Sunday, March 1, 2026

Party is over

**Yes, that's a real post** from the Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) on X. They posted exactly that statement (with the minor typo "is legacy" instead of "his legacy") on February 28, 2026, and it went viral with tens of thousands of likes, reposts, and replies.

The context is their strong backlash against President Trump's decision to launch military strikes (and what escalated into a joint U.S.-Israeli operation called "Operation Epic Fury") against Iran in late February 2026. This happened early in Trump's second term.

The Hodgetwins, who have historically been vocal Trump supporters and prominent in MAGA/conservative circles, accused him of breaking his repeated 2024 campaign promises of "no new wars" and focusing on "America First" (avoiding foreign entanglements). They highlighted:

- Trump campaigning on ending endless wars and not sending American troops to die overseas.
- Now engaging in what they see as a war (bombing Iran, regime change elements, fighting "for Israel").
- This as a betrayal, lie to voters, and massive self-inflicted damage to his own legacy.

Other posts from them around the same time include:
- "We were promised no more wars with Trump. Now we are at war against Iran for Israel."
- "Freeing the people of Iran is not why I voted for Trump."
- Questions like "Are you happy with President Trump bombing Iran twice so far in his second term?"

This caused a split in some MAGA circles, with criticism also from figures like Tucker Carlson and others calling it a betrayal of anti-interventionist promises. Not everyone agreed—some defended Trump or attacked the Hodgetwins for "turning" after years of supporting him—but the post you shared is authentic and reflects their current (as of early March 2026) frustration over the Iran conflict.

Whether Trump's actions truly amount to a "lie," "backstabbing," or "disgracing his legacy" is subjective and hotly debated. Supporters argue it's necessary defense against threats (e.g., Iranian actions), while critics (including the Hodgetwins here) see it as abandoning core promises. The statement itself accurately represents their opinion at that moment.

Henry McClure
785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
on No comments:

Twins

**Yes, that's a real post** from the Hodgetwins (@hodgetwins) on X. They posted exactly that statement (with the minor typo "is legacy" instead of "his legacy") on February 28, 2026, and it went viral with tens of thousands of likes, reposts, and replies.

The context is their strong backlash against President Trump's decision to launch military strikes (and what escalated into a joint U.S.-Israeli operation called "Operation Epic Fury") against Iran in late February 2026. This happened early in Trump's second term.

The Hodgetwins, who have historically been vocal Trump supporters and prominent in MAGA/conservative circles, accused him of breaking his repeated 2024 campaign promises of "no new wars" and focusing on "America First" (avoiding foreign entanglements). They highlighted:

- Trump campaigning on ending endless wars and not sending American troops to die overseas.
- Now engaging in what they see as a war (bombing Iran, regime change elements, fighting "for Israel").
- This as a betrayal, lie to voters, and massive self-inflicted damage to his own legacy.

Other posts from them around the same time include:
- "We were promised no more wars with Trump. Now we are at war against Iran for Israel."
- "Freeing the people of Iran is not why I voted for Trump."
- Questions like "Are you happy with President Trump bombing Iran twice so far in his second term?"

This caused a split in some MAGA circles, with criticism also from figures like Tucker Carlson and others calling it a betrayal of anti-interventionist promises. Not everyone agreed—some defended Trump or attacked the Hodgetwins for "turning" after years of supporting him—but the post you shared is authentic and reflects their current (as of early March 2026) frustration over the Iran conflict.

Whether Trump's actions truly amount to a "lie," "backstabbing," or "disgracing his legacy" is subjective and hotly debated. Supporters argue it's necessary defense against threats (e.g., Iranian actions), while critics (including the Hodgetwins here) see it as abandoning core promises. The statement itself accurately represents their opinion at that moment.

Henry McClure
785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
on No comments:

Watch "BREAKING NEWS: Joseph Kent Warns of 18,000 Terrorists Entering US Under Biden’s Open Borders | AC14" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/kX__XWOgZ34?si=LFeVHlK5bjHNuf0K



Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:

Dead man

In the United States, each chamber of Congress (the House and the Senate) has the constitutional authority to expel one of its members with a two-thirds majority vote. This power comes from Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states that each house may "punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." However, expulsion is the most severe form of discipline and has historically been reserved for serious misconduct, such as corruption, treason, or abuse of power—not for health issues, age, or mental incapacity. There have been only 20 expulsions in congressional history (15 in the Senate and 5 in the House), and none have ever been for medical or cognitive reasons. In practice, it's extremely rare and unlikely to be used that way, as it requires broad bipartisan support and could set a controversial precedent.

There is no specific law or mechanism in the Constitution or federal statutes for removing a sitting member of Congress solely due to mental unsoundness, poor health, or advanced age—even if recovery seems improbable. Courts have refused to intervene in such cases, viewing it as a matter for Congress or the voters. Instead, the main ways a seat becomes vacant are through death, resignation, or the member losing reelection. In cases of severe incapacity, the member's staff often handles day-to-day duties, or the member might choose to step down voluntarily.

Regarding Mitch McConnell specifically, he's still serving as a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, with his current term ending in January 2027. He announced in 2024 that he wouldn't seek reelection in 2026, so he's essentially in a lame-duck period now. As of early 2026, he's 84 years old and has faced ongoing health challenges, including a recent hospitalization in February for flu-like symptoms (from which he was released and is now working from home). He's also had public incidents like freezing during press conferences and falls in prior years, which have raised questions about his fitness. That said, there's no indication of any expulsion effort against him, and based on historical precedent, it's not something that would happen for health reasons alone. If his condition worsens to the point of clear misconduct (e.g., inability to perform duties leading to some ethical breach), the Senate could theoretically vote to expel him, but that's a high bar and hasn't been pursued. Ultimately, voters in Kentucky would have the final say in the next election cycle if he were running again, but since he's not, his seat will open up naturally in 2027.

Henry McClure
785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
on No comments:

John Thune

As of late February 2026, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (specifically, the updated version known as the SAVE America Act, H.R. 7296/amendment to S. 1383) has passed the U.S. House of Representatives but has not yet passed the Senate. [1, 2, 3]  
Key details on the status of the legislation: 

• House Passage (Feb 2026): The House passed the updated, stricter version, often referred to as the SAVE America Act, on February 11, 2026, with a vote of 218-213. 
• Previous Versions: A similar version of the SAVE Act (H.R. 22) previously passed the House in April 2025 but stalled in the Senate. 
• Senate Status: The bill is currently awaiting a vote in the Senate. It faces a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster, and with narrow margins, its passage is uncertain. 
• Provisions: The legislation requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, in person to register to vote in federal elections, and mandates a photo ID to vote. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]  

While supporters argue the bill is necessary to ensure election integrity, opponents argue it could create significant barriers to voting for millions of citizens. [8, 9]  

AI responses may include mistakes.


I


Henry McClure
785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
on No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)