#Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.).

[coochiequeens]

No one is entitled to biological offspring and how can they include surrogacy in the Act without implying that couples are entitled to women to be surrogates?

A trio of Democratic senators are introducing a "Right to IVF Act" that would, among other things, force private health insurance plans to cover assisted reproduction treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), egg freezing, and gestational surrogacy.

The measure provides no exception or accommodations for religious objections, all but ensuring massive legal battles over the mandate should it pass.

The "sweeping legislative package" (as the senators describe it) combines several existing pieces of legislation, including the Access to Family Building Act and the Family Building Federal Employees Health Benefit Fairness Act sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.), the Veteran Families Health Services Act from Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), and the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act from Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.).

Booker's contribution here is probably the most controversial. It requires coverage for assisted reproduction from any health care plan that covers obstetric services.

A Reverse Contraception Mandate

Remember the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, which required private health insurance plans to cover birth control (allegedly) at no cost to plan participants? It spawned some big legal battles over the rights of religious employers and institutions not to offer staff health plans that included birth control coverage.

Booker's Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act is a lot like the Obamacare contraception mandate, except instead of requiring health care plans to cover the costs of avoiding pregnancy it would require them to cover treatments to help people become pregnant.

The bill states that all group health plans or health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance must cover assisted reproduction and fertility preservation treatments if they cover any obstetric services. It defines assisted reproductive technology as "treatments or procedures that involve the handling of human egg, sperm, and embryo outside of the body with the intent of facilitating a pregnancy, including in vitro fertilization, egg, embryo, or sperm cryopreservation, egg or embryo donation, and gestational surrogacy."

Health insurance plans could only require participant cost-sharing (in the form of co-pays, deductibles, etc.) for such services to the same extent that they require cost-sharing for similar services.

What Could Go Wrong?

It seems like it should go without saying by now but there is no such thing as government-mandated healthcare savings. Authorities can order health care plans to cover IVF (or contraception or whatever) and cap point-of-service costs for plan participants, but health insurers will inevitably pass these costs on to consumers in other ways—leading to higher insurance premiums overall or other health care cost increases.

Yes, IVF and other fertility procedures are expensive. But a mandate like this could actually risk raising IVF costs.

When a lot of people are paying out of pocket for fertility treatments, medical professionals have an incentive to keep costs affordable in order to attract patients. If everyone's insurance covers IVF and patients needn't bother with comparing costs or weighing costs versus benefits, there's nothing to stop medical providers from raising prices greatly. We'll see the same cost inflation we've seen in other sectors of the U.S. healthcare marketplace—a situation that not only balloons health care spending generally (and gets passed on to consumers one way or another) but makes fertility treatments out of reach for people who don't have insurance that covers such treatments.

Raising costs isn't the only issue here, of course. There's the matter of more government intervention in private markets (something some of us are still wild-eyed enough to oppose!).

Offering employee health care plans that cover IVF could be a good selling point for recruiting potential employees or keeping existing employees happy. But there's no reason that every employer should have to do so, just because lawmakers want IVF to be more accessible.

It's unfair to employers—big or small, religious or non-religious—to say they all must take on the costs of offering health care plans that cover pricey fertility treatments. And Booker's bill contains no exceptions for small businesses or for entities with religious or ethical objections.

A lot of religious people are morally opposed to things like IVF and surrogacy. This measure would force religious employers to subsidize and tacitly condone these things if they wanted to offer employees health care plans with any obstetrics coverage at all.

As with any government intervention in free markets, there's the possibility that this fertility treatment mandate would distort incentives. IVF can certainly be an invaluable tool for folks experiencing infertility. But it's also very expensive and very taxing—emotionally and physically—for the women undergoing it, with far from universal success rates. The new mandate could encourage people who may not be good candidates for IVF to keep trying it, perhaps nudging them away from other options (like adoption) that might be better suited to their circumstances.

'Access' Vs. Whatever This Is

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many Americans have worried that the legal regime change would pave the way for outlawing things like contraception or IVF, too. Encoding into law (or legal precedent) the idea that fertilized eggs are people could have negative implications for these things, even if many conservative politicians pledge (and demonstrate) that IVF and birth control are safe. In response, some progressive politicians—perhaps genuinely concerned, perhaps sensing political opportunity (or why not both?)—have started talking a lot about the need to protect access to IVF across the country.

As much as I agree with this goal, I think IVF's legality is better off as a state-by-state matter. That said, the "protect IVF nationwide" impulse wouldn't be so bad if "protecting access" simply meant making sure that the procedure was legal.

But as we've seen again and again over the past couple decades, Democrats tend to define health care and medicine "access" differently.

The new Right to IVF Act would establish a national right to provide or receive assisted reproduction services. In their press release, the senators say this last bit would "pre-empt any state effort to limit such access and ensur[e] no hopeful parent—or their doctors—are punished for trying to start or grow a family." OK.

But that's not all it would do. The bill's text states that "an individual has a statutory right under this Act, including without prohibition or unreasonable limitation or interference (such as due to financial cost or detriment to the individual's health, including mental health), to—(A) access assisted reproductive technology; (B) continue or complete an ongoing assisted reproductive technology treatment or procedure pursuant to a written plan or agreement with a health care provider; and (C) retain all rights regarding the use or disposition of reproductive genetic materials, including gametes."

Note that bit about financial cost. It's kind of confusingly worded and it's unclear exactly what that would mean in practice. But it could give the government leeway to directly intervene if they think IVF is broadly unaffordable or to place more demands on individual health care facilities, providers, insurance plans, etc., to help cover the costs of IVF for people whom it would otherwise be financially out of reach.

This is the distilled essence of how Democrats go too far on issues like this. They're not content to say "People shouldn't be punished for utilizing/offering IVF" or that the practice shouldn't be illegal. They look at authoritarian or overreaching possibilities from the other side (like banning or criminalizing IVF) and respond with overreaching proposals of their own.

The proble with increasing access to IVF is what happens when the couple needs a surrogate to have biological offspring? Will they beg and pester the women in their lives? Will the affordable IVF compensate surrogates fairly?

[political-us]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Phillip Jackson at HuffPost:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would give federal and state officials more power to hold police departments accused of bad behavior to account. The Enhancing Oversight to End Discrimination in Policing Act, led by Warren and in the House by Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), would strengthen the power of state attorneys general to launch investigations into police departments involved in civil rights violations if the Justice Department fails to act on them. The bill would also task the Justice Department with looking beyond “traditional law enforcement mechanisms” when providing reforms to selective police departments such as mental health support, civilian oversight bodies, and community-based restorative justice programs, according to Warren’s office.

Warren had introduced a version of the bill in 2020. This newest version of the measure would also revitalize the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, granting an increase in funding to pursue civil rights investigations into police departments and other government offices accused of discriminatory practices. It would increase funding for the civil rights division to $445 million per year over a 10-year period. (For scale, the 2023 budget for the division was $189.9 million.)

Warren first introduced her bill following the death of George Floyd in 2020. That earlier draft also called for Attorney General Merrick Garland to rescind a 2017 memorandum from his predecessor, Trump-era Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that limited the DOJ’s ability to initiate consent decrees on police departments — a key way of stopping bad behavior. (Garland rescinded that memorandum in April of 2021.)

Nine senators co-sponsored the bill: Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). Several civil rights organizations are backing Warren’s new bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Urban League and others.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and 9 other co-sponsors in the Senate are supporting the Enhancing Oversight to End Discrimination in Policing Act to strengthen police accountability. Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-WA) is pushing this in the House.

[mariacallous]

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), one of the lawmakers who has been the most outspoken about President Donald Trump defying court orders to return a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador, has a stark warning for everyone living in the U.S.

“If we allow the Trump administration to disregard court orders and tear up the rights to due process, then the freedom of every American is in jeopardy,” Van Hollen told HuffPost in an interview Tuesday.

Van Hollen said he plans to visit El Salvador this week and hopes to finally put eyes on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old sheet metal worker and father of three currently detained at CECOT, a prison with a reputation of horrific human rights abuses. He said he has been in touch with U.S. embassy officials in El Salvador to plan the logistics of his trip.

“I think it’s important to go try to see him and see what his conditions are and try to meet with government officials there to discuss his release,” Van Hollen said.

CECOT is a high-security facility and visits are not permitted. People held there are also not allowed outdoors, according to The Associated Press.

Van Hollen tried unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, when he was in Washington, D.C., on Monday to meet with Trump. In his meeting with Trump, Bukele said he would not assist in returning Abrego Garcia to the U.S. and claimed he did not have the authority to “smuggle” him into the country.

Other lawmakers in Congress are trying to work out a trip to El Salvador. Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) have requested the trip be arranged as a congressional delegation, known as CODEL, Axios reported. Rep. James Comer, (R.-Ky.), who chairs the House Oversight Committee, would need to approve the request. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is also reportedly looking to visit El Salvador, but it is unclear when that would occur.

[democracyunderground]

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would radically change the makeup of the Supreme Court, amid ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Calls for Supreme Court reform grew louder this year after ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perks from conservative political donors. Further investigations have uncovered multiple significant and undisclosed gifts from politically connected friends over his time as a federal judge.

Justice Samuel Alito also took a luxury vacation paid for by an influential conservative donor while in the judiciary, another investigation found earlier this year.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill earlier this year along party lines that would require the Supreme Court to create and abide by a code of ethics. Unlike lower courts, Supreme Court judges are not beholden to an official ethics code.

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people,” Whitehouse said in a statement.

“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.

“As Congress considers multiple options to restore the integrity of this scandal-plagued Court, our term limits bill should be front and center as a potential solution,” he added.

Attempts to reform the Supreme Court have been denounced by both Republicans in Congress and by some members of the court, namely Thomas and Alito.

Alito argued earlier this year that Congress does not have the authority to force any reform on the court without a constitutional amendment.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

But Whitehouse’s office argued in Wednesday’s statement that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate how the court handles appellate cases from lower courts. That’s why all justices would still weigh in on “original jurisdiction” cases, avoiding the constitutional hang-up.

Trust in the Supreme Court remains near all-time lows, according to national opinion polling. A Gallup poll last month found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, with 58 percent disapproving.

[fenrislorsrai]

The Biden administration has previously said it wants all of the nation’s roughly 9 million lead pipes to be removed, and rapidly. Lead pipes connect water mains in the street to homes and are typically the biggest source of lead in drinking water. They are most common in older, industrial parts of the country. Lead crises have hit poorer, majority-Black cities like Flint especially hard, propelling the risks of lead in drinking water into the national consciousness. Their impact reaches beyond public health. After the crises, tap water use declined nationally, especially among Black and Hispanic people. The Biden administration says investment is vital to fix this injustice and ensure everyone has safe, lead-free drinking water. “We’re trying to right a longstanding wrong here,” said Radhika Fox, head of the EPA Office of Water. “We’re bending the arc towards equity and justice on this legacy issue.” Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., representing states that have faced lead crises, agreed in a joint statement, citing both the new rule and the Biden administration’s infrastructure investments. “We can make a lead-free future a reality for all, no matter the color or their skin or their zip code,” it said. The proposal, called the lead and copper rule improvements, would for the first time require utilities to replace lead pipes even if their lead levels aren’t too high. Most cities have not been forced to replace their lead pipes and many don’t even know where they are. There are some exceptions to the 10 year lead pipe replacement deadline. A few cities like Chicago with lots of lead pipes may get longer. Water utilities with dense networks of lead pipes — as many as 2,000 of them — could also get more than 10 years, the proposal says. The push to reduce lead in tap water is part of a broader federal effort to combat lead exposure that includes proposed stricter limits on dust from lead-based paint in older homes and child-care facilities and a goal to eliminate lead in aviation fuel. The EPA enacted the first comprehensive lead in drinking water regulations in 1991. Those have significantly helped reduce lead levels, but experts have said they left loopholes that keep lead levels too high and lax enforcement allows cities to ignore the problem.

overall estimate is $30B over ten years. that's nothing. I expect this was also fall under Justice 40 rules via HUD's Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes Grants. So that means 40% of the program money should go towards the most disadvantaged census tracts. and this should speed up the timeline AND put more money into it.

[follow-up-news]

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has told allies that he will resign from Congress after being convicted on federal corruption charges, two people directly familiar with those conversations tell NBC News. Menendez, who had been defiant for months in the face of calls from dozens of Senate Democrats to resign, appears to have finally relented after the guilty verdict and growing threats to expel him if he refused. His announcement would end a three-decade career in Congress that included a powerful committee chairmanship, writing major legislation and two criminal trials over allegations of corruption. Among those who urged him to resign were Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Menendez's friend and fellow New Jersey Democratic senator, Cory Booker. “In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign,” Schumer said in a statement after Menendez's latest corruption trial ended in guilty verdicts. The senator was convicted Tuesday on 16 federal counts related to using the power of his official position to enrich three New Jersey businessmen and benefit the Egyptian and Qatari governments. In exchange, the couple received lavish bribes, including “cash, gold bars, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle and other items of value,” prosecutors said.

[anarchistmemecollective]

he ended the stunt by calling ‘the founding fathers’ - no joke - “imperfect geniuses”. you know, those imperfect geniuses who owned people.

Some of his other positions share more ground with Republicans than his fellow Democrats. He famously defended Bain Capital during the 2012 presidential race. In 2018, he co-sponsored a bill which opposed the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement against Israel, a piece of legislation other 2020 Democrats like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Sanders opposed.

His support of the anti-BDS movement could coincide with the significant financial support he receives from pro-Israel groups. In 2014, his largest overall contributor was NorPAC, which donated $158,871, much of it earmarked for Booker by individuals giving to the PAC. NorPAC states its mission as supporting congressional members who “demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel.” One of the issues they mention on the group’s site is opposition to BDS. Also in his last Senate race, he received money from eight other pro-Israel PACs, totaling $36,527.

Booker has been a powerful fundraiser in his time in the Senate. Since 2013, he raised more than $25.9 million. In the 2018 cycle, a cycle in which he was not running, Booker’s campaign brought in more than $8.3 million in total.

An issue that may arise in the 2020 Democratic primary is the close relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and Booker. New Jersey hosts the headquarters of many major pharmaceutical companies and they have long had good relations with the New Jersey delegations. Booker said in 2017 that he would put “a pause” on accepting money from the industry. This was after he received heavy progressive criticism for helping kill a bill sponsored by Sanders to lower drug prices. In 2016, pharmaceutical PACs gave $57,500 to Booker. Becton, Dickinson & Co, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi PACs all contributed $5,000 each in 2016. Before that, in 2014, a cycle he was actually running in, Booker’s campaign took in $161,000 in pharmaceutical PAC money. Pfizer contributed $17,500, Merck & Co gave $12,500 and several more gave $10,000 each.

Throughout his Senate career, PAC contributions have played a major part in his fundraising. Since 2013, Booker’s campaign has been given more than $2 million in PAC funds, particularly from business PACs which make up almost 76 percent of PAC contributions in his career. In the 2018 cycle, PACs from the communications and electronics sector led the way with $49,500 in contributions. One communication industry PAC donor was T-Mobile USA which gave Booker’s campaign $6,000 in 2018. T-Mobile has been pursuing a merger with Sprint, which Booker expressed concerns over.

Cory Booker has been talking in the senate for over 20 hours now

He’s not filibustering. He’s protesting the current administration.

[axneha]

Sen. Cory Booker: ‘I will not accept money from Elon Musk’ but will ‘partner with anyone’

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) tells Meet the Press he is willing to “partner with anyone,” including Elon Musk, in order to raise awareness around President Trump’s tax and spending bill Booker says is “disastrous” to the long-term economy.

[hesbythecampfire]

People will study this speech for generations. Take that Strom Thurmond. Take that misogynist racists. Take that felon47!

“To be candid, Strom Thurmond’s record always kind of, just, just really irked me, that he would be the longest speech — that the longest speech, on our great Senate floor, was someone who was trying to stop people like me from being in the Senate,” -C. Booker

“I’m not here, though, because of his speech. I’m here despite his speech. I’m here because as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful,”

-The Hon. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

Taken from post speech remarks

"I don't want a Disney vacation of our history! I don't a whitewashed history, I don't want a homogenized history. Tell me the wretched truth about America, because that speaks to our greatness!"

Cory Booker during his 20th hour on the floor doing a filibuster - 4/1/2025

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Igor Bobic at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) wrapped a marathon 25-hour speech on Tuesday in protest of President Donald Trump’s policies, breaking the record for the longest Senate talk-a-thon set decades ago by infamous segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. The 55-year-old New Jersey Democrat began speaking Monday evening shortly after 7 p.m., railing against the Trump administration’s efforts to demolish government agencies, cut taxes for wealthy Americans, and slash government safety net programs like Medicaid. “I rise with the intention of getting in some good trouble,” Booker said at the start of his speech, referencing the phrase synonymous with the late civil rights leader and Georgia Congressman John Lewis. “I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able.” He went on to criticize many of Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s controversial moves, taking periodic breaks by yielding to questions from fellow Democrats without formally relinquishing the floor. His remarks lasted 25 hours and 4 minutes. A senator can continue speaking uninterrupted on the floor as long as they remain standing and be physically present in the chamber. Booker’s speech is not considered a full-blown filibuster since it didn’t stall a bill or a nomination. However, his so-called “talking filibuster” did delay an expected vote on a bipartisan resolution attempting to overturn Trump’s tariffs on Canada. That vote is now expected to take place on Wednesday. Thurmond previously set the record for the longest Senate speech, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He was a Democrat at the time but later left the party due to its embrace of civil rights.

Happy to see Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) break the record for the longest Senate speech previously held by the vile segregationist Strom Thurmond’s anti-Civil Rights Act filibuster.

Booker’s filibuster against the Trumpian dystopia was sorely needed.

See Also:

PoliticusUSA: Cory Booker Erases Racist Strom Thurmond From History While Setting Senate Record

Vox: Why has Cory Booker been talking for more than 24 hours (and counting)?

The Guardian: Cory Booker breaks record for longest Senate speech with Trump condemnation

[dailypulsenews]

Democrats Reintroduce The Equality Act

Several Congressional Democrats reintroduced the Equality Act on Tuesday, resurrecting a decades-long effort to enshrine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ Americans in federal law. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) announced the legislation at a press conference Tuesday morning and described the importance of…

[shrinkrants]

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has sponsored Joint Resolutions of Disapproval over some of Trump’s continued backing of Netanyahu. “As a result of Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid into Gaza, many thousands of children there face malnutrition and even starvation,” Sanders said. “Sadly, and illegally, much of the carnage in Gaza has been carried out with U.S.-provided military equipment. Providing more offensive weapons to continue this disastrous war would violate U.S. and international law.” Among the weapons included in the resolution are 35,000 two-thousand-pound bombs, which have caused thousands of civilian casualties over the past 18 months. The international outcry over these war crimes was so great that even President Joe Biden suspended their shipment last spring. Trump insisted that such arms shipments should be resumed, however, and the majority of Senate Democrats are supporting him. Indeed, only 14 Democratic Senators voted for Sanders’ resolutions to block the transfer of these and other deadly weapons. This was not a result of political pressure. Only 15% of Americans and just 5% of Democrats support additional military aid to Israel. Senate offices were flooded with calls to support the resolutions in a campaign organized by a wide array of peace, human rights, and religious organizations. Despite this, more than 70% of Senate Democrats sided with Trump and the arms industry over the wishes of their constituents. The truth is that a number of Democratic members of Congress, whom millions of people see as leading the resistance, actually ally with Trump on foreign policy. While Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)—a prominent supporter of Trump’s massive arms transfers—was widely praised for his marathon speech warning of the dangers of Trump’s policies, few pointed out that Booker expressed support for Trump’s backing of Israel’s far-right government and autocratic Arab allies during his address and joined the majority of Democrats if voting against limiting arms shipments. Instead of challenging Trump’s Middle East policies, today’s opposition party resembles the so-called “Death Squad Democrats” who backed former President Ronald Reagan’s policy in Central America. The difference is that such Democratic militarists were then in the minority. Today, it is the majority of congressional Democrats who are allying with a Republican President to support war crimes and undermine international humanitarian law. Had today’s Democrats been in office 40 years ago, they would have likely backed arming the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, the death squads in El Salvador, and the Guatemalan genocide against the indigenous Mayans. A few years earlier, they would have probably supported former President Richard Nixon’s carpet bombing of Vietnam. Perhaps today’s Democratic Party leadership assumes that the threat to basic government institutions and our very democracy posed by the Republicans is so great that progressive voters will support their candidates even if they side with Trump on such issues as offensive military operations, arms control, human rights, and international law. This is not necessarily the case, however. Polls have shown that Democratic support for Israel’s war on Gaza was the number one issue among the 19 million voters who backed Biden in 2020 but did not vote for Kamala Harris in 2024. Indeed, a case could be made that, given the closeness of the presidential election and some key congressional races, Democratic support for Israel’s wars on its neighbors cost them the White House and both houses of Congress. -- Stephen Zunes, Common Dreams

[dixiedrudge]

#2A Hypocrisy! Gun-Grabber's Aide Busted for Carrying Gun Into Capitol

Cory Booker Aide Booked for Carrying Gun Into Capitol – New Jersey Democrat helped gun-toting staffer bypass security before embarking on anti-Trump filibuster (Washington Examiner) – A staffer for Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) was arrested Monday for carrying a firearm on Capitol grounds without a license after bypassing security with the senator’s help. “Yesterday afternoon a Member of Congress…

[cavenewstimestoday]

'This has got to be a moment in America,' Cory Booker tells 1st town hall since record speech

Politics 1 / 8 Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks at a town hall event held at the Bergen Community College in Paramus, N.J., on on Saturday, April 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah) A person disrupts a town hall event with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., (not pictured) held at the Bergen Community College in Paramus, N.J., on on Saturday, April 5, 2025. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah) Sen. Cory Booker,…