Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Vetoes Defense Bill

Trump Vetoes Defense Bill

Pelosi plans to attempt an override.

https://youtu.be/kCY5TkD1pDs

Wednesday, Trump vetoed the pork-filled Defense Bill (NDAA). House Speaker Pelosi plans to take up a vote to override the veto next week.

Pelosi plans to attempt an override.

More from Fox News:

President Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 Wednesday, calling it a “gift” to U.S. adversaries China and Russia and making good on a promise to veto if it did not repeal a law that shields certain Big Tech companies from liabilities.

“My Administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security,” the president wrote to House members after vetoing the bill. “Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.”

In his letter, he singled out Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act as a reason for the veto, arguing that failing to terminate it “will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct.”

Section 230 grants Internet companies liability shielding not available to other forms of media. It says they cannot be considered publishers or speakers of information posted to their platforms by third-parties.

It protects sites, including Facebook and Parler, from lawsuits if they allow controversial or critical speech to be shared by their users, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. It does not protect users from being accountable for their own posts.

Trump warned on Dec. 1 that he would veto the bill if it did not include a repeal of Section 230.

He also took issue with language in the NDAA that would require “the renaming of certain military installations.” Those provisions would phase out Confederate names.

Additionally, he argued that the NDAA directly opposes one of his major foreign policy goals – bringing more U.S. troops home, calling it “unconstitutional” to supersede his authority as commander-in-chief.

“I oppose endless wars, as does the American public. Over bipartisan objections, however, this Act purports to restrict the President’s ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea,” the president continued.

High-ranking Democrats blasted the veto.

“Donald Trump just vetoed a pay raise for our troops so he can defend dead Confederate traitors,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted. “Democrats will vote to override it.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

He told Congress what he wanted and they said we are back in power now. Not so much.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to 2smartforlibs. | December 23, 2020 at 6:12 pm

    They assume they are “back” in power the same way
    Pharaoh thought the Red Sea was parting for him.

    GOOD BYE COMMUNIST REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!

    Shove it Criminal “Crumbs” Pelosi! – 81 yo P.E.D.O.*

    Perverted Evil Dictator Offal

      The RINOs literally couldn’t wait for Trump to be gone before they went hog-wild.

      And yet we HAVE to vote for them Or It WiLl Be WoRsE

        redc1c4 in reply to Olinser. | December 23, 2020 at 9:03 pm

        And yet we HAVE to vote for them Or It WiLl Be WoRsE

        false premise.

        we don’t HAVE to vote for anyone or anything.

          TX-rifraph in reply to redc1c4. | December 24, 2020 at 5:31 am

          I think you are both correct if we have more clarity as a “vote” can mean the submission of a ballot or it can be considered an endorsement of a person or idea. In a general election (assuming only two candidates), I can vote for A or B or not vote.

          A vote for A can be a positive vote for A (conceptually) or a negative vote against B. That is always the case in a general election as we actually are in a dilemma. Not voting is effectively a default vote for whomever the other voters choose (assuming a fair election process which is not the general rule now).

          In a general election, I vote against the worst candidate. If the worst candidate is elected and I defaulted to the other voters with a non-vote, I effectively voted for the worst candidate with a non-vote. Moral rationalizations are notwithstanding as I think a non-vote in a general election is a form of virtue signaling — “I didn’t vote for scumbag A.” when I actually helped scumbag A get “elected.”.

          The time to act is before the primary voting

        No we don’t:

        5) The veto override votes will be a test for some GOPers. Some say they support the defense bill, but will stand by the President and vote to sustain the veto

        — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 23, 2020″

        These skunks fear 2022 every bit as much as the Dems do. Trumpism is NOT going away and they know they will be feeling the flames licking their asses every single step of the way. The Republicans do not have a single alternative to Trump. Rove suddenly re-appearing lately is proof. They’ve got nothing.

        The real test will come when, after Trump’s pocket veto, the next Congress tries to re-submit that “Covid relief” porkfest.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 23, 2020 at 6:16 pm

Hmmmm……

FYI

Public-Key Cryptography: Private Email and Secure Signatures

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/391796.php#391796

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 23, 2020 at 6:21 pm

Perfect example of how the “Uni-Party” don’t understand anything about WE THE PEOPLE!

Politicians “instilling confidence” by taking Covid vaccine

are just instilling further hatred of our ruling class

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=391812

How the CDC and University Academics Voted to Kill Older White Americans, Citing Racial Vengeance as a Compelling Governmental Interest

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=391818

University Professors Argue Old People Shouldn’t Get COVID-19 Vaccine Sooner Because Most Old People Are Racist White Folks…

https://www.weaselzippers.us/461396-university-professors-argue-old-people-shouldnt-get-covid-19-vaccine-sooner-because-most-old-people-are-racist-white-folks/

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 23, 2020 at 6:23 pm

We are probably heading into a very economically difficult and politically contentious 2 years and voters are going to be very angry at the “global reset”. Trump is using his last few weeks in office to clearly expose and isolate the Uniparty. There will be no one else to blame.

It will be impossible for the two wings to attack each other in the continuing kabuki theater of Rep vs Dem, conservative vs liberal so BOTH wings will be vulnerable to primary challenges. This is where Trump can do plenty of damage in 2022. Republicans may be licking their chops anticipating a Democrat bloodbath but the way this is going, Trump may be able to gut BOTH wings in one fell swoop.

Naturally, the MSM will have a cover story since they simply cannot help being fixated on Trump. It’s the only story they have and they will not give it up. So not only will Trumpism not go away, it will gain broad support in the next two years. Trump will throw the NWO plans into chaos setting up his 2024 run as the only people’s candidate for 2024.

Repealing §230’s protections would probably be unconstitutional. Had the section never been passed it’s likely that the horrible Prodigy decision that led to it would have been overruled on appeal.

But one thing is for sure. If §230 is repealed then say goodbye to this forum we’re using. Prof J would be forced to take it down until the courts had a change to reinstate the protections. As would every other blog in the world. But the big players, Facebook and Twitter, would probably survive in some mutilated form, since they can afford to hire enough moderators to approve or veto all content quickly, and to buy the insurance necessary in case they inadvertently let one slip through.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2020 at 9:08 pm

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    CorkyAgain in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2020 at 9:11 pm

    If §230 is repealed then say goodbye to this forum we’re using. Prof J would be forced to take it down[…]

    Not quite. He could also enforce stricter moderation to avoid anything that might land him in legal trouble.

    It’s true, however, that many of our more intemperate remarks would be disallowed. I’m not sure that would be a bad thing.

      Milhouse in reply to CorkyAgain. | December 24, 2020 at 10:15 am

      Without § 230, all comments would have to be approved before being posted. No forum could afford to let comments go up before a moderator saw them. Which means there’d be delays of at least several hours before any comment appeared. Or there’d have to be full-time moderators, who would have to be paid.

      And while intemperate insults would not be a problem, since they’re not actionable, moderators could not approve anything resembling a factual claim that could potentially defame any private person, in case it turned out not to be true.

      Both of those changes would so change the nature of this forum as to make it barely worth maintaining.

    felixrigidus in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2020 at 4:49 am

    It would be a bad idea to repeal 230 – although I cannot see how this would be unconstitutional.

    It is not in the constitution, nor is the notion that some publishers are to be exempt from laws that every other publisher is subjected to.
    Section 230 needs to be reformed to clarify that companies like Facebook that make editorial decisions and suppress opinion that is legal according to their politics have crossed into publisher territory and are to be treated as publishers.
    That way (politically) content-neutral platforms still enjoy the needed protection and not be liable for another’s content they just host while being liable for any content they endorse or alter.

      Repealing § 230 would very likely be unconstitutional under the first amendment. It is unconstitutional to hold anyone liable for content that they did not publish.

      Treating an interactive site as if it were the publisher of content that it has never laid eyes upon is perverse and appears to be contrary to several supreme court decisions in the past. The Prodigy court was simply wrong.

      Companies like Facebook that make editorial decisions and suppress opinion that is legal according to their politics have crossed into publisher territory and are to be treated as publishers.

      The plain fact is that they have not. You can’t just assert something and pretend it’s true. Neither Facebook nor Twitter decide what gets posted. Everything that anyone wants to write is automatically posted, and then if a moderator happens to look at it, and decides it’s offensive to the company’s opinions, they delete it. That is not publishing. That is not what a publisher does, and is not consistent with the reason why a publisher is liable for everything that appears on its site.

      It seems obvious that Facebook, Twitter, Legal Insurrection, etc. have the constitutional status not of publishers but of distributors. And it is firmly established law that a distributor, regardless of how tightly he curates his inventory, is not liable for distributing illegal content unless he knows it to be illegal.

      Remember that the reason Congress passed § 230 in the first place was not merely to protect sites from liability for moderating content, but to require such moderation. The courts then correctly struck down that requirement, leaving only the protection.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2020 at 6:00 pm

        Interesting points , but surely legal insurrection reports the news as well? There is a clear difference between say facebook which merely distributes. LI has reporters and editors.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | December 24, 2020 at 11:11 pm

          How is that relevant?

          You seem confused about the issues here. You think being a publisher makes someone less liable, when in fact it’s the exact opposite. There’s no question that LI is the publisher of its own posts, and if it publishes anything illegal or defamatory WAJ Media would be completely liable. Nobody doubts that. But of course its big protection is that it has responsible people who decide what it should publish. If something looks like it might be risky, it won’t be published. Just like a newspaper.

          But I’m talking about this forum here, that we are using. This comment section, is a forum that LI provides for the public to use, just as Facebook and Twitter do. In § 230’s term, it’s an “interactive computer service”. And for what we write here, WAJ Media is not a publisher, it’s merely a distributor. It doesn’t control what we write, so it can’t be held liable for it. If you or I defame someone, the victim can try to find out our real names and sue us, but he can’t sue WAJ.

          And § 230 says that this applies even though LI has moderators who once in a while remove offensive comments, if they’ve been brought to their attention. What Trump and half the moronic commenters here are demanding is that the victim should be able to sue Prof J and take away his house and his pension. If they were to get their way he would have to either hire paid full-time moderators, which is impossible, or leave this forum entirely unmoderated, which would turn it into an unreadable sewer, or close it down entirely.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | December 25, 2020 at 2:13 am

          @millhouse – fair points

    MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | December 24, 2020 at 7:46 am

    What, pray tell, in the US Constitution makes 230 a right not to be amended?

      Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | December 24, 2020 at 10:31 am

      “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.”

      Holding a site liable for content it has never seen and does not know to be illegal abridges that freedom.

      And punishing a site for exercising that freedom to refuse to say things it doesn’t like also abridges it.

      The courts have been very clear about all this; I don’t understand how anyone thinks it could be otherwise.

      Web sites that moderates their content are just like bookstores, which also moderates its inventory. And the supreme court has already held that a bookstore owner cannot be held liable for the content of books he hasn’t read and doesn’t know for a fact to be illegal.

It’s either straighten out this election mess and get 4 more years of Trump, for a total of 8 years, or fail to do so, live in the shadow of Trump and 77 pissed-off Americans, and then get either Trump or his designee, for a total of 12 years of Trump.

The simple truth is, this country thrived under Trump until the New World Order Thugs took over and used COVID-19 as an excuse to destroy both the economy and our elections. The assessment from both right and left is that the latest budget legislation is theft by our greedy, would-be oligarchs. Nobody is happy with them, and the Left also supports the veto.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if BOTH left and right united over this, and showed up on Jan 6, united, for the moment, against Congress?

Schumer throws around the T-word like he’s going to live forever.

Trump is an insane a**hole, he’s not a conservative.

His time is done.

    franker in reply to BAB. | December 23, 2020 at 8:29 pm

    Two consecutive sentences without a grammatical error. You are to be commended.

      TX-rifraph in reply to franker. | December 24, 2020 at 5:38 am

      Actaully, I think there was an error — a comma splice — when a semicolon was called for.

      “Trump is an insane a**hole; he’s not a conservative.”

      He only gets half credit for grammar and zero for logic.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to BAB. | December 23, 2020 at 8:46 pm

    Such well thought out commentary. /sarc

    Does your mother know you are on the computer?

    Barry in reply to BAB. | December 23, 2020 at 9:09 pm

    And there is a prime example of a minimum wage paid idiot working for the marxist party.

    MarkS in reply to BAB. | December 24, 2020 at 7:48 am

    For an “insane asshole”, he had quite the accomplished life!

      BAB in reply to MarkS. | December 24, 2020 at 8:22 am

      Many of those supposed “acomplishments” gained by lies and theft. The Trump cult of personality is free to celebrate that. The emporer has no clothes, though.

      I bow to no man.

    Ronbert in reply to BAB. | December 24, 2020 at 8:39 am

    Now go collect your $15.00 from the CCP and return to your mommy’s basement.

I *think* Pelosi is going to manage to get the veto overturned in the House. Not positive, but if she fails, or if the Senate fails, I’m *positive* she will close the floor, send all the House members home, and loudly declare ten thousand orphans will all dies horrible deaths because Trump is a meanie (or something vaguely like that). Then the instant Biden takes the oath, she will jam forward another bill with two or three trillion dollars worth of pork for her contributors and to (censored) with the rest of us.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to georgfelis. | December 23, 2020 at 10:12 pm

    CRIMINAL “Crumbs” Pelosi:

    “Let them eat cake crumbs!”

    “And bring me another truck load of Ben n Jerry’s Communist Chinese Gold Flake Bribe ice cream!!!!!!!

Insurrection act nullified in bill

Democrats Buried Something Sinister In 5,893-Page NDAA

    Milhouse in reply to snowshooze. | December 24, 2020 at 10:48 am

    That is an outright lie.

    1. The Escobar amendment is not in the bill.

    2. Even if it were in the bill (which it isn’t), it wouldn’t nullify the Insurrection Act. It would simply require the president to certify to Congress “that the State concerned is unable or unwilling to suppress an insurrection”, describe the circumstances, provide the evidence, and describe the mission, scope, and duration.

School choice activists upset COVID-19 stimulus bans governors from funding vouchers

Trump isn’t a conservative, his actions as a person and an elected official clearly demonstrate that.

He’s nothing more than a narcistic populist that would sell his soul for money and power. In fact, he has. He’s a despicable person.

Gulp the lies sheep, 1+1 does not make three.

    Trump is not an ideologue. He takes the cards dealt and plays to win while staying true to his promises. Winning! Something you “conservatives” seem allergic to. Now get back to your circular firing squad and finish the job of figuring out who the only “true” conservative is and cast that single vote.

    MarkS in reply to BAB. | December 24, 2020 at 7:50 am

    Your second attempt is no better than your first!

    Milhouse in reply to BAB. | December 24, 2020 at 10:53 am

    It’s true that Trump is not a conservative, and doesn’t believe in any of the things that we do. But despite that he has been governing as one. Judging purely by its actions rather than its beliefs or rhetoric, this administration has been more conservative even than Reagan’s. Reagan was an intellectual and a true believer in conservative principles; but he was unable to implement them. Trump has for the most part implemented them despite not believing in them. That is why I voted for him this year.

Kool-Aid refreshing, Phil?

American Human | December 24, 2020 at 8:03 am

Why is the congress protecting these companies? Just follow the money.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend