Posted on 05/02/2020 2:52:04 PM PDT by weston
THIS IS GOLD:@PressSec is asked by a reporter about her previous comments on coronavirus and she flips the question on the media and references specific stories, asking if they'll be retracting them.
She then left the briefing as they screamed.
Owned. pic.twitter.com/2jykye3VNs— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) May 6, 2020
You’re more than welcome, djstex. I’m glad she has been heard by the president. I assume Robert Kennedy Jr. has also been heard. My goodness I’m so tired of waiting for all of this corruption to blow wide open. How long, oh Lord?
Well, who knows why.
I’m with ya on that.
Wow it got pulled already.
I’m glad you saw it.
I messaged it as others have to me early this morn.
I’ll check my link in a bit.
I see this and heard the link was pulled.
Maybe there’s another one.
Thanks to you and many others all over the place this has been seen by many,at least in my circle of friends & family also. :)
I like the comments too. She surprised them being prepared so well with her come backs...shes on fire...shes going to be fun!...cool sec. And she walked out with a smile on her face.
OMG. She is GOOD. Give her a raise. Still laughing.
They will eventually learn! Don’t mess with the new press secretary!
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 6, 2020
** TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am returning herewith without my approval S.J. Res. 68, a joint resolution that purports to direct the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces in hostilities against Iran. This indefinite prohibition is unnecessary and dangerous. It would weaken the President's authority in violation of Article II of the Constitution, and endanger the lives of American citizens and brave service members.
This joint resolution is unnecessary because it rests upon a faulty premise. Due to my decisive actions and effective policies, the United States is not engaged in the use of force against Iran. As Commander in Chief, I will always defend our Nation against threats to our security.
In response to an escalating series of attacks by Iran and Iranian-backed militias on United States forces and interests in the Middle East, on January 2, 2020, United States Armed Forces eliminated Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force as he was traveling in Iraq. The purposes of this strike were to protect United States personnel, deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces and interests, degrade the ability of Iran and Qods Force-backed militias to conduct attacks, and end Iran's strategic escalation of attacks against and threats to United States interests.
On January 7, 2020, Iran launched 16 ballistic missiles against United States and coalition forces in Iraq. These attacks resulted in no fatalities. The next day, in an address to the Nation, I noted that "Iran appears to be standing down" and emphasized that "the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it."
One day later, this resolution was introduced. Its apparent aim was to prevent an escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran. Yet no such escalation has occurred over the past 4 months, contrary to the often dire and confident predictions of many.
S.J. Res. 68 is also unnecessary because it incorrectly implies that the military airstrike against Qassem Soleimani in Iraq was conducted without statutory authority. The resolution states that "the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 notes) do not serve as a specific statutory authorization for use of force against Iran." The strike against Soleimani, however, was fully authorized under both the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 ("2002 AUMF") and the President's constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
The United States has long relied upon the 2002 AUMF to authorize the use of force for the purpose of establishing a stable, democratic Iraq and for addressing terrorist threats emanating from Iraq. Such uses of force need not address only threats from the Iraqi Government apparatus, but may also address threats to the United States posed by militias, terrorist groups, or other armed groups in Iraq. This has been a consistent application of the statute across Administrations, including the last Administration, which relied upon it to conduct operations in response to attacks and threats by Iran‑backed militias in Iraq. Moreover, under Article II, the President is empowered to direct the use of military force to protect the Nation from an attack or threat of imminent attack and to protect important national interests.
In addition, S.J. Res. 68 is dangerous because it could hinder the President's ability to protect United States forces, allies, and partners, including Israel, from the continued threat posed by Iran and Iranian-backed militias. The resolution states that it should not "be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack." But this overlooks the President's need to respond to threats beyond imminent attacks on the United States and its forces.
Protecting the national security of the United States involves taking actions to de-escalate threats around the world, including threats posed by Iran and Iranian-backed militias. Iran and Iranian-backed militias have a long history of attacking United States and coalition forces. As demonstrated by the recent indirect fire attacks on January 26, 2020, on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and on March 11 and 14, 2020, on Camp Taji, Iraq, Iran and Iranian-backed militias continue to present a threat. This resolution would impede the President's ability to counter adversarial forces by anticipating their next moves and taking swift actions to address them decisively.
For all of these reasons, I cannot support this joint resolution. My Administration has taken strong actions, within statutory authority, to help keep our Nation safe, and I will not approve this resolution, which would undermine my ability to protect American citizens, service members, and interests. Therefore, it is my duty to return S.J. Res. 68 to the Senate without my approval.
------------------------------------------------------------
** DONALD J. TRUMP
------------------------------------------------------------
** THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 6, 2020.
We you ever in a jazz band? Some times the background musicians had to vamp until the featured soloist was ready to do their thing! I feel like we’re all vamping and the saxophone player has just broken his feed and we’re vamping until he gets a new one put on. In the mean time lots of doo waps and UMP PAH PAHs. Until they soloist is good and ready.
Had porkburger, baked beans and applesauce tonight. Mmmmmm good.
This is getting like the craziest year ever.
Thank you with all this information.
Sweet Jesus, save us
I meant to PING you to my post 1,115!
*HUG*
Wow Missed this! She’s doing amazing!
Here’s another article on her.
Last week, Shelley Luther made headlines for opening up her salon business, Salon A la Mode in Dallas, Texas. Luther told WBAP that she had applied for federal small business loans, but was denied, and hasn’t received her stimulus check yet either.
“I have received zero income from the government and I applied the first days possible that we were allowed to,” she said.
She is literally being forced into poverty by these mandates and no one who is doing the forcing is offering her an ounce of help. Instead, they are extorting her further.
Last week, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins sent a cease and desist letter to Luther for violating local and state executive orders to stay at home and she’s received notice of a potentially hefty fine as well.
But she remains undeterred in her stance against the order, despite the citation and being ordered to close, she is still open. She says threats of arrest do not scare her either.
“That defeats the purpose of opening in the first place and it lets them know that anytime someone stands up they can just shut you down,” she said.
She’s responded to the threats of having her license revoked as well.
“It won’t matter if I have a license because I won’t have a business,” Luther told WFAA last week.
“I’m having to make a decision on whether to pay for my mortgage or to pay the salon lease,” she said. “I chose to pay the salon lease because my nineteen stylists are more important.”
To be clear, it is not like Luther is forcing people to get their hair done at her salon — no one has to go in there — nor is she operating unsafely. Everyone is there voluntarily, everyone wears a mask and they practice social distancing while not having their hair done.
Joe Concha
@JoeConchaTV
Per Buzzfeed CEO Jonah Peretti in a staff memo to employees: “I’ve made the very difficult decision to furlough 68 employees beginning May 16th. In the US, the furlough will last for 3 months ... During this period, these employees won’t work and won’t be paid.”
2:14 PM · May 6, 2020
TX AG and governor called for her immediate release, I can’t find where it has happened yet.
Good for him! Does appear to be the flavor of his chief of staff attached to that one.
Abbott will have to get a superior judge to overrule the first one or he will have to write an executive order with a pardon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.