KE

Thank God for common sense, decency and President Trump. Looking forward to the next four years. No DM 🚫No crypto🚫No porn 🚫IFBAP. Must FB, however.

[KE @KimEllman]

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

Hasn’t attacked us? Is no threat? Where have you been for years? The past two years Iran has been funding proxies to attack an ally of the United States. They have been a threat to U.S. for decades, Dearth to America! Thanks to Obama for illegally sending pallets of cash to them and Biden, they nearly have a nuclear weapon! Do you really think we were safe under those circumstances?

[KE @KimEllman]

BS you liar.

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

Dumbass

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

Didn’t have to President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

No he didn’t. You know that very well he had every legal right to make the courageous decision he made as many Presidents before him have. President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

No he did not. Nothing illegal about what he did!

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

@daveSchalkLB26R @overton_news Iran and its proxies probably regret attacking Israel Oct 7.

[Overton @overton_news]

Democrat Disaster: Victor Davis Hanson Says the Left Is Fanning the Flames of Chaos Instead of Offering Solutions https://t.co/LMxtXdbb1J

[KE @KimEllman]

Good news!

[Overton @overton_news]

HOLY SMOKES: Sean Hannity just said that a reliable source told him Iran’s Fordow nuclear site isn’t just damaged—it’s GONE.

Not crippled. Erased.

Hannity dropped the bombshell live on Fox:

“Let me give you a little bit more detail.”

“I’m being told now from a reliable source that Fordow—they believe it is GONE.”

“They believe—it is—that it’s been wiped out.”

He pointed back to earlier reports suggesting it would take multiple 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs to take out the fortified facility, and now it looks like that’s exactly what happened.

[KE @KimEllman]

President Trump’s bombing of Iranian nuclear sites (e.g., Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan) on June 21, 2025, can be considered legal and constitutional under U.S. law for the following reasons:
1. Constitutional Authority (Article II): As commander-in-chief, the president has broad authority to order limited military actions to protect national security. Targeted strikes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, seen as an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, fall within this executive power, as supported by historical precedent (e.g., Soleimani strike in 2020) and Office of Legal Counsel opinions.
2. War Powers Resolution (1973): The WPR allows the president to use military force in a national emergency, such as responding to a perceived threat, without prior congressional approval, provided Congress is notified within 48 hours. The strikes, framed as preemptive self-defense against Iran’s nuclear program, align with this framework for short-term operations.
3. National Security Justification: The administration likely argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions posed a direct threat to U.S. security and regional stability, particularly to allies like Israel. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran justifies limited strikes under the president’s authority to protect vital U.S. interests.
While critics argue that sustained operations or escalation require congressional authorization under the Constitution’s war powers (Article I, Section 8), limited strikes are generally upheld as within the president’s discretion, especially absent a formal declaration of war. Thus, the action was legally and constitutionally defensible as a targeted, defensive measure.

[KE @KimEllman]

@RepPressley It is NOT a violation of the Constitution liar you know that. It’s not risking innocent lives, he has saved many lives and probably civilization as we know it by assuring Iran will NEVER have nuclear weapons!

[KE @KimEllman]

@Seeingclearly7 @CAgovernor Biden was a demented puppet

[KE @KimEllman]

@RepSummerLee He is doing what he has a
Legal right to do.

[KE @KimEllman]

@cenkuygur Peace through strength. It works

[KE @KimEllman]

@brotherjones_ Indeed he has

[KE @KimEllman]

Presidents that made command decisions without congressional opinion as they have a duty to do

Thomas Jefferson
• Date: May 1801
• Action: First Barbary War
2. James Polk
• Date: April 1846
• Action: Mexican-American War
3. Abraham Lincoln
• Date: April 1861
• Action: Blockade of Southern Ports
4. William McKinley
• Date: February 1899
• Action: Philippine-American War
5. Woodrow Wilson
• Date: April 1914
• Action: Occupation of Veracruz, Mexico
• Date: March 1916
• Action: Punitive Expedition in Mexico
6. Franklin D. Roosevelt
• Date: September 1940
• Action: Naval Protection of British Shipping
• Date: April–July 1941
• Action: Occupation of Greenland and Iceland
7. Harry S. Truman
• Date: June 1950
• Action: Korean War
8. Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Date: July 1958
• Action: Lebanon Crisis
9. John F. Kennedy
• Date: April 1961
• Action: Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba
• Date: 1962–1963
• Action: Vietnam Escalation
10. Lyndon B. Johnson
• Date: August 1964
• Action: Vietnam War Escalation
11. Richard Nixon
• Date: March 1969
• Action: Cambodia Bombing and Incursion
12. Gerald Ford
• Date: May 1975
• Action: Mayaguez Incident, Cambodia
13. Ronald Reagan
• Date: August 1982
• Action: Lebanon Multinational Force
• Date: October 1983
• Action: Invasion of Grenada
• Date: April 1986
• Action: Libya Bombing
14. George H.W. Bush
• Date: December 1989
• Action: Invasion of Panama
• Date: December 1992
• Action: Somalia Intervention
15. Bill Clinton
• Date: October 1993
• Action: Somalia (Battle of Mogadishu)
• Date: September 1994
• Action: Haiti Intervention
• Date: 1995, March–June 1999
• Action: Bosnia and Kosovo Air Campaigns
• Date: August 1998
• Action: Sudan and Afghanistan Missile Strikes
• Date: December 1998
• Action: Iraq Bombing (Operation Desert Fox)
16. George W. Bush
• Date: 2004
• Action: Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia
17. Barack Obama
• Date: March–October 2011
• Action: Libya Air Campaign
• Date: September 2014
• Action: Syria Airstrikes
• Date: 2009–2016
• Action: Drone Strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya
18. Donald Trump
• Date: April 2017
• Action: Syria Missile Strikes
• Date: January 2020
• Action: Assassination of Qassem Soleimani, Iraq
19. Joe Biden
• Date: February 2021
• Action: Syria Airstrikes
• Date: July 2021
• Action: Somalia Airstrikes