š«Pornš« - āļøA Conservative who thinks Milton Friedman was right. āIf you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert they would run out of sand.ā
Fox News is not innocent!
After Trish Regan on March 27, 2020, following widespread backlash over an on-air monologue where she dismissed the early COVID-19 pandemic as a "coronavirus impeachment scam" and spoke the truth was terminated by Fox News.
#Outnumbered#FauciDiary
Many people have already forgotten the horrors and callousness of covid
These people gloated and danced on the Graves of the dead
Fauci must be charged and imprisoned
While you were forced to let your grandparents and loved ones die alone in hospitals and nursing homes - or be away from your wife while she gave birth - members of the media were dining with Dr. Fauci. They knew there was a double standard and didn't care.
Acting DNI @DNIPulte: "declassified intelligence reveals that voter registration rolls from at least 18 states have been compromised by the People's Republic of China (PRC)" NOTE: Swing States
Intel Community Suppressed Information about PRC's 2020 Election Influence Operation.
Former DNI Investigator James Erdman III led the COVID origins probe, "...we had whistleblowers say, yeah, they didn't want to touch (it.) They did not want to harm China."
To all of Twitter/X who truly believed Fauci, wore t shirts emblazoned with his face, etc:
You're not as smart as you think you are. Not even close. "the science" was a scam. You were fooled.
Now you should be apologizing profusely to everyone you told to mask up years ago
@jaketapper's response - I am an activist who knew Trump was being far too effective economically, thus destroying the far-left progressive/socialist/fascist/communist beliefs I hold dear. Fauci gave me the issue I could bludgeon Trump with, and I am just as big a hypocrite as Fauci. In closing, none of you hate me enough.
Or he will pretend Fauci lied to him thus exposing Jake Tapper is a bloviating moron. Like we all knew him to be.
Hey @jaketapper why were you having dinner with Dr. Fauci and telling him you believed President Trump was ātotally nutsā while you were telling your TV audience it wasnāt safe for them to have Thanksgiving dinner with their families?
According to the current voter roll, sixty-seven active status Colorado registrants use the address of Westside Cares on Colorado in Colorado Springs, a food distribution center that also provides care and compassion to neighbors in need, as their registration address for voting. Homeless individuals without a fixed abode are encouraged to register in Colorado at an address they frequently return to.
Most of these individuals receive their ballots at this address (only two get their ballots mailed elsewhere) and fifty-one others not registered here have their ballots sent to the Westside Cares address. This means the busy Westside Cares staff are responsible for matching/re-distributing the one hundred and sixteen ballots that land in their mailbox each election cycle.
Colorado statue 1-7.5-113 requires that where seven or more active status registrants share a mailbox at a group residential facility, a representative of the county clerkās office plus representatives of both the Democrat and Republican parties must deliver and collect completed ballots. (A similar requirement is in place at criminal detention centers.)
But drop-in homeless centers are NOT considered group residential facilities in Colorado and the Secretary of State obviously has no chain of custody qualms about dumping huge numbers of ballots on the already overwhelmed staff of drop in centers and making them do her work for her.
Colorado: NEVER the gold standard of election integrity.
(Only a feeble-minded simpleton would think so.)
My colleague from South Dakota suggests here that the talking filibuster hasnāt been used in a century, and that it was not used to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Heās mistaken.
As Iāve explained to the entire Senate GOP on multiple occasions, the talking filibuster *was* used effectively to break the weeks-long filibuster mounted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Leader Thune and others point out that the Senate ultimately invoked cloture on the Civil Rights Act, and on that basis wrongly conclude that the talking filibuster was *not* the tool used to achieve that victory.
This argument ignores the fact that this is *how* the Senate closed a staggering 30-vote cloture deficit in 1964. After many weeks of fighting a losing battle, filibustering senators predictably started to lose their resolve to hold up the bill indefinitely, especially when they realized how hard theyād have to work to keep the effort alive.
So they started proposing and supporting amendments to the bill to make it more palatable and help them save face.
I still maintain that this is a viable approach that could work wellāeven betterāin the context of the SAVE America Act, especially considering that the bill is less complicated and less controversial with voters than was the Civil Rights Act, and currently has a cloture deficit of only 10 votesātiny compared to the 30-vote deficit faced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
My colleague also mistakenly suggests that Senate Republicans would have to vote to enforce the talking filibuster. That simply isnāt true; no vote is required for this step. All we need is a majority leader willing to announce that weāre getting on the bill and that we will continue to debate it until it passesāall with the understanding that if filibustering senators fail to show up to debate it, we can ācall the questionā and pass it with a simple majority.
That understanding, in turn, is what motivates the filibustering senators to show up and speak, but itās also what naturally causes them to tire of the exercise after a few weeks, at which point they start looking for a face-saving off-ramp.
Finally, Leader Thune suggests that the talking filibuster would be thwarted by being āresetā every time Democrats offered an amendment. Thereās a valid point in there, but itās not a good reason not to invoke the talking filibuster. It appears heās referring indirectly to paragraph 1(a) of Senate Rule 19 (the two-speech rule). While offering a new amendment can create a new question under longstanding practice, the September 25, 1986 precedent narrowed how rigidly the two-speech rule is applied by clarifying that many procedural actions do not count as speeches at all.
Particularly in light of that 1986 clarification, itās been a long time since Iāve suggested we consider rigid enforcement of Rule 19ās two-speech limit as part of a talking filibuster strategy for the SAVE America Act. We donāt need it!
Nor was that rule aggressively enforced during the Senateās consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield correctly focused on requiring actual debate from filibustering senators rather than looking for technical ways to shut the debate down.
To give credit where itās due, I appreciate what Leader Thune said in this interview about the possibility of passing some iteration of SAVE America using budget reconciliationāa procedure in which there is no 60-vote cloture hurdle. Iāve been skeptical of this approach in the past, but Iām starting to believe the SAVE America Act has more budgetary features than I initially considered possible.
That said, reconciliation is fraught with all kinds of problems, challenges, risks, and uncertainties. Also, failure can be far too easy to blame on the parliamentarian.
Iām open to considering the reconciliation path, but we should make this decision with our eyes open. To do that, we need to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the talking filibuster.
Reposting this video is what got Kyle Clark to block me. In light of the Fauci revelations, here is one of Kyle's greatest hits: bullying his audience into getting vaccinated.
What are the chances he's still getting the booster?
Fauci should be tried for Crimes Against Humanity. He is a mass murderer & I consider it a badge of honor to have been cancelled from Fox News for calling him out when I was asked about Mr You-canāt-question-me-because-I-am-the-science. I responded that many people I talk to do not see Fauci as science, they saw him more as Dr Joseph Mengele, the doctor of death from the Nazi concentration camps. Considering Operation Paperclip, maybe it is time we declassify all documents relating to Mengele & Fort Detrick Maryland where some of his work may have been continued. And while weāre at it, how about investigating & declassifying if Fauci worked on any of his programs?
In preparation for The Who this Sunday in Chicago and to play around with Grok Animate - I animated The Who's albums in this music video. #LongLiveRock#TheWho