Lauren Boebert Gets Humiliating Beetlejuice Treatment at Campus Visit

Representative Lauren Boebert paid a visit to the Gaza protest encampment in Washington, D.C., at George Washington University—and was quickly met with heckles of “Beetlejuice.”

Boebert arrived at the encampment on Wednesday with several other Republicans from Congress, as students sang “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. Then their attempt to grandstand at the encampment was overshadowed by student protesters yelling “Beetlejuice,” referencing the time Boebert and her date were kicked out of a Denver theater’s performance of the play for disruptive and lewd behavior. 

She toured the encampment and tried to pull a Palestinian flag off a statue of George Washington, coming into contact with protesters. She failed to remove the flag, and her security staff led her away.

It’s not the first time Republicans visited one of the protest encampments set up by college students across the country to protest their institutions’ involvement with Israel and its brutal war in Gaza. Last week, Mike Johnson visited Columbia University’s protest encampment to grandstand himself, attacking protesters and calling for the National Guard to clear the encampment.

Police would clear Columbia’s encampment days later, pushing students out of an occupied building in an overwhelmingly excessive response. A similar takedown took place Thursday morning at UCLA. At all of the protests across the country, the students’ demands are being ignored in favor of overblown allegations from critics. Currently, it seems protests will continue until something substantive happens, like an end to weapons shipments to Israel or a cease-fire.

Ohio Senator J.D. Vance believes that people should follow the law—except when it’s convenient to his personal political cause.

In a testy exchange with CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins Wednesday night, Vance got caught up in his own loose definitions, revealing a double standard conservatives hold when it comes to the Gaza solidarity protests happening on college campuses across the nation.

“You can’t police people for being anti-Israel or pro-Israel; you can police people for violating the law,” Vance said.

“OK, so you agree that people who break in and vandalize a building should be prosecuted?” Collins said, to which Vance replied with a quick “Yes.”

“OK, I’m just checking, because you helped raise money for people who did so on January 6,” Collins continued. “Which was, you know, impeding an official proceeding, breaking into a building that they weren’t allowed to be in, and vandalizing the Capitol.”

But Vance was surprisingly prepared to dodge the question.

“Well, Kaitlan, I know this is the obsession of the national media to talk about what happened two years ago—three years ago, on January 6—” Vance said, before Collins interjected to specify that it’s “not an obsession” but rather a possible “double standard.”

“Here’s been my basic argument about January 6: If you beat up a cop, of course you deserve to go to prison,” Vance continued. “If you violated the law you should suffer the consequences. But there are people who protested on January 6 who’ve had the complete weight of the Justice Department thrown at them when at worst they’re accused of misdemeanors.”

But then Vance chose to harp on something that happened four years ago, once again punching down on a predominantly peaceful protest.

“Now, again, there are people who are accused of worse offenses, and that’s a problem, but you can’t have Black Lives Matters protesters who rioted and go free, when you had people who were actually peacefully protesting on January 6 who had the book thrown at them—that’s the double standard that I’m most worried about.”

Nearly 2,000 January 6 rioters were charged with crimes related to assaulting officers, destruction of government property, entering a restricted federal building, conspiring to obstruct a congressional proceeding, or for impeding one. Approximately 467 of them have been sentenced to periods of incarceration, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

At least two House Republicans voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act on Wednesday … because they think the bill criminalizes Christian beliefs.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 320–91. Twenty-one Republicans voted against it. Among them were Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explained the bizarre logic behind their opposition on social media.

Gaetz and Greene each posted on X (formerly Twitter) that a portion of the bill, specifically the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism, could be used against Christians “for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”

Gaetz claimed the bill had been written “without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words.”

Greene, meanwhile, warned the bill could be used to “convict Christians of antisemitism.”

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, among them being that it’s used both to silence criticism of the state of Israel and to conflate support for Palestinians with prejudice. But believing that the Jewish people killed Jesus is an old and antisemitic trope. The fact that Gaetz and Greene, who both call themselves staunch supporters of Israel, each seem to think that Christianity justifies this line of thought calls into question how they really feel about the Jewish people.

At a time when students are facing brutal crackdowns for protesting on college campuses to call for their institutions to divest from companies affiliated with Israel and its harsh war in Gaza, the bill’s timing suggests that it is being used as a litmus test for legislators insufficiently supportive of Israel. That’s a real reason to oppose the bill, one that critics have pointed out. But good luck getting the far right to realize that.

The Arizona legislature secured just enough votes on Wednesday to repeal a 160-year-old abortion ban that was revived by the state’s Supreme Court in April.

The decision to nix the archaic law appears on track to pass thanks to the votes of every Democratic lawmaker, as well as two state Senate Republicans, T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick. If the bill passes, it will go to Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who is expected to sign it. That will return the state to its previous abortion status, which banned the medical procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But some legislators fear that even if the vote does pass, there might still be a waiting period before the 15-week ban is officially enacted—and during that time, all abortions will still be outlawed. That period would last approximately 90 days after the end of the session, ending in June or July, unless the repeal comes with an emergency provision.

“Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect,” Arizona state Attorney General Kris Mayes told the Associated Press.

Shortly after the new ban took effect, the Arizona legislature devolved into a state of chaos, with Republicans blocking discussions to repeal the ban. In a dramatic show, Democrats responded by chanting “shame” at their colleagues across the aisle.

The near-total abortion ban from 1864—before Arizona was even a state—offers no exceptions for instances of rape or incest. But some Republicans in the state, especially the ones currently on the campaign trail, immediately came out against it. That includes Senate candidate Kari Lake, who claimed the draconian ban was “out of line with where the people of this state are,” despite having aggressively fought for it in multiple political campaigns and calling the 1864 legislation a “great law.”

Other Arizona Republicans who conveniently came out against it include Representative David Schweikert, Representative Juan Ciscomani, and former Republican Governor Doug Ducey, even though he was responsible for appointing four of the justices who brought the ban back to life.

Meanwhile, Republicans are still working on their own plans to permanently rid the state of abortion access, including one plot to introduce an abortion-restricting measure on November’s ballot with the hopes of confusing voters.

The only solution, according to local Democratic leaders, is to vote. Democrats need to flip just two seats in each state chamber in order to obtain a majority.

“As Republicans regroup to defend their 15-week ban and work to undermine the upcoming abortion ballot measure in Arizona, we are focused on flipping the two seats in each chamber that will deliver Democratic majorities in Arizona’s legislature,” said Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee President Heather Williams in a statement. “Voters have an opportunity this year to deliver Democratic majorities by flipping just two seats in each chamber.”

This story has been updated.

The Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives has cruised to victory in a New York special election, dealing a further blow to Republicans’ slim majority in the chamber. 

State Senator Tim Kennedy defeated Republican Gary Dickson on Tuesday night in the solidly blue 26th district, which comprises the city of Buffalo and the surrounding suburbs. The special election was announced shortly after Representative Brian Higgins, a Democrat, resigned in February to take over a performing arts center in the district. President Joe Biden won the same district by 23 points in the 2020 elections. 

Now the makeup of the House is 217 Republicans to 213 Democrats, with five vacant seats. With their narrow majority and constant infighting, Republicans have rarely passed any significant legislation, with the exception of aid to Ukraine and Israel over the opposition of far-right representatives such as Marjorie Taylor Greene. This loss will only hurt future efforts.  

Greene has said she will push to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, but she has only rallied two other Republicans to her cause. Johnson himself only assumed the speakership in October thanks to a successful effort to push out the previous speaker, Kevin McCarthy, when he passed a legislative budget over the objections of his caucus’s far-right members. 

Johnson has more support from his party but less of a majority to work with than McCarthy, so a vote to remove him would depend a lot on the support of Democrats. Although they didn’t save the previous speaker, House Democrats have indicated they intend to back Johnson, in an effort to stave off pure mayhem.