>>173279, >>173280, >>173281, >>173282, >>173283, >>173284, >>173285, >>173286, >>173287, >>173288, >>173289, >>173290, >>173291, >>173292, >>173293, >>173294, >>173295, >>173296, >>173297, >>173298, >>173299, >>173300, >>173301, >>173302, >>173303, >>173304, >>173305
LindellTV @RealLindellTV - Video: “You’re going to lose your job. You’re going to lose your home. They’ll track your children. You won’t be able to work anywhere Democrats control."
- Minnesota State Rep. Marion Rarick speaks on the retaliation against whistleblowers exposing fraud
In response to our reporter @alisonintheknows’s question, Rep. @MarionONeill1 detailed the escalating threats and retaliation faced by whistleblowers trying to expose systemic fraud in Minnesota.
She cited the case of Faye Bernstein, targeted as early as 2019, and warned that intimidation tactics have only worsened - including job loss, blacklisting, and threats to families.
“We’re hoping that by shining light on this, more people will feel safe to come forward and that we can protect them.”
https://x.com/RealLindellTV/status/2009020461615899108

Lindsey Graham @LindseyGrahamSC - I served for 33 years as a military lawyer judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force. I was a prosecutor, defense attorney and for a brief period, a military judge. The authority of the Commander in Chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution in matters of conflict and the President’s ability to use military force to protect our nation is a subject matter area I feel comfortable with.
Today’s vote in the U.S. Senate on the Venezuela War Powers Resolution was a gift to our enemies, will encourage more bad behavior in Venezuela and it is an unconstitutional attempt to restrict the power of the Commander in Chief.
Throughout my political career I have been consistent on the idea that under the U.S. Constitution, there is only one Commander in Chief and that is the President. I’ve always rejected the idea that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to replace the President’s judgement as Commander in Chief in matters of military force.
I told then-President Obama his actions in Syria fell within his authority as Commander in Chief and that he did not need congressional authorization.
Declaring war is exclusive to Congress and has only been done five times in our history. That does not mean a President can only use military force with congressional approval. There have been over 130 military actions taken by a President without congressional authorization. None have been stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The War Powers Act of 1973 is patently unconstitutional and must give way to delegated powers of the Constitution itself, designating the President as the sole Commander in Chief of our armed forces under Article II. One of the bedrock principles of American jurisprudence is that the U.S. Constitution reigns supreme in matters of law.
President Trump is right to be upset with Republicans that voted with Democrats to limit his ability to change Venezuela for the better and make the world safer.
If a member of Congress disagrees with the Commander in Chief’s decision to use military force, then they have the right to stop funding for those operations because Congress has the power of the purse under the U.S. Constitution – or they can bring impeachment actions against the President if they think it is unlawful.
A member of Congress does not have the right to replace their judgement for that of the President who is the Commander in Chief. The nation cannot function with 535 Commanders in Chief.