Category: Kevin McCarthy

  • The Republican-controlled Alabama state legislature is set to defy a mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts by passing a new congressional map that will only include one majority-Black district. After the last census, Alabama passed new maps that “packed” Black voters in the state within a single district. A federal court ruled last year that the map in question was unfair…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A new report suggests that Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-California) promised Donald Trump that he would hold a vote on the House floor to expunge the former president’s two impeachments — an action he cannot legally take as it is not included in the U.S. Constitution. Politico reported on the promise, citing a source with knowledge of the situation. McCarthy…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A group of House Democrats is pushing to censure Rep. George Santos (New York) following a remarkable series of scandals regarding the Republican’s fabrications about his professional life and potential financial violations. The effort is being led by Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-New York), who is set to introduce a resolution Monday to censure Representative Santos for “defrauding the people of the…

    Source

  • Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has expressed support for GOP efforts in Congress to “expunge” former President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from his time in office, even though there isn’t any constitutional mechanism to do so. An impeachment in the House of Representatives of a federal official is a list of formal charges against that person, which the Senate must then…

    Source

  • On Tuesday, Republicans voted to pass legislation that would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning gas stoves — a proposal that was never quite on the table for the Biden administration, but that became a major moment in Republicans’ culture war nonetheless. The legislation, which passed with all Republicans and 29 Democrats voting “yes,” is largely symbolic.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former President Donald Trump baselessly suggested on his Truth Social account on Tuesday that the documents he improperly transferred from the White House were planted at his Palm Beach, Florida, estate as a result of orders to the DOJ from special counsel Jack Smith. In social media posts only days after his indictment, Trump shared a link discussing Smith from a disreputable right-wing website.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In the wake of President Joe Biden and Congress just barely averting an economically catastrophic U.S. default, a pair of Democratic leaders on Friday introduced a bill intended to stop Republican lawmakers from holding the economy hostage again. Contending that the recent crisis proves the current process “is broken and unsustainable,” House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.)…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Democratic co-chair of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus challenged House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to act on his words after the Republican leader conceded Monday that there is wasteful spending at the Pentagon, which has never passed an independent audit. “We need to get the efficiencies in the Pentagon,” McCarthy told CNN, criticizing GOP senators for seeking out ways to expand the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and other MAGA Republicans are turning on far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., for allying herself with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. Greene, one of the most outspoken MAGA diehards in Congress, drew heat from the right for voting in favor of McCarthy’s debt ceiling deal with President Joe Biden last week and flipping on her support for the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Five members of the Senate Democratic caucus voted against the debt ceiling package negotiated between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) and the White House on Thursday, condemning cruel provisions in the bill aimed at harming the nation’s most economically vulnerable populations. The bill passed Thursday evening 63 to 36, with Senators John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania), Ed Markey (D…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After securing a debt ceiling agreement that caps federal spending and threatens food aid for hundreds of thousands of poor adults, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made clear Wednesday that Republicans are not finished targeting the nation’s safety net programs — and signaled a coming effort by the GOP to slash Social Security and Medicare. In a Fox News appearance ahead of the House’s passage of the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The debt ceiling deal struck between President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) throws student debtors under the bus by forcing student loan payments to restart at the end of this summer with recourse for the presidential administration. The bill mandates that the ongoing student loan payment pause, which has been in place since March 2020, will end on August 30…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) scrambles to win the support of far right members of the Republican caucus for his debt ceiling deal, it is becoming increasingly clear that McCarthy may have to rely on support of Democrats to pass the package. Roughly 20 House Republicans have announced their opposition to the bill since it was released over the weekend…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressive economists and advocates warned that the tentative debt ceiling agreement reached Saturday by the White House and Republican leaders would needlessly gash nutrition aid, rental assistance, education programs, and more — all while making it easier for the wealthy to avoid taxes. The deal, which now must win the support of both chambers of Congress, reportedly includes two years of caps…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In a Truth Social post on Saturday, former President Donald Trump urged his followers to protest his potential arrest by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which he predicted would happen sometime this week. In his post, Trump wrote that he expects to be “ARRESTED ON TUESDAY,” and instructed his followers to “PROTEST” and “TAKE OUR NATION BACK” if that is the case.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.



  • Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Saturday that former President Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine his prosecutorial authority won’t be tolerated.

    In a memo to colleagues, Bragg wrote that “we do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York.”

    “Our law enforcement partners will ensure that any specific or credible threats against the office will be fully investigated and that the proper safeguards are in place so all 1,600 of us have a secure work environment,” Bragg continued.

    “As with all of our investigations, we will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly, and speak publicly only when appropriate,” he added.

    “We do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York.”

    Bragg’s email didn’t specifically name Trump, referring only to the “public comments surrounding an ongoing investigation by this office.”

    But it came just hours after the former president and leading 2024 GOP candidate claimed on his social media platform that he “will be arrested” on Tuesday and called on his supporters to “protest” and “take our nation back.”

    Trump is expected to be indicted by a Manhattan grand jury in a criminal case involving hush money paid to women who alleged sexual encounters with the former president, but its timing remains uncertain.

    In a follow-up post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “It’s time!!! We are a nation in steep decline… We just can’t allow this anymore. They’re killing our nation as we sit back and watch. We must save America! Protest, protest, protest!!!”

    Trump’s call to action echoed how, six weeks after losing the 2020 presidential election, he fired off a tweet encouraging his supporters to join a “big protest” in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. “Be there, will be wild!” he wrote. Hundreds of far-right extremists came and—after Trump told them to march from a rally near the White House to the Capitol—ransacked the halls of Congress in a bid to prevent lawmakers from certifying President Joe Biden’s win. Several people died as a result of the insurrection, which was precipitated by Trump and his Republican allies’ ceaseless lies about voter fraud.

    Mother Jones‘ D.C. bureau chief David Corn noted that Trump has recently “excused or dismissed the violence of January 6.”

    “He is an authoritarian willing to (again) use violence for his own ends,” Corn tweeted. “That is a threat to the nation.”

    Trump started priming his supporters for unrest more than a year ago. At a January 2022 rally in Texas, the ex-president promised to pardon January 6 rioters if he wins in 2024 and called for protests if prosecutors investigating his effort to subvert the 2020 election and other alleged crimes attempt to bring charges.

    “If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had… in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters 14 months ago.

    On Saturday, HuffPost‘s senior White House correspondent S.V. Dáte asked if high-ranking Republicans had anything to say about Trump’s most recent threats.

    “If a new round of political violence occurs, McCarthy should absolutely shoulder some of the blame.”

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other right-wing lawmakers quickly made it clear that they’re siding with Trump over the rule of law.

    Trump is expected to be charged in connection with payments his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to buy the silence of adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal—both of whom say they had affairs with Trump—at the height of the 2016 presidential election.

    Cohen has testified that at Trump’s direction, he organized payments totaling $280,000 to Daniels and McDougal. According to Cohen, the Trump Organization reimbursed him $420,000 and categorized it as a legal fee. Trump’s former fixer pleaded guilty to federal campaign violations in 2018.

    Trump has so far evaded charges but that could soon change, as Manhattan prosecutors are expected to accuse Trump of overseeing the false recording of expenses in his company’s internal records.

    McCarthy on Saturday described Bragg’s probe as “an outrageous abuse of power by a radical D.A. who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump.”

    “I’m directing relevant committees to immediately investigate if federal funds are being used to subvert our democracy by interfering in elections with politically motivated prosecutions,” he tweeted.

    According to MSNBC‘s Hayes Brown:

    By the time he fired off his own tweet, McCarthy had presumably seen Trump calling his supporters into the streets, echoing the incitement of violence against Congress two years ago. The speaker lived through that experience and witnessed firsthand the effect of Trump’s words. And yet he opted to pretend otherwise in the weeks and months after the January 6 attack as he flew to Mar-a-Lago in supplication. In handing over unvetted security footage from the attack to a far-right propagandist last month, McCarthy is once again complicit in trying to whitewash the assault. If a new round of political violence occurs, McCarthy should absolutely shoulder some of the blame.

    McCarthy was far from alone. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), for example, baselessly declared: “If they can come for Trump, they will come for you. This type of stuff only occurs in third world authoritarian countries.”

    The GOP’s current framing of ongoing investigations into Trump as political “witch hunts” is not new. McCarthy and others reacted in a similar manner when the FBI in early August searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and removed boxes of documents as part of a federal probe into the ex-president’s handling of classified materials.

    In New York, meanwhile, law enforcement and security agencies at all levels are reportedly preparing for the possibility of a Trump indictment as early as this week.

    If indicted, Trump would become the first U.S. president to face criminal charges in or out of office. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, has vowed to keep campaigning regardless of whether he’s arrested.

    The New York Times reported that if “Trump is arraigned, he will almost certainly be released without spending any time behind bars because the indictment is likely to contain only nonviolent felony charges.”

    However, the Manhattan D.A.’s hush money probe is just one of many pending cases against Trump. The twice-impeached former president is also facing a state-level criminal investigation in Georgia over his efforts to overturn that state’s 2020 election results, as well as federal probes into his coup attempt and his handling of classified government documents.

    As The Associated Press observed, it’s not clear when the other investigations into Trump “will end or whether they might result in criminal charges.”

    “But they will continue regardless of what happens in New York,” the outlet noted, “underscoring the ongoing gravity—and broad geographic scope—of the legal challenges confronting the former president.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Before the financial collapse come the aggressive anti-regulation lobbyists. These are often of the same ilk: loathing anything resembling oversight, restriction, reporting and monitoring. They are incarnations of the frontier, symbolically toting guns and slaying the natives, seeking wealth beyond paper jottings, compliance and bureaucratic tedium.

    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), for a period of time the preferred bank for start-ups, is the bitter fruit of that harvest. Three days prior to the second-largest failure of a US financial institution since the implosion of Washington Mutual (Wamu) in 2008, lobbyists for the banking sector had reason to gloat. They had the ears of a number of GOP lawmakers and were pressing the case that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had little reason to sharpen regulations in the industry.

    As a matter of fact, the converse case was put: the financial environment was proving too stringent, and needed easing up. This effort built on gains made during the Trump administration, which saw the passing of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. Then House majority leader Kevin McCarthy was particularly keen on winding back elements of the Dodd-Frank banking measures introduced in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. In 2018, he got much of what he wished for.

    Lobbyists for SVB were particularly aggressive in that endeavour, and even went so far as to seek exemptions from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the body responsible for insuring bank deposits in times of crisis and institutional oversight. Two former staffers for McCarthy so happen to be registered lobbyists for SVB, a fact that shows how the US revolving door between politics and business continues to whirr at some speed. The SVB lobby list also includes figures who found employment under former President Bill Clinton, former Senator Mike Enzi (R-My), former Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and former Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), just to name a few.

    The crisis duly came. On March 9, startups and venture capitalists made a run on SVB as its share price took a tumble. SVB had sold its available-for-sale (AFS) portfolio for US$21 billion at a US$1.8 billion loss. In a patch-up, capital raising response, SVB then announced that it would sell US$2.25 billion in new shares.

    By the next day, the FDIC had placed SVB into receivership. The corporation promised that insured depositors would have access to their insured deposits on March 13; uninsured depositors would have to wait a bit longer, expecting an “advance within the next week.” But given that 90% of the bank’s deposits exceeded the amount guaranteed by the FDIC, the prospects for adequate recovery proved uncertain, at least till the FDIC, Federal Reserve and US Treasury promised protection for them.

    Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo proved rather green in suggesting that the financial system, as things stood, would be resilient enough to hold off any contagion. “Federal regulators are paying attention to this particular financial institution,” he told CNN, “and when we think about the broader financial system, we’re very confident in the ability and the resilience of the system.”

    This is bound to be misplaced. It’s certainly not the view held by former FDIC head, Sheila Blair, who argues that there are other banks in the system with large amounts of uninsured deposits and unrealised losses. “These banks that have large amounts of institutional uninsured money … that’s going to be hot money that runs if there’s a sign of trouble.”

    David Sacks of Craft Ventures is also of the view that immediate intervention at the government level was required. “Where is Powell?” he wondered. “Where is [US Secretary of the Treasury Janet] Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW.” SVB, he proposed, should be placed with a top four bank. “Do this before Monday open or there will be contagion and the crisis will spread.”

    Questions are being asked whether the anti-regulatory bug has gotten to the various authorities and agencies. Mike Novogratz, founder of Galaxy Digital, pondered whether all banks were now being treated like hedge funds. “Seems like a policy mistake.”

    Economists such as Peter Schiff are even more damning, claiming that the entire US banking sector is set for a cathartic clean-up that will be greater than that following 2008. US banks were holding “long-term paper at extremely low interest rates. They can’t compete with short-term Treasuries.” In such an environment, depositors, in the pursuit of higher yields, would initiate mass withdrawals, resulting in a tidal wave of bank collapses.

    Blame for the SVB debacle has been extensive. “This was a hysteria-induced bank run caused by VCs [venture capitalists],” opined Ryan Falvey, a fintech investor based at Restive Ventures. “This is going to be remembered as one of the ultimate cases of an industry cutting off its nose to spite its face.”

    The oversight advocates are bound to agree. Dennis Kelleher, CEO of the non-profit Better Markets, is certainly one. “SVB’s stunningly quick collapse should put an end to the nonstop attempts by banks, lobbyists and their political allies to weaken capital and other financial regulations that protect depositors, consumers, investors and financial stability.”

    This is likely to prove to be a flight of fancy. The banking lobbyists have destructive form and staying power. In 2019, the International Monetary Fund published a working paper noting that bank lobbying, in general, produced “regulatory capture, which lessens the support for tighter rules and enforcement. This, in turn, allows riskier practices and worse economic outcomes.”

    As the great financial crisis showed, financial regulation is often the antidote to banditry. The pillaging and frontier types will always resist such tendencies. Again, they have been found wanting, and again, the harmful consequences of their ideas are going to prove deep and extensive.

    The post Silicon Valley Bank and the Anti-Regulation Bank Lobby first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • House Republicans’ plan to majorly slash federal spending over the next decade as a supposed “solution” to the national debt would likely cost millions of jobs and trigger a recession next year, a new report by Moody’s Analytics economists finds. With Republicans in charge of only one chamber of Congress, the party has turned to the debt limit as a vehicle for their policy priorities…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.



  • A group of watchdogs on Tuesday urged the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision to exclusively hand more than 40,000 hours of security video from the January 6 Capitol attack to far-right Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is already selectively using the trove of footage to spin the insurrection as a largely peaceful event.

    In their request for an investigation, Public Citizen’s Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert and former White House ethics officials Norm Eisen and Richard Painter wrote that “the exclusive release of the Jan. 6 video footage appears to have been the result of a political agreement between McCarthy, Tucker Carlson, and others in McCarthy’s bid to become speaker.”

    While McCarthy has defended the arrangement with Carlson as similar to the common practice of giving select members of the media “exclusives on certain things,” the watchdogs contended that “this is not like granting an exclusive interview; this is providing a valuable government resource exclusively to one news outlet and discriminating against others, which flies in the face of First Amendment values.”

    The ethics experts went on to argue that “the speaker’s release of security footage exclusively to Tucker Carlson is pure and simple using congressional resources for partisan gamesmanship—the very type of polarizing gamesmanship that has caused such damage to the public’s perception of the integrity of Congress.”

    The investigation request was submitted to the Office of Congressional Ethics—an independent body that House Republicans have worked to gut—just hours after Fox News aired Carlson’s first segment featuring the exclusively obtained footage.

    Consistent with his past descriptions of the January 6 assault, Carlson used the Monday night segment to selectively present footage aimed at downplaying the attack and portraying the Trump supporters involved as individuals who “revered the Capitol”—a narrative that runs counter to publicly available evidence of violence and significant damage to the Capitol building.

    Carlson signaled that segments in the coming days will feature additional security footage obtained through the deal with McCarthy.

    Matt Gertz of Media Matters for America noted Monday that “there was never any plausible chance that Carlson’s team would look at the footage and decide to tell their audience that it proved they had been wrong all along.”

    “He’s not an impartial finder of fact—he’s a propagandist who is in the business of telling his viewers what they want to hear,” Gertz wrote. “In this case, they want to believe that they and their political fellow travelers were the victims, so that’s what they are going to hear.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Two separate groups of media organizations sent letters to Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-California) over the weekend, demanding access to thousands of hours of surveillance footage from the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, which have so far only been released to Fox News host Tucker Carlson. McCarthy gave Carlson access to more than 44,000 hours of security footage from the January 6…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.



  • Kevin McCarthy just came back from a press trip to our southern border, full of talk about how bad the Biden administration is doing with asylum and immigration. Today, another group of House Republicans are “holding a hearing” at the Mexican border. If you watch Fox “News” you know all about it.

    Republicans have figured out how to have it both ways. They get cheap labor for their big business buddies, while stoking the hate and fear of their white racist base, claiming that Democrats are responsible for increasing numbers of undocumented or “illegal” immigrants living and working in the United States.

    While it’s true that two factors have driven a lot of migration over the past few decades (climate change wiping out farmland, and political dysfunction and gangs caused by the Reagan administration devastating the governments of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala) the main driver of would-be immigrants and refugees into the US over the past 40 years has been the Republican Party itself.

    “But,” you may say, “Republicans have been screaming about ‘illegal immigration’ for as long as I can remember! How can they be responsible for it?”

    There are two parts to this nefarious scheme.

    The first part has been running continuously for 40 years; the second part is more recent, having started in the early 1990s. Here are the details.

    First up was the GOP’s longest con regarding immigration. While they claim they don’t want “illegals” in the US, that’s the opposite of the situation the Reagan administration and Republicans in Congress set up back in the day.

    Most countries don’t demagogue immigration: they regulate it with real laws that have real teeth against employers who hire non-citizens to exploit them for cheap labor. The logic, which generally works out all around the world, is that when the jobs dry up, the immigrants just stop coming.

    I lived and worked in Germany for a year, and it took me almost four months to get a work-permit from that government to do so. I also worked in Australia (although I didn’t live there), and the process of getting that work-permit, just like with Germany, also took a couple of months.

    In both cases, it was my employers who were most worried about my successfully getting the work permits and did most of the work to make it happen.

    I wasn’t personally so worried about it, though: there’s an important reason why my employers took on the responsibility and did the work to make sure my work permits were in order.

    The way that most countries prevent undocumented immigrants from disrupting their economies and causing cheap labor competition with their citizens is by putting employers in jail or hitting them with huge fines when they hire people who don’t have the right to work in that country.

    We used to do this in the United States.

    In the 1920s, the US began regulating immigration and similarly put into place laws regulating who could legally work in this country and who couldn’t.

    Because there was so much demand for low-wage immigrant labor in the food belt of California during harvest season, President Dwight Eisenhower experimented with a program in the 1950s that granted season-long passes to workers from Mexico.

    Millions took him up on it, but his bracero program failed because employers — not government — controlled the permits, and far too many unscrupulous employers used the threat of canceling people’s work permits to silence workers who objected to having their wages stolen, or to intimidate workers who objected to physical or sexual abuse.

    A similar dynamic is at work today because of an “innovation” Reagan put into place.

    Employers get cheap labor from undocumented immigrants in the United States, using — like they did with the Bracero program back in the day — the threat of deportation and the violence of ICE as a cudgel. Undocumented immigrants working here even end up afraid to call the police when they’re the victims of, or witnesses to, crime.

    The result is unsafe communities, a terrorized undocumented immigrant workforce, and easy pickings for predators who regularly rob, rape, and inflict violence on immigrants and asylum seekers.

    Everybody loses except the employers, who have a cheap, pliable, easily-threatened source of labor that is afraid to talk back or report abuses.

    Which is exactly what the GOP wanted. The system is working just the way Reagan envisioned it.

    It started in 1986, when Ronald Reagan decided to stop enforcing the laws against wealthy white employers hiring undocumented people.

    It wasn’t that Reagan had suddenly discovered he liked nonwhite people. He’d opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1966, running for California governor, he supported a ballot initiative to end “Fair Housing” laws in the state, saying:

    “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”

    Similarly, when running for president in 1980, Reagan’s biographer Lou Cannon notes on page 520 of his book that Reagan called the 1965 Voting Rights Act “a humiliation of the South.”

    But by 1986 President Reagan was deep into a campaign to de-fund the Democratic Party, and the Democrats’ main donor was organized labor. What better way to crush unions than to replace their members with non-union workers who were legally invisible?

    For example, prior to the Reagan administration two of the most heavily unionized industries in America were construction and meatpacking. These were tough jobs, but in both cases provided people who just had a high school education with a solid entry card into the American Dream.

    They were well-paid jobs that allowed construction and meatpacking workers to buy a home, take vacations, raise their kids and live a good, middle-class life with a pension for retirement. The meat packers in Wisconsin were doing so well that they sponsored what became the only non-billionaire-owned NFL football team — the Green Bay Packers — from day one.

    Reagan and his Republican allies — with unionized companies across the country making healthy “donations” legalized by the 1978 Bellotti Supreme Court decision — wrote the 1986 Immigration Reform Act in a way that made it harder to prosecute employers who invited undocumented workers into their workplaces.

    They abandoned systems like I had to engage so I could work in Germany and Australia in 1986/87 and the early 2000s, or like Canada and other developed countries have had in place for decades.

    Instead, under Reagan’s new law, employers could easily avoid sanctions by simply having undocumented immigrants give them paperwork (often supplied by the employers themselves) that met the new requirement that it “reasonably appears on its face to be genuine.”

    Further reducing the “burden” on employers, an amendment to the law under the guise of preventing discrimination “penalized employers for conducting overly aggressive scrutiny of workers’ legal status on the basis of their nationality or national origin.”

    The law also held companies harmless if they simply fired all their unionized American workers and replaced them with undocumented immigrants who were employed by a subcontractor.

    This led to an explosion of fly-by-night and immigration-law-skirting subcontractors providing cheap undocumented labor for everything from construction to fieldwork to cleaning factories (like the most recent charge of child labor violations in Nebraska).

    As Brad Plumer noted in The Washington Post about Reagan’s 1986 immigration “reform”:

    [T]he bill’s sponsors ended up watering down the sanctions on employers to attract support from the business community, explains Wayne Cornelius of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at U.C. San Diego. ‘The end result was that they essentially gutted the employer sanctions,’ he says.”

    After Reagan stopped enforcing our labor and immigration laws with respect to wealthy white employers, the next 20 years saw a collapse of American citizens working in both the meatpacking and construction industries, among others.

    Forty-dollar-an-hour American-citizen unionized workers were replaced with seven-dollar-an-hour undocumented workers desperate for a chance at a life in America for themselves and their children.

    From the Republican point of view, an added bonus was that levels of unionization in both industries utterly collapsed, increasing profits and executives’ salaries while gutting the ability of unions to finance Democrats’ political campaigns.

    Reagan pulled off a double: he succeeded in transforming the American workplace and simultaneously set up decades of potential anti-Hispanic hysteria that Republicans like Trump and McCarthy could use as a political wedge.

    Without acknowledging that it was Reagan himself who set up the “crisis,” Republicans today hold serious-sounding conferences and press availabilities about how “illegals” are “trying to steal Americans jobs!” They’re all over right-wing hate radio and in the conservative media on a near-daily basis.

    But it’s not poor people coming here in search of safety or a better life who are impacting our labor markets (and, frankly, it’s a small impact): it’s the companies that hire them.

    And those same companies then fund Republican politicians who pushed under-the-radar social media ads at African Americans and blue-collar whites in 2016 and the last election saying that Democrats wanted Hispanic “illegals” to come in to “replace them” and take their jobs.

    America, it turns out, doesn’t have an “illegal immigrant” problem: we have an “illegal employer” problem.

    Which is why every single effort by Democrats to engage Republicans on “comprehensive immigration reform” runs into a brick wall: the GOP wants things just as they are.

    Which brings us to the GOP’s second grand immigration con job.

    When Marjorie Taylor Greene was on Tucker Carlson’s show this week to pitch her “divorce” between red and blue states (another grand distraction from the GOP’s plans to gut Social Security and Medicare), he said, speaking of the alleged differences between Republicans and Democrats:

    “How do you reconcile secure borders and wide-open borders?”

    We shouldn’t be surprised by lies about “open borders” coming out of Fox “News” after the Dominion revelations, but this is part of a much larger story that’s worth examining.

    As I detailed on the HartmannReport at length back on December 20th, whenever a Democrat takes up residence in the White House literally hundreds of Republican politicians step up to the microphone or tell their local newspapers and radio stations how the Democratic president has suddenly “opened up America’s southern border!!!”

    They did it to Clinton, they did it to Obama, and they’re doing it to Biden now. And every time they do, word travels from these GOP politicians and publications to desperate people south of our border.

    As any Republican will proudly tell you, there were huge surges of desperate would-be immigrants and asylum seekers during each of the last three Democratic presidents’ administrations.

    What they won’t tell you is that none of those Democratic presidents “invited” anybody or “loosened” border restrictions: people showed up because Republican politicians had told them the border was now open.

    Democrats don’t say our borders are open, and, as far as I can tell, never have.

    In March of 2021 the rightwing Washington Examiner newspaper went on a search for Democrats proclaiming that we’d “opened!” the southern border in the first months of Joe Biden’s presidency.

    They found nothing. (Well, they found that both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema had called the situation on our southern border “a crisis,” as well as a Democratic congresswoman from Michigan who was merely acknowledging the surge of immigrants. And a single Democratic mayor in Texas who also said it was a crisis. But that’s it.)

    But literally hundreds of Republican politicians, just like they do every two years, have spent the two-plus years since Biden’s inauguration proclaiming to every despairing potential refugee south of our border that the door is wide open.

    Just google “open border” and “congressman,” “congresswoman,” or “senator” and you’ll get a list too long to print.

    At the top of that list just from the past few months, of course, you’ll find the most contemptible Republican demagogues:

    — Ted Cruz wants everybody south of our border to know that the “Biden Open Border Policy [is] A Very Craven Political Decision”;
    — Rick Scott wants everybody to know that “Americans Don’t Want [Biden’s] Open Borders”;
    — Marco Rubio says there’s “Nothing Compassionate About Biden’s Open Border Policies”;
    — Rand Paul is so extreme he tells us Senator Rubio “is the one for an open border”;
    — Josh Hawley says “Biden’s Open Border Policy Has Created a Moral Crisis”;
    — Tom Cotton “Insists the Border is Wide Open”;
    — Ron Johnson wants the world to know that “Our National Security is at Risk Because Democrats have Turned Border Security into a Partisan Issue”;
    — Marjorie Taylor Greene “BLASTS Open Border Hypocrites”;
    — Mo Brooks opposes “Socialist Democrats’ Open Border Policies for Helping Kill Americans”;
    — Lauren Boebert says the “Root Cause” of the open border crisis “is in the White House”;
    — Matt Gaetz “revealed a complex and deceitful agenda by Joe Biden’s Democrat administration to evade our Southern Border law enforcement”;
    — Gym Jordan says “Biden’s Deliberate Support of Illegal Immigration Could Lead to Impeachment”;
    — Kevin McCarthy says the Biden Administration has “Utterly Failed” to secure the “open border”;
    — Elise Stefanik proclaims “Biden’s Open Border Policies have been a Complete Disaster.”
    — Tom Cole’s website features “Biden’s Open Border America”;
    — Bob Goode brags about introducing legislation named the “Close Biden’s Open Border Act”;
    — John Rose “Calls Out Biden’s Open Border Policies”;
    — Paul Gosar claims Biden is “Destroying America with His Open Border Policies”;
    — Roger Williams complains about the “Democrats’ Open Border Problem”;
    — Tom Cole wants the world to know that Biden’s “open border policies have given the green light to migrants and bad actors from around the world…”;
    — Gus Bilirakis “Denounces Dangerous Open Border Policies on the House Floor”;

    The list goes on and on, and these messages have spread all across Central and South America, just as Republicans hoped they would. Based on a lie.

    And the small percentage of migrants who actually get through our border and survive the trek across deadly deserts provide more cheap labor for Republicans’ big donors’ factories and construction sites, along with more Brown-skinned people they can demonize as “replacing” white Americans on Fox “News.” Win-win.

    The tragedy is in the lives of the desperate people who listen to these Republican lies and try to make it here.

    They pack all their belongings into a single backpack, bid tearful goodbyes to friends and family, and begin a grueling journey facing dangers of death, kidnapping, rape, and violence. They are fathers, mothers, and children.

    Quite literally taking their lives in their hands because they believed cynical, unfeeling, uncaring, sociopathic Republican politicians who are lying for political gain.

    Now, in response to the most recent surge caused by all the politicians listed above, the Biden administration may revive a rule turning away asylum seekers who didn’t first pre-register with our immigration system in another country before showing up here.

    Predictably, he’s being slammed for “too little, too late” by Republicans and sued by immigration advocates who are frustrated with almost 40 years of unsuccessful attempts to reform our immigration laws.

    Immigration issues are riling the entire developed world, as refugees flee war and climate change looking for safety and better lives. And it’s turning the politics of developed countries upside-down, ushering in hardcore rightwing governments from Sweden to Hungary to Italy.

    Immigration that’s too rapid or comes in waves invariably produces a local and typically racist/xenophobic backlash.

    We saw that here in the US with Irish immigrants in the 1840s following the potato famine that set the stage for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Gangs of New York story; with Chinese in the mid-1800s, leading to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; and the wave of Italian immigrants starting in the 1880s leading to “No Dogs, No Italians” signs here, as northern Europe also saw.

    Immigration has historically been a powerful positive force for America, but it must be regulated in a way that’s both fair to immigrants/asylum seekers and not disruptive of citizens’ work and lives.

    It’s way past time for our media to call out Republican exploitation and demagoguery of this issue so we can finally and comprehensively reform our immigration laws.

    While once again jailing employers who break our immigration laws — instead of the desperate people they invited here — so they have to exclusively hire American citizens and Green Card holders may cut into big business’ profits (which they can easily afford), everybody else in our society will be the better for it.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has given far right Fox News host Tucker Carlson access to extensive surveillance footage from the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Some journalists and elected Democrats have lambasted the move as dangerous, as the tens of thousands of hours of video could compromise the security of the Capitol and be manipulated to fuel right-wing…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Republican Rep. George Santos (New York) is officially under investigation by House officials, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) confirmed on Tuesday. McCarthy told reporters that Santos is currently being probed by the House Ethics Committee. It’s unclear what the focus of the investigation is, but it could be related to his questionable campaign finance practices — which Democrats and…

    Source

  • This is a proposal to the Biden administration on how it might get the debt ceiling law declared unconstitutional by a federal court
    before the likely default date in June.

    It’s not hyperbolic to say that congressional Republicans are engaging in economic terrorism. They’ve taken the U.S. and global economy hostage and threatened to shoot it if President Joe Biden doesn’t pay a ransom of cutting spending that Congress has already appropriated. Even if Biden wanted to negotiate with these terrorists, he wouldn’t know how, since they won’t even specify what the ransom is or what cuts would satisfy them. And that’s because if they do specify the ransom, to be meaningful it would be politically unpopular because it would have to cut popular domestic programs—including Social Security and Medicare–and defund part of the military to make a material difference to the national debt.

    Biden has rightly said that he won’t negotiate with the hostage-takers. But the Republicans have become even more reckless and extremist than in past debt ceiling crises and seem prepared to send the global economy over the financial cliff. In contrast, Biden and congressional Democrats care about a functioning government and the national economy, so when it comes close to “D[efault]-Day,” there’s a real danger they’ll cave and pay a ransom that would hurt ordinary Americans and encourage future hostage-taking.

    Why the Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional

    The best strategy is to get a federal court to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional and for the administration to issue new debt as necessary to pay the government’s bills. Over the past week, I’ve been in dialogue with some of the country’s most respected constitutional scholars including Laurence Tribe, Erwin Chermerinsky, Neil H. Buchanan, and Michael Dorf. They all agree that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional.

    As a matter of Constitutional law, the president has the right to prevent the Republican Congress from questioning the national debt and to issue new bonds to prevent default.

    Even Professor Tribe, who during the 2011 debt ceiling stand-off between President Obama and Speaker Biden was skeptical that the Constitution provided an off-ramp, has now written to me directly that he’s “long since rethought and revised” this view. He tweeted: “Some of history’s greatest lessons echo the words of Amazing Grace: ‘We once were blind but now we see.’” In another tweet, he eviscerated the constitutionality of the debt ceiling law: “The debt ceiling is a misnomer: it does nothing to cap spending but just creates and illusory threat to stiff our creditors. That’s because Section 4 of the 14th Amendment forbids defaulting on the nation’s debts.”

    Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states in plain language: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,
    shall not be questioned.”

    As Professor Eric Foner, America’s leading historian of Reconstruction, has argued in the
    New York Times, the original intent of this Amendment was to prevent former insurrectionist Confederate leaders who might be elected to Congress from repudiating all or part of the Federal government’s debt from the Civil War while honoring the Confederate debt (which was specifically prohibited.)

    As Foner writes, “the amendment’s language is mandatory, not permissive — the validity of the public debt ‘shall not be questioned.’ Today, over a century and a half after the amendment’s ratification, this promise is no longer considered an ‘extraordinary guarantee’; it is an essential attribute of a modern economy.”

    In its only decision regarding this constitutional clause,
    Perry v. United States (1935) the Supreme Court stated: “While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle, which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression ‘the validity of the public debt’ as embracing what- ever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.” (emphasis added)

    The question is: How can President Biden implement this Constitutional mandate and issue new debt to meet the government’s financial obligations if the default date is reached and Congressional Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, thrusting the national and global economy into a profound crisis?

    Foner proposes that “if the current House of Representatives abdicates this responsibility, throwing the nation into default by refusing to raise the debt limit, President Biden should act
    on his own, taking steps to ensure that the federal government meets its financial obligations, as the Constitution requires.”

    As a matter of Constitutional law, the president has the right to prevent the Republican Congress from questioning the national debt and to issue new bonds to prevent default. In 2011,
    former President Bill Clinton advised then President Barack Obama to use his constitutional powers to raise the nation’s legal borrowing limit on his own if he had to and “force the courts to stop [him’]” in order to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in history. Obama instead sent then-Vice-President Biden to negotiate a deal with then-House Speaker Boehner that hamstrung the federal budget and slowed recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.

    In any case, while legally correct, the problem with this strategy is that financial markets would likely reject these bonds, or require much higher interest rates because they would be deterred by the risk that the Supreme Court could conceivably overturn the President’s action in the future. In the end, a financial crisis would occur anyway.

    The only way to avoid this is to get a ruling from a federal court that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional before the drop-dead date.

    Ideally, the Biden administration would file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court asking SCOTUS for a declaratory judgement that debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional procedure to ask SCOTUS directly for a ruling since the administration wouldn’t be suing anyone in particular and there would be no case in controversy with an actual opposing party so the case wouldn’t fall under SCOTUS’s Article III original jurisdiction.

    A Strategy for Getting a Federal Court Ruling Before the Default Date

    So here’s an alternative strategy to get the issue into federal court before the drop-dead date: President Biden and Treasury Secretary Yellen should publicly announce now that they plan to continue issuing new Treasury bonds in the normal course in the amounts and on the schedule that debt becomes due despite extraordinary measures. Republicans would almost certainly find a party to sue the administration in federal court to block these plans.

    There would then be an actual case in controversy that courts could adjudicate. There is a chance that a court could find that the Republican plaintiff lacks standing to bring the case. But standing can be a malleable standard and courts often bend over backward to grant standing when they really want to hear a case. As legal commentator Mark Joseph Stern has previously argued in
    Slate, “certain key circuit courts and the Supreme Court seem to follow one standing rule: When a majority wants to decide a case on the merits, they find some justification to grant standing; when it doesn’t, they don’t.” The Republicans would probably forum shop for a district court—say in Texas—that would accept the case. If that court issued a ruling against the administration, the administration could then file a petition with SCOTUS for an emergency appeal.

    There is, of course, no guarantee that a lower federal court or SCOTUS would rule in the administration’s favor. While they call themselves “textualists” and “originalists” the right-wing Supreme Court majority is increasingly results-oriented and finds whatever text or historical meaning they can conjure up to rule the way they want to. But it’s at least possible that even this right-wing court wouldn’t be aligned with House Republicans in allowing a default on the national debt. As argued above, the text of the 14th Amendment is quite clear-: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…
    shall not be questioned.” And as leading historian Eric Foner explained, the original intent of the Amendment was “mandatory” and prohibited the questioning of all legally authorized federal debt.

    And perhaps the Justices’ own self-interest would incline at least two of the conservatives to join with the liberals in finding the debt ceiling unconstitutional. After all, the Justices all have investment portfolios and their salaries and pensions are paid by Treasury, all of which would be jeopardized by a default.

    If, as it should, a federal court ruled
    before the drop debt date that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, it would end once and for all the charade of a potential government default which would jeopardize the national and global economy. And even if the court ruled to the contrary, we would be no worse off than present, when markets assume the debt ceiling is legal and Biden will avoid default by making a deal with McCarthy.

    What’s to lose by the Biden administration giving this strategy a try?

  • Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) issued strong rebukes of the GOP after the House voted along party lines on Thursday to remove Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) from her spot on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a move that Democrats and progressives have decried as racist and Islamophobic. “It is an outrage that every Republican voted to remove…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The House voted along party lines to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) from her assignment on the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday in the party’s latest escalation of tactics to stifle Democrats and silence dissent. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has seemingly made removing Omar a top priority in recent days after reports emerged over the past weekend that a few…

    Source



  • Ilhan Omar is again in the news, a convenient target for reactionary Republicans, i.e., virtually all Republicans, seeking to discredit the left. The current Republican effort links her with two other Congressional liberal Democrats, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell who, like her, are being removed from their committee assignments by MAGA House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, in retaliation for Nancy Pelosi’s 2021 removals of Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar. McCarthy’s act of retribution comes as no surprise, since he promised this back in November 2021. It is no less dangerous for this.

    As numerous commentators have noted, Greene and Gosar were sidelined by Pelosi because they explicitly promoted violence against House Democrats (it is worth noting that both also have been featured at anti-Semitic events and avidly supported the January 6, 2021 insurrection). Schiff and Swalwell are now being sidelined because of their roles in the impeachment of Donald Trump. And Omar is being sidelined because . . . she is Ilhan Omar, and thus low-hanging fruit for Trump’s Republican avengers and their many xenophobic and racist supporters.

    What McCarthy is doing is one more sign that House Republicans plan to pursue a scorched-earth approach to “governing” over the next two years. It should be seen for what it is—a further assault on basic norms of political pluralism—and it should be denounced for this very reason.

    It is good that Democrats now recognize that Ilhan Omar is both a Democrat and a democrat, a fellow citizen and an elected public leader whose views deserve to be heard and debated.

    All three House Democrats ought to be defended together. It is heartening that they are being defended together by Democratic leaders, and that they are also speaking out, together, in their own defense, even if in the end McCarthy is getting away with his retribution.

    At the same time, the case of Omar deserves special attention, because of the specific slanders associated with her identity as a Somalian immigrant and Islamic-American woman, the specific threats of violence that have long been leveled against her, and the specific hatred she has received because of her defenses of Palestinian rights.

    Unfortunately, Congresswoman Omar has been subjected to this demonization ever since she rose to prominence as a newly-elected member of the House in 2019. And unfortunately, few Democrats, and few mainstream journalists, have treated these attacks with the seriousness—and the criticism—they deserve.

    Back in early 2019, I published three pieces taking Democratic leaders to task for this. The first, “The Attacks on Ilhan Omar Must Stop: Why Criticizing AIPAC is Not Anti-Semitism,” was published on February 11 in Public Seminar (as that controversy unfolded, I published two other pieces, here and here). Because every current slander against Omar first surfaced back then, I believe those pieces remain deeply relevant to this latest escapade. Virtually every single thing said there applies today, though it is now four years later and Kevin McCarthy is no longer the House Minority Leader but the House Speaker—which makes the situation that much more serious.

    It is good that Democrats now recognize that Ilhan Omar is both a Democrat and a democrat, a fellow citizen and an elected public leader whose views deserve to be heard and debated. As House Democrats face a new kind of political debasement at the hands of McCarthy, Greene, and their confederates—together being demonized as “leftists” and “radicals” and together punished for their opposition to the far right–one can only hope that they will develop a stronger commitment to defending both liberal democratic procedures and robust democratic debate.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and her progressive allies are denouncing the Republican effort to oust her from a key House panel as early as Thursday.

    House Republicans on Wednesday advanced a resolution to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC). In a party-line 218-209 vote, GOP lawmakers approved a rule that sets the parameters for debate on the chamber floor prior to a final vote.

    “It remains unclear when House Republicans will bring the Omar resolution to the floor for debate and a final vote,” The Hill reported. “Democrats still need to formally submit a separate resolution with their roster for the Foreign Affairs Committee.” That is expected to happen by Thursday.

    The GOP has sought for years to remove Omar, a principled critic of Israeli apartheid and Washington’s role in perpetuating it, from the HFAC. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has unilateral authority to boot any lawmaker from a select committee, but because the HFAC is a standing committee, removing a member from it requires a full House vote.

    On Tuesday night, after Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) introduced the measure to remove Omar from the HFAC over supposedly “antisemitic” remarks, the progressive lawmaker tweeted that “there is nothing objectively true in this resolution.”

    In response to Miller’s argument that “Omar clearly cannot be an objective decision-maker on the Foreign Affairs Committee given her biases against Israel and against the Jewish people”—a contention that wrongfully equates criticism of Israel’s colonization of Palestine with criticism of Jewish people—the Minnesota Democrat said that “if not being objective is a reason to not serve on committees, no one would be on committees.”

    In a Wednesday statement, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) called the House GOP’s pending vote against Omar “the latest racist attack by the far-right to silence progressives in Congress who speak up for a human rights-centered foreign policy, including Palestinian human rights.”

    “The GOP is riddled with white nationalists and antisemites. It is infuriating and absurd that they are trying to distract from the bigoted hatred in their own party by attacking a progressive woman of color.”

    “Anti-Palestinian politicians and organizations” have long tried “to censor the Congresswoman’s consistent calls for accountability for the Israeli government’s apartheid and human rights violations against Palestinians,” said JVP. “Sadly, these Republican attempts to attack Congresswoman Omar have been buoyed in the past by attacks on Palestinian rights advocates within the Democratic party.”

    According to Beth Miller, political director of JVP Action: “These attacks are happening because Congresswoman Omar is effective. Because she is a progressive. Because she is a Black Muslim woman. Because her values are universal and include fighting for Palestinians.”

    “The GOP is riddled with white nationalists and antisemites,” said Miller. “It is infuriating and absurd that they are trying to distract from the bigoted hatred in their own party by attacking a progressive woman of color. Congresswoman Omar consistently calls for the Israeli government to be held accountable for its crimes—crimes the GOP would rather cover up.”

    Meanwhile, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday that the CPC “stands fully behind our deputy chair.”

    “Omar is a valued member of the Democratic caucus and of this Congress,” said Jayapal. “Throughout her service in Congress and on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she has brought her essential and unique voice and lived experience to bear: as a refugee, war survivor, and soon, as the first African-born ranking member on the Africa Subcommittee.”

    “You cannot remove a member of Congress from a committee simply because you do not agree with their views,” Jayapal continued. “This is both ludicrous and dangerous. In the last Congress, Republican members were moved from committees with a bipartisan vote for endangering the safety of their colleagues. Speaker McCarthy is attempting to take revenge and draw false comparisons.”

    Jayapal praised the few Republicans “who have already rejected this idea” and expressed hope that “more will join them to state their opposition so it is not brought to the floor, or vote against it should it be brought to the floor.”

    As The Washington Post reported Wednesday:

    Republican leaders have worked for weeks to ensure that there were enough votes to pass a resolution removing Omar from the committee through their razor-thin majority margin, which stands at three as Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) remains away from Washington recuperating from a traumatic fall. Opposition to the effort emerged last month as four lawmakers signaled that they wouldn’t support the measure, citing concerns that it would continue a precedent set by former speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    But the inclusion of a provision in the four-page resolution, that Republicans argue provides due process to Omar, seems to have appeased at least one crucial voter, as Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) announced Tuesday that she would now support the measure. Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) have publicly suggested that they would vote against it before the resolution’s text was released Tuesday, while Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has said he remained undecided. Republican leadership aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to outline private whip counts, said they have the votes to pass the measure whenever Democrats formally appoint Omar to her committee.

    Jayapal affirmed earlier this week that Democrats “will stand strongly with Rep. Omar: an esteemed and invaluable legislator, a respectful and kind colleague, and a courageous progressive leader.”

    On Sunday, Omar argued that House Republicans are trying to oust her from the HFAC because they disapprove of having a Muslim refugee from Somalia on the panel, as Common Dreams reported.

    Omar has been the frequent target of Islamophobic bigotry, including from Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which paid Facebook to host attack ads that endangered the lawmaker’s life. Due to credible death threats, the Minnesota Democrat is often assigned security by the U.S. Capitol Police.

    In her Sunday conversation with CNN‘s Dana Bash, Omar acknowledged that she apologized for the wording of her February 2019 tweets tying U.S. lawmakers’ support for Israel to money from lobbyists—at the time, she specifically called out AIPAC, which has given millions of dollars to members of Congress.

    The GOP’s campaign to expel her from the HFAC “is politically motivated,” Omar said. “In some cases, it’s motivated by the fact that many of these members don’t believe a Muslim, a refugee, an African should even be in Congress, let alone have the opportunity to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee.”

    On Monday, Omar asserted that her work on the HFAC has contributed positively to “advancing human rights, holding government officials accountable for past harms, and advancing a more just and peaceful foreign policy.”

    Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) concurred, tweeting Monday that Omar’s work on the panel “matters deeply and Republicans’ cowardly efforts to remove and silence her are a disgrace.”

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) echoed Pressley, writing on social media: “It’s shameful that Republicans are trying to remove her [from the HFAC] after smearing her for years. We need her voice, values, and expertise on the committee.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, noted that “Omar is once again facing ugly personal and political attacks with incredible courage and dignity.”

    “It is outrageous that the House leadership wants to boot her off the Foreign Affairs Committee,” Sanders tweeted. “Fair-minded Republicans must join Democrats in preventing that from happening.”

    This article has been updated to include a statement from Jewish Voice for Peace.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has named the five members of his party who will serve on the House Ethics Committee, three of whom have denied or questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. McCarthy named as chair of the committee Michael Guest, a congressman from the state of Mississippi. He also appointed Reps. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), John Rutherford (R-Florida)…

    Source

  • New polling on embattled Rep. George Santos, who represents the 3rd Congressional District of New York, finds that the vast majority of his constituents now want him to resign, as the Republican tells party leaders that he is temporarily stepping back from his committee assignments. According to polling by Newsday/Siena College released on Tuesday, a whopping 78 percent of Santos’s constituents…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.