Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Yeah, that's not what this bill does. Nice try though. It's always refreshing to see members visibly reading talking points while shooting a video. Rep. Bakeberg (R-Jordan) sets the record straight (during a committee hearing on the actual bill, not in a scripted video): "This is not a voucher...

MNHRCWarRoom's profile picture

MN House GOP Rapid Response

9,096 subscribers

31,225 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

House Fraud Committee Hearing confirms that illegal immigrants can vote under current laws in Minnesota Also confirmed Minnesota Voter Registration does NOT require proof of citizenship - The Minnesota director of elections testified that illegal immigrants can absolutely vote in the state of Minnesota, as long as they have a driver's license - In 2023, Tim Walz signed a bill expanding access to driver's licenses to anyone, regardless of immigration status - They confirmed during the house fraud committee hearing that illegal immigrants can vote under current laws in Minnesota, which obviously raises massive concerns about election integrity - Not to mention Minnesota's voter registration does not require proof of citizenship at all. If this is not a concern for you, then you are anti-American — This should be a problem for everyone. Minnesota admitting this should bother everyone, no matter what side you're on, no matter how hard you want to fight for illegal or legal immigrants. It doesn't matter because that's not the issue at hand. — How is that fair to the people of that country? It's not. And this is a problem.”
1:52

House Fraud Committee Hearing confirms that illegal immigrants can vote under current laws in Minnesota Also confirmed Minnesota Voter Registration does NOT require proof of citizenship - The Minnesota director of elections testified that illegal immigrants can absolutely vote in the state of Minnesota, as long as they have a driver's license - In 2023, Tim Walz signed a bill expanding access to driver's licenses to anyone, regardless of immigration status - They confirmed during the house fraud committee hearing that illegal immigrants can vote under current laws in Minnesota, which obviously raises massive concerns about election integrity - Not to mention Minnesota's voter registration does not require proof of citizenship at all. If this is not a concern for you, then you are anti-American — This should be a problem for everyone. Minnesota admitting this should bother everyone, no matter what side you're on, no matter how hard you want to fight for illegal or legal immigrants. It doesn't matter because that's not the issue at hand. — How is that fair to the people of that country? It's not. And this is a problem.”

Wall Street Apes

71,648 views • 7 months ago

Angie Craig: "This is ridiculous. The budget reconciliation bill they're quoting that would not allow us to come in is an appropriations bill. It's a budget bill. It's absolute nonsense. We will be notifying the district court of these activities ... we actually have a right to talk to our detained constituents."
2:45

Angie Craig: "This is ridiculous. The budget reconciliation bill they're quoting that would not allow us to come in is an appropriations bill. It's a budget bill. It's absolute nonsense. We will be notifying the district court of these activities ... we actually have a right to talk to our detained constituents."

Aaron Rupar

40,106 views • 6 months ago

Perino: One of the most important things that this bill does is for someone who is going to be a trillionaire they might not care about the tax cuts in this bill but if you are a middle-class taxpayer you care a lot. And so the bill needs to get done right now.
0:49

Perino: One of the most important things that this bill does is for someone who is going to be a trillionaire they might not care about the tax cuts in this bill but if you are a middle-class taxpayer you care a lot. And so the bill needs to get done right now.

Acyn

82,893 views • 1 year ago

Bill Maher on Tenet Media: "My question is to the people who are 'duped'; The fact that what the Russians want you to put out is, to begin with, so close to Republican talking points. That's not a red flag to you?"
3:38

Bill Maher on Tenet Media: "My question is to the people who are 'duped'; The fact that what the Russians want you to put out is, to begin with, so close to Republican talking points. That's not a red flag to you?"

Blue Georgia

817,500 views • 1 year ago

Right to Recovery Treatment evidence sessions in Scottish Parliament with Third Sector With You and The Salvation Army. What wording should replace “addiction” in the Bill to ensure people can access treatment without requiring a formal diagnosis? @GraemeCall78170 instead of answering his reply focuses on systemic access issues and the limitations of the Bill’s scope. Dr Sandesh Gulhane reminds him that the bill has narrow scope due to it not being a government bill and has to ask again about the use of the word addiction. Director of Addictions of The Salvation Armysays, "I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing". (Yes, its like a scene from the Ministry of Funny Walks) only none of this is funny, but deadly serious. Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Just on the point of addiction being used as a diagnosis, we heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, it was clear that perhaps the word addiction is not the right word to be used, and I'm sure that Douglas Ross, who is he member in charge of the bill, would be looking into that. So if we were to amend this because we need to say that you have something, not necessarily a diagnosis, but what is it that we should be saying in, in your opinion, as a way to have the right to have a treatment. Is it simply you would like to receive treatment or what exactly would you suggest?" @GraemeCall78170 "I think it for us, it's always been about access, right, so treatment is there. We recognise as an organisation we have a full clinical offer in England, not in Scotland, so we understand the importance of clinical process processes and in certain circumstances diagnosis is absolutely critical because there are other things that are going on, underlying mental health, underlying physical problems, so we completely recognise that. But the reality of the system is that people can't get access to the system, it's not about treatment. So services like ours here, all we do is we try and find ways to navigate the system to try and get people to where they need to be. But a lot of people that we engage with don't need a medical intervention, they dont. They just some mutual aid, some support, they need some practical stuff around their housing. So I think it's the disappointing thing as I read the bill as it was presented, it did feel narrow to me. I can't deny that. And I think it didn't reflect the experiences that we have as organisation." Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Being a member's bill it does need to be very narrow. It's not a government bill. If it was a government bill, that that's fair enough that this really does need to have enough scope. But my question was, what wording would you use in instead of a diagnosis of addiction? What wording would you like to see for people who do want to access treatment?" Lee Ball [Director of Addictions, Salvation Army] "For me, I think it's the person's right to want treatment. I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing. I don't envy your job trying to come up with a word for this because there are so many words that have so many different meanings."
2:30

Right to Recovery Treatment evidence sessions in Scottish Parliament with Third Sector With You and The Salvation Army. What wording should replace “addiction” in the Bill to ensure people can access treatment without requiring a formal diagnosis? @GraemeCall78170 instead of answering his reply focuses on systemic access issues and the limitations of the Bill’s scope. Dr Sandesh Gulhane reminds him that the bill has narrow scope due to it not being a government bill and has to ask again about the use of the word addiction. Director of Addictions of The Salvation Armysays, "I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing". (Yes, its like a scene from the Ministry of Funny Walks) only none of this is funny, but deadly serious. Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Just on the point of addiction being used as a diagnosis, we heard from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, it was clear that perhaps the word addiction is not the right word to be used, and I'm sure that Douglas Ross, who is he member in charge of the bill, would be looking into that. So if we were to amend this because we need to say that you have something, not necessarily a diagnosis, but what is it that we should be saying in, in your opinion, as a way to have the right to have a treatment. Is it simply you would like to receive treatment or what exactly would you suggest?" @GraemeCall78170 "I think it for us, it's always been about access, right, so treatment is there. We recognise as an organisation we have a full clinical offer in England, not in Scotland, so we understand the importance of clinical process processes and in certain circumstances diagnosis is absolutely critical because there are other things that are going on, underlying mental health, underlying physical problems, so we completely recognise that. But the reality of the system is that people can't get access to the system, it's not about treatment. So services like ours here, all we do is we try and find ways to navigate the system to try and get people to where they need to be. But a lot of people that we engage with don't need a medical intervention, they dont. They just some mutual aid, some support, they need some practical stuff around their housing. So I think it's the disappointing thing as I read the bill as it was presented, it did feel narrow to me. I can't deny that. And I think it didn't reflect the experiences that we have as organisation." Dr Sandesh Gulhane "Being a member's bill it does need to be very narrow. It's not a government bill. If it was a government bill, that that's fair enough that this really does need to have enough scope. But my question was, what wording would you use in instead of a diagnosis of addiction? What wording would you like to see for people who do want to access treatment?" Lee Ball [Director of Addictions, Salvation Army] "For me, I think it's the person's right to want treatment. I think to give it a word or a title, it’s a really difficult thing. I don't envy your job trying to come up with a word for this because there are so many words that have so many different meanings."

FAVORUK 💜

22,503 views • 1 year ago

Neguse: If you did not intend to increase income taxes then you would not have needed to include a waiver of that rule. House rules are very clear that any income tax increase requires 3/5 support of the full house. If you want to increase income taxes, you have to get 3/5 of the house to support it. You all decided you do not want that rule to apply to this bill. The only reason why you would do so is because you know your bill does in fact increase income taxes.
1:01

Neguse: If you did not intend to increase income taxes then you would not have needed to include a waiver of that rule. House rules are very clear that any income tax increase requires 3/5 support of the full house. If you want to increase income taxes, you have to get 3/5 of the house to support it. You all decided you do not want that rule to apply to this bill. The only reason why you would do so is because you know your bill does in fact increase income taxes.

Acyn

144,841 views • 1 year ago

Bill Maher: “You were one of the people that wanted the Epstein files released… You have Hillary Clinton come in? This is like three gazillion pages of men behaving badly. And the witness you want is a woman?” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): “Hey, she was issued a bipartisan subpoena, meaning the Democrats wanted her in, too. Cause Bill Clinton was all over those logs.” Bill Maher: “What did she have to do with it?” Anna Paulina Luna: “I actually read the names… some of the most egregious emails that you saw talking about girls ages 10 and 11. Talking about mocking a little girl who was praying. Those came from women… There were other women coconspirators given plea deals to testify, and they were let off.” “We can get at the whole Jeffrey Epstein ties because I actually talked to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton specifically about that, presenting them with the actual document that showed that he had a complete other alias.” Bill Maher: “You get a lot of information that we don’t all have.” Anna Paulina Luna: “I’m happy to come back. I think I should, I really do.” Bill Maher: “We want you. I appreciate it.”
2:03

Bill Maher: “You were one of the people that wanted the Epstein files released… You have Hillary Clinton come in? This is like three gazillion pages of men behaving badly. And the witness you want is a woman?” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): “Hey, she was issued a bipartisan subpoena, meaning the Democrats wanted her in, too. Cause Bill Clinton was all over those logs.” Bill Maher: “What did she have to do with it?” Anna Paulina Luna: “I actually read the names… some of the most egregious emails that you saw talking about girls ages 10 and 11. Talking about mocking a little girl who was praying. Those came from women… There were other women coconspirators given plea deals to testify, and they were let off.” “We can get at the whole Jeffrey Epstein ties because I actually talked to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton specifically about that, presenting them with the actual document that showed that he had a complete other alias.” Bill Maher: “You get a lot of information that we don’t all have.” Anna Paulina Luna: “I’m happy to come back. I think I should, I really do.” Bill Maher: “We want you. I appreciate it.”

RedWave Press

1,174,488 views • 4 months ago

This needs to go VIRAL: Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw said that he’s “extremely disappointed” in Republican lawmakers who want to “torpedo” the immigration bill in the Senate: “If we have a bill that, on net, significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do.” Republicans, can you tell me what is wrong with what he said?
0:27

This needs to go VIRAL: Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw said that he’s “extremely disappointed” in Republican lawmakers who want to “torpedo” the immigration bill in the Senate: “If we have a bill that, on net, significantly decreases illegal immigration, and we sabotage that, that is inconsistent with what we told our voters we would do.” Republicans, can you tell me what is wrong with what he said?

Brian Krassenstein

1,378,238 views • 2 years ago

Scott Jennings on the Epstein Files: Well, look, they've released how many documents tonight? 200,000 or more? 400? So, a good faith effort is being made to release files tonight… Regarding Bill Clinton, I'm sorry to tell you, the reason that Bill Clinton's picture is in the Epstein files is because this has always been a story about Bill Clinton and not Donald Trump. We should call it the Clinton files, not the Epstein files.” “That's what we're learning tonight. This is the Clinton files. This is the blowing up in the face of the Democrats over this. It's Bill Clinton — this is a story about Democrats and Bill Clinton, and it's always been that way.”
1:00

Scott Jennings on the Epstein Files: Well, look, they've released how many documents tonight? 200,000 or more? 400? So, a good faith effort is being made to release files tonight… Regarding Bill Clinton, I'm sorry to tell you, the reason that Bill Clinton's picture is in the Epstein files is because this has always been a story about Bill Clinton and not Donald Trump. We should call it the Clinton files, not the Epstein files.” “That's what we're learning tonight. This is the Clinton files. This is the blowing up in the face of the Democrats over this. It's Bill Clinton — this is a story about Democrats and Bill Clinton, and it's always been that way.”

RedWave Press

753,600 views • 7 months ago

GOP Rep Cory Mills laments expected cuts to Medicaid in GOP spending bill: “I know the importance of medicare and medicaid. No, I do not want to see any impacts to that. That's why I actually, in the 1/18 congress signed on to Beth Van Duyne's bill, which actually protects and saves medicare and medicaid. So, no, I'm not happy about the cuts. I want to see what the final product is after the debates. But it's one of those things where we want to continue to serve and protect the American people.”
0:51

GOP Rep Cory Mills laments expected cuts to Medicaid in GOP spending bill: “I know the importance of medicare and medicaid. No, I do not want to see any impacts to that. That's why I actually, in the 1/18 congress signed on to Beth Van Duyne's bill, which actually protects and saves medicare and medicaid. So, no, I'm not happy about the cuts. I want to see what the final product is after the debates. But it's one of those things where we want to continue to serve and protect the American people.”

Jim Sciutto

10,058 views • 1 year ago

Bill O’Reilly says what’s happening in Minnesota has gone WAY past protest — it’s now a REBELLION against the federal government. The only two previous times Americans openly rebelled against federal authority were the Civil War and the Vietnam War. O’REILLY: “The problem with the Democrats is that the resistance to so over the top, it’s so blatant ideological to the left, that most Americans, even though they feel very sorry for Renee Good…they reject these people.” “So I wrote a column on Bill O’Reilly dot com called ‘Rebellion.’” “This is not a protest in Minnesota or Oregon or California. This is a rebellion.” VITTERT: “Right, fighting with ICE is different than protesting.” O’REILLY: “You can protest ICE all day long. Okay. But if you’re not going to obey federal law, as CLEARLY, Minnesota and Oregon are not…they’re not going to obey the law..that is a rebellion!” “Just as we saw in the south before the Civil War and during the Vietnam War.” “Those were the only two times that the American people, at least some of them, were in open rebellion against the federal government.”
1:03

Bill O’Reilly says what’s happening in Minnesota has gone WAY past protest — it’s now a REBELLION against the federal government. The only two previous times Americans openly rebelled against federal authority were the Civil War and the Vietnam War. O’REILLY: “The problem with the Democrats is that the resistance to so over the top, it’s so blatant ideological to the left, that most Americans, even though they feel very sorry for Renee Good…they reject these people.” “So I wrote a column on Bill O’Reilly dot com called ‘Rebellion.’” “This is not a protest in Minnesota or Oregon or California. This is a rebellion.” VITTERT: “Right, fighting with ICE is different than protesting.” O’REILLY: “You can protest ICE all day long. Okay. But if you’re not going to obey federal law, as CLEARLY, Minnesota and Oregon are not…they’re not going to obey the law..that is a rebellion!” “Just as we saw in the south before the Civil War and during the Vietnam War.” “Those were the only two times that the American people, at least some of them, were in open rebellion against the federal government.”

Overton

137,280 views • 6 months ago

🚨School Choice or Not?🚨 I was up late last night, trying to think about what to say regarding HB3, the "School Choice" bill in Texas. I know this video of Hollie Plemons' testimony is 10 minutes long, but if you want to truly understand why HB3 is a horrible bill and why it will HARM Texas, you MUST listen. This testimony is 🔥. HB3 is NOT conservative. It grows government. It is a vendor bill. It is fiscally irresponsible. It is not a school choice bill; it removes choice. This is EXACTLY why paid voucher pushers in Texas refused to debate Hollie or give her a platform. Because she speaks the truth. HB3 (and the Senate bill) is in direct violation of the Republican Party of Texas Platform. And if this is happening in Texas, it's happening elsewhere. So what's going to happen now? I do not know, but I have a feeling that cowardice runs deep in the Texas House. Governor Abbott made it clear during the primaries that if a candidate did not support his school choice initiative, he would not endorse or financially support them. This was a form of extortion. So now, out of fear of losing their positions as House Representatives and Senators, they will vote for any school choice bill, even if it does not support conservative values or violates our platform. It’s also important to note that those who spoke the loudest as paid propagandists for this bill, didn’t even bother to show up to testify. This is WRONG. This is unfair to Texas parents. And I hope that every Texas voter speaks their mind at the ballot box if this bill passes.
9:42

🚨School Choice or Not?🚨 I was up late last night, trying to think about what to say regarding HB3, the "School Choice" bill in Texas. I know this video of Hollie Plemons' testimony is 10 minutes long, but if you want to truly understand why HB3 is a horrible bill and why it will HARM Texas, you MUST listen. This testimony is 🔥. HB3 is NOT conservative. It grows government. It is a vendor bill. It is fiscally irresponsible. It is not a school choice bill; it removes choice. This is EXACTLY why paid voucher pushers in Texas refused to debate Hollie or give her a platform. Because she speaks the truth. HB3 (and the Senate bill) is in direct violation of the Republican Party of Texas Platform. And if this is happening in Texas, it's happening elsewhere. So what's going to happen now? I do not know, but I have a feeling that cowardice runs deep in the Texas House. Governor Abbott made it clear during the primaries that if a candidate did not support his school choice initiative, he would not endorse or financially support them. This was a form of extortion. So now, out of fear of losing their positions as House Representatives and Senators, they will vote for any school choice bill, even if it does not support conservative values or violates our platform. It’s also important to note that those who spoke the loudest as paid propagandists for this bill, didn’t even bother to show up to testify. This is WRONG. This is unfair to Texas parents. And I hope that every Texas voter speaks their mind at the ballot box if this bill passes.

Sarah Fields

22,782 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra says, "We used to say that we are world leaders. We used to say that we are peacemakers. Whether it's the war in Ukraine or the situation today, we should think about it." On the Transgender bill, she says, "I really think that it's unfortunate that they are not sending it to the standing committee. What the community feels is that this bill is going to obliterate their identity, and therefore it was very, very important that they should have been consulted and that this bill that is being brought about should have taken place or should have been passed after proper consultation. I think it's very unfair that the entire community feels like they have not been consulted, and such a big decision is being taken in their context. I wish the government had listened and put it on the standing committee."
1:12

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra says, "We used to say that we are world leaders. We used to say that we are peacemakers. Whether it's the war in Ukraine or the situation today, we should think about it." On the Transgender bill, she says, "I really think that it's unfortunate that they are not sending it to the standing committee. What the community feels is that this bill is going to obliterate their identity, and therefore it was very, very important that they should have been consulted and that this bill that is being brought about should have taken place or should have been passed after proper consultation. I think it's very unfair that the entire community feels like they have not been consulted, and such a big decision is being taken in their context. I wish the government had listened and put it on the standing committee."

ANI

24,199 views • 4 months ago

🚨 JD Vance calmly DERAILS The View’s gotcha question over his support for President Trump VANCE: "I was a critic of Trump in 2015 and 2016. Now I'm the VP of the US in the Trump admin." JOY BEHAR: "Yeah, what happened?" VANCE: "Well, Joy, a little HUMILITY. When you make predictions and those predictions turn out to be false, you got to ask yourself, well, what made me wrong about that? What did I not understand or not appreciate?" "For example, I said that Donald Trump's economic policies would not lead to wage growth. They did in the first term. That was actually a major, major thing!" 🔥 "I said that we couldn't bring back any of those factory jobs because I kind of had given into this idea that those jobs were disappearing, but actually Donald Trump, you saw a manufacturing boom during that administration!" "So there's a certain point where you say, you know, I made predictions about this. I ended up being wrong. And in politics and anything, I think it's important to just say, you know what, I got some things wrong and I was wrong about him."
0:58

🚨 JD Vance calmly DERAILS The View’s gotcha question over his support for President Trump VANCE: "I was a critic of Trump in 2015 and 2016. Now I'm the VP of the US in the Trump admin." JOY BEHAR: "Yeah, what happened?" VANCE: "Well, Joy, a little HUMILITY. When you make predictions and those predictions turn out to be false, you got to ask yourself, well, what made me wrong about that? What did I not understand or not appreciate?" "For example, I said that Donald Trump's economic policies would not lead to wage growth. They did in the first term. That was actually a major, major thing!" 🔥 "I said that we couldn't bring back any of those factory jobs because I kind of had given into this idea that those jobs were disappearing, but actually Donald Trump, you saw a manufacturing boom during that administration!" "So there's a certain point where you say, you know, I made predictions about this. I ended up being wrong. And in politics and anything, I think it's important to just say, you know what, I got some things wrong and I was wrong about him."

TV News Now

78,592 views • 1 month ago

Our Government Has Criminalized Emotions | Bill C9 Hatred Definition Under Bill C-9, hatred is legally defined as "an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation." Read that again. It's not what you say. It's not what you do. It's how intensely you supposedly felt when you said it. Our justice minister confirmed this applies online — meaning your texts, comments, and posts. But emotion doesn't translate through text. Ask anyone who's ever had a joke misread over a message. So how exactly is anyone supposed to prove what someone else was feeling when they typed something? This isn't a hypothetical. This is the actual legal standard, as written in a bill that became law this week. Watch the full breakdown of what Bill C-9 really says 👇
1:16

Our Government Has Criminalized Emotions | Bill C9 Hatred Definition Under Bill C-9, hatred is legally defined as "an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation." Read that again. It's not what you say. It's not what you do. It's how intensely you supposedly felt when you said it. Our justice minister confirmed this applies online — meaning your texts, comments, and posts. But emotion doesn't translate through text. Ask anyone who's ever had a joke misread over a message. So how exactly is anyone supposed to prove what someone else was feeling when they typed something? This isn't a hypothetical. This is the actual legal standard, as written in a bill that became law this week. Watch the full breakdown of what Bill C-9 really says 👇

Nico Lagan

16,176 views • 11 days ago

Q: What do you say to people here in Minnesota who say it's the overwhelming presence of ICE officers and their tactics that make them feel unsafe? VANCE: This is the inevitable consequence of a state and local government that have decided they're not gonna cooperate with immigration enforcement
1:23

Q: What do you say to people here in Minnesota who say it's the overwhelming presence of ICE officers and their tactics that make them feel unsafe? VANCE: This is the inevitable consequence of a state and local government that have decided they're not gonna cooperate with immigration enforcement

Aaron Rupar

35,867 views • 6 months ago

Bill Maher was literally wrong about every single thing in this clip. -Trump going to lose? Wrong! -Kamala going to get the popular vote? Wrong! -Trump voters losing heart? He could not have been more wrong. Bill Maher is not the reason Trump won. But he is the symptom of why Democrats got shellacked. Arrogant, pompous, elitist pricks who are totally detached from reality and think they know what is best for everyone else. Bill, what does it feel like to be so wrong, and to have the evidence of your fractal wrongness on the Internet forever? Do you stop trusting yourself at a given point in time? Do you take a step back and reflect? Or do you just keep plugging away as though you’re the smartest man in the room?
1:05

Bill Maher was literally wrong about every single thing in this clip. -Trump going to lose? Wrong! -Kamala going to get the popular vote? Wrong! -Trump voters losing heart? He could not have been more wrong. Bill Maher is not the reason Trump won. But he is the symptom of why Democrats got shellacked. Arrogant, pompous, elitist pricks who are totally detached from reality and think they know what is best for everyone else. Bill, what does it feel like to be so wrong, and to have the evidence of your fractal wrongness on the Internet forever? Do you stop trusting yourself at a given point in time? Do you take a step back and reflect? Or do you just keep plugging away as though you’re the smartest man in the room?

Viva Frei

550,891 views • 1 year ago