Categories
Articles

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee Wants Your Guns

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (sometimes referred to as Pedo Jackson Lee), Democrat of Houston, Texas (D-18), wants you to register your guns and wants everyone to know about it.

Democrat representative of the 18th district in Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced a bill to the house that seeks to make a registry of gun owners, but also to restrict the ability to purchase firearms based on purchasers association.

H.R. 127 would require all Americans to have to register their firearms to include purchase and possession of ammunition. The resolution would require government notification to lend one’s firearm to another, and would also require a psychological evaluation to own a fire arm.

While you can read the the House Resolution at congress.gov, and the body of the text is published in full at the end of this article, Sheila Jackson Lee’s unconstitutional legislation is partly dissected below:

H.R. 127 Dissected

This section requires all gun owners to register their firearms with the federal government.

This section would authorize a database of gun owners that is accessible by “all members of the public, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces, and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau.” It also requires firearm purchasers be 21 years of age, have a background check and psychological evaluation, complete mandatory firearm training, as well as have valid insurance.

This section mandates antique firearms must be registered.

This section of H.R. 127 requires a psychological evaluation of the purchaser, as well as a psychological evaluation of household members, as well as submittal of character references.
This section permits denial of firearm ownership on the grounds of: hospitalization for any mental illness, disturbance or diagnosis (including depression), addiction, or brain disease.

This portion prohibits ammunition of .50 caliber or greater and high capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Houston, TX, has been a proponent of gun control for a long time. This life time politician, this Coup Party traitor, who has committed acts of sedition and treason, has attempted to introduce this bill in the past. She has also been for restricting certain types of guns and ammunition, having conveniently mistaken an AR-15’s ammunition for a .50 caliber bullet. Almost as in response to this Greg Abbott, governor of Texas has talked about making the state of Texas a “Sanctuary State” for the Second Amendment.


H.R. 127

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2021

Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A BILL

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act”.

SEC. 2. LICENSING OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION POSSESSION; REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS.

(a) Firearm Licensing And Registration System.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“§ 932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms

“(a) In General.—The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, shall establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration with the Bureau of each firearm present in the United States.

“(b) Firearm Registration System.—

“(1) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau—

“(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and

“(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.

“(2) DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made—

“(A) in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or

“(B) in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm.

“(3) DATABASE.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish and maintain a database of all firearms registered pursuant to this subsection.

“(B) ACCESS.—The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces, and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau.

“(c) Licensing System.—

“(1) REQUIREMENTS.—

“(A) GENERAL LICENSE.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to possess a firearm and ammunition if the individual—

“(i) has attained 21 years of age;

“(ii) after applying for the license—

“(I) undergoes a criminal background check conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the check does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the individual would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law;

“(II) undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm; and

“(III) successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training; and

“(iii) demonstrates that, on issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy issued under subsection (d).

“(B) ANTIQUE FIREARM DISPLAY LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to display an antique firearm in a residence of the individual if the individual—

“(i) is the holder of a license issued under subparagraph (A);

“(ii) supplies proof that the individual owns an antique firearm;

“(iii) describes the manner in which the firearm will be displayed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, and certifies that the firearm will be so displayed; and

“(iv) demonstrates that the individual has provided for storage of the firearm in a safe or facility approved by the Attorney General for the storage of firearms.

“(C) MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to own and possess a military-style weapon if the individual—

“(i) is the holder of a license issued under subparagraph (A); and

“(ii) after applying for a license under this subparagraph, successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of the weapon, that includes at least 24 hours of training and live fire training.

“(2) PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.—A psychological evaluation is conducted in accordance with this paragraph if—

“(A) the evaluation is conducted in compliance with such standards as shall be established by the Attorney General;

“(B) the evaluation is conducted by a licensed psychologist approved by the Attorney General;

“(C) as deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and

“(D) as part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.

“(3) DENIAL OF LICENSE.—

“(A) REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall deny such a license to an individual if—

“(i) the individual is prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm; or

“(ii) the individual has been hospitalized—

“(I) with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including depression, homicidal ideation, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, or addiction to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act) or alcohol), or a brain disease (including dementia or Alzheimer’s); or

“(II) on account of conduct that endangers self or others.

“(B) AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General may deny such a license to an individual if—

“(i) the psychological evaluation referred to in paragraph (2) indicates that the individual—

“(I) has a chronic mental illness or disturbance, or a brain disease, referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I);

“(II) is addicted to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act) or alcohol; or

“(III) has attempted to commit suicide; or

“(ii) prior psychological treatment or evaluation of the individual indicated that the individual engaged in conduct that posed a danger to self or others.

“(4) SUSPENSION OF LICENSE.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—A license issued under this subsection to an individual who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year is hereby suspended.

“(B) AUTHORIZED FOR LACK OF FIREARM INSURANCE.—The Attorney General may suspend a license issued under this subsection to an individual who has violated section 922(dd) in the most recent 12-month period.

“(5) REVOCATION OF LICENSE.—A license issued under this subsection to an individual who is or becomes prohibited by Federal or State law from possessing a firearm is hereby revoked. Such an individual shall immediately return the license, and surrender all firearms and ammunition owned or possessed by the individual, to the Attorney General.

“(6) EXPIRATION OF LICENSE.—A license issued to an individual under this subsection shall expire—

“(A) in the case of a license that has been in effect for less than 5 years, 1 year after issuance or renewal, as the case may be; or

“(B) in the case of a license that has been in effect for at least 5 years, 3 years after the most recent date the license is renewed.

“(7) RENEWAL OF LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall renew a license issued to an individual under this subsection if the individual—

“(A) requests the renewal by the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date the license expires;

“(B) in the 3-year period ending with the date the renewal is requested—

“(i) has met the requirement of paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(II); and

“(ii) has successfully completed a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 8 hours of training;

“(C) meets the requirement of paragraph (1)(A)(iii); and

“(D) in the case of a license issued under paragraph (1)(C), in the 2-year period ending with the date the renewal is requested, has successfully completed a training course, certified by the Attorney General, that includes at least 8 hours of training in the use of the weapon subject to the license.

“(d) Firearm Insurance.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.

“(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800.”.

(2) MILITARY-STYLE WEAPON DEFINED.—Section 921(a) of such title is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

“(30) The term ‘military-style weapon’ means—

“(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—

“(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

“(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

“(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);

“(iv) Colt AR–15;

“(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

“(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;

“(vii) Steyr AUG;

“(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and

“(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

“(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

“(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(iii) a bayonet mount;

“(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

“(v) a grenade launcher;

“(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

“(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

“(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

“(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

“(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

“(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

“(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—

“(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

“(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”.

(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
“932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms.”.

(4) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT.—Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prescribe final regulations to implement the amendments made by this subsection.

(b) Prohibitions; Penalties.—

(1) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition, unless—

“(1) the person is carrying a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1); and

“(2)(A) in the case of a firearm owned by the person, the firearm is registered to the person under section 932(b); or

“(B) in the case of a firearm owned by another person—

“(i) the firearm is so registered to such other person; and

“(ii) such other person has notified the Attorney General that the firearm has been loaned to the person, and the possession is during the loan period specified in the notice.

“(bb)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed under section 932(c)(1).

“(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.

“(3) It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.

“(4) It shall be unlawful for a person holding a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1) to transfer a firearm to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.

“(cc) A person who possesses a firearm or to whom a license is issued under section 932(c)(1) shall have in effect an insurance policy issued under section 932(d).”.

(2) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both.

“(9)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $75,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years, or both.

“(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(2) shall be fined not less than $30,000 and not more than $50,000, imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years, or both.

“(C) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(3) shall be fined not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000.

“(D) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both.

“(10) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(cc) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.”.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(A) ELIMINATION OF PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED FIREARM REGISTRATION SYSTEM.—Section 926(a) of such title is amended by striking the 2nd sentence.

(B) APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AND MILITARY FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.—Section 925(a) of such title is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting “and except for section 932,” after the 2nd comma.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall take effect on the date final regulations are prescribed under subsection (a)(4).

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(dd)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.

“(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to—

“(i) the manufacture for, or possession by, the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or the possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

“(ii) the possession by an employee or contractor of a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 on-site for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

“(iii) the manufacture or possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General; or

“(iv) the manufacture for, or possession by, an organization that provides firearm training and that is registered with the Attorney General, or the possession by an individual to whom such an organization is providing firearm training during and at the location of the training.”.

(b) Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Defined.—Section 921(a) of such title, as amended by section 1 of this Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (30) the following:

“(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”.

(c) Penalties.—Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(11)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.

“(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(2) shall be fined not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000, imprisoned not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or both.”

Categories
Articles

Biden Promises Jobs Kills Jobs in Same Breath

= The Daily Sniff =

Biden says, “it’s about jobs, good paying union jobs; it’s about workers; building our economy back better than before. It’s a whole government approach with climate change at the center of our domestic, national security and foreign policy. It’s amassing conservation, revitalizing communities, and in the cities and in the farm lands. It’s securing environmental justice.”

Giberish. Tens of thousands of jobs were wiped out by Biden when he shut down work on the Keystone Pipeline. Laid off workers said Biden made jobs for unemployment officers because they’d need more of them to process all the unemployment claims heading their way. But don’t forget, the Keystone Pipeline was shut down in the name of climate crisis and the continued battle against the unseen enemy: C02.


Climate Crisis EOs
* Ban on new leases for oil and gas drilling
* Ban on fracking on federal lands
* Revocation of lease for Keystone pipeline (previous week)


Who’s to say the Democrats, the Coup Party, don’t turn around and dig that oil up anyway and send that oil to China? Why not? It’s the most practical thing to do as China is part of the Paris Accords only voluntarily and have no dues to pay and no responsibility to their carbon footprint or their emissions. Can it at least be noted that the approval by Trump on the Keystone saw an environmentally sound and clean extraction system?

It was climate day at the faux White House where O’Biden, his face practically falling off, said climate day was “job day.” Still, Biden’s promises for green jobs and compliance with the Paris Accords means Americans can depend on jobs to continue disappearing. Small jobs. Independent employers. Entrepreneurs. Drivers of economy will be able to settle in to their public sector jobs processing jobless claims and required government assistance. The Republicans, the Coup Party, will most likely be complicit and not challenge or overturn these Executive Orders issued by illegitimate President Select, Joe Biden.

Categories
Articles

Can President Trump be Impeached AGAIN?

In the midst of a heavily contested election, one in which an insurmountable tower of evidence has been discovered and disseminated to the American public and presented in civil lawsuits filed in at least four states on behalf of the President Trump’s legal team, is it possible for House and Senate Democrats (and Republicans) push for and succeed in impeaching President Trump again? One might ask, why would these corrupt politicians seek to impeach President Trump when their candidate appears to have won the election and is touting the title President-Elect? And how would this be beneficial to them? And furthermore, on what grounds would they impeach him?

A handy-dandy podcast host, Tore Lindman, got my gears in motion when she presented this notion on her program, Tore Says. She postulated that should the Supreme Court give the election to Donald Trump in the face of damning evidence which runs from hundreds of affidavits by personal witnesses to voter and ballot fraud and irregularities to now video evidence of these crimes taking place, that the house Democrats (and Republicans) could put into motion an impeachment of President Trump that would be upheld by the Constitution of these United States of America. Well, this was more than a theory without evidence, as I discovered by perusing the internet to put my mind at ease in regards to the next sideshow the Coup Party would present to the American people.

While searching the internet on the basis for impeachment of a president, I found this document prepared by the majority staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. Even with a Forward by Chair of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (Coup Party), stating “The views and conclusions contained in the report are staff views and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee on the Judiciary or any of its members,” I find it interesting they had such a document prepared and outline the various ways in which they may succeed in impeaching a president they strongly oppose for political reasons and reasons that have yet to come to light by the majority of the American people and the world.

In regards to the “final” impeachment of Donald Trump and what grounds the Democrats (and Republicans) would use, article IV, section C, titled “Abuse, Betrayal & Corruption” outlines grounds for impeachment based on abuse of power, entanglement in foreign bribes, but more importantly: CORRUPTION OF Office or ELECTIONS.

An inference on this prepared report would suggest that the Democrats (and Republicans) could motion for impeachment on the basis that President Trump corrupted and interfered with an election to retain power or in pursuit of his own self-interest. The motion for impeachment could stand considering the stonewalling of the evidence, and the rampant denial by any opponent of President, as well as members of his own party. The fact that several GOP representatives have, at the time of this writing, signed an Amicus Brief in support of the state of Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin, is assuring to suit watchers, however, would only go to add ammunition to the Coup Party’s assertion of impeachment. And now as more than twenty states have formed a coalition against this lawsuit, a clear divide is beginning to show among these United States of America (as President Trump won in a landslide victory, turning almost every state in the nation red, I would say it is now time for those Trump supporters in blue states to get loud and persistent with their supposedly duly elected leaders).

Still, opponents of President Trump could only pull this impeachment off with the aid of their media counterparts and supporters, every major news media outlet in print and in television. “News” outlets have already begun to spin the story:

The full-fledge support of every major news outlet, including FOX News, for the Democrat party, and against President Donald Trump has become ever apparent to the American people. As Project Veritas has heroically revealed the unfair and biased coverage of President Trump’s efforts to expose the fraud and stealing of the 2020 Presidential Elections, and social media giants Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (and any platforms and subsidiaries they own) to all but stifle dissent against the egregious and treasonous coup against the will of the people and these United States of America, one can fathom the possibility of such a sideshow as a new impeachment against President Trump to take center stage in what they hope is the final days of his administration. The members of the Coup Party will stop at nothing to keep President Trump from taking office in his rightful second term, and through this impeachment, not only to add insult to injury, but also find a means from keeping him from running in 2024. It is the opinion of this writer that if Trump does not maintain the office we, the people of these United States of America, elected him to, there will not be an election in 2024 meaningful enough to consider just and Constitutional, or a representation of a free and sovereign people.

Mr. C
for Q & A Holes Podcast

Categories
Articles

Twitter & Facebook Senate Hearing: The Coup Party Pushes Lies

Senate Judicial Hearing – “Breaking the News: Censorhip, Suppression in 2020 Election” held on November 17, 2020.

Witnesses: Jack Dorsey/CEO Twitter
Mark Zuckerberg/CEO Facebook

In regard to the obvious role social network giants, Twitter and Facebook, have played in dispensing information, flagging election posts, flagging accounts of individuals with specific political viewpoints, censoring posts of specific political content, locking or banning accounts of people in support of specific political viewpoints, or deleting accounts sharing beliefs, opinions, or analysis about the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election in these United States of America, the Senate called a Judiciary Hearing on Tuesday November 17, 2020 to address these issues specifically with two the CEOs of aforementioned social networks. This is not the first time Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, or Jack Dorsey of Twitter have paid a visit to Washington D.C. and sat down to answer questions under oath about their business, its role in social opinion shaping, and the legality of the actions taken against those of a specific political viewpoint or party.

Let’s be specific: In most, if not all cases, these actions are against individuals registered as Republican, individuals self-identified as Conservative or Constitutional, self-identified as President Trump supporters, whom openly supported President Trump, shared opinions in support of Trump as victor of the 2020 Presidential election, or shared opinions against or not in favor of Democrat nominee Joe Biden or not in favor of Democrat policy or actions.

The stage set, one wonders exactly how this hearing may have gone with GOP senators on one side of the coin and Democrat senators on the other. Senator Lindsey Graham led hearing opening with questions about who sets policy at the respective companies as users of the social media sites may have noted a series of policy changes prompted randomly seemingly throughout the first term of Republican President Donald Trump, but never more frequently than the weeks leading up to and beyond the 2020 Presidential Elections. Graham also opened with the question of who the companies used as ‘fact checkers,’ Zuckerberg replying the use of organizations approved by the Pointer Institute, including: Reuters, the AP, USA Today, Fact Check (dot) org, Science Feedback, and Politfact among others. Senator Cruz took Twitter’s Dorsey to task in regards to rampant voter fraud, citing a case in Texas of a woman indicted with 134 counts of voter fraud, and Senator Hawley laying down the heat by calling out the use of the internal ‘Tasks’ program that is used by Facebook employees whom are part of groups such a” the “Integrity Team,” and the “Hate Speech Engineering Team” that is in charge of identifying what hashtags, websites, and individuals to ban from their platform. Standout interactions included a calm, almost conversational chat from

Senator Kennedy
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Senator Kennedy who implemented a cordial commonsense approach that was almost irrefutable by witnesses alike, and a fiery close by Senator Blackburn who not only pointed out their contradictions in profile censorship, but spoke on her own behalf as being flagged on comments she made that had nothing to do with the elections.

The painfully obvious stand down of the Democrat senators in questioning the two CEOs, with exception to former presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar who asked questions regarding apparent violating possible antitrust laws (which they may be looking at implementing) for making it harder for some platforms to integrate with their own, citing the monopoly Facebook may have been forming with the acquirement of Instagram, a “nascent” [platform] that “if rose to power could hurt [Facebook].” Other senators avoided such questioning and focused on the social media websites’ lack of follow through and integrity in regards to banning certain profiles. Senator Blumenthal, for example, pressed Zuckerberg about why he had not banned Steve Bannon’s account and wanted him to commit to doing so. Senator Feinstein pressed Dorsey about President Trump’s account and asked why he’d been allowed to spread conspiracy threats about the outcome of the election. She stated it was not enough that his tweet about 2.7 million votes being deleted to merely be flagged, saying Trump tweeted false information with no basis in facts. Still others on the panel, such as Senator Whitehouse, soft balled the CEOs allowing them to defer to a written response.

Treasonous Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono

The most egregious of the Senators, however, went to Hawaii senator, Mazie Hirono who emphasized the “truth is Joe Biden won as confirmed by the A.P.” and other “major news networks.” Senator Hirono, whom often comes off like a scathing snake in the grass, unrelenting and unrepentant, did not feel merely flagging tweets was enough in the case of President Trump.

This reporter finds it hard to believe that these Democrat Senators, proud members of the Coup Party, continue to carry the fire for the A.P. and other news networks as if these agencies are those that determine the outcome of the election. If it is not enough to flag a comment about President Trump to spread “false information” about the outcome of the election, is it not enough to flag the tweets of such treasonous senators that have ignored the process of declaring elections, and speaking at this hearing and before the American people as if the A.P. and other news agencies determine the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election? Perhaps they depend on the thought that their constituency does not know the process by which the winner of a presidential election is determined. They have ignored the fact that at the time of this hearing no states had declared a winner, let alone certified their respective contest. They have ignored the fact that each states electors had not met to cast the vote for each contest. Even during the 2004 elections, Democrat nominee Al Gore did not concede the race until mid December. Some states allow up to a month after the election to certify the winning vote. Amid the claims of unruly discrepancies and behavior at poll cites by Democrat representatives that have been reported in hundreds of sworn affidavits, and the mounting evidence of voting and ballot fraud as purported in unsecure vote counting software and sudden inclusion of illegitimate ballots that appear to be “stuffing the ballot box,” should these senators reconsider their choice of words when disseminating opinions and points-of-view? Would this not be the sensible, responsible, and American thing to do? Clearly not for members of the Democrat Party, those speaking on behalf of what this reporter has legitimately rechristened, the Coup Party.


Mr. C
for Q & A Holes Podcast