👇
@grok there was a Democrat with comparable charges as Tina Peters what was her sentence?
Was it probation, a fine and community service?
1. What's not true? That Trump closed the border, diverted funds from the Pentagon to build the wall? Secured the border? Biden admin allowed open borders essentially violating Titles 6 & 8 of the Federal code. That there were in excess of 10M unlawful entries under Biden.
That's what this was always about. Imagine, supporting a movement where you don't mind destroying people's lives who don't share the same ideological views. One thing is for sure, the left have gone "A Bridge to Far.
Apparently, I'm a Russian tool that sides with the mob. The Trump cabal? These are the same people who were terrified that a protege of Roy Cohn was elected to the highest office in the land. Can't fix stupid.
😂🤣😂
Musk provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. None of these people should be taken seriously.
👇
unavailable
👇
That's true.
1945 – McCarran-Ferguson → 50 state walls
1974 – ERISA §514 → 60% of market locked in concrete
1996 – HIPAA → Price competition outlawed
2010 – Obamacare → Mandates + subsidies + monopoly
2021/2022 – ARPA/IRA → Unlimited taxpayer money
Every single one of those pieces of legislation, which completely destroyed the health insurance market, were passed under Democrat majorities in Congress.
👇
The fact that legislation was needed for Indians is but one example illustrating that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” doesn’t mean “subject to federal criminal and civil jurisdiction.”
Supporters of birthright citizenship point to Wong Kim Arc, but don’t appear to want to follow Wong Kim, which clearly states that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” involves a political allegiance test.
The children of diplomats owe their political allegiance elsewhere. So do Indians on reservations. So do the children of invaders, according to Wong Kim Arc.
So here is the real question: are the children of illegals more akin to the children of lawful immigrants and tourists, whom we invite, or invaders, when they enter in violation of our laws?
Seems obvious to me it’s the latter.
He's not wrong
👇
Before anyone hyperventilates about “sedition,” maybe start with a basic question: What illegal act are you actually alleging? Because when each member of the so-called “Seditious Six” was asked to identify a single unlawful order, directive, or action from the President… every one of them suddenly turned into a mime. Not one example. Not one citation. Not one shred of substance.
What they did offer was something far more corrosive: a coordinated effort to sow mistrust inside the ranks by insinuating—without evidence—that the Commander-in-Chief is issuing illegal orders. That isn’t “repeating the law.” That’s political theatre dressed up as moral courage.
And let’s be clear:
If you deliberately undermine confidence in the chain of command—especially during heightened geopolitical tension—you’re not protecting the military. You’re exploiting it. And that is dangerous every time, not just “in a time of political violence.”
You don’t get to manufacture accusations out of thin air, hide behind vague platitudes, and then feign outrage when people call it what it is.
If words have consequences, maybe start counting yours.
WJH retweeted
Decades of political meddling have turned the world’s greatest fighting force into a social experiment. Rebuilding starts with firing the Marxist ideologues. @DougTruax
restoration-news.com/from-we…
They want to censor and suppress speech because of reporting discrepancies and at the same time are propagating fake news by blaming it on Reagan. These people are twisted.
