The video that had everybody talking. More relevant now than when I first uploaded it! 👊😘👇

They like roaches... step on a few and 10 more pop out.

What kind of reporter, has the REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER on their "esteemed" show and brings up the important issues facing the senate, but dont ask the REAL important questions everyone in his party is asking?... Questions like: 1: We hear you say quite often, that you don't have the votes. And thats, with a 53 seat majority... Is your majority whip defunct? Is leadership not getting your own members on the same page before throwing the blame on the minority party? Why cant you get your own members in line? Have you no leverage over them? Could you not pull funding from their reelects? Yank committee assignments? Take away gavels? Does it not seem a tall order to go to the voters, plead with them to keep you in a non functioning majority on the things they care most about? Are you not basically saying to the voters, "keep us in the majority, simply for the vanity of being in the majority. Because nothing meaningful can get done anyway as we dont have a filibuster proof majority"? 2: Why is a Republican led senate holding on to a democrat picked parliamentarian? Are you unaware that you have the power to overrule her? If not, why haven't you? Can the president take this as a sign that you're not with him on these issues? 3: Why does the Senate take so many breaks, with so many things needing to be done? The president is halfway through his 2nd administration and there are still nominees needing to be approved. Why keep the pro forma sessions going versus allowing the president to make recess appointments? I mean, if you just HAVE to have your breaks? 4: With the crushing landslide defeat of John Cornyn in the primaries, was it worth spending so many millions, IN A PRIMARY? Would it not be fair for primary voters to expect the NRSC to NOT engage in primaries? Do you now think that that money would have been better spent in the general, protecting the seat, rather than an incumbent? Lastly, Mr. Majority leader, why should voters in November, continue with a Republican "majority" if they know they arent able to provide you with a "filibuster proof" majority? Instead, we got questions like "do you think the president likes you?" Or something dumb like that... .@BretBaier ... THAT'S the kind of "Reporter"! 🙄

Today I voted for Todd Woods for Congress The reason is that he said in the candidate forum that he would join the House Freedom Caucus. I like his style and rhetoric. More on him later On Lahmeyer, I waited to see what happened. For example, if his wife came on camera and said, That’s my husband, and I stand by him I would likely have voted for him today. It’s so disappointing because he knows better. He knows the Bible says, he went to Oral Roberts University, and he knows how others have fallen. The saddest part is that he has 5 kids. I saw some idiot compare this to Graham Planter. Dead wrong. This is like Paxton. The difference is that Paxton isn’t a preacher; he delivered amazing results and was going against a RINO. For Lahmeyer, it hits worse because he is a preacher. I worry that you are already messing up in Tulsa just wait until DC comes. Back to the race, I am waiting to see who actually makes the runoff and the score. It would be Tedford, Butterfield, or Jed Cochran. Perhaps Lahmeyer makes it. He would earn my vote in the runoff if his wife defends him and stands by him but if it’s like the last two days pure radio silence then I think not. I prefer that Jed make it. For Tedford, I don’t like his ad on Lahmeyer. Remove his name from the equation. Who cares about medical debt??? Oh, I am sorry we weren’t born with a silver spoon in our mouths and have to deal with real life. Back to Todd, I met him. I would have voted for one of the others but they didn’t show up at the forum. I thought he was funny. He talked about real issues such as our national debt and across as authentic. He came across to me as a real guy, who is a good honest, humble man. His ad was pretty funny and outside the box too. I was disappointed Lahmeyer wouldn't say he would join the House Freedom Caucus. That is the easiest answer ever. Todd Woods says without hesitation he would join. So I voted for Woods. It may be the only opportunity I have to vote for him. And I wouldn't have missed voting for him for the world.

Hussein's dad founded the Houston chapter of the terrorist organization CAIR. He showed up to our convention to elicit the exact reaction that we are seeing echoed throughout the press--that Islam is somehow the victim. This is the tried-and-true formula to hijack the sympathies of Western cultures through the media.

If you're in Georgia, go out and vote for @DolezalForGA for Lt. Gov today - one of the best candidates this cycle. I wish we had him running for governor.

🤔

Not that it’s important, but if I kill you with my car, it becomes a deadly weapon. It does not matter what was used to murder Austin Metcalf. He could have been murdered with a shoe, and that shoe would have become a deadly weapon.  So stop arguing with the idiots about what was used. At the end of the day, it was a knife and a deadly weapon. 

What will happen in the Oklahoma 1st Congressional District Republican Primary? Have you voted already? Are you going for Lahmeyer, another candidate, or undecided? I am surprised there haven't been any polls or debates Here is a rundown of the other candidates Todd Woods is the only candidate to state that he would join the House Freedom Caucus openly. He ran just one TV ad. He is a neighbor of Oklahoma Congressman Josh Brecheen. Courtney Gill graduated from Oxford and Cambridge. She is very smart. She has excellent campaign gear like on a Presidential tier. I am surprised that she hasn't done any TV ads because she has the money for it. Nathan Butterfield has been endorsed by Tulsa Sheriff Vic Regalado. Whether you like that or not depends on your view of the Sheriff. Nathan has been on TV a lot. Jed Cochran used to be a staffer for both for Senator Tom Coburn and Former Tulsa Mayor G. T. Bynum. His solo ad is pretty good. Mark Tedford is a State Representative. He is on TV a lot. His voting record would be better though You know that Lieutenant Dan Rooney is mad that he dropped out of the race. Kim David is the RINO in the race. Paul Royse will probably get less than 1% Kelly B. Walsh ran for the wrong party. Nancy Dyson may get 1% to 2% It will go to a runoff. The question is who will make it. And who are you going for?

Just an FYI - Not a single level headed, logical person is worried about an appeal. I have zero concern. Many of the same people who spent the last year insisting that Karmelo Anthony acted in self-defense are now placing all of their hope in an appeal. The problem is that appeals are not second trials. An appellate court does not decide whether it agrees with the jury. It does not re-weigh the evidence. It does not revisit every witness and ask who it believes more. Its job is to determine whether a significant legal error occurred during the trial. The jury heard the self-defense argument. The defense was allowed to present witnesses. The evidence was presented. The jury deliberated and returned a guilty verdict. Unless appellate counsel can identify a specific legal error that materially affected the outcome of the trial, the conviction stands. That is why most criminal appeals fail. What will likely happen next is what we’ve already watched happen for over a year. If the conviction is upheld, many of the same activists who insisted the evidence was on their side will claim the appeal was “rigged,” the courts were “corrupt,” the judge was biased, the “wrong video footage was shown”, the jury was racist, and the entire system was a setup. (BTW, the ONLY video footage was shown in the courtroom on day ONE. And it only helped the prosecution, not the defense). At some point, people have to accept reality. Every unfavorable outcome cannot be explained away as a conspiracy. A jury heard the evidence. A verdict was reached. An appeal will review the law… not rewrite the facts. If the conviction is affirmed, it won’t be because of a setup. It will be because the appellate court found no reversible error in the trial proceedings.

😳

There’s a really nice 3 story beach house in 30A that has a giant banner dedicated to @johnthune and it’s absolutely hilarious. The bottom of it demands that he pass the Save America Act.

.@LeaderJohnThune keeps telling us why the Senate can't pass the SAVE America Act. Now he's moving FISA, a must-pass bill, without it. Leaders don't make excuses. They find a way to win. Secure elections are non-negotiable, Sen Thune. Figure out how to get it done.

In its short order list today, the Supreme Court including something stunning. They have agreed to hear the case of Kian v. Florida in the fall, which is about the constitutionality of juries of less than 12 people. Kian was convicted of practicing medicine without a license by a 6-person jury, as allowed by Florida law for non-death penalty cases. 44 states require 12-person juries, so Florida is an outlier (with Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Utah). In Williams v. Florida (1970), the Supreme Court upheld this Florida 6-person jury law over the dissents of Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Marshall Harlan. Justice Marshall curtly said that anyone going to prison for the rest of their life should get a 12-person jury. Justice Harlan noted that federal cases get 12-person juries and state juries should be no less. Kian, in his petition, directly asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Williams precedent from 1970. For their part, Florida first didn't even respond and then when ordered to by the Court, warned that reversing Williams could overturn 5,000 convictions in the state. In 2022, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch dissented from the Court's refusal to hear a challenge to Arizona's 8-person jury law. Kavanaugh did not explain his dissent, but Justice Gorsuch laid out his argument that the original meaning of juries at the Founding was 12, not 8. Gorsuch wrote in 2022: "Williams was wrong the day it was decided, it remains wrong today, and it impairs both the integrity of the American criminal justice system and the liberties of those who come before our Nation’s courts." In 2024, Justice Gorsuch dissented alone from a denial of another case, Cunningham v. Florida. He wrote that 6-member juries depart from the original meaning of the Constitution - juries at the Founding meant 12, not 6. Gorsuch wrote in 2024: "If there are not yet four votes on this Court to take up the question whether Williams should be overturned, I can only hope that someday there will be." That the Court will hear the case shows that now at least 4 justices want to hear the case. It will take 5 justices to overrule Williams. Also worth noting: Kian has no fancy law firm representing him. He filed a pauperis form asking that court filing fees be waived and is represented by a public defender. The case seems to have been missed by everyone until now - no amicus briefs were filed by any other organizations urging that the case be heard. (That will certainly change by when it's argued in the fall.) But someone - or 4 someones - on the Supreme Court picked it out of the thousands of appeals they get and decided to take it up as one of less than 100 cases they'll hear next term.

Happy 80th birthday Mr. President 🎉🎀

So the RPT got snookered into giving up on Abraham for a Dade Phelan backed slate? 🤦🏾‍♀️

17th AMENDMENT: Have I mentioned how much the 17th Amendment screwed up the senate? Thune is a creature of the bastardization of the body by William Jennings Bryan in 1913. x.com/amuse/status/206548911…

Rino account 👇🏾