113 House Dems vote against GOP resolution condemn Boulder attack on pro-Israel activists
More than 100 Democrats voted against a House GOP-led resolution to condemn the accused terror attack in Boulder, Colorado.
It passed 280 – 113, with 75 Democrats joining Republicans to vote for the bill. Six lawmakers – five Democrats and one Republican – voted "present."
The legislation was introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., last week in response to the attack. But Democratic lawmakers made clear they were opposed to language in the resolution that they felt was politically charged.
In addition to condemning the attack, Evans' resolution also appeared to rebuke blue-leaning sanctuary jurisdictions that were at odds with federal immigration authorities – while condemning illegal immigrants who overstay their visas as well.
A second bill – led by Reps. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., and Joe Neguse, D-Colo. – more broadly condemning the rise in anti-semitic attacks in the U.S. That legislation netted much wider bipartisan support, passing 400 – 0, with just two lawmakers voting "present."
But Evans' resolution more specifically noted the case of terror suspect Mohammed Sabry Soliman, who overstayed a tourist visa and a subsequent work authorization, "demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas."
The Egyptian national is facing federal charges after allegedly attempting to set fire to peaceful demonstrators who were protesting Hamas' continued possession of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
The Trump administration has vowed that he and his family will be deported from the U.S.
Evans' resolution also "affirms that free and open communication between State and local law enforcement and their Federal counterparts remains the bedrock of public safety and is necessary in preventing terrorist attacks" and it "expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland."
It comes as Democrat-controlled cities like Los Angeles and Nashville have seen their leaders criticize the Trump administration's ICE crackdown.
The Trump administration's handling of anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles has spurred an outpouring of scorn from Democratic officials, particularly the decision to send National Guard troops in to break up the demonstrations.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., criticized Evans' resolution in comments to reporters on Monday.
"Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating anti-Semitism in America. This is not a serious effort," Jeffries said. "Anti-semitism is a scourge on America. It shouldn't be weaponized politically."
Jeffries also called Evans "a joke."
Evans responded forcefully on X, "I served our nation in uniform in the Middle East, as a cop in Colorado, & now as a Congressman. This wildly offensive sentiment from Democrat's Leader is why antisemitism persists. The Left is unserious about finding real solutions."
Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who is Jewish, also criticized Evans' resolution.
"You weren't here, Mr. Evans, last term – but there were about ten anti-Semitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing, solely to score political points. We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns," Goldman said during debate on the bill.
But Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., who is leading a bipartisan resolution that similarly condemns anti-semitism but does not discuss immigration, defended Evans' measure.
"Yes, it is different than mine. Mine focused purely on anti-Semitism here in the world. But he brings up a valid point not only for Jews, but for many innocent victims. Whether it was Laken Riley, whether it was the women that were raped, the women and men that were killed, those that were beaten, those that were hurt, who were in law enforcement. Illegal immigration is not a good thing," Van Drew said.
The two lawmakers who voted "present" on Van Drew's resolution were Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.
Greene wrote on X after the vote, "Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others. Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I've voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Upper Westside development on Natomas farmland to be considered by planning commission
Farms versus future growth — it's a debate in Sacramento County that will be up for a vote next week. Developers want to build thousands of new homes on property that's outside the designated urban area. The land is on the west side of South Natomas between I-80 and the Sacramento River. Three decades ago, this land, within sight of Downtown Sacramento, was spared from urban development and set aside specifically for farming and wildlife habitat. Now, developers have submitted plans called the Upper Westside to build new homes and businesses on these 2,000 acres. Former Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo is now president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento and is leading opposition to the project. "This project is huge. It's frankly the size of Galt. It is 25,000 people, over 9,000 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial," Fargo said. Fargo calls the area "prime foraging habitat." Josh Harmatz lives along Garden Highway, which runs parallel to the river, and is concerned that all the new homes and businesses will triple the traffic on the narrow two-lane levee road. "There's just no room and there's no shoulder for this amount of traffic," Harmatz said. Project supporters say the development will create much-needed new housing for the Sacramento region. Plans also include four new schools, 83 acres of new commercial businesses, ten parks, and its signature feature — a tree-lined canal that can be used for recreation. "It's an extraordinary proposal that aligns seamlessly with the county's vision for smart, sustainable planning," said Nick Avdis, Upper Westside land use attorney. Opponents say the development would wipe out decades of efforts to preserve open space, protect wildlife, and support farming in Natomas. "We were doing great plans for 25 years, and this particular project is against all of them," Fargo said. The Sacramento County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the Upper Westside project at its meeting Monday night. The plan would also need to be approved by the county Board of Supervisors before building could begin.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JD Vance joins Bluesky, and it didn't go well right after he made his first post
Vice President JD Vance made his Bluesky debut recently; his first post got him suspended. Vance quickly became the most blocked user on the app and his account was briefly suspended from the social media platform. More than 110,000 Bluesky users have blocked the VP since he joined the app, dethroning journalist Jesse Singal as the most blocked user in the app's history according to ClearSky data, which shows blocked accounts. His first post on June 18 addressed Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Vance's account was suspended just 12 minutes after he published his first post due to verification concerns, but has since been reinstated. Here's what happened. The Ohio native stated that he joined Bluesky to engage in "common sense political discussion and analysis." He attached a screenshot of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion on medical care for transgender youth. The post was met with immediate backlash from respondents, with many users expressing criticism of Vance joining the platform. "You don't belong here," wrote one Bluesky user on Wednesday. "What are you DOING here?!! Jesus, is no space safe anymore?!" another user commented. Vance's Bluesky suspension didn't last long: His account was reinstated within 20 minutes, Newsweek reports. As of this publication, Vance is the most blocked account on Bluesky, followed by journalist Jesse Singal. These are the top five most blocked users, according to Clearsky: JD Vance Jesse Singal Now Breezing Brianna Wu Mark Cuban Bluesky, which launched publicly in February 2024, is a decentralized social media app, according to USA TODAY. It has a similar look and feel as X, formerly Twitter, but has some different features to bring more people into its creation. The Bluesky project was originally started in 2019 by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Bluesky and Twitter formerly parted ways in late 2022. Fox News, in reporting on Vance being briefly suspended on Bluesky, described the platform as a "liberal X competitor." This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: JD Vance is the most blocked person on Bluesky. Here's how it happened
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK — As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill , it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes,' which came out in 2011. 'But they can say that Gettysburg,D-Day , and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. 'The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
