W³P Lives: 10/30/23

Monday, October 30, 2023

The Current Republican Party No Longer Represents Me

It’s time for real Republicans to start showing up

to local meetings and taking over

Over the past week, it should have become incredibly obvious to registered Republicans that the elected GOP and the party itself no longer represents its constituency.

It began with more than 20 members of the party voting against Representative Jim Jordan for Speaker of the House. Jordan, who has been popular with the base and one of the most vocal members of Congress over the past seven years, should have been a shoo-in if the party pays attention to its base, but they simply don’t care.

The second thing of note that happened was Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell simply rolling over for the Biden proposal to send another $106 billion dollars to our current “forever wars” and “other projects.” Broken down, the $106 billion would mean $61.4 billion for Ukraine, $14.3 billion for Israel, and $30.1 billion for other projects like “border security,” whatever that might mean to an administration with a wide-open southern border.

There was no push back, no negotiation – fiscal conservatism be damned – Sen. McConnell just said yes to $106 billion, over $75 billion of which is for other countries – keep in mind, there was discussion when in 2018, Trump only requested $18 billion over 10 years to complete our southern border wall.

Thirdly, there was war hawk and frequent strongly written letter author, Senator Lindsey Graham who led a bipartisan delegation to Tel Aviv, Israel for a photo op amidst the ongoing war. When questioned by the conservative news outlet, NewsMax, Graham showed a bit more of his true colors.

Upon completing a standard talk about “how we all need to come together,” NewsMax’s Israel correspondent, Daniel Cohen asked Graham why there wasn’t stronger condemnation of pro-hamas Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib continuing to leave a false tweet up about Israel bombing a hospital.

Graham’s response? Yelling to, “Get this guy out of here!” Very Republican of the being who is known for claiming he’ll “get to the bottom” of issues in his regular appearances on Fox News’ Hannity.

When no one moved to remove the dual United States and Israeli citizen, Graham walked the statement back claiming things were just a bit stressful and his emotions were, “raw.”

It doesn’t take a deep dive into those three consecutive actions from the current Republican party to know that they are actively choosing not to represent their base – or even any loose definition of conservatism. Whether it be electing a popular Speaker of the House, being fiscally responsible and not supporting what could be the beginning of WW3 or shutting down a reasonable question from a conservative reporter, not a single actual registered Republican would claim this is what they voted for.

But since Trump was in office, ticking off campaign promises the way successful businesses are run, this has been par for the course for the GOP.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, even if the House of Representatives had a Speaker, would Republicans be moving forward with the impeachment of Joe Biden?It seems like every week, especially when Kevin McCarthy was Speaker, they uncovered piles of damning criminal evidence against the current resident of the White House – but what did they do with it? When the House GOP finally opened an impeachment inquiry – they were slow walking it, unlike how former Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved Trump’s impeachments (with significantly less evidence) along as quickly as possible.

It was a carrot on a stick for the Republican base – they never had the intent to impeach Biden, just fundraise off the proposition.

Over the past 2 decades that I’ve spent in politics, the difference between the parties became evident – Democrats would move the ball when they had it – Republicans wouldn’t.

Because Democrats fight for their bases interests – no matter how crazy they may be, and Republicans write strongly worded letters.

The problem now is that the solution to the problem will take longer than many have the patience for. It’s not about just nominating new members of the Republican Party – if you want to make a difference, it’s going to mean taking it over from the bottom all the way up.

The current chairwoman of the RNC, Ronna Romney McDaniel, whose accomplishments include losing elections, starting a podcast and getting raises for herself, isn’t going anywhere any time soon – and the only way to flip the party in the direction of the people is to start replacing the people who keep her, and the current do-nothing members of Congress in power.

Who are those people? The heads of your local Republican party clubs – and the representatives of your State Republican party. If you don’t feel like the current party represents you, it’s time to start showing up to the local meetings and taking over. Get your church groups, neighbors and friend groups who agree with you – and go get those people out of their minor offices.

It will take time, but ultimately, this is the long-term strategy to reset the GOP and make them work for the people – not themselves.

X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 30

No Mitch, Ukraine Aid Is Not ‘Rebuilding Our Industrial Base’

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to reassure Ukrainian aid skeptics that billions in foreign assistance is being spent on American manufacturers to build weapons at home.

“If you look at the Ukraine assistance,” McConnell said on CBS, “a significant portion of what’s being spent in the United States and 38 different states, replacing the weapons that we send to Ukraine with more modern weapons, so we’re rebuilding our industrial base.”

But a closer examination of the aid for Ukraine reveals an overwhelming majority of taxpayer dollars are going overseas. Just a fraction of the $113 billion spent has gone to “rebuilding our industrial base.”

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about $67 billion of the $113 billion in Ukrainian aid went to defense spending. Of that $67 billion, about $27 billion went to “drawdown replenishment,” and $15 billion went to the U.S. military. Another $18 billion went to the Ukraine security assistance initiative, nearly $5 billion went to the foreign military financing program, and $2 billion went to “other defense.”

Richard Stern is the director of the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at the Heritage Foundation. An August analysis from the conservative think tank found the total aid to Ukraine cost taxpayers $900 per household.

“All of the money that’s not military support,” Stern told The Federalist, “is just aid we gave them. A lot of that is just cash, and so none of that directly comes back to the U.S. in any kind of real life.”

Of the military spending, Stern explained, “None of it is money. All of its equipment. A lot of it is equipment that had already been produced, so that’s not supporting U.S. defense industries.”

Last week, President Joe Biden proposed another $61 billion in aid to Ukraine packaged with spending for Israel, the southern U.S. border, and global humanitarian assistance for a combined $100 billion.

The proposal drew swift condemnation from Republicans on Capitol Hill, with Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance slamming the president for leveraging dead Israelis to extort more money for Ukraine.

“If he wants to sell the American people on $60 billion more to Ukraine, he shouldn’t use dead Israeli children to do it,” Vance said on Fox News.

House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, who was elected to lead the lower chamber on Wednesday, said he supports more aid to Ukraine, but he believes lawmakers should break up the president’s proposal and vote on each bill separately.

“I told the staff at the White House today that our consensus among House Republicans is that we need to bifurcate those issues,” Johnson said on Fox News Thursday.

Democrats Already Failing in Plan to Circumvent Tuberville's Holds

Rebecca Downs reporting for Townhall

For months now, as Townhall has been covering, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has been holding up military nominees and promotions in response to the Biden administration's Pentagon's abortion policy. Under the policy, which violates 10 U.S.C. 1093, servicemembers and their dependents can receive paid time off for abortions, and travel expenses are covered if the abortion takes place in another state. There is no gestational limit. The latest update highlights not only that Democrats are unwilling to compromise, but they are desperate, as they've now turned to a rule change, which requires support from Republicans they're not likely to get.

Punchbowl had the scoop last week on a proposal Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) that would go before the Senate Rules Committee:

Democrats are preparing to send a resolution to the Rules Committee that would allow most of the 300-plus promotions Tuberville is blocking to be considered on the floor en bloc. This would dramatically reduce the number of votes the Senate would need to take to approve the long-stalled promotions. It would be in effect for a little over a year.
The resolution, described to us by several sources, includes a carve-out for upper-level promotions like members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commanders, who would still require individual votes. The proposal technically qualifies as a “standing order,” not a permanent rules change.
It’s being spearheaded by Armed Services Committee Chair Jack Reed(D-R.I.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), among others.
...
Earlier this week, we scooped a parallel effort by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) to force floor votes on the two Joint Chiefs of Staff vacancies. On Wednesday, Sullivan’s proposal received the requisite number of signatures to move ahead.

A day after that report, though, news came out about the plan already hitting snags. The following day, Punchbowl's coverage highlighted how"Republicans cool to new push to circumvent Tuberville blockade," pointing to how even Republican members who are less than supportive of Tuberville's holds are not so keen to go along wih this procedural change:

Senate Republicans say they’re eager to end Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s(R-Ala.) months-long blockade of military promotions. But they’re not quite ready to embrace a new proposal aimed at speeding up the confirmation process.
...
But interviews with more than a dozen GOP senators — even those who oppose Tuberville’s moves — revealed a reluctance to support anything that could be seen as setting a new precedent that weakens individual senators’ power.
“The Senate doesn’t just run on rules, it runs on precedents as well,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), the Rules Committee’s top Republican, told us. “This would allow a majority to decide, at any time, that a member’s privileges could be overruled by a one-time exemption. I think that’s dangerous.”

This even includes Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) mentioned above, who is looking to fill the two vacant Joint Chiefs of Staff positions via a cloture vote, something he believe he will be "easily" be able to get the signatures for.

It's also worth emphasizing that Tuberville does have significant support from Republicans, not just in the Senate, but in the House as well. Grassroots leaders and veterans also support Tuberville with sticking to the rule of law and right to life with his holds, as do Alabama voters.

This is despite coverage from the maintream media that has been less than fully accurate on the matter. On last Thursday, The Hill jumped at the chance to claim in its opening paragraph that "Senate Democrats are working with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and a handful of Republicans on a rarely used procedural tactic to defeat Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) blockade of more than 360 military promotions, a stalemate that has consumed the Senate for months."

That outlet in particular has looked to sow discord and portray Republicans as being in disarray over the holds, despite the support Tuberville has.

The piece eventually names Republican senators who sound like they could be undecided, none of those "handful of Republicans," are mentioned. In fact, members willing to discuss how much of an issue it would be to change the rules are mentioned:

The resolution is already getting strong pushback from conservatives within the Senate GOP conference, and Democrats face a tough challenge in rounding up the nine Republican votes needed to pass it.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) said it will “probably” be a heavy lift to find the nine or 10 Republican votes needed to roll Tuberville.
“There’s a lot of discussion out there around it. We’ll see where that lands,” he said.
No Republican senator has yet expressed public support for the resolution, and those viewed as most likely to vote “yes” say they would prefer to resolve the impasse in another way.
One conservative senator warned there will be an intense political backlash against any GOP senator that votes with Democrats to circumvent Tuberville’s protest of the Pentagon’s policy of paying the travel expenses of service members who take leave to obtain abortions.
“I think that would be a hard vote for senators to take. I don’t know how you can seriously talk about the prerogatives of the institution and defending the rules if you’re willing to go out and kneecap one of your own senators who’s objecting to unanimous consent, which we do all the time,” said the lawmaker.
“It’s one thing that almost all Republican voters agree on — high-propensity [GOP] voters are pro-life,” the senator said. “It’s going to get reported that they’re not supporting Tuberville’s pro-life issue.”

CNN was more to the point with its headline, noting that "Republicans skeptical as Democrats eye rules change to overcome Tuberville’s hold on military nominations." TheMessenger similarly wrote that "Senate GOP Reluctant to Back Workaround on Tuberville Military Holds."

Further down still in The Hill article, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is quoted:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said the military promotions being held up by Tuberville should come to the floor individually for votes, not en bloc, which would effectively limit the power of senators to raise objections against specific nominees.
“An effort to get around Tuberville’s hold? No, I think we should vote on them individually. I’m not in favor of every one of those nominees, but there are some that we should move on and he’s open to moving on them individually,” Rubio.
“The point he’s raising with the Pentagon is that they’re violating current law,” Rubio argued, citing the longstanding prohibition on spending federal dollars on abortions.

Rubio makes a particularly telling point here, about how the Democratically-controlled Senate could have voted on the nominees and promotions one by one. While it would take some time, Tuberville has made clear his position for months that he is not willing to cave. In fact, it's Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who caved last month when Tuberville asked for and was granted individual floor votes so as to confirm Gen. Eric Smith as the next commandant of the Marine Corps, Charles "C.Q." Brown as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Randy George to become chief of staff of the Army.

All three passed the Senate, and Tuberville made clear in his floor remarks that his holds will remain.

Rubio has not only been supportive of Tuberville's holds, he's also been critical of of how woke the military has become under the Biden administration, not merely when it comes to abortion, but also Critical Race Theory (CRT), drag shows, Pride month events, and priorities over pronoun usage.

While CNN briefly mentioned this move from Schumer, there was no such mention of Schumer in The Hill's report.

Cornell Students Told to Avoid Kosher Dining Hall, Jewish Students Reportedly Afraid to Leave Their Rooms

We've seen a lot of despicable behavior coming out of our nation's institutions of higher education since Hamas terrorists launched a surprise attack against Israeli citizens on October 7 and killed over 1,400 in brutal fashion.

There was the group of Harvard students who immediately announced that they held "the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence," there was the Cornell professor who told a crowd of terrorist sympathizers that he was "exhilarated" while watching the news of the carnage unfold.

Unfortunately, those are just two examples; there are plenty more we could have chosen from.

The trend doesn't look as if it's going to stop anytime soon, and on Sunday evening a social media user who says she is a Cornell alum posted a disturbing tweet indicating that threats had been made against the university's kosher dining hall and that students were being advised to stay away:

My alma mater ⁦@Cornell⁩ just posted this advising students to avoid the Kosher dining hall. pic.twitter.com/IVWGdRoYzy
— Jamie Weinstein (@Jamie_Weinstein) October 29, 2023

The statement reads in full (bolding mine):

Cornell Hillel is aware of a threatening statement that was directed toward the building at 104West, which houses the university's kosher and multicultural dining hall, as well as more generally toward Jewish students, faculty and staff.
The Cornell University administration has been made aware of this concerning language, and the Cornell Police Department is monitoring the situation and is on site at 104West to provide additional security as a precaution.
At this time, we advise that students and staff avoid the building out of an abundance of caution. We will continue to provide updates as additional information becomes available.

The statement was put out by Cornell Hillel, a Jewish affinity group. They describe themselves on their website:

Cornell Hillel is the main gateway for Cornell students to get involved in the many facets of Jewish life on campus. With our students, faculty and staff we continuously strive to create a broadly defined Jewish campus culture, which is intrinsically intertwined with the culture of Cornell University. There are approximately 3,000 undergraduate and 500 graduate Jewish students at Cornell, comprising 22% of the student body. In addition, there are over 30 different Jewish student organizations, including everything from the Chain Notes to Corneillians for Israel (CFI).

Unfortunately, however, many Jewish students won't be able to participate in all that because there are reports that some are afraid to even leave their dorm rooms:

Currently on a @Cornell discussion forum, the kosher dining hall (104 west) is now on lockdown and Jewish students are scared to leave their rooms. @GovKathyHochul @HenMazzig pic.twitter.com/MsK4y34zf6
— Annie Vail (@AnnieSun16) October 29, 2023

According to the above post, statements like "jewish [sic] people need to be killed" and "gonna shoot up 104West [the dining hall]" are commonplace. Some truly sick stuff.

Actress Patricia Heaton posted, "This is shameful, @Cornell—what are you doing about this?"

As my colleague Nick Arama reported Sunday, antisemitism is alive and well around the globe, and what were apparently lynch mobs stormed the Makhachkala airport in Dagestan, Russia, chanting "Allahu Akbar." They waved Palestinian flags and searched for Jews who they believed had arrived on a plane from Tel Aviv, Israel. We can only guess what they would have done with them if they'd found them, but the mob certainly looked bloodthirsty.

Pro-Palestinian protests broke out across the United States as well this weekend. There's no telling when something truly bad could happen. It's a strange time we're living in, when people who are slaughtered are made out as the bad guys and Jewish students in Ithaca, New York, are scared to leave their dorm rooms. The moral compass of many Americans—notably, college students and professors—seems to have become profoundly broken.

Democratic Lawmaker Appears to Threaten Violence Against Jewish Colleague Over Israel Resolution Vote

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState

In this era in which civil discourse is often more theory than practice, arguments between members of Congress over the war between Israel and Hamas have become quite incendiary. Case in point: A recent exchange of words between two Democratic lawmakers clashing over a resolution supporting Israel in its efforts to eradicate the terrorist organization.

It started when Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) took to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to lash out at fellow Democrats who voted against the resolution, which also condemned Hamas. “They are despicable and do not speak for our party,” he wrote.

In response, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) threw out some harsh words of his own during an appearance on CNN. He called Gottheimer a “coward” and a “punk,” adding, “if he wants to play some kind of tough guy or gangster, we can handle it like gentlemen, or we can get into something else.”

For those who might be unfamiliar with the reference, Carson’s rejoinder echoes lyrics from Snoop Dogg’s “U Betta Recognize,” in which he raps the following line:

You know the name of the game, your b*tch chose me. N*gga we can handle this like some gentlemen or we can get into some gangsta sh*t.

In a statement to CNN, Gottheimer, who has probably never listened to Snoop Dogg and seemed not to get the underlying message, responded:

I’ll sit down with Mr. Carson anytime to talk about how we can bring the hostages home, including all Americans, provide immediate humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians being used as human shields, and crush Hamas and all terrorists seeking to do us harm.

Naturally, Carson’s clapback met with criticism, especially from Jonathan Greenblatt, president of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In a post on X, he wrote:

It's inexcusable for any member of Congress to threaten a colleague, & especially egregious that @RepAndreCarson is threatening a Jewish member for speaking out at a moment when we're seeing a massive spike in antisemitism. What's the point? Does he think it’s productive to intimidate @RepJoshG?

At the heart of this bout of congressional trash talking is the deepening fissure in the Democratic Party when it comes to handling relations with Israel against the backdrop of the intensifying war in the Middle East. Along with Carson, members of the far-leftist “Squad,” including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Cori Bush (D-MO), have been longstanding critics of Israel and voted against the measure.

Gottheimer’s criticism echoes that of many of his Democratic colleagues, many of whom have expressed fervent support for Israel. However, on the other side of the issue, there are Democrats who purport to advocate for the Palestinians and have gone rather soft on Hamas, who started the war after launching a surprise attack against Israel on October 7, killing over 1,400 Israeli soldiers and civilians.

On a macro level, this story highlights the overall polarization in American politics over Israel and several other issues. While it does not seem likely that the nation will see Carson and Gottheimer resort to fisticuffs, the fact that the former even used this type of language shows just how tense this debate has become.

You Won't Be Surprised to Learn That George Soros Is Bankrolling Pro-Hamas Protests

Here’s a shocker. Many of the groups holding pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests across the nation since the war in the Middle East first broke out are funded by none other than billionaire leftist financier George Soros.

According to a new report, the Open Society Foundations, Soros’ organization, has funneled millions of dollars to these groups, some of which are publicly justifying Hamas’ actions in the Israel/Gaza conflict, which raises serious questions about the merits and ethics of finances going toward an organization that has a well-documented history of killing Israeli civilians.

Far-left billionaire kingmaker George Soros has funneled more than $15 million since 2016 to groups behind this month’s pro-Palestine protests, where demonstrators openly cheered Hamas militants’ craven terrorist attacks on Israel.
A Post examination of Open Society Foundations records shows Soros’ grant-making network gave $13.7 million of the money through Tides Center, a deep-pocketed lefty advocacy group that sponsors several nonprofits who’ve justified Hamas’ bloody attacks while claiming Palestinians obsessed with the eradication of the Jewish state are the real victims.
Tides’ beneficiaries include Illinois-based Adalah Justice Project, which on the day of the Oct. 7 massacre posted a photo on Instagram of a bulldozer tearing part of Israel’s border fence down and a caption: “Israeli colonizers believed they could indefinitely trap two million people in an open-air prison… no cage goes unchallenged.”

Soros’ funding of these groups adds another layer to the ongoing debate over the Israel/Palestine issue, especially when it comes to the current war, which was sparked when Hamas launched a massive surprise attack against Israel. Over one thousand people were killed, many of whom were non-combatants. Yet, the billionaire has been propping up radical groups such as these for years.

This development further illustrates that it is primarily the far-left in America that insists on using the war to spread anti-Israel sentiments in the streets, airwaves, and interwebs. While many of these groups simply express solidarity for the plight of the Palestinian civilians, others have openly supported and defended Hamas, even when it was revealed that the group has targeted Israeli children for violence.

Another wrinkle in this affair is Soros’ position on the world stage when it comes to political discourse. Folks on the right have criticized the billionaire for helping to push the Marxist agenda forward in the West, using his considerable wealth to fund a variety of causes intended to promote progressive ideology. Folks on the left have responded to these criticisms by claiming anyone who speaks ill of Soros is motivated by antisemitism because he is Jewish.

Yet, here we have Soros, a Jew dishing out oodles of cash to organizations supporting a viciously antisemitic group that publicly declares its intention to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. The question is: Are those calling Soros out for funding these groups still antisemitic? Is it wrong to criticize Jewish folks who support antisemitic causes? Or is this akin to the N-word for black folks in that antisemitism is only acceptable when it comes from someone who happens to be Jewish?

These are the questions that come to mind when I see stories such as this.

Of course, I am being a bit facetious here. I don’t believe for a second that anybody, including those making the claim, actually thinks that most people who criticize Soros are doing so because they detest Jews. The reality is that the organizations siding with Hamas aren’t going away anytime soon with this level of financial backing. Fortunately, it does not seem their efforts have been effective at turning Americans against Israel.

Jack Smith Quietly Withdraws From a Trump Investigation

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall

Special Counsel Jack Smith has quietly withdrawn a subpoena seeking records from former President Trump’s 2020 campaign as their investigation of whether his campaign committed any crimes continues.

This week, more than a year into their investigation, Smith’s office dropped the subpoena request from Trump’s campaign following the withdrawal of a similar subpoena to Save America, the PAC formed by Trump’s aides.

His campaign raised nearly $250 million despite claims the election was “stolen.”

Speaker Johnson Discusses Israel Support Bill and Looming Budget Deadline

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse

Within the budget process there are two different facets. Congress is charged by the Constitution with making decisions about how to spend public money. Those spending decisions are split into two parts: authorization and appropriations. In the recent political era the “authorization” process has essentially been nulled; no one ever asks if the program (Ukraine, Israel, FBI, etc.) should be funded.

“Authorization” is done by Congress via legislation that “can establish, continue, or modify an agency, program, or activity for a fixed or indefinite period of time,” per the Congressional Research Service. In other words, authorization is Congress saying that money can be spent on a given item — not that it necessarily will be spent on that item.

“Appropriations” are done by Congress via legislation that authorizes agencies to make payments from the federal Treasury (i.e. it allows them to spend the money that had previously been authorized). Appropriations bills are ordinarily passed each year, but in recent years it has been common for Congress to fund the government “on autopilot” via continuing resolutions that simply allow agencies to continue spending the same amount of money they were spending under the previous funding bill.

Matt Gaetz has been trying to change this dynamic because the external recipients of the appropriation spending, the lobbyists, are the ones driving the continuation of the CR approach. The lobbyists pay congress via campaign donations. Those donations come from congressional appropriation. The CR process maintains the largesse.