Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

Josh Hawley

Senate Conservatives: Infrastructure Bill 'First Step' to Democrats' Liberal Wish List

by Leave a Comment

Senate conservatives railed against the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill Tuesday, charging that the legislation is the “first step” to Democrats’ other $5.5 trillion “tax-and-spend liberal wish list.”

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rick Scott (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Mike Lee released a joint statement, contending the bipartisan infrastructure bill, or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, serves as only the beginning of the Democrats’ “liberal wish list.”

The Senate conservatives said:

We can’t spend money we don’t have. Period. Just look at what is happening with inflation. We were promised this infrastructure bill was fully paid for, and now we see that it’s not. This was nothing more than a bait and switch. $205 billion of this bill was to be paid for with repurposed COVID funds. The latest proposal only shows $50 billion in COVID funds being used, as well as a lot of the proposed ‘pay-fors’ missing. So we are asking our colleagues: How is this infrastructure spending bill being paid for? We still don’t know. We still don’t have a score on this legislation from the Congressional Budget Office. Let’s not forget, this is just the first step in the Democrats’ plan to pass their $5.5 trillion tax-and-spend liberal wish list. We support infrastructure, but it has to be paid for. This proposal isn’t it.

Hawley said that the Family Research Council will oppose the infrastructure bill.

“Not only will it hurt working class families with higher inflation, higher costs, and – inevitably – higher taxes, it also furthers the Left’s radical social agenda,” Hawley wrote:

The Family Research Council (FRC) said in their released that the Digital Equity Act, a part of infrastructure bill, has a “non-discrimination” clause that “elevates sexual orientation and gender identity to a specially protected class status.

Heritage Action for America also said they will “key vote” the legislation, urging senators to oppose the bill. The group said in its statement, “The legislation recklessly spends $1 trillion, despite the fact that the national debt is approaching $30 trillion and inflation is surging to levels not seen in 13 years, all of which is “paid” for by using slick accounting tricks.”
“Not only is the deal bad policy, but it is also a bad process, as it is a prerequisite to passing the rest of President Biden’s catastrophic agenda through a Democrat-only reconciliation package,” Heritage Action added.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Sen. Hawley seeks to combat critical race theory, foster patriotism with the 'Love America Act of 2021'

by Leave a Comment

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is pushing legislation that would bar K-12 educational entities from receiving federal funds if they teach that the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Pledge of Allegiance are the result of white supremacy or racism.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be provided to an educational agency or school that teaches that the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States is a product of white supremacy or racism,” the bill declares.

Hawley’s Love America Act of 2021 would also provide that federal money should go only to educational entities where certain requirements are met regarding students in certain grade levels.

These requirements include: First-grade students must read and be capable of reciting the pledge; fourth-graders must read the U.S. Constitution and be able to recite the preamble; eighth-graders must read the Declaration of Independence and be able to recite the preamble; and tenth-graders must read and be able to identify the Bill of Rights.

“Over the past year, Americans have watched stunned as a radical ideology spread through our country’s elite institutions—one that teaches America is an irredeemably racist nation founded by white supremacists. Now it has found its way into our children’s schools. We cannot afford for our children to lose faith in the noble ideals this country was founded on,” Hawley said, according to a press release. “We have to make sure that our children understand what makes this country great, the ideals of hope and promise our Founding Fathers fought for, and the love of country that unites us all.”

The lawmaker’s push for the bill comes amid an ongoing societal debate over critical race theory (CRT) and the teaching of CRT concepts.

Hawley has served as a GOP senator from the Show-Me State since 2019.

“The Left wants to teach our kids that America is systemically racist. That’s false and it’s meant to divide. It’s time to replace lies with the truth! America is a great nation of good people – and our kids should be proud of that. That’s why I’m introducing the Love America Act,” the senator tweeted last week.

“No more critical race theory. No more hate. Let’s teach our kids what unites us as Americans – what we love together. Let’s teach them the truth,” Hawley tweeted.

Sen. Klobuchar wants to remove Section 230 protections from Big Tech companies that don't censor health emergency 'misinformation'

by Leave a Comment

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would remove the liability protections social media companies enjoy if misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines or other health emergencies is shared on their platforms.

Klobuchar’s bill would create an exemption to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that provides platforms like Facebook and Twitter a shield from being sued for content posted on their websites by third parties. During an official public health emergency declared by the Secretary for Health and Human Services, if an internet platform permits misinformation to spread through its algorithms that platform would be legally liable for doing so, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government, through HHS in consultation with other agencies, would determine what constitutes health misinformation.

“Earlier this year, I called on Facebook and Twitter to remove accounts that are responsible for producing the majority of misinformation about the coronavirus, but we need a long-term solution,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “This legislation will hold online platforms accountable for the spread of health-related misinformation.”

The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.).

Democrats fear that misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines is one of the primary reasons for vaccine hesitancy in the United States. An increasing number of COVID-19 cases caused by the delta variant has prompted public health officials to warn that mask mandates and other coronavirus restrictions may return if the remaining unvaccinated Americans do not take the COVID-19 vaccine shots.

White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci has floated vaccine mandates at the local level to force the hesitant to get vaccinated, but a recent poll found that 71% of Americans would oppose such an order.

Nearly all those who are hospitalized or die from a COVID-19 infection are unvaccinated.

The Biden administration has begun targeting purported misinformation about the vaccines on social media platforms in an effort White House officials claim will save lives.

Last week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the federal government is flagging certain posts on platforms like Facebook for sharing misinformation and is advising that social media companies censor such posts. President Joe Biden went so far as to accuse Facebook of literally “killing people” by permitting certain posts on its platform before walking back his comments and saying he hopes “that they would do something about the misinformation, the outrageous misinformation about the vaccine.”

Critics have accused the administration of coopting social media companies to censor speech, but Psaki denied such accusations to reporters and insisted that the government is merely advising social media companies and that these private companies make their own decisions about what is allowed on their platforms.

Republicans have also called for Section 230 reforms, though for entirely different reasons than Democrats. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a bill in June that would remove Big Tech companies’ liability protections “unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.”

Where Republicans believe internet platforms should be liable for censoring speech, Democrats want these platforms to be liable for failing to censor speech that contradicts the determinations of the government’s experts.

Further Reasons to Reject the Theodore Roosevelt Legacy

by Leave a Comment

President Theodore Roosevelt, c. 1902 (Library of Congress)

In response to Josh Hawley Says Conservatives Must Reclaim the Theodore Roosevelt Legacy. Not So Fast

Sean-Michael reported on the latest example of Missouri senator Josh Hawley’s admiration for Theodore Roosevelt, and wisely raised several pertinent objections to conservative affection for the Bull Moose. You can find more reason for skepticism here and here, as well as in Roosevelt’s own words. Consider his understanding of the presidency, known as the “stewardship theory,” revealed in his autobiography:

My view was that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition. I did not care a rap for the mere form and show of power; I cared immensely for the use that could be made of the substance.

One sees, even in this brief excerpt, not only a rather capacious view of executive power, but also a belief that the “Nation” and “our people” are an abstract, collective force whose will can be discerned not by the pathways established in our constitutional architecture but rather only by the singular figure of the president himself. (Cameron Hilditch had more to say about that earlier this year.) This is a view that fits uncomfortably within a system of free government, to say the least.

Josh Hawley Says Conservatives Must Reclaim the Theodore Roosevelt Legacy. Not So Fast

by Leave a Comment

Senator Josh Hawley in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., July 11, 2019 (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

The Ethics & Public Policy Center had its Big Tech Symposium today, discussing hot button topics such as Section 230 reform, antitrust initiatives, and more. The meeting kicked off with remarks from GOP lawmakers who have come out in support of such measures. Josh Hawley, a longtime proponent of reigning in Big Tech, started the symposium by recalling a past Republican icon: Theodore Roosevelt. Hawley was not alone; in fact, the younger Roosevelt played a starring role in many congressmen’s remarks.

Hawley argued in his introduction that the Republican Party has historically been a party of working-class Americans, small-businesses owners, and antitrust politicians. Building a case for a working-class antitrust coalition of Republicans should not be difficult nor a radical departure, according to the Missouri senator. For Hawley, the principles of free enterprise are not in conflict with the spirit of capitalism. Theodore Roosevelt was an example of how trustbusting can coexist with, and even support, entrepreneurship. 

The invocation of TR did not stop with Hawley; other GOP politicians at the Symposium pointed to the Rough Rider as an exemplary figure in American economic history. While the Republican is rightfully recognized as one of the most important presidents in our nation’s history, his status as an American conservative is, at best, ambivalent. Roosevelt was a transformative president, but he did so as an integral part of the Progressive Era. He moved to the left in 1906, prioritizing regulation, the right to strike, and an interventionist foreign policy. His “Square Deal,” for instance, was disputed by more-conservative members of the Republican and Democratic parties. 

Perhaps the most peculiar reason for Roosevelt’s invocation as a trustbuster is that he, well, didn’t break up that many trusts. TR revived the Sherman Antitrust Act as president, but he generally preferred to regulate businesses rather than break them up. In fact, contemporaries criticized him for failing to break up monopolies properly.

It was his successor, William Howard Taft, who was the real trustbuster TR never was. In fact, Taft is a far better example of an antitrust conservative, too. Taft was a strict constitutionalist, deeply skeptical of his own power as president. Yet while he did undertake trustbusting measures, Taft has a sterling record of fiscal, social, and judicial conservatism.

This small history detour is useful to keep in mind when congressmen invoke the legacies of presidents such as Roosevelt. We should be wary of bold, brash, progressive ideas cloaked in conservative clothing. A right-wing aesthetic does not a conservative policy make. Josh Hawley wants us to believe that Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy is one of reasonable, antitrust conservatism. He is not completely wrong, but we can’t forget the most lasting legacy of TR is as a powerful leader who used state power to usher in a new era of progressivism. It’s a legacy that need not be repeated.