Former President Joe Biden&#8217;s longtime communications director, Kate Bedingfield, tossed cold water on Senator Cory Booker&#8217;s (D-NJ) marathon speech on Tuesday, saying that it was unlikely to move the needle with regard to business as usual at the Capitol.
Bedingfield weighed in on Booker&#8217;s lengthy address — which, at 25 hours and five minutes, was the longest in U.S. Senate history — during an appearance on CNN shortly after the New Jersey senator passed the 24-hour mark, and she argued that the overall impact of the stunt was likely to be minimal at best.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Former Biden Comms Director Kate Bedingfield on Democrat Senator Booker&#39;s speech:
&quot;It may have a tangible impact on Senator Booker, but it won&#39;t have a tangible impact on business in Washington.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/djdAM8CUtb">pic.twitter.com/djdAM8CUtb</a>
&mdash; Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) <a href="https://twitter.com/WarMachineRR/status/1907216643761033471?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Bedingfield gave the good news first, saying that she believed Booker&#8217;s lengthy diatribe might actually pull some weight with the Democratic base and with donors, whom she said were simply waiting for someone within the party to show &#8220;signs of life.&#8221;
&#8220;The Democratic base, and Democratic donors, are looking for signs of life,&#8221; Bedingfield said. &#8220;And so what I think Senator Booker is giving them here are — some signs of life. Is it going to have a tangible impact on business in Washington? No, it&#8217;s not.&#8221;
&#8220;It may have a tangible impact on Senator Booker, but it won&#8217;t have a tangible impact on business in Washington,&#8221; Bedingfield repeated, laughing.
Bedingfield was far from the only one to mock Booker in the aftermath of his so-called &#8220;filibuster.&#8221;
Technically, Booker didn’t actually filibuster. There was no legislation under consideration for him to oppose, so he was just giving a floor speech — a record-breaking floor speech, sure, but not a filibuster. Still, that hasn’t stopped Democrats from celebrating Booker’s “filibuster,” a far cry from their condemnations of the tool.
The Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro noted, &#8220;Congrats on your official entry into the Guinness Book of World Records.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Congrats on your official entry into the Guinness Book of World Records <a href="https://t.co/fxnM702VGa">https://t.co/fxnM702VGa</a>
&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1907403810374389972?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;They went on for YEARS about how the filibuster was a relic of our racist past and tool of minority rule and an assault on democracy,&#8221; David Harsanyi posted. &#8220;Shameless.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
They went on for YEARS about how the filibuster was a relic of our racist past and tool of minority rule and an assault on democracy. Shameless. <a href="https://t.co/5r2ODobQGe">https://t.co/5r2ODobQGe</a>
&mdash; David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1907227940607140295?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Rebeccah Heinrichs from the Hudson Institute called it &#8220;The silliest participation trophy in U.S. history.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The silliest participation trophy in U.S. history. <a href="https://t.co/zKCTzCDNWU">https://t.co/zKCTzCDNWU</a>
&mdash; Rebeccah Heinrichs (@RLHeinrichs) <a href="https://twitter.com/RLHeinrichs/status/1907268304814649719?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/doDRYhlcB6">https://t.co/doDRYhlcB6</a> <a href="https://t.co/70gGgQyLvu">pic.twitter.com/70gGgQyLvu</a>
&mdash; Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1907217503492649218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;He virtue signaled for 24 hours without actually accomplishing anything. Great illustration of the modern Democrat party,&#8221; Republican communications specialist Abigail Jackson posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
He virtue signaled for 24 hours without actually accomplishing anything. Great illustration of the modern Democrat party. <a href="https://t.co/NCKDtPmIr1">https://t.co/NCKDtPmIr1</a>
&mdash; Abigail Jackson 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) <a href="https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1907225960304230891?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;&#8216;And so he spoketh, and yea, though no legislation was to be voted on, and though they once proclaimed such things an abomination, they did pretend it was a filibuster. And yea, the man who once was Spartacus became like Strom.&#8217; — Booker 24:19,&#8221; Christopher Scalia from the American Enterprise Institute added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“And so he spoketh, and yea, though no legislation was to be voted on, and though they once proclaimed such things an abomination, they did pretend it was a filibuster. And yea, the man who once was Spartacus became like Strom.” &#8211; Booker 24:19 <a href="https://t.co/pbyqbbRhxw">https://t.co/pbyqbbRhxw</a>
&mdash; Christopher J. Scalia (@cjscalia) <a href="https://twitter.com/cjscalia/status/1907260581712724143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sen. Booker Delivers Record Setting Floor Speech Protesting Trump

Even Democrat Operatives Are Throwing Cold Water On Booker’s Stunt

Even Democrat Operatives Are Throwing Cold Water On Booker's Stunt

Congress

Cory Booker

Filibuster

Joe Biden

Politics

Senator Cory Booker may have etched his name into the record books with the longest floor speech in Senate history — but it was former Senator Kyrsten Sinema who had the last laugh.
Sinema, who left the Democratic Party in 2022 while representing Arizona in the upper chamber, long disagreed with Democrats on the virtue of the filibuster. She argued that Democrats should not end the filibuster, because it would open the door for them to ram their agenda through, repeatedly pointing out to her colleagues that the time might come when they were not in power and needed it.
Meanwhile, Democrats — including Booker — insist that it was a &#8220;relic&#8221; of the Jim Crow era. In 2022, Booker said the filibuster &#8220;has been abused to stop reforms supported by the vast majority of Americans.&#8221;
But now, Booker and the Democrats are changing their tune, celebrating Booker for unseating the late segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond with the &#8220;LONGEST FILIBUSTER IN SENATE HISTORY!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
LONGEST FILIBUSTER IN U.S. SENATE HISTORY! 🔥 <a href="https://twitter.com/CoryBooker?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CoryBooker</a> <a href="https://t.co/6HnUcdKhjc">pic.twitter.com/6HnUcdKhjc</a>
&mdash; Democrats (@TheDemocrats) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1907212150503813499?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Technically, Booker didn&#8217;t actually filibuster. There was no legislation under consideration for him to oppose, so, he was just giving a floor speech — a record-breaking floor speech, sure, but not a filibuster. Still, that hasn&#8217;t stopped Democrats from celebrating Booker&#8217;s &#8220;filibuster,&#8221; a far cry from their condemnations of the tool.
Sinema jabbed at her former party, saying, &#8220;Maybe it isn’t an old Jim Crow relic, after all.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Maybe it isn’t an old Jim Crow relic, after all. <a href="https://t.co/ZHsgRkMd9Q">https://t.co/ZHsgRkMd9Q</a>
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1907245863489110159?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Steve Guest weighed in afterward, sharing a few of Booker&#8217;s previous comments regarding the filibuster.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Booker’s receipts: <a href="https://t.co/ShQKamAFqo">pic.twitter.com/ShQKamAFqo</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1907248236017963264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The filibuster has been abused to stop reforms supported by the vast majority of Americans — from background checks to protecting the right to vote,&#8221; Booker said in 2022. &#8220;We must stop this abuse of power.&#8221;
&#8220;We have changed the filibuster before. We must change it again to preserve the right to vote in America,&#8221; he said a week later.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kyrsten-sinema-mocks-democrats-for-change-of-heart-on-filibuster" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sinema</a> had a field day weeks earlier as many in her party who had called for the filibuster to be abolished suddenly found it invaluable, now that they were the minority party.
&#8220;Just surprised to see support for the &#8216;Jim Crow filibuster&#8217; here,&#8221; she said, mocking Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who was among those who had previously called for the filibuster to be abolished.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Just surprised to see support for the “Jim Crow filibuster” here <a href="https://t.co/zohOh0E5st">https://t.co/zohOh0E5st</a> <a href="https://t.co/AWQKGHN9CG">pic.twitter.com/AWQKGHN9CG</a>
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1900851608394887477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Kyrsten Sinema At State Of The Union Address

Cory Booker May Have Talked The Longest, But Kyrsten Sinema Had The Last Laugh

Kyrsten Sinema

Senate Democrats

U.S. Senate

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) called out a &#8220;double dose of Democrat hypocrisy&#8221; when it came to a push to pass the GOP-backed stopgap bill that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-officially-sends-funding-bill-to-trumps-desk-after-dems-cave" target="_blank" rel="noopener">averted</a> a partial government shutdown earlier this month.
In remarks on the Senate floor, Thune alluded to how just nine Democrats and one independent helped the upper chamber <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-clears-key-hurdle-to-avert-shutdown-after-schumer-surrenders" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overcome</a> the three-fifths filibuster threshold and proceed with a continuing resolution that provided funds to various federal agencies and programs through the end of September.
&#8220;The rest preferred to filibuster the bill and shut down the government. It was a double dose of Democrat hypocrisy,&#8221; Thune said. &#8220;Democrats who had campaigned to abolish the filibuster enthusiastically embraced it now that it served their purposes and Democrats who had decried the evils of government shutdowns now embraced shutting down the government.&#8221;
Illustrating how Democrats have changed their tune depending on the situation, Thune shared quotes from some of his colleagues from across the aisle who voted against invoking cloture on the latest funding patch after decrying shutdowns in a political fight last year over keeping the government open.
Without naming anyone, Thune appeared to read a <a href="https://x.com/MarkWarner/status/1771335406493020212" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> on X from Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) in March 2024 that called shutdowns &#8220;as devastating as they are stupid&#8221; and <a href="https://x.com/maziehirono/status/1762485328789504444" target="_blank" rel="noopener">another</a> from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) in February 2024 that said, &#8220;Even a partial shutdown could disrupt supply chains, hurt small businesses, risk travel delays, and increase food prices for millions of Americans.&#8221;
Thune quipped: &#8220;Democrats are changing their position so abruptly it could give you whiplash. The only thing that doesn&#8217;t look likely to change is the Democrats&#8217; willingness to change their principles when it suits their political purposes.&#8221;
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was one of the Democrats who voted in favor of moving forward with the continuing resolution last week. He warned that a shutdown would empower President Donald Trump to keep cutting programs as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort led by Elon Musk. However, some on the Left have argued that Schumer abdicated to Republicans and went as far as to call on him to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dem-lawmakers-begin-calling-schumer-step-aside" target="_blank" rel="noopener">step aside</a>.
Looking to what comes next, Thune said, &#8220;I hope the Democrats will manage to move past the fact that they weren&#8217;t able to shut down the government, but whether they accept their defeat or decide to throw a tantrum about it, we&#8217;re going continue to do the job that we were elected and sent here to do.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Thune: Senate Republicans Are on a Roll" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tjq83JkwNTo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Senate Majority Leader John Thune

Thune Calls Out ‘Double Dose Of Democrat Hypocrisy’ On Filibusters And Shutdowns

Democrats

Government Shutdown

John Thune

Spending Bill

Former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) mocked members of her former political party this week for reversing course on supporting the filibuster after calling for its elimination during the Biden era.
Sinema went as far as to create a spreadsheet so she could call out those who were being hypocrites on the issue, many of whom attacked her for protecting the filibuster while she served in the Senate.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Who has made the sprdsht showing: &#8211; senators/candidates on record to eliminate the filibuster &#8211; same senators who voted to filibuster today &#8211; bonus points for add’l column listing April 7, 2017 signers of letter to <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMcConnell?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenMcConnell</a> saying preserve the filibuster 🍿🍿🍿
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1900715227240641014?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Turns out, someone HAS made the spreadsheet. Bless this platform. <a href="https://t.co/hfIMJDIubs">https://t.co/hfIMJDIubs</a> <a href="https://t.co/VI2mEN2mU1">pic.twitter.com/VI2mEN2mU1</a>
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1900916909195096146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sinema mocked far-Left Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) after Jayapal wrote on X: &#8220;Senate Democrats: Don’t betray working families. Don’t give Trump and Elon Musk a blank check. Don’t be complicit in the slashing of government programs. Vote NO on cloture and NO on final passage of Republicans’ bad bill.&#8221;
Sinema responded with a screenshot of a post from Jayapal where she wrote in September: &#8220;It&#8217;s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It&#8217;s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It&#8217;s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage It&#8217;s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster.&#8221;
Sinema wrote: &#8220;Just surprised to see support for the &#8216;Jim Crow filibuster&#8217; here.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Just surprised to see support for the “Jim Crow filibuster” here <a href="https://t.co/zohOh0E5st">https://t.co/zohOh0E5st</a> <a href="https://t.co/AWQKGHN9CG">pic.twitter.com/AWQKGHN9CG</a>
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1900851608394887477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sinema also called out far-Left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) for attacking Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for voting to keep the government open.
AOC said that there was a &#8220;deep sense of outrage and betrayal&#8221; because of Schumer&#8217;s vote.
Sinema responded with a screenshot of AOC posting previously on X: &#8220;We could protect Roe tomorrow, but Sinema refuses to act on the filibuster. Until that changes she can take a seat talking about 
&#8216;women&#8217;s access to health care.&#8217; Hold everyone contributing to this disaster accountable, GOP &amp; Dem obstructionists included. She should be primaried.&#8221;
AOC responded to Sinema&#8217;s post: &#8220;Still no. In fact, the same Dems who argue to keep the filibuster &#8216;for when we need it&#8217; do not, in fact, use it when we need it. It’s only used to block Dem policies. Never to block harmful GOP ones. Could have proved us wrong. Instead they proved the point.&#8221;
Sinema fired back: &#8220;Literally zero Senate Democrats support the filibuster. 38 voted to filibuster the continuing resolution yesterday. 8 who previously voted to eliminate the filibuster (1/19/22) did not filibuster. 1 who previously campaigned against the filibuster did not filibuster.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Literally zero Senate Democrats support the filibuster.
38 voted to filibuster the continuing resolution yesterday. 
8 who previously voted to eliminate the filibuster (1/19/22) did not filibuster.
1 who previously campaigned against the filibuster did not filibuster. <a href="https://t.co/BujERDunOR">https://t.co/BujERDunOR</a>
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1900952771458928846?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Aid Vote April 23

Kyrsten Sinema Mocks Democrats For Change Of Heart On Filibuster

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Pramila Jayapal

One of the things you&#8217;re generally not supposed to do when you&#8217;re in the commentary business is draw any sweeping conclusions about public sentiment based on reading YouTube comments. You can’t usually review YouTube comments and determine how people generally feel about something. But there&#8217;s been a trend across various YouTube comments sections lately that, at this point, I simply can&#8217;t ignore. 
If you pull up news reports about Republicans&#8217; efforts to ban men from competing in women&#8217;s sports, you will find — in every single instance, without exception — that the comments overwhelmingly support the Republicans. Even if you go to the channels of Left-wing news stations, the pattern remains the same. And not just on YouTube. Read the comments under any article on the topic. Read the comments on X or Facebook or Instagram. There is, everywhere, on every major platform, wide agreement on this issue. There just isn&#8217;t any debate among reasonable people about this issue. Everyone is tired of seeing men dominate women&#8217;s sports by pretending to be women.
Take for example this footage from NBC News&#8217; report last month. It&#8217;s about a bill that passed in the House, which would codify one of Donald Trump&#8217;s executive orders. The bill is called the &#8220;Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.&#8221; And the terms of the legislation are pretty simple. It would ban any school that receives federal funding from, &#8220;permitting a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.&#8221; And the bill goes on to define &#8220;sex&#8221; as &#8220;solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,&#8221; just in case there was any doubt about that.
This is the kind of legislation we need to see more of. It&#8217;s a meaningful step by Republicans in Congress to give some backbone to an executive order that&#8217;s extremely important. With that in mind, here&#8217;s how NBC News covered the House vote on this legislation back in January:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 NBC House" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/euixXxN1DJM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Right away, you can see that they&#8217;re framing this legislation as a bill that would &#8220;ban transgender girls and women from competing in women&#8217;s sports.&#8221; They&#8217;re not reporting the truth, which is that &#8220;transgender girls and women&#8221; are men. They&#8217;re not going into any detail about how obviously unfair it is for men to compete against women in sports. Instead, they&#8217;re trying to portray this law as some kind of mean-spirited, bigoted effort by Republican lawmakers.
And even on NBC News&#8217; YouTube channel — which has a very Left-leaning audience — this framing didn&#8217;t fly. Instead of condemning the ban, pretty much every single comment supports it. For example, the top comment reads, &#8220;can&#8217;t believe this is even being discussed; common sense is underrated.&#8221; Then someone says, &#8220;Finally the nonsense ends.&#8221; Another user replies, &#8220;As a woman and mother of a girl, I&#8217;m happy and grateful.&#8221;
I could go through about a dozen other videos like this. Forbes, for example, has a similar <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D01lcKNWSE0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">video</a>. One of the top comments puts it this way: &#8220;As a former democrat, even if im liberal on certain subjects, it&#8217;s dumb s*** like this that has driven me and a lot of other folks away from this party. &#8230; Embarrassing.&#8221;
And again, every comment is like this.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1548-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
So the pattern is familiar: Left-wing media outlets try to portray the Republicans as the villain of the story. And despite that framing, the comments section revolts. None of this is surprising, when you take a look at the polling data on the topic. Just a couple of weeks ago, a New York Times poll <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/01/19/us-news/nyt-poll-finds-majority-of-democrats-oppose-transgender-athletes-in-womens-sports/">found</a> that, &#8220;the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don’t think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women’s sports.&#8221; Roughly 80% of respondents said that &#8220;men who identify as women&#8221; should be banned from women&#8217;s sports. And among Democrats, the number was 67%.
Just to put these numbers in context, something like <a href="https://www.prri.org/research/analyzing-the-2024-presidential-vote-prris-post-election-survey/">4%</a> of Democrats voted for Donald Trump in the last election. This is a demographic that disagrees with Trump on pretty much everything. But when it comes to the farce of men competing in women&#8217;s sports, even these Democrats are forced to agree with him.
That&#8217;s why the vote that just took place in the Senate is so remarkable. Every single Democrat in the Senate — all 45 of them — just voted against the &#8220;Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.&#8221; In other words, 100% of the Democrat Party in the Senate still endorses the insanity of men competing against women. There was not one single defector. Despite the overwhelming number of voters — including Democrat voters — who are tired of this nonsense, Democrats in Washington are in complete lockstep on this issue. And they&#8217;re proud of it.
To give you some idea of how the day went, this is footage of Elizabeth Warren casting her vote. She makes sure everyone sees that she&#8217;s giving the big thumbs-down for the cameras:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Sen Warren" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jfubfem-NPg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
This was so confusing that I went looking through the floor debates on this bill. I wanted to know what, exactly, could motivate the &#8220;party of democracy&#8221; to flagrantly disregard the clear desires of its own voters. I wanted to see what arguments they put forward. And I came across this speech from Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Here&#8217;s how it began. This is Dick Durbin&#8217;s argument for why the Senate should not pass a bill that bans men from competing against women in sports:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Dick Durbin" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ubC_Y-rxmNs?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
What&#8217;s especially funny about this line of argument is that Durbin supported Democrats&#8217; &#8220;anti-lynching&#8221; law a few years back, even though lynching — and all other forms of murder — have been illegal for some time in this country. Somehow the fact that no black people have been lynched in several decades didn&#8217;t deter Durbin from supporting that law. But now we&#8217;re supposed to conclude that, because there aren&#8217;t thousands of men playing in women&#8217;s sports, the whole issue is moot.
This is the stock argument you hear all the time from trans activists. Of course, even assuming Durbin&#8217;s numbers are accurate — which of course, we should not assume that — this is still an argument that completely sidesteps two very important issues. The first is that women are indeed losing opportunities and being degraded in order to affirm the delusions of pathological narcissists. That&#8217;s not something we should allow, regardless of how many women are being affected. The other issue of course is that a functioning society has to be able to accept the reality of basic human biology. Even if you don&#8217;t care about the injustices that athletes like Riley Gaines have endured — and you obviously should care about those injustices — then you still have to explain some basic terms. You have to explain, for example, what a &#8220;woman&#8221; is. You have to explain what a &#8220;man&#8221; is. And as we all know, Democrats are incapable of doing this.
During the rest of Durbin&#8217;s speech he eventually gets around to making another argument, one that is even more revealing than the last one. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Durbin Physical Inspection" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Sz4RFOJtO38?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
I went back and read the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/28/text">legislation</a> he&#8217;s talking about. And contrary to what Durbin says, there&#8217;s nothing in there that permits a random adult — or any adult — to look at the private parts of a student athlete who&#8217;s accused of pretending to be a woman. So what he is saying is that Republicans are secretly obsessed with this kind of perversion, when in fact he&#8217;s the only one thinking along these lines. This is maybe a window into the sordid mental state of Dick Durbin and Democrats like him.
In reality, the bill simply bans men from competing against women. That&#8217;s it. And everyone understands exactly how that would be enforced, because it&#8217;s extremely, painfully obvious when men are playing in women&#8217;s sports. You don&#8217;t need any kind of examination. You don&#8217;t need to test their chromosomes. You can just look at them. In every single case involving a man playing in women&#8217;s sports, that&#8217;s been true. And it has never been a close call.
Of course Democrats like Dick Durbin have to pretend otherwise. They&#8217;ll watch a basketball game, and see one athlete towering over everyone else — with a gigantic Adam&#8217;s apple, twice the muscle mass and a James Earl Jones voice — and conclude that there&#8217;s just no way of knowing the athlete&#8217;s gender. They have to act like it&#8217;s a mystery, known only to perverted gender inspectors who are going around pants-ing student athletes at every opportunity.
But even though Durbin&#8217;s side of this argument was in the minority, Democrats have succeeded in killing the legislation. That&#8217;s because laws like this one have to overcome a filibuster, which requires 60 votes. And because the vote on this legislation was 51 in favor and 45 opposed, it won&#8217;t pass. Republicans have the majority, but they&#8217;re not able to pass a law like this one. It&#8217;s enough to make you wonder why Republicans don&#8217;t eliminate the filibuster entirely at this point. We all know Democrats will do the same thing the moment they have the opportunity — they&#8217;ve done it before, after all. And if Democrats are now so unhinged and so unreasonable that they&#8217;re willing to defend the idea of men playing in women&#8217;s sports, then it&#8217;s safe to say the filibuster has drifted very far from its original purpose. The point of the filibuster was to enable careful deliberation. Instead, at the moment, it&#8217;s enabling insanity.
Getting rid of the filibuster would also make it much easier to pass a federal ban on child castration and mutilation in the name of so-called &#8220;gender-affirming care,&#8221; which is something I&#8217;ve obviously been pushing for, especially since the beginning of the second Trump administration. A couple of days ago, one of the most prominent Republicans in the Senate, Josh Hawley, endorsed my proposal. <a href="https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1895487068438180307" target="_blank" rel="noopener">He wrote</a>: &#8220;And not just this — but when is Congress going to give VICTIMS of these transition surgeries &amp; treatments the right to SUE the people who carried them out? Needs to happen now.&#8221;
This is the kind of legislation that Republicans need to enact, as quickly as they possibly can. Whatever procedural roadblocks are in the way, they need to be cleared. When Democrats are using the filibuster to obstruct the will of the vast majority of Americans — including their own voters — then it&#8217;s a pretty clear sign that the filibuster needs to go. It has outlived whatever usefulness it had. And once the filibuster is gone, we need to start passing laws that affirm the reality of basic, fundamental human biology. For the benefit of all young people — and to restore some semblance of sanity in this country — we now have no other choice.

Senators Speak To The Press After Their Weekly Policy Luncheons On Capitol Hill

Democrats Ignore The Will Of The People With This Insane Move

Dick Durbin

Donald Trump

Gender

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Transgender

U.S. House of Representatives

Women's sports

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD), who was recently elected as the next Republican Senate leader, slammed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) this week for admitting that she would get rid of the filibuster if Democrats controlled the White House and Congress but not if Republicans had control.
“Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/11/12/us-news/progressive-rep-pramila-jayapal-reneges-on-support-for-axing-filibuster-after-democrat-loses-on-election-day/">said</a> Jayapal, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, during a press conference on Monday.
“But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added.
Thune noted in a speech on the Senate floor that Jayapal said the quiet part out loud: &#8220;In other words, one rule for Democrats, and one rule for everybody else. Democrats should be able to do whatever they want; Republicans, not so much.&#8221;
He said that the filibuster must be preserved because it &#8220;encourages compromise and helps ensure that all Americans, not just those whose party is in the majority, have a voice in legislation.&#8221;
&#8220;If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the last few years, it’s that Democrats firmly believe that the only legitimate government is a Democrat government,&#8221; he said.
Thune highlighted how Democrats have a campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because they do not like the rulings from the conservative justices.
&#8220;This court sometimes issues decisions Democrats don’t like, and therefore, in their view, the court is somehow illegitimate,&#8221; he said, later adding: &#8220;Democrats’ apparent belief that it’s the Democrat Party and the Democrat Party only that should be calling the shots in Washington betrays some of that same disdain for voters.&#8221;
He said that the filibuster would be safe under Republican governance.
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Thune Calls Out Democrats’ Democracy Hypocrisy" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aPpbxN3UseQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Senators Meet For Their Weekly Policy Luncheons

Thune Rips Jayapal For Filibuster Hypocrisy

A House Democrat says she would have supported eliminating the filibuster if Democrats had control of the White House, Senate, and House, but she doesn’t support it now that Republicans have won all three levers of power.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), chair of the Progressive Caucus, was speaking at <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539917-1/congressional-progressive-caucus-chair-holds-news-conference-members" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a press conference</a> on Monday about the 2024 election results when she was asked about her previous support for ending the filibuster.
“Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” she said, referring to Republicans taking back control of the White House and Senate and likely maintaining control of the House.
“But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added.
“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular …  then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal also said.
She also claimed that Republicans “already got rid of the filibuster, for taxes.” Republicans used a special process known as reconciliation, which can only be used for budget issues like taxes, spending, and the debt limit. It is not the same as eliminating the filibuster.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
As recently as September, Jayapal called the filibuster the “Jim Crow filibuster,” the New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/11/12/us-news/progressive-rep-pramila-jayapal-reneges-on-support-for-axing-filibuster-after-democrat-loses-on-election-day/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
“The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X at the time. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806. Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.
— Pramila Jayapal (@PramilaJayapal) <a href="https://twitter.com/PramilaJayapal/status/1838688862316478634?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal has also posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. 
It&#8217;s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. 
It&#8217;s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage 
It&#8217;s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights.
The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster.
— Pramila Jayapal (@PramilaJayapal) <a href="https://twitter.com/PramilaJayapal/status/1838982799681872088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jayapal, being a member of the House, has no say or control over the filibuster, even if Democrats had retained the Senate. So far, however, she is the only Democrat to come out and say what is known to be true: They only support ending the filibuster when they have the majority.
Last week, The Daily Wire asked every current, incoming, and outgoing Senate Democrat if they supported ending the filibuster now that Donald Trump has won the election and Republicans will control the Senate.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/we-asked-every-dem-senator-about-the-filibuster-and-scotus-here-are-their-responses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Not a single office replied to the inquiry</a>.

Democrat Says She Wouldn’t Support Eliminating The Filibuster Now That Republicans Have Senate

During the Biden-Harris administration, Democrats called to eliminate the filibuster and add justices to the Supreme Court in order to bolster their political power. Now, with a Republican president and Republican Senate majority incoming, The Daily Wire thought it would reach out to Senate Democrats to see if they&#8217;ve changed their minds.
The Daily Wire reached out to every Democrat Senate office, even Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey (PA), and Jon Tester (MT), who all lost re-election, to ask for their stance on the two subjects. We also reached out to independent Sens. Angus King (ME) and Bernie Sanders (VT), who caucus with Democrats, and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), whose race hasn&#8217;t been called. For those who have not publicly supported or who have publicly opposed either the elimination of the filibuster or packing the Supreme Court, they were asked what they would say to their fellow Democrats who have supported such measures.
The Daily Wire also reached out to the incoming Democrat Senators, who all expressed a desire to end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court (except for Rep. Elissa Slotkin, who is not on record saying she would add Supreme Court seats) to see if they still supported these positions now that Trump won and Republicans have taken back the Senate.
Here are their responses.
Current Democrat Senators:
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sen. Baldwin’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Bennet’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen. Blumenthal’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Sen. Booker’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Sherrod Brown  (D-OH)
Sen. Brown’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-CA)
Sen. Butler’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Cantwell’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Cardin’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Carper’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Bob Casey  (D-PA)
Sen. Casey’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-WI)
Sen. Coon’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Sen. Cortez Masto’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Sen. Duckworth’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Durbin’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)
Sen. Fetterman’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Gillibrand’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Sen. Hassan’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Sen. Heinrich’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. George Helmy (D-NJ)
Sen. Helmy’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Sen. Hickenlooper’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Sen. Hirono’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Sen. Kaine’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
Sen. Kelly’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Angus King (D-ME)
Sen. King’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Klobuchar’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM)
Sen. Lujan’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA)
Sen. Markey’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Jeff Merkley  (D-OR)
Sen. Merkley’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Sen. Murphy’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Murray’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
Sen. Ossoff’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA)
Sen. Padilla’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)
Sen. Peters’ office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Reed’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
Sen. Rosen’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
Sen. Sanders’ office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Sen. Schatz’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Chuck Schumer  (D-NY)
Sen. Schumer’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Sen. Shaheen’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN)
Sen. Smith’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen. Stabenow’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Jon Tester  (D-MT)
Sen. Tester’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Sen. Van Hollen’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
Sen. Warner’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA)
Sen. Warnock’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Warren’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT)
Sen. Welch’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Sen. Whitehouse’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Sen. Ron Wyden  (D-OR)
Sen. Wyden’s office did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Incoming Democrat Senators:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Schiff did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)
Rep. Slotkin did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE)
Rep. Blunt Rochester did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)
Alsobrooks did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.
Races Not Yet Called:
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
Rep. Gallego did not respond to a Daily Wire inquiry.

Sen. Chuck Schumer

We Asked Every Dem Senator About The Filibuster And SCOTUS. Here Are Their Responses.

2024 Election

Supreme Court

U.S.

Kamala Harris is making one of the most dangerous proclamations in modern American politics.
On Tuesday, Harris made clear her most radical proposition. She was asked about killing the filibuster, and she <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/09/23/nx-s1-5123955/kamala-harris-abortion-roe-v-wade-filibuster" target="_blank" rel="noopener">replied</a>:
<blockquote>I&#8217;ve been very clear, I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe, and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s not even clear whether Congress has the authority to do that. If you&#8217;re talking about an interstate crime, then perhaps. However, if you’re talking about an intrastate crime — which is, for example, what criminalizing late-term abortion in many states does — it’s not clear that the federal government has the authority to simply reinstate Roe v. Wade by fiat of Congress.
But that&#8217;s not the salient point. The salient point is that she wants to kill the filibuster.
For those who are unfamiliar with the legal jargon, the filibuster is, effectively, a 60-vote threshold to pass controversial legislation in Congress. There are some work-arounds; there are some financial work-arounds. For example, with a budget bill, a process called budget sequestration exists in which 51 votes can be used to trump the filibuster. But the filibuster tries to guarantee there is widespread agreement about a policy before it passes.
It made a big difference with Obamacare. The Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate thanks to a rigged race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota that achieved a 60th vote for them and allowed Obamacare to pass with 60 votes. The Democrats overcame the filibuster.
The filibuster has usually been applied to a wide variety of circumstances, and Democrats have played around with it. For a while, they used the filibuster against judicial nominees.
But that turned out not to be a good idea. So then they killed the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was on their side. That allowed Mitch McConnell to put in place a bunch of federal justices and federal judges who are on the conservative side of the aisle in terms of originalism.
The bottom line is this: The filibuster is the slow-down process available in Congress to maintain the constitutional idea there ought to be broad-scale agreement on major shifts in American policy that require 60 votes in order to move forward.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2055-kamala-s-most-insane-plan-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
The filibuster can be changed. It&#8217;s a rule, not a constitutional provision, but it has become somewhat of a last resort of bipartisanship in Congress. As the administrative state has grown, we&#8217;ve changed the constitutional rules, and the scope of the federal government has grown. There have been all sorts of checks and balances in the original constitutional structure against Congress moving rapidly in really broad ways; we have had a Congress of delegated powers. If you weren’t acting within the delegated powers, the states wouldn&#8217;t pay attention to you or the Supreme Court would strike it down.
And then over the course of the 20th century, the executive branch started to assume extraordinary functions that really belonged to the legislature. They would make massive moves through regulation.
Congress expanded its purview to include pretty much everything that “affected interstate commerce.” And the Supreme Court, backed by the Left, effectively decided it was going to allow Congress to usurp all of that authority. As the authority of the federal Congress increased, the filibuster became the brake on that process.
You could overcome it. There was an attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act and that failed. There have been many attempts to filibuster particular acts of Congress, and those filibusters have failed.
However, the general standard has been that for a big change in American public life, you had to at least overcome a filibuster; you had to show that the American people writ large have elected people who, broadly speaking, agreed with one another.
That has been a provision that has kept the United States in a state of semi-solidity with regard to its politics for a long time. Incrementalism is one of the effects of the filibuster. You have to move slower than you otherwise would. Otherwise, this government would look very much like the parliamentary government that you see in Europe, where if one side takes the majority, they simply put in place everything they want.
Then, the other side comes back in and puts in place everything they want, and policy swivels wildly from side to side.
The United States is not built for that. It was built for gridlock. The filibuster is an element of that gridlock. But Harris wanting to kill the filibuster with regard to Roe v. Wade basically means she wants to kill the filibuster with regard to everything.
If Democrats take the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and they kill the filibuster, America will end up with a permanent rigging of the American government on behalf of Democrats.
That is the goal. That is why this is so radical.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
I promise you, with 51 votes, Democrats will kill the filibuster, and then they will attempt to create two new states through congressional fiat. They&#8217;ll create a state of Washington, D.C., which will have two permanent Democratic senators, thus permanently shifting the balance of power in the Senate on behalf of Democrats. They&#8217;ll also presumably add Puerto Rico, which would also likely have two Democratic senators, as a state represented in the United States Senate.
Historically speaking, when states were added to the federal government, to the federal Senate, typically a state was added that was a Democrat state and one that was a Republican state. Alaska and Hawaii entered the union at about the same time because Alaska was a Democrat state and Hawaii was a Republican state. Now, of course, they have switched places.
But what Democrats want to do is add four seats to the Senate and thereby guarantee themselves a permanent working majority. And having killed the filibuster, they could then do whatever they want.
They could pack the Supreme Court. They could limit jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They could run roughshod over all the checks and balances.
This has been a progressive Democratic goal since the beginning of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson openly talked about how the Constitution was basically a document written by befuddled, dead white men in order to stop the march of progress, when what was really needed was a powerful centralized government located in the presidency in order to ram through the change needed.
That&#8217;s what Democrats want. Democrats want to get rid of the checks and balances. That is their goal. 
When people say that this election really, really matters, it wouldn&#8217;t matter so much if Democrats weren&#8217;t screwing around with the mechanisms of government itself. 
If the rules of the game are permanently rigged in favor of one side, the Republic is over.
It sounds dull and dry when Harris says, “I&#8217;ll ditch the filibuster.” Tense, dull, and dry.
But it is not dull and dry.
If Democrats get rid of the Senate filibuster, if Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate, and if Harris becomes the president, it means the end of the current functioning of the United States government and the entry into an imperial period of complete Democratic dominance.
* * *
<h4><a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a></h4>

US-VOTE-POLITICS-HARRIS

Kamala’s Most INSANE Plan

Ben Shapiro

Kamala Harris

Presidency

&#8220;The View&#8221; host Whoopi Goldberg flew into a rage on Wednesday over <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/manchin-says-he-wont-endorse-kamala-after-she-calls-for-end-of-filibuster" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senator Joe Manchin</a> (I-WV) after he refused to endorse the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Harris, who became the nominee by default when the party forced President Joe Biden to exit the race in late July, declared her support to end the filibuster in order to pass legislation enshrining abortion access into federal law — and for Manchin, that was a bridge too far.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Whoopi Goldberg RAGES at Joe Manchin for refusing to endorse Kamala Harris over her support to ax the filibuster: &quot;Well, we ain&#39;t endorsing you! How about that?!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/4DJXWsYgzi">pic.twitter.com/4DJXWsYgzi</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1838958845520953623?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 25, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goldberg began the show with a clip of Manchin saying of Harris, &#8220;Shame on her. She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy.&#8221;
When pressed by a reporter on whether he would still stand by her in the 2024 presidential contest, he nixed that possibility immediately: &#8220;I&#8217;m not endorsing her, never.&#8221;
&#8220;Well, we ain&#8217;t endorsing you, how about that,&#8221; Goldberg snapped. &#8220;He&#8217;s gone — he&#8217;s gone a whole other way,&#8221; she complained.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1726313279401000&amp;usg=AOvVaw115_qPFFEePDP86-Fvo-Vd">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
Manchin was not the only one to criticize Harris&#8217; plans to axe the filibuster, either. Independent Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema also warned that it would be an unwise course of action — in part because of the door that would open for Republicans if Democrats pressed the issue.
Noting that a move to a 50+1 majority would also give Republicans the ability to pass legislation by that margin — even the nationwide abortion ban that Democrats have repeatedly claimed would come if Trump were reelected. Trump has also repeatedly said that he would not push an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/vance-trump-would-veto-abortion-ban-wants-to-end-culture-war-on-abortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortion ban</a>, arguing that regulation of abortion was and should be in the hands of the states.
&#8220;To state the supremely obvious, eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v Wade also enables a future Congress to ban all abortion nationwide. What an absolutely terrible, shortsighted idea,&#8221; she said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
To state the supremely obvious, eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v Wade also enables a future Congress to ban all abortion nationwide. 
What an absolutely terrible, shortsighted idea. <a href="https://t.co/ldzTB9BkV7">https://t.co/ldzTB9BkV7</a>
&mdash; Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyrstensinema/status/1838630653677453484?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

WHOOPI GOLDBERG

Whoopi Blows Up At Joe Manchin Over Refusal To Endorse Kamala

Elections

Joe Manchin

The View

Whoopi Goldberg

Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) said Tuesday that he would not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president because of her call to end the filibuster in order to pass federal law creating a right to an abortion. 
Manchin, who became an independent in May after 14 years as a Democratic senator, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/24/politics/joe-manchin-not-endorse-harris-filibuster/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told CNN</a> that getting rid of the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation, would lead to chaos in the Senate and tear the country apart. 
“Shame on her,” said Manchin, who is stepping down in January. “She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy. It’s the only thing that keeps us talking and working together. If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids.”
“That ain’t going to happen,” he added when asked if he would back Harris’ campaign. “I think that basically can destroy our country, and my country is more important to me than any one person or any one person’s ideology. … I think it’s the most horrible thing.”
Harris made the comments about getting rid of the filibuster in an <a href="https://www.wpr.org/news/kamala-harris-presidential-campaign-vice-president-housing-affordability-pfas-pollution-wpr-interview" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with Wisconsin Public Radio on Tuesday. 
“I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” she said. “And get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.”
Other Democrats have expressed support for Harris’ proposal to do away with the filibuster for a vote on abortion. 
“I am confident that many of our colleagues will do it exactly as Vice President Harris said, which is to make sure we restore the rights of Roe to every woman in this country,” <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/3165436/harris-renews-senate-democrats-weaken-filibuster-despite-hurdles/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). 
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1726313279401000&amp;usg=AOvVaw115_qPFFEePDP86-Fvo-Vd">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
Harris has focused much of her campaign on abortion, and Democrats have mobilized to place pro-abortion legislation in Republican-led states like Florida, Missouri, and Montana. 
Her call to end the filibuster was criticized by pro-life advocates, who said it would not most Americans would not support it.
&#8220;Harris&#8217; extreme record on the issue of abortion should frighten even pro-choice voters, not to mention vulnerable mothers who face unexpected pregnancies,” said  March for Life President Jeanne Mancini. “She is clear about her support for unlimited abortion, but now she’s calling for the elimination of the filibuster in order to advance the most radical abortion policy the United States has ever seen and one which is totally out of touch with mainstream America.”

Vice President Harris Addresses The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s 47th Annual Leadership Conference In D.C.

Manchin Says He Won’t Endorse Kamala After She Calls For End Of Filibuster

Abortion

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Climate activist and former Democratic Vice President Al Gore on Sunday said &#8220;climate deniers&#8221; were comparable to the police officers who failed to act during the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
Appearing as a guest on NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press,&#8221; Gore assailed Republicans and tactics like the Senate filibuster for preventing Democrats from passing legislation to tackle global warming. Gore compared &#8220;climate deniers&#8221; in Congress to police officers who were equipped and trained to deal with mass shooters, but failed to stop the tragedy at Robb Elementary School in <a href="https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d005cf551ad52eea13d8753ede93320c/Uvalde%20Robb%20Shooting%20Report%20-%20Texas%20House%20Committee.pdf?_ga=2.216812497.696777951.1658086082-733005564.1658086082">Uvalde</a>.
&#8220;You know, the climate deniers are really in some ways similar to all of those, almost 400 law enforcement officers in Uvalde, Texas, who were waiting outside an unlocked door while the children were being massacred,&#8221; Gore told host Chuck Todd.
&#8220;They heard the screams. They heard the gunshots and nobody has stepped forward,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;God bless those families that suffered so much. And law enforcement officials tell us that’s not typical of what law enforcement usually does.&#8221;
&#8220;And confronted with this global emergency, what we’re doing with our inaction in failing to walk through the door and stop the killing is not typical of what we are capable of as human beings. We do have the solutions. And I think these extreme events that are getting steadily worse and more severe are really beginning to change minds. We have to have unity as a nation to come together and stop making this a political football. It shouldn’t be a partisan issue.&#8221;
Gore then blasted the filibuster for preventing Congress from taking action, again comparing climate change to the Uvalde shooting.
&#8220;The same reason it is seemingly impossible for the Congress to pass legislation banning these weapons of war, these assault rifles that are being used to murder children in classrooms and create hundreds of mass casualty events already this year and that’s getting worse, the same reason we can’t pass legislation to, for example, to reinstate the ban on assault weapons is the same reason that we can’t pass climate legislation: we have the minority government,&#8221; said Gore.
&#8220;We have the filibuster still, which ought to be eliminated,&#8221; he added. &#8220;We have big money playing much too large a role in our politics, lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, and they’re still running all of these advertisements trying to convince people that &#8216;it’s not that bad&#8217; or &#8216;they’ve got this, don’t worry about it.&#8217; We have got to rise to this challenge.&#8221;
&#8220;We, the people, have to solve this, and we have to instruct those who are in positions of leadership to start doing the right thing. Our survival as a species may depend upon it.&#8221;

Al Gore

Al Gore Compares ‘Climate Deniers’ To Police In Uvalde, Attacks Senate Filibuster For Blocking Action On Climate Change

Al Gore Compares 'Climate Deniers' To Police In Uvalde, Attacks Senate Filibuster For Blocking Action On Climate Change

Climate Change

Mass Shooting

Uvalde

Menu