Kurt Davis @DaBeesKnow

@RejoiceInTruth_ @SenJonHusted Excellent point. Yes, this is the question we’re all asking. Leadership is needed, not just “I’ll go along with it”.

This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Is it a coincidence that since Trump cut off funding to Ukraine, USAID, and NGOs, the Democrat Party is suddenly broke? Weren't they swimming in cash in 2022? Didn't Kamala Harris supposedly raise $2 billion in 2024? Where did all the donors go? Hint: They never existed. All of that big Democrat money in the past was just laundered foreign funds. Or even worse, U.S. taxpayer funds laundered back to them. We can draw one of two conclusions here: Either the Democrat base is so broke they can't afford to donate money to their party, or all that support you see in the polls for Democrats doesn't really exist.

Want to see something really cool? Watch Jon Voight bring history to life!! ❤️🤍💙🇺🇸

Do you know what U.S.S.R. stands for? Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics. Do you know what Nazi stands for? National "Socialist" German Workers' Party. Repressive totalitarian regimes always start off as socialists.

The Senate is truly underestimating how angry the American people are that it refuses to pass the SAVE America Act.

My colleague from South Dakota suggests here that the talking filibuster hasn’t been used in a century, and that it was not used to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He’s mistaken. As I’ve explained to the entire Senate GOP on multiple occasions, the talking filibuster *was* used effectively to break the weeks-long filibuster mounted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Leader Thune and others point out that the Senate ultimately invoked cloture on the Civil Rights Act, and on that basis wrongly conclude that the talking filibuster was *not* the tool used to achieve that victory. This argument ignores the fact that this is *how* the Senate closed a staggering 30-vote cloture deficit in 1964. After many weeks of fighting a losing battle, filibustering senators predictably started to lose their resolve to hold up the bill indefinitely, especially when they realized how hard they’d have to work to keep the effort alive. So they started proposing and supporting amendments to the bill to make it more palatable and help them save face. I still maintain that this is a viable approach that could work well—even better—in the context of the SAVE America Act, especially considering that the bill is less complicated and less controversial with voters than was the Civil Rights Act, and currently has a cloture deficit of only 10 votes—tiny compared to the 30-vote deficit faced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My colleague also mistakenly suggests that Senate Republicans would have to vote to enforce the talking filibuster. That simply isn’t true; no vote is required for this step. All we need is a majority leader willing to announce that we’re getting on the bill and that we will continue to debate it until it passes—all with the understanding that if filibustering senators fail to show up to debate it, we can “call the question” and pass it with a simple majority. That understanding, in turn, is what motivates the filibustering senators to show up and speak, but it’s also what naturally causes them to tire of the exercise after a few weeks, at which point they start looking for a face-saving off-ramp. Finally, Leader Thune suggests that the talking filibuster would be thwarted by being “reset” every time Democrats offered an amendment. There’s a valid point in there, but it’s not a good reason not to invoke the talking filibuster. It appears he’s referring indirectly to paragraph 1(a) of Senate Rule 19 (the two-speech rule). While offering a new amendment can create a new question under longstanding practice, the September 25, 1986 precedent narrowed how rigidly the two-speech rule is applied by clarifying that many procedural actions do not count as speeches at all. Particularly in light of that 1986 clarification, it’s been a long time since I’ve suggested we consider rigid enforcement of Rule 19’s two-speech limit as part of a talking filibuster strategy for the SAVE America Act. We don’t need it! Nor was that rule aggressively enforced during the Senate’s consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield correctly focused on requiring actual debate from filibustering senators rather than looking for technical ways to shut the debate down. To give credit where it’s due, I appreciate what Leader Thune said in this interview about the possibility of passing some iteration of SAVE America using budget reconciliation—a procedure in which there is no 60-vote cloture hurdle. I’ve been skeptical of this approach in the past, but I’m starting to believe the SAVE America Act has more budgetary features than I initially considered possible. That said, reconciliation is fraught with all kinds of problems, challenges, risks, and uncertainties. Also, failure can be far too easy to blame on the parliamentarian. I’m open to considering the reconciliation path, but we should make this decision with our eyes open. To do that, we need to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the talking filibuster.

TRAILER: Smile 3

@elonmusk Thank you, Elon, for stating common sense.

Just common sense!

I will never get over what happened on 9/11. Just 25 years later, a sanctimonious jihadist communist sits at the NYC’s mayor’s desk lecturing America, while associating with known terrorist, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, and people who want non-Muslims dead. Shame on NYC.

🇺🇸One of the most enlightening videos you will hear on this platform.🇺🇸

SECRETARY RUBIO: "The United States doesn't want to be a communist country. We're never going to be a communist country. We're not going to allow communist influences to undermine our politics or our society."

President Trump attends the dignified transfer of the four American Patriots killed in the Middle East. 1st Lt. Tyler Feehan Sgt. Michael Swinton Sgt. Angel Rampersad Pvt. Isabella Gonzale Quite the difference from Joe Biden staring at his watch.

The United States of America will NEVER be a communist country.

90% of Americans agree that members of Congress should not be able to trade stocks. 90% of Americans also agree that you should have to show an ID to vote. 198 Democrats just voted against both.

"A guy looked at my airplane the other day and said I wonder how many people I could have fed for the price of that airplane... I replied I am not sure, it fed a lot of families at the Dassault factory where it was built. I’m sure it fed a bunch of families that rolled the aluminum at the Alcoa factory. It surely fed a lot of people at the Honeywell factory where the experts built the turbines. It fed a whole company for a few weeks when I had them build me a new interior. It feeds the families of the linemen that fuel it. That’s the difference between capitalism and a welfare mentality. When you buy something, you put money in people's pockets, and give them dignity for their skills. When you give someone something for nothing, you rob them of their dignity and self worth. Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value. Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for."

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

“A lot of people hate Trump, and that's fine. But if you're watching a news network that refuses to air the president of the United States, they're not giving you a chance to think for yourself. They're telling you what to think.” Couldn’t be more true!! If you hate Trump and watch the news, you’ve probably been programmed 🎯