Mitchell Moylan

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

Neither the spirit of this Declaration nor due respect for the red lines contained therein resides in our nation’s capital.

On this 250th anniversary of our Founders’ bold assertion of these principles, let’s honor them by keeping this flame burning within us.

[Jim in MN @HuskersMN]

I miss psycho Blackshirts like CP

[Clint Russell @LibertyLockPod]

Last week we ran a moneybomb and raised $1.3 million for Massie from thousands of small donors

The very next day Miriam Adelson signed a check for $1.3 million to offset our efforts

One Israeli donor offset thousands of American voices because Massie forced the Epstein files release.

Yesterday they deployed a blatant hit piece against Massie from a woman who had made the exact same claims against her ex husband. The courts threw that case out. She's clearly nuts.

Did thst stop Con Inc. from running with the story as hard as possible?
Nope.

They have deployed tens of millions and smeared the best congressman in America because he doesn't kneel to Israel. Oh and he has the most conservative voting record in the GOP.

See, what makes our side different is that we defended Trump on the E. Jean Carroll and Russian Collusion ops.

But Con Inc. has no honor. None.

They don't work for America. They work for Wall Street and Tel Aviv.

The Massie primary vote starts tomorrow (early voting) and ends on Tuesday May, 19th.

It is the most important race in the country. It will decide if being honorable is a death sentence in D.C.

If you can donate, donate. If you can door knock, door knock. If you can only scream about it online, do that.

All hands on deck.

Our country hangs in the balance. Thomas Massie may be our last line of peaceful defense.

Do not let the traitors win.

[Maine @TheMaineWonk]

Timeline cleanse.

The National Treasure that is Sturgill Simpson.

[Nebraska Men's Basketball @HuskerMBB]

THE ******* MAYOR.

[Nebraska Men's Basketball @HuskerMBB]

WATCH AND DREAM.

[Nebraska Huskers @Huskers]

MADE FOR MARCH.

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

As always I only support military action anywhere, in any context, if it directly serves the interests of American citizens. It’s troubling that the arguments we’re hearing for this war in Iran, including from Trump himself, seem to revolve primarily around “bringing freedom to the Iranian people.” As Americans, the freedom of Iranians is not our responsibility. If a single American life is lost in the service of that goal, it will be a travesty.

What nobody has even come close to sufficiently explaining is how this war will first and foremost directly benefit American citizens. That is a case that needed to have been made clearly and convincingly before this move, and it wasn’t. We’re also told how this will benefit Israel, and I’m sure it will. But Israel is not America. What does it do for America? How does it help us? That needs to be explained to us. And it isn’t “panicking” or demonstrating “disloyalty” to demand those very basic answers about how American tax money, and potentially American lives, are being spent.

We hear about the danger of a nuclear Iran, but that’s odd because we were told that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had already been set back decades. We hear that this war will be over quickly and easily because Iran is powerless, which I hope and pray is the case, and maybe it will be. But that’s odd, too, because if Iran is such a paper tiger then how were they a danger to us in the first place? It seems hard to argue both that Iran is an existential threat to the United States and that we can topple them in 20 minutes with no casualties or negative downstream effects.

Also the political calculation really matters here. A huge majority of American oppose this. That’s just a fact. If it costs Republicans in 26 and 28, then, no matter how things work out in Iran, it will not have been worth it. A free Iran at the cost of Democrat rule here at home is a bad deal. A free Iran for an unfree America would be just about the worst trade of the century.

I’m praying for our great country today.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

I am opposed to this War.

This is not “America First.”

When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran.

The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war.

[Nebraska Baseball @HuskerBaseball]

WILL. JESSKE. 💣

T10 | Nebraska 9, Auburn 5

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

Can you, the people, “vote your way out of this?”

Honestly, not if you get your news from these folks.

The swamp has tricks for deceiving the public, and most even work on congressmen. Here’s an example of how Laura and Greg played along as happy tools of the swamp.

Please ask yourself why your own congressman has never talked about this. He either hasn’t gotten this far in the game (80% chance), or he likes the way the swamp obscures what’s going on (10% chance), or he dislikes the system but the price he’d pay for telling you is too high (10% chance). If a congressman sees this post and wants to debate me, I accept!

The House has rules we adopt at the beginning of each Congress. Honestly we should just use those - some go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Some are like Robert’s Rules of Order which branched from House rules a century ago. But we have a rules committee that modifies the rules every week. I served on the rules committee for two years. When I was on the committee, I refused to vote for rules changes if the purpose was to mislead or obscure. Every week, the rules committee bends the rules to suit the Speaker, but you can’t place the blame just on the committee or the Speaker. Every rules change must be approved by the whole House with a majority vote.

Rank and file congressmen are told to vote for these rules modifications each week for the sake of party loyalty because the rules are temporarily modified by the majority to keep the minority from using the permanent rules against us. This is partly true, so most congressmen never question beyond this.

Typically, every week the rules committee meets before other committees and writes a rules package to protect bills that will come to the floor that week. Then the whole house votes on this rules package early in the week before significant legislation comes to the floor. The vote is typically on party lines. Sometimes a block of congressmen in the majority will take the rules package hostage and withhold their vote to get something else that has nothing to do with the rules. I’m not a big fan of this, but after 13 years, my hands aren’t completely clean of this tactic.

The high-road position that I try to maintain is that if the rules package is bad, you shouldn’t vote for the rules package, and in general you shouldn’t withhold your vote from a rules package if there’s nothing wrong with the rules package… even if you disagree with the policy that is enabled to come to the floor by the rules package.

There are more details, but that’s all you need to know to understand what I’m going to explain next.

This week the Speaker wanted to do two things outside of our base rules, so he put those inside of the rules package that also had the rules for bringing bills like the popular SAVE Act to the floor, knowing members would be afraid to vote against something associated with SAVE. THIS IS INTENTIONAL.

The Speaker wanted to circumvent the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to avoid voting on tariffs and he wanted to turn off the ban on bringing a spending bill to the floor the same day it’s introduced.

The first rules package that came to the floor this week failed because myself and other republicans objected to it. The rules committee met again, wrote a new rules package without the tariff-trick, and we voted on the second rules package. I voted no but internet goons, like clockwork, characterized this as a vote against the SAVE Act.

The swamp used that second rules package to give them authority to pass a bill before anyone could read it. They hid that authority inside the rule for the SAVE act because they knew people like Laura and Greg would help them disparage anyone who didn’t go along.

If you fell for Laura and Greg’s slop you were cheering for the Pelosi doctrine that we should pass bills to see what’s in them. If the rules package had failed, the rules committee would have written a better one and SAVE Act would have still come to the floor.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

I voted against the rule to bring this omnibus forward for a vote.

Here is a breakdown of some of the most ridiculous items included in the omnibus, and some America First items that were not. I offered amendments to correct these errors—all of which were blocked or refused🧵:

[Los Angeles Rams @RamsNFL]

EARNED OUR SPOT IN THE NFC CHAMPIONSHIP!

[Paul Jake Jacobsen @HuskerTapes]

The moments.
The voices.
The names.

My Chrismas gift to Cornhusker fans..
...a montage of random Nebraska football clips spanning 1941-2025.
🤶🎅🌽🏈

[Nebraska Men's Basketball @HuskerMBB]

FORE! 🪶

[Ari Meirov @MySportsUpdate]

You're about to witness the best punt of this NFL season:

[James May @MrJamesMay]

The James Gin Christmas ad has ‘landed’.

Yes, it’s ‘AI slop’, and yes, we’re taking the piss. It’s about the message etc.

[Donald Trump Jr. @DonaldJTrumpJr]

Anyone else notice that when one of our heroes was assinated in cold blood if front of thousands of people including his wife and young kids that not a single store in America had to board up their windows?

That tell us everything you need to know.

[Jim in MN @HuskersMN]

Wow what a throw