of opponents.

The final bill largely eschews issues related to the Pentagon’s efforts to root out extremism, but the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report accompanying its version of the bill calls for those plans to be curtailed, though the language is nonbinding.

The report language was added by Republicans with the backing of Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). It argues that the low instances of extremism in the ranks “does not warrant a Department-wide effort.” It further argues that the Pentagon anti-extremism effort “is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds, and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately.”

Which everyone is free to ignore.

This is a lawless administration whose Treasury and State Department are in violation of federal law by refusing to comply with SIGAR, the watchdog on Afghanistan. The Biden administration has responded to court setbacks on its student loan bailout or open borders by doubling down.

Senate Republicans get to claim that they did something by way of a non-binding statement in a report.

Mission accomplished.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED VIDEO: This Week In Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghan officials smuggled $1,000,000,000 out before Taliban takeover as Biden poured in billions more

Sharia in Minnesota: Instructor fired for including painting of Muhammad in course on Islamic art

New Jersey: Hamas-linked CAIR wants January to be ‘Muslim Heritage Month’

Canada: Islamic conference features hate-filled, pro-jihad, pro-Sharia, anti-Semitic Muslim clerics

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

TWITTER FILES: FBI, CIA, DoD, Et al. Actively Worked With EVERY Social Media Platform to Control and Censor Speech

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

A Christmas eve Twitter drop.

In this latest drop we see the FBI, CIA, DoD, State Department, Pentagon, et.al. dictating censorship to Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, Verizon, Reddit, even Pinterest, and many others.

This is so vast, so deep, it’s …… the whole of the state.

The files show the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government – from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.

.The government was in constant contact not just with Twitter but with virtually every major tech firm.

We live in a surveillance state.

Here is the whole thread:

 

AUTHOR

 Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI Assigned Personnel To ‘Look’ For ‘Violations’ Of Twitter’s Own Policies, Docs Reveal

FBI Admits It Pressured ‘Numerous Companies,’ Not Just Twitter

Previous Twitter files (scroll here).

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

California Appeals Court Upholds Injunctions against Corporate Board Quotas

/in , , , , , , , /by

This is an important victory for Judicial Watch, as well as taxpayers and stockholders.

The California Court of Appeal has upheld two injunctions against California quota requirements for corporate boards.

Earlier this year, two California trial courts had found (here and here) state quota mandates for sex, race, ethnicity, and LGBT status unconstitutional. On December 1, 2022, the California Court of Appeal denied (here and here) two separate emergency requests by the California Secretary of State to lift the injunctions.

The California courts again have upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law. Our taxpayer clients are heroes for standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts to undo anti-discrimination protections. Our legal team has helped protect the civil rights of every American with these successful lawsuits.
Here’s the background.

We filed a gender quota lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019 on behalf of three California taxpayers. The lawsuit challenged a 2018 law, Senate Bill 826 (SB 826), which mandated that every publicly held corporation headquartered in California have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its board of directors. We successfully argued that the quota for women on corporate boards violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. In May 2022, after a 28-day trial, the Superior Court delivered its verdict finding that “S.B. 826’s goal was to achieve general equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees.”

In 2020, we filed a separate taxpayer lawsuit challenging Assembly Bill 979 (AB 979), which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 30, 2020. The bill mandated boards of directors of California-based, publicly held domestic or foreign corporations to satisfy racial, ethnicity, sexual preference and transgender status quotas.

Our lawsuit successfully asked the Superior Court to declare the diversity quota scheme unconstitutional under California’s equal protection guarantee and to permanently enjoin its enforcement. On April 1, 2022, the Superior Court issued a ruling and opinion striking down AB 979’s diversity quotas and granting a permanent injunction in favor of our taxpayer clients enjoining the state from implementing the statute.

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

Islamic Republic of Iran Using Fear and Terror to Quell Protestors, begins Public Hangings

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Iran’s back is against the wall. The Islamic Republic was reluctant to show its characteristic brutality toward protesters while it still hoped for world support in the form of a revived nuclear deal. The country has been under a microscope since protests began.

Last week, the UN removed Iran from women’s rights committee, of which it should never been part of in the first place. Biden also admitted that the Iran nuke deal is dead, but this still hasn’t been officially announced.

As Iran grapples with a revolution that it intensifying, including the formation of underground groups uniting to overthrow it, the Islamic regime warned of coming executions in early December. The regime’s desperation grows. Now it is once again using fear and terror to crush anti-government protests.

Iran turns to public executions in bid to crush anti-government protests

by Sanam Mahoozi and Alexander Smith, NBC News, December 19, 2022:

LONDON — Iran’s government has spent months violently cracking down on protests gripping the country. Now it has started hanging people in public — an approach some demonstrators and experts see as a desperate attempt to crush the dissent that has posed an unprecedented challenge to the clerical regime.

The first known executions of people arrested over the months of protests prompted an outcry from Western governments and human rights activists, but they came as little surprise to those involved in the demonstrations or carefully watching from afar.

“They want to create fear for the people who are involved,” Saeed, a business owner in his 30s from Tehran who is very active backing the protests on social media, said by voice note. As with all those interviewed for this story inside Iran, NBC News is identifying him only by his first name to avoid possible retaliation by the regime.

“They want to show the public that their actions will not go unpunished and that there are rules in the system,” he added, and so “families stop their children from going out to protest.”

Last Monday, officials publicly hanged a man from a construction crane in Mashhad, according to Mizan, a judiciary-run news agency. Majidreza Rahnavard was accused of “waging war on God” after he was accused of stabbing to death two members of the pro-government Basij militia in the northeast city. Human rights groups and Western governments say Iran’s judicial system is based on sham trials behind closed doors.

A week earlier, Iran executed another man, Mohsen Shekari, alleging he blocked a road in Tehran and stabbed a pro-government militia member who required stitches. Around a dozen other people have been sentenced to death, according to human rights groups.

“The regime knows it is fighting for its life,” said Abbas Milani, the director of an Iranian studies program at Stanford University. In the past, the regime has been “busy simply containing” demonstrators, he added. “Now they need to put the fear in people’s hearts again.”

Executions by hanging are far from rare in Iran, which Amnesty International says put 314 people to death last year, the most in the world after China.

But many activists and analysts alike believe the Islamic Republic is using the death penalty to terrify demonstrators into silence, after other attempts failed to quell the most significant wave of dissent since its founding revolution in 1979.

“This is very standard playbook by them; they have done this at previous protests” said Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St. Andrews University in Scotland. But this time, “if anything, they are moving quicker now to execute protesters with sham trials that even their own side are criticizing.”……

Read more.

AUTHOR

CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Handlers Amp Up Spying on Israel

Israel, Juxtaposed Between Vibrant Life and a Deadly Fight For Survival: An Account of the Christian Media Summit

France: Muslim asks his girlfriend to convert to Islam, beats her into a coma

North Carolina news outlet features Hamas-linked CAIR condemning anti-Semitic sign, though Islam was not mentioned

France Condemns Israel for Deporting French-Palestinian with ‘Terrorist Links’

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

/in , , , , , , , , /by

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

RELATED TWEET:

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 Does Not Secure the Border, but Further Incentivizes and Enables Illegal Immigration

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Washington, D.C. — The 117th Congress finally wrapped up business by approving a lame-duck, pork-laden $1.7 trillion spending bill – consisting of more than 4,000 pages that not a single member had the time to read and fully analyze – funding the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year.

Passage of the omnibus coincides with a full-blown crisis along our southern border that is about to get a whole lot worse, as the Biden administration is close to ending Title 42, the last remaining mechanism in place under which a limited number of border-crossers are being removed from the country. Yet, not only did the Democratic-led Congress reject an amendment to keep Title 42 in place, they expressly barred increased funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from being used to secure the border.

“The final spending package approved by a Congress on their way out the door leaves little doubt that chaos at the border is the policy of the Democratic Party today and that their goal is to create even more of it,” charged Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “Only a party that affirmatively wants open borders – regardless of the fiscal, security, and humanitarian costs – would let the one remaining policy that allows for the expedited removal of even some illegal migrants lapse, and deliberately tie the hands of our border enforcement agency.

“Let’s be clear, the president can restore operational control of the border simply by enforcing laws that are already on the books – many of which he voted for as a senator. Instead, he and his party continue deflect blame by claiming they inherited a broken system. The truth is they deliberately broke it themselves and are standing in the way of efforts to fix it.

“Rather than do anything to regain control of our borders, the omnibus is focused entirely on processing illegal aliens as quickly as possible and transporting them to already overwhelmed communities all across the United States. This massive spending bill effectively turns CBP into a federally administered travel agency for illegal aliens and saddles state and local governments with the costs of education, health care, housing and other basic needs for the endless flow of illegal aliens the Biden administration is waiving into the country,” concluded Stein.

Below is a summary of harmful immigration provisions included in the omnibus spending bill at the urging of Democrats, as well as proposals that were successfully defeated due in part to FAIR’s aggressively lobbying efforts.:

Harmful provisions of the omnibus:

  • Provides $1.563 billion for CBP “border management” but does not allow using those funds to hire permanent border security officers, deport illegal aliens (only allows transportation to American communities), or expand border security technologies and capabilities unless it is for improving the processing of illegal aliens. This is not “border management,” it is $1.563 billion to essentially convert CBP into a federal travel agency for illegal aliens.
  • Provides $800 million from CBP to FEMA to pay for “sheltering and other services” through grant programs awarded to open border aligned non-governmental organizations and charities. This broad appropriation could be viewed as enticing others to illegally enter the country and there is no prohibition against funds being distributed to organizations in the interior, meaning that illegal; aliens could be sheltered throughout the country under this section.
  • Prohibits the use of funds for border wall construction in certain areas.
  • Allows the Office of Refugee Resettlement to accept private donations from politically motivated organizations for the care of unaccompanied alien children.
  • Provides funds to both CBP and ICE to transport unaccompanied alien children, demonstrating that domestic transportation throughout the United States is a large part of CBP and ICE operations. This is a key enticement for parents to pay smugglers to take their children on the dangerous trek up to the southern border.
  • Provides millions for a controversial case management pilot program to aid illegal aliens facing deportation – which is being overseen by a nonprofit that has previously called for the defunding and abolition of ICE.
  • Provides $29 million for the Justice Department’s Legal Orientation Program, which empowers NGOs to coach large groups of detained aliens on immigration court proceedings. The effectiveness of this program is dubious as it does not provide actual legal counsel to aliens, the aliens who use this program are less likely to get an attorney and their matters take longer to resolve. Additionally, program participant organizations often blur the line between providing basic information about the process and providing legal advice.
  • Provides $25 million for the USCIS Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, a program utilized by many of the same NGOs receiving federal grant money to process illegal aliens. This self-congratulatory grant program has been routinely awarded to organizations involved in active litigation against DHS and does nothing to enhance the administration of the immigration system.
  • Leaves it up to the DHS Inspector General’s discretion whether to allocate funds for partnerships between state and local law enforcement to assist in enforcing immigration laws. While seemingly an independent auditor, The DHS Office of Inspector General has been mired in reports of political bias. We have already witnessed the dangerous consequences of an administration unwilling to utilize the 287(g) program as the Obama era saw a plethora of cancelled agreements. Congress is essentially relinquishing control of a critical force multiplier for immigration enforcement.
  • Allows detention contracts to be rescinded based on arbitrary performance evaluations.
  • Extends discretionary authority for DHS to issue more H-2B guest worker visas than the cap allows, which displaces American workers and drives down wages.
  • Provides funds to eliminate processing backlogs and expedite adjudication of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa cases, as well as a cap increase of 4,000. Recent reports have exposed the lack of proper vetting for many of the Afghans in the program and the associated risks to public safety and national security. Any actions taken to expedite processing will detract from security checks and further vetting activities and increase the risks.
  • All budget increases directed towards immigration enforcement are below inflation. An unprecedented border crisis calls for funds at appropriate levels – the increases are simply insufficient.

Among the damaging immigration proposals that were defeated or withdrawn during the lame duck:

  • A mass amnesty proposal led by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in exchange for an extension of weakened Title 42 and other meaningless promises of future immigration enforcement.
  • The Afghan Adjustment Act, which would have granted permanent residence to largely unvetted Afghans who were allowed to enter the country under President Biden’s abuse of parole authority. Most of the Afghans who arrived in the U.S. after the administration’s disastrous withdrawal in 2021 played no role in assisting U.S. forces.
  • An agriculture bill containing both an amnesty for illegal aliens and an expanded guestworker program. The last farmworker amnesty, crafted in part by current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer when he was in the House, was the most fraud-ridden immigration program in American history.
  • The Biden Administration’s attempt to slash ICE detention capacity by 30 percent.
  • The Sinema-Tester amendment to the omnibus, which sought to process and release illegal aliens into our country more efficiently.
  • The EAGLE Act, which would have resulted in more than 90 percent of employment-based green cards being awarded to citizens of just two countries: China and India.
  • The misleadingly named Veterans Service Recognition Act, which would have provided amnesty for illegal alien relatives of veterans and even allowed deported criminals to return the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Informed Americans Back Border Security. No Wonder the Media Isn’t Doing Their Job

Bad Business: Mayorkas Betrays U.S. Workers With More H-2B Visas

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

How the Chinese regime targets professors and schools to censor and indoctrinate worldwide

/in , , , , , , , /by

Editor’s Note: This is the third piece in a six-part series by J. Michael Waller on Beijing’s global network of Confucius Institutes.

Pressure on other faculty

The Confucius Institutes serve as outposts to spy or inform on American professors with China expertise who have no Institute affiliation.

The intent is to influence scholars not to divert from the CCP line while teaching their students in American classrooms, and to provide the CCP with an enforcement mechanism to deny access to China that any scholar of the country would need to remain academically relevant.

Such professors “have also reported feeling pressure in their classes to watch what they say and avoid Confucius Institute taboos. Many are wary that the wrong statement might land them on a blacklist, forbidden from visiting China for research.”[42]

The Institutes’ presence on campus then allows the CCP to apply pressure on American university leaders to ensure Party conformity in their American classrooms. Similar pressure has been reported in other countries.

Targeted professors “believe university administrators are tiptoeing around China – and asking their professors to do the same – to make sure nothing interrupts the profitable relationship with the Confucius Institute. ‘This is my career and livelihood on the line,’ said one senior professor … explaining why he wished to remain anonymous in [a National Association of Scholars] critique of Confucius Institutes.”[43]

And so the United Front Work Department enlists willing and unwilling foreigners to act on behalf of the CCP.

Distinguished scholars critical of the Confucius Institutes found themselves marginalized and alienated from their own corrupt peers even before these institutes get off the ground.

A French Ministry of the Armed Forces report recounted, “the implementation of a CI [Confucius Institute] in a university often brings about controversies, and is susceptible to divide the teaching staff, if not marginalize some of the best specialists on China because they are critical of CIs and, as such, of their colleagues cooperating with the institute, or receiving its funding.”[44]

One scholar explained, “even the most well-established experts in Chinese studies can find themselves isolated and at odds with their colleagues when they raise concerns. The worst-case scenario is when academics no longer feel able to work in a university that does not respect their professional standards, suffering from ostracization, exclusion from the university, and denial of promotion….”[45]

Some academics report being physically threatened for criticizing the Confucius Institutes. The French report cites a 2021 case in Slovakia, in which the director of the Bratislava Confucius Institute “attempted to intimidate” the director of the Central European Institute of Asia Studies, Matej Simalcik, considered “one of the leading China experts in Central Europe.” After publishing research on CCP influence in the Slovakian educational system, Simalcik received a letter from the head of the Bratislava Confucius Center, who made “explicit threats” against his person.[46]

Infiltration of Western educational institutions

China infiltrated the Ministry of Education in the Australian state of New South Wales which, as the French study noted, meant that “Beijing had appointed employees (potentially agents) inside an Australian ministry.”[47] The CCP provided language curriculum and study aids, which Australian taxpayers funded, and some schools made the CCP materials mandatory. “This decision shocked many parents, some describing this program ‘as the infiltration of the Chinese Communist Party into the NSW public school system.’”[48]

Propaganda themes and non-themes

Confucius Institutes dutifully promoted CCP themes and non-themes (that is, subjects forbidden for discussion under Party policy) in their language and cultural education programming.

China and Chinese life were portrayed as the CCP wanted them portrayed, while subjects awkward for the Party, such as human rights, religious persecution, the conquest of Hong Kong, the repression of Tibet and Xinjiang, and the present status or future invasion of Taiwan, were forbidden for discussion or avoided.[49] The Uighur minority in Xinjiang, Tibet and Tibetan people, supporters of Taiwan’s independence, the Falun Gong spiritual movement, and democracy activists are referred by the CCP as the “five poisons.”[50]

Many if not most of the American institutions conceded to CCP pressure and permitted – even enforced – the self-censorship.

Some “larger, more prestigious” schools “reportedly have successfully pushed back against or prevented PRC interference in university events, such as speaking engagements by the Dalai Lama and other figures opposed by the Chinese government,”[51] but the examples are few.

North Carolina State University, after being squeezed by its own Confucius Institute, disinvited the Dalai Lama in 2009.[52] The university sponsored four outside Confucius Classrooms, ran an estimated 636,000 people through the covert CCP programs, and “trained some 1,330 teachers in how to teach and talk about China.”[53]

Then there is the issue of reciprocity. There is no genuine academic exchange between the Confucius Institutes worldwide and schools in mainland China. Everything is one-way.

Money has also been a gray area. The Congressional Research Service observed what it called “possible incomplete reporting by U.S. universities to the Department of Education regarding funds received from China for their Confucius Institutes,”[54] raising the possibility of fraud and corruption in American higher learning. This fits what appears to be a larger pattern of non-reporting of CCP funding of US education. The FBI found that even among the most prominent faculty of the most prominent universities received large sums – often millions of dollars – through secret or unreported side deals with Chinese Communist Party schools, organizations, laboratories, and companies under the Party’s “Thousand Talents” program.[55]

It isn’t only dishonest individual faculty or even academic departments, but entire schools that engage in fraudulent activity and misleading reporting to conceal cash they receive from the CCP. A bipartisan Senate investigative report found that “Nearly 70 percent of U.S. schools with a Confucius Institute that received more than $250,000 in one year for Confucius Institutes failed to properly report that information to the Department of Education.”[56]

AUTHOR

J. Michael Waller

Senior Analyst for Strategy

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

Source notes

[42] Rachelle Peterson, “The Confucius Institutes.”

[43] Peterson, “The Confucius Institutes.”

[44] Charon and Vilmer, p. 305

[45] Christopher Hughes, “Confucius Institutes and the University: Distinguishing the Political Mission from the Cultural,” Issues and Studies, 50:4, 2014, p. 66. Cited by Charon and Vilmer, p. 305.

[46] Charon and Vilmer, p. 305.

[47] Charon and Vilmer, p. 302.

[48] Kelsey Munro, “Behind Confucius Classrooms: The Chinese Government Agency Teaching NSW School Students,” Sydney Morning Herald, May 29, 2016, quoted by Charon and Vilmer, p. 302.

[49] See Peterson, “The Confucius Institutes,” for details.

[50] Sarah Cook, “The Long Shadow of Chinese Censorship: How the Communist Party’s Media Restrictions Affect News Outlets Around the World,” Center for International Media Assistance, October 22, 2013, p. 11. www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CIMA-China_Sarah%20Cook.pdf.

[51] CRS report, p. 2.

[52] Peterson, “The Confucius Institutes”

[53] Peterson, “The Confucius Institutes”

[54] CRS report, p. 2.

[55] FBI Director Christopher Wray, “The Threat Posed by the Chinese Government and the Chinese Communist Party to the Economic and National Security of the United States,” remarks to the Hudson Institute, July 7, 2020. www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-threat-posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and-national-security-of-the-united-states.

[56] “Senators Portman & Carper Unveil Bipartisan Report on Confucius Institutes at U.S. Universities & K-12 Classrooms,” Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Senate, February 27, 2019. www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senators-portman-and-carper-unveil-bipartisan-report-on-confucius-institutes-at-us-universities_k-12-classrooms.

Biden Regime to Drop Half a Million on Artificial Intelligence That Detects ‘Microaggressions’ on Social Media

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Full on police state.

Biden Admin to Drop Half a Million on Artificial Intelligence That Detects Microaggressions on Social Media

President Biden On His Administration’s New Actions On The Economy

By: Philip Caldwell • Washington Free Beacon •  December 21, 2022:

The Biden administration is set to dole out more than $550,000 in grants to develop an artificial intelligence model that can automatically detect and suppress microaggressions on social media, government spending records show.

The award, funded through President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, was granted to researchers at the University of Washington in March to develop technologies that could be used to protect online users from discriminatory language. The researchers have already received $132,000 and expect total government funding to reach $550,436 over the next five years.

The researchers are developing machine-learning models that can analyze social media posts to detect implicit bias and microaggressions, commonly defined as slights that cause offense to members of marginalized groups. It’s a broad category, but past research conducted by the lead researcher on the University of Washington project suggests something as tame as praising meritocracy could be considered a microaggression.

The Biden administration’s funding of the research comes as the White House faces growing accusations that it seeks to suppress free speech online. Biden last month suggested there should be an investigation into Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter after the billionaire declared the social media app would pursue a “free speech” agenda. Internal Twitter communications Musk released this month also revealed a prolonged relationship between the FBI and Twitter employees, with the agency playing a regular role in the platform’s content moderation.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton likened the Biden administration’s funding of the artificial intelligence research to the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to “censor speech unapproved by the state.” For the Biden administration, Fitton said, the research is a “project to make it easier for their leftist allies to censor speech.”

A spokesman for the National Science Foundation, which issued the research grant, rebuffed criticism of the project, which he said “does not attempt to hamper free speech.” The project, the spokesman said, creates “automated ways of identifying biases in speech” and addresses the biases of human content moderators.

The research’s description doesn’t give examples of what comments would qualify as microaggressions—though it acknowledges they can be unconscious and unintentional. The project is led by computer science professor Yulia Tsvetkov, who has authored studies that suggest the artificial intelligence model might identify and suppress language many would consider inoffensive, such as comments praising the concept of meritocracy.

Tsvetkov coauthored a 2019 study titled “Finding Microaggressions in the Wild,” which categorized microaggressions into subcategories, one of which was the “myth” that “differences in treatment are due to one’s merit.” Examples of microaggressions laid out in the paper included statements like “Your mom is white, so it’s not like you’re really black,” and questions including “But where are you from, originally?”

Tsvetkov also coauthored a July article that analyzed the “prominence of positivity in #BlackLivesMatter tweets” during the June 2020 George Floyd riots. Tsvetkov and her colleagues determined positive emotions like “hope, pride, and optimism” were prevalent in pro-Black Lives Matter tweets, evidence they said contradicts narratives framing Black Lives Matter protesters as angry.

Conservative watchdog groups raised alarm over the Biden administration’s funding of the research, telling the Washington Free Beacon the project represents a White House effort to curb free speech online.

“It’s not the role of government to police speech that some might find either offensive or emotionally draining,” said Dan Schneider, vice president of the Media Research Center’s free speech division. “Government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not suppressing our rights.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Godfather of AI’ Quits Google, Shares Warning About AI’s Potential For Destruction

Intel Agencies Capability to Impose “Total Tyranny” In America on NBC’s Meet the Press 1975

Twitter Emails Prove Existence of Intelligence Community Efforts to Elect Biden | Truth Over News

The Final War–The 100-Year Plot to Defeat America

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

Saying ‘American’ Is Now RACIST and Stanford University’s List of Other UNACCEPTABLE WORDS

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is a “multi-phase” project of Stanford’s IT leaders.

“Stanford University” – now there’s an unacceptable term.

What will it take for the people rise against this leftist scourge destroying the country?

Stanford Scrambles To Hide List Calling ‘American’ Racist or ‘Harmful’ Language

By: Valient News, December 22, 2022:

Despite Stanford’s claims, the debate on the term “Americans” arises not out of racism, but linguistic differences between English and Spanish speakers.

Stanford University has demanded that citizens of the United States should not be referred to as “Americans,” deeming it harmful and racist language use.

In May, Stanford published an index of offensive words, as part of their “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” which they described as a “multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.”

“The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate* many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code,” the university wrote on its website.

Keep reading…

Guide to Acceptable Words: Behold the school’s Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative — Wall Street Journal

By The Editorial Board, Dec. 19, 2022:

Parodists have it rough these days, since so much of modern life and culture resembles the
Babylon Bee. The latest evidence is that Stanford University administrators in May published
an index of forbidden words to be eliminated from the school’s websites and computer code,
and provided inclusive replacements to help re-educate the benighted.

Call yourself an “American”? Please don’t. Better to say “U.S. citizen,” per the bias hunters,
lest you slight the rest of the Americas. “Immigrant” is also out, with “person who has
immigrated” as the approved alternative. It’s the iron law of academic writing: Why use one
word when four will do?

You can’t “master” your subject at Stanford any longer; in case you hadn’t heard, the school
instructs that “historically, masters enslaved people.” And don’t dare design a “blind study,”
which “unintentionally perpetuates that disability is somehow abnormal or negative,

Appeared in the December 20, 2022, print edition as ‘The Stanford Guide to Acceptable Words’.
furthering an ableist culture.” Blind studies are good and useful, but never mind; “masked
study” is to be preferred. Follow the science.

“Gangbusters” is banned because the index says it “invokes the notion of police action against
‘gangs’ in a positive light, which may have racial undertones.” Not to beat a dead horse (a
phrase that the index says “normalizes violence against animals”), but you used to have to get
a graduate degree in the humanities to write something that stupid.

The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is a “multi-phase” project of Stanford’s IT
leaders. The list took “18 months of collaboration with stakeholder groups” to produce, the university tells us. We can’t imagine what’s next, except that it will surely involve more make-
work for more administrators, whose proliferation has driven much of the rise in college

tuition and student debt. For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750
administrative staff.

The list was prefaced with (to use another forbidden word) a trigger warning: “This website
contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own
pace.”

Evidently it was all too much for some at the school to handle. On Monday, after the index
came to light on social media, Stanford hid it from public view. Without a password, you
wouldn’t know that “stupid” made the list.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Liberal Students, Academics Are Out To Revoke Conservatives’ Honorary Degrees

Biden Regime to Drop Half a Million on Artificial Intelligence That Detects “Microaggressions” on Social Media

ABC Reporter Paid Thousands By Lobbying Firm To Write Hit Pieces On Targeted Politicians

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

Kari Lake Trial Bombshells: Data Expert Testifies ‘No Doubt’ She Would Have Won

/in , , , , , , , , /by

UPDATE: 

Everything the Corrupt Judge Had to Ignore to Kill Kari Lake’s Lawsuit

“We can conclude with a degree of mathematical certainty that this affected this chunk of voters. Is That enough to have changed the outcome? And I am offering the opinion that that range is enough to put the outcome in doubt.”

2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and her attorneys once again took the stand on Thursday as the trial moved forward proving  she was the rightful winner of the race.

Lawyers for Lake are focusing on problems with ballot printers at a majority of the polling places in Maricopa County, home to more than 60% of voters. The defective printers produced ballots that were too light to be read by the on-site tabulators at polling places. Lines backed up in some areas amid the chaos and confusion.

Expert in Kari Lake election suit: ‘No doubt’ she would have won without Maricopa Election Day chaos

The trial is set to conclude Thursday.

By Natalia Mittelstadt, Just The News, December 22, 2022:

Election modeling expert Richard Baris said Thursday in the Kari Lake election lawsuit that his projections showed as many as 40,000 voters were disenfranchised over Election Day chaos in Arizona’s Maricopa County, causing him to “have no doubt” that she would’ve won the gubernatorial election had there been no problems at polling centers.

Baris is the final witness for Lake in the scheduled two-day trial for her election lawsuit.

Baris testified that 25,000 to 40,000 voters were disenfranchised in the county as a result of roughly one in five vote centers suffering problems with ballot tabulator machines in the first hours of Election Day

“We’ve got about 20% of the locations out there where there’s an issue with the tabulator,” Maricopa Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Gates, a Republican, said on election night. Describing the problem, he said that after some voters filled out their ballot, the machine wouldn’t accept it. Since then, the county has admitted that 70 out of the 223 vote centers experienced issues on Election Day.

Election officials, however, assured voters their ballots would still be counted as a result of redundancy protocols.

The vote margin between Lake and Hobbs is 17,117 votes.

Baris said the net gain Lake would’ve received in the votes that weren’t cast on Election Day would have made her the winner of the Arizona gubernatorial election.

Baris testified that his firm, Big Data Poll, typically finds the difference in the exit-poll participation rates between early voters and Election Day voters is about 5-8%. In Maricopa County last month, however, the difference was about 20%, further suggesting that would-be voters there stayed home upon learning about voting machine problems.

That has “never happened to me before,” he said.

Following Baris’ testimony, Lake’s lawyers rested their case, and legal counsel for the defendants called their first witness, Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Mayer, who said he has been involved in polling for the last 30 years, testified that there was no data to support the idea that ballot tabulator issues on Election Day caused voters to be disenfranchised and affected the outcome of the election.

The professor discounted Baris’ polling data, noting issues with self-reporting rather than using systematic methods, and said that Baris’ conclusions about his own data weren’t supported by the data.

During direct examination by the defendants’ legal counsel, he addressed the declarations regarding long wait times at vote centers, saying that the estimates widely varied and people generally do not correctly guess wait times due to the frustration of waiting in line.

Under cross-examination by Lake’s legal counsel, Mayer said that he didn’t verify the accuracy of the wait times provided by Maricopa County.

Lake, the 2022 Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee, is suing her Democratic opponent, Governor-elect and Secretary of State Katie Hobbs; Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer; the county Board of Supervisors; and county Director of Elections Scott Jarrett.

Lake’s case alleges the “number of illegal votes cast in Arizona’s general election … far exceeds the 17,117 vote margin” between her and Hobbs.

The trial began Wednesday with the testimony of Richer, Jarrett, cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh, county temporary technician Bradley Benticort, and Republican National Committee attorney Mark Sonnenklar.

Following Baris’ testimony, the defendants’ legal team will call four witnesses to the stand, then each side will give closing arguments.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona County Elections Director Scott Jarrett Admits in Court Printer Settings Were Switched on Election Day – IT WAS ON PURPOSE! (VIDEO)

Maricopa County Witness Is a Woke Professor Who Wasn’t in Maricopa County on Election Day and Who Based His Testimony on What the County Told Him

Shady Democrat Operative Ryan Macias Testifies In Kari Lake’s Election Trial – DAMNING Evidence Against Him Presented During Cross-Examination – WATCH LIVE

Katie Hobbs Witness Makes Case for Tossing Out Malfunctioning Tabulator Machines: “One of the Most Common Issues that Arises on Election Day Operations”

Shady Democrat Operative Ryan Macias Testifies In Kari Lake’s Election Trial – DAMNING Evidence Against Him Presented During Cross-Examination – WATCH LIVE

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

Omnibus Spending Bill Secures Border…of Islamic Terror State

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

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:

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.

‘Our Country Is Under Invasion’: Trump Calls To Halt Amnesty And The Release Of Migrants In 2024 Policy Video

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Former President Donald Trump called to halt amnesty and the release of migrants into the U.S. in a 2024 presidential campaign video Wednesday.

The former president lamented the border crisis as border agents have grown increasingly overwhelmed by the rising number of migrants. Migrant apprehension numbers exceeded 2.3 million and have reached record-high levels in the first two months of the 2023 fiscal year.

“Far more illegal immigrants have entered into the United States in the last two years than in any time in American history and by a massive margin,” Trump said. “We’ve never seen anything like it. Our country is under invasion. Days ago, 16,000 illegal aliens were encountered crossing the border in a single 48 hour period. A colossal migrant caravan recently poured across the Rio Grande and into the streets of El Paso, Texas, and the people and the police didn’t know what to do about it.”

“It is truly a massive invasion. Any form of amnesty now would be a catastrophe,” he continued. “It rewards Joe Biden’s lawlessness and it rewards the criminal cartels and it rewards everyone who has broken the laws of our nation because they’ve never done anything to our country like they’re doing right now. Our country is being poisoned.”

Trump accused President Joe Biden of tearing the immigration system into “shreds,” and warned that handing the current administration more resources will allow for more migrant releases. He urged for a “total ban” on releasing illegal immigrants.

“Biden inherited a flawless deportation system that was working like never before in our history. We never did so well on the border as we were doing just a short time ago under the Trump administration. Giving Biden more resources will simply translate to even more releases because that’s really what they have in mind. This has nothing to do with asylum. Everyone knows this is a pretext and this is a fraud. Anyone who pretends otherwise is playing into the hands of Biden and the criminal cartels.”

“This is about Biden’s lawless and criminal misconduct. The most important reform needed right now is a total ban on Biden using taxpayer dollars to free illegal aliens and criminal penalties for administrative, non-compliance which happens every single minute of every single day.”

Migrant apprehensions numbers nearly quadrupled from Trump’s final year in office to the time Biden assumed office in 2021. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recorded 458,088 migrants in 2020, and then apprehended 1,734,686 in 2021, according to the agency’s data.

The Biden administration continued enforcing some Trump-era immigration policies, despite its criticism of the former president. Title 42, the Trump-era immigration policy used to mitigate COVID-19, was set to expire Wednesday to comply with a November court order ruling that it denied migrants from the ability to seek asylum. The Supreme Court temporarily halted the expiration in a Monday ruling after 19 states filed an emergency appeal.

The administration scrapped the Trump-era policy, “Remain In Mexico,” which required migrants to await their U.S. immigration court hearings in Mexico. The Supreme Court reinstated the policy in an August 24, 2021, ruling after the attorneys general in Texas and Missouri sued the administration with claims that the policy was unlawfully halted.

AUTHOR

NICOLE SILVERIO

Media reporter. Follow Nicole Silverio on Twitter @NicoleMSilverio

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson Hammers Congress For ‘Fawning’ Over Zelenskyy While The ‘American Border Collapses Completely’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Lashes Out At Biden, Says America ‘Is Being Destroyed’ By His Immigration Policies

‘Make A Republican Out Of Me’: Hispanic Business Advocate Suggests He Would Ditch Biden In 2024 Over Border Crisis

With Title 42 In Limbo, Cartels Illegally Smuggle In Hundreds Of Migrants Across The Southern Border

Blackburn Blasts Dems For Funding Border Security Abroad, But Not US

El Paso Mayor Calls For UN Intervention On Border

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

‘An Indefensible Assault’: Conservatives Call for Halt to Omnibus

/in , , , , , , , /by

As an impending snowstorm in the Washington, D.C. area and Senate Democrats put mounting pressure on Congress to push through a last-minute 4,155-page, $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill before the Friday deadline and Christmas recess, conservative lawmakers are voicing strong opposition to the measure, citing irresponsible delays and reckless spending on progressive special interest projects.

“These people, I would not put [them] in charge of a Minute Mart and three gas stations, much less a $6 trillion economy,” said Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “They know the deadlines, they fail every year. They bring it to Christmas and then they blame conservatives.”

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) took to Twitter to lambast the bill in a series of tweets. “This omnibus spending bill is the worst of business as usual in Washington and is an indefensible assault on the American people. We will not abide it,” he said. The congressman pointed to a host of inclusions he deemed wasteful, including “$982k for motel vouchers in LA”; “$817k for partnerships with ‘justice-involved individuals’ in Glendale, CA”; “$2 million for ‘improving coordination’ in the NYC Mayor’s office”; “$8.6 million for ‘gender advisor programs’” at the Pentagon; “$65 million for salmon”; and “$3 million for bee-friendly highways,” among other controversial insertions.

Other GOP lawmakers, including Reps. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) as well as Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.) slammed a provision for $3.6 million to be spent on a “Michelle Obama Trail.”

Multiple earmarks amounting to millions of dollars have also been designated for LGBT-themed special interest projects, along with millions more allocated for “diversity, equity, and inclusion”-themed ventures.

Still, despite the multitude of progressive priorities embedded in the spending bill, pro-abortion groups like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and others expressed dismay Tuesday that it did not include specific new funding for abortion. “At a time of great crisis for reproductive health in this country, Congress has again utterly failed to safeguard access to the birth control and sexual health services made possible by the nation’s family planning program,” said Clare Coleman, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Family Research Council, however, has argued that language is included in the omnibus that paves the way for abortion expansion. On Tuesday, FRC sent a letter to senators informing them that the organization would score against the bill for a variety of reasons, including language that “seems intent on making clear that VA [Veterans Affairs] facilities need to upgrade to be ready for an influx of abortions by female veterans and their families. The Omnibus should not be a vehicle for the Biden administration’s abortion expansion priorities.”

The letter went on to note that a section of the omnibus dedicated to funding for future pandemic response includes “grant programs that use vague, undefined terms such as ‘health equities,’ leaving the door open for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to gain access to taxpayer dollars.” The letter included the example of the city of Rochester, N.Y. recently setting aside a “$5 million grant of federal COVID-19 relief funding for Planned Parenthood for being an ‘anti-violence organization.’”

Connor Semelsberger, FRC’s director of Federal Affairs for Life and Human Dignity, underscored that final passage of the omnibus is in the hands of the GOP, which has the choice to delay passage of the spending bill until next January when Republicans will control the House.

“Senate Republicans really control the cards,” he explained on Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch.” “No piece of legislation can get through the U.S. Congress without bipartisan support thanks to the filibuster. And so, the Republicans really could band together [and] help their friends out over in the House to set them up for a good spending opportunity [that is in] their own interests next year.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor 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.

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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
Richard Shelby, Alabama
John Thune, South Dak0ta
Tommy Tuberville, Alabama
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
Todd Young, Indiana

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:

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

Fed-Surrection: Emails, Texts Show Pelosi Office Directly Involved in Failed Jan. 6 Security

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office was directly involved in the creation and editing of the Capitol security plan that failed during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot and that security officials later declared they had been ‘denied again and again’ the resources needed …” — REPORT OF INVESTIGATION: Security Failures at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021

It was a set-up. A coup. All suppressed by the Jan 6th kangaroo court. And lest we forget, Pelosi’s film crew she employed to be there.

House GOP locates emails, texts showing Pelosi office directly involved in failed Jan. 6 security

Democrat leadership blamed for “knee-jerk reaction” and failing to equip police in security staffer’s email after tragedy.

By John Solomon, Just The News, December 21, 2022:

House Republicans have gathered a trove of text and email messages revealing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office was directly involved in the creation and editing of the Capitol security plan that failed during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot and that security officials later declared they had been “denied again and again” the resources needed to protect one of the nation’s most important homes of democracy.

The internal communications were made public Wednesday in a report compiled by Republican Reps. Rodney Davis, Jim Banks, Troy Nehls, Jim Jordan and Kelly Armstrong that encompasses the results of months of investigation they did of evidence that had been ignored by the Democrat-led Jan. 6 committee. The lawmakers were authorized by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to do their own probe.

The report concludes the Capitol was left vulnerable on Jan. 6 as a result of failures by the Democratic leadership in the House and law enforcement leaders in the Capitol Police who allowed concerns about the “optics” of having armed officers and National Guardsmen visible to the public to override the need for enhanced security.

“Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on January 6, 2021,” the report concluded. “The Democrat-led investigation in the House of Representatives, however, has disregarded those institutional failings that exposed the Capitol to violence that day.”

The report corroborated prior reporting by Just the News that Capitol Police began receiving specific warnings in mid-December that there could be significant violence planned against the Capitol and lawmakers by protesters planning to attend the certification of the 2020 election results.

“Prior to that day, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) had obtained sufficient information from an array of channels to anticipate and prepare for the violence that occurred,” the report determined.

You can read the full report here:

FINAL Report of Investigation.pdf

Banks said the GOP report helps counter a Democrat narrative that ignored security failures by police and political leadership.

“Our report exposes the partisanship, incompetence and indifference that led to the disaster on January 6 and it the leading role Speaker Pelosi and her office played in the security failure at the Capitol,” he said. “Unlike the sham January 6th Committee, House Republicans produced a useful report that will keep our Capitol and USCP officers safe with no subpoena power and no budget.”

Capitol Police said Wednesday they have been working to address the many failures the GOP report and other investigations have brought to light.

“For nearly two years our officers, officials and civilian employees have been working around the clock to address many of these findings and similar findings from a series of post January 6 reviews,” the department said in a statement. “We value everyone’s input and we are confident the U.S. Capitol complex is more secure because of the hard work of our brave men and women and because of the resources provided by the Congress to turn recommendations into results.”

But even as the department made the pledge to fix things, new failures were being unmasked. In an interview with CNN, Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger acknowledged his department hadn’t checked security at Pelosi’s home for four years before the attack earlier this fall on her husband. He vowed his department would do a better job dealing with the growing threats of violence against lawmakers.

“Our responsibility is we’ve just got to deal with the growing number,” he said.

The report does not sugarcoat the behavior of pro-Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol.

“On January 6, 2021, criminal rioters assaulted police officers, broke into the U.S. Capitol, damaged property, and temporarily interfered with the certification of states’ presidential and vice presidential electors at the Joint Session of Congress — a typically pro forma event,” it noted.

But its most explosive revelations involved text and email messages showing that two key staffers in Pelosi’s office attended regular meetings to discuss the security plan for Jan. 6 dating back to early December 2020 and that Pelosi’s top aide even edited some of the plans. Most of those discussions and meetings excluded Republican lawmakers in the House, the report noted.

“Then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving — who served on the Capitol Police Board by virtue of his position — succumbed to political pressures from the Office of Speaker Pelosi and House Democrat leadership leading up to January 6, 2021,” the report said. “He coordinated closely with the Speaker and her staff and left Republicans out of important discussions related to security.”

After Pelosi forced Irving to resign following the devastating events of Jan. 6, a staffer in the House Sergeant at Arms office sent a stinging email suggesting the Democratic leadership had made Irving and Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund the fall guys to cover up the failure of lawmakers to provided adequate security resources.

“For the Speaker’s knee-jerk reaction to yesterday’s unprecedented event (and God knows how Congress lives for its knee-jerk reactions and to hell with future consequences … ). to immediately call for your resignation . . . after you have been denied again and again by Appropriations for proper security outfitting of the Capitol (and I WROTE several of those testimonies, dangit) … and to blame you personally because our department was doing the best they could with what they had and our comparatively small department size and limited officer resources … and because other agencies stepped in to assist just a fraction too late … again, for Congress to demand your resignation is spectacularly unjust, unfair, and unwarranted,” the staffer wrote Irving, according to the email included in the report.

“This is not your fault. Or Sund’s fault. If anything, Appropriations should be hung out to dry,” the staffer added.

The GOP report directly challenges the story Pelosi gave in February 2021 that she had “no power” over Capitol Police or the security plan for Jan. 6. “Documents provided by the House Sergeant at Arms show how then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving carried out his duties in clear deference to the Speaker, her staff, and other Democratic staff,” it said.

It noted that Pelosi’s chief of staff Terri McCullough and another aide assigned to Pelosi’s staff, Jamie Fleet, had regular contact with police and the sergeant at arms over the security planning for Jan. 6 starting in early December 2020. At one point, McCullough was so involved she was asked to edit a security plan letter that was going to lawmakers a few days ahead of the tragic events.

“Irving sent the draft to McCullough and Fleet and requested any edits comments or concerns,” the report said “McCullough responded shortly afterwards with edits.”

The report faults Irving for being distracted by other responsibilities and a top intelligence official for the Capitol Police for making changes to intelligence analysis that kept frontline officers from knowing the dangers they were about to face that day.

“Officers on the front lines and analysts in USCP’s intelligence division were undermined by the misplaced priorities of their leadership,” the report said. “Those problems were exacerbated by the House Sergeant at Arms, who was distracted from giving full attention to the threat environment prior to January 6, 2021 by several other upcoming events.”

Keep reading…..

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

IT WAS ALL STAGED! Pelosi Brought in Daughter, Camera Crew to US Capitol Before the Protest, Son-in-Law Was Set Up Outside to Film

Pelosi Refuses to Hand Over Emails and Videos from Jan 6 Claiming “Sovereign Immunity”

Pelosi Congress Claims Sovereign Immunity in Federal Court to Keep Secret January 6 Videos and Emails

January 6th: ‘Someone Opened the Doors From the Inside’ (VIDEO)

WATCH Sen. Frank Church’s Stark Warning Of Intel Agencies Capability to Impose “Total Tyranny” In America on NBC’s Meet the Press 1975

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

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.