Authored by John Cody via Remix News,

A world without cash would lead to “financially incapacitated” citizens, argues the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ)…

After 530,000 Austrians signed a referendum petition calling for the right to cash payments to be enshrined in Austria’s constitution in 2022, Austria’s political class is refusing to move forward with adding this legal right, warns the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ).

“Nowhere else in the world is an everyday life without cash so clearly rejected as in Austria. We see this justified desire of the population, which is reflected in the popular petition ‘For unrestricted cash payment,’ as a concrete work order to the parliament!,” said Finance and Budget Spokesman of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) Hubert Fuchs during a parliamentary debate.

Although the referendum is not binding, in a country of 8.9 million, the fact that over half a million signed the referendum petition shows a broad level of resistance against the push for digital currencies promoted by central banks across the world and institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF). It was the 13th most popular referendum in the country’s history. However, the center-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), which has long been said to have backed the right to cash, is now joining the left-wing parties of Austria and blocking all attempts to add this right to the country’s constitution.

FPÖ says ‘cash is freedom’

Fuchs sees the great support for the petition as a clear mandate to the National Council, which is one of the two houses in Austria’s parliament.

“The initiators and supporters of this petition do not just want words of thanks. Rather, it is a concrete request to the National Council to ensure that the federal government finally gets its act together. But let me report from the finance committee: Our motion for the preservation of cash was once again rejected by the ÖVP. So it’s all just lip service and fine words, while these are not followed by action,” said Fuchs.

Austrian Freedom Party financial spokesman Hubert Fuchs. (Austrian Parliament)

The ÖVP is reportedly attempting to blame their coalition partners, the Greens, but the FPÖ rejects these claims. Fuchs argues that if “nothing can be brought forward in the country (through legislation), one should step soon again to the ballot box — the republic would be served thereby very much.”

The FPÖ, known for its stance against Russia sanctions and its calls to stop immigration by building “Fortress Austria,” is currently the most popular party in the country, with polls putting it at approximately 27 percent. The party, although conservative, takes a skeptical view of unbridled free market capitalism, and argues that the government must protect against real estate speculators and provide generous cash benefits to encourage Austrians to have more children.

The party has also made the right to cash payments an intrinsic part of its platform, arguing that they ensure freedom from government oversight and also protect Austrians from predatory banks and credit card institutions.

“We, the Freedom Party — in contrast to all other parties — have already been campaigning for years for the preservation of cash as well as for the anchoring of the right to cash payments in the constitution. This was also included in the ÖVP-FPÖ government program (of the previous government), but unfortunately could no longer be implemented. And I wonder why, if all parties are in favor of preserving cash, especially the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), they have not tabled a motion on this today?” asked Fuchs. “According to the current legal situation, there is no real obligation to accept cash. The relevant legal provisions need to be tightened up here.”

Fuchs also said in his speech that implementing a financial system where only digital currencies exist would lead to an increase in money laundering and covert financing of terrorism, as according to him, digital and cryptocurrencies are a hotbed for criminality.

“This freedom of choice must continue to exist in the future. Cash is data protection in action. Cash is printed freedom. And another aspect should not remain unmentioned: Without cash, how are children supposed to learn how to handle money and thus how to do business? Money at their fingertips is very important for children. But it is not only important for children, but also for adults in terms of their own spending control,” explained the FPÖ finance and budget spokesman.

Fuchs may be referring to the practice of many consumers reverting back to cash to better control spending, which is a trend seen in the United States this year. Experts argue that using physical cash instead of electronic payments helps people better control and track their spending.

However, the FPÖ also points to a new Marketmind study, which shows that 48 percent of women and 40 percent of men in Austria cannot get a credit card due to their low income and are therefore dependent on cash. 

“That’s no wonder when you consider that in our country around 17 percent of the population must be classified as at risk of poverty. That is just one of the many reasons why we have to insist on (the right to) receiving cash with all our might,” said the FPÖ consumer protection spokesman, Peter Worm.

“In view of the fact that more than 530,000 citizens have signed the referendum entitled ‘For unrestricted cash payments’, it is more than opportune to recognize the importance of the issue. The unified opposition of the ÖVP, SPÖ, Greens and NEOS talk loudly about receiving the cash, but votes against every one of our proposals to ensure cash, including cent and euro coins along with notes in the current form, is preserved and to anchor cash in general in our constitution. Our application to establish a constitutionally stipulated obligation to contract for the movement of goods and services in connection with the basic acceptance of cash as a means of payment in the Austrian legal system also failed due to all four parties,” explained Wurm.

“But we Liberals will continue to comply with the will of the citizens. Cash means survival, freedom and self-determination. The transparent citizen has already become a reality to some extent, and only receiving cash in a constitutionally protected form can prevent even worse things from happening,” emphasized Wurm.

In Austria, 50 percent of all transactions are still conducted in cash, far above the European average of approximately 30 percent. Germans are also against digital transactions, with just 9 percent saying they would use mobile payments.

Why protect cash?

As Remix News previously reported, privacy and civil rights organizations have long advocated the right to cash with the argument that privacy, civil liberties, and finical security are at stake. Abolishing cash would force citizens to conduct all transactions through a digital medium, such as mobile payments, credit cards, or digital currencies. Banks and electronic mediums remain vulnerable to hack attacks and even natural disasters, for example, if the power grid were to be knocked out. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which is a part of the Ministry of Justice, warned in one report that a totally cashless society would be extremely vulnerable if the country were attacked or exposed to a natural disaster

For those concerned about privacy, such as those in Germany and Austria, digital payments give law enforcement and government authorities a direct window into all transactions.

Even more worrying for some, digital money could one day be linked to political and social behavior in Western countries in a social credit system, as seen in China. Already, during the “Freedom Convoy” trucker protests against Covid-19 policies in Canada, the left-wing government of Justin Trudeau took the unprecedented step of freezing the bank accounts of protesters. Although civil liberty groups decried the authoritarian action as a flagrant abuse of power, many critics worry that the action could now serve as a template to deal with protesters and dissent in the future. If dissidents and those critical of the government cannot keep their money outside the digital space, then they will have nowhere to hide their finances should governments, like the one in Canada, take action against them.

Authored by John Cody via Remix News,

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party continues to soar higher in the polls, with nearly one out of five German voters saying they would vote for the party, according to an INSA poll conducted for the Bild newspaper.

The poll shows that 10.9 million people, or 18 percent of the population, would vote for the AfD. It also shows that 15.7 million people, or 26 percent of the population, said they were open to voting for the party.

The poll places the AfD in third place, just behind the Social Democrats (SPD), who are at 20 percent. The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) are in first at 28 percent. The Greens, meanwhile, have crashed to their lowest polling result since 2018 and now stand at 13 percent.

Von 60,4 Mio. potentiell Wahlberechtigten (2021)
▪️würden derzeit 10,9 Mio. die AfD wählen (18%),
▪️können sich 15,7 Mio. vorstellen, die AfD zu wählen (26%),
▪️sind 26 Mio. offen für die AfD (43%).

Die VERTEUFELUNG wird nicht ewig funktionieren! pic.twitter.com/RmzhvwI5TV

— Georg Pazderski (@Georg_Pazderski) May 29, 2023

Germans are becoming increasingly receptive to the AfD’s positions on mass immigration as the left-wing government moves to liberalize immigration laws and naturalize millions of foreigners as German citizens, a move that would greatly benefit these left-wing parties at the polls. Germany has seen record population growth, with nearly 1.5 million migrants arriving in 2022. So far, this number shows no signs of slowing in 2023, as over 160,000 migrants arrived in the country in the first three months of the current year.

The costs of mass immigration are also slowly becoming hard to ignore, as schools become chaotic and understaffed, housing prices soar due to more competition, and serious crime involving foreigners continues to plague the country. The German government argues that mass immigration is necessary to save the country’s budget and pay for pensions, but figures show that the government plans to spend €36 billion in 2023 alone on migrants for housing, integration, and social benefits, undercutting this argument significantly.

The AfD is also drawing support due to its opposition to sanctions against Russia, which it argues are weakening the German economy and leading to deindustrialization. At the same time, the AfD has fiercely opposed a coalition government proposal to ban homeowners from buying new gas and oil heating systems, which experts argue will cost hundreds of millions.

The AfD party itself has long been under a threat of a total ban, and as the party rises in popularity, establishment parties may double down on their efforts to remove the party from the democratic arena.

Former AfD politician, George Pazoderski, wrote on Twitter: “Now that the AfD is at 18%, the well-known discussion about anti-constitutionalism and a ban on the party will soon be initiated, run by the usual suspects, backed by the ÖRR (German broadcaster) and relevant pro-government media.”

WETTEN, DASS?

Jetzt, wo die AfD bei 18% steht, wird in Kürze die bereits bekannte Diskussion über Verfassungsfeindlichkeit und ein Verbot der Partei initiiert werden.

Geführt von den üblichen Verdächtigen, sekundiert vom ÖRR und den einschlägigen regierungstreuen Medien. pic.twitter.com/ijvMgPzoyg

— Georg Pazderski (@Georg_Pazderski) May 28, 2023

Remix News has documented the German government’s ongoing attempts to ban the AfD party. The domestic intelligence agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, has labeled the party a “suspected threat” against the country’s constitution, which allows it to spy on party members and politicians, including their emails and phone calls. The AfD’s headquarters has also been raided by police, its politicians have been victims of arson attacks, and just this month, a local AfD politician was nearly killed in a stabbing attack perpetrated by an Iraqi migrant. Despite these obstacles, the AfD continues to grow, making any ban on the party a potential constitutional crisis.

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

– George Orwell

Let’s be clear about one thing: seditious conspiracy isn’t a real crime to anyone but the U.S. government.

To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, the charge levied against Stewart Rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for being the driving force behind the January 6 Capitol riots, one doesn’t have to engage in violence against the government, vandalize government property, or even trespass on property that the government has declared off-limits to the general public.

To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, one need only foment a revolution.

This is not about whether Rhodes deserves such a hefty sentence.

This is about the long-term ramifications of empowering the government to wage war on individuals whose political ideas and expression challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

This is about criminalizing political expression in thoughts, words and deeds.

This is about how the government has used the events of Jan. 6 in order to justify further power grabs and acquire more authoritarian emergency powers.    

This was never about so-called threats to democracy.

In fact, the history of this nation is populated by individuals whose rhetoric was aimed at fomenting civil unrest and revolution.

Indeed, by the government’s own definition, America’s founders were seditious conspirators based on the heavily charged rhetoric they used to birth the nation.

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, and John Adams would certainly have been charged for suggesting that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to protect their liberties and defend themselves against the government should it violate their rights.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine.

“When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.”

Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”

Had America’s founders feared revolutionary words and ideas, there would have been no First Amendment, which protects the right to political expression, even if that expression is anti-government.

No matter what one’s political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to protest government programs or policies with which they might disagree.

The right to disagree with and speak out against the government is the quintessential freedom.

Every individual has a right to speak truth to power—and foment change—using every nonviolent means available.

Unfortunately, the government is increasingly losing its tolerance for anyone whose political views could be perceived as critical or “anti-government.”

All of us are in danger.

In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American with an opinion about the government or who knows someone with an opinion about the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

You see, the government doesn’t care if you or someone you know has a legitimate grievance. It doesn’t care if your criticisms are well-founded. And it certainly doesn’t care if you have a First Amendment right to speak truth to power.

What the government cares about is whether what you’re thinking or speaking or sharing or consuming as information has the potential to challenge its stranglehold on power.

Why else would the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies be investing in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram?

Why else would the Biden Administration be likening those who share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” to terrorists?

Why else would the government be waging war against those who engage in thought crimes?

Get ready for the next phase of the government’s war on thought crimes and truth-tellers.

For years now, the government has used all of the weapons in its vast arsenal—surveillance, threat assessments, fusion centers, pre-crime programs, hate crime laws, militarized police, lockdowns, martial law, etc.—to target potential enemies of the state based on their ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that might be deemed suspicious or dangerous.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

According to one FBI report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”

In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.

There’s a whole spectrum of behaviors ranging from thought crimes and hate speech to whistleblowing that qualifies for persecution (and prosecution) by the Deep State.

Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.

Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.

And then at the other end of the spectrum there are those such as Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, for example, who blow the whistle on government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know.

In true Orwellian fashion, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.

Since his April 2019 arrest, Assange has been locked up in a maximum-security British prison—in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day—pending extradition to the U.S., where if convicted, he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.

This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power.

This is also why the government fears a citizenry that thinks for itself: because a citizenry that thinks for itself is a citizenry that is informed, engaged and prepared to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law, which translates to government transparency and accountability.

After all, we’re citizens, not subjects.

For those who don’t fully understand the distinction between the two and why transparency is so vital to a healthy constitutional government, Manning explains it well:

When freedom of information and transparency are stifled, then bad decisions are often made and heartbreaking tragedies occur – too often on a breathtaking scale that can leave societies wondering: how did this happen? … I believe that when the public lacks even the most fundamental access to what its governments and militaries are doing in their names, then they cease to be involved in the act of citizenship. There is a bright distinction between citizens, who have rights and privileges protected by the state, and subjects, who are under the complete control and authority of the state.

This is why the First Amendment is so critical. It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of arrest, isolation or any of the other punishments that have been meted out to whistleblowers such as Edwards Snowden, Assange and Manning.

The challenge is holding the government accountable to obeying the law.

A little over 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Washington Post Co. to block the Nixon Administration’s attempts to use claims of national security to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing secret Pentagon papers on how America went to war in Vietnam.

As Justice William O. Douglas remarked on the ruling, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Fast forward to the present day, and we’re witnessing yet another showdown, this time between Assange and the Deep State, which pits the people’s right to know about government misconduct against the might of the military industrial complex.

Yet this isn’t merely about whether whistleblowers and journalists are part of a protected class under the Constitution. It’s a debate over how long “we the people” will remain a protected class under the Constitution.

Following the current trajectory, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable is labeled an “extremist,” relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, watched all the time, and rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

We’re almost at that point now.

Eventually, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we will all be seditious conspirators in the eyes of the government.

We would do better to be conspirators for the Constitution starting right now.

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

With only days to go before the federal government of the Land of the Free defaults on its debt, it appears that a compromise may finally be on the horizon.

As part of the bargain, both sides have agreed to slash part of the $80 billion in new funding that the IRS was awarded last year.

This is quite a blow to the President, who sold his plan to beef up the IRS last year by saying that the agency would capture up to “a trillion 300 million billion dollars if we hire more IRS agents.”

A trillion 300 million billion? That sure does sound like a lot of money.

Mr. Biden, of course, never seems to have much of a handle of arithmetic (nor anything else).

At one point he explained that Covid-19 had taken “200 billion lives”, and then further commented that “just the outbreak, has taken more than one hundred year, look, here, the lives, it’s just, just think about it.”

Quite sadly he even recently claimed that his son Beau died during a military deployment to in Iraq. In reality, Beau returned from Iraq in 2009, but died of brain cancer in 2015. You’d think his dad would know that.

And this is on top of the countless videos out there of the President shaking hands with thin air, wandering aimlessly at official functions, reading instructions from teleprompters such as “repeat for emphasis”, and stopping mid-sentence with a thousand-yard stare.

Now, Biden isn’t the first leader in history who showed signs of dementia.

King George the III of England famously thought a tree was the king of Prussia. Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan showed signs of dementia towards the end of their terms in office.

But there is a key difference.

President Biden has deliberately surrounded himself with incompetent lunatics.

For example, his Vice President’s latest inspiring quote is, “It’s very important… for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to seize the moment in time in which we exist in our present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but to the future.”

Profound. A college freshman smoking his first joint couldn’t have said it better.

What’s crazy is that this sort of verbal incontinence is pervasive across the rest of government.

After a three month absence in the Senate due to shingles, 89-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein returned to Washington and informed a reporter, “I haven’t been gone. I’ve been working.”

The reporter asked for clarification if the Senator meant she had been working from home.

“No, I’ve been here [at the capitol]. I’ve been voting,” she responded, before adding cryptically, “Please, you either know or don’t know.”

And here’s a direct quote from Senator John Fetterman questioning banking CEOs in a recent Senate hearing:

“That’s like if you have I mean like an-and they also realize that that now they have it’s an in a guaranteed, a guaranteed way to be saved by noma again, no matter, by-by-by how?”

After an awkward silence from the men he was interrogating, Fetterman continued, “shouldn’t you have a working requirement after we sail your bank bills-in your bank? Because they seem me-more preoccupied than when snap requirement for works for hungry people but not about protecting the tax papers that will bail no matter whatever does about the bank, the crash.”

Now, I don’t want to poke fun of someone’s legitimate medical condition. Dementia is a devastating condition. And in Fetterman’s case, he suffered a terrible stroke during his senate campaign. It’s certainly not his fault— it could happen to anyone.

But America has become such a touchy, hypersensitive culture, that it’s considered gauche to even question whether someone who suffered a stroke, or suffers from dementia, is still fit for office.

So if you think you’re entitled to an elected representative who actually knows where she is… well then the entire establishment closes ranks around the politician to defend them and labels you a bad person.

The most we can possibly expect of elected leaders right now is that they have a pulse.

Full control of their mental faculties? Not relevant. Backbone and integrity? Laughable.

This is a pretty terrible trend given that the US is riddled with so many serious, malignant problems. This debt ceiling crisis is only the latest one… and they haven’t solved it. Even if their bargain is successful, they’re only punting the problem into the future by little more than two years.

Social Security’s insolvency is looming. America’s military readiness is falling. More bank crises are looming. The dollar is in danger of losing its global dominance. Geopolitical threats are growing.

You’d think that voters would want the best possible leaders who are at the absolute top of their game.

But no. Instead, you just need a pulse.

PS: If you can see what is happening, and where this is all going, you understand why it is so important to have a Plan B. That’s why we published our 31-page, fully updated Perfect Plan B Guide, which you can download here.

Update (2300ET): Hours after the House passed the debt ceiling bill, Axios reports that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) gave Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) secret concessions to boost spending on Democratic districts in the form of “community project funding” in exchange for their votes earlier this evening, according to two senior lawmakers.

One lawmaker said the deal boosts earmarks to Democrats to bring them “closer to parity” with what Republicans receive in such funds in the GOP-led House. -Axios

McCarthy has told reporters that he didn’t cut any deals to supply the Democratic votes.

Speaker McCarthy just told us he didn’t have to cut any deals with Hakeem Jeffries to get Dem votes to approve the rule for debt ceiling bill

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 31, 2023

When asked if he cut a deal, Jeffries said “House Democrats to the rescue to avoid a dangerous default and help House Republicans get legislation over the finish line that they negotiated themselves.”

Asked if he cut a deal with McCarthy to help pass the Rule, Jeffries said over and her (not answering directly):

“House Democrats to the rescue to avoid a dangerous default and help House Republicans get legislation over the finish line that they negotiated themselves.”

— Daniella Diaz (@DaniellaMicaela) May 31, 2023

More via Axios;

The backdrop: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, previously had told Democrats that they would receive significantly reduced funding for projects in their districts this year, according to Politico.

What we’re watching: The deal could further inflame far-right lawmakers already incensed about the compromise bill that McCarthy cut with Biden. They’ve accused the speaker of caving to most of Democrats’ demands and not cutting enough government spending.

• Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), reacting to news that Democrats might have squeezed McCarthy on earmarks, tweeted derisively: “Earmarks! Sell! Sell! Sell! #NoDeal[.]”

*  *  *

Update (2115ET): The House has successfully voted to raise the debt limit. The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it will need (and undoubtedly receive) at least 60 votes to proceed to President Biden’s desk for his signature ahead of a June 5 deadline to avert a national default.

71 Republicans opposed the measure, as did 46 Democrats, while 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats voted to back the plan.

As we noted earlier, the bill – which as discussed here does not cut real Federal spending even in year one despite widespread propaganda that In exchange for Republican votes for the suspension, Democrats agreed to cap federal spending for the next two years – would set the course for federal spending for the next two years and suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025 — postponing another clash over borrowing until after the presidential election. By then total US debt will be $35 trillion and well on its way to unsustainability.

Of note, in order to try and convince hardline conservatives to vote yes, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had proposed a bipartisan commission, at an expected cost upwards of $100 million, to outline future budget cuts.

“After today, I’m going to put a commission together to look at the entire budget. This debt is too large,” said McCarthy. “We can be very serious about looking long term to solve this problem.”

*  *  *

Update (2115ET): The full House vote has started on the debt ceiling deal.

Watch live:

*  *  *

Shortly after 4pm ET, the debt-limit deal cleared a major hurdle in the House despite growing opposition, setting up the legislation for a vote around 8:15pm on Wednesday night, a vote which despite vocal showboating opposition from various republicans appears destined to pass.

While the House voted 241-187 to take a procedural step needed to consider the measure, McCarthy needed votes from Democrats to offset 29 Republican “no” votes, underscoring the divide within his own party over the legislation as such votes setting the rules for debate are nearly always decided along party lines.  The final vote tally suggests that the Speaker’s position is becoming increasingly vulnerable… if only there was someone willing to submit a motion to vacate.

THE RULE for the debt-limit bill has passed. 241-187.

Dems helped the GOP get the motion for the Biden-McCarthy bill across the finish line.

Final vote later tonight.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 31, 2023

Here are the 29 Republicans that voted no on the rule for the debt ceiling:

A) 29 GOPers voted no on rule for debt ceiling.

1. Biggs
2. Bishop
3. Boebert
4. Brecheen
5. Burlison
6. Buck
7. Cline
8. Burchett
9. Cloud
10. Clyde
11. Crane
12. Gaetz
13. Gosar
14. Good
15. Griffith
16. Higgins
17. Harris
18. Harshberger
19. Luna
20. Miller
21. Moore
22. Norman
23. Perry
24. Posey
25. Rosendale
26. Roy
27. Self
28. Spartz
29. Tiffany

“I think things are going as planned,” Biden told reporters at the White House, before he was due to leave for Colorado. “God willing, by the time I land, Congress will have acted, the House will have acted, and we’ll be one step closer.”

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, a Minnesota Republican, said early Wednesday that he’s sure the votes are in hand. “It’s going to pass,” he said even though he will need Democrat vote for the final passage.

If it passes, the bill will next go to the Senate, where objections from conservatives could force days of debate. But John Thune, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, said Wednesday that there could be a deal to pass the bill by Friday night, days ahead of the June 5 default deadline.

The bill – which as discussed here does not cut real Federal spending even in year one despite widespread propaganda that In exchange for Republican votes for the suspension, Democrats agreed to cap federal spending for the next two years – would set the course for federal spending for the next two years and suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025 — postponing another clash over borrowing until after the presidential election. By then total US debt will be $35 trillion and well on its way to unsustainability.

* * *

As the deal to raise the debt ceiling works its way through the House, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (KY) is preparing for battle with Senate conservatives who are calling for amendments to the bill and threatening to delay the legislation until changes are made.

As The Hill reports, the bill is likely to get over 40 Senate Democratic votes, meaning it will likely need at least 10-20 “yes” votes from Senate Republicans in order for it to move to President Biden’s desk before the June 5 “X-date” deadline set by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for the US to run out of funds.

On Sunday, McConnell came out in favor of the deal negotiated between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and President Biden’s team, however he faces strong opposition from actual conservatives. Chief among them, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who has threatened to use “every procedural tool at my disposal” to slow down the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has similarly thrown a wrench in the gears – demanding a vote on his “conservative alternative” that would cut total federal spending by $545 billion over two years.

“It’s time to go back to the drawing board or, even better, go back to what the House already passed,” said Lee on Tuesday – referring to the Limit, Save, Grow Act, which would cut $4.8 trillion from the future deficit. According to Lee, the current bill “simply does not do what its proponents claim it does — not even close.”

Last week, Lee said that if the bill doesn’t include substantial budgetary and spending reforms, it “will not face smooth sailing in the Senate.”

McConnell has pledged the nation will not default on its debts but he also has a responsibility as leader to help Republican colleagues who want to amend the legislation, which could delay it past the June 5 “X-date.”   

“The Senate must act swiftly and pass this agreement without unnecessary delay,” he said in a statement Sunday. -The Hill

Rand Paul, meanwhile, says he won’t vote for any bill to raise the debt ceiling that doesn’t balance the federal budget in five years – which would require over $500 billion in future cuts.

“To us, it doesn’t look like cuts at all. In fact, spending will go up every year under that debt plan,” he said of the Biden-McCarthy deal, adding “Mandatory spending is enormous; it’s over half of the spending every year. It’s going up at five percent a year.”

That said, Paul says he won’t use procedural amendments to slow down passage of the debt bill, which caps federal spending for two years, and allows Congress to decide how to meet those targets at a later date.

Also opposing the current deal are Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Mike Braun (R-IN).

“This bill leaves us with trillions more in debt & no clear path to less inflation or a balanced budget. I appreciate the work @SpeakerMcCarthy did to try & negotiate a good deal when @JoeBiden refused to engage, but I cannot support this bill,” Scott tweeted Tuesday.

(2/2) Now is our moment to get America back on the path of fiscal sanity. Getting serious about America’s debt isn’t something we can compromise on.

If this passes the House, the Senate must take amendment votes and Senate Republican Leadership must stand with everyone working…

— Rick Scott (@SenRickScott) May 30, 2023

Braun, meanwhile, told reporters that he wouldn’t vote for the bill unless it similarly contains major changes and amendments, adding that he won’t object to speeding up the debate on the legislation if he and his GOP colleagues can submit amendments – even if they’re unlikely to pass.

“You want amendments because you know they’re not going to pass, let’s be real here. The Democrats and the neo-cons in our party are going to get this thing across the finish line, but I want the process of being able to amend it. To me, that is a step in the right direction, because this all gives information to the public in terms of what could be done, even though it doesn’t get incorporated,” said Braun.

Other GOP Senators on the fence include John Cornyn, John Kennedy and Mike Rounds.

“From my perspective, there’s not really anything to support until the House passes the bill. I’m waiting to see what the House sends us,” said Cornyn.

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

Hannah Arensman, a 35-time national cyclocross winner, decided to retire at the age of 25 following a loss to a transgender competitor. She shared her decision along with 67 female athletes and supporters in a recent Supreme Court amicus brief filing (pdf) in support of a West Virginia law that would keep biological men out of women’s sports.

“I have decided to end my cycling career,” Arensman declared last Wednesday.

In her statement, Arensman recalled her final race in the elite women’s division of the UCI Cyclocross National Championships in late December, where she finished in the 4th place, flanked on either side by competitors she identifies as male riders. “I came in 4th place, flanked on either side by male riders awarded 3rd and 5th places,” she stated.

She recounted the emotional toll this had on her and her family: “My sister and family sobbed as they watched a man finish in front of me, having witnessed several physical interactions with him throughout the race.”

Furthermore, Arensman expressed her frustration over the possibility that she might have been overlooked for international selection on the U.S. team at the Cyclocross Worlds in February 2023 due to a male competitor. “It is difficult for me to think about the very real possibility I was overlooked because of a male competitor,” she shared.

In her detailed account, Arensman voiced her discontent over what she perceives as an unequal playing field, stating: “It has become increasingly discouraging to train as hard as I do only to have to lose to a man with the unfair advantage of an androgenized body that intrinsically gives him an obvious advantage over me, no matter how hard I train.”

In her statement, she also expressed concern for the young girls entering the field of competitive sports: “I feel for young girls learning to compete and who are growing up in a day when they no longer have a fair chance at being the new record holders and champions in cycling.”

Expressing her frustration and disappointment, Arensman criticized the authorities for not ensuring fair competition in women’s sports: “I have felt deeply angered, disappointed, overlooked, and humiliated that the rule makers of women’s sports do not feel it is necessary to protect women’s sports to ensure fair competition for women anymore.”

Her statement and those from other disenfranchised female athletes were disseminated by the Independent Council on Women’s Sports.

Legal Battle

Selina Soule, a track and field champion, has emerged as a pivotal figure in pushing for the restoration of fairness in women’s sports. With a legal battle on the horizon, Soule is rallying support from those affected by this contentious issue.

Soule described the situation as “devastating,” expressing concern over the future of women’s sports. “It’s devastating that there are women out there who are retiring or changing their events because they are being forced to compete against biological males where those males, if they were competing in the men’s category, they would be barely mediocre. But in the women, they are dominating the field, and it’s a very, extremely frustrating situation,” she told Fox News on May 24. “It should not be happening. Women’s sports should be preserved as just women’s sports.”

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) joins Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.), track and field athlete Selina Soule (in pink suit) and other Republicans for an event to celebrate the House passing The Protection Of Women And Girls In Sports Act outside the U.S. Capitol on April 20, 2023 in Washington. (Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Soule’s experiences competing against biological males during her high school career have fueled her call for action. “Everybody who has encountered this issue needs to speak up and ask for fairness,” Soule said.

In 2020, Soule, alongside other student-athletes, initiated a lawsuit against the Connecticut Association of Schools. The suit challenged a state ruling that allowed transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. Despite the judge dismissing the lawsuit on procedural grounds, Soule, backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, is preparing to appeal the ruling​.

The repercussions of the current policy are far-reaching, according to Soule’s attorney Christiana Kiefer. “Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field, and what Selena experienced … was being sidelined in her own sport and that’s a clear violation of Title IX,” Kiefer argued during the Fox News​​ show.

On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) released a notice of proposed rule-making on athletic eligibility for transgender students who participate in school sports. Some states recently have banned these students from participating on teams different from their biological sex.

The Biden administration proposal, as explained in the Federal Register, “would govern a recipient’s adoption or application of sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity.”

Former high school athlete Selina Soule, who competed within the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. (Alliance Defending Freedom)

Officially, the rule-change proposal is listed as “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male or Female Athletic Teams.”

A national conservative watchdog group, Citizens Defending Freedom, has been encouraging people to flood the online page of the Federal Register with comments about the proposed rule change to Title IX.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Some conservatives have suggested a boycott of Chick-fil-A after the fast-food chain was discovered to have a vice president of “diversity, equity, [and] inclusion,” or DEI.

In a previously issued Chick-fil-A news release, the company said that Erick McReynolds serves as its vice president of DEI, saying: “Chick-fil-A restaurants have long been recognized as a place where people know they will be treated well. Modeling care for others starts in the restaurant, and we are committed to ensuring mutual respect, understanding, and dignity everywhere we do business.”

DEI is a set of principles that large corporations, government agencies, and schools have increasingly incorporated into their work environments, often mandating employees receive such training. However, these principles are rooted in Marxism, according to prominent critics including Christopher Rufo and James Lindsay, that are essentially vehicles for “left-wing racialist ideology and partisan political activism.”

“They are designed to replace the system of academic merit with a system of race-based preferences and discrimination—which, in many cases, explicitly violates federal civil rights law,” wrote Rufo for his Substack page earlier this year.

The Chick-fil-A announcement was highlighted this week by several prominent conservative accounts. According to McReynolds’s LinkedIn page, he was hired as Chick-fil-A’s vice president for “Diversity, Equity [and] Inclusion” in late 2021.

“We have a problem,” wrote Joey Mannarino, a conservative host in highlighting Chick-fil-A’s prior announcement, on Twitter Tuesday morning. “Chick-Fil-A just hired a VP of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. This is bad. Very bad. I don’t want to have to boycott. Are we going to have to boycott?”

He also wrote: “The Left is going crazy again over the Chick-fil-A boycott that conservatives are considering. They’re mad because we’ve FINALLY gotten effective at boycotts. Any company that is pushing the trans stuff on our kids or the DEI stuff, we are going to pick the worst offenders.”

“So Chick-fil-A has a diversity, equity and inclusion division,” added columnist Todd Starnes on Tuesday. “Well, that explains the fried cauliflower sandwiches and kale salad.”

By Tuesday afternoon, Lindsay wrote on Twitter that he agreed with the boycott calls and made demands. “We must demand that Chick-fil-A fire their entire ESG and Sustainability staff and partners (including DEI), referring to the left-wing environmental, social, and governance framework.

“Ideally we get them to confess how they got caught up in the racket, and then we return support,” he added. “Conservatives might actually be able to pull this one off.”

The chicken-based fast-food chain has been generally well respected among conservatives due to the company’s religious values and its prior support for religious groups. In the McReynolds DEI announcement, Chick-fil-A makes reference to its corporate purpose, which is “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us” and “to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A.”

The Epoch Times has contacted Chick-fil-A for comment.

Backlash Growing

In recent weeks, a number of companies have faced backlash for embracing what critics say are left-wing values or a pro-LGBT agenda. Since early April, Bud Light has seen a significant backlash after it produced a beer can with transgender activist and influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s face and as Mulvaney suggested a partnership with the brand.

Read more here…

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has hit back after Russia issued a warrant for his arrest – calling it a “badge of honor.”

“Here’s an offer to my Russian ‘friends’ who want to arrest and try me for calling out the Putin regime as being war criminals: “I will submit to [the] jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if you do,” Graham said in a May 29 press release.

“Come and make your best case. See you in The Hague!” he continued, adding “To know that my commitment to Ukraine has drawn the ire of Putin’s regime brings me immense joy.”

“I will continue to stand with and for Ukraine’s freedom until every Russian soldier is expelled from Ukrainian territory.”

Graham, a massive proponent of the Ukraine war, stated in a video of his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that “the Russians are dying,” adding that the US military aid provided to Ukraine was “the best money we’ve ever spent.“

Ever?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 27, 2023

While Graham appeared to have made the comments at separate points in the conversation, the brief video produced by Ukraine’s presidential office juxtaposed them, sparking outrage in Russia.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that it was hard to imagine a greater shame for the United States than having individuals like Graham as senators. –Epoch Times

In February, Graham said that the US shouldn’t be worried about provoking Russia by helping Ukraine.

“The British are training Ukrainian pilots. I believe a decision will be imminent here when we get back to Washington that the administration will start training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16. They need the weapons system,” he told ABC‘s “This Week” on Feb. 19.

Putchist Lindsey Graham: “I’m not worried about provoking Putin. I want to hit him and how do you hit him? We will defeat him by giving the Ukrainians the military capability to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.” THIS CORRUPT GRAHAM WILL PROVOKE THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF UKRAINE pic.twitter.com/mmHyTFxYFd

— Michel Petrucci ❤️ 🇮🇹 (@appolo007) February 20, 2023

Graham has urged his fellow politicians to declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, and has advocated for the US to begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s. 

“They need the weapons system,” said Graham in the above interview, which echoed VP Kamala Harris’ claim that Russia was guilt of “crimes against humanity.”

“So, we need to do two things quickly,” said Graham. “Make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law, which would make it harder for China to give weapons to Russia, and we need to start training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 now.”