Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has been revealed for applying for stimulus funds under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which is part of the federal bailout provided for relief during the coronavirus pandemic.
TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk acted like he was a hero for ultimately rejecting the welfare that his organization initially applied for.
“For a split second I considered it,” Kirk wrote in his column released on Wednesday. He said that TPUSA could have received $1.2 million from the PPP.
“But then I remembered the source of this unexpected temptation,” Kirk added. “How could I possibly accept money from big government when I had spent my entire adult life fighting against it?”
However, TPUSA only rejected the money after first applying to receive the bailout funds. TPUSA COO Tyler Bowyer confirmed that this was the case in a public Facebook post.
“We applied as soon as the gates opened before details were confirmed publicly and digestible (as you remember the bill was huge),” Bowyer wrote on Wednesday in a response to the news. However, Bowyer claims that “after researching and seeing the strings attached it is clear this is not the appropriate action.”
What makes this gambit particularly dishonest and slimy is how TPUSA fundraised off rejecting the funds they requested, trying to fleece their donor class of boomers with misleading and inaccurate information.
Best-selling author and “America First” movement leader Michelle Malkin called out Kirk’s hypocrisy in a blistering Twitter post:
ConInc at work: @tpusa applied for bailout funds "as soon as the gates opened," then realized it would be "inappropriate," then sent out @charliekirk11 fund-raising solicitation patting selves on back & asking donors to help spread their message that "big government sucks." 🤡 pic.twitter.com/PbE9GPterV
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 1, 2020
Big League Politics has exposed Kirk and TPUSA for their hypocrisy in the past that has hurt the conservative movement:
Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk, who bills himself as one of the most outspoken advocates for freedom of speech in the US, reportedly shut out dissent from a debate that he had with leftist Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk at Politicon 2019 last night.
In usual fashion, Kirk paid lip service to the notion of free speech during the debate, bemoaning “speech police” who are “telling people they can’t say certain things” such as “America is the greatest country in the history of the world.”
However, it does not appear that Kirk practices what he preaches. The TPUSA founder allegedly had security personnel ban paleoconservative video blogger Nick Fuentes from attending the event, with several goons blocking Fuentes from entering the venue.
The host of “America First” noted that he was a paying customer of Politcon and had the right to attend the event, but security refused to let him in anyway.
Law enforcement also accosted Fuentes when he went to approach Kirk to have a discussion with him and request a photograph. It seems that Kirk is willing to use the same bullying tactics as the Left when it comes to protecting himself and his organization from unauthorized dissent.
Although Kirk has changed his tune on immigration in recent months, he still has not fully renounced his Conservative Inc. shyster ways.
What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?
Trying to make sense of a messy situation.
Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.
A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”
As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.
This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.
Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”
In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.
Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.
“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”
If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.
Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.
So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.
Tech3 days ago
MeWe Goes Big Tech Authoritarian, Opts for Political Censorship
White House2 days ago
Biden’s White House Considering Banning Conservative Media from Press Briefings
Deplorables2 days ago
Donald Trump’s Team Officially Disavows the ‘Patriot Party’, Affirms the GOP Belongs to Trump
Congress3 days ago
SURRENDER CAUCUS: 17 House RINO Freshmen Pledge Loyalty to President-Imposed Joe Biden
Free Speech4 days ago
British Police Officer CRIMINALLY CHARGED for Sharing George Floyd Meme in WhatsApp Group
Politics3 days ago
FINAL BETRAYAL: Mitt Romney Pushes Unconstitutional Impeachment Trial of Private Citizen Trump
Fake News Media3 days ago
Jim Acosta Calls Conservative Media a “Disinformation-Industrial Complex” and “Potential Existential Threat”
Congress3 days ago
Madison Cawthorn Once Opposed Electoral College Certification…Now He Says Biden’s Victory was Legitimate