10 GOP Senators Flip-Flop to Support Ukraine Aid

Rob Bluey /

Two months ago, a majority of Republicans opposed the $95 billion foreign aid bill when it came to the Senate floor for a vote. Ten of those senators flipped Tuesday.

The measure passed by an overwhelming 79-18 margin, sending the bill to President Joe Biden for his signature.

It wasn’t long ago that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., found himself among the minority of Republican senators who supported the foreign aid bill. In February, there were 22 GOP senators in favor and 26 opposed, while one Republican senator didn’t vote.

It was a different story Tuesday. This time, 31 Republicans supported the bill, 15 Republicans opposed it, and three didn’t vote.

>>> How Much Are You Paying for Ukraine Aid? Economist Crunches the Numbers

The 10 Republicans who flip-flopped were Sens. Katie Britt, Tom Cotton, Steve Daines, Deb Fischer, Lindsey Graham, Cindy Hyde-Smith, James Lankford, Markwayne Mullin, Pete Ricketts, and Tim Scott. (Scott did not cast a vote for final passage, but supported a cloture motion earlier Tuesday and indicated his support in a statement.)

The GOP senators most frequently mentioned as McConnell’s successor as party leader—Sens. John Cornyn and John Thune—voted for the measure. Sen. John Barrasso, who is running for GOP whip, voted against it.

Below is the roll call of how each Republican senator voted. The complete list of senators, including Democrats, is available here.

YEAs (31)

  1. John Boozman, R-Ark.
  2. Katie Britt, R-Ala.
  3. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.
  4. Bill Cassidy, R-La.
  5. Susan Collins, R-Maine
  6. John Cornyn, R-Texas
  7. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.
  8. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.
  9. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
  10. Steve Daines, R-Mont.
  11. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa
  12. Deb Fischer, R-Neb.
  13. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
  14. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
  15. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
  16. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss.
  17. John Kennedy, R-La.
  18. James Lankford, R-Okla.
  19. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
  20. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
  21. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.
  22. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
  23. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb.
  24. James Risch, R-Idaho
  25. Mitt Romney, R-Utah
  26. Mike Rounds, R-S.D.
  27. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska
  28. John Thune, R-S.D.
  29. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
  30. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
  31. Todd Young, R-Ind.

NAYs (15)

  1. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
  2. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.
  3. Mike Braun, R-Ind.
  4. Ted Budd, R-N.C.
  5. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
  6. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn.
  7. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.
  8. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.
  9. Mike Lee, R-Utah
  10. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
  11. Roger Marshall, R-Kan.
  12. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
  13. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.
  14. Rick Scott, R-Fla.
  15. JD Vance, R-Ohio

Not Voting (3)

  1. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
  2. Tim Scott, R-S.C.
  3. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala.

Several of the senators who voted against the February bill cited the lack of border security as a reason for their opposition, although its lack of inclusion in the latest iteration didn’t appear to be as much of a factor. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., opted not to include a separate bill addressing the border crisis as part of the foreign aid legislation.

Graham was among those who opposed the February bill. He explained his change of thinking during a floor speech Tuesday.

“I voted no [on the Senate bill earlier this year because] the border security provisions [were] sort of inadequate to the task on parole and a few other things,” Graham said. “My hope was … we could negotiate a stronger border security package [with the House]. That did not happen.”

Scott, the South Carolina Republican who ran for president, focused on the bill’s aid for Israel and his own FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which is included in the wide-ranging legislation. His statement made only a passing reference to Ukraine.

“While far from perfect, I support this national security package because it will help keep Americans and our allies safe,” Scott said. “The effort of Congress to support our allies should be applauded, but President Biden’s foreign policies have been an utter failure.”

Mullin, who flipped from a “no” in February to a “yes” on Tuesday, defended his vote by promoting the billions that will flow to the U.S. defense industry.

Britt echoed a similar point in a statement about Tuesday’s vote.

“This legislation, while imperfect, will make critical strides to reestablish credible American deterrence and move us closer to restoring the peace through strength that President Biden inherited,” Britt said. “Alabama plays a huge role in our national defense, and this legislation will further enhance Alabamians’ contributions to ensuring our warfighters are the best equipped, trained, and resourced in the world.”

Shortly after the cloture motion passed earlier Tuesday, McConnell directed his ire at conservative commentator Tucker Carlson for delaying congressional approval. President Joe Biden had made his original request back in October.

“The demonization of Ukraine began by Tucker Carlson,” McConnell said. “He had enormous audience, which convinced a lot of rank-and-file Republicans that maybe this was a mistake.”

In the House of Representatives, opposition to Ukraine funding has doubled in the course of the past two years. There are now more Republicans in the House opposed to additional Ukraine funding than those who support it.

Even so, the latest Ukraine funding bill was approved Saturday on a 311-112 vote with the unanimous support of Democrats. All 112 lawmakers voting against the bill were Republicans. By comparison, 101 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.

>>> House Republican Opposition to Ukraine Funding Doubles in 2 Years

In addition to the Ukraine funding ($60.84 billion), lawmakers also approved funding for Israel ($26.38 billion) and the Indo-Pacific ($8.12 billion) as well as the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act, a bill that would impose more sanctions on China, Iran, and Russia. They also adopted a measure requiring TikTok’s parent company to sever ties with the Communist Chinese government or cease operations within the United States.

Following the Senate’s approval, the bill awaits Biden’s signature.

This story was updated after publication to include the roll call vote totals.

I Went to New York University’s Anti-Israel Protests. Here’s What I Saw. - The Daily Signal

I Went to New York University’s Anti-Israel Protests. Here’s What I Saw.

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman /

NEW YORK CITY—“There is only one solution: Intifada revolution!”

That was one of many chants and slogans yelled into a bullhorn at a pro-Palestinian rally in Washington Square Park in New York City on Tuesday. It’s one of many pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests that have taken place on or near college campuses since the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7 and the subsequent war in Gaza.

The protests formed after a pro-Palestinian encampment at New York University that included faculty and students was cleared out by the New York Police Department on Monday night.

Here are pictures from the event, which I observed for several hours.

The protesters yelled at anyone standing in the crowd with a camera and told people they identified as media to “get to the back.” They also yelled chants making clear that “Zionists” were not welcome.

Other chants included “U.S. imperialist, No. 1 terrorist.”

The protesters frequently shouted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Typically, the river that refers to is the Jordan River and the sea is the Mediterranean, though the protesters did not name them specifically.

Another common refrain was that “resistance is justified,” and several signs, which appeared to be all printed together and distributed to the crowd, read “Resist colonial power by any means necessary.”

Several other signs read “Zionist donors and trustees, hands off our universities.”

Many printed and handmade signs demanded that NYU “divest” from Israel. That’s a movement on college campuses and elsewhere that demands institutions and companies divest their financial support from anything attached to Israel.

One sign said that all walls, “from Gaza to Mexico,” need to be taken down.

New York Poised to Use Taxpayer Dollars to Pay Journalists - The Daily Signal

New York Poised to Use Taxpayer Dollars to Pay Journalists

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison /

New York state lawmakers plan to hand out tens of millions in taxpayer dollars to local media outlets to help pay for journalists’ salaries.

The state will dole out $30 million over three years to local media outlets in the form of tax credits, giving publishers the ability to offset up to 50% of the first $50,000 in journalists’ salaries, according to a Tuesday release from New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie.

dailycallerlogo

Heastie emphasized that the funds will go toward protecting local news outlets for “many years to come.”

“Local journalism plays an essential role in our communities,” Heastie said in the release. “Not only does it provide critical coverage of local elections, but it also joins communities together through a shared knowledge of high school sports teams, new businesses coming to the area, and issues impacting readers’ everyday lives. This funding is the necessary first step in ensuring local journalism is protected and supported for many years to come.”

The tax credit includes $4 million for creating local journalism jobs; the remaining $26 million may be applied to offsetting the costs of covering salaries. Businesses with 100 or more employees, and those with less than 100, are eligible for the funds.

The provision was passed by the New York State Legislature and will be included in a larger budget bill for fiscal year 2025, which Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, is expected to sign, Axios reported.

“It is hereby found and declared that New York state needs, as a matter of public policy, to provide financial support and incentives for businesses which operate as newspaper and broadcast media, to sustain a productive and effective industry,” the legislation reads.

“It’s reported that roughly 2.5 newspapers closed each week of 2023, and this number is expected to rise year after year,” Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner, a Democrat, said in the release. “By providing journalists the funding they need to continue their critical work in keeping us all informed about our local communities, we’re connecting neighborhoods and filling the information void.”

Roughly 2,500 local news outlets have folded since 2005, The New York Times reported, noting that other news outlets have reduced staff. In September, a coalition of 22 groups, some of which donated to left-wing entities such as Planned Parenthood and the Tides Foundation, announced plans to donate $500 million to local news outlets.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Judge Is Imposing Double Standard by Gagging Trump but Giving Michael Cohen Free Rein, Legal Experts Say - The Daily Signal

Judge Is Imposing Double Standard by Gagging Trump but Giving Michael Cohen Free Rein, Legal Experts Say

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson /

President Donald Trump shouldn’t be prevented from speaking about witnesses such as his former attorney Michael Cohen who publicly criticize him on a regular basis, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday morning considered allegations that Trump violated his gag order by, among other things, attacking witnesses like Cohen and porn star Stormy Daniels. Trump, who was indicted last April on 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records in relation to a $130,000 payment Cohen made to keep Daniels quiet about her claims of an affair, now faces financial penalties and even jail time if Merchan finds he violated the gag order.

dailycallerlogo

“I think it is totally unfair and unjustified and a clear violation of the First Amendment,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The only viable restriction on a defendant are public statements directly physically threatening harm to witnesses and other court personnel. But otherwise, a defendant has a constitutional right to criticize and point out the bias of witnesses, prosecutors, and court personnel, including the judge.”

“This is especially true when the main witness for the prosecution, Michael Cohen, is a convicted perjurer who is publicly criticizing the defendant,” he continued. “Merchan’s behavior is unconscionable and a sign of his bias. He should recuse himself from presiding over this case as his impartiality is in serious doubt.”

Merchan imposed the gag order on Trump on March 26. He expanded it April 1 after Trump attacked his daughter on social media.

The order prevents Trump from making statements about witnesses, prosecutors other than the district attorney, court staff, jurors, and family members of the staff, district attorney, or judge.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg urged the judge to impose the maximum $1,000 fine on Trump for each alleged violation.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued Trump is “allowed to respond to political attacks.”

“There is no dispute that President Trump is facing a barrage of political attacks from all sides, including from the two witnesses referenced in the early post,” he said, according to Politico.

Merchan told Blanche he was “losing all credibility” by arguing Trump was being careful and trying to comply with the order.

DAY 6: Trump’s trial continues with its first witness, David Pecker, on the stand.

But first, Trump faces criminal contempt – ten counts – for social media posts attacking key prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen & Stormy Daniels.

Contempt hearing 9:30am. Pecker re-starts 11am. pic.twitter.com/H4GE3FOuQG

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) April 23, 2024

Former federal prosecutor Francey Hakes told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the gag order is “entirely unconstitutional,” noting that the case is “inextricably intertwined with politics” and is being prosecuted by a Democratic district attorney who “pledged to find a case to prosecute Trump if he was elected.”

“The witnesses in the case have an unusually high profile and impugn Trump’s character, and insist he is guilty of the crimes charged, on a regular basis,” Hakes said. “The prosecutor who offered the opening statement recently worked at a very high level at the Department of Justice in D.C., a very unusual career path, to say the least.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley likewise pointed out on Fox News in early April that the order was preventing Trump from responding to Cohen’s frequent attacks.

“You know, you’ve got Michael Cohen, who is going on the air every night attacking Trump, basically campaigning against him,” Turley said. “He is not allowed to respond.”

The court’s public information office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Underregulated and Unaccountable - The Daily Signal

Underregulated and Unaccountable

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson / Emma Waters /

In a recent sting operation, the FBI arrested and charged a Chicago man for knowingly distributing material on child sexual assault and boasting about sexually abusing his young nieces and nephews.

The man’s arrest came less than a week before he and another man identified as his husband were set to collect their newborn son from a commercial surrogate in California.

Commercial surrogacy is a contractual agreement where someone pays a woman to gestate and birth an unrelated child for a fee. In the United States, it’s an underregulated and unaccountable practice. Unlike adoption, the intended parents are not required to undergo a background check or home visit.

Male same-sex couples or single men, who lack a womb in their fruitless arrangements, make up a large percentage of this industry’s clients. Morally, the inclusion of a third person in the package deal of marriage, sex, and procreation violates God’s “one flesh” vision.

Proponents tend to frame surrogacy as a beautiful experience in which a woman helps someone complete a chosen family. This overlooks serious concerns. Critics point out that surrogacy is effectively a form of baby-selling that exploits women who need financial assistance. Moreover, the practice flourishes when loose laws allow bad actors to create children.

Unfortunately, as the recent FBI arrest shows, these aren’t hypothetical concerns. Here are the all-too-real details:

Adam Stafford King, a well-known Chicago veterinarian and dog breeder, was intercepted by the FBI when agents seized another pedophile’s phone and gained access to his messaging accounts on Telegram and Scruff.

King openly discussed how he preferred boys in the “single digits” and planned to sexually abuse his surrogate-born son. King sent photos of his son’s sonogram and newborn outfit in anticipation of the sexual abuse.

King’s husband and extended family claim they had no knowledge of this. The surrogate-born son, who may not be related to either man, was born around March 29. Unless a court intervened, King’s husband planned to collect the newborn child and raise him at his parents’ house for the time being.

This is not the first time that men with a history of sexual abuse or pedophilic behavior have acquired a child through surrogacy.

A few months ago, the well-known YouTuber Shane Dawson and his partner created twin boys through a surrogacy contract. Dawson has admitted to masturbating to pictures of minors and googling child pornography. Such behavior made it unlikely that Dawson and his partner could pass an adoption screening, yet a surrogacy contract was no problem.

As children’s rights activist Katy Faust details, there is a growing list of men who have a history of child sexual abuse or intend to abuse their own child gained through surrogacy. And these are just the ones we know about.

Stories like this leave us with one final, haunting question: What about the children? At no step in this legal or reproductive process did anyone stop to ask what is best for the child. King’s newborn son almost certainly will never know his biological mother—she is likely an anonymous egg donor selected from a catalog.

Even in dog breeding—a subject Adam Stafford King knows well—puppies remain with their mother for six to eight weeks. But not so with surrogacy. The child will be taken from the only mother he has ever known the moment he is born. It is the surrogate mother’s voice, disposition, and body that he is intimately familiar with, and yet he will be placed in the arms of a potentially unrelated man and his parents.

Even if the child never meets Adam Stafford King, he will likely be raised by King’s husband and whichever other male partners he brings into the child’s life. This alone makes the child at least 11 times more likely to suffer sexual or physical abuse as unrelated men frequent the home.

This newborn son one day will realize that in vitro fertilization—where an egg is fertilized by sperm in a petri dish—routinely allows people to eugenically select the kind of child they want, even selecting the sex of the embryo.

Moreover, the child will have to come to terms with the fact that he was not conceived in a loving union but purchased through a highly lucrative contract. If a man buys the egg, rents the womb, and completes the necessary paperwork to create a child, it’s hard to see how surrogacy is morally different from buying a child after his birth.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, signed a law April 1 that reversed the state’s ban on commercial surrogacy. At the same time, Minnesota prepares to create loose laws to enable it. Notably, neither state has introduced basic safeguards to protect children.

Our laws should encourage, whenever possible, married mothers and fathers to raise their children. We shouldn’t legalize the buying and selling of children, especially when such contracts reinforce disordered sexual fantasies and serve as a vehicle for adult wish fulfillment.

Originally published by World

California’s EV Agenda Will Require Massive and Costly Infrastructure Upgrades, Analysis Finds - The Daily Signal

California’s EV Agenda Will Require Massive and Costly Infrastructure Upgrades, Analysis Finds

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson / Emma Waters / Nick Pope /

California’s electric vehicle agenda will require costly upgrades to the state’s electric grid infrastructure if it is to be realized, according to a new study published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The state, often heralded as a national leader when it comes to EVs, is set to ban the sale of purely gas-powered passenger vehicles in the state after 2035 and heavy-duty trucks that burn fossil fuels starting in 2036. The infrastructure upgrades reportedly needed to support the projected rise of EVs in the state could cost anywhere between $6 billion and $20 billion, according to the study.

dailycallerlogo

The study identifies “feeders,” or transmission lines that carry electricity from the site of generation to its end user, as a key type of infrastructure that needs extensive upgrades by 2045 in order to meet targets set by California’s aggressive EV policies. There is a “substantial need” for 50% of all feeders in the state to receive upgrades by 2035, and for 67% of feeders by 2045, according to the study.

The state will also need to increase the amount of energy that it is able to distribute by about 25 gigawatts by 2045 to meet demand for public and private EV charging stations—upgrades that will cost anywhere between $6 billion and $20 billion, the study states. But it takes nearly 2.5 million solar panels or 310 utility-scale wind turbines to produce just 1 GW of power, according to the Department of Energy.

“The imminent challenges confronting California serve as a microcosm of the forthcoming obstacles anticipated worldwide due to the prevailing global trend of EV adoption,” the study states.

California is also expecting to continue its advance toward its goal of having 100% zero-emissions power generation by 2045. The state figures to rely heavily on wind and solar power to meet that target, given that the state’s sole major nuclear power plant may have to close for good after its five-year life span extension granted by state regulators expires.

While the state is changing how it sources electricity over time and adding demand with policies like those pushing EVs, the study’s authors project that electricity demand growth will actually drive down electricity costs in the state over time. California had the second-highest cost of electricity per unit of any state in the continental U.S. in January, trailing only Rhode Island, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The office of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Energy Commission did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Why Small Businesses Hate Bidenomics  - The Daily Signal

Why Small Businesses Hate Bidenomics 

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson / Emma Waters / Nick Pope / Stephen Moore /

If the economy is so good, why do small business leaders feel so bad? 

The latest Small Business Optimism Index from the National Federation of Independent Business could hardly be more depressing.

The survey finds that the men and women who run our 33 million small businesses and hire more than half of American workers are in a somber mood. It also finds that small-business confidence has reached its lowest point in 12 years. 

Amazingly, CEOs of small companies are even more fearful of the future today than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when most businesses were shuttered.

The confidence numbers have decreased every year President Joe Biden has been in office. Here are the numbers, according to the National Federation of Independent Business:  

March 2020—102.0 

March 2021—98.2  

March 2022—93.2 

March 2023—90.1 

March 2024—88.5 

Why are small-business owners feeling so dour at a time when the gross domestic product is growing? I asked that question of David Malpass, the former World Bank president who was Treasury Department undersecretary in the Trump administration. Malpass has observed, all over the world, what factors make small businesses successful and put their owners in a frame of mind to expand. 

“Smaller businesses are being crowded out by complex regulations and direct competition from the $35 trillion national debt,” Malpass concludes. “The Treasury borrowed $23 trillion in 2023 alone, much of it in the expensive short maturities needed by smaller businesses for working capital.” 

The NFIB data is merely a survey, and sometimes business owners and investors act differently than they say they will. But there is more real data on how small companies are expanding.

The latest Federal Reserve data through March shows that commercial and industrial loans, a key resource for small business dynamism, fell over 5% in the last year in nominal terms, down over 8% after adjusting for inflation.

Yikes. Without investment, it’s hard for businesses to grow.  

I asked Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the Job Creators Network, which represents tens of thousands of small-business owners, what he sees in the business climate.  

“Our members feel as though Biden has declared war on small businesses,” Ortiz said.

He also mentioned that his members are worried that a second Biden term would mean higher taxes, more regulations, and a continuation of high prices. 

Meanwhile, the Biden administration seems frustrated and even indignant that more businesses aren’t supporting the White House program. But remember: Neither Biden nor nearly any of his top officials ever have started or even worked for a small or medium-sized business. They don’t have any feel for how their own policies impact the nation’s employers. 

As an example, the Biden administration wants to put in serious jeopardy the franchise model where thousands of small entrepreneurs can start their own McDonald’s or Arby’s, or a retail store representing well-known and trusted brands. It wants the parent companies to be on alert that they can be sued for violations of labor laws, Environmental Protection Agency edicts, or federal “diversity” requirements, or can be on the hook for lawsuits against their franchises. 

This could be the death of thousands of small, independent-owned franchises. The Labor Department wants small businesses to allow unions to run their stores. 

What is so sinister here is that the franchise model for opening new businesses is an almost entirely unique American model of business growth. Entrepreneurial immigrants can come into the country, pool money as a family, then own and operate a Popeyes restaurant or a clothing store. 

Biden also wants to nearly double the capital gains tax, which would scare away angel investors in small startup companies. If owners of a small or medium-sized business put the profits back into the company so it could expand, Biden would tax the “unrealized capital gains” on that investment. 

Meanwhile, Biden is happy to give a big head start in the form of billions of dollars in grants and low-interest loans for large corporations such as General Motors and chipmaker Intel so they can expand operations on the taxpayers’ dime. These corporate welfare programs tilt the playing field in favor of the sharks, not the small-business minnows. 

It’s no wonder that men and women who put their life savings on the line to build their businesses from scratch feel like they’re under assault. They are being taxed and regulated to death while too often inflation eats away their modest profits. 

No one in Washington is going to be “forgiving” their loans when the business conditions get rough and high interest rates make it tough to get emergency loans. There is no safety net—and no “too big to fail” aid package—for the heroes of our economy, who have become the punching bag of big government. 

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM 

Kansas Universities Spent $45 Million on DEI. Lawmakers Want to Know What They Paid For. - The Daily Signal

Kansas Universities Spent $45 Million on DEI. Lawmakers Want to Know What They Paid For.

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson / Emma Waters / Nick Pope / Stephen Moore / Jonathan Butcher /

Kansas university officials have spent millions of dollars on diversity, equity, and inclusion, in what appears to be just a jobs program for DEI staff.

A state auditor could not determine what DEI means at state universities or what DEI programs produce, and Kansas lawmakers made a proactive decision to reinforce civil rights laws and protect everyone on state college campuses from the discriminatory effects DEI programs have had on campuses around the country.

Kansas legislators last week adopted a law that prohibits state university officials from requiring prospective employees to complete a DEI statement as a condition of employment or requiring students to write a DEI statement when they apply to a university. Faculty also cannot require professors to write a DEI statement as a condition of being promoted.

Research has found that such “loyalty oaths” to DEI are not uncommon. Those pledges to DEI advocate for racial preferences in college admissions and other university activities, though nearly all DEI offices have been silent on the recent antisemitic incidents that have occurred on campuses nationwide. Some races appear more important than others.

On Friday, Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, who has vetoed similar proposals that would have protected civil rights, allowed this new bill prohibiting DEI statements to become law without her signature. She said she has “concerns” about the legislation, but does not “believe” state universities are requiring such statements.

Yet in Kansas State University job postings, the school’s DEI statement is stamped on the announcements. Meanwhile, a state auditor released a report in March finding that state universities spent $9 million in taxpayer funds on DEI in the 2022-2023 school year.

The six state universities spent $45 million in total on DEI, money that funded more than 500 DEI staff positions and 202 training programs. At Kansas University, school officials spent $689 per student on DEI activities.

In a legislative hearing that reviewed the report, audit supervisor Heidi Zimmerman said the state universities did not have “a single shared definition of what DEI activities are”—which means the audit could be underreporting the actual figures, according to Heartlander News.

Kansas’ auditor is not the only one still searching for a definition for DEI.

The Iowa Board of Regents also struggled to determine what, exactly, DEI is when it released a report calling for an end to DEI on state campuses last year.

A survey of human resource officers at private businesses found that 71% of respondents said their organizations did not have a definition of DEI, though many have mandatory DEI training programs. While DEI staffers have failed to define their ideas, the offices at colleges have found time to host drag queen shows and sponsor parades advocating for radical ideas on “gender.”

Kansas lawmakers have added their state to a list that includes Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah, Idaho, Wisconsin, and Indiana where policymakers are doubling down on state and federal civil rights laws and rejecting DEI.

Officials in other states delay the condemnation of DEI at their own risk.

Columbia University has resorted to online classes after antisemitic protests broke out late last week. The school has not been able to guarantee student safety—and neither have school officials at Yale, where similar violence is occurring, causing injury to at least one student.

Both schools have DEI offices—so, if DEI staffers are not fostering a diversity of ideas, promoting equal treatment, and making students feel included, then how are they defining “diversity, equity, and inclusion”?

And in case Kansans think these problems only happen at Ivy League institutions, the state’s two flagship universities, KU and Kansas State University, both have DEI offices. To its credit, KU’s DEI office issued a statement opposing antisemitism in November 2022, though the office sidestepped Hamas’ terrorism in its newsletter of September-October 2023, following the Islamic militant group’s terrorist acts of Oct. 7.  

Around the country, DEI offices prove to be radical operations that show little interest in civil rights or equality under the law. Kansas taxpayers should not have to pay for them.

State lawmakers have taken a crucial step that protects free expression and embraces the fundamental idea that we are not defined by our skin color.

GOP Lawmaker Bashes Dems for Making It Easier to Get Away With Trafficking Minors - The Daily Signal

GOP Lawmaker Bashes Dems for Making It Easier to Get Away With Trafficking Minors

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson / Emma Waters / Nick Pope / Stephen Moore / Jonathan Butcher / Kate Anderson /

California state Sen. Shannon Grove, a Republican, blasted her Democratic colleagues for weakening a bill that would make buying a child for sex a felony offense.

The California bill, which Grove introduced in February, would have made soliciting a minor for sex a felony with the potential for up to four years of prison time, a fine of up to $25,000, and required those convicted to register as sex offenders.

dailycallerlogo

Democrats on the state Senate’s Public Safety Committee passed amendments to the bill last Wednesday without Grove’s approval.

The changes would drop prison time upon conviction to a maximum of one year in jail and reduce the charge to a misdemeanor if the child was 16 or 17. 

“When I was standing at that podium I was shocked at what was happening, and I said, ‘Are you forcing these amendments on me?’ And the chair said, ‘Yes.’ And the audience, with all of our survivors in the background, gasped,” Grove told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Some of them cried out. They’re mortified. They are hurt. They feel like they’ve been assaulted all over again by what happened.”

The amendments also would make it so that a person could face charges or pay a $10,000 fine and “buy their way out of a crime” if the victim was under 16 years old, Grove said.

“I’ve thought through this process and I thought through any rational reason that they could have, but I think somebody just needs to ask them why they don’t want to put people in prison for buying children,” Grove said. “My mind cannot wrap around a rational reason not to do that.”

California is the fifth-worst state in the nation for human trafficking, with 3.43 cases per 100,000, according to the World Population Review. Sex trafficking accounted for 89% of all human trafficking cases in California in 2021, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

California lawmakers, however, have pushed legislation that weakens protections for minors who have been sexually abused.

In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed a bill authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat. A member of the Public Safety Committee, Newsom voted in favor of the amendments to Grove’s bill relaxing sex offender registry requirements for offenders not more than 10 years older than victims who are minors.

A similar amendment to Grove’s bill would remove the requirement to register as a sex offender for buying or engaging in sexual behavior with a minor 15 years old and under, if the perpetrator is less than 10 years older than the victim, according to a press release from Grove’s office.

Grove said the change was “bizarre, convoluted, and confusing … but purposeful.”

“I think every Californian—well, just about every Californian—believes that buying sex from a child should be a felony,” Grove said. “And I don’t think that these senators wanted to take that vote or face the public backlash, so they watered it down hoping that I would pull the bill entirely.”

Wiener’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

State Sen. Craig Bradford, a Democrat, also voted in support of the amendments, according to the Legislature’s website. Bradford noted during Wednesday’s hearing that although he was supportive of measures to prevent human trafficking, he “generally” hesitated about “creating new felonies” due to their potential “consequences on communities of color.”

Bradford supported a previous bill proposed by Grove to make the selling of a minor for sex a felony. However, he said at the hearing that he was concerned about the new bill because the offender might not have known the minor’s age at the time of the crime.

Grove said she worked with the Public Safety Committee by proposing an amendment to make the sex offender registry requirement for repeat offenders only, but her fellow senators didn’t accept her revisions.

Bradford’s office referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to his Wednesday testimony.

“We negotiated a second chance for offenders before you get on a registry, because there were things brought to us such as if they met somebody in a bar or they’re drinking, you would think that they were old enough to be there but come to find out the person was only 16,” Grove said. “You don’t want to destroy anybody’s life, but if you’re a repeat offender, I want you in prison for a long time away from our children. We negotiated in good faith, but the whole time they were negotiating in bad faith. And I can tell you that someone told me that in 21 years, they have never seen that happen.”

The bill now must make its way through the state Senate’s Appropriations Committee before going to the Senate floor, and Grove said her team is working to strengthen the bill. This setback was extremely disheartening for victims of sex trafficking and would only embolden sex traffickers, she argued.

“These amendments say, ‘Buyers, you have free rein,’” Grove said. “Any perpetrator that enjoys engaging in sexual activity with a child is going to just continue to do it, because it’s going to still be just a slap on the wrist.”

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

What Lindsey Graham Isn’t Telling You About US ‘Loan’ to Ukraine - The Daily Signal

What Lindsey Graham Isn’t Telling You About US ‘Loan’ to Ukraine

Rob Bluey / Jarrett Stepman / Harold Hutchison / Katelynn Richardson / Emma Waters / Nick Pope / Stephen Moore / Jonathan Butcher / Kate Anderson / Rob Bluey /

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a leading neoconservative, is making the rounds on media touting his support for the $61 billion Ukraine aid bill. His rationale: It’s a loan.

Crediting former President Donald Trump for the idea, Graham told “Fox News Sunday” host Shannon Bream that he supports the foreign aid package currently before Congress because it’s structured differently from a previous deal he opposed in February.

“This aid package has a loan component to it,” Graham said Sunday. “President Trump has created a loan component to this package that gives us leverage down the road.”

But does it?

What Graham fails to mention is the fine print.

Of the $61 billion in the foreign aid package, only $9.5 billion comes in the form of a “forgivable loan” for the Ukrainian government, according to Heritage Action. (Heritage Action is the grassroots arm of The Heritage Foundation, which founded The Daily Signal in 2014).

There’s another catch for the so-called loan: President Joe Biden has the power to cancel 50% of the total after this coming Nov. 15. And the remaining 50% may be canceled by the president after Jan. 1, 2026.

“This bill isn’t intended to come due,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts wrote for The Hill last week. “The ‘loan’ would be structured at 0% interest, would be waivable by President Biden, and would be financed with more U.S. debt. No one in Washington seriously plans to ask for the money back. And if they did, Ukraine could simply default on the loan.”

Graham was one of 29 senators—26 of them Republicans—to oppose an earlier version of Biden’s supplemental spending request in February.

At the time, Graham said: “Pulling the plug on Ukraine only invites further aggression in other areas of the world, particularly from China. However, as I have been consistently saying, we must deal with our border first. … The border must be addressed before we can move to other areas.”

The Russia-Ukraine war has raged since Feb. 24, 2022, when Russia invaded the former Soviet republic.

When senators vote on the $95 billion foreign aid package, they won’t consider any legislation related to America’s own border crisis. That’s because House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., opted not to include a separate bill addressing illegal immigration at the border as part of the foreign aid legislation.

Still, Graham has signaled he’ll support the package—even if the loan concept he endorsed in February is different from the one in the current legislation.

“A loan on friendly terms allows America, who is deeply in debt, a chance to get our money back and changes the paradigm of how we help others,” Graham said in February.

In this case, no one expects the United States to be repaid.

“The American people will never see this money again,” Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, said.

Graham’s office referred The Daily Signal to the senator’s social media post when asked for comment.