Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: House Democrats have introduced a resolution to abolish the electoral college
1:31 PM · Apr 15, 2021
Breaking911
@Breaking911
Democrats introduce court-packing legislation, say Trump ‘stole’ Supreme Court seats - https://breaking911.com/democrats-introduce-court-packing-legislation-say-trump-stole-supreme-court-seats/
Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: House Oversight Committee advances D.C. statehood bill
11:17 AM · Apr 15, 2021
Talk about demolishing norms. Two of those are right in the Constitution. And the other — a nine-justice Supreme Court — has been around since 1869.
But the Democrats under a Joe Biden executive office don’t care about that, apparently. Probably because, much like with their efforts to push the PRO Act and H.R.1 — both of which would override state laws related to right-to-work and elections, respectively — they need to upend the regular order so they can find ways to win that don’t rely on their having better, successful policy ideas. All five of these efforts are intended to change the system to clear a path for a permanent progressive majority. //
Washington Examiner
@dcexaminer
.@Jim_Jordan: "You don't think Americans' liberties have been threatened the last year, Dr. Fauci?"
Fauci: "I don't look at this as a liberty thing... I look at this as a public health thing."
Jordan: "You think the Constitution is suspended during a virus, during a pandemic?"
“Expanding the Supreme Court rights the wrongs the Republicans have done to this great court. Expanding the Supreme Court is equal justice and will ensure equal justice is dispensed to all Americans.”
The reality: The United States Supreme Court is not broken. Rather, the balance on the Court is not currently to the liking of the left. And the “wrongs the Republicans have done” have been comprised solely of operating within constitutional boundaries agreed upon by both parties 232 years ago and a nine-justice limit in place for 152 years, Ed. //
We’ve seen it time and time and again. When Democrats don’t win by the rules, they try to change the rules — and/or cheat, of course. Hillary wins the popular vote in 2016, but loses the Electoral College? Eliminate the Electoral College.
Yet, if 2016 had been a mirror image? If Trump had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote? A: Republicans would not have called for the demise of the EC. B: Democrats would have defended the EC to their dying hypocritical breath.
And so? They set about changing as many state election laws across the country between 2016 and 2020 as they could get away with. Yet when Georgia Republicans enact true election reform — which benefits all voters? Cry “Racism!, “Jim Crow!,” and behave as the left is now behaving.
And when the literal law of the land — nine justices on the United States Supreme Court, a number which even liberal-stalwart justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was opposed to changing — doesn’t go your way? You attempt to pack the Court. All in the name of “democracy.”
Ted Cruz encapsulated it, this morning.
“Today’s Democrat Party doesn’t care about undermining the rule of law.
If Democrats pack the Court, our free speech rights go out the window, our religious liberty goes out the window, and the Second Amendment is effectively repealed from the Bill of Rights.”
National Review’s David Harsanyi dug up a quote from the Roosevelt era that pretty much sums up the whole thing.
FDR’s Court-packing scheme, wrote the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee in 1937, “is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.” //
Today, modern progressives, intent on centralizing state power and nullifying constitutional protections for the minority, disagree. After spending four years delegitimizing the Supreme Court, they’ve convinced Joe Biden to create the “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court,” which is another step in normalizing the idea of packing the Supreme Court.
Kevin McCullough synopsized it in a Townhall piece, “Why Biden is Erasing America .”
He’s attempting to undo American accountability in elections through his support of HR1. He’s attempting to undo our economic foundations with massive printing (read that: devaluing) of our currency. He’s attempting to destroy free enterprise and job growth with coming massive tax increases. He’s attempting to take away individual liberties with proposed mask mandates, and desired lockdowns.
He supports any attempt to end the Senate filibuster—in order to push through horrific laws by the thinnest margins ever attempted. He’s attempting to overwhelm our security at our borders by encouraging 100’s of 1000’s of unverifiable persons of unknown origins to cross our borders without scrutiny nor penalty. He wants the police weakened. He is pledging to take guns away from law abiding owners. And he wants to pervert the justice system so dramatically that the Constitution becomes unrecognizable.
Biden and Democrats are trying any and all political maneuvers now to consolidate their power and block out Republicans in the future, and that’s what this is all about.
Of course!
They’ve obstructed Democrats hell bent on building a foundation of chattel slavery.
They obstructed the KKK becoming a mega-organization and reduced its numbers, taking away their political clout.
They kept the Democrats from keeping blacks secondhand citizens.
They kept women from being relegated to the kitchen and got them into the political arena.
They wanted to block creating a welfare state.
They kept trying to keep illegal aliens out of the country.
They kept fighting for a strong military to obstruct our enemies from invading us.
They obstructed people from barring minorities going to school with whites.
They’ve obstructed bills that hurt women and minorities.
They’ve obstructed bills that absolved people of their personal responsibility.
They’ve blocked people from trying to profit off a victim mentality.
That kind of obstruction is far better than the obstructing Democrats have done simply because of the hatred they feel…whether it be slavery, women’s rights, creating the Klan, segregating schools, Jim Crow laws, and these days, because they loathed a guy who they didn’t want as president.
And I am obstructing any comments to this answer…because deep down, you know I’m right. I’m just going to watch people’s heads pop off now.
Cruz calls the bill a “brazen and shameless power grab,” noting that it would promote widespread voter fraud. It includes automatic voter registration for essentially anyone who has ever interacted with the government. That would naturally include a lot of illegal immigrants who have driver’s licenses, and without strong verification in place, which H.R. 1 doesn’t have, there’d be nothing to stop them from voting.
Worse, as Cruz points out, even though it would still be technically illegal for an illegal immigrant to vote, H.R. 1 expressly removes any liability for doing so. In other words, you can vote illegally with no repercussions. The bill also strikes down all laws at the state level that prevent felons from voting. That’s another attempt by Democrats to stack the deck with voters they perceive would favor them.
Other terrible aspects include the striking down of voter ID laws, which exist in 29 states right now. Ballot harvesting, which has completely tainted states like California, would also be made universal across the country. Cruz uses the example of a political operative going into a nursing home and harvesting ballots only from those who voted for Democrats. There’s no supervision in that case, and unwanted ballots could just be thrown out after collection.
Cruz ends by calling it the “corrupt politicians act” because the goal is to keep corrupt politicians in power. That should be obvious to anyone thinking critically about what all of these federal mandates would mean. Democrats like to spin it as stopping the “restricting of voting,” but their definition of such is basically that any vote they think will benefit them should be counted regardless of its legality. They are also seeking to give machine politics, i.e. ballot harvesting, a dominant role in deciding elections.
McConnell then began to lay out how Republicans will respond if the filibuster is eliminated. Via Daily Wire:
“They are arguing for a radically less stable and less consensus-driven system of government. Forget about enduring laws with broad support. Nothing in federal law would ever be settled.
“Does anyone really believe the American people were voting for an entirely new system of government by electing Joe Biden to the White House and a 50-50 Senate?
“This is 50-50 Senate. There was no mandate to completely transform America by the American people on November 3.” //
McConnell said the notion that the filibuster is the only thing that stands in the way of Democrats ramming through their entire agenda is false.
“So, let me say this very clearly for all 99 of my colleagues: Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like.
“None of us have served one minute in a Senate that was completely drained of comity and consent. This is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon.”
Given the 50-50 split, McConnell reminded Democrats that the vice president does not break ties in determining a quorum.
“I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task, every one of them, requires a physical quorum. […] Everything that Democratic Senates did to Presidents Bush and Trump… everything the Republican Senate did to President Obama… would be child’s play compared to the disaster that Democrats would create for their own priorities if they break the Senate.” //
McConnell listed the following, as noted by The Daily Wire:
Nationwide right-to-work for working Americans.
Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one.
A whole new era of domestic energy production.
Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn.
Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Massive hardening of security on our southern border.
Tough talk. Would he follow through?
As Bonchie explained in this story, the dispute over the outcome of the Iowa House race is now pending in the House Committee on Administration. The Democrat challenger, Rita Hart, made a deliberate decision after the recount of ballots to NOT file any election contest in the Iowa courts as was authorized by Iowa law. Instead, she filed the petition with the House that is now pending to have the “winning” candidate — as identified by Iowa election officials — Mariannette Miller-Meeks, disqualified from holding the seat on the basis that she did not receive a greater number of votes than Hart received.
The House has the final say under the Constitution with respect to the qualifications of any individual to serve as a member. Under the statute authorizing the petition filed by Hart, the Committee conducts an investigation. It can hear from witnesses, accept documentary evidence, conduct interviews in Iowa, and even conduct a recount of all the ballots on its own to come up with its own final vote tally.
Remarkably, if the Committee chooses to recount the ballots itself, the standards for what constitutes a “valid” ballot under Iowa law do not apply to such a recount by the House. Democrats who have majority control of the committee can fashion their own standards as to what should be deemed a “valid” vote, and may freely choose to ignore any limitations on the process established by Iowa law and court precedent.
The Committee, based on its investigation, makes a recommendation to the full House, and it is a vote of the entire House that determines the outcome of the Petition filed by Hart.
Cuomo’s career was already finished because of another vastly more serious scandal that, coincidentally, is being buried by the media’s relentless focus on these salacious but ultimately trivial charges suddenly being levied by a couple of Democrat operatives—in the first instance almost three years after the fact. //
Cuomo’s career was already finished because of another vastly more serious scandal that, coincidentally, is being buried by the media’s relentless focus on these salacious but ultimately trivial charges suddenly being levied by a couple of Democrat operatives—in the first instance almost three years after the fact.
And this other more egregious scandal has the potential to blow up and encompass many more major party players.
I’m speaking, of course, about Cuomo’s March 25 order barring New York nursing homes from turning away patients diagnosed with COVID-19. //
- It turns out that three other Democrat governors whose states also experienced an extraordinarily high number of reported COVID-19 nursing-home fatalities also issued the exact same orders as Cuomo.
- The orders forcing nursing homes to accept patients diagnosed with COVID-19 issued by the quartet may wind up being responsible for an enormous proportion of the total number of reported U.S. deaths.
- Because of the way COVID-19 diagnoses have been incentivized by the government, those orders wound up raking in a fortune for nursing homes.
- Cuomo also signed a law passed by New York state’s Democrat-controlled legislature giving nursing homes immunity against civil liability from COVID-19 related lawsuits. //
It would have been tough for the media to keep ignoring Cuomo’s burgeoning nursing home scandal had Lindsey Boylan not given them those salacious but ultimately trivial three-year-old accusations of unwanted advances to start hyping instead. Likewise, if Charlotte Bennett hadn’t come along a few days later to help give the story legs.
And that nursing home scandal which, coincidentally, was so effectively buried by their stories had the potential to not only lead to criminal charges. It was likely to engulf three other major league Democrat politicians and expose just how much of the US official COVID-19 death tally was due to their actions.
As she regained her composure, Perino noted to Gallagher: “And I understand that there is concern that cash bail has hurt segments of the population, that minorities are hurt more, but we also have to think about these victims.”
Incidentally, therein lies one of many fundamental differences between the right and the left. The left views those who commit crimes as victims — of racism, oppression, police brutality, whatever — while the right and other sane people view victims as victims.
The debate over cashless bail, while having gone on for years, was brought to national attention during the “peaceful protests” in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in May 2020, while in the custody of Minneapolis Police officers. //
According to Fox News, Tanner met with Illinois Democrat Governor J. B. Pritzker and told him that in order for situations like hers to never occur again, the state needs “stronger,” not weaker bond conditions, and needs to elevate the voices of domestic violence survivors.
But instead? Gov. Pritzker on Tuesday signed legislation making Illinois the first state in the nation to end cash bail.
“He absolutely let me down,” Tanner said. “I made a plea to him prior to him signing this bill and to hold off and to actually think about victims.” Ah, “the victims.”
As I said earlier, the left disagrees with you, Cassandra. Just ask Kamala Harris, 13 members of Biden’s presidential campaign staff, and the majority of the Democrat Party.
According to the Equality Act, religious nurses, doctors, and hospitals unwilling to kill an unborn child or perform a sex-change surgery could be legally discriminating.
The clearly intended design here is to have the Commission investigate the Democrats’ political opposition — it is all the evils that the Democrats in the 1960s claimed were behind government projects such as COINTELPRO — efforts by the government to spy on and destabilize political opposition forces inside the country.
That is the goal of the Democrats now. They fear the political power of Pres. Trump and the MAGA constituency in 2022. Their worst nightmares involve a re-run of 2010 and the “Tea Party” wipeout of Barack Obama’s Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.
Axios has some interesting numbers yesterday with regard to the current pace of confirmations of Biden Cabinet nominees.
They have created a color-coded graphic going back to the Nixon Presidency that shows via color the number of votes against cabinet nominees in the confirmation process.
All through the Bush 41 and Clinton Presidencies, the nominees were almost uniformly confirmed with less than 10 votes against any individual nominee. That changed with the Bush 43 Presidency in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election controversy, with a much higher number of cabinet nominees drawing between 20 and 50 votes against confirmation.
During the Obama Presidency, there were far more nominees receiving votes against confirmation than had been the case under Clinton, but the majority of Obama nominees who drew votes against their confirmation were situations where the votes total were only between 10 and 25 votes.
Everything changed dramatically with the Trump Presidency. The norm became votes of nearly 50% against the confirmation of Trump nominees.
Data from the NBC News poll shows that the composition of the two major parties is changing, and one massive shift is coming in employment: the kinds of jobs Democrats and Republicans hold. There are signs across racial and ethnic demographic groups that Republicans are becoming the party of blue-collar Americans and the change is happening quickly.
If the movement continues it could have a large impact on the future of the GOP. //
NBC admits that the GOP had better economic messaging than Democrats, but warns that the majority of this growth took place during the Trump era and if the GOP continues to use the same tactics Trump did to attract blue-collar workers, then it would further tie the party to him. //
Economic policies can be practiced without belonging to a specific man. If it works, it works. For the blue-collar voters in America, it definitely worked.
Achieving the goals of the Democrat political agenda is all that matters to them, regardless of the human costs. Those costs are considered to be “necessary evils” in the pursuit of the greater good, as defined by the Democrat Party. What are a few deaths to return California forests to their primeval state “before mankind arrived and screwed up the environment” (as the greenies say)? Or several hundred thousand excess deaths in 2020 to get rid of Donald Trump? Or exploitation of shooting deaths to achieve gun control dreams? Martyrs or victims: it matters not. All are used by Democrats to achieve their political ends. The rest of us are just statistics. Reminds me of what the Soviets did and the ChiComs have been doing over the years.
The bill forbids funds for commemorating any president who has “been twice impeached by the House” from being commemorated with any “symbol, monument, or statue” or having any building named after him, as well as forbidding any potential burial in Arlington National Cemetery. They put “twice” in so they could still honor Bill Clinton, just unbelievable how juvenile they can be.
They’re also trying to snatch any of the benefits he gets as a former president.
Joel Pollak
@joelpollak
This is what the House could not wait to investigate. Why does @SpeakerPelosi want an outside investigation instead of bipartisan panel? Because Republicans might ask questions about the official narrative that drove the snap #Impeachment.
Michael Tracey
@mtracey
According to the DOJ, the zip ties were left sitting on a table that one of the intruders happened to randomly encounter. The falsity of the initial "zip tie" narrative was the now-discredited suggestion that they indicated some kind of premeditated mass kidnapping plot https://twitter.com/RubenGallego/status/1361533417930846209
The very same people who argued against President Donald Trump questioning election results appeared to spin the losing vote to suggest that they had truly “won.”
Here’s Jim Sciutto saying “but it’s still a majority.”
Ashley Brooks
@AshleyAReports
·
Feb 13, 2021
Replying to @jimsciutto
He needed a super majority to be convicted. Not a simple. He was a acquitted. You should know this.
Jim Sciutto
@jimsciutto
I know. But fact is, it’s a majority.
Graham's Gambit on Witnesses -- the GOP Has Better Trial Lawyers in the Senate Than Do the Democrats
Early in my career as a prosecutor, I learned a valuable lesson from a seasoned and highly regarded criminal defense attorney.
The best defense in a trial before a jury is to attack the case that the prosecution doesn’t make. Fight on the ground that the prosecution has looked past or ignored. If the prosecution tries to “circle back” and cover that ground, the defense becomes about what the prosecution missed — or better yet, what didn’t they want the jury to know when they chose to ignore it in the first instance. //
When the prosecutor calls a young agent to the stand — and there is almost always at least one youngster involved in order to get the experience — that agent is going to spend a long time answering questions from me about all the things he/she did not do during the course of the investigation. That sets in the jurors’ minds the idea that I know more about how the investigation should have been handled than the investigators do, and that the investigators took shortcuts and ignored evidence. It’s not necessarily evidence of “innocence”, just the fact of ignoring evidence calls into question the completeness of what they did and their competence doing so.
That’s what Lindsey Graham did today — likely aided by Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a couple of other GOP Senators with trial experience in a courtroom. I’m not sure there is a single good trial lawyer among the Democrats in the Senate.
A lengthy report from New York state Attorney General Letitia James also found the Cuomo administration undercounted the COVID-related deaths in nursing homes by as much as 50 percent.