TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @BasedMikeLee
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
It does
@america - America
U.S. State Department warns that Mass Migration poses an “existential threat” to Western civilization. https://t.co/WVpLUHwahK
@DataRepublican - DataRepublican (small r)
@BasedMikeLee Reminder: the mass migration crisis is engineered. It is not a kindness. It tears people from their homes and subjects them to violence. https://t.co/UszRyri804
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
In the coming days, I’ll be filing my previously drafted legislation to restore Smith-Mundt, and renaming it the Charlie Kirk Act Domestic, political, government-funded propaganda must end now
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Colorado’s Secretary of State, @JenaGriswold, went on CNN claiming mail-in ballots are “secure” and “cannot be hacked because they’re a piece of paper” Tell that to the postal carrier sentenced in June for stealing ballots in Mesa County, Colorado Or consider the fraudulent ballots discovered there last fall Paper ballots can be stolen, forged, or harvested Fraud happens—far more easily with mail-in voting Would you like your state to end all mail-in voting and require in-person voting with ID? #ElectionIntegrity #EndVotingByMail
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵1/ At the current pace, it’ll be April 2026 before we confirm the 135 Trump nominees now pending in the Senate We need a game-changer Otherwise, we risk extending rule by the leftist Deep State™️, which has outsized influence when GOP political appointees aren’t confirmed https://t.co/rCN7S2QC8y
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 1/ Until the 1930s, state and local governments outspent the federal government—combined. In 1900, states and localities handled most public services, from schools to roads. Federal spending was a measly 2.7% of GDP, while state and local was higher. https://t.co/YnNp6r8s8D
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2/ This wasn’t just numbers—it was principle. States and localities were closer to the people, responsive to local needs—and indeed most needs. The federal government stepped in mainly for things like defense and trade. Limited scope, limited spending. That’s how the Founders designed it.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3/ The tide turned with the New Deal in the 1930s. Federal spending surged past state and local combined and didn’t look back. World Wars and Great Depression policies centralized power, disregarding the Constitution’s strict limitations on federal authority. By 2019, feds spent 55% of all government funds, states and locals just 45%.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4/ Why the shift? There are now few limits on federal power. Also, so-called “mandatory” expenses (mostly entitlements) now eat up two-thirds of federal budgets, dwarfing state priorities and even other federal priorities. Federal grants to states have also tied local hands.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5/ The result? A bloated federal machine, distant from citizens, accumulating a national debt soon to reach a staggering $37 trillion. (This happens because, unlike the states, the U.S. government controls the money supply, which it constantly increases by borrowing more money). States, once the heart of governance, are now junior partners, begging for federal crumbs. This isn’t freedom—it’s dependency.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6/ We need to reverse this, restoring state and local primacy in spending. How? Slash federal mandates, reform entitlements, and power to the states and localities, which are closer to the people. Let communities decide their own priorities—schools, hospitals, roads—not D.C. bureaucrats.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7/ States are laboratories of democracy. They’re closer to the people, more accountable. Federal overreach has crushed innovation and ballooned deficits. In 2024, federal spending hit 24% of GDP, while state and local hovered at 17%. Time to return that ratio to its proper proportions.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8/ The Founders understood that centralized power corrupts. They gave states the lead for a reason. Let’s honor that vision: cut federal spending, empower states, and restore the balance that made America thrive. Who’s with me?
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
I guess it takes a while for them to burn through the federal funds given to NGOs by President Autopen
@DataRepublican - DataRepublican (small r)
I got an email 2 days ago to join an "anonymous podcast" for "other patriots" (dial-in only) and identify myself only as
@DataRepublican - DataRepublican (small r)
Story time: a few years ago, I was part of a message board with maybe ~20 active members and the newest one was always …. a little off. When he posted a big pseudotechnical missive on why Signal was insecure and why we should be using popular MMORPG venues to do communications, something hit the spidey sense. I looked at his posting history and he only posted during work hours. I accused him of being a fed and, it got to him, because he never logged into the site again. Despite being one of the most active members for years. He was always posting “bait” … as in saying borderline things designed to provoke a response. Think along the lines of “when do we stop talking and start taking action.” This board was mostly retired scientists. Not extremist in any way. If this guy was indeed a fed, I can only conclude our intelligence agencies have far too much time and money.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
We have an obligation under NATO Article 5 to defend these countries
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Post apocalyptic hellscape at Portland State
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
They call good evil And evil good
@C_3C_3 - C3
96% of media coverage of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is positive. 96% of media coverage of Elon Musk is negative. One man was an illegal gang member the other man is exposing government theft. So telling… https://t.co/6cqTAfAmki
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Please share if you agree
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🚨 Please watch this video, which describes in detail the ruthless and elaborate defamation campaign waged by Meta AI against @robbystarbuck I look forward to hearing Meta’s side of this—but from what I’m seeing, it doesn’t look good for Meta In fact, it looks very, very bad Unless there’s something I’m missing, this will cost Meta a sum of money that most of us would describe as staggering—with good reason Meta may characterize this as a mistake—a one-off, freak occurrence in which someone within the company manipulated Meta’s AI algorithm to target Mr. Starbuck If that’s Meta’s argument, Meta can count me as deeply skeptical Meta has been undercutting conservatives for years—at great expense to Republican candidates and conservative causes throughout the country Meta helped elect Joe Biden in 2020 by, among other things, burying the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, indulging the full-blown lie that the story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign Meta disadvantaged Republican and conservative content—including by blocking paid advertising distributing conservative political messages Meta has suppressed, canceled, throttled, or otherwise disadvantaged more conservative causes and candidates than I can possibly count Meta has recently expressed a degree of regret for at least some of this, and I appreciate that But there are still widespread accounts of anti-conservative manipulation on Meta’s social media platforms, and it’s not at all clear that anything has meaningfully changed And now, with what has happened to @robbystarbuck, I have no confidence that Meta isn’t deliberately undermining (and even defaming) people who think like I do—everywhere So if Meta claims this was an accident or a one-off occurrence, I’m not sure how any of us can be expected to believe that We’d be fools to do so without rock-solid evidence—which frankly I doubt Meta can provide This is not the kind of behavior one should have to expect from a company like Meta But this is the kind of behavior one can expect from a monopolist In a truly free market, no company in Meta’s position would be inclined to take steps that, when brought to light, would inevitably alienate roughly half of all Americans The fact that Meta has done precisely that suggests that Meta may have sufficiently walled itself off from competition to the point that it sees no threat from would-be competitors, and therefore doesn’t worry about alienating roughly half of all Americans by siding consistently and aggressively with the far left That’s not okay We have laws against such things It’s time for a thorough investigation and a series of rigorous hearings Meta won’t like this But frankly, many Americans don’t like what Meta has done to us, which I now suspect is far more extensive and harmful than any of us have realized
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
This is a massive criminal conspiracy It must be investigated Those responsible must be prosecuted
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
We stood for and applauded Jill Biden—even as her husband was severely abusing his presidential powers—because she was the First Lady They sat silent as Melania Trump entered the chamber Not cool
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Who agrees that when federal workers don’t work & refuse even to show up, they need to be shown the door?
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 1/ What Are Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And How Could They Be Used To Weaken Drug Cartels? 🚨 https://t.co/0EeQigzVYm
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2/ Letters of marque and reprisal are government-issued commissions that authorize private citizens (privateers) to perform acts that would otherwise be considered piracy, like attacking enemy ships during wartime Privateers are rewarded with a cut of the loot they “bring home” https://t.co/uv4CYizJ2S
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3/ Legal Basis in the U.S. The U.S. Constitution authorizes these commissions in Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” While Congress hasn’t issued one in over a century, the authority to do so still exists https://t.co/ohCWJ7wdPN
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4/ Modern Context: Mexican Drug Cartels Using letters of marque could be a novel, but effective response to unique threats posed by drug cartels—especially in response to threats by the cartels to target U.S. planes returning illegal immigrants to their countries of origin https://t.co/KtfQqjQdVY
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5/ How Could They Be Applied? - Authorization: Congress could issue letters of marque and reprisal authorizing private security firms or specially trained civilians to intercept cartel operations, particularly those involving drug shipments or human trafficking across borders - Targets: Focus on disrupting supply lines, capturing high-value targets, or seizing assets like boats, vehicles, cash, gold, or equipment used in criminal activities
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6/ Advantages - Flexibility: Private entities operate with more agility than the government, adapting quickly with the tactics of cartels - Cost: Would reduce the financial burden on taxpayers, as privateers receive only a cut of what they recover & return to the U.S. https://t.co/InsIreSIrG
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7/ Criticism The use of letters of marque and reprisal would undoubtedly draw criticism, especially from those inclined to elevate abstract, often-inchoate principles of what they deem “international law” above the sovereign interests of the United States https://t.co/7uDf5Y2cG6
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8/ Dismissing the possible use of letters of marque to combat Mexican drug cartels—either on the basis of “international law” or otherwise—overlooks the clear and present threat posed by those cartels to the U.S. This could prove to be an effective alternative to war https://t.co/6OeznkbuQC
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9/ We have no desire to go to war with our southern neighbor But we also can’t ignore the fact that drug cartels are now threatening to target U.S. planes deporting illegal aliens That sounds like a great reason to consider issuing letters of marque and reprisal https://t.co/KV3sGr83jd
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10/ Letters of marque and reprisal have worked well for the U.S.—and countless other countries—in the past We’d be wrong not to consider using them against the cartels https://t.co/zO0QsnpcbB
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11/ Please share if you like this idea—and follow if you’d like to see more posts about letters of marque and reprisal & other amazing, little-known features of the U.S. Constitution https://t.co/79GBYbNJQl
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
What’s a good reason to keep TSA?
@DakotaSidwell - D.Sauce (TIE)
@BasedMikeLee To ensure Michael Chertoff and his family continue to draw income from the installation of the equipment in the inspection areas. /satire Prosecute Michael Chertoff.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
The Biden administration’s unelected bureaucrats added nearly 1,000 pages of new law today Zero of them were passed by Congress This is wrong Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make federal law We must pass the REINS Act to stop this tyranny https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-15/pdf/FR-2025-01-15.pdf
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 🚨 1. The Constitution’s Presentment Clause and the Unconstitutionality of Making Federal Law By Bureaucratic Fiat https://t.co/66Y9Y27Epv
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. The Presentment Clause, found in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, explains in clear terms how a bill becomes a federal law. https://t.co/qRDAzo7d66
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. Under the Presentment Clause, a bill can become a law only if it’s (a) passed by both houses of Congress, and then (b) presented to the president for approval or veto. It supplements Article I, Section 1, which makes clear that *all legislative power* is vested in Congress. https://t.co/NF0yNzK4oQ
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4.The Presentment Clause is fundamental to maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring that lawmaking remains a function performed exclusively by elected senators and representatives, who stand accountable to the public through regular elections. https://t.co/NpRdGZqAAe
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in INS v. Chadha (1983) explained and reinforced the principles embedded in the Presentment Clause. https://t.co/IRe3IMze71
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. In Chadha, the Court struck down the legislative veto—a mechanism that became common between the late 1930s and the early 1980s by which Congress (in some cases only one chamber of Congress, in other cases both) could unilaterally veto decisions made by executive agencies (effectively modifying existing law) without presenting that decision to the president.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. The Court held that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional because they circumvent the bicameralism and presentment requirements of the Constitution’s Presentment Clause.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chadha emphasized that the legislative process must involve both houses of Congress and the president, reflecting the Constitution’s balancing of power among the branches of government. https://t.co/5h2FwlM4b5
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. By prescribing this process, the Framers prevented the legislative branch from enacting or changing federal law alone—bicameral passage *and* presentment to the president are required. https://t.co/5eTGCfQeUu
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10.The same logic applies with regard to administrative lawmaking. https://t.co/afHFEl93q1
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. Changing federal law is inherently a legislative function—after all, it involves making a new law—and thus shouldn’t be something that any branch of government (particularly the executive, whose role in the legislative process is narrow) can perform unilaterally.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. When unelected bureaucrats within the executive branch can make rules with the force of law, this balance is disrupted, as it bypasses the direct involvement of elected lawmakers, undermining democratic accountability.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13. The essence of the Presentment Clause is to give the president a voice in the legislative process through the veto power. This not only acts as a check on Congress but also ensures that the executive has a say in the laws that will be enforced by executive agencies.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14. Federal laws—whether characterized as “rules,” regulations,” or otherwise—created by bureaucrats without this check bypass Congress’s constitutional role.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
15. As Chadha made clear, the legislative veto is unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. Chadha, taken to its logical conclusion, should prohibit bureaucratic lawmaking because, like the legislative veto, it allows for policy-making outside the legislative formula prescribed by the Constitution.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
16.The decision in *Chadha* highlighted the importance of accountability in lawmaking. Elected officials, unlike bureaucrats, are accountable to the electorate. When rules that have the effect of law are made by unelected bureaucrats, there's a significant democratic deficit, as these officials are not directly answerable to the public for their decisions.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
17. It’s impossible to reconcile federal lawmaking by bureaucratic fiat with either the Presentment Clause itself or with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chadha.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
18. Chadha and the Presentment Clause support the argument that federal lawmaking through unelected bureaucrats is unconstitutional. That barbaric practice disrupts the carefully constructed checks & balances, dilutes public accountability, & undermines the democratic process by allowing policy to be made without the participation of both elected representatives and the president.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
19. The Constitution’s design for lawmaking was intended to ensure that legislative power remains with those elected by and accountable to the people, a principle that should not be subverted by bureaucratic lawmaking.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
20. Please share and follow if you’d like to see more posts like this one.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Thank you, @TuckerCarlson, for inviting me to comment on last night’s debate.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Liz Cheney called me a “nutball conspiracy theorist” for asking questions about FBI’s involvement on January 6th The DOJ Inspector General’s report confirmed that I had good reasons to ask these questions, which Christopher Wray repeatedly dodged
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵🚨 1. Everyone should know the story of Roscoe Filburn, a farmer from Ohio who found himself in the crosshairs of one of the most absurd federal overreaches in history. It’s a tale of government control over the most basic of American freedoms—growing your own wheat. https://t.co/7WIK4XeCuN
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. In 1938, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act so the feds could dictate how much wheat Americans could grow on their land. They set quotas, telling farmers like Roscoe Filburn exactly how many acres of wheat they could plant. Notice was sent on cards like this one. https://t.co/L4JS24HTF0
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. Roscoe Filburn was just trying to feed his livestock, feed his family, and keep some for seeds. He planted 23 acres, not because he wanted to flood the market but because he needed it for his farm’s survival. The government said, “No, you can plant wheat on only 11.1 acres.” https://t.co/i7s9KckTBk
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. So, they slapped him with a fine for the extra wheat he grew—wheat that never left his farm, never entered interstate commerce. You heard that right - they fined him for self-sufficiency. This isn’t about commerce; it’s about control, folks. https://t.co/rufqZkrOvP
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. Filburn took this to court, arguing that his wheat wasn’t for sale, it was for his own use & thus wasn’t within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court said, “Even if your wheat’s just for you and never entered interstate commerce, the feds can regulate it—because if everyone did what you did, it’d affect the interstate wheat market.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. This ruling in Wickard v. Filburn expanded federal power under the Commerce Clause to an insane degree. It meant the government could regulate anything—even noneconomic activity entirely within one state—that might, in some theoretical way, affect interstate commerce. https://t.co/Xl3Vdufe9G
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. Here’s the kicker: This wasn’t about protecting consumers or ensuring fair trade; it was about controlling supply and demand to manipulate prices. It’s federal bureaucrats deciding that you can’t grow extra wheat because it might make prices drop. https://t.co/bKedYlwqxZ
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. The sheer audacity to tell an American farmer he can’t grow food for his own use on his own land is a mockery of liberty. It’s government overreach at its finest, wrapped in legalese to sound like it’s for the “greater good.” https://t.co/KAG6BBU48W
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. We need to remember this story when we talk about government regulation. If they can control how much wheat you grow, they can control anything. It’s time we push back against this kind of overreach and restore the freedoms that make America, America. https://t.co/jX4vErp5Zy
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. So, next time someone tells you regulation is just for “public interest,” remember Roscoe Filburn. Remember how far the government will go to dictate, control, and fine for something as fundamental as growing wheat on your own land. #Liberty #GovernmentOverreach https://t.co/9dXbTjRH3t
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. Some 82 years after the Supreme Court decided Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government remains mired in nearly every aspect of human existence—including many of the minute details of farming—under the Commerce Clause. https://t.co/yGdSbCcT5M
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. Absent some other nexus to federal authority, the U.S. government should have no authority over purely intrastate activities like labor, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining—even though they might in the aggregate affect interstate markets in some tangential way. https://t.co/cwOPWRnJ7n
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13. Congress and President Trump, with an assist from @DOGE, have the rare opportunity in 2025 to revisit the government overreach that’s been afflicting Americans since the New Deal Era. It’s time to return power to where it belongs—to the states and to the American people! https://t.co/220eVonCF4
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14. Please like and share if you agree that it’s time to give the U.S. government a massive haircut, and follow if you’d like to see more posts like this one. https://t.co/d93aJL5nrM
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵1. In a meeting today with @elonmusk, @vivekgramaswamy, & @speakerjohnson, Elon & Vivek referred to the fact that, because unelected bureaucrats now make most federal law & control much of our economy, we’ve been stripped of the benefits of a constitutional republic. https://t.co/8Zo3DoilrB
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. As @vivekgramaswamy noted, the need for Americans to demand accountability from their own government is precisely why we fought—and mercifully won—the American Revolution. That got me thinking …. https://t.co/SPw5vfO7J7
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. Throughout Anglo-American history, we’ve seen a major upheaval every 75-90 years. It’s almost like clockwork! https://t.co/miZWDp40Ck
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4.Each pivot in American history has been kickstarted by events in just three critical years. By my reckinging, those years were 1776, 1861, and 1937. These aren’t just random years; they’re game-changers. https://t.co/A23Ba6OHxu
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5.In 1776, we declared our independence from a large, distant government that recognized no limits on its authority and refused to hold itself accountable to the American people. Sound familiar? https://t.co/fkhQexOV47
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. In 1861, the American Civil War began, hastening the end of a tragic chapter of our history when many Americans “owned” other Americans as property—as slaves—with the approval and protection of government. https://t.co/aAVSrP7vUj
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7.In 1937, progressives in all three branches of the U.S. government—with one final push from the Supreme Court—dangerously eroded the Constitution’s twin structural protections: the “vertical” protection we call federalism and the “horizontal” protection known as separation-of-powers, all to facilitate FDR’s quest to centralize power in the federal government in response to the Great Depression.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. In the nearly 88 years since the Supreme Court opened this era on April 12, 1937—the day the Court re-defined Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that nothing remained of federalism, and indirectly set in motion Congress’s now-common habit of delegating lawmaking power to unelected bureaucrats—Americans have lost much of their power to control their own destiny to people in Washington, D.C.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. We’re about to have another one of those years, one that could initiate the reversal of the immense harm that has been unleashed on the American people—by their own government, no less—ever since April 12, 1937.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10.Brace yourselves because 2025 is shaping up to be the next big, pivotal year—only the fourth in our 248-year history as a country. We're on the cusp of setting in motion a new, brighter era for America.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. This next era MUST be about reinstating the Constitution’s core, structural protections—both the vertical protection of federalism and the horizontal separation-of-powers.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12.Congress needs to step up aggressively. It’s time to open this next chapter where WE, the American people, take back control from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who've been running our government like it’s their personal sandbox, treating us like their toys—or, better said—their subjects.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13.These bureaucrats churn out nearly 100,000 pages of regulations every year. Regulations that NOT ONE ELECTED LAWMAKER votes to enact into law!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14.It’s nearly impossible to fire these federal bureaucrats. They enjoy so much insulation from the citizens they govern that King George III—the tyrant whose excesses triggered the American Revolution—would be green with envy were he alive and able to observe conditions in America today. That has to end—and 2025 is the year it must happen.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
15.It's time to put the PEOPLE back in charge.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
16.In approaching this daunting, but all-important task, we must be looking not just at cutting costs, but also at setting the stage for an unprecedented era of economic growth. Without the federal “administrative state” leeching off our economy—like an alien parasite that’s torturing its host and robbing it of nutrients—we can and will thrive.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
17.Think about this: some estimate that laws imposed by the federal administrative state (generally referred to euphemistically as “regulations”) cost the American economy roughly $4 trillion annually. That’s money that could and should be in the pockets of hardworking American families, not wasted on red tape.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
18.The @DOGE effort led by @elonmusk and @vivekgramaswamy is not about austerity; it's a call for prosperity—the kind of prosperity that’s long been stifled by a bloated government, which thinks it knows better than the people it’s supposed to serve, not terrorize.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@DOGE @elonmusk @VivekGRamaswamy 19.Some have suggested that if we had never formed the federal administrative state, our economy could be an astounding FOUR TIMES its current size. Imagine the opportunities, the innovation, and the growth!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@DOGE @elonmusk @VivekGRamaswamy 20. This bureaucratic monster doesn't just cost money; it undermines us our freedom, our peace of mind, and our popular sovereignty. In a constitutional republic, the people are supposed to have power, not some faceless agency run by people who can’t be fired—even by voters!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
21.We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—not one in which major questions of law and public policy are dictated by those who aren't answerable to the ballot box.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
22. The coming year, 2025, can and must mark the beginning of the end for our current era of bureaucratic overreach, which commenced in 1937.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
23. We’re talking about restoring the balance of powers that our founders—wise men, raised up by God to that very purpose—righteously intended.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
24. It’s not just about shrinking government; it’s about making government work FOR the people, not against them or without them.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
25. So, let’s make 2025 the year we pivot back to the American dream, where government serves the people, not the other way around.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
26. We’ll see an America where businesses aren’t bogged down by regulations, where innovation isn't stifled, and where every American can truly pursue their happiness without government overreach.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
27. The time is now to dismantle the administrative state, reduce the regulatory burden, and unleash the potential of the American economy.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
28. Remember, this isn’t only about less government; it's about better government. It’s about government that respects the Constitution and the will of the people.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
29. This new era will be one in which we will see the fruits of our labors, where we can innovate without permission, and where prosperity isn't just a promise, but a reality.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
30. Let’s make 2025 the year we remember as the turning point back to constitutional governance, where the American spirit isn’t just nominally free, but truly free and empowered.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
31.No cap: this is our chance to redefine America for the better—for freedom, and for prosperity.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
32. So, let’s get to work. Let’s ensure that the next chapter in our history is written by us, the American people, not by unelected officials in D.C.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
33. We've got the power, we’ve got the will, and now, with 2025 on the horizon, we’ve got the moment. Let’s seize it.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
34. The haters can’t handle this frickin' smoke, but we know the truth: America's best days are ahead—and they always will be—when we put the Constitution first and the bureaucracy last.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
35. Please join me in this fight. Together, we'll make America not just great again, but truly free again.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
36. Please follow me if you’d like to see more posts like this. @DOGE #RestoreTheConstitution #MakeAmericaAboutFederalismAndSeparationOfPowersAgain #Pivot2025
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵🚨 1. Of all the deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people, one of them—the Social Security Act—gets far too little attention. Buckle up because this is a wild ride. https://t.co/kVM6zYnOfN
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. In 1935, the American people were sold a bill of goods. They were told, “Pay into this system, and it'll be YOUR money for retirement.” Sounds great, right? https://t.co/vornmRyOY1
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. But here's where it gets juicy, in a really ugly way. Two years later, when the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, the government did a complete 180. https://t.co/lI5wTE39oa
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. The government—through Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson—argued in essence, “Oh no, this isn’t YOUR money at all. This is a TAX, and we can do whatever we want with it.” Classic bait and switch. https://t.co/NCNFJOs0lz
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. Let’s not forget the ruling in Helvering v. Davis, where the Supreme Court upheld the Social Security Act by embracing the government’s argument / admission that what people pay into Social Security is tax revenue—available to be used as Congress may direct—and not at all money belonging to those who paid it.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. So, to summarize: the proponents of the Social Security Act told American workers that what they paid into the system would remain *their* money, not the government’s—to get Congress to pass it—and then told the courts the exact opposite when defending the Act’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court accepted the government’s argument, to the great detriment of the American people.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. Now, let’s talk about what happens to “your money” once it’s in the government's hands. Spoiler alert: it’s not managed like your IRA or 401(k).
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. First of all, this money doesn’t sit in a nice, individual account with your name on it. No, it goes into a huge account called the “Social Security Trust Fund.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. But here’s the kicker—the government routinely raids this fund. Yes, you heard that right. They take “your money” and use it for whatever the current Congress deems “necessary.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. Every few years, there’s talk in Congress about “saving Social Security.” I’ve introduced and cosponsored a number of measures over the years that would fix it. But most in Congress show little desire to fix it, and are instead constantly looking for ways to “borrow” from it—with no plan to put it back.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. And the returns? Forget about compound interest or stock market gains. Your “investment” in Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. If you had put the same amount into literally ANYTHING else—a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account—you’d be better off by the time you reached retirement age, even if the government kept some of it!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13. Do the math: with Social Security, you’re looking at a return that's pathetic compared to market averages. It’s not even an investment; it's a tax.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14. And let’s talk about how this system is set up to fail. The demographic shift? More retirees, fewer workers. It’s almost fair to compare it to a Ponzi scheme that’s running out of new investors.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
15. Every dollar you pay into Social Security, only to see it gobbled up by the government itself, is a dollar you can’t invest in your own future. It’s government dependency at its worst.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
16. Remember, this isn’t just about retirement. It’s about independence, about controlling your own destiny. With Social Security, you control nothing.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
17. The government promises you security but gives you dependency. It promises ownership but gives you a tax receipt.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
18. And don’t get me started on the management. The Social Security Administration is a bureaucratic behemoth, not exactly known for its efficiency or innovation.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
19. If you think your money is safe there, you’re in for a rude awakening. The mismanagement, the waste, the deception—it’s all on display.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
20. So, what’s the solution? We need real, genuine reform. Within the Social Security system, Americans should be able to invest in their own future, and not be shackled by the worst parts of this outdated, mismanaged system.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
21. It’s time we acknowledge the truth: Social Security as it now exists isn’t a retirement plan; it’s a tax plan with retirement benefits as an afterthought.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
22. We were sold a dream, but received a nightmare. It’s time for a wake-up call. We need real reform.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
23. It’s time for Americans to know the true history of the Social Security Act. The more people learn the truth, the more they’ll start demanding answers, options, and real reform from Congress. Please help spread the word.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
24. The history of the Social Security Act—which sadly must include the deceptive manner in which it was sold to the American people—is yet another reason why America’s century-long era of progressive government must be brought to a close.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
25. Please follow if you’d like to read more posts like this one.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵1. Tonight I hosted & moderated a forum for GOP senators, giving my colleagues a chance to hear from each of the three candidates running to replace McConnell. After hearing from each candidate, I’ve decided to support Rick Scott. Here are my takeaways:
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. As I’ve been saying for months, the Senate is supposed to be “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” but it has ceased to function as such in recent years, as majority leaders from both political parties have consolidated power at the expense of nearly every other senator.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. Senators are supposed to have ample opportunity to debate, discuss, and amend important legislation, and the Senate rules offer important procedural protections to ensure such outcomes. Those rules have been short-circuited by leaders of both parties, empowering what I sometimes describe (in the current configuration of Congress) as “The Law Firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, & Jeffries,” or simply “The Firm.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. The Firm’s vast power is good for The Firm and its members—and for a handful of lobbyists and staffers who serve as its acolytes—but it’s bad for the Senate as a whole, and especially bad for the American people.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. For that reason, I’ve been calling on those running to become the next Senate GOP leader to agree to a series of reforms designed to restore rules, customs, and practices that in the past helped earn the Senate the (currently inaccurate) title of “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. While I personally like all three leadership candidates and consider them friends—and while each offers a unique set of skills, experience, and plans that could prove useful to the Senate and the American people—Rick Scott stands out as the most aggressively reform-minded candidate.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. Rick Scott offers the most specific, aggressive plan for restoring the Senate’s most time-honored traditions, rooted in its rules. And he’s embraced many of these reforms—which have been reflected in his votes & advocacy within the conference—since long before this race began.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. Rick Scott has offered concrete plans for (a) protecting each senator’s ability to call up amendments and make them pending, (b) reforming the (currently barbaric) way in which the Senate passes spending bills, in which most senators have literally no meaningful opportunity to to amend—or even read and debate—spending bills negotiated in secret by The Firm, and (c) otherwise ensuring that the Senate GOP leader will work for those who elect him, and not the other way around.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. Rick Scott’s approach is also the most closely aligned with and focused on helping President Trump enact his legislative agenda, which is supported by more than 75 million American voters.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. With this in mind, I wholeheartedly endorse Rick Scott, and respectfully urge my colleagues—particularly those who agree that bold reforms are badly needed—to do the same.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. All three candidates offered helpful perspectives on how our conference should operate, and I found the entire discussion refreshing and productive. But Rick Scott’s approach stands out, and that’s why I’ll be casting my vote for him.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. Rick Scott has consistently called out abuses of the Senate GOP leader position in the past—even when it was difficult and at times politically costly to him. This is yet another reason to support him.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Planned Parenthood bartering over human body parts “I have like a leg for you” “If other people were to hear me, they’d be like … you’re [expletive deleted] evil” https://t.co/hR9g0JH20U
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
The House passed the SAVE Act, in a bipartisan vote. Every Senate Republican supports it. Senate Democrats refused to let it pass—three times—signaling their defiant unwillingness to stop noncitizen voting. Shame on them.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Arizona refuses to remove illegal aliens from voter-registration files. If this doesn’t prove the need for Congress to pass the SAVE Act, I don’t know what does.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
It almost seems like one political party is relying on votes from noncitizens. If only we could figure out which party that is.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Americans don’t vote in foreign elections Noncitizens shouldn’t vote in ours We need the SAVE ACT — attached to the September spending bill — to stop that from happening Share if you agree
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 1. The American people can’t pretend the European Union’s attempt to extort @elonmusk yesterday—threatening to punish him unless he canceled his plan to interview @realDonaldTrump on X—didn’t threaten to fundamentally change our relationship with longstanding European allies.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. Fully 22 of the 27 countries that belong to the European Union also belong to NATO, meaning that they benefit from the U.S. security umbrella, and from our obligation under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty to defend them if they’re attacked.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. This works out well for Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. It’s sometimes less of a good deal for the U.S., which has long shouldered a disproportionate share of Europe’s security burden.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. Those same 22 countries dominate—and certainly have the power to restrain—the EU.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. Those counties (which control the EU) tried to wield the EU’s regulatory power over a U.S. company to influence our presidential elections—based on the absurd contention that the EU had to act to protect EU citizens from misinformation.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. They tried to help Kamala Harris by depriving Donald Trump of an opportunity offered to both Trump and Harris (but accepted by Trump and declined by Harris): a live interview with @elonmusk on X—one of the few channels of information in America that isn’t “all in” for Harris.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. How can we ignore that 22 of our European allies, acting through the EU, are trying to interfere with and affect the outcome of our presidential elections?
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. When we put American blood and treasure on the line—as we do by honoring our NATO commitments—that should mean something. At a minimum, it should mean that they won’t extort U.S. companies to interfere with our presidential elections.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. What do you think this should mean for the future of NATO, and U.S. involvement in it?
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. Our often-unreciprocated security assistance to these European allies makes it easier for them to do other things with their money—like funding extravagant welfare-state programs and the EU, which has now been weaponized against us to influence our presidential elections.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. Europe had a good thing going—we pay for their security (far more of it than we should) so they can do whatever they want.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13. With the “whatever they want” approach culminating in what happened yesterday—with @ThierryBreton trying to extort @elonmusk to help Kamala Harris defeat Donald Trump—the EU has now offended at least half of American voters. (I hope it’s more than half, given that this should bother Democrats too).
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 14. Imagine what would’ve happened if the EU had tried to do this four years ago to help Donald Trump and hurt Joe Biden. I know, it’d never happen that way, but imagine the outcry if it did. The media would be incensed and outraged over this. They’d have spoken of little else.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 15. And yet what is the MSM saying about this? Basically nothing.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 16. This is a good time for Americans—despite what they’re hearing, or not hearing, from the media (and regardless of their political ideology)—to stop and think about what this outrageous act by the EU should mean for America and her interests in Europe.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@ThierryBreton @elonmusk 17. If the EU’s attempt to extort a U.S. company in an obvious effort to influence the U.S. presidential election isn’t cause for U.S. to re-evaluate our relationship with our European allies, I don’t know what is.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Kim Cheatle: step down now! https://t.co/T9YvdVipfU
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
I’ve been conferring with some of my colleagues who were on the call, and a bunch of us had put ourselves in the cue to ask questions to the Secret Service, but they ended the call after taking only a few questions.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
With Chevron’s demise, it’s time for Congress to re-learn how to write real laws. 🧵 1/ https://t.co/sOgK9rsqby
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
For decades, Congress has relied on a lazy technique. 2/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Rather than enacting *real* laws, Congress has delegated much of its lawmaking power to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. 3/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
In other words, rather than making laws, Congress has in many instances made … other lawmakers. 4/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
There are a number of problems with this approach. 5/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
The Constitution makes Congress the sole lawmaking organ of the federal government. 6/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Article I, Section 1 — the Constitution’s first operative provision — provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” 7/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Article I, Section 7 sets the standard for enacting federal laws: both houses of Congress must pass the same text, and that text (having been passed by both chambers) must be presented to the president. If vetoed, the bill passes only if both chambers override the veto with a 2/3 supermajority. 8/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Notwithstanding the plain language of the Constitution—which makes clear that only Congress can make laws—Congress has delegated much of that power to bureaucrats in the executive branch, and in some cases to the president. 9/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Congress passes a law stating a non-controversial objective, which we will refer to here as “X.” Congress then passes legislation declaring in essence “We shall achieve X, and we hereby delegate to agency Y the power to make and enforce laws to achieve X.” 10/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Agency Y then makes laws — typically referred to as “rules” or “regulations” — based on what agency Y thinks is the best way of achieving X. Agency Y thereafter enforces the same rules and regulations it writes. 11/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Don’t let the shifting nomenclature fool you. Rules and regulations have the effect of federal law. In countless circumstances, failure to abide by them can result in heavy fines, having your business shut down, and even imprisonment. 12/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
For example, Congress passes a law saying in essence, “We shall have clean air, and we hereby delegate to the EPA the power to make our air clean—by making and enforcing rules and regulations (carrying the full force of federal law) to achieve that objective. 13/
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Do you have assets in New York? If so, have you developed a plan to liquidate or move them to another state?
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Why did 15 Senate Republicans oppose @SenRickScott’s motion to strip earmarks from the #SchumerMinibus? This seems odd considering that (a) the Senate Republican Conference has a policy in opposition to earmarks, and (b) earmarks fuel huge deficits. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00082.htm
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm™️ plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow. Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?” The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom). The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her. Rather, it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell (“The Firm™️”), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which The Firm™️ (1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy, (2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives, (3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm™️ itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then (4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it. Whenever The Firm™️ engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate. By so doing, The Firm™️ effectively disenfranchises hundreds of millions of Americans—at least for purposes relevant to the legislation at hand—and that’s tragic. It’s also unAmerican, uncivil, uncollegial, and really uncool. So why does The Firm™️ do it? Every time The Firm™️ utilizes this approach and the bill passes—and it nearly always does—The Firm™️ becomes more powerful. The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm™️ has become very adept at (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm™️ with various privileges that The Firm™️ is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm™️ is free to distribute in any manner it pleases). It’s through this process that The Firm™️ passes most major spending legislation. It’s through this process that The Firm™️ likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm™️ has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma. I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm™️ has been willing to share. But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week. Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments. There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week. Depending on how long it is and the complexity of its provisions, the minimum period of time we should devote to this bill after it’s released should be measured in weeks or months, not days or hours. Please share this if you agree.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
I just endorsed Donald Trump. Whether you like Trump or not, Americans face a binary choice. Biden refuses to enforce our border, prosecutes his opponents, & embraces policies that make life unaffordable for hardworking Americans. I’ll take the mean tweets. I choose Trump.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 CONGRESS AS A LAW FIRM: 1. “Welcome to the law firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and Jeffries (‘The Firm™️’). You should know how things work around here. You know those people you think you represent? They really need Firm Security to spy on them, even if they deny it.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. “Remember, you’re here to do whatever we tell you to do—regardless of what those you represent think. And by ‘we,’ we mean the four of us—the four named partners of The Firm.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. “To be clear, Mr. Johnson is new, and we’re not yet sure whether he’ll agree with our approach to managing The Firm. In fact, we’re afraid he might not. But we hope he will, and are doing our best to convince him that he has no choice but to agree with the other three of us.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. “The most important thing to remember is that we’re always right, and you shouldn’t assume that you—or those you represent—know better. You don’t, and neither do they.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. “Firm Security spies on The Firm’s clients—including those who specifically chose *you* to represent them—although we refuse to tell them that. Instead, we insist that they REALLY need Firm Security to look out for them, and they shouldn’t believe anyone who claims otherwise.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. “The Firm will vote this week on whether to keep Firm Security doing what it’s been doing for a long time—spying on our clients, while insisting that they’re not. And although some of you wanted to at least discuss changes to how Firm Security operates, we won’t let you.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. “To prevent you from even thinking about opposing us on this point, we’re going to package the vote with a bunch of other things—things that the people you represent really like, want, and need. You’ll look like an idiot if you vote against it. We’ll make sure of it.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. “In fact, if you vote against it, we’ll imply that you did so because don’t care about their safety and security. You can say what you want, of course, but we’ll punish you, and many will believe us more than you. We’re the named partners of The Firm, and people listen to us.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. “Also, you should know that in a few weeks, we’ll be voting on what to do with every penny The Firm has to spend. You won’t have any choice but to support or oppose whatever proposal—in its entirety—the four named partners put together.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. “We’ll expect you to support that without complaint—and without proposing any changes to our spending plan—and if you complain or oppose it, we’ll tell those you represent that you wanted to shut down The Firm and leave them hanging, ultimately hurting them more than anyone.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. #StopTheNDAA
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
The UN perpetuates child rape. #DefundTheUN. Make it trend. https://t.co/39REzToZzy
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Please like and repost if you agree that Congress should require FBI to get a warrant when surveilling Americans under FISA 702.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
1. FBI Director Christopher Wray just told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Congress (1) MUST reauthorize FISA 702, and (2) MUST NOT impose a requirement that FBI obtain a search warrant before conducting “backdoor searches” of American citizens through the 702 database.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. I asked Wray about specific instances in which FBI personnel have abused the rights of Americans under FISA 702. He insisted that those things are in the past and won’t happen again now that FBI has adopted new procedures.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. The claim that FBI has fixed this—by changing its own internal procedures and adopted new policies—is completely unpersuasive. I’ve heard the same thing from FBI directors in three different presidential administrations. This has not changed in the 13 years I’ve been on this.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. When the FBI is allowed to police itself, and need not go to court to get a warrant based on evidence establishing probably cause—like every other law-enforcement agency in America—it abuses its power under FISA.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. When Wray insists that a warrant requirement would just be too difficult for FBI to comply with, that isn’t surprising. Literally every government that has ever been required to obtain a search warrant—after previously not being required to do so—has raised similar concerns.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. The Constitution itself adds to the government’s burden’s—that’s the whole point of it. The Fourth Amendment is no exception to that.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. The Constitution restrains government power because unchecked government power, once it sets in, is exceedingly difficult for citizens to counteract.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. Director Wray told me, when I asked him about specific instances in which 702 has been abused by FBI, that the new procedures would prevent the abuses in question. Probably false. At least two of the examples I raised, which occurred AFTER the new procedures were adopted.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. And those weren’t minor exceptions. One of them involved a query of a U.S. senator. Another involved a state court judge who had complained about civil rights abuses by the FBI. Both occurred after FBI adopted the new procedures.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. There have undoubtedly been many others. But I asked him specifically about those instances, both of which occurred *after* FBI adopted its new, supposedly fool-proof reforms.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. Also, the FISA court comments Wray relied on in making that absurd claim that all problems had been fixed by new policies weren’t nearly as glowing as he described them. In fact, they acknowledged ongoing problems.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. Then there’s this. Please watch the video.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵1.The law firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy, & Jeffries (“The Firm”) has learned that members of Congress (and voters) don’t like “omnibus” spending bills—that is, legislative proposals that fund all of the functions of the federal government in a single, consolidated bill.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2.This presents a challenge for The Firm, which has for years used omnibus spending bills to manipulate the legislative process. Before we address The Firm’s latest challenge and how it’s responding, let’s first review a few of the basic dynamics at play here.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. An omnibus spending bill is typically written by The Firm in secret, with assistance from a few “appropriators” (members of the House and Senate spending or “appropriations” committees), hand-picked by The Firm.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4.Once written, an omnibus will first be seen by the public—and even by nearly every member of Congress—only days or hours before a scheduled shutdown.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. The timing and sequence of a typical omnibus, carefully orchestrated by The Firm, all but ensures that it will pass without substantive changes once it becomes public, and that very few elected, federal lawmakers will have meaningful input in this highly secretive process.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. At the same time, the fast (almost mindless) flurry of legislative action at the end of this legislative charade gives it the false appearance of democratic legitimacy.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. Sometimes that appearance is enhanced by The Firm deciding to let members vote on a small handful of amendments, but The Firm persuades enough members into opposing amendments that make substantial changes to the original, sacred text drafted by The Firm.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. What’s stunning here is that loyalties within The Firm seem to run deeper than those within each party. In light of that phenomenon, some observers have described the force uniting support for The Firm’s omnibus bills as “the Uniparty.” While members of both parties are adversely affected by The Firm’s manipulative tactics, there is far more resentment toward The Firm among Republicans, who see two constants in The Firm’s impact: (1) government spending inexorably grows, and (2) the spending bills advanced by The Firm tend to unite Democrats while sharply dividing Republicans, producing a net gain for Democrats. While exceptions can occasionally be found, Republican appropriators are notorious for wanting to spend—far more than they want to advance Republican policy priorities, deeply endearing them to The Firm.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9. Sure, all members of Congress get to vote on the bill’s ultimate passage. But passage is all but assured. The Firm tells members that they MUST pass it—even though they haven’t seen it, read it, or had time to debate or amend it—because if they don’t, there will be a government shutdown.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10. The Firm also makes clear that members voting against the omnibus will be blamed—by The Firm itself—for the shutdown and its ugly consequences.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
11. Thus, although voters in every state elect people to Congress to represent them in all federal legislative endeavors, The Firm can (and often does) render their individual involvement in the spending process far less meaningful than it should be.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
12. This sort of thing makes The Firm far more powerful, with more power flowing to The Firm every time this cycle is completed. It’s great for The Firm and the lobbyists and special interests able to capture The Firm’s attention (through home-state connections, political donations, or otherwise).
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
13. But it’s terrible for the American people, who are stuck with the horrible consequences of this shameful dance, including rampant inflation and our $33 trillion national debt. L
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
14. In a sense, the problem is not necessarily the omnibus itself. In theory, Congress could pass a comprehensive spending bill in a way that didn’t exclude most of its members—and most Americans—from the process of drafting, debating, amending, and passing that bill.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
15. Thus, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the omnibus itself; the true evil lies in the process by which the omnibus is secretly drafted, hastily debated, and then passed under extortion from The Firm.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
16. Many Americans have, over time, developed a basic understanding of omnibus spending bills—at least enough to be suspicious of them. Having heard enough complaints from their constituents, many members of Congress have understandably begun expressing reluctance toward any omnibus.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
17. The Firm has become aware of that growing reluctance, which is a serious threat to The Firm, given how well the omnibus has served The Firm as it perpetually tries to make itself more powerful at the expense of the American people.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
18. Clearly alarmed by that threat, some members of The Firm have started to say things like “we will not support omnibus.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
19. By saying that, they make themselves sound heroic, responsive to voters and rank-and-file members, and committed to serious reform of the spending process.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
20. That illusion disappears when, on closer inspection, it becomes evident that The Firm’s new strategy is to promise to pass two or three smaller omnibus measures (sometimes called “minibus” bills) by essentially the same, rigged process long associated with the omnibus.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
21. Those leery of The Firm’s manipulation tactics understand that (a) the absence of a single omnibus bill, and the use of two or more “minibus” bills instead of a single omnibus, doesn’t mean the process will be fair or materially different than that associated with an omnibus, and (b) it’s very likely that Congress will find itself stuck with a single omnibus, in spite of The Firm’s recent insistence to the contrary.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
22. Given that Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives, rank-and-file Republicans in both chambers generally believe that the Senate should address spending bills only after they have been passed by the Republican-controlled House, as that approach is more likely to protect Republican priorities.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
23. Congress is supposed to pass twelve spending bills each year, each associated with different functions of the federal government. So far this year, the House has passed only one spending bill—the one known by the abbreviation “MilConVA,” which contains funding for military construction and the Veterans Administration.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
24.This week, the Senate moved to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA appropriations bill.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
25. Not content to let the Senate deal with only one spending bill at a time, The Firm wanted to create a minibus out of the MilConVA bill by adding two additional bills drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee—specifically those containing funding for (1) agriculture, and (2) transportation, housing, and urban development.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
26. Conservative Republicans in the House and Senate found this move alarming, as it would strengthen The Firm at the expense of Republican priorities, and contribute to the eventual likelihood of an end-of-year omnibus geared primarily toward advancing Democratic priorities.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
27. The Firm faced a hurdle: combining the three bills together in the Senate would require the consent of every senator.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
28. While many Senate Republicans harbored these concerns, most identified conditions that, if satisfied, would persuade them to consent. Most of the conditions involved some combination of (1) technical and procedural assurances pertaining to how the combined bill would be considered, and (2) an agreement to vote on specific proposed amendments advancing Republican priorities.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
29. One Republican senator in particular, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, remained concerned that any agreement would benefit The Firm and far more than it would advance Republican priorities. On that basis, he objected.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
30. The Firm wasn’t happy. Making its displeasure known, The Firm and its cheerleaders tried to blame @RonJohnsonWI for the Senate’s inability to restore what’s known as “regular order,” that is, the process by which each of the twelve appropriations bills is supposed to advance independently, and in a way that honors each member’s procedural rights by allowing an “open amendment process.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@RonJohnsonWI 31. Here’s the irony: what The Firm was proposing was NOT “regular order.” Far from it, it was a slightly different flavor of The Firm’s tried-and-true manipulation formula.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
32. Because @SenRonJohnson courageously objected, shortly after the Senate voted to proceed to the House-passed MilConVA bill, the Senate may now proceed to “regular order” consideration of that bill—unencumbered by The Firm’s manipulative plan to subject the Senate to an unending series of omnibus (or omnibus-like) bills that The Firm can ram through both chambers with minimal interference from rank-and-file members.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
@RonJohnsonWI @SenRonJohnson 33. @SenRonJohnson deserves credit for standing on principle, and should be thanked for his dedication.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵We’re $33 trillion in debt because when Congress passes spending bills, each item is often tied to every other item—packaged together in one, gigantic bill. That bill is then presented to Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with no real chance to amend, improve, or cut. https://t.co/fS4BagnVzj
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
The formula has been quite consistent for years: a tiny group of leaders — which I refer to as “The Law Firm of Schumer, McConnell, McCarthy & Jeffries” — privately negotiates a “draft” spending bill, some would say with more input from lobbyists than most members of Congress.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
That bill is kept as if it were a highly classified secret until days (sometimes hours) before a spending deadline—that is, the moment the government will run out of money, resulting in a shutdown unless Congress passes another spending bill.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
It’s not unusual for some powerful lobbyists to know more about what’s in the bill (prior to its release) than most members of Congress.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
As soon as it’s been released, allowing most members of Congress to see it for the first time, lawmakers in both chambers are told “you’ve got to pass this — right now, without any changes — in order to avoid a shutdown.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Lawmakers who want time to read and amend the bill—and to remove excessive or inappropriate items in the bill (or add new items wrongly omitted from it)—are told “that would be nice, but there just isn’t time for any of that.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Lawmakers are also told essentially: “you’ve got two options here: you can vote for the bill, or you can vote against it. Yes or no. No amendments. It’s your choice. But know this: if you oppose the bill, you’ll risk causing a shutdown, and you’ll be blamed if that happens.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Many members quickly acquiesce to these intimidation tactics, uttering (as if reciting a mantra), rehearsed phrases like “this bill isn’t perfect, and the process was totally unfair, but I (heroically) voted for it anyway because I care about the troops and hate shutdowns.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Never mind that the bill spends too much money. Never mind that it funds countless things those voting “yes” publicly oppose. Never mind that, for all most of Congress knows, the bill might fund giant monuments to Benedict Arnold, King George III, and Milli Vanilli. They’re in.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Nobody wants a shutdown. Literally no one. It’s wrong for the Law Firm — whose members control the legislative schedules in both chambers — to pin the shutdown risk on rank-and-file lawmakers when the Law Firm itself has, quite deliberately, created that risk by its own delay.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Yet the Law Firm does this, again and again, year after year. And members of both parties in both chambers of Congress continue to fall for the same trick, even while complaining about it. It’s like Charlie Brown thinking “this time it’s different; Lucy won’t move the football.” https://t.co/uWvVW3HCyC
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
And it keeps working because most members of Congress fall for it, every single time. That’s why we’re $33 trillion in debt.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Make no mistake, this is good for the Law Firm, which grows more powerful every time we repeat this cycle. It’s also good for the lobbyists and special interests whose pet projects get funded through this process. It’s terrible for literally EVERYONE ELSE in America.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Most Americans are left out of this process, as their elected lawmakers are often as in the dark as they are about what the Law Firm will include in its next spending bill. And then those same Americans are understandably furious because they’re stuck with the bill.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
This vicious cycle will continue as long as it keeps working. And make no mistake, it will keep working as long as most members of Congress continue to support spending bills created through this sham process, plunging our nation even further into crippling debt.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
If this sounds like a good and fair process to you—and you like accumulating new debt to the tune of a trillion dollars or more per year—you’re in luck because it’s now the norm. If you like this approach, tell your members of Congress to “keep it up.”
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
But if you find this process as revolting, insulting, and damaging as I do, please tell your elected lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to oppose any spending bill that they haven’t the opportunity to read, comprehend, debate, and amend. Such bills always perpetuate huge deficits!
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Tell them not to succumb to pressure from the Law Firm, and assure them that you and countless others will blame the Law Firm—and not the members daring to oppose the Law Firm’s take-it-or-leave-it, spending-bill extortion—for any shutdown risk.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
Together, we can put an end to this barbaric practice. But we need your help to make that happen! Please amplify this message if you agree.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
🧵 1/ If you ever want to be showered with kind words and civility from liberals on Twitter, just say something nice about Justice Clarence Thomas.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2/ Let’s test my theory on this thread.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3/ Justice Thomas is one of the most decent people I’ve ever known, and has made not only the Supreme Court but also the world a better place.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4/ Those who actually know him—as opposed to those who know only the butchered, hate-and falsehood-filled caricature of him perpetuated by the Left—think the world of him, regardless of their background, political philosophy, or party affiliation.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5/ He takes his judicial oath seriously and interprets the law based on what it says, not based on what he or others wish the law said. He’s willing to take tough positions when duty compels him to do so. All jurists should have this trait. Sadly, there are plenty who do not.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6/ It is not in Justice Thomas’s nature to violate any law or rule, nor have any of the allegations raised against him established a violation of any law or rule.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7/ Justice Thomas loves and cares deeply about people. Everyone with whom he interacts can attest to this.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8/ He loves, serves, and fights tirelessly to protect and defend the rights of the same people who hate him and do everything they can to undermine him.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
9/ If those same people could somehow get to know him, they wouldn’t hate him. It would be impossible for them to do so.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
10/ Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginny, are the kind of people every American should want in their community. They love this country and have sacrificed much in its service. They deserve respect and kindness from people of all backgrounds. It saddens me to see them mistreated.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
1. America’s AWESOME in spite of its government. Here’s an example: while the U.S. military deliberately kept all of us in the dark about the Chinese spy balloon, a private citizen—Larry Mayer, a photographer with The Billings Gazette—caught it on camera and told us about it.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
2. Without Larry Mayer (or someone like him along the balloon’s long, deliberate surveillance tour through America), we might never have learned about the balloon—even as it was hovering over some of our most sensitive military installations.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
3. The U.S. government didn’t employ Larry Mayer or pay him to keep the American people informed. He just did it because he loves this country and wants to keep his fellow Americans informed.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
4. This is why America’s in good hands—in the hands of its own people. It also differentiates us from China, where the people suffer under the yoke of oppression, lacking the freedom to express their own views and release pictures they take without the government’s permission.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
5. We need to be especially suspicious of any effort within our own government to commandeer information and hide it from the people—especially information that might be essential to their ability to assess obvious threats to their own safety and that of our country.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
6. We all have not only the right, but also the obligation to be skeptical of our government—especially when it keeps us in the dark about things we have every right to know.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
7. Beware of those who ask you to put blind faith in the same military experts who hide from you information the people—as citizens in a free, constitutional republic—have the right to receive, and need to know in order to remain in charge of their own government.
@BasedMikeLee - Mike Lee
8. I’m not proud of how our military handled this—as a situation in which the people had to be kept in the dark. But I couldn’t be more proud of the American people, especially Larry Mayer, the photographer with The Billings Gazette. God bless America!