'We’ve never censured someone for their political expression'

Paul reportedly said he assisted Diddy during 'wild king nights'

'Required'

Give me a break

The “big, beautiful bill” is going through some massive changes as the Senate Parliamentarian—the chamber’s referee and rule keeper—decides on whether or not to strike provisions that Democrats claim do not belong in a budgetary bill. It was announced Friday that parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough had already nixed a number of provisions, and more are likely to be struck this coming weekend. The “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill is a ten-year fiscal framework that would fulfill a number of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises, such as funding border security and extending his 2017 tax cuts. The Senate’s Byrd Rule, established in 1985, forbids Congress from including provisions that are not primarily budgetary.  The Senate parliamentarian is essentially the referee who decides on whether or not these provisions follow Senate rules. In order to bring a provision to be put in the “Byrd bath,” as it is colloquially known, a senator has to raise a point of order. Provisions Already Struck Senate Budget Committee Democrats announced Friday Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has already struck a few provisions from the bill. Banking provisions were particularly hard hit. Among these was a provision to cut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding down to zero, effectively eliminating the agency. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who originally proposed the bureau’s creation, applauded this move. BIG reconciliation news: The Senate parliamentarian has ruled key provisions of the Senate Banking Committee's reconciliation text violate the Byrd rule, including plans to zero out the funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of Financial Research pic.twitter.com/tm0LhLplT6— Brendan Pedersen (@BrendanPedersen) June 20, 2025 “These proposals are a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk,” she said. “Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill.” One struck provision would have reduced the salaries of Federal Reserve employees, and another would have repealed Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards for vehicles. Artificial Intelligence Deregulation A provision to watch is the big, beautiful bill’s ten-year moratorium on most state regulation of AI—which is meant to support the White House’s goal of competitiveness in AI. After the bill’s passage through the House, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was not familiar with this provision in the 1,000-page mega-bill, said she would not have voted yes if she had known about it. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., however, told The Daily Signal he wanted it to stay in order to support the industry and compete with rivals such as China. “We have to be careful not to have 50 different states hyperregulating AI, because it has national security implications,” he said. Greene, however, told The Daily Signal she “will have no part of destroying state rights” to regulate industries. She did, however, indicated it might not pass Senate Byrd Rule muster. “What I have heard is that it—the Byrd Rule—it might be taken out in the Senate,” she said. “I’ve heard that, but we’ll see if it happens. That’s what they’ve said, but it’s yet to be seen.” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images) The provision has proven just as controversial in the Senate, where Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., has filed a motion to the parliamentarian to strike it. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a supporter of the moratorium, has used his Senate Commerce Committee chairmanship to tweak it so that it will be resistant to the Byrd Rule.  He did this by tying compliance with AI deregulation to federal broadband funding. Whether or not this deregulation—a priority for the White House—survives remains to be seen. Gun Rights Protections Deregulations and tax breaks for firearms will be an important issue for the parliamentarian to examine. The NFA should be eliminated completely.Yet budget reconciliation gives us a rare opportunity to take a chunk out of it by removing the tax & registration on suppressors & short-barreled firearms.We must keep these 2A victories in the One Big Beautiful Bill. pic.twitter.com/ztyQE1B91f— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) June 20, 2025 In May, Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who appeared to be a last-minute holdout, managed to secure the elimination of taxes on suppressors—an important issue to him as a gun rights advocate. Now, the parliamentarian will decide whether or not this provision can stay.  If MacDonough nixes a provision that helped win the vote of a possible holdout in the House, it could be a problem for Republicans. Planned Parenthood Macdonough will likely also be taking a close look at Republican attempts to defund abortion provider Planned Parenthood. She ruled against similar provisions in 2017 during Republicans’ attempt to replace the Affordable Care Act Is a Parliamentarian’s Ruling Final? The Senate parliamentarian’s rulings are something of a setback to Republicans, but they are not necessarily final. A simple option is to amend and resubmit the provision so that the parliamentarian no longer considers it in violation. The Senate can also motion to waive the parliamentarian’s ruling, which requires 60 votes—an unlikely outcome given Republicans’ 53-seat majority and Democrats’ unanimous opposition to the bill. There is also the option of having the presiding officer of the Senate—in this case Vice President JD Vance—choose to ignore the parliamentarian’s rulings. This would send an earthquake through Washington and shatter precedent. Vice President JD Vance. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) For context, back in 2021, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., urged Vice President Kamala Harris to overrule MacDonough striking a $15 minimum wage provision in the American Rescue Act, a reconciliation package. “I’m sorry—an unelected parliamentarian does not get to deprive 32 million Americans the raise they deserve,” Khanna said at the time. “This is an advisory, not a ruling. VP Harris needs to disregard and rule a $15 minimum wage in order.” Harris ultimately did not pursue this. There is also the option of removing a parliamentarian, which Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., did with Parliamentarian Robert Dove in 2001. These last two options are extremely unlikely, but they are in the Republicans’ toolbox if MacDonough does considerable damage to the main legislative vehicle for enacting Trump’s agenda. The post Byrd Bath: Senate Referee Could Overhaul ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a brilliant opinion Monday, New York federal district court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil not only denied the preliminary injunction sought by the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, she threw out their lawsuit against the Trump administration entirely. If the justices on the Supreme Court want to finally act against the unlawful nationwide injunctions and judicial warfare being waged against President Donald Trump, they should use her opinion as a model. In the case, the radical American Association of University Professors—which is pro-Hamas and only believes in academic freedom for left-wingers—sued the Trump administration over its withholding of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University. It also sought to prospectively enjoin the administration from terminating or otherwise pausing another $5 billion in grants and contracts.  The other plaintiff, the American Federation of Teachers, is similarly woke, with its president Randi Weingarten recently resigning from the Democratic National Committee because—believe it or not—she doesn’t think the DNC is radical enough.  No, really. Columbia University did not participate in this lawsuit, a factor the judge obviously considered significant.  She pointed out that “conspicuously, Columbia, whose grants and contracts were terminated and whose funding is the subject of the relief Plaintiffs seek, is not a plaintiff.” In her unsparing opinion, Vyskocil calls a spade a spade, writing, “With no apparent sense of irony, lawyers for an organization called ‘Protect Democracy’ insist that a district court judge should order the Executive Branch immediately to restore the flow of taxpayer dollars to an elite university, which funding Defendants represent is inconsistent with the priorities of the duly elected President of the United States.” Encapsulating the current glaring problem with rogue district court judges who ignore law and precedent to interfere with presidential authority, Vyskocil commented, “Our democracy cannot very well function if individual judges issue extraordinary relief to every plaintiff who clamors to object to executive action.” In this particular case, “neither the Executive Branch nor the Legislature ever awarded the grants and contracts at issue to” the association of professors, their union, or any of their members. If any funds “have been wrongfully withheld, such funds may be recovered at the end of a successful lawsuit by the appropriate plaintiff in an appropriate forum.” These professors and the union do not meet any of those requirements. Vyskocil dismantles their complaint in a way that should be a profound embarrassment to the lawyers who drafted it. She writes that the lengthy complaint—385 paragraphs—is “devoted to sensational rhetoric about the ‘transcendent value’ of academic freedom, and ‘the Trump administration’s’ effort to ‘control the thought’ of ‘faculty and students’ (though Plaintiffs do not purport to represent any students) by placing a ‘gun to the head’ of non-party Columbia University.”  The litigants complain that Columbia University “acceded to the Trump administration’s demands,” making a hodgepodge of claims that have little merit and make little sense. These include claims under the “unconditional conditions’ doctrine,” the First Amendment, separation of powers, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the Spending Clause. In her opinion, though, Vyskocil points out something that other federal judges are ignoring: injunctions are “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that should not be granted “unless the movant, by a clear showing, carried the burden of persuasion.” Neither the professors nor the union met that burden. In fact, they didn’t even have standing to assert a claim or file a lawsuit because the party they claim was supposedly injured by the withholding of federal funds wasn’t even a party in the lawsuit. In fact, Columbia is trying to “resolve cooperatively” its dispute with the administration over this funding.  The judge then goes through a lengthy analysis of why the challengers didn’t even come close to having a legitimate lawsuit against the administration. Vyskocil ends her opinion with this: Plaintiffs blithely assert that the balance of equities and the public interest ‘strongly favor preliminary relief’ and that ‘no public interest is served by allowing continued violations [of the law].’  However, it is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later.  Plaintiffs have not established their standing to litigate this case, let alone any violation of any law. Too bad so many other judges at the district court level seem to think that they do have the authority to “direct the policies of the Executive Branch.” They are not only acting unlawfully, they are bringing the entire judicial branch into disrepute, imperiling its legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. The post Federal Judge Kicks Radical Professors and Their Union to the Curb Where They Belong appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A cat left out on the streets found his way into a shelter, determined to be someone's one and only. ArtieClifton Animal ShelterArtie, the cat, was left behind when his family moved away. For a while, he wandered the streets, learning to fend for himself and dreaming of the day he'd have a home again.Thanks to a TNR program, he was finally rescued. His irresistibly sweet and affectionate nature proved he was never meant for street life. Clifton Animal Shelter welcomed him with open arms, determined to find him the perfect forever home."He is a special cat with a heart full of love to give," Clifton Animal Shelter shared. Clifton Animal Shelter"Artie is FIV+, which means his immune system needs a little extra care to keep him healthy. But don't let that scare you—FIV+ cats can live long, happy lives with proper care. Artie loves giving head bumps and basking in all the love and attention he can get.""He is the kind of cat who will curl up on your lap and purr the day away." Clifton Animal ShelterAs soon as the staff walked in, his eyes lit up, his purr started rumbling, and he was all set to cuddle his way into their hearts."Artie's journey hasn't been easy, but his sweet nature has shone through it all. This handsome boy was one of several cats thrown outside by their owner. Thankfully, Artie found his way to us." Clifton Animal ShelterAt around 2-3 years old, Artie had a reputation for being the snuggliest cat in town. He thrived on attention, always ready to smother his people with kisses.He was so human-focused that he longed for a quiet home, where he could be the star of the show and never have to share this humans with other animals. Clifton Animal ShelterHe greeted everyone who passed by his kennel with a gentle head bump, hoping for their attention or a tasty treat. His charming personality made him an instant favorite among the volunteers. "Artie is a reminder that life's hardships can't dim a kind heart."He was a ray of sunshine at the shelter, radiating life and love. Clifton Animal Shelter"He's incredibly active and loves to explore his surroundings, always on the lookout for fun. When he's not investigating his environment, Artie is all about cuddles."For several months, Artie poured his heart into charming every visitor he met, hoping to sweep them off their feet. While some of the cats who arrived at the shelter with him had been adopted, Artie continued to wait for his happily ever after. Clifton Animal ShelterThe staff were puzzled as to why he hadn't been chosen, given his friendly nature and constant craving for affection. "Artie has been waiting at the shelter for months, watching other cats come and go while he remains behind.""He's a total love bug who wants to be someone's cuddle buddy." Clifton Animal Shelter"Every day, Artie hopes that today will be his day—the day someone looks at him and sees what we see: a gentle soul who just wants a warm lap to curl up on. But each night, he goes to bed alone, still waiting for his person to come."They never stopped rooting for Artie, sharing his story over and over, until they finally received the news they'd been waiting for. Artie has been adoptedClifton Animal Shelter"Artie waited a long time.... All he wanted was a lap to sit on and someone to fall in love with him. Because he has FIV, he was overlooked time and time again—but we're so happy to share that he finally found his person."After all his efforts to win someone over, this snuggle king has found the family of his dreams. Freed from the confines of a cage and the noise of the shelter, he now cozies up in bed with his humans, keeping their laps warm and hearts full. Happy and lovedClifton Animal ShelterShare this story with your friends. More cats like Artie at Clifton Animal Shelter on Instagram and Facebook.Related story: Cat Holds on Tightly to Person After Leaving Kennel, Days Later She Has Four Kittens by Her Side

Palestine Supporter Allegedly Ran a Jewish Congressman Off the Road, Threatened to Kill Him

NYT Wonders: What Message Would a Fordow Strike Send to China?

The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that several key provisions in the "big, beautiful bill" violate the Byrd Rule, potentially setting the stage for the provisions to be removed altogether. In order to avoid a filibuster and pass the bill under a simple majority, the legislation needs to be compliant with the Byrd Rule, which prevents "extraneous" provisions from being included in reconciliation. The "extraneous" provisions MacDonough ruled against include key climate and financial provisions. Although these rulings can be contentious, they are not set in stone.One provision the parliamentarian ruled against came from the Senate Banking Committee's reconciliation text, which would have cut $6.4 billion in funding from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She also ruled against cutting $1.4 billion by reducing the wages for Federal Reserve staff, cutting $293 million from the Office of Financial Research, and cutting $771 million by abolishing the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.MacDonough also ruled against a provision that would repeal green energy subsidies authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as certain tailpipe emission standards put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.RELATED: Republican support wanes as Senate overhauls key provisions in 'big, beautiful bill' Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesAlthough these rulings can be contentious, they are not set in stone. James Wallner, vice president of policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, told Blaze News that the parliamentarian's rulings are based on precedent and provide an advisory role subject to the chair."There's how it works on paper, and then how it works in practice," Wallner said. "The parliamentarian is just a staffer. So we have a parliamentarian because you have all these different procedural authorities and Senate rules. The Senate rules, though, are very vague, and they are many pages long.""So you have all these rules, but oftentimes what happens is the rule isn't very explicit, and there are ambiguities," Wallner added. "So when there are ambiguities, the parliamentarian will advise the Senate. At least in theory." RELATED: SALT Republicans left seething after Senate makes major changes to the 'big, beautiful bill' Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty ImagesWallner said the parliamentarian works alongside both majority and minority committee staff to identify provisions that violate the Byrd Rule. Once the parliamentarian issues a ruling, a senator has to raise a point of order on the floor about the Byrd violations. The parliamentarian then advises the chair, who ultimately makes the final decision as to whether the provision in question is a violation. Although MacDonough ultimately serves in an advisory capacity, Wallner told Blaze News that senators often like to point the finger at the parliamentarian. "Senators talk about her as if she's the only one who decides," Wallner said. "But it's a very convenient way for them to kind of pass the buck and act like they're not in charge. The parliamentarian has no power to actually issue it authoritatively." "It can be adversarial, but it's through that adversarial process that you really get a robust discussion of these provisions," Wallner added. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!