Earlier today we brought you the good news that the first round of DOGE cuts passed the house…

But also the bad news that four RINO Republicans still voted against it:

House PASSES First Round of DOGE Cuts — Here Are the 4 RINOs Who Voted Against

Let that sink in...

We literally have a Bill that only does one thing, it makes $9 billion of the DOGE cuts permanent, written and codified into law.

Why would any self-respecting Republican vote against that?

Glad you asked!

Whenever I have a question like that running through my head, I figure you probably wonder the same thing....and I have the answer for you!

The short answer is the same as it always is:  MONEY.

Isn't that pretty much the answer for everything, every single time?

I suppose I should clarify that I don't know FOR SURE why they voted the way they did because I can't truly get access inside their brain, but life experience and common sense tells me that's the most likely answer.

I also asked AI, and it confirmed my suspicions and gave more details about the PORK each one of these disgusting RINOs is probably protecting:

🔹 1. Michael Turner (Ohio)

Likely Reason: Turner chairs the House Intelligence Committee and often prioritizes defense and international stability. His vote may reflect concerns about cutting foreign aid that supports U.S. strategic interests overseas, especially in Eastern Europe or global security partnerships.

🔹 2. Nicole Malliotakis (New York)

Likely Reason: Malliotakis represents a swing district in New York City, home to many constituents who rely on or support public broadcasting (PBS, NPR) and immigrant services. Voting no may be a political calculation to maintain support in a moderate, urban district.

🔹 3. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)

Likely Reason: Fitzpatrick has long branded himself as a centrist and moderate Republican. He often opposes drastic cuts to social or international aid programs. He may also have objected to defunding public media or humanitarian assistance.

🔹 4. Mark Amodei (Nevada)

Likely Reason: Amodei sits on the House Appropriations Committee and often takes a cautious view toward rescissions that impact programs used in rural communities — such as PBS affiliates or health support via the U.N. He may be concerned about the precedent or specific local impact.

🟡 Summary:

Each of these Republicans likely voted 'no' either to protect public broadcasting in rural or swing districts, maintain U.S. foreign aid leverage, or defend programs they believe benefit their constituents directly.

ADVERTISEMENT

If you're evaluating their decision from a conservative fiscal standpoint, many would see this as a betrayal — hence the “RINO” label being applied.

My thoughts?

Primary every last one of these disgusting PORKY PIGS.

Afuera!

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.