Tag Archive for: Mike Lee

EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

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

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee laid out how former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s battle to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has important implications for the adoption of the SAVE America Act during an interview with the Daily Caller on Monday.

Lee, a leading advocate and sponsor of the SAVE America Act — landmark election integrity legislation supported by President Donald Trump — cited the Senate’s handling of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a historical example of how major legislation can advance even when the votes for cloture are not initially in place.

The Utah Senator explained that when the bill arrived in the Senate from the House in March 1964, supporters of the bill were still significantly short of the votes needed to invoke cloture — roughly 30 votes, though he noted even at the time the exact count was uncertain. As Lee explained, “It’s a good example because they were clearly not close to achieving cloture when it arrived.”

US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

Drawing a parallel to his efforts to invoke the same talking filibuster to advance the SAVE America Act, Lee noted that then-President Johnson — a vocal supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — backed an aggressive floor strategy during the debate. At the time, Johnson urged Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield to keep the Senate in continuous, round-the-clock session to wear down opposition, a tactic LBJ had previously used as majority leader to advance civil rights legislation, according to a U.S. Senate historical report.

Mansfield, however, rejected the proposal.

He argued that marathon sessions would turn the Senate into “a circus or a sideshow,” warning that the sight of senators appearing in “bedroom slippers, without neckties, with hair uncombed and pajama tops sticking out” would diminish the chamber’s dignity.

Rather than forcing continuous debate, Mansfield allowed the fight over the legislation to unfold over more than 50 days, insisting on preserving the Senate’s “dignity and decorum” while keeping the bill on the floor until supporters ultimately secured enough votes to invoke cloture. In effect, grinding most other Senate business to a halt.

Rather than personally managing every moment of the floor fight, like Johnson, Mansfield delegated much of the day-to-day debate to key allies, including soon-to-be Vice President Hubert Humphrey — then still a Democrat senator for Minnesota — and Democratic California Senator Thomas Kuchel, while he coordinated the broader legislative strategy behind the scenes.

Mansfield believed the lengthy debate served an important purpose. With many senators still undecided, he viewed the Senate as a deliberative body where extended discussion could persuade Democrat lawmakers and help opponents ultimately “accept the legitimacy of the outcome,” according to the Senator.

Asked whether he sees parallels between Mansfield’s strategy and the approach the current GOP Senate should take to advance election integrity legislation, Lee said he does, though he noted there are important differences between Mansfield’s effort and the current Senate under Republican Majority Leader John Thune.

“I mean, you did have the majority leader who was saying, ‘I’m willing to do this, and that is what it takes.’ In the modern Senate, you do need the support, active involvement, and engagement by the Senate Majority Leader in order for this to work,” Lee said.

Lee went on to note that one of the “distinct privileges” of the leader is to set the chamber’s schedule, and a talking filibuster is a “significant scheduling commitment.”

Lee said that during the 1964 legislative debate, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield reinforced his commitment to ensuring passage by making it clear the chamber would remain on the bill for as long as necessary. To Lee’s understanding, Mansfield told senators, “We’re going to do this. We’re going to pass it, and we’re going to debate this for as many weeks as it takes in order to pass it. And they stayed in week in, week out.”

Noting he believes the Senate often debated on Saturdays and typically recessed on Sundays for church attendance, but otherwise remained in continuous session, he said it became increasingly clear Mansfield would not back down, “And they saw that he meant it, especially when you get into it that far. When you get weeks into it, it’s, ‘oh my gosh, he’s not messing around. This is serious.’”

With national attention focused on the Senate, supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used the prolonged floor debate to build momentum for the legislation, while opponents relied on extended debate tactics in an effort to delay or weaken the bill.

When the bill’s supporters briefly failed to produce enough senators for a quorum call, Mansfield privately admonished colleagues, reminding them that “there comes a point in time when certain procedures must, in the best interest of the Senate, be laid down.” Attendance quickly improved.

Lee, who has faced pushback from his own party for his support for this approach, responded to criticism over why the Senate should prioritize the measure even with GOP control of both the legislative and executive branches. The Senator, responding to Thune and Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s argument that Republicans lack the votes, told the Caller that cloture is just one way to break a filibuster — and when you use only that method of breaking the filibuster — after a while, you can become convinced that it’s the only way. But it’s not the only way.”

The talking filibuster employed against the Civil Rights Act only lasted roughly 54–60 working days, or up to about 75 calendar days by some counts, beginning in late March 1964 and ending with final Senate passage on June 19, 1964.

Lee cites the episode and use of the talking filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a blueprint for how sustained floor debate and prolonged pressure can still, more than six decades later, be used to advance major legislation like the SAVE America Act.

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Senior Politics Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Cancels Housing Bill Signing Over SAVE America Act

House Cancels Votes As GOP Holdouts Revolt Over Failure To Pass SAVE America Act

‘Cluster F*ck’: Trump’s Dramatic Feud With Senate Republicans Boils Over

Senate Ditches Town Early For Two-Week Recess As Save America Act Remains On Ice

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

Senate Republicans Have The Power To Force Democrats To Filibuster Voter ID — So Why Don’t They?

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

Senate Republicans could force Democrats into a talking filibuster on voter identification, but it’s unclear if they will use the strategy to pass the bill.

The SAVE America Act, a Republican-backed election integrity measure, would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote — including by mail — mandate photo ID for federal elections, direct states to verify citizenship and remove non-citizens from federal voter rolls.

Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy in a post on X, confirmed that the bill is expected to reach the House floor in February, and if passed, move to the Senate — where questions remain about whether Republicans, despite controlling both chambers, can muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Without the 60-vote threshold or Democratic support, GOP Senate leadership would be faced with potentially using one of the Senate’s oldest tools — the talking, or standing, filibuster — to advance the legislation.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee has referred to the Senate procedure as the “zombie filibuster.”

He wrote in a post on X that it is “uncharted territory” and acknowledged that it can be “time-consuming and difficult.”

Lee argues that now is the time to address the legislation, adding that the talking filibuster differs from the legislative filibuster because it does not require eliminating the 60-vote threshold for legislation or nominations, and therefore does “not commit” to altering Senate rules.

“This mess has got to be dealt with,” Lee told the Daily Caller.

“We might as well deal with it in the first instance. It does not commit us, it’s not nuking, it’s not changing the rules, it’s not ignoring any rules, it doesn’t require any nefarious activity, nor does it even compel us to adopt the same approach to every piece of legislation moving forward. But this is because it’s got to be dealt with at one point or another anyway. This isn’t gonna go away,” he continued.

Under a traditional talking filibuster, opposition is worn down through continuous floor speeches or enforcement of the two-speech rule, which limits each senator to two speeches on the same legislative question per legislative day. By keeping the Senate in continuous session and refusing to adjourn, the majority can prevent the minority from resetting those speech limits.

This approach shifts the burden to the minority to maintain constant floor presence and uninterrupted debate, imposing sustained physical and mental demands to preserve the filibuster.

Once all speeches are exhausted and a quorum is present, the majority leader may put the question to the chamber and proceed to a simple-majority vote. At that point, the filibuster has ended, cloture is unnecessary, and no Senate rules have been changed or overridden.

Operating entirely within existing Senate rules, this would allow Majority Leader Sen. John Thune — with a quorum present — to bring the measure to a final vote with 51 votes, as the 60-vote cloture threshold no longer applies once the filibuster has run its course.

If the Republican Senate chooses to proceed with a talking filibuster, it would require Majority Leader Thune to take an active role in calling live quorums, compelling Democrats to speak and enforcing Senate Rule 19, the “two-speech rule.”

One of the most high-profile examples of a talking filibuster came during the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when South Carolina Democratic Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke for over 24 hours in an attempt to block the legislation. He joined the Republican Party in 1964.

Since then, modern filibusters have largely relied on the threat of extended debate rather than continuous speeches, making Thurmond’s effort a rare example of the classic talking filibuster.

A common criticism of the federal voter identification bill is that, if enacted, it could pave the way for federalizing elections and encroach on state authority.

Lee has rejected that claim, dismissing it as a “paranoid fantasy” advanced by opponents of the legislation rather than a reflection of what the bill actually does.

“I mean it, it’s just, it’s not gonna happen. I mean it. I don’t, I don’t know anybody who wants to do that supposedly,” Lee told the Caller.

Another argument raised against the bill is that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) may constrain federal proof-of-citizenship requirements. Critics point to the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling interpreting the NVRA to require states to accept the federal voter registration form, which relies on an attestation of citizenship rather than documentary proof.

Under that framework, opponents of the SAVE Act argue the legislation’s mandates would need to be implemented through state-level registration systems or by amending the NVRA itself, rather than imposed through standalone federal legislation.

Lee asserts that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress clear authority to enact the SAVE America Act, particularly because federal law — not state policy — created the current constraints.

He contends that Supreme Court interpretations of the National Voter Registration Act have prevented states from requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, even when there is reason to believe noncitizens may be registering.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented in the Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc. case, arguing that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the NVRA “brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States” by preventing Arizona from enforcing its own proof-of-citizenship requirement to ensure that only qualified voters (U.S. citizens) are registered.

Supporters of the SAVE America Act frame the legislation not as an intrusion on state authority, but as a necessary federal remedy to a problem created by existing federal law.

The original SAVE Act, which ensures only U.S. citizens are added to federal voter rolls and prevents noncitizens from voting in federal elections, has been stalled in the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell. 

The newest version of the legislation, sponsored by Lee and Roy, has garnered support from President Donald Trump.

He told Daily Caller White House Correspondent Reagan Reese Friday: “I would love to use [the standing filibuster]. The SAVE Act is very important. Voter ID — if you look at it, no mail-in voting, and you have to have proof of citizenship. Everybody wants it. Polls — even with Democrats — it’s polling at 82%, with Republicans at 99%. So we are going to be trying very hard.” 

The Utah Republican met with Trump in the Oval Office Thursday alongside Republican Senators Ron Johnson 0f Wisconsin and Rick Scott of Florida, telling the Caller the president “wants it done” and is “energized” and “very motivated” to see the bill passed and signed into law.

Lee further pointed out that his legislation could be strategically leveraged by Republicans, telling the Caller he believes using a talking filibuster on the SAVE America Act would increase the party’s negotiating power.

“If we do this with SAVE America, I think it increases our negotiating power, our leverage, you might say.”

Majority Leader Thune has raised concerns that the time required for a talking filibuster could otherwise be used to advance multiple pieces of legislation.

Lee pushed back, arguing that lawmakers should be willing to devote additional time to the effort.

“On each of those other pieces of legislation, and even if we have less full time available to do other stuff, then gosh, let’s make up for it by working longer hours, by having longer work weeks, by staying on weekends, by canceling some recesses,” Lee told the Caller.

“We are lawmakers. We were elected to make laws, and not all laws are worth enacting, but good heavens, when we’ve got this somewhat rare and extremely valuable asset and resource — if the House, the Senate majorities all unified at the same time as a Republican presidency, it is reckless not to use this, absolutely inexcusably reckless.”

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Enough! It’s Time to Pass the SAVE America Act!

‘It’s Not Insurmountable’: John Kennedy Sizes Up What’s Needed To Pass SAVE ACT

Mitch McConnell’s Hospital Stay Is Delaying The SAVE Act

Trump Slams Door Shut On Conservatives’ Effort To Attach Election Integrity Bill To Shutdown-Ending Measure

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

‘Outright Massacre’: Senate GOP Takes Sledgehammer To Biden’s Green Energy Subsidies

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

The Senate dealt a series of blows to solar and wind energy in the latest version of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill — taking a page out of House Republicans’ playbook to crack down on green energy tax credits enacted under former President Joe Biden.

The Senate’s new proposal would move up the deadline for solar and wind projects hoping to qualify for production and investment tax credits by requiring them to produce electricity by the end of 2027. The additional cuts to green energy tax credits follows the president’s public broadside against the upper chamber’s initial proposal, which delayed the termination of solar and wind subsidies.

“Windmills, and the rest of this ‘JUNK,’ are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world, is destroying the beauty of the environment, and is 10 times more costly than any other energy,” Trump wrote in a post to Truth Social on June 21. “It is time to break away, finally, from this craziness!!!”

The upper chamber’s revised bill would also create a new tax on wind and solar projects whose components are sourced from foreign entities of concern, such as China.

Senate Democrats referred to the creation of a new excise tax penalizing the renewable industry’s reliance on Chinese materials as “economic self-sabotage” and an “outright massacre” for the solar and wind industry.

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of several GOP senators pushing the upper chamber to aggressively crack down on solar and wind tax credits in the president’s landmark bill. The Utah Republican favors a wholesale repeal of green energy subsidies, though Congress is likely to stop short of that given opposition from moderate Republicans.

Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis told reporters Saturday that the Senate finance panel’s decision to accelerate the termination of solar and wind subsidies by the end of 2027 was “disappointing.” He also suggested that failure to maintain the green energy tax breaks would have negative economic consequences for his state.

Tillis is one of several GOP senators that has pledged to vote against the president’s landmark tax and immigration bill, citing the legislation’s reforms to Medicaid.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lead, blasted Senate Republicans for rolling back green energy subsidies within their proposal, accusing GOP senators of putting “millions of jobs” on the chopping block.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!” Musk, the founder of the electric vehicle manufacturer, Tesla, wrote on his social media platform, X. “Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

Proponents of terminating green energy subsidies argued that the green energy industry’s messaging revealed its dependency on government funds in order to be profitable.

“If, as supporters of the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] are complaining, repealing these subsidies will ‘kill’ their industry, then maybe it shouldn’t exist in the first place,” American Energy Alliance president Tom Pyle said in a statement Saturday. “Extending green giveaways on the backs of American taxpayers is shortsighted and neglectful.”

The conservative House Freedom Caucus (HFC) has also urged the Senate to adopt the House-passed language that put solar and wind tax credits on a faster route to termination.

Several HFC members, including Republican Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, suggested they would not vote for the Senate’s proposal if it failed to adhere to the House language accelerating the termination of green energy subsidies.

“That’s got to go,” Norman told the DCNF in an interview Thursday. “The President wants it to go. He wants to abolish all of them. We agree with that.”

AUTHOR

Adam Pack

Congressional Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

It’s Time to End Government Support for Industrial Wind and Solar

Trump Calls On Waffling Congress To Crush Biden’s Green ‘SCAM’

Solar Energy Expansion Is Robbing Floridians Of Money and Land

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

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

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Data Confirms Conservative Fears Biden Weaponized Justice System

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

The Biden administration is using a novel application of an 1870 statute to enhance the sentences of peaceful abortion protesters, data provided exclusively to the Daily Caller confirms.

In the 30-year history of the Freedom of Access to Clinics (FACE) Act, the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) in just over three years has levied over a quarter of the law’s total charges, most of which have carried this novel sentence enhancement, the data also shows.

The data, along with the unprecedented enhancement, provide fuel to criticisms from conservatives that the Biden admin is unfairly targeting pro-lifers and using the DOJ for political ends.

In some instances under previous administrations, threatening to harm or kill a clinic employee carried less severe punishments. Under Biden’s, however, elderly women peacefully protesting an abortion clinic have faced much harsher consequences. After the Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision leak in 2022, hundreds of attacks were waged against pro-life pregnancy centers and churches, but the DOJ has only prosecuted five individuals for such offenses.

From 1994 to 2024, there were 205 cases against pro-life activists and only six against abortion activists, data provided to the Caller by Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy’s office reveals. Prosecutions of pro-life individuals constitute roughly 97% of all FACE Act cases.

At least 55 of those cases were prosecuted during the Biden administration, only five of which involved attacks on pregnancy resource centers. In less than four years, Biden’s DOJ has accounted for over a quarter of all FACE prosecutions and approximately 24% of cases targeting pro-life activists, the data demonstrates.

The FACE Act became law in 1994 and prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain or provide reproductive health services,” according to the DOJ. The law also applies to pro-life pregnancy resource centers and places of worship.

Some claim, however, the Biden Administration is weaponizing FACE against individuals who protest abortion. In the past two years, FBI agents raided the homes of pro-life activists Mark Houck and Paul Vaughn (the former being acquitted and the latter escaping prison time) during Biden’s presidency.

FACE “has been politicized and abused to target peaceful pro-life advocates,” while activists “who violently attacked” pro-life clinics walk free, Erin Hawley, Vice President of the Center for Life and Regulatory Practice at the Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF), told the Daily Caller.

She explained how the DOJ prosecuted at least 26 pro-life individuals in 2022 but zero activists “who obstructed or vandalized pregnancy care centers.”

In 2023, Roy and Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee introduced legislation to repeal the FACE Act.

“Biden’s Department of Justice has brazenly weaponized the FACE Act against normal, everyday Americans across the political spectrum, simply because they are pro-life,” Roy stated in a press release.

The Caller reached out to the DOJ, but they did not answer questions about FACE directly, instead pointing to its website. The DOJ told the Caller to contact the FBI for more information regarding investigations into attacks on pregnancy centers and churches.

The FBI did not respond in time for publication, although in 2022, the agency told The Daily Signal it was investigating attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches. The FBI would not share if it had arrested anyone in relation to the attacks.

From May 2022 to March 2024, there were at least 90 attacks on pro-life organizations and pregnancy resource centers, according to CatholicVote, which tracks attacks by abortion activists. The data is gathered from news reports, direct tips and public information the attackers posted online.

Many of the incidents appear to be associated with the pro-abortion groups Jane’s Revenge and Ruth Sent Us. Since May 2020, there have been over 400 attacks on Catholic churches, the website reports.

“Congress ought to repeal [FACE] immediately,” the Thomas More Society’s Senior Counsel, Steve Crampton, told the Caller. Crampton represented Vaughn during his FACE trial.

Crampton stated unequivocally that pro-life protests have not increased in aggression during the post-Roe era.

He said there was a lack of “hardcore” protests by pro-life activists after the Dobbs decision and contrasted that with the hundreds of attacks against churches and pro-life pregnancy centers.

Organizations like the National Abortion Federation (NAF) claimed attacks on abortion clinics increased in 2022. The NAF’s statistics are based on reports from facility members. A NAF report stated there was an increase in “clinic invasions,” or individuals who “fake appointments,” “force their way into the clinic” and “refuse to leave.”

They reported 20 clinic invasions in 2022. From 2020 to 2022, there were zero reported murders, attempted murders and bombings at abortion clinics. There were four reported incidents of arson and 101 acts of vandalism in 2022, though.

The Crime Prevention Center (CPC) also conducted a study in 2022, but it showed pro-life groups experienced over 22 times more violence than pro-choice organizations. CPC identified 135 attacks on pro-life groups from the date of the Supreme Court leak to September 24, 2022. There were only six cases concerning pro-choice groups. CPC said NAF’s 2021 report failed to provide a list of cases to substantiate the data.

Crampton argued there has not been an increase in pro-life protests, nonviolent or otherwise. He stated only a small percentage of pro-life individuals engage in demonstrations at abortion clinics.

He also noted how “for the first time in history,” Biden’s DOJ added underlying charges, specifically the felony Conspiracy Against Rights charge, to FACE Act prosecutions.

The Conspiracy Against Rights law prohibits two or more people from “conspir[ing] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” anyone exercising their constitutional rights. A violation of the law is punishable by fines and up to 10 years in prison, providing there is no kidnapping or sexual assault.

Crampton explained how the original purpose of the law – enacted in 1870 – was to protect newly enfranchised African American voters, but the Biden Administration “twisted” it to target peaceful pro-life activists exercising their First Amendment rights. Moreover, after the Dobbs decision, he said there was no constitutional right to an abortion.

President Bill Clinton nominated D.C.-based Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in 1997. She has sentenced at least nine defendants during Biden’s presidency, each time delivering severe punishments.

The Biden administration charged those defendants in 2022 with allegedly obstructing access to an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C. Each protester faced up to 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release and fines of up to $350,000, according to a DOJ press release.

The demonstrators protested the Washington Surgi-Clinic abortionist, Cesare Santangelo, who was accused of violating federal law by allegedly performing partial-birth abortions. Activists with the group Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising reportedly found five fetuses — which appeared to be victims of late term abortions — in a box of 115 fetuses outside the clinic.

Pro-life organizations and five House Republicans in 2024 called for investigations into the five abortions.

One demonstrator at the clinic was a 75 year-old woman, Paulette “Paula” Harlow. Kollar-Kotelly sentenced her to 24 months in prison for allegedly violating FACE and the Conspiracy Against Rights law by attending the demonstration, according to a DOJ press release. Another defendant, Lauren Handy, was sentenced to almost five years in prison.

Harlow’s husband expressed concerns about his wife’s health to the judge. The judge told Harlow that she should try to “remain alive” because it’s a “tenet of [her] religion,” according to LiveAction.

Past sentences under previous administrations demonstrate the unprecedented severity of the current punishments. (RELATED: Biden DOJ Hits Five Pro-Life Activists – Three Already Facing Prison For Blocking Abortion Clinic – With New Lawsuit)

During Clinton’s presidency, a self-proclaimed “anti-abortion activist” named J. Fred Hart, Jr. allegedly parked two trucks at an abortion clinic and blocked “vehicular access” to parking in 1997. The trucks were similar to the vehicle used in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, according to the DOJ. Bomb squads and arson experts investigated the trucks and determined they were empty. Hart was sentenced to four years probation (home detention for the first year), 200 hours of community service, mental health counseling, and a “special assessment” of $50.

In 2010, under President Obama’s DOJ, a man named Donald Hertz allegedly called an abortion clinic and threatened to kill a doctor and his family members. Hertz was sentenced to five years of probation, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Crampton said that without question punishments for violating FACE are harsher under Biden, pointing to the DOJ’s Reproductive Rights Task Force. He observed how the DOJ has yet to establish a Religious Rights Task Force, despite recent attacks on churches.

In July of 2022, shortly after Roe was overturned, the DOJ established the Reproductive Rights Task Force to “protect access to reproductive health care.” The task force aims to keep tabs on legislation and “enforcement actions” that threaten abortion access, according to a press release.

“The ‘Reproductive Rights’ task force is just a name they gave to a group that is pushing a pro-abortion agenda,” Hawley told the Caller.

Hawley linked to the DOJ’s website and noted that enforcing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was one of the purported objectives.

The Biden administration tried to use EMTALA to “force emergency room doctors to perform abortions that are illegal under Idaho law,” according to the ADF’s assessment of the State of Idaho v. The United States of America.

Hawley said the task force’s other objectives include enforcement of FACE and protecting abortion-inducing medication.

“Rather than abusing its power to target pro-life pregnancy centers, the DOJ should be protecting them and ensuring that women have access to real support and real healthcare,” Hawley emphasized.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ – Kristen Clarke – spearheads the National Task Force On Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers. It was established in 1998 after the shooting of an abortionist. Clark labeled the ADF a “hate group” and characterized Liberty University as a “fundamentalist Christian school” in 2018.

This separate task force coordinates with law enforcement and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs) to investigate “incidents of abortion violence,” even though FACE ostensibly provides protections for pregnancy resource centers.

Eleven defendants – including Paul Vaughn – were charged on Oct. 5 2022, with allegedly using “force and physical obstruction” at a clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, according to the DOJ. They faced the same harsh punishments, including up to 10 and half years in prison, $260,000 in fines and three years of supervised release.

Paul Vaughn ultimately escaped prison time, but it was a pyrrhic victory. Vaughn is now a convicted felon stripped of his right to vote and obtain a firearm, according to Crampton. He must answer to his probation officer and is also under house arrest.

The FACE Act applies to places of worship and pregnancy centers. The vast majority of prosecutions under the law, however, have targeted pro-life activists.

This past June, the DOJ sued five people for allegedly violating FACE by obstructing an abortion clinic in Florida.

Crampton said the law was not neutral.

“It was always about abortion.”

AUTHOR

EIREANN VAN NATTA

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Army Base Holds Training Class Calling Pro Life Orgs Terrorist Attacks

While Biden DOJ Locks Up Pro-Lifers, Hundreds Of Pro-Abortion Violent Incidents Still Remain Unprosecuted

RELATED VIDEO: Secret Service counter-sniper is predicting another assassination attempt before November

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

Republicans Sound Alarm On Efforts To Shield Ukraine Funding From American Voters

/in , , , , , , , /by

As President Joe Biden signed legislation Wednesday to send billions of dollars more in aid to Ukraine, officials from Brussels to Washington are working to hamstring former President Donald Trump from taking a different route should he win back the White House.

With Congress granting Biden additional “drawdown” authority to send weapons to Kyiv, and NATO allies in Europe seeking to take the power to send aid away from the White House, multiple Senate Republicans, strategists and former Trump officials told the Daily Caller efforts to “Trump-proof” foreign aid are misguided and futile.

“There are things that they’re setting in motion here that are going to make it very difficult for Trump to, if he’s elected president, to undo this, to extricate us, from these arrangements,” Utah Sen. Mike Lee said. “I mean, look there are a thousand things you can do with government contracting that can make it either easier or harder for a subsequent administration to take a different approach.”

Lee is among the lawmakers and officials who opposed the aid package that will send $26.4 billion of funding to Israel, $8.1 billion of funding to Taiwan and $61 billion of more aid to Ukraine. Several of the opponents noted that, in their view, Ukraine is unlikely to prevail in the long-term against Russia and a settlement must be negotiated sooner rather than later.

“The fact is that the strategy isn’t working. There is no strategy,” Fred Fleitz, the vice chair of America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security said. “And Trump understands that. And it’s just not fair for these Democrats to say, well, we’re going to Trump-proof NATO. We’re going to Trump proof aid for Ukraine.”

Polling also shows that sending additional aid to Ukraine is not particularly popular with battleground state voters, who are more focused on border security in the U.S. as border crossings and illegal immigrant apprehensions have hit record highs under the Biden administration.

A growing constituency in the Republican Party has endorsed halting further aid to Ukraine until progress is made on stemming the tide of illegal immigration in the U.S. While Trump has not expressed blanket opposition to more aid for Ukraine, some of his strongest allies at the Capitol are the biggest proponents of putting America’s border first.

In early April, Politico reported that the “U.S. and other Western countries are considering transferring to NATO a U.S.-led multinational group that coordinates the shipment of weapons to Ukraine, one of several new proposals that could help maintain the flow of arms to Kyiv under a second Donald Trump presidency.”

The group was created at the beginning of the war by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley with a goal “to coordinate Western support for Kyiv’s defenses.”

Several Democrats in the Senate told Politico in February that they need to take new steps to protect NATO from a potential second Trump term.

Conservatives pushed back on these efforts, and characterizations of Trump as anti-NATO, in conversations with the Caller.

“We’re seeing fear mongering by President Trump’s political opponents. And I think a lot of it has to go to the fact that they are absolutely standing with President Biden’s policy on Ukraine. That has no strategy. Trump has said, I want to stop the killing. He hasn’t said he wants to cut off Ukraine,” Fleitz said.

“Now, I read in the article that there’s some members of Congress who want to prevent Trump from pulling out of NATO. Trump doesn’t plan to pull out of NATO. As far as I know. He hasn’t said that,” Fleitz continued. “But what he has said is that he wants to hold NATO members accountable for their treaty obligations, to spend 2% of the GDP on defense. And Trump is not the only president to call for that. He’s just the only president who’s been serious about it.”

Richard Grenell, the former Acting Director of National Intelligence under Trump, told the Caller that the idea of Trump-proofing weapons for Ukraine is “silly politics during an election year.”

“What I would say is nothing undermines NATO more than being a member of a military alliance and yet not being able to contribute to that military alliance in any meaningful way,” Grenell said. “I don’t even want to speculate because Donald Trump made NATO stronger. You know, hundreds of billions of dollars more came into NATO than ever before.”

“Everyone knows exactly what Donald Trump is going to do for NATO, because they saw it for four years. There are no surprises. He’s going to absolutely demand that countries pay their 2014 commitment and their obligations. We don’t see that from the Biden team. They don’t demand it. They don’t bring it up,” Grenell added.

Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said after reading the Politico report, “the first thought through my mind was, in terms of danger to world peace, President Biden has posed a far greater danger than anything Trump could pose.”

“I’m getting a little sick of Europe relying on U.S. debt to provide a defensive shield for Europe. Their combined economies are as big as the U.S.. They do this themselves,” Johnson added.

Fleitz echoed that sentiment: “If there’s an effort by Democratic politicians and members of, and European leaders to somehow Trump proof Ukraine by having Europe provide more military aid. I’m all for that. Because the big problem here is that countries like Germany and France are giving a pittance when it comes to aid to Ukraine. We’re bearing the majority of the burden, and they really shouldn’t be criticizing us when they are not doing nearly enough to help Ukraine.”

John Ullyot, a National Security Council spokesman under Trump, told the Caller that “Democrats who say otherwise and take steps to jam up Trump on NATO are putting Europe First, not America First. That simply doesn’t fly with U.S. taxpayers and voters as a matter of common sense.”

Trump had expressed support for giving some additional aid to Ukraine in the form of a loan, and Congressional Republicans sold him on that as part of the latest aid package. About $10 billion of the $60 billion was enacted as a loan, but it is forgivable if the White House opts not to make Kyiv pay it back.

“I believe $10 billion of the $60 billion aid package it has designated as a loan. And that’s for humanitarian aid. And we expect Ukraine to pay it back. Realistically, given how their economy has been devastated, even when the war is over, it doesn’t seem likely we’ll be able to pay that in the immediate future,” Fleitz said.

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott told the Caller that a loan makes more sense than grants for foreign aid, but that it should not be forgivable.

“I mean, I think having a loan makes a lot more sense than just grants. I think that’s what we ought to be doing with our foreign aid. If you want to give your money away, that’s one thing, for your federal government to give your money away, that’s something totally different,” Scott said. “So I think that this ought to be in the form of a loan and it shouldn’t be forgivable.”

Johnson referred to the loan as “mere window dressing” and “political cover” saying: “We are going to be discussing when this war finally ends, how do you rebuild Ukraine to the tune of what, something around a $1 trillion price. Do you think a $10 billion loan is going to even enter that equation? So no, it’s window dressing. It’s nothing but mere political cover for those members whose constituents, by and large, would prefer they not vote for sending $60 billion down the drain.”

“It’s not really a loan. It’s a loan that has a thousand different ways that the loan can be waived built into the bill. And it’s pretty plain to me on the text of the statute that what they’ve got in mind is, getting this set up and then making sure the Biden administration forgives the loan. They’ve made it very, very easy to do that. And so to call something a loan when you’ve built into the law mechanisms to make it sort of optional. It’s very deceptive,” Lee said.

Despite the anger over the aid package from the Republican base, Trump, for his part, did not try to stop it. He even provided encouragement to the increasingly-maligned Speaker Mike Johnson, saying he’s “trying very hard.”

AUTHOR

HENRY RODGERS

Chief national correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senate Passes Foreign Aid Package, Bill That Could Ban TikTok

‘This Is Our Opportunity’ — Top GOP Senators Game McConnell’s Ouster After Botched Border Deal

GOP Civil War Deepens As Senators Claim McConnell Threw Party’s Voters ‘Under The Bus’ On Ukraine, Border

‘Weaponized His Leadership’: Insurgent Senate GOP Forms Post-McConnell Plan

Senate Republicans Sound Off On Leaked Border Deal Proposals, Say They Will Absolutely Not Vote For Them

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

New Concerned American Voters Super PAC Launched to Support Rand Paul for President

/in , , /by

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire/ — Concerned American Voters, a political action committee supporting Sen. Rand Paul’s campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, launched today with millions of dollars committed and 40 full-time field staff in the key primary state of Iowa, President Jeff Frazeeand Senior Advisor Matt Kibbe announced.

“Once in a while, you discover a presidential candidate who has the potential to change the political conversation, to elevate key issues in voters’ minds, and disrupt and transform a tired Republican brand,” said Kibbe. “Once in a lifetime, maybe, you will have an opportunity to support a transformative candidate who can do all of these things, and win. Rand Paul is that candidate.”

Kibbe is the former president and founder of FreedomWorks, a national community-building and grassroots advocacy organization of more than 6 million Americans who are passionate about promoting free markets and individual liberty. Frazee is executive director of Young Americans for Liberty and previously served as the national youth coordinator for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign committee.

Concerned American Voters launches with millions of dollars in funding pledged so far.

Concerned American Voters is building campaign infrastructure by organizing Rand Paul supporters nationwide and in key primary states, including Iowa, where it has 40 full-time field staffers and has already knocked on the doors of more than 60,000 voters. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Rand Paul tied for the lead among Republican voters nationwide. Polls consistently show he is the Republican most competitive against Hillary Clinton, with independents breaking 45 percent to 37 percent for Rand in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

“Our strategy to elect Rand Paul will maximize the potential of the new rules of politics, which are shifting power away from political insiders and establishment favorites, towards more authentic candidates willing to reach directly to voters,” said Frazee, Concerned American Voters campaign director. “By focusing on grassroots organization, e-marketing and proven Get Out The Vote tactics, Concerned American Voters will give Rand the edge he needs to win the Republican nomination and the general election.”

Frazee added, “The Internet cuts out middlemen, party bosses, lobbyists and bundlers looking for a quid pro quo. This is the dynamic that allowed then-Senate candidate Rand Paul to beat Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked successor in Kentucky in 2010. It’s why Senator Mike Lee was able to defeat 18-year incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett in Utah that same year. And it’s how Rand Paul will win the White House in 2016.”

Concerned American Voters has recruited a proven team of professionals who have successfully organized grassroots activists for both the ideas of, and the candidates for, liberty – on the ground and through sophisticated social media targeting online – for years. In addition to Frazee and Kibbe, Concerned American Voters’ leadership group includes Senior Development Advisor Terry Kibbe, who brings 18 years of experiences as a fundraiser for various nonprofit and political causes; Chief Operating Officer Edward King, the former national youth director for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign; Senior Tech Advisor Steve Oskoui, the founder of Austin-based Internet advertising network Smiley Media; Senior Data Architect Mike Topalovich, the founder of cloud-focused technical and business process expert collective Delivered Innovation; and Senior Tech Strategist Martin Avila, the co-founder of political technology firm Terra Eclipse.

For more information on Concerned American Voters, visit ConcernedAmericanVoters.com.

Glenn Beck hammers national “toxic political system”

/in , , , /by

Pitchfork Patriots reports, “Glenn Beck skewered the GOP while delivering the keynote address at a local Texas GOP’s Reagan Day dinner, contending the Republican Party hasn’t demonstrated through action that it actually believes the principles it espouses.”

“He then likened the current situation in Washington, D.C. to the nuclear disaster that occurred decades ago at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Beck offered the solution he said was employed to end that catastrophe as a way to repair our toxic political system,” notes Pitchfork Patriots.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/k9uOtYGLhHo[/youtube]

Pitchfork Patriots writes:

Beck previously warned Republicans that if they embrace establishment politicians such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the party would eventually cease to exist.

“If the GOP wants to not just win, if the GOP expects to survive — if you embrace John McCain and John Boehner it will not happen,” he said. “If you embrace the Mike Lees and the Ted Cruzes, you win big time.”

Read more.