#Roger Wicker (R-MS)

[simply-ivanka]

Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Todd Young (R-IN)

VOTE THESE PIECES OF SHIT OUT OF CONGRESS.

[reasonsforhope]

Yesterday [April 30, 2024], a bipartisan collection of US Senators introduced the Fans First Act, which would help address flaws in the current live event ticketing system by increasing transparency in ticket sales, and protecting consumers from fake or dramatically overpriced tickets.

Today, the artists and Congressmen allege, buying a ticket to a concert or sporting event requires negotiating a minefield of predatory practices, such as speculative ticket buying and the use of automated programs to buy large numbers of tickets for resale at inflated prices.

The legislation would ban such practices, and include provisions for guaranteed refunds in the event of a cancellation.

The political campaign organizers, calling themselves “Fix the Tix” write that included among the supporters of the legislation is a coalition of live event industry organizations and professionals, who have formed to advocate on behalf of concertgoers.

This includes a steering committee led by Eventbrite [Note: lol, I'm assuming Eventbrite just signed on to undermine Ticketmaster and for PR purposes] and the National Independent Value Association that’s supported by dozens of artistic unions, independent ticket sellers, and of course, over 250 artists and bands, including Billie Eilish, Dave Matthews, Cyndi Lauper, Lorde, Sia, Train, Fall Out Boy, Green Day, and hundreds more which you can read here.

“Buying a ticket to see your favorite artist or team is out of reach for too many Americans,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

“Bots, hidden fees, and predatory practices are hurting consumers whether they want to catch a home game, an up-and-coming artist, or a major headliner like Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny. From ensuring fans get refunds for canceled shows to banning speculative ticket sales, this bipartisan legislation will improve the ticketing experience.”

Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Roger Wicker (R-MS), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Peter Welch (D-VT) also signed on to the Fan First Act.

In the House, parallel legislation was just passed through committee 45-0.

[Note: That's a really good sign. That kind of bipartisan support is basically unheard of these days, and rare even before that. This is strong enough that it's half the reason I'm posting this article - normally I wait until bills are passed, but this plus parallel legislation with such bipartisan cosponsors in the senate makes me think there's a very real chance this will pass and become law by the end of 2024.]

“We would like to thank our colleagues, both on and off committee, for their collaboration. This bipartisan achievement is the result of months and years of hard work by Members on both sides of the aisle,” said the chairs and subchairs of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

“Our committee will continue to lead the way on this effort as we further our work to bring this solution to the House floor.”

“The relationship between artist and fan, which forms the backbone of the entire music industry, is severed,” the artists write. “When predatory resellers scoop up face value tickets in order to resell them at inflated prices on secondary markets, artists lose the ability to connect with their fans who can’t afford to attend.”

-via Good News Network, May 1, 2024

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Jesse Duquette

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 25, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.

Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[idvoteforthatdaddy]

Roger Wicker (R-MS) United States Senator

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

January 25, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Jan 26

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.

Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.

[misfitwashere]

January 25, 2025 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 26

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Postthat Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.

Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.

—

[deanwasalwaysbi]

23 Republican Senators & 124 Congressmen signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking for a 50 state ban on mifepristone, a drug safer than tylenol that is standard treatment for abortion & miscarriages, "due to safety concerns". The brief DARES to argue that banning the life saving drug would save women from 'reproductive control'. (x) These 147 people would rather have women die of sepsis than let women control their own bodies. If your representatives are on this list, call them and tell their office you will be voting against them in the next election because they asked SCOTUS to throw the US medical drug system into chaos at the cost of American lives.

United States Senate

Lead Senator: Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) John Barrasso (WY) Mike Braun (IN) Katie Britt (AL) Ted Budd (NC) Bill Cassidy (LA) Kevin Cramer (ND) Mike Crapo (ID) Ted Cruz (TX) Steve Daines (MT) Josh Hawley (MO) John Hoeven (ND) James Lankford (OK) Mike Lee (UT) Cynthia Lummis (WY) Roger Marshall (KS) Markwayne Mullin (OK) James Risch (ID) Marco Rubio (FL) Rich Scott (FL) John Thune (SD) Tommy Tuberville (AL) Roger Wicker (MS)

United States House of Representatives

Lead Representative: August Pfluger (TX–11) Robert Aderholt (AL–04) Mark Alford (MO–04) Rick Allen (GA–12) Jodey Arrington (TX–19) Brian Babin (TX–36) Troy Balderson (OH–12) Jim Banks (IN–03) Aaron Bean (FL–04) Cliff Bentz (OR–02) Jack Bergman (MI–01) Andy Biggs (AZ–05) Gus Bilirakis (FL–12) Dan Bishop (NC–08) Lauren Boebert (CO–03) Mike Bost (IL–12) Josh Brecheen (OK–02) Ken Buck (CO–04) Tim Burchett (TN–02) Michael Burgess, M.D. (TX–26) Eric Burlison (MO–07) Kat Cammack (FL–03) Mike Carey (OH–15) Jerry Carl (AL–01) Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (GA–01) John Carter (TX–31) Ben Cline (VA–06) Michael Cloud (TX–27) Andrew Clyde (GA–09) Mike Collins (GA–10) Elijah Crane (AZ–02) Eric A. “Rick” Crawford (AR–01) John Curtis (UT–03) Warren Davidson (OH–08) Monica De La Cruz (TX–15) Jeff Duncan (SC–03) Jake Ellzey (TX–06) Ron Estes (KS–04) Mike Ezell (MS–04) Pat Fallon (TX–04) Randy Feenstra (IA–04) Brad Finstad (MN–01) Michelle Fischbach (MN–07) Scott Fitzgerald (WI–05) Mike Flood (NE–01) Virginia Foxx (NC–05) Scott Franklin (FL–18) Russell Fry (SC–07) Russ Fulcher (ID–01) Tony Gonzales (TX–23) Bob Good (VA–05) Paul Gosar (AZ–09) Garret Graves (LA–06) Mark Green (TN–07) Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA–14) H. Morgan Griffith (VA–09) Glenn Grothman (WI–06) Michael Guest (MS–03) Harriet Hageman (WY) Andy Harris, M.D. (MD–01) Diana Harshbarger (TN–01) Kevin Hern (OK–01) Clay Higgins (LA–03) Ashley Hinson (IA–02) Erin Houchin (IN–02) Richard Hudson (NC–09) Bill Huizenga (MI–04) Bill Johnson (OH–06) Mike Johnson (LA–04) Jim Jordan (OH–04) Mike Kelly (PA–16) Trent Kelly (MS–01) Doug LaMalfa (CA–01) Doug Lamborn (CO–05) Nicholas Langworthy (NY–23) Jake LaTurner (KS–02) Debbie Lesko (AZ–08) Barry Loudermilk (GA–11) Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO–03) Tracey Mann (KS–01) Lisa McClain (MI–09) Dr. Rich McCormick (GA–06) Patrick McHenry (NC–10) Carol Miller (WV–01) Mary Miller (IL–15) Max Miller (OH–07) Cory Mills (FL–07) John Moolenar (MI–02) Alex X. Mooney (WV–02) Barry Moore (AL–02) Blake Moore (UT–01) Gregory F. Murphy, M.D. (NC–03) Troy Nehls (TX–22) Ralph Norman (SC–05) Andy Ogles (TN–05) Gary Palmer (AL–06) Bill Posey (FL–08) Guy Reschenthaler (PA–14) Mike Rogers (AL–03) John Rose (TN–06) Matthew Rosendale, Sr. (MT–02) David Rouzer (NC–07) Steve Scalise (LA–01) Keith Self (TX–03) Pete Sessions (TX–17) Adrian Smith (NE–03) Christopher H. Smith (NJ–04) Lloyd Smucker (PA–11) Pete Stauber (MN–08) Elise Stefanik (NY–21) Dale Strong (AL–05) Claudia Tenney (NY–24) Glenn Thompson (PA–15) William Timmons, IV (SC–04) Beth Van Duyne (TX–24) Tim Walberg (MI–05) Michael Waltz (FL–05) Randy Weber, Sr. (TX–14) Daniel Webster (FL–11) Brad R. Wenstrup, D.P.M. (OH–02) Bruce Westerman (AR–04) Roger Williams (TX–25) Joe Wilson (SC–02) Rudy Yakym (IN–02)

If your representatives are on this list, call them and tell their office you will be voting against them in the next election because they asked SCOTUS to throw the US medical drug system into chaos at the cost of American lives.

Help to patients who have to cross state lines to get medical care by donating to your local abortion fund here. (x)

[essfeed]

Vaccination Against HPAI May Threaten US Poultry Export Market

Congressional Leaders Advocate for Chicken Export Protections Amid HPAI Concerns The co-chairs of the Congressional and Senate Chicken Caucuses, Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Chris Coons (D-DE), along with Representatives Steve Womack (R-AR) and Jim Costa (D-CA), have taken a proactive stance in addressing the potential impacts of avian influenza on the U.S. poultry industry. In a recent…

[darkmaga-returns]

No one has ever accused the U.S. military of being a lean, mean, fighting machine. A call to give it $200 billion more split between this year and next won’t do anything to change that reality. But that’s what the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to do. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) thinks the money should be pumped into President Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” missile defense shield, as well as “key investments in areas such as shipbuilding, submarines and the Air Force’s next-generation fighter,” Valerie Insinna of Breaking Defensereported.

Such an increase would represent “a magnificent opportunity to make the Defense Department and defense procurement more efficient and modern,” Wicker said. (Did Wicker increase his three kids’ allowances when they made poor choices?) Admiral Mike Mullen, when he was serving as chairman of the Joint Chiefs a decade ago, was closer to the mark when he said the Pentagon’s civilian and military leaders “lost their ability to prioritize” amid the Defense Department’s post-9/11 cash gusher. But Wicker maintains that forcing the Pentagon to buy more commercially, outside of the Defense Department’s crazy procurement process, could generate big benefits.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Dave Whamond :: @DaveWhamond

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 28, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 29, 2024

Today—last night U.S. time—three military personnel were killed and 34 more wounded in a drone attack on the living quarters at a U.S. base in Jordan, near the Iraq-Syria border. U.S. troops are stationed there to enable them to cross into Syria to help fight the Islamic State. There have been almost-daily drone and missile strikes on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria since the October 7 attack on Israel by Iran-backed Hamas. The U.S. has blamed Iran-backed militant groups for the attack, and while no one has officially claimed responsibility yet, three officials from such groups have said an Iran-backed militia in Iraq is responsible. 

President Joe Biden today called the act “despicable and wholly unjust,” and he praised the servicemembers, who he said “embodied the very best of our nation: Unwavering in their bravery. Unflinching in their duty. Unbending in their commitment to our country—risking their own safety for the safety of their fellow Americans, and our allies and partners with whom we stand in the fight against terrorism.”

“And have no doubt,” he said, “we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner [of] our choosing.”

Republican war hawks have called for retaliation that includes “striking directly against Iranian targets and its leadership,” as Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) said, or by “Target[ing] Tehran,” as Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said. Republicans are blaming Biden for failing to “isolate the regime in [Iran], defeat Hamas, & support our strategic partners,” as Representative Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) wrote on X, formerly Twitter, today. 

But there is, of course, a larger story here. The Biden administration has been very clear both about the right of nations to retaliate for attacks and about its determination to stop the war between Hamas and Israel from spreading. 

Iran would like that war to spread. It is eager to stop the normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel, and is backing Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah in Lebanon—all nonstate militias—to try to stop that normalization.  

They are trying to stop what Patrick Kingsley and Edward Wong outlined in the New York Times yesterday: a new deal in the Middle East that would end the war between Hamas and Israel and establish a Palestinian state. The constant round of phone calls and visits of Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken with at least ten different countries is designed to hammer out deals on a number of fronts. 

The first is for a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, which would require the exchange of more than 100 Israeli hostages taken on October 7 for thousands of Palestinians held by the Israelis. The second is for a new, nonpartisan Palestinian Authority to take control of Gaza and the West Bank. The third is for international recognition of a Palestinian state, which would be eased by Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel. If that recognition occurs, Arab states have pledged significant funds to rebuild Gaza. 

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has rejected this proposal, but his popularity is so low people are talking openly about who can replace him. Hamas and Iran also reject this proposal, which promises to isolate Iran and the militias from stable states in the Middle East.   

Behind this story is an even larger geopolitical story involving Iran’s ally Russia. As Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg retorted when Senator Wicker called on Biden to respond to the attack that killed three Americans “swiftly and decisively for the whole world to see”: “Wasn’t funding Ukraine and Israel the first, critical step in deterring Iran? We are in this place now due to the Russian fifth columnists in the Republican Party including Trump who slavishly do Putin’s bidding.”  

Rosenberg was referring to the fact that Iran is allied with Russia, and Russia is desperate to stop the United States from supporting Ukraine. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, apparently thought his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine would establish control of the eastern parts of that country in a matter of days. Instead, the invasion has turned into an expensive and destabilizing two-year war that has badly weakened Russia and that threatens to stretch on.

In the United States, today marks the 100th day that extremist Republicans have refused to provide supplemental funding for Ukraine or Israel arguing that funding to protect the U.S. border must be addressed first. On October 20, 2023, as David Frum pointed out today, Biden asked Congress for “$106 billion to aid Ukraine and Israel against attack by Russia, Iran, and their proxies.” That funding has bipartisan support, but “[f]or 100 days, House Republicans have said NO,” Frum said. “Today, Iranian proxies have killed Americans.”

Republicans’ insistence that they want border funding has proved to be a lie, as Democratic and Republican senators have hammered out a strong agreement that extremist Republicans now reject. Former president Trump has made it clear he wants to run on the idea that the border is overwhelmed, so has demanded his supporters prevent any solution. Today, on the Fox News Channel, when asked why Republicans should let Biden “take a victory lap” with a border deal, Senator James Lankford (R-OK), who has been part of the border deal negotiation team, responded with some heat: 

“Republicans four months ago would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel, and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said we’re not going to give you money for this, we want a change in law. And now it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because [it’s] a presidential election year.’ We all have an oath to the Constitution, and we have a commitment to say we’re going to do whatever we can to be able to secure the border."

MAGA Republicans in charge of the Oklahoma Republican Party showed where Trump Republicans stand when they voted on Saturday to “strongly condemn” Lankford for “playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy.” They said “that until Senator Lankford ceases from these actions the Oklahoma Republican Party will cease all support for him.” 

In The Atlantic, Frum noted that “vital aid to Israel and Ukraine must be delayed and put in further doubt because of a rejected president’s spite and his party’s calculation of electoral advantage. The true outcome of the fiasco in Congress will be the collapse of U.S. credibility all over the world. American allies will seek protection from more trustworthy partners, and America itself will be isolated and weakened.”

Rosenberg wrote: “If you are unhappy with Iran today, first thing you should do is come out for funding Ukraine fully. Nothing will embolden Iran more than a Russian victory in Europe.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[freeindependentnews]

Among those he’s put on blast are Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Joni Ernst (R-IA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

On Monday it was Sen. Jim Risch’s (R-ID) turn.

How do people like this get elected in Republican primaries?

Carlson went on to note some of Risch’s donors include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. The host described them as “the war lobby.”

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) led a bipartisan majority of Senators in calling on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to continue to use America’s influence to push back against the International Criminal Courts’ recent politically motivated decision to illegally and unfairly pursue alleged war crimes investigations against the State of Israel.

The letter states in part:

“The ICC does not have legitimate territorial jurisdiction in this case. As articulated by State Department Spokesman Ned Price in response to this ICC decision, ‘the United States has always taken the position that the court’s jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the U.N. Security Council.’ Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, and therefore has not consented to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, ICC rules prohibit it from prosecuting cases against the citizens of a country with a robust judicial system willing and able to prosecute atrocity crimes committed by its personnel and officials. The ICC’s mandate should not supersede Israel’s robust judicial system, including its military justice system.”  

After sending the letter, Senators Portman and Cardin released the following statement: “We are again pleased that so many of our Senate colleagues joined us on this important effort to push back against the politically motivated persecution of Israel. We commend Secretary Blinken’s statements condemning the ICC’s decision and we urge the Biden Administration to partner with Congress to work together in this effort. The ICC has no jurisdiction over disputed territories and this decision creates a dangerous precedent that undermines the purposes for which the court was founded. This effort is discriminatory against Israel and will serve to make a lasting solution, based on direct negotiations between the two parties, more difficult to achieve.”

Joining Portman and Cardin in the letter to Blinken are: Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Susan M. Collins (R-ME), Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), Mike Braun (R-IN), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jerry Moran (R-KS), James Lankford (R-OK), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), James E. Risch (R-ID), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Krysten Sinema (D-AZ), Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John Thune (R-SD), Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA), Michael S. Lee (R-UT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Scott (R-SC), Tina Smith (D-MN), Roger F. Wicker (R-MS), Mark Warner (D-VA), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Michael F. Bennet (D-CO), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John Boozman (R-AR), Gary C. Peters (D-MI), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Cory A. Booker (D-NJ), John Hoven (R-ND), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Todd Young (R-IN), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Mike Rounds (R-SD), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), and Charles E. Grassley (R-IA).

The full text is available below and here.  

[tomorrowusa]

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-08) on Twitter reminding everybody that Democrats and Republicans aren’t alike.

Not one GOP member of the US House or Senate wanted you to get that $1,400. By contrast, all 51 voting Republican senators and 94.9% of all Republican House members voted to give massive tax breaks to the filthy rich in December of 2017. With Republicans, it’s perfectly fine to increase the deficit – as long as it helps their billionaire masters who then show gratitude by contributing more to GOP campaigns. 

In a bizarre twist to the unanimous GOP opposition to the stimulus, Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi tried to take credit for the stimulus even though he voted against it.

GOP Senator Absurdly Tries to Claim Credit for Stimulus That He Voted Against

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was having none of Sen. Wicker‘s or any other Republican’s hypocrisy. It was classic Pelosi.

Pelosi Slams Republicans Who ‘Vote No And Take The Dough’ On COVID Relief Package

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been preemptively peeved for days that Republicans, every single one of whom voted against the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, would take credit for its popular provisions anyway.

“All of it is an opportunity for us to grow the economy by investing in the people for the people,” Pelosi said of the package on Tuesday. “And I might say for our Republican colleagues who — they say no to the vote, and they show up at the ribbon-cuttings or the presentations.”

She later added that some of them will go home and take credit for it in their districts, despite working to sink it.

These warnings turned out to be more prescient than perhaps even she would’ve guessed. On Wednesday, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) touted a provision in the package — conveniently opting not to mention that he voted against it.

[ ... ]

“Unfortunately, Republicans, as I say, vote no and take the dough,” she said. “You see already some of them claiming, ‘oh, this is a good thing,’ or ‘that’s a good thing.’ But they couldn’t give it a vote. Anyway, enough of them.”

Republicans are generally not reality-based. Donald Trump told 30,573 lies while in office. Somewhere in Sen. Wicker’s scrambled brain he thinks that voting against a bill helps get it passed.

[guccifloralsuits]

ON THIS PRIDE MONTH PLEASE URGE YOUR SENATOR TO PASS THE EQUALITY ACT

If passed, the Equality Act would ban discrimination on the basis of sexuality. The immediate implication: lgbtq+ people could not be denied service on the basis of who they love. 

You can read the full text of the Equality Act Here. 

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN): (202) 224-4944 Baldwin, Tammy - (D - WI):  (202) 224-5653 Barrasso, John - (R - WY):  (202) 224-6441 Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO):  (202) 224-5852 Blackburn, Marsha - (R - TN):  (202) 224-3344 Blumenthal, Richard - (D - CT): (202) 224-2823 Blunt, Roy - (R - MO):  (202) 224-5721 Booker, Cory A. - (D - NJ):  (202) 224-3224 Boozman, John - (R - AR):  (202) 224-4843 Braun, Mike - (R - IN):  (202) 224-4814 Brown, Sherrod - (D - OH):  (202) 224-2315 Burr, Richard - (R - NC):  (202) 224-3154  Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA):  (202) 224-3441 Capito, Shelley Moore - (R - WV):  (202) 224-6472 Cardin, Benjamin L. - (D - MD):  (202) 224-4524 Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE):  (202) 224-2441 Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA):  (202) 224-6324 Cassidy, Bill - (R - LA):  (202) 224-5824  Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME):  (202) 224-2523 Coons, Christopher A. - (D - DE): (202) 224-5042 Cornyn, John - (R - TX): (202) 224-2934 Cortez Masto, Catherine - (D - NV):  (202) 224-3542 Cotton, Tom - (R - AR):  (202) 224-2353 Cramer, Kevin - (R - ND):  (202) 224-2043 Crapo, Mike - (R - ID):  (202) 224-6142 Cruz, Ted - (R - TX):  (202) 224-5922 Daines, Steve - (R - MT):  (202) 224-2651 Duckworth, Tammy - (D - IL):  (202) 224-2854 Durbin, Richard J. - (D - IL):  (202) 224-2152 Enzi, Michael B. - (R - WY):  (202) 224-3424 Ernst, Joni - (R - IA):  (202) 224-3254 Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA):  (202) 224-3841 Fischer, Deb - (R - NE):  (202) 224-6551 Gardner, Cory - (R - CO):  (202) 224-5941 Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY):  (202) 224-4451 Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC):  (202) 224-5972 Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA):  (202) 224-3744 Harris, Kamala D. - (D - CA):  (202) 224-3553 Hassan, Margaret Wood - (D - NH): (202) 224-3324 Hawley, Josh - (R - MO):  (202) 224-6154 Heinrich, Martin - (D - NM):  (202) 224-5521  Hirono, Mazie K. - (D - HI):  (202) 224-6361  Hoeven, John - (R - ND):  (202) 224-2551 Hyde-Smith, Cindy - (R - MS):  (202) 224-5054 Inhofe, James M. - (R - OK):  (202) 224-4721  Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA):  (202) 224-3643  Johnson, Ron - (R - WI):   (202) 224-5323 Jones, Doug - (D - AL):  (202) 224-4124  Kaine, Tim - (D - VA):  (202) 224-4024  Kennedy, John - (R - LA):  (202) 224-4623 King, Angus S., Jr. - (I - ME):  (202) 224-5344 Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN):  (202) 224-3244 Lankford, James - (R - OK):  (202) 224-5754 Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT):  (202) 224-4242 Lee, Mike - (R - UT):  (202) 224-5444 Manchin, Joe, III - (D - WV):  (202) 224-3954 Markey, Edward J. - (D - MA):  (202) 224-2742 McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY):  (202) 224-2541 McSally, Martha - (R - AZ):  202-224-2235 Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ):  (202) 224-4744  Merkley, Jeff - (D - OR):  (202) 224-3753 Moran, Jerry - (R - KS):  (202) 224-6521  Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK):  (202) 224-6665  Murphy, Christopher - (D - CT):  (202) 224-4041  Murray, Patty - (D - WA):  (202) 224-2621  Paul, Rand - (R - KY):  (202) 224-4343 Perdue, David - (R - GA):  (202) 224-3521  Peters, Gary C. - (D - MI):  (202) 224-6221 Portman, Rob - (R - OH):  (202) 224-3353 Reed, Jack - (D - RI):  (202) 224-4642 Risch, James E. - (R - ID):  (202) 224-2752 Roberts, Pat - (R - KS):  (202) 224-4774 Romney, Mitt - (R - UT):  (202) 224-5251 Rosen, Jacky - (D - NV):  (202) 224-6244 Rounds, Mike - (R - SD):  (202) 224-5842 Rubio, Marco - (R - FL):  (202) 224-3041  Sanders, Bernard - (I - VT):  (202) 224-5141  Sasse, Ben - (R - NE):  (202) 224-4224  Schatz, Brian - (D - HI):  (202) 224-3934  Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY):  (202) 224-6542  Scott, Rick - (R - FL):  (202) 224-5274 Scott, Tim - (R - SC):  (202) 224-6121 Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH):  (202) 224-2841 Shelby, Richard C. - (R - AL):  (202) 224-5744 Sinema, Kyrsten - (D - AZ):  (202) 224-4521 Smith, Tina - (D - MN):  (202) 224-5641 Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI):  (202) 224-4822 Sullivan, Dan - (R - AK):  (202) 224-3004 Tester, Jon - (D - MT):  (202) 224-2644 Thune, John - (R - SD):  (202) 224-2321 Tillis, Thom - (R - NC):  (202) 224-6342 Toomey, Patrick J. - (R - PA):  (202) 224-4254 Udall, Tom - (D - NM):  (202) 224-6621 Van Hollen, Chris - (D - MD):  (202) 224-4654 Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA):  (202) 224-2023 Warren, Elizabeth - (D - MA):  (202) 224-4543 Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI):  (202) 224-2921 Wicker, Roger F. - (R - MS):  (202) 224-6253  Wyden, Ron - (D - OR):  (202) 224-5244  Young, Todd - (R - IN):  (202) 224-5623

What to say: “Hi, my name is ______, my zip code is______. I am calling to urge Senator_____ to vote yes for H.R. 5, the Equality Act. Thank you.”

The opinions stated on this post are mine alone, and do not represent the office I work for. 

[nodynasty4us]

From the October 23, 2019 article:

...According to the right-wing Daily Caller, of all 53 Republican senators, only 7 definitively said they would vote to acquit the president.The seven hard nos came from Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Mike Rounds (R-SD).

...

Most other GOP senators either did not return comment, or released statements disapproving of the impeachment investigation but did not definitively commit to vote against removal when all the evidence has been presented. One prototypical response came from retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who said that “impeachment would be a mistake” but that “as a potential juror, I will have nothing more to say about impeachment until all the evidence is presented and all the arguments are made.”