Betrayal Exposed: Traitorous Republicans Who Voted With Democrats on Core GOP Issues

Posted on
Spread the love

Once again, The House vote on the Norman earmarks amendment laid bare a growing pattern of Republican defections that effectively hand Democrats control of the chamber on key issues. Seventy-six House Republicans joined every Democrat to preserve earmarks—clearing the way for taxpayer funding of abortions, gender procedures on minors, DEI activism, and partisan pork projects—despite the GOP’s own 2011 ban on earmarks. In a separate vote, 81 Republicans again aligned with Democrats to fund the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a group critics say promotes censorship abroad; had Republicans voted as a bloc, NED would have been defunded. Time after time, Democrats vote 100% in lockstep, while a third of Republicans defect, creating a de facto Democratic majority.partisan pet projects.

Once again, Democrats vote 100% as a block, while a third of Republicans defect to the Democrats, giving Democrats an effective majority in the House. (Mike Benz)

With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Trending
Watch: Dan Bongino’s Previous Comments on Epstein Before Becoming Deputy FBI Director

Betrayal:

Betrayal:

Betrayal:

What were the Norman earmarks?

The issue centers on an amendment offered by Ralph Norman (R-SC) aimed at tightening or rolling back the House’s revived earmark system—now branded as “Community Project Funding.”

Earmarks were formally banned by House Republicans in 2011 after years of abuse, backroom dealing, and spending scandals. Democrats restored them after taking the House, and a bloc of Republicans later went along with the revival.

Norman has been one of the most consistent critics, arguing that earmarks:

  • Recreate pay-to-play incentives

  • Centralize power in leadership

  • Reward compliance and punish dissent

  • Undermine fiscal discipline and transparency

What did the Norman amendment seek to do?

While the precise language matters bill-to-bill, the Norman earmarks amendment generally aimed to:

  • Limit or prohibit earmarks in the underlying legislation, or

  • Reinstate stricter guardrails (e.g., transparency, bans on for-profit recipients, or outright removal)

In short: it was a test vote on whether Republicans still oppose earmarks in principle—or have accepted them in practice.

Why was House Roll Call 44 (Jan. 23, 2026) significant?

On that vote, 76 Republicans voted “Nay,” joining a unified Democratic caucus to defeat the Norman amendment.

That alignment mattered because:

  • Democrats overwhelmingly support earmarks

  • Republican leadership has increasingly tolerated or embraced them

  • Rank-and-file conservatives see earmarks as a symbol of Washington backsliding

The “No” votes included members often described as:

  • Leadership-aligned

  • Appropriations-friendly

  • Pragmatists who argue earmarks “bring money home”

Why do critics call this a red line?

Opponents of earmarks argue they:

  • Distort spending priorities

  • Enable vote-trading (“You get your project if you vote my way”)

  • Expand deficits without accountability

  • Rebuild the very culture voters thought was ended after 2010

From that perspective, the Norman amendment wasn’t about one bill—it was about whether Congress would continue normalizing a system many voters associate with corruption and insider dealing.

Bottom line

The Norman earmarks vote exposed a deep divide inside the GOP:

  • One side sees earmarks as a necessary evil to compete with Democrats

  • The other sees them as a betrayal of reform promises and fiscal restraint

That’s why Roll Call 44 drew attention: it wasn’t just a procedural vote—it was a values vote.

76 House GOP reps joined ALL DEMOCRATS to BLOCK Amendment #2 on HR 7148, which will now ALLOW for the FUNDING of SENATE EARMARKS for:

– Abortions
– Gender Mutilation Surgeries on MINORS
– DEI programs
– Partisan Pork Projects

WE ARE PAST THE POINT OF TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

Here is the list of the 76 RINOS:

Aderholt, Robert (AL)
Alford, Vince (MO)
Amodei, Mark (NV)
Bacon, Don (NE)
Bost, Mike (IL)
Buchanan, Vern (FL)
Calvert, Ken (CA)
Carey, Mike (OH)
Carter, John (TX)
Cole, Tom (OK)
Crawford, Eric (AR)
Diaz-Balart, Mario (FL)
Dunn, Neal (FL)
Edwards, Chuck (NC)
Ellzey, Jake (TX)
Evans, Mike (CO)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (PA)
Fleischmann, Chuck (TN)
Flood, Mike (NE)
Fong, Michelle (CA)
Garbarino, Andrew (NY)
Gimenez, Carlos (FL)
Graves, Sam (MO)
Griffith, Morgan (VA)
Guthrie, Brett (KY)
Hill, French (AR)
Hurd, Will (CO)
Issa, Darrell (CA)
James, John (MI)
Joyce, Dave (OH)
Kean, Thomas (NJ)
Kelly, Mike (PA)
Kiggans, Jen (VA)
Kiley, Kevin (CA)
King-Hinds, E. (MP)
LaHood, Darin (IL)
LaLota, Nick (NY)
Lucas, Frank (OK)
Luttrell, Luke (TX)
Malliotakis, Nicole (NY)
Maloy, Celeste (UT)
Meuser, Daniel (PA)
Miller, Max (OH)
Miller, Alex (WV)
Miller-Meeks, Mariannette (IA)
Moolenaar, John (MI)
Moore, Blake (UT)
Moylan, James (GU)
Murphy, Gregory (NC)
Newhouse, Dan (WA)
Nunn, Zach (IA)
Obernolte, Jay (CA)
Owens, Burgess (UT)
Reschenthaler, Guy (PA)
Rogers, Mike (AL)
Rogers, Hal (KY)
Simpson, Mike (ID)
Stauber, Pete (MN)
Stefanik, Elise (NY)
Strong, Dale (AL)
Tenney, Claudia (NY)
Thompson, Glenn (PA)
Turner, Michael (OH)
Underwood, Lauren (IL)
Valadao, David (CA)
Van Drew, Jefferson (NJ)
Van Orden, Derrick (WI)
Walberg, Tim (MI)
Wittman, Robert (VA)
Womack, Steve (AR)

House GOP slammed by conservatives for joining Dems on controversial ‘kill switch’ amendment

DeSantis blasts the federal requirement as ‘something you’d expect in Orwell’s 1984’ after Massie’s amendment fails

By Leo Briceno , Elizabeth Elkind Fox News, January 23, 2026:

Trump unloads on Biden policies from Davos, warns Europe to drop the old playbook
President Donald Trump blasted his predecessor’s policies from the dais in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum in a warning to foreign leaders to buck old political playbooks.

Fifty-seven Republicans voted with the vast majority of Democrats on Thursday to keep a Biden-era mandate enabling government remote control of vehicles, drawing backlash from conservatives like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The group voted to defeat an amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that would have rolled back government requirements for the development of a “kill switch” to disable the cars of impaired drivers.

That amendment failed by a 164-268 vote.

If successful, the amendment would have been folded into a much larger bill to fund the departments of War, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Health and Human Services. That larger package went on to pass the chamber in a bipartisan 341-88 vote on Thursday.

DeSantis, who has championed small-government policies in the Sunshine State, blasted the amendment vote in a post to X on Friday morning.

“The idea that the federal government would require auto manufacturers to equip cars with a ‘kill switch’ that can be controlled by the government is something you’d expect in Orwell’s 1984,” DeSantis said, referring to the fictional novel by George Orwell warning readers against totalitarianism.

DeSantis’ frustration echoed that of other lawmakers who were left concerned.

“Unbelievably disturbing,” Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, said in his own post. “57 House Republicans just joined almost all the Democrats to ensure the government can shut off your car whenever it wants.”

Massie included his amendment to counter language under current law that requires the development of the kill switch technology.

A provision included in the Biden-era Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop new standards for car manufacturers to restrict impaired driving.

It would “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle … and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if impairment is detected,” according to the law’s text.

Although Biden’s Infrastructure Act required the development of that rule in November 2024, NHTSA has not yet issued such a requirement. In a report to Congress, NHTSA explained that it was working “diligently” to develop a reliable kill switch.

Continued….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *