Trump Roasts Congress Over Pork-Infused Stimulus Bill, Demands Changes

 

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState

President Donald Trump just weighed in on the 5,000-page omnibus stimulus bill that was ostensibly designed, in part, to help Americans deal with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. His remarks will likely trigger the usual irrational meltdowns among far-leftists, but it is a sign that this particular proposal might not be a reality soon.

Trump tweeted a video on Tuesday evening, giving his thoughts on the bill. He started by slamming the Democrats for blocking relief legislation during the summer. “Throughout the summer, Democrats cruelly blocked COVID relief legislation in an effort to advance their extreme left-wing agenda and influence the election, he began. “Then, a few months ago, Congress started negotiations on a new package to get urgently-needed help to the American people. It’s taken forever.”

The president continued, noting that members of Congress did not read the document.

“However, the bill they are now planning to send back to my desk is much different than anticipated. It really is a disgrace. For example, among the more than 5000 pages in this bill, which nobody in Congress has read because of its length and complexity,” he said.

The president pointed out the obvious contradiction between the stated purpose of the bill and its actual content. He started listing off the components of the proposed legislation that dealt with foreign aid:

“It’s called the COVID Relief Bill. But it has almost nothing to do with COVID.This bill contains $85.5 million for assistance to Cambodia. $134 million to Burma, $1.3 billlion for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment. $25 million for democracy and gender programs in Pakistan. $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.”

Trump continued, listing off other recipients of the funding:

“$40 million for the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., which is not even open for business. $1 billion for the Smithsonian and an additional $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. Likewise, these facilities are essentially not open. $7 million for reef fish management. $25 billion to combat Asian carp, $2.5 million dollars to count the number of amberjack fish in the Gulf of Mexico, a provision to promote the breeding of fish in federal hatcheries.”

As if that wasn’t bad enough, President Trump also noted that the bill would allow stimulus checks for illegal immigrants.

“The bill also allows stimulus checks for the family members of illegal aliens, allowing them to get up to one thousand eight hundred dollars each. This is far more than the Americans are given,” Trump explained. “Despite all of this wasteful spending and much more than nine hundred billion dollar package provides hardworking taxpayers with only 600 dollars each in relief payments.”

President Trump did not outright threaten to veto the bill, but he all but indicated that this would be his course of action if changes are not made. He called on lawmakers to revise the bill and to increase the “ridiculously low $600 to $2,000 or $4,000 for a couple.”

“I’m also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation and to send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to deliver a covid relief package. And maybe that administration will be me, and we will get it done,” he concluded.

Trump’s remarks come amid a bitter battle over the proposed legislation. Both Democrats and Republicans are taking issue with the content of the bill, noting that funding seems to be going to anything but Americans who have been impacted by the coronavirus.

Nevertheless, Trump’s comments will inevitably be met with wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left. Even though he insisted on bumping up the funding for everyday Americans suffering from the effects of the pandemic, the activist media will find a way to complain about it. But let’s look on the bright side. Won’t it be rather entertaining to watch the mental gymnastics they will engage in to whine about Trump’s request?

 

Article by Ixtu Diaz in The American Conservative

 

Spend Carefully This Christmas

In this extraordinary time, the least conservatives can do is to direct our dollars conscientiously. Retail is the frontline of the culture war.

It’s okay. You are conservative. It’s not a pose, but a life choice. That’s why you don’t think there’s any great honor in defending life, family, freedom or private property; it’s simply an obligation. In fact, a priori you don’t think that anyone should be rewarded for their convictions either. You distrust boycotts, campaigns against big corporations, and generally resent changing your consumption habits. In the end, like a true Chestertonian soldier, you don’t fight because you hate what’s in front of you, but because you love what’s behind you. You have no idea how I understand you!

Nor do you like the idea of your countrymen dying on the battlefield, and yet you know that sometimes it is necessary to support righteous wars and watch as your brethren are sacrificed for what they believe in. Well, good. We are now in the midst of a culture war. And it is unpleasant to tell you this, but you may have in your pocket the key to victory. I have come, as you see, to spoil your day.

I’m sure you’ve wondered why most big corporations surrender to politically correct language, gender ideology, or radical environmentalism. Take a look at their websites and you’ll see hundreds of campaigns that speak only one language: the language of the left. Rarely will you find the big brands betting on defending life or encouraging large families. This is not by chance. Advertisers know that conservatives are more reluctant to change products, so they don’t care about their ideals. Instead, they seek to rouse the lowlier progressive instincts. The left-wing consumer is more sectarian. Nor is he or she instilled with a Christian sense of forgiveness: If a brand runs a pro-life campaign, it is likely to ruin its economic empire for a long time.

Moreover, in the song of ideologies, the music of the left always sounds more pleasant. Even if they are siren songs.
However, you like to read books, newspapers and magazines that defend your ideas, and you are moved when an advertiser makes a minimally Christian Christmas advert, anything that goes beyond that typical Central European Christmas postcard, featuring a snowy old mountain house lit by colorful lights, with reindeer running around outside. A postcard that, I can only imagine, is supposed to congratulate you on the arrival of winter, or the snow, or that reindeer continue to be born, or who knows what.

We often complain about cultural Marxism’s success in diluting our Christian values into empty sentiment at best, or transforming our society by some obscure Masonic plot at worst. I do too, I don’t deny it. In fact, as a columnist, my main contribution to the world are complaints about as much as possible, for as long as possible. And yet, I’ll admit that embedded in my complaints there resides a certain cynicism. Because, although I would rather avoid typical Democratic rhetoric, we have the world we are building for ourselves.

Your actions and your convictions can go hand in hand. That might make you feel better. I have no intention of becoming some bestselling self-help author for unmotivated conservatives, but you do have an easier time being consistent than any liberal.

Imagine for a moment that you really believed that you could stop the climactic apocalypse by changing your car out for a donkey; that getting rich is a civil sin; that you have to pay as many new taxes as can be thought up in one night of drinking; and that, in accordance with your secularist ID card, we owe everything to Mother Nature, which would place you in an uncomfortable debt to the cockroach, the cactus and the damn bat. Fortunately, as a conservative, you prefer to proclaim, like the poet Luis Alberto de Cuenca, “that you don’t believe that the West is a barbaric monster / dedicated to the sordid task / of destroying the planet” and perhaps you even agree with him that “multiculturalism is a new fascism / only tackier.” For these reasons amongst others, barring what liberals might think of you, you’ve got it easy to be coherent.

William F. Buckley gave us the key to the survival of 21st-century conservatism: “I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit.”

I make these reflections because a very special Christmas approaches—marked by the pandemic, by health restrictions, a certain generalized sadness and a worrying economic and employment situation. And perhaps the time has come to stop complaining and take action. And no, I’m not suggesting that you dress like a Cristero rebel and start setting fire to snowy shop windows lacking religious motifs. Maybe it’s enough that you pay a little attention to where you’re putting your dollars this time. That’s part of your power.

I’m sure you do. Many readers already subscribe to this wonderful publication or to other essential magazines for the dissemination of conservative ideas. Many already gift books by worthy authors, or movies with good moral values, or even try to buy their presents from brands that promote virtue. I am only suggesting that this Christmas we do it even more.

The Internet and social networks make it difficult for brands that want to advertise or finance conservative publications, or support campaigns for Christian institutions. In some Western countries, for example, right-wing radio stations have serious difficulties in getting advertisers, because sooner or later, some announcer will say something that offends somebody—regardless of the truth of the statement—and a culture-war campaign is unleashed on the network and its sponsors.

But, what can you and I do? It’s simple. We need to start convincing ourselves that we must pay for what we love. A book from a Christian publisher can be, too. Buying toys, candy, or clothing from a small family business of good, committed people is also a gift. I am not suggesting that we wage war against anyone, or even that we give up buying whatever we want from big multinational corporations (fortunately we love freedom!), but perhaps it is appropriate to ask ourselves: are we financing with our hard-earned dollars the big food, clothing, or technology companies that have made theirs the UN’s unfortunate Millennium Goals, incorporating them into their corporate social-responsibility policies? Or worse still, are we still buying products from Chinese communist giants?

The richest multinationals only understand the language of money. And your gesture is probably irrelevant. But if your gesture becomes a trend, be sure they will get the message. The ideological policies that these companies develop are not voted on in an election, it’s true. But they are still voted on: you vote for them every time you take out your card to pay for one of their products.

Personally, I prefer to see all this in a positive light. Your purchases in a small family business, and your support for a young singer who has renounced selling himself to the postulates of the prevailing cultural Marxism, can be the key to him, to them, to us, being able to carry on fighting on the front lines of this battle; fighting the fight, day after day, for all of those further away in the rearguard. It is the fight for your ideas. For the free world you believe in. For what you are and what you represent.

I told you that I had come to ruin your day. That wasn’t quite right. I also came to ruin your shopping list and your letter to Santa.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/spend-carefully-this-christmas/

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

French Law Would Ban People Who Don’t Get COVID Vaccine From Using Public Transport

 

People in France who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine will be banned from using public transport and engaging in other activities under a newly introduced law.

The law, which is set to be submitted to parliament, mandates that citizens have proof of a negative COVID test or “preventative treatment, including the administration of a vaccine” in order to “access transport or to some locations, as well as certain activities.”

The law has sparked “angry protests from opposition politicians,” according to AFP.

France’s vaccination program, which is set to get underway on Sunday, will not be mandatory, but a whopping 55% of citizens say they will not get the shot.

RN leader Marine Le Pen branded the vaccine measure “essentially totalitarian.”

“In a backhanded way, this bill does not aim to make vaccinations mandatory, but will prevent anybody who doesn’t comply from having a social life,” she said.

RN party spokesman Sebastien Chenu called the plan a “health dictatorship,” while centrist senator Nathalie Goulet said the draft was “an attack on public freedoms.”

 

 

 

Guillaume Peltier, deputy leader of the center-right LR party, warned that the law would allow the government to “get all the power to suspend our freedoms without parliamentary control.”

As we previously highlighted, France has imposed some of the strictest lockdown measures in Europe, with citizens having to fill out a form every time they leave their home.

 

 

https://summit.news/2020/12/22/french-law-would-ban-people-who-dont-get-covid-vaccine-from-using-public-transport/ 

 

 

 

The Left’s War on America is Just Getting Started

Trump supporters hear Biden’s platitudes, see his phony, cadaverous smile, and expect nothing but unremitting hostility. And they are right.

Matthew Boose for American Greatness

Joe Biden and his allies have condemned Donald Trump’s refusal to concede the election as an attack on democracy, the latest, most extreme violation of our most sacred “norms” by a tyrant and a party of traitors in his thrall.

The Supreme Court, lapsing momentarily out of a state of “illegitimacy” to which it had been corrupted by the appointment of a single conservative justice, made clear how low the Republican Party had sunk when it refused Trump’s Texas lawsuit. It’s clear then: Biden won,  and it’s time for the Trumpers to accept reality.

But all is not lost. In pious speech after pious speech, Biden is making his commitment to “healing” the country very clear. The vanquished will be treated with mercy, not hostility. There is still room in this country for all of us, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, white and black.

True “healing,” though, requires compromise. It means acknowledging that both sides are at least legitimate. And it is undeniable now, if it was not before Trump’s presidency, that the Left has no desire to coexist with conservatives. Listen carefully and Biden’s “healing” has an antiseptic resonance. It seems that the task is not to unite a bitterly divided country, but to clear out an infection.

The idea that runs through the Left’s behavior the last four years is simply this: Trump and his supporters are like a disease. They’re illegitimate, immoral, criminal, insane, racists who have no place in America. The Left doesn’t even conceal feeling this way anymore.

What did Trump and his supporters do that was so evil? Their transgression, the unforgivable act, was not against “democracy” but against the Left and their rules, most of all that holiest of “norms” which says that conservatism can only exist as controlled opposition. For the Left, this is an unquestionable article of faith. This is why they hate Trump so passionately: unlike the Republican Party, Trump at least gave them a hard time. His rise was an assertion of will by a part of the country that got sick and tired of being despised, when the accepted norm is that they are supposed to celebrate being despised. They dared to say no to the Left and the Left’s plans to transform America.

How did the Left respond? By working constantly to destroy a democratically elected president by any means necessary, while attacking his supporters daily as subhuman scum who deserve to be chased out of society. Now they want to be friends and have us all accept the “peaceful transfer of power.”

What is so extreme about believing that countries should have borders, that people can’t choose their gender, that elections should have rules? The Left talks about normal, decent people who believe what the average person readily accepted as true until roughly 2014 like they are beyond the pale. They constantly raise the spectre of a dangerously out of bounds radical Right that is pushing America’s “norms” to the limit.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We are in this factional crisis because the Left backed the rest of America into a corner with psychotic nonsense. President Trump is their creation.

There’s a reason that the Left sweetens their agenda with lies: if the American people had a chance to appraise it honestly and fairly, they would reject it. The Left is very careful to not let this happen. They dismiss anyone who questions leftist orthodoxy at a given moment in time as a dangerously insane “conspiracy theorist.” They censor and harass dissenters and get them fired from their jobs. While the Left tells America to fear the Proud Boys, everyone silently acknowledges that cities would be on fire right now if this election had gone differently. Not satisfied with Trump’s defeat, whether Trump should be made into a political prisoner is held up by the Left as a matter of serious, fraught debate, rather than the vengeful reflex that it clearly is.

Trump supporters may have to atone as well for the crime of defending themselves against a vicious opposition that wants to disenfranchise them and transform America’s political institutions, culture, and ethnic makeup by force. Biden wants to immediately pass an amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants: a naked power grab, and surely not the last.

This election obviously was not “the most secure in our history,” and it certainly wasn’t fair. We need only look to the media’s brazen effort to prevent the electorate from learning anything about Biden to know that. But who cares what the Bad People think? “Respecting the will of the people is at the heart of our democracy—even when we find those results hard to accept,” says Biden.

It would do more to help the “healing” process if, instead of patronizing us with obvious lies, Biden ditched the creepy, false piety. Here’s a modest suggestion:

To the 70 million people who voted for my opponent, let me be absolutely clear. The candidate you chose was a racist clown, the worst president in our entire history. From now on, open borders is the law. I won’t be around for long to see the consequences of this, but you’re just going to have to deal. Hey, remember that time I blamed you guys for the riots my people were doing? That was fun. Anyway, like I was saying, we’re going to do everything within our power to disenfranchise you, your children, and your children’s children, to turn this country into something you won’t recognize and can’t call home. But I guess you knew that already, didn’t you? That’s why you didn’t vote for me. Well, you lost. Please, for the sake of democracy, shut up and obey.

As far as Biden and his allies are concerned, in this “battle for the soul of America,” the good guys won and the bad guys lost. Trump supporters hear Biden’s platitudes, see his phony, cadaverous smile, and expect nothing but unremitting hostility. And they are right.

In Deciding The 2020 Election, Congress Will Get The Last Word

While objections to electoral votes are infrequent, they are not unprecedented — and in the past, it was Democrats who lodged them.

Ameer Benno reporting for The Federalist

The Senate and House will meet in a joint session on Jan. 6, a day the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg labeled the date of “ultimate significance” in our electoral process, to count the recently cast electoral votes. What happens that day will determine the outcome of the presidential election.

The Procedure

The Electoral Count Act provides that after the electors in each state and the District of Columbia vote on Dec. 14, they must sign a certificate of their votes that is then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate. 

At 1:00 p.m. on Jan. 6, a joint session of Congress convenes, at which the presiding officer opens the states’ certificates in alphabetical order. Each certificate is then presented to “tellers” who read the votes aloud, after which the presiding officer invites objections.

Under the law, objections must be presented in writing and signed by at least one senator and one representative. When a properly made objection is received, the separate houses retreat to their respective chambers for two hours of debate and a vote on whether to count the votes in question.

The chambers must vote separately on each objection. If a majority in each supports the objection, the votes in question are excluded. If the objection garners the support of less than a majority in either chamber, it fails, and the challenged votes are counted.

Legal Basis for Objections

The Electoral Count Act specifies that objections may be brought if an elector’s appointment was not “lawfully certified” by that state’s governor. Here, violations of equal protection and the Constitution’s electors clause, along with repeated instances of documented fraud, undermined the integrity of the elections in multiple swing states that ultimately declared former Vice President Joe Biden the winner, despite early commanding leads by President Donald Trump. 

Because those final tallies were polluted by illegitimate votes, the electors pledged to Biden were not legally appointed, and therefore were not lawfully certified. Republicans in the House and Senate should raise these objections.

Historical Precedent

While objections to electoral votes are infrequent, they are not unprecedented. On prior occasions where objections were made, Democrats lodged them.

In 1877,  Democrats challenged the entire electoral delegations from Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin — whose votes were won by Republican Rutherford B. Hayes.

In 1969, Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine and Rep. James O’Hara of Michigan, both Democrats, objected to counting the vote of a faithless elector from North Carolina. 

In 2001, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, also all Democrats, attempted to block Florida’s electoral votes, which had gone to Republican George W. Bush, from being counted, claiming “overwhelming evidence of official misconduct” and “deliberate fraud.”

Four years later, after election results indicated Bush had won reelection against Democratic challenger John Kerry, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, both Democrats, objected to Ohio’s electoral votes, which Bush had won, claiming widespread “irregularities.”

Most recently, at the 2017 joint session after the Trump-Clinton election contest, several Democratic House members challenged the results, claiming a “widespread violation of the law.”

What to Expect

While the joint session has historically been a mere formality, this year is different. 

Already, Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks has said he will object to the electoral votes from swing states where the elections were contaminated by unconstitutional conduct and fraud. Rep. Matt Gaetz is also considering objecting. We can expect others, such as Rep. Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania, who is the plaintiff in one of the election lawsuits before the Supreme Court, to join as well.

For members to avoid being gaveled down, a senator must join their objections. While no one from the upper chamber has yet stepped up, it’s possible someone will, especially 2024 presidential aspirants looking to raise their national profile and curry favor with Trump’s loyalists. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Rand Paul of Kentucky have expressed openness to the idea.

The real challenge, of course, will be getting a majority of both houses to support the objections. Although Democrats have the majority in the House, it’s the slimmest one in two decades.

In the Senate, it comes down to Georgia. If either Kelly Loeffler or David Perdue are reelected, the GOP will retain its control of that chamber. Those runoffs will take place Jan. 5, the day before the joint session. It is therefore imperative that these Republicans be reelected by decisive margins, so the outcome of those elections and therefore the partisan division of the Senate is not in question at the time the Senate must vote on objections.

Importantly, congressional decisions to strike electors’ votes are immune from court review. According to John Tyler Morgan, a Democratic senator in the Congress that passed the Electoral Count Act in 1887, Congress not only has the power to “vote down the voice of the State’s electors,” but once they do, “the power to revoke” that decision “passes beyond human control.”

If enough electoral votes are eliminated to prevent either candidate from obtaining a majority, the “contingent election” provision of the 12th Amendment would kick in, leaving the House of Representatives to choose the president — something that has occurred just once before, in 1825. Each state delegation would get one vote, and as Republicans control 26 of the 50 state delegations, such a scenario would likely result in Trump’s reelection.

In “Federalist 68,” Alexander Hamilton urged us to place “every practicable obstacle” against “cabal … and corruption,” which are the “most deadly adversaries of republican government.” On Jan. 6, Congress can do so: It can strike the electoral votes from states where the contests were irredeemably compromised by fraud, illegal voting, and unconstitutionality.

 

Article by Geoffrey P. Hunt in The American Thinker

 

Nullification Isn’t Just for Democrats, Anymore

Since the 2016 election, Democrats have made all kinds of nullification standard fare, but more pernicious than displaying a disagreeable temperament, or contrary opinion; more than First Amendment-protected civil disobedience.

Instead, making that which is legitimate, illegitimate; making what is illegitimate, legitimate.  Making what is decent, abhorrent; making what is grotesque, glorious—all enjoying approbation from a fawning media.

Any and all tactics, now including election fraud, and covering up bribery of a president to-be, are used unapologetically, with no subterfuge, and with impunity. Truth now is subjective, conditioned on identity and whether it will be canceled by the mob, or approved by the neo-aristocracy.

To “nullify,” derived from the Latin “nullus” meaning none or nothing, is more than just saying “no.”  It can be athletic repudiation, loathing, despising – in the vernacular: “Hell, no!”

Nullification, at least in former times in jurisprudence and constitutional matters, was a disreputable tactic, except for morally compelling dilemmas or for pushing back on corruption displayed by prosecutors and/or judges.

Donald Trump has been nullified as illegitimate, treasonous, unfit, a sociopath…with such summary judgments about the President issued by the Democrat Speaker of the US House, the Democrat US Senate minority leader, and Democrat US Senators on the Judiciary Committee, even a retired US Marine Corps General who for a while served as Trump’s Secretary of Defense.

Nullification by Democrats and their media agents is considered dispositive, whereas evidence and rules of discovery championed by anyone else are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, inflammatory, totalitarian, etc…  Meanwhile judges make up rulings based on their own social value whims, accompanied by cowardice, wary of blowback from the social justice mob, devoid of references to actual legislative language in extant statutes.

Nullification of all things Trump has been considered necessary, justified, beyond reproach, socially admired, heroic, indeed fashionable.

Moreover, Democrats have nullified both state and federal criminal statutes and codes while anarchists burned buildings, tore down monuments, firebombed hundreds of businesses, federal courthouses and churches, terrorized hundreds of thousands of citizens across dozens of Democrat-run states and cities.

Defunding the police, releasing violent criminals from prison, while criminalizing law enforcement actions -- enabling radical attorneys’ general and district attorneys’ refusal to prosecute obvious felons -- is the norm in the biggest, bluest cities. Like-minded judges are releasing pre-trial criminals without bail. Democrat-run sanctuary cities guarantee safe harbor to illegal alien rapists, kidnappers, sex traffickers, and killers. All considered equitable relief for alleged long-suffering victims of systemic racism imposed by white supremacists.

Democrat governors like Minnesota Governor Walz threaten to jail a single mom trying to keep her small business afloat under Covid lockdowns while he delights in a plan to commute the life sentence for an illegal alien convicted of killing an 11-year-old.

Not to be left behind is district court judge Emmett Sullivan’s extra-legal nullification of constitutional and judicial norms while dismissing evidence exonerating Gen Michael Flynn, only now finally neutered by the president’s pardon of Flynn.

Nullification isn’t just for Democrats, anymore.

To wit: Chief Justice John Robert’s tortured nullification of plain language in Obamacare that violated the Commerce Clause, in order to uphold Obamacare, and his pre-election assent to Pennsylvania’s blatant mail-in-ballot fraud, contravening legislative election statutes that under the US Constitution are determined solely by a state legislature.

Republican AG William Barr, for months leading up to the 2020 election, apparently suppressed critically damaging information about the FBI/DOJ investigation into the Biden family criminal empire via the Hunter Biden laptop that was in the FBI’s possession for a year.

And Barr’s more recent willfully blind denial of election fraud evidence -- spilling out everywhere for which only a dunce or knowing accessory would label as fictional vapors —shows he has now joined the Democrat nullification brigade.

Who would have imagined, AG  William Barr,  noble adversary of federal district judge Emmitt Sullivan (nullifier-in-chief for the federal bench), strenuous defender of the establishment clause, tough-on-crime prosecutor, staunch truth-teller about how president Trump’s civil rights were crushed in the attempts to toss him from office,  thought it better to align with the RINOs, Never-Trumpers, and phony conservative constitutionalists, rather than be forever shunned by the Trump-despising glitterati.

And so, William Barr regains his street cred amongst RINOs and melon-head conservatives who proudly display Never-Trumper tattoos—led by the likes of Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Roy Blunt, and Richard Burr in the Senate and Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger in the House who are delighted to nullify all that is Trump, and abandon 75 million Americans who voted for him.

Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell couldn’t wait to buss Joe Biden on securing a stolen election, while warning his caucus members not to question a brazen fraud.  All while Republican majority state legislators at five out of the six contested states sat on their hands pre- and post-election while the vote theft was happening in clear view.

Every day, establishmentarian poseurs shamelessly assert that any of us who militantly oppose the Democrats’ subversive agenda— are ignorant, petulant, and undemocratic.

No matter. It’s our turn to nullify.

We nullify Joe Biden, corrupt pretender, as president, and his running mate Kamala Harris, whose agents stole the election.  His inauguration will be a fraud; appointments invalid; executive orders void; proclamations vacant.

We nullify do-nothing, fetal position establishmentarian Republicans, RINOs, snake-oil dispensing conservatives, and Never-Trumpers, with particular disdain for false flag governors— phony Republicans Phil Scott (VT), Charlie Baker, (MA), Larry Hogan (MD), Mike DeWine (OH), and with extra contempt for Brian Kemp (GA) and Doug Ducey (AZ) .

We nullify those who have betrayed the deplorables; whose silent and cordial alliance with those who have delivered regular Marys and Joes into the ravages of burning cities, and unchecked violent illegal immigrants; whose cooperation in perpetuating the obscene indignities towards the rest of us in being labeled racists, sexists, homophobes, enabling unrelenting assaults on our religious faith; whose globalist China-first policies continue to enrich the American ruling class and ship jobs overseas, destroying hope, opportunity, and prosperity for everyone else.

We nullify any news media or opinion platforms, especially those who abuse their monopoly or dominant status, to suppress multiple points of view, stifle truth, frustrate controversy, and deny revelations of facts put forth by any voices daring to exercise their inalienable First Amendment rights.

We nullify the reputations and presumed honor of active and former military officers—from General James Mattis to Lt Colonel  Alexander Vindman --  dishonorable and insubordinate --  willing to undermine the chain of command, while advocating  globalist principles rather than America First, all unworthy of the trust and deference normally accorded.

We nullify the corruption and cowardice within the FBI and DOJ, fit to be heaped with piles of scorn and loathing upon its feckless leaders.

We nullify unconstitutional rulings from any judge, or the Supreme Court.

We nullify state and local Covid-19 lockdown mandates, First Amendment restrictions, mask wearing edicts, travel bans, and any other intrusions upon our personal liberties.

It’s our turn to nullify, now.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/nullification_isnt_just_for_democrats_anymore.html

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Giuliani on Latest Developments and Legal Processes, Two Groups Have Distinct Approaches

posted by Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse

There has been considerable debate and discussion about the next steps for President Trump in contesting the election outcome.  According to media reporting on the discussions it appears the White House is listening to several opinions including a group containing Sidney Powell (outside campaign) and a group led by Rudy Giuliani (inside campaign).

Despite the common objective amid the two groups, there have been some stories written by media intended to diminish and/or marginalize the ongoing effort.  In this interview with Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s campaign lawyer outlines the formal approach underway by the inside campaign team. [The audio/visual isn’t great but it works]

In addition to the information provided by Giuliani, there are three distinct data-points that could align in favor of supporting President Trump’s ongoing effort:

1.  Acceptance by the Supreme Court of the request by the Trump campaign to hear arguments against the Pennsylvania election outcome.
2.  A pending DNI report by John Ratcliffe outlining foreign influence in the election.
3.  The outcome of the Georgia run-off election on January 5th.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the campaign case; and if the DNI report can show foreign interference connection to the election; and if the Georgia run-off holds momentum toward the GOP; then it is more likely a Senator will object on January 6th to the certification of the electors and request a roll-call vote in the House and Senate.

These three positive outcomes would align with congressional meetings reported today within the White House.

Everything above tracks with the known direction of the preferred “inside group”, and their advice toward President Trump.

However, the independent “outside group” containing: Attorney Sidney Powell, Attorney Lin Wood, Lt. General Michael Flynn, and now former CEO Patrick Byrne, appear to be advising for a more forceful approach with use of the 2018 executive order safeguarding against foreign interference in the election.

The narrative engineering media have accused the outside group of attempting to stimulate interest in use of the U.S. military via the Insurrection Act.

(Politico) […] But that hasn’t stopped the act from becoming a buzzword and cure-all for prominent MAGA figures like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, two prominent pro-Trump attorneys leading efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and even one North Carolina state lawmaker. Others like Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who was recently pardoned for lying to the FBI, have made adjacent calls for Trump to impose martial law.

The ideas have circulated in pro-Trump outlets and were being discussed over the weekend among the thousands of MAGA protesters who descended on state capitols and the Supreme Court to falsely claim Trump had won the election. (more)

In essence the DC media is attempting to isolate, ridicule and marginalize the entire effort of both groups by weaponizing a dictator Trump narrative open to use of the military via the Insurrection Act or Martial Law.

Into this fray any meeting with President Trump by the outside group is being weaponized by anti-Trump media.   President Trump was pushing back against this narrative effort by media over the weekend:

It is important to remember the White House counsel would be providing legal advice from the position of “The Office of the Presidency.”  The White House counsel’s job is to uphold the concentric circles of legal protection that surround President Trump or any U.S. President.  There are some topics of conversation that White House counsel would not allow to take place inside the oval office.

The distinction between White House counsel (Pat Cipollone) and Trump Campaign counsel (Rudy Giuliani) is the former looks out for the “office” while the latter looks out for the political interests.  The distinctions are narrow, but the distinctions are very real.

The difference between the two sets of advisors is a distinction the media enjoy exploiting to give the appearance of division.  This creates friction and leads to turmoil.  The DC media know this game well, and any time there is a republican president in office they use this marginalization and isolation narrative to stir up trouble.

As a direct outcome The New York Times published an article on Saturday morning attempting to create division and pushing a narrative intended to create trouble amid two aligned groups: Inside Campaign group and Outside Campaign group.

NEW YORK TIMES – President Trump on Friday discussed making Sidney Powell, who as a lawyer for his campaign team unleashed a series of conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States, a special counsel investigating voter fraud, according to two people briefed on the discussion.

It was unclear if Mr. Trump will move ahead with such a plan.

Most of his advisers opposed the idea, two of the people briefed on the discussion said, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who in recent days sought to have the Department of Homeland Security join the campaign’s efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss in the election. (more)

The larger goal by DC media is to isolate President Trump by fracturing his base of support.  The outside group (Powell, Wood, Flynn, Byrne) are fighting a different type of confrontational battle, while the inside group (Giuliani, Ellis et al) are attempting to bridge their legal effort with congressional and political support.

[NOTE: White House counsel is between both groups protecting “The Office”]

Obviously the MAGA community supports both approaches. However, to no-one’s surprise the approach of the more confrontational outside group feeds a yearning for justice amid a 2020 election outcome that is filled with evidence of fraud and injustice.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, one of the outside group, Patrick Byrne, went on Twitter on Sunday and kicked-up a hornets nest of division which plays directly into the hands of the DC media who thrive on the division narrative.

While Mr. Byrne may have the best intentions in mind, saying President Trump is “lied to” by his advisors is not the best approach.  Byrne may believe the confrontational strategy of the outside group is a better plan, and he may forcefully advocate for that approach, but going public with the content of an oval office meeting is never a good idea.

The content or context of a meeting in the Oval Office should always be kept private, and outlining conflict for the purpose of position advocacy never ends well.

The public airing of internal debate (or conflict) only leads to the principle officer (President Trump) having to draw distinct lines amid participants.  Internal conflict made public only fuels the division narrative.

If Patrick Byrne feels the president is not being served by his advisors, apparently he had four-and-a-half hours to make that exact point.  There is no value in taking an antagonistic approach public, and again it only feeds division…. which is what the media are seeking to exploit.

The conflict narrative is worsened by Mr. Byrne going onto Newsmax [SEE HERE] and podcasts [SEE HERE] to keep pushing his message that President Trump is not being served…. Byrne also gave interviews to Epoch Times:

At a certain point enough purposeful animosity is simply enough.  No doubt the most gleeful group watching Byrne at work are the same media who can take a backseat and appreciate the division of President Trump’s base of support.

There is a certain predictability to all of this:

• Wednesday Night – Michael Flynn recommended (Newsmax) impounding Dominion machines by order of President Trump; and noted military possibilities.
• Thursday – The DC media stirred up the controversy around the insurrection act by painting Trump supporters as unstable.  Joint Chief’s General Milley said the military would not engage in any political effort.
• Friday – Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne meet with President Trump in the Oval Office.
• Saturday – The New York Times framed the Powell/Byrne meeting as a radical effort to remain president.
• Saturday night – President Trump pushed-back against the Martial Law narrative.
• Sunday Patrick Byrne criticizes the White House advisory group, President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and the office of White House counsel.

Notice the fuel for division is from the outside group. What happens next is predictable:

• Monday (tonight) sensing the president is being boxed into a division narrative; which ultimately weakens him and fractures the base of support; President Trump’s campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani has no other option other than to push back against Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne.

The bottom line is people within the MAGA community must resist the urge to fracture and divide based on differing opinion of approaches.  Everyone wants the same goal and nerves are on edge among patriots who have poured their heart and soul into supporting President Trump amid the face of four years of overwhelming adversity.

President Trump loves this country and is not a quitter amid adversity.  No-one loves this nation more than President Trump and his base of supporters. Everyone wants the best possible outcome.

Bottom line: Let Trump be Trump!

Breathe…