Who has Biden exempted from his vaccine mandate?

Illegal aliens

I would quote a greater part of the Daily Wire article telling you how Jen Psaki ignored a question on how illegal aliens will not be required to adhere to the vaccine mandate; however, why drill in on things that you likely know?

Just as with other topics, liberal Biden shows himself to be predictably inconsistent

You already know that Joe Biden and the vacuous Millennial liberals in the White House hate Americans. Therefore, there seems little need to drag out an explanation of how liberals hate America. Nobody can cogently argue against the facts: they work to undermine our youths’ understanding of the origins of the nation (or approve of the working), they proselytize children into their cause (or finance this proselytization through our own tax dollars), and call for some groups to be condemned for the sins of their purported fathers while simultaneously insisting that the sins of the 9/11 terrorists (or the Islamist attacks on American soil that followed during the Obama years).

Therefore, why show any surprise when Dementia Joe (without comment) exempts illegal aliens from COVID-19 vaccination while he tries to terrorize Americans over the disease?

New York City Teachers’ Union Members

Spectrum News points to the possibility that New York teachers may be exempt from the vaccine mandate.

A resolution between the city and the union for public school teachers will grant new options for educators who are not vaccinated against COVID-19.

An independent arbitrator announced late Friday that teachers with specific documented medical or religious exemptions must be offered alternative work assignments. The arbitrator also said remote work must be available for vaccinated teachers with suppressed immune systems.

The arbitration calls for unpaid leave with health coverage, or a severance arrangement, for those who refuse to get the shot and do not qualify for an exemption. That unpaid leave would last through September of next year.

Schools Chancellor Meisha Porter commended the swiftness of the decision, saying, “We’re pleased that the binding Arbitration was issued before the first day of school and we will swiftly implement the terms.”

The teacher vaccine mandate is scheduled to go into effect Sept. 27.

According to the city education department, as of Friday morning at least 74% of department employees have been vaccinated, although the United Federation of Teachers union estimates over 80% of teachers have already been vaccinated.

There will be more than 700 vaccination sites in public schools across the city when classes begin Monday.

(Read more at Spectrum News)

While this mandate may be more related to the New York vaccination mandate, radio reports have suggested AFT deals to protect teachers

Although the above report may center on the New York vaccine mandate, reports heard on various radio stations have suggested that the AFT has secured a deal with Biden.

Post office workers

The Epoch Times reports that Biden has exempt U.S. Postal workers from his vaccine mandate.

The United States Postal Service is not one of the agencies compelled to require COVID-19 vaccination under President Joe Biden’s new executive order, a spokesman said Friday.

“The COVID-19 vaccination requirements included in the White House executive order issued on September 9, 2021, for federal employees do not apply to the Postal Service,” a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service, or USPS, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Regarding other vaccination rules expected to be issued by the federal government, the Postal Service has no comment until those rules are issued and we have had a chance to review them,” he added.

Biden on Thursday ordered all federal employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine, with limited exceptions for approved medical or religious reasons.

“It is essential that Federal employees take all available steps to protect themselves and avoid spreading COVID-19 to their co-workers and members of the public,” Biden said in the order.

Biden said in remarks from Washington that the order would “require all executive branch federal employees to be vaccinated—all.”

An Executive Branch Agency as defined in 5 U.S. Code § 105 “means an Executive department, a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.”

The Postal Service is an independent agency of the Executive Branch. It was established in 2006, replacing the Cabinet-level U.S. Post Office Department. The head of the Postal Service is chosen by a nine-person Board of Governors; the board members are appointed by the president and require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

(Read more at the Epoch Times)

As pointed out by the Klain retweet, Biden does not have the authority

As mentioned in a previous post where it was reported by Fox and discussed by Senator Ted Cruz, even the members of the Biden regime know that Biden does not have the authority to mandate vaccines.

Congress and Congressional staff

Newsweek points out that Congress and Congressional staff have been exempted from having to take the vaccine.

President Joe Biden‘s new vaccine mandates for federal employees don’t apply to members of Congress or those who work for Congress or the federal court system.

Biden issued two executive orders on Thursday requiring vaccination against COVID for federal workers and contractors who work for the federal government. He also asked the Department of Labor to issue an emergency order requiring businesses with more than 100 employees to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested on a weekly basis.

However, Biden’s order on federal workers applies to employees of the executive branch. The House of Representatives and the Senate belong to the separate legislative branch, and the courts to the judicial branch of the federal government.

Biden’s COVID action plan – “Path Out of the Pandemic” – published on the White House website makes the effect of the vaccine mandate clear.

The plan says: “Building on the President’s announcement in July to strengthen safety requirements for unvaccinated federal workers, the President has signed an Executive Order to take those actions a step further and require all federal executive branch workers to be vaccinated.”

(Read more at Newsweek)

As long as this is a democracy of a sort, at least the Congress will be immune to Biden’s dictates

Truth of the matter is that this should start with law passed by Congress.

Evacuees from Afghanistan

AP News reports that Afghan evacuees (possible Taliban terrorists) don’t need COVID tests.

Amid the chaos and confusion at the airport, the United States said it had taken at least one step to ease requirements for those seeking to leave: COVID-19 tests.

Although Afghanistan had been a hotspot for the coronavirus pandemic, the State Department said Thursday that evacuees are not required to get a negative COVID-19 result to travel.

“A blanket humanitarian waiver has been implemented for COVID testing for all persons the U.S. government is relocating from Afghanistan,” the department said.

It referred questions about how the matter would be handled once evacuees arrive in the United States to the Department of Health and Human Services. Medical exams, including coronavirus tests, had been required for evacuees prior to Taliban’s weekend takeover of Kabul, which added extra urgency to efforts to get at-risk Afghans out of the country.

(Read more at AP News)

Admittedly, this article came about before Biden issued his mandate

Because this article appeared before Biden issued his vaccine mandate, it does not directly address the of whether Biden would exempt Afghan evacuees from the vaccine mandate. However, since evacuees were exempt from COVID tests and since a similar group (illegal aliens) are exempt from the vaccine mandate, it seems likely that evacuees will be exempt from the mandate.


Truth is lies and lies are the truth in Joe Biden’s America

Senator Cruz told the truth. The $1.9 trillion law passed only by Democrats does give illegal aliens $1,400 relief checks

Senator Dick lied. Illegal aliens are getting COVID relief

Newsweek reports after the passing of the Democrat monstrosity that Senator Cruz did tell the truth.

SenCruzSenator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed an amendment to the American Rescue Plan that would bar illegal immigrants from access to the $1,400 stimulus checks.

His amendment was voted down after Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) criticized Cruz for trying to “rile people up over something that is not true.”

The Claim

Cruz claimed on Twitter that illegal immigrants would be eligible for the $1,400 stimulus checks included in the American Rescue Plan.

On March 6, Cruz tweeted, “When the checks go out, millions of illegal immigrants WILL GET $1400 checks.”

He wrote that many people considered illegal immigrants are those who have overstayed their visas, and therefore have Social Security numbers.

Cruz argued that the possession of Social Security numbers will allow unlawfully present individuals to obtain the stimulus money.

The Facts

Anyone who pays taxes in the United States as a resident is eligible for a stimulus payment under the American Rescue Plan. That includes non-citizens.

For example, a citizen of Canada who is living and working full time in the U.S. would have a Social Security number and would be eligible for a stimulus payment.

The United States Department of Homeland Security website describes unauthorized immigrants as foreign-born non-citizens who live in the United States without legal residence.

Individuals who overstay their visas but pay tax in the United States using a Social Security number can be eligible for stimulus payments. The most recent available data for the number of visa overstays in the United States is from 2019, released by the Department of Homeland Security. It said that 1.21 percent of visas in that year were overstayed, or 676,422 overstays. In 2019, student visas (1.52 percent) had a higher overstay rate than those from Canada and Mexico (.75 percent, 1.27 percent, respectively).

Illegal immigrants would not be eligible to receive a check if they do not have a Social Security number.

Immigrants who overstay their visas no longer are lawfully in the country but retain their Social Security numbers and therefore are eligible to receive a check.

“Technically, if they have overstayed their visa, they are here illegally,” a spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Newsweek. “If a visitor has not been granted an extension of status by USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services], then they are considered to be overstays and subject to deportable status under 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

But Durbin is not convinced that the number of overstays with Social Security cards is as high as Cruz said.


Anyone who has a green card is considered a legal permanent resident, and would be eligible for the stimulus payment.

The Ruling


Cruz’s claim that millions of illegal immigrants would receive stimulus payments is true, given the amount of people who have overstayed their visas over the years. Once they overstay, they technically are considered “illegal.”

(Read the whole story at Newsweek)

My objection to this stimulus is this: like American criminals who were in jail, they did not contribute legally to the economy

The one objection that I had to criminals who were in jail getting the stimulus was this: they did not contribute to our economy. A similar objection comes up for the illegals who will get stimulus checks under the Democrat plan: they did not legally contribute to the system.

I am all for citizens of the U.S. getting aid when they need it. However, for the Democrats to be handing out money like the neighborhood kid given charge of the Halloween bowl, this does not ring right.

Biden repeats his “President Harris” flub

In December, Biden called Harris “President-Elect Harris.” Now it’s “President Harris.”

Breitbart lets us know how Dementia Joe slipped for the second time, calling Kamala Harris “President Harris” at a White House event.

JoePresident Joe Biden mistakenly referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as “president” Thursday while delivering remarks at the White House regarding the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Biden suffered this latest brain freeze when addressing how minorities have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, underscoring the importance of distributing the coronavirus vaccine to such communities.

“The hardest hit that have suffered the most — especially black, Latino, Native American, and rural communities,” Biden said.  “We believe speed and efficiency must be matched with fairness and equity, now when President Harris and I took a virtual tour of vaccination center in Arizona not long ago, one of the nurses on that tour injecting people, giving vaccinations, said that each shot was like administering a dose of hope.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

I remember the press pointing “covefefe” out endlessly; however, I never remember President Trump calling Vice President Pence by anything but his title

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but President Trump may have been ridiculed for poor typing, for walking down slick steps slowly, and for mean tweets, but I don’t think he had nearly as many mental slips as dementia Joe has shown.

Jen Psaki lets the truth out after continuous denials

Jen Psaki admits that it is a crisis at the border

Breitbart comments on Jen Psaki’s flub over the illegal alien crisis at the border.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki walked back her description of the migrant crisis on the border as a “crisis” on Thursday.

During the White House press briefing, Psaki specifically used the phrase “crisis on the border” during a discussion about diplomatic relations with Mexico and the flood of migrants coming to the United States, even as she and top White House officials have repeatedly claimed there is no crisis on the border.

“When you were talking a moment ago about diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Mexico, you said, ‘crisis on the border,’” on reporter noted.

“Challenges on the border,” Psaki clarified.

(Read how the Democrats descended back into lies at Breitbart)

How can the Democrats do this? Could it be that it is in our sinful nature to repeat sin and other lies?

Like a dog that returns to its vomit,
So is a fool who repeats his foolishness. (Proberbs 26:11 NASB)

No reason to remain true to any but a few Republicans

Eight Republican senators voted to investigate voter fraud

The Gateway Pundit relayed the names of the eight Republicans who voted to investigate the fraud of Joe Biden.

The National Review reported:

HawleySenators Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who led initial efforts to object to the Electoral College results, both voted in favor of the objections to Arizona’s and Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. The two were joined by Senators Hyde Smith (R., Miss.), Roger Marshall (R., Ka.), and Tommy Tuberville (R., Ala.).

John Kennedy (R., La.) voted only for the Arizona objection while Rick Scott (R., Fla.) and Cynthia Lummis (R., Wy.) voted only for the Pennsylvania objection.

The UPI reported:

The House and Senate on Wednesday night voted to strike down an objection raised against Arizona’s electoral votes after the process of confirming the result of the 2020 presidential election was delayed for several hours due to a siege on the Capitol building by supporters of President Donald Trump.

CruzSenators voted 93-6 and the House voted 303-122 to reject the objection brought by Rep. Paul Gosar of Wyoming, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and other Republicans challenging Arizona’s electors and prompting Congress to retire to their respective chambers for debate.

Cruz and his fellow Republican Sens. Josh Hawley, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Roger Marshall, John Kennedy and Tommy Tuberville voted to sustain the objection.

(Read more at the Gateway Pundit)

Ted Cruz has won my loyalty

Ted Cruz has won my loyalty; however, for those who think themselves kingmakers — remember that Mitch McConnell was cutting out non-swampers like Cruz before he did the same to Trump. The primary reason that Trump came about was the swamp effect of Obama/McConnell and the rest of the Washington establishment. As the latest Supreme Court refusals to hear cases proved, the swamp reaches into areas where people have built “conservative” resumes.

These are the representatives who stood against voter fraud

According to the New York Times, these are the House members who stood to investigate voter fraud:

  • Robert B. Aderholt, Ala.
  • Mo Brooks, Ala.
  • Jerry Carl, Ala.
  • Barry Moore, Ala.
  • Gary Palmer, Ala.
  • Mike Rogers, Ala.
  • Andy Biggs, Ariz.
  • Paul Gosar, Ariz.
  • Debbie Lesko, Ariz.
  • David Schweikert, Ariz.
  • Rick Crawford, Ark.
  • Ken Calvert, Calif.
  • Mike Garcia, Calif.
  • Darrell Issa, Calif.
  • Doug LaMalfa, Calif.
  • Kevin McCarthy, Calif.
  • Devin Nunes, Calif.
  • Jay Obernolte, Calif.
  • Lauren Boebert, Colo.
  • Doug Lamborn, Colo.
  • Kat Cammack, Fla.
  • Mario Diaz-Balart, Fla.
  • Byron Donalds, Fla.
  • Neal Dunn, Fla.
  • Scott Franklin, Fla.
  • Matt Gaetz, Fla.
  • Carlos Gimenez, Fla.
  • Brian Mast, Fla.
  • Bill Posey, Fla.
  • John Rutherford, Fla.
  • Greg Steube, Fla.
  • Daniel Webster, Fla.
  • Rick Allen, Ga.
  • Earl L. “Buddy” Carter, Ga.
  • Andrew Clyde, Ga.
  • Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ga.
  • Jody Hice, Ga.
  • Barry Loudermilk, Ga.
  • Russ Fulcher, Idaho
  • Mike Bost, Ill.
  • Mary Miller, Ill.
  • Jim Baird, Ind.
  • Jim Banks, Ind.
  • Greg Pence, Ind.
  • Jackie Walorski, Ind.
  • Ron Estes, Kan.
  • Jacob LaTurner, Kan.
  • Tracey Mann, Kan.
  • Harold Rogers, Ky.
  • Garret Graves, La.
  • Clay Higgins, La.
  • Mike Johnson, La.
  • Steve Scalise, La.
  • Andy Harris, Md.
  • Jack Bergman, Mich.
  • Lisa McClain, Mich.
  • Tim Walberg, Mich.
  • Michelle Fischbach, Minn.
  • Jim Hagedorn, Minn.
  • Michael Guest, Miss.
  • Trent Kelly, Miss.
  • Steven Palazzo, Miss.
  • Sam Graves, Mo.
  • Vicky Hartzler, Mo.
  • Billy Long, Mo.
  • Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mo.
  • Jason Smith, Mo.
  • Matt Rosendale, Mont.
  • Dan Bishop, N.C.
  • Ted Budd, N.C.
  • Madison Cawthorn, N.C.
  • Virginia Foxx, N.C.
  • Richard Hudson, N.C.
  • Gregory F. Murphy, N.C.
  • David Rouzer, N.C.
  • Jeff Van Drew, N.J.
  • Yvette Herrell, N.M.
  • Chris Jacobs, N.Y.
  • Nicole Malliotakis, N.Y.
  • Elise M. Stefanik, N.Y.
  • Lee Zeldin, N.Y.
  • Adrian Smith, Neb.
  • Steve Chabot, Ohio
  • Warren Davidson, Ohio
  • Bob Gibbs, Ohio
  • Bill Johnson, Ohio
  • Jim Jordan, Ohio
  • Stephanie Bice, Okla.
  • Tom Cole, Okla.
  • Kevin Hern, Okla.
  • Frank Lucas, Okla.
  • Markwayne Mullin, Okla.
  • Cliff Bentz, Ore.
  • John Joyce, Pa.
  • Fred Keller, Pa.
  • Mike Kelly, Pa.
  • Daniel Meuser, Pa.
  • Scott Perry, Pa.
  • Guy Reschenthaler, Pa.
  • Lloyd Smucker, Pa.
  • Glenn Thompson, Pa.
  • Jeff Duncan, S.C.
  • Ralph Norman, S.C.
  • Tom Rice, S.C.
  • William Timmons, S.C.
  • Joe Wilson, S.C.
  • Tim Burchett, Tenn.
  • Scott DesJarlais, Tenn.
  • Chuck Fleischmann, Tenn.
  • Mark E. Green, Tenn.
  • Diana Harshbarger, Tenn.
  • David Kustoff, Tenn.
  • John Rose, Tenn.
  • Jodey Arrington, Texas
  • Brian Babin, Texas
  • Michael C. Burgess, Texas
  • John R. Carter, Texas
  • Michael Cloud, Texas
  • Pat Fallon, Texas
  • Louie Gohmert, Texas
  • Lance Gooden, Texas
  • Ronny Jackson, Texas
  • Troy Nehls, Texas
  • August Pfluger, Texas
  • Pete Sessions, Texas
  • Beth Van Duyne, Texas
  • Randy Weber, Texas
  • Roger Williams, Texas
  • Ron Wright, Texas
  • Burgess Owens, Utah
  • Chris Stewart, Utah
  • Ben Cline, Va.
  • Bob Good, Va.
  • Morgan Griffith, Va.
  • Robert J. Wittman, Va.
  • Carol Miller, W.Va.
  • Alexander X. Mooney, W.Va.
  • Scott Fitzgerald, Wis.
  • Tom Tiffany, Wis.

(Read the article at the New York Times)

Whenever possible, I will support these representatives

For example, if Louie Gohmert primaries John Cornyn (the senator who I will never again vote for), I will vote for Louie Gohmert.

Here’s the list: 83 GOP lawmakers refused to object to rampant fraud in the Arizona Presidential election

The Gateway Pundit also provided a list of 83 RINO representatives who would not support looking into rampant fraud in the Arizona Presidential election.

Amodei Republican Nevada NAY
Armstrong Republican North Dakota NAY
Bacon Republican Nebraska NAY
Balderson Republican Ohio NAY
Barr Republican Kentucky NAY
Bentz Republican Oregon NAY
Buchanan Republican Florida NAY
Buck Republican Colorado NAY
Bucshon Republican Indiana NAY
Chabot Republican Ohio NAY
Cheney Republican Wyoming NAY
Comer Republican Kentucky NAY
Crenshaw Republican Texas NAY
Curtis Republican Utah NAY
Davis, Rodney Republican Illinois NAY
Emmer Republican Minnesota NAY
Feenstra Republican Iowa NAY
Ferguson Republican Georgia NAY
Fitzpatrick Republican Pennsylvania NAY
Fortenberry Republican Nebraska NAY
Foxx Republican North Carolina NAY
Gallagher Republican Wisconsin NAY
Garbarino Republican New York NAY
Gonzales, Tony Republican Texas NAY
Gonzalez (OH) Republican Ohio NAY
Graves (LA) Republican Louisiana NAY
Grothman Republican Wisconsin NAY
Guthrie Republican Kentucky NAY
Herrera Beutler Republican Washington NAY
Hill Republican Arkansas NAY
Hinson Republican Iowa NAY
Hollingsworth Republican Indiana NAY
Huizenga Republican Michigan NAY
Johnson (SD) Republican South Dakota NAY
Joyce (OH) Republican Ohio NAY
Katko Republican New York NAY
Keller Republican Pennsylvania NAY
Kinzinger Republican Illinois NAY
Kustoff Republican Tennessee NAY
LaHood Republican Illinois NAY
Latta Republican Ohio NAY
Mace Republican South Carolina NAY
Massie Republican Kentucky NAY
McCaul Republican Texas NAY
McClintock Republican California NAY
McHenry Republican North Carolina NAY
McKinley Republican West Virginia NAY
Meijer Republican Michigan NAY
Meuser Republican Pennsylvania NAY
Miller-Meeks Republican Iowa NAY
Moolenaar Republican Michigan NAY
Mooney Republican West Virginia NAY
Moore (UT) Republican Utah NAY
Murphy (NC) Republican North Carolina NAY
Newhouse Republican Washington NAY
Owens Republican Utah NAY
Pence Republican Indiana NAY
Reed Republican New York NAY
Rodgers (WA) Republican Washington NAY
Roy Republican Texas NAY
Schweikert Republican Arizona NAY
Scott, Austin Republican Georgia NAY
Simpson Republican Idaho NAY
Smith (NJ) Republican New Jersey NAY
Smucker Republican Pennsylvania NAY
Spartz Republican Indiana NAY
Stauber Republican Minnesota NAY
Stefanik Republican New York NAY
Steil Republican Wisconsin NAY
Stewart Republican Utah NAY
Stivers Republican Ohio NAY
Taylor Republican Texas NAY
Thompson (PA) Republican Pennsylvania NAY
Turner Republican Ohio NAY
Upton Republican Michigan NAY
Van Duyne Republican Texas NAY
Wagner Republican Missouri NAY
Waltz Republican Florida NAY
Wenstrup Republican Ohio NAY
Westerman Republican Arkansas NAY
Wittman Republican Virginia NAY
Womack Republican Arkansas NAY
Young Republican Alaska NAY

(Read the full post at the Gateway Pundit)

Representative Dan Crenshaw has seen the last vote from me, but far from the last opposition

My representative is on the list above. Thus, if a conservative primaries him, I will vote for his opposition.

If he makes it past the primaries, I will just leave that vote blank. If a pro-life libertarian runs against him, I will vote for the pro-life libertarian.

What was sauce for the goose in 2017 will become sauce for the gander in 2021

In 2017, 11 times VP Biden was interrupted during Trump’s electoral vote certification

CNN provides details of the eleven objections to certifying electors for Trump in 2017.

Vice President Joe Biden presided over a joint session of Congress Friday, where members officially tallied electoral votes from the 2016 presidential election. President-elect Donald Trump’s 304 electoral votes weren’t counted without incident, however. During the course of the certification, House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiples states, with Biden gaveling them down for failure to follow the rules.

Objections to the votes needed to be in writing and signed by both a member of the House and a member of the Senate. Every House member who rose to object did so without a senator’s signature.

01 mcgovern1:09 P.M. ET: Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts rose to object to the certificate from Alabama.

“The electors were not lawfully certified, especially given the confirmed and illegal activities engaged by the government of Russia,” McGovern said.

Biden denied McGovern on the grounds that he didn’t have a senator’s signature on his written objection.

02 raskin1:14 P.M.: Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland rose to object to 10 of Florida’s 29 electoral votes.

“They violated Florida’s prohibition against dual office holders,” Raskin said.

Again, despite the fact that Raskin pointed out that he had his objection in writing, he failed to get a senator’s signature.

03 jayapal1:15 P.M.: No sooner had the Florida question been settled than its neighbor to the north was the subject of another objection, when Washington’s Rep. Pramila Jayapal objected to Georgia’s vote certificate.

“It is over,” Biden told the congresswoman.

04 lee1:21 P.M.: Rep. Barbara Lee of California brought up voting machines and Russian hacking when she objected following the counting of Michigan’s votes.

“People are horrified by the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our election,” Lee said.

Once again, her objection was denied for the lack of a senator’s signature. They also turned off her microphone.

05 jackson-lee1:23 P.M.: After New York’s tally was read, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas stood up to object.

“I object on the massive voter suppression that included –” Jackson Lee began.

“The debate is not in order,” Biden interrupted. Again, the congresswoman lacked a senator’s signature.

06 grijalva1:28 P.M.: Arizona’s Rep. Raul Grijalva rose to object after North Carolina’s tally. He tried to object on violations of the Voting Rights Act, but Biden shut him down.

As you may have guessed, he didn’t have the signature of a senator.

Once he gave up, Jackson Lee tagged him out and tried to object to the votes herself. They cut off her microphone, too.

“There is no debate. There is no debate. There is no debate,” a visibly agitated Biden said as he gaveled.

07 jackon-lee1:31 PM: Jackson Lee made another appearance minutes later after South Carolina’s certification.

“There is no debate in the joint session,” Biden said, shutting her down once more.

08-lee1:36 PM: Biden must have thought, after five minutes of peace and getting through the state of West Virginia, that the House members might observe the rules. Lee wasn’t even able to make it through her objection before Biden said, “There is no debate.”

They cut off her microphone again.

09 jackson-lee1:37 PM: Wisconsin’s votes had been read. With just Wyoming to go, the finish line was in reach.

Jackson Lee once again tried to make an objection on the grounds of Russian interference in the election.

“The objection cannot be received,” Biden said.

10 waters1:38 PM: The final state’s votes had been read. Then entered California Rep. Maxine Waters.

Taking a play from her own book – she objected to the certification of George W. Bush’s 2000 election – Waters admitted that she didn’t have a senator’s signature on her objection.

“I wish to ask: Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?” Waters asked. Through House Speaker Paul Ryan’s chuckle and boos from the rest of the chamber, it was clear that there was not.

1:40 PM: The states were counted, but three protestors started yelling from the visitors’ gallery of the chamber. At least one of them was reciting the Constitution as he was taken away by security.

Biden did not look thrilled.

But at the end of the day, despite the objections, Trump’s election was certified by Congress.

(Read this at CNN)

By doing this pointless exercise, are these Representatives pandering, are they trying to cheat the system, or are they just being unstudied and dumb?

At the end of the day of 6 January 2017, the Democrats seemed to want to deny Donald Trump his victory at the polls. They seemed to want to use Hillary Clinton’s opposition research (aka the Steele dossier — a file fed to former British spy Ken Steele alleging that Trump held connections to Russia) to deny electoral votes from Republican states. However, in the end, they seemed to fail. Why?

Was it really only their goal to pander? Because a number of them may have known that most citizens do not know that it is the Congress that certifies the election, were they building reputations as underdog fighters (even though they knew they were doing nothing)? Were they just shadow boxing? Did Representative Jackson-Lee get up there three times so that she could point back and say, “Look at me! I fought against the seating of President Trump!”

Conversely, was this another attempt to cheat the system? Did they think that, since Republicans like Mitch McConnell seem to always want to go along to get along with their fellow “civil servants,” that Joe Biden would bend the rules? Had he been able to do this under the cover of darkness between 1 and 2 a.m. and behind windows covered by Democrats, then maybe he might have. However, this was performed in accordance with the yet-unchanged Constitution where Congress meets at 1 p.m. on 6 January in view of cameras that broadcast to the entire world.

Finally, did they do it because they were just dumb? Considering that Sheila Jackson-Lee was one of the representatives who got up to speak more than once after being told that their attempts were insufficient (and how those attempts were insufficient), maybe so. Also considering that Representative Jackson-Lee (on another occasion) thought to ask of the Mars Rover operators, “What, what, is it going to go where the astronauts planted the flag?” Rather than being abjectly stupid, maybe they just completely underestimate their opponents. Maybe they don’t know that a number of conservative opponents know that it takes a written (not spoken) object that is signed by both at least one senator’s and one representative’s signature to object to the electors for one state. We also know that once the objection for that state’s electors is submitted, then the House and Senate retire to separate chambers to debate the objection. If the electors for only up to four states gather written objections with signatures from both the House and Senate happen on 6 January and if the Congress cannot resolve the issue within eight cumulative hours of debate, then the issue goes to the governor of each state involved. However, if the electors from more than four states are contested and if the debate stretches to a period longer than eight hours, the matter goes to state delegations in the House. Each state gets one vote. Currently, there are 26 Republican state delegations, 20 Democrat state delegations, and 4 split. The same ratio of Republican, Democrat, and mixed delegations were in place in 2017. Therefore, it would have been stupid to have gathered signatures from both sides if more than four states had been at the center of objections. That would have resulted in the vote on the electors going to 26 Republican state delegations.

GOP senators (including Cruz, Blackburn) to “reject the electors from disputed states” on 6 January

Breitbart explains how a select set of senators have committed to rejecting the electors of disputed states.

GOP senators, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Mike Braun (R-IN), are joining Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) in objecting to electoral college votes on January 6, they announced on Saturday in a joint statement alongside four senators-elect.

The senators and incoming lawmakers — including Sens.-elect Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) — released a joint statement on Saturday, expressing their intent to “reject the electors from disputed states” on January 6, explaining that the 2020 presidential election featured “unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities.”

“And those allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate. Instead, they are widespread,” the lawmakers said, citing a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing that over one-third of Americans, or 39 percent, believe the election was “rigged.”

“That belief is held by Republicans (67%), Democrats (17%), and Independents (31%),” the Republicans said, noting that some members of Congress disagree, “as do many members of the media.”

“But, whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear. It should concern us all. And it poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of any subsequent administrations,” they continued, explaining that, in an ideal world, the courts “would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud.”

The Supreme Court, however, declined to do so on two occasions, they argued.

“On January 6, it is incumbent on Congress to vote on whether to certify the 2020 election results. That vote is the lone constitutional power remaining to consider and force resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud,” they said, explaining the “long precedent of  Democratic Members of Congress raising objections to presidential election results, as they did in 1969, 2001, 2005, and 2017.”

They wrote:

And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged.

The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states—Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina—were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission—consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices—to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

“Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed,” they announced.

The GOP lawmakers contended that support of election integrity should “not be a partisan issue” and called for a “fair and credible audit” completed prior to inauguration day, expressing the belief that such would “dramatically improve Americans’ faith in our electoral process and would significantly enhance the legitimacy of whoever becomes our next President.”

“We owe that to the People,” they continued:

These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it. And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy.

The senators’ announcement puts them alongside Hawley, the first GOP senator to announce his intention to object to the electoral college votes in key states.

In a Wednesday release, the Missouri lawmaker explained that he could not vote to certify the results “without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.” He also said he could not do so “without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election, in support of Joe Biden.”

He, too, called on Congress to investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt election security measures. At this point, Hawley added, Congress failed to properly act on the matter.

“For these reasons, I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past and object during the certification process on January 6 to raise these critical issues,” he said.

At least 140 House Republicans are expected to object to an immediate certification of a Joe Biden victory, as Breitbart News detailed.

(Read the central point in the article as contained in the last two sentences at Breitbart)

Now this raises four questions

The first question is: “Are they really going into this to find the answers to questions that both Democrats and the Democrat press have suppressed since 3 November 2020?” If these Republicans are, then I fully support their efforts (that must be held in full view of everyone).

If the second question turns out to be: “Are they just pandering?” Then their actions will bear them out and we will see them for the empty shells and minions of Mitch McConnell that they are.

“Do they think that we are stupid?” If this question (along with the second) becomes evident, then we will know how to respond. We will know that we cannot elect another liberal or incumbent.

“Do they underestimate us?” If this question (along with the second and third) comes up, it is only because we complacently let it.

My calls and emails to my senators and my Representative

My calls and email to Senator Cruz’s offices

CruzOn 22 December 2020, I attempted to make the following call to (713) 718-3057 and (202) 224-5922. After getting busy tones on ten attempts at the 713 number and a message that the “mailbox was full” for talking to the office staff, I left a modified version of the following on his suggested legislation message box. I also used his email form to send the following message and let him know that I had left a phone message.

Hello. I am Mark Armstrong from Spring, Texas. I want Senator Cruz to know that I feel like Mitch McConnell has abandoned me to a fraudulent election. I expect Senator Cruz to second the objection to the Congressional certification of this mishandled Electoral College. Then, I will be expecting three things. First, before the New Year, I will be looking for a press release from Senator Cruz on his stand against a stolen election. Second, I want him to help build a coalition of senators who will support a Constitutional solution to this. Finally, Senator Cruz should prepare to debate on the floor of the Senate on 6 January 2021. If I do not feel represented, I will stop voting for incumbents. I need you to do this and vote for the alternate slate of electors. Otherwise, I will not support incumbents or (necessarily) Republicans.

My calls and email to Senator Cornyn’s offices

On 22 December 2020, I attempted to make the following call to (202) 224-2934. After getting a message that the “mailbox was full” for talking to the office staff, I called the Houston office [(713) 572-3337] and left my name, my zip, and the first four sentences of the message. I followed that by using his email form to send the message and let him know that I had left a message at his Houston office.

Hello. I am Mark Armstrong from Spring, Texas. I want you to know that I feel like Mitch McConnell has abandoned me to a fraudulent election. I expect you to second the objection to the Congressional certification of this mishandled Electoral College. Then, I will be expecting three things. First, before the New Year, I will be looking for a press release from you on his stand against a stolen election. Second, I want you to help build a coalition of senators who will support a Constitutional solution to this. Finally, you should prepare to debate on the floor of the Senate on 6 January 2021. If I do not feel represented, I will stop voting for incumbents. I need you to do this and vote for the alternate slate of electors. Otherwise, I will not support incumbents or (necessarily) Republicans.

My calls and email to Representative Dan Crenshaw

CrenshawOn 22 December 2020, I attempted calling (281) 640-7720. The call went to a voicemail overflow message.  Then I called (202) 225-6565 and left a message consisting of my name, zip, and the first four sentences of this message. I also sent this message via email.

Hello. I am Mark Armstrong from Spring, Texas. I want you to join Representative Mo Brooks to stand against a fraudulent election. I expect you to second the objection to the Congressional certification of this mishandled Electoral College. Then, I will be expecting three things. First, before the New Year, I will be looking for a press release from you on his stand against a stolen election. Second, I want you to help build a coalition of representatives who will support a Constitutional solution to this. Finally, you should prepare to debate on the floor of the House on 6 January 2021. If I do not feel represented, I will stop voting for incumbents. I need you to do this and vote for the alternate slate of electors for the contested states. Otherwise, I will not support incumbents or (necessarily) Republicans.

A series of tweets that pull out the best of the ACB hearings today

While we don’t have the circus of the Kavanaugh hearings, we do have some sterling moments

Because I feel that I have spent too much time on some of the negatives pulled out of the ether by Democrats, I have compiled a mostly positive set of Twitter videos encapsulating the ACB hearings today.

Does Twitter have standards it applies to all?

Twitter sends a link saying it limits users to following 5K users

On Sunday, 11 March 2018, I started getting linked messages from Twitter.

 According to the Twitter Lords, I had reached the magic number of having followed 5,000 other Twitter users and would not be allowed to follow any more.

That did not seem to match with the numbers I had seen on other’s profiles; therefore, I looked at the liberal postings at #MorningJoe.

Here are five proofs that Twitter does not limit everyone to following 5K users

As you can see from the screen captures below, Twitter allows these liberal users to follow quite a few more than 5,000. Admittedly, they all are followed by more than they follow.

However, my trajectory has been nearly one-to-one follow and be followed. By being limited on the number of follows I can execute, it seems very likely my number of follows will suffer.

Since then, I have been able to get up to following 5,001

At times, I have been knocked down to following 4,984. Hopefully, this blog post will let my Twitter friends know that I am not wanting to ignore them. It seems I’m being forced into this by Twitter.


Instances of anti-conservative discrimination by Twitter

Project Veritas records Twitter engineers admitting to “shadow banning”

In the following video, Twitter engineers admit to “shadow banning” (where they shut off your ability to communicate across Twitter).

Project Veritas records a former Twitter employee admitting to censorship

The following video shows a former Twitter employee admitting that they bowed to the demands of foreign governments and censored tweets of certain accounts.

Senator Ted Cruz refers to Veritas videos while grilling a Twitter executive

Here, Senator Ted Cruz asked questions of a Twitter executive regarding the revelations made in the two videos above (plus many more posted at the Project Veritas YouTube site).

Gretchen Smith encourages Pennsylvanians to vote despite her being censored


One Common Factor Between Las Vegas, New York, Sutherland Springs, & Tehama County

Blogger finds one common factor between the Las Vegas, New York, Sutherland Springs, and Tehama County

Motive still unexplained for the Las Vegas attack

In a 20 October 2017 CNN article, the author admitted:

The lack of answers, especially about the timeline, seems all the more curious when, it would appear, many moments in the shooter’s dayslong preparation — and the actual assault — were captured by hotel video surveillance or by cameras the gunman himself installed in his suite and hallway.

For the current main stream media journalists, the crush of time must prevent any research beyond the notes handed out by the local law enforcement officers. Otherwise, they might discover that Stephen Paddock regularly verbally abused his girlfriend (Marilou Danley) or that he had an abnormal gambling habit. Whether this indicates an underlying mental health issue, the issue certainly can be debated.

A Socialist news site struggles to explain the Halloween New York bike path attack

A 2 November 2017 installment of Socialist Worker opined over their inability to discern the stated objective of the Islamic terrorist, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov.

Coming less than a month after Stephen Paddock gunned down 58 people at a country music concert in Las Vegas, it seems like would-be killers are competing to come up with the most horrifying atrocities, whether or not they pledge allegiance to ISIS, as Saipov allegedly did.

It’s too early to know much more about Saipov and his motivations, but it can be clearly stated from the beginning that if he did think murdering innocent people in New York City would in any way strike a blow against the forces of U.S. empire that are oppressing Muslims across the world, he was horribly wrong.

Admittedly, I had to wade through a number of sites that saw the truth; however, this socialist website remained true to the message that initially appeared on many main stream sites like CNN.

Sutherland Springs

The Washingon Post continued this theme in a 6 November 2017 article by claiming to see no motive.

While authorities have not publicly identified a motive for the attack, they emphasized that the shooting did not appear to be fueled by racial or religious issues, as has been the case with other rampages at U.S. houses of worship. Instead, they pointed to the gunman’s issues with his relatives, saying that Kelley had been sending “threatening texts” to his mother-in-law, who was not at the First Baptist Church when he opened fire on the congregation Sunday morning.

“This was not racially motivated, it wasn’t over religious beliefs,” Freeman Martin, a regional director with the Texas Department of Public Safety, said at a news briefing Monday. “There was a domestic situation going on within the family and the in-laws.”

Yeah, the Washington Post thinks wasn’t fueled by religious issues (although the shooter had previously railed against Christians on Facebook and did not stop shooting when he saw his in-laws were not at the church). Then again, the Washington Post has been known to slant things the ways they want to slant them.

NPR tells of the lack of motives in Tehama County

As told in a National Public Radio article, it seems that there are again no motives for the murders of innocents.

Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said police recovered two semi-automatic rifles with “a number of multiround clips. These firearms were manufactured illegally, we believe, by him at his home.” Johnston said Neal also had two handguns registered in someone else’s name.

Johnston said police believe that Neal killed his wife Monday night after the two had quarreled and that he stashed her body beneath the floorboards.

“We believe that is what started this whole event,” he said in a news conference Wednesday.

But Johnston also said police have not yet determined a motive for the shootings. “I think he was just on a rampage. I think he had a desire to kill as many people as he could, and whether or not he had a desire to die at the hands of police, I don’t know.”

So, while skirting around the fact that gun laws were in effect in Tehama County when this man used other people’s identities and his own skills to both buy and make guns for murder, NPR focuses on the fact that nobody can pin down a reason for the murders. Considering that these acts likely came from a deranged mind, who will?

Other Considerations

Devin Kelley sent messages to his in-laws at the church

Newsmax reported in a 6 November 2017 story how the atheist had been sending threatening texts to his mother-in-law prior to making the murderous rampage.

The gunman who murdered 26 people at a Texas church Sunday is believed to have been driven by a “domestic” dispute, officials said Monday.

“This was not racially motivated, it wasn’t over religious beliefs. There was a domestic situation going on with the family and in-laws,” Freeman Martin, regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told a news conference.

“The suspect’s mother-in-law attended this church,” he said, adding that 26-year-old shooter Devin Patrick Kelley had sent her “threatening texts” prior to the mass shooting.

“We know he sent threatening … that she had received threatening text messages from him,” Martin said.

Kelley’s in-laws were not at First Baptist’s church service Sunday, but did go there to talk to authorities Sunday afternoon.

“I heard that they attended church from time to time, not on a regular basis,” Sheriff Joe Tackitt said earlier Monday.

Martin also there is video from inside the church, but is not prepared to speak about what it shows, at this time.

ATF agent Fred Milanowski said during a news conference Monday that officers recovered a Ruger AR-556 rifle at the church.

Milanowski said two additional handguns were recovered from the vehicle driven by Kelley — a Glock 9mm and a Ruger .22-caliber. Milanowski says all three weapons were purchased by the now-deceased suspect.

(Read more at Newsmax)

In addition to this report, there are also a number of articles that tell us how Devin Kelley regularly went on anti-Christian rants and berated anyone who believed in God. Therefore, to say that this was just a domestic dispute would seem to be cutting a large part of the story out.

Air Force admits it should have followed procedures

A 6 November 2017 Washington Times article centers on the Air Force admission that it mistakenly did not inform the FBI of Devin Kelley’s domestic abuse of his family (one of several things that should have stopped Devin Kelley from buying any guns).

The Air Force launched a review Monday after admitting that it had blundered by failing to submit Devin Patrick Kelley’s criminal history to the FBI background check system, thus providing ammunition to both sides of the gun control debate.

On the one hand, gun control advocates called for closing loopholes and tightening background checks in the aftermath of the mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that left 26 dead and 20 wounded.

On the other hand, Second Amendment supporters argued that the Air Force’s mistake comes as another example of gun control measures failing to stop mass shootings, even as a former National Rifle Association instructor was able to stop Kelley.

“No amount of top-down gun control is going to stop a determined killer — whether it’s from human error or from killers stealing their weapons,” said Gun Owners of America spokesman Jordan Stein. “The Sandy Hook shooter in Connecticut stole his AR-15. So did the Clackamas mall shooter in Oregon.”

Mr. Stein added, “What actually stops an evil psychopath is what we saw on Sunday — a good guy with a gun.”

The Air Force announced it would undertake a “comprehensive review” of its handling of criminal records after discovering that Holloman Air Force Base officials failed to report to the federal database Kelley’s 2012 court-martial and conviction on two counts of domestic assault.

(Read more at Washington Times)

Had I continued to quote the Washington Times, it would have claimed that Kelley legally purchased the guns used in the massacre. However, although I sometimes respect some reporters, I am more likely to take the opinion of lawmakers and lawyers when it comes to gun law.

Just because the Air Force neglected to report a felon domestic abuser to the FBI and just because Kelley lied on a form and did not get caught does not make his lawlessness legal.

Joseph Watson offers some points out of the polarizing statements made

Please take in mind that this post’s article does not constitute a transcript to the following video. In contrast, the following text both follows and augments the points Mr. Watson makes. Thence, he starts by noting that this mass murder cannot be placed at the feet of:

  1. Atheists
  2. Left-wingers 
  3. Whatever other group you can reasonably associate with Devin Kelley

Nonetheless, in order to explain the events that have unfolded in Sutherland Springs, we can say this about the shooter:

  1. He was a committed atheist who had a habit calling Christians stupid. This, of course, does not infer that all atheists bear responsibility; however, it might suggest that this is (in part) an anti-Christian hate crime. For if it were just a personal dispute, why did he go on to massacre everyone he could in the church?
  2. He did have an issue with someone in the church (as mentioned in the first article of this post); however, to ignore his bias against Christians would be to ignore an enormous part of the overall equation.
  3. While we do know that Devin Kelley had spent time in a mental hospital (and escaped from it) after assaulting his wife and child in the Air Force, we do not know what role mind-altering SSRI drugs played in the events of the day. However, it should be noted that at least 36 school shootings can be linked to those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.

The responses Mr. Watson observed from the left show how these people argue from emotion without bothering to refer to the record:

  1. They labelled the NRA a terrorist organization although no mass shooting has ever been carried out by a member of the National Rifle Association.
  2. They blamed the Second Amendment and gun owners, despite the fact that two legal gun owners (Johnnie Langendorff and Stephen Willeford) chased down and fired back at the mass murderer.
  3. They blamed White despite the fact that most mass shooters are not White.
  4. They blamed Joseph Watson because Google linked to his tweets (go figure).

A new line of attacks from the God-hating left showed a new level of inhumanity:

  1. Since their first reaction to the death of 26 Christians was to attack Christians and the tenets of Christianity
  2. Since rural voters may have different values than the godless haters on Twitter, they felt that the 26 murders were deserved.

    Never mind that Bernie supporter James T. Hodgkinson went to a Republican baseball practice and shot Representative Steve Scalise. In this guy’s mind, all shootings are the fault of Republicans.

  3. Since these people may have supported the majority party in Texas, Chelsea Handler felt they got what they deserved.

The Christian neighbor who returned fire against the Sutherland Springs murderer

Stephen Willeford gives his first interview to a friend with an Arkansas TV station

Stephen Willeford steps through the events of that eventful Sunday. One thing that stands out to me is how he ran out bare foot in the West Texas landscape and ran toward the gunfire.

Stephen Willeford tells of the ordeal with Johnny Langendorf as they pursued

In a second interview, Stephen Willeford explains what happened on the morning of that Sunday.

Democrats filibustered the Grassley/Cruz bill that would have stopped this

In an interview with Fox News, Senator Ted Cruz pointed out the Democrat filibuster of the bill that would have ensured that the criminal element would not be able to buy a gun.

Links to Reasons Why Senator Ted Cruz Endorses Donald Trump for President

Ted Cruz Endorses Trump via a Facebook post

On 23 September 2016, Ted Cruz announced his support of Donald Trump for president in the following post.


A Breakdown and Support of the Senator Cruz post

To summarize the message from Senator Cruz, he gives the following reasons for endorsing Trump (with links to articles supporting the statements):

  1. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
  2. Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.


  3. Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

Cruz Warns of Obama’s Effort to Hand the Internet to the United Nations

Refer also to the Conservative Review

The First Warning Comes from Senator Cruz

As shown by the below video and 8 September 2016 article in Politico, the Senate has started steps once again to stop Mr. Obama from facilitating censorship of the Internet through giving the ICANN to the UN.

Ted Cruz and other Republicans are barreling toward a September showdown with the White House over its plan to give up oversight of the internet, as the Obama administration tries to rally support from the tech and telecom industries.

GOP lawmakers have long warned that the administration’s plan to relinquish its authority over ICANN, the global nonprofit that manages the internet’s domain name system, could give authoritarian countries like China and Russia an opening to make an online power grab. Now, as the actual date of the transition approaches — Oct. 1 — Republicans are looking at throwing up new obstacles.

“Today our country faces a threat to the internet as we know it. In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away the internet to an international body akin to the United Nations,” Cruz said in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday. “I rise today to discuss the significant, irreparable damage this proposed internet giveaway could wreak not only on our nation but on free speech across the world.”

Cruz is pledging to make the issue his primary focus this month. He’s already launched a website warning about the dangers of the administration’s strategy, complete with a countdown clock against a black background. And he’s scheduled a hearing of the Senate Judiciary oversight subcommittee he chairs next week to “investigate the possible dangers” of the plan.

Meanwhile, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday that language to delay the transition could be included in the continuing resolution to fund the government past this month. And House Republicans are considering their options in the coming appropriations bill, a GOP aide confirmed this week.

“I don’t think the foundation has been appropriately laid for this,” Thune said in an interview. “Some members are adamantly opposed to transition, period, and a lot of them just think now is not the time, and it really just hasn’t been vetted, and it’s not ready yet.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), another member of the Commerce committee, said the administration’s deadline is “arbitrary.”

“The transition should not move forward until our many concerns have been addressed,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “There won’t be a second chance to get this right.”

Fearing congressional roadblocks, the Obama administration has quietly been urging tech and telecom giants to go to bat for its strategy.

Senior officials at the Commerce Department encouraged companies and trade groups at a private meeting on Wednesday to make public shows of support — and contest criticisms that the plan jeopardizes internet freedom, two sources who attended the session told POLITICO.

Among those represented at the session were trade organizations like the Internet Association, NetChoice and CCIA, companies like Verizon and 21st Century Fox, and groups like the Internet Society, the sources said. In his pitch to industry, Deputy Secretary of Commerce Bruce Andrews stressed that the credibility of the U.S. government and its commitment to the international community are on the line, the two attendees told POLITICO after the meeting.

But Andrews also indicated the agency would have no choice but to adhere to what Congress prescribes — suggesting, the sources said, that the Commerce Department might not try to find a legal workaround to any ban imposed by lawmakers. He also said the agency is keeping an eye on potential lawsuits. The libertarian group TechFreedom — which sources said did not attend the meeting Wednesday — has threatened such a move. And on Thursday, it again questioned the legality of the internet transition.

“In the event that Representatives prove unable to provide the requisite authority required to defend these interests,” the group said in a statement, “then we will explore all remaining options, including legal action brought by the people that Congress represents.”

The Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced the transition plan in 2014, saying it would enhance the “multistakeholder model” of internet governance. The agency said it was always envisioned that the U.S. role in overseeing the functions would be temporary. The announcement came in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks about NSA surveillance — which sparked questions in Europe and elsewhere about the U.S. role in managing the internet’s architecture.


The Facebook Post that Originally Brought Light to the Issue

The following 14 September 2016 post explains the problem most succinctly.


Why Can’t Obama Give ICANN Away?

As Computerworld Explains, ICANN and other Internet Parts are Private Property

In a 14 September 2016 article, Computerworld explained that the US government does not own the Internet:

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office has said that the internet domain name system is unlikely to be government property. This comes just ahead of the planned transfer of the oversight of key technical functions supporting the internet, including the domain name system, to an independent multi-stakeholder body.

‘It is unlikely that either the authoritative root zone file — the public ‘address book’ for the top level of the Internet domain name system — or the Internet domain name system as a whole’ is U.S. government property, the GAO said in a legal opinion provided to legislators.

The report by the Congressional watchdog comes ahead of a hearing on the issue Wednesday chaired by Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas. The Republicans are intent on blocking the transfer of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, currently being operated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under a contract with the Department of Commerce, which expires on Sept. 30.

Some of these legislators have raised questions about whether the administration of President Barack Obama can go ahead with the transfer without approval of Congress. In a letter this month to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, the legislators said there is still no legal certainty about whether the termination of the IANA functions contract would amount to relinquishment of U.S. government property, which would then require approval from Congress.

The legislators — who are asking the administration to reconsider current plans to transition the supervision of the IANA functions on Oct. 1, 2016 as there are outstanding issues — said a request for an audit on the transfer of property issue had been submitted in 2015 to the GAO. .

The U.S. government does have “certain rights under a series of contracts and agreements related to the domain name system and the IANA functions, and has title to limited intellectual and tangible property related to performance of these functions,” according to the GAO. “We find that almost all of U.S. Government property that we have identified will be retained and not transferred or otherwise disposed of in connection with the proposed transition,” it added.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Department of Commerce, said last month it will go ahead with its plan to transfer supervision of the IANA functions to a multistakeholder body on Oct. 1, in line with a plan first announced in March 2014.

“We thank the GAO for its thorough analysis of the property implications of the IANA transition. We are pleased that GAO concluded that the transition does not involve a transfer of U.S. government property requiring Congressional approval,” NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said in a statement on Tuesday.

Last week, Cruz indicated that the Republicans would not give up without a fight against what he described as a “giveaway” of internet control by the Obama administration. Besides pushing for legislation called the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which would prohibit any transfer of internet DNS functions unless expressly allowed under a federal statute passed after the new legislation has been enacted, Cruz will likely invoke riders passed by Congress earlier that prohibit spending taxpayer money on the IANA transition.

A number of tech companies including Google and Facebook have written to Congress asking them not to delay the transition.

Ahead of the hearing by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, ICANN released a document to clarify that the transition “isn’t the U.S. Government handing over the Internet to any one country, company or group.”

“The truth is that nobody, including the U.S. Government, has a ‘control of the Internet’ to hand over,” ICANN wrote in a brief. “The community of stakeholders that has flawlessly coordinated the Internet’s domain name and addressing systems since their inception will continue to do so.”

The Republicans have raised concerns that the transfer could increase the influence of authoritarian regimes like those in Russia, China and Iran over the Internet.

The IANA functions are very technical, invisible to average users and narrow in scope, and should not be equated with the Internet as a whole, Kathryn C. Brown, president and CEO of the Internet Society, wrote in a letter to legislators. “Legitimate public policy issues like net neutrality, censorship, and human rights are being addressed elsewhere, and are not part of this discussion,” she added.

GAO distanced itself from this part of the dispute by stating that its opinion does not express views on the merits of the proposed transition. “Congress may wish to take steps to address the broader issues raised by the transition if it believes there should continue to be direct U.S. oversight and control,” it said.”

What Can I Do?

Follow the suggestion of a 29 August 2016 article by the Gatestone Institute, call your senators and representatives.