@TheBaseIsBack
Account based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
The State of the Gaslighting is Strong!
Everywhere
Joined October 2008
- Tweets75.2K
- Following7.7K
- Followers8.5K
- Likes57.3K
Pinned Tweet
KAMALA YOU BOMBEDALA!
Everyone feel that? Our JOY has been RESTORED! 🇺🇸✊🇺🇸
“We love our land, if you ain't fans, buddy we'll help you pack your bags. Don't let the big door hit you where the good lord split ya, burn someone else's flag.”
m.youtube.com/watch?v=nQOqEx…
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
Well, this should clear up a lot of the questions and the misinformation that has circulated about that one lone juror!
🚨HUGE BREAKING UPDATE - 🚨The holdout juror broke his silence by speaking with an INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST, Fugitive TV Podcast, this evening! 👏👏👏 HERE IS A FULL DETAILED WRITE-UP.
The holdout juror is NOT an immigrant. According to marriage and divorce records, he married a Haitian immigrant. She was illegal. He did not know this when he married her.
He did not show his face. He is keeping to himself since his name was doxxed on X. His life has been threatened, and people have stalked his house. NBC Boston did not give you the full story.
Michael, the juror, is now divorced. He filed for divorce first. The marriage was fraudulent because she was not a citizen. When he did this, everything hit the fan. She didn’t want a divorce. His ex-wife filed a counterclaim a couple of months later. He was denied his divorce petition because she was not an American citizen.
The incident with the nephew - according to the juror, there is a lot of information that many do not know. For example, the nephew is 6-foot-2, and Michael is only 5-foot-7. This obviously does not give anyone the right to hit anyone. But I think it is safe to say that we do not know all of the facts of the matter. Michael stated the truth will come out.
None of this matters when it comes to what happened in the courtroom. He filled out his paperwork appropriately. He did not lie on his paperwork. He was asked if he had ever been arrested, and he checked the box “yes” and afterward had to describe what happened.
He even took the stand, and the prosecutor asked him questions. He was questioned about his past arrest. He was then selected. I would like to make it very clear that this is something that happens with all of the potential jurors present. Which means that the jurors who have already been interviewed could have said this at any point, but they chose to keep that information from the public.
Michael told Fugitive TV that from day one, eight of the jurors automatically wanted to go for not guilty.
The eight jurors were “activists,” according to Michael. He said every day they voted, and the eight who were convinced that she was not guilty were doing their best to convince the other four that she was not guilty.
At the very end, it was him and another juror. She was also voting guilty. At the last minute, she caved. He said he knew she was guilty based on the EVIDENCE.
He was open about what he believed and what he said. He said the other jurors are telling half-truths or just outright lies.
He’s never been convicted of a crime. His past should not matter. He said that the entire time, his ex-wife was just trying to get status and citizenship to live in the U.S.
Michael said that the report on him that went viral, where they said they spoke with his family members, did not report exactly what was actually said. He said that the family members they spoke to were likely family members of his ex-wife, and he does not even speak with them. Therefore, they cannot know what actually happened in the jury room. Who DID NBC Boston speak with? According to Michael, it was not one of his own family members.
Michael stated that he believes he’s being targeted because he is a Republican - a Black Republican with conservative values. He believes that he was on a juror panel with a large number of Democratic voters. And he knows exactly what’s happening right now, and I think that you all do as well.
A Black Republican stood his ground. It is not surprising that he is now being dragged through the mud.
This is a very bad precedent for people who will serve on a jury in the future for a national case. No one wants to do this when, based on their decision that they say is based on the evidence, they are crucified online for their political beliefs. You have all seen it. You have seen the threats that I get on a daily basis. I cannot imagine what this man is going through.
But for now, I stand with the Black conservative Republican juror.
Link in comments👇
🚨 ANNOUNCING PROJECT 18 & PROJECT 8 🚨
The 2026 midterms may be among the most consequential elections in recent history. Control of the House and Senate will determine the direction of the country for years to come.
That’s why we’re launching:
🇺🇸 Project 18 – A weekly focus on the House races most likely to determine control of Congress.
🇺🇸 Project 8 – A weekly focus on the key Senate battlegrounds that could decide the future of the Senate.
Each week we’ll release short videos, race updates, candidate information, and actionable content designed to inform voters and drive turnout in the districts and states that matter most.
This is not about personalities. It’s about winning elections, protecting conservative priorities, and building a coalition that reaches voters where they are.
As part of these projects, we will provide analysis of primary races across the country and what those results may mean for the upcoming midterm elections, helping voters understand the trends, opportunities, and challenges shaping the political landscape.
If you’re willing to help, the ask is simple:
🔹 Repost
🔹 Quote Post
🔹 Share with your followers
You can also support our efforts here: sway.co/misfits?utm_source=s…
Together we can amplify these races, reach more voters, and help shape the outcome of the 2026 midterms.
@rdejay @justjoshie1973 @ReaLIggylibre @hunter_eagleman @misfitpatriot @toxiccowboy02 @witebred @Americanalphax @liberty_bell
#Project18 #Project8 #Midterms2026
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
Want to adopt someone from Colorado?
Satirical comedy at its’ finest’ nicely done @wyborderpatrol
I think the 🐝@TheBabylonBee might be a lil jelly of this. 😂
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
Raffensperger has known for over 5 years - half a decade - the voting system in Georgia is broken. From mail in ballots to in accurate voter rolls to machines that malfunction when counting to software that is vulnerable and needs updating and all he has ever done is say “but we don’t have enough time to fix anything” before the next election.
The man is openly telling you he is a traitor to the Constitution. He should just move to China.
msn.com/en-us/news/other/raf…
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
Join us for a discussion about NVRA in the context of the Constitution and Federal Law
Set a reminder for my upcoming Space! nitter.cf/i/spaces/1mxPaZrjPNgKN
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
Join us for a discussion about NVRA in the context of the Constitution and Federal Law
Set a reminder for my upcoming Space! nitter.cf/i/spaces/1mxPaZrjPNgKN
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
I think it's pretty cool that the STATES will have to submit to a FEDERAL agency a list that they attest to include ELIGIBLE VOTERS!
So...that means no more getting away with, "Oops, that's just a a human data entry error" OR "That was just a computer glitch."
Each STATE actually will have to sift through its (hideously corrupted) voter roll database, pull out the LEGITIMATE entries and put them on an OFFICIAL list for the USPS to process specialized mail to.
My, oh, my...NO Wonder the States are BALKING!
Hee, hee! Sounds like the JIG IS UP, to me‼️
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
Let’s be honest the USPS doesn’t want to participate in Mail Fraud. Mailing Ballots to unlawful registered voters would in my opinion be considered treason. The DOJ Civil Rights division has promised to hold any states accountable for mailing ballots to illegal voter registrants. The opposition wants fraudulent vote by mail to continue!
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
And that raises the obvious question:
If the state already knows exactly who it has authorized to receive a mail ballot, why would it object to identifying those outbound ballots to USPS and creating an additional layer of accountability over their entry into the mail stream?
That is the question worth asking.
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
SCOTUS 26A305: WE MUST STOP DISTORTING WHAT THE USPS BALLOT-MAIL RULE ACTUALLY DOES.
The Supreme Court is currently considering USPS v. California, No. 26A305, and responses to the government's emergency application are due September 9 at 4:00 PM EDT.
Today, an amicus brief from current and former Members of Congress urged SCOTUS to keep the USPS rule blocked, arguing that USPS is intruding into the administration of elections.
But read the rule. USPS DOES NOT:
• decide who is registered to vote
• determine who is a citizen
• decide who qualifies for a mail ballot under state law
• maintain the state's voter roll
• audit the state's voter roll
• decide whether a voter is legally eligible to vote
Those decisions remain with the STATE.
What the rule does is require the state, when it chooses to use the United States Postal Service to deliver federal mail ballots, to identify the people the state itself has determined should receive those ballots and associate those outbound ballot mail-pieces with standardized postal identifiers.
That is a fundamentally different thing.
The state says: these are the voters to whom we are sending ballots.
USPS then says: if you are using our federal delivery system, the ballots entering our system must comply with defined mail-piece, barcode, identification, and submission standards.
Congress has expressly given USPS authority under 39 U.S.C. §§401 and 404 to establish postal rules and to regulate the collection, handling, transportation, delivery, forwarding, returning, and holding of mail.
That is why the real legal question is NOT whether USPS gets to run elections.
It doesn't. It is not trying to.
The real question is whether Congress's postal delegation allows USPS to impose these particular conditions on a specialized category of mail traveling through the federal postal system.
And there is an election-security issue here that should not be buried beneath constitutional rhetoric:
If a state knows which voters it has lawfully authorized to receive mail ballots, why shouldn't it be able to tell USPS exactly which outbound ballots are supposed to exist?
Why shouldn't the federal delivery agent be able to verify that the ballots being entered into its system correspond to the state's own list?
That adds another layer of accountability to an extraordinarily sensitive piece of election infrastructure.
That is movement toward chain of custody.
It is not complete chain of custody - the mandatory verification provisions at issue principally govern outbound ballots, so vulnerabilities can still remain after ballots leave voters and travel back for counting.
But securing the outbound side is still a step forward.
Standardized envelopes.
Unique Intelligent Mail barcodes.
Defined recipients supplied by the state.
Postal verification before outbound ballots enter the mail-stream.
Accountability for what was mailed, to whom, and under what identifier.
The August rule was published as Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54,966, specifically amending USPS mailing standards governing the transmission of federal mail and absentee ballots.
So when an amicus brief characterizes this as USPS taking control of voter eligibility or election administration, look carefully at what is actually being regulated.
The state still decides WHO MAY VOTE.
The state still decides WHO MAY RECEIVE A MAIL BALLOT.
The state still maintains THE VOTER ROLL.
USPS is ONLY regulating HOW THAT BALLOT MAIL ENTERS AND MOVES THROUGH USPS.
And right now, litigation is determining whether this additional layer of ballot-mail accountability will be allowed to take effect.
26A305.
September 9 is the next major deadline.
Unite4Freedom Will continue to watch this case closely.
#Unite4Freedom
#ElectionSecurity
#USPS
#SCOTUS
#26A305
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
WE’RE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, SCOTUS, DOJ AND AN EMERGENCY PETITION — AGAIN.
The fight over new USPS election-mail requirements is back at the U.S. Supreme Court, and once again the calendar is becoming part of the case.
USPS adopted new requirements for federal ballot mail, including standardized envelope rules, Intelligent Mail barcodes, USPS review of ballot-envelope designs, a federal ballot-mail portal, and verification procedures before outbound ballots enter the mail stream.
On September 4, Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking USPS from making key portions of those requirements mandatory for elections through November 3. Her order also prevents USPS from taking further preparatory steps to implement several of those provisions for the 2026 election.
The administration appealed.
Then came another procedural reset.
The Solicitor General withdrew the September 3 Supreme Court emergency application, 26A297, and on Sunday, September 6, filed a NEW application — 26A305 — directly challenging Talwani’s September 4 preliminary injunction.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has ordered responses by 4 p.m. EDT Wednesday, September 9.
So here we are again:
New election-security procedures are adopted.
Litigation follows.
Implementation stops.
Appeals begin.
The clock keeps moving.
And ballots are beginning to enter the 2026 election system while courts are still deciding which rules USPS will be permitted to enforce.
The legal dispute: opponents argue USPS exceeded its statutory authority and intruded into election administration; the federal government argues USPS is regulating the FEDERAL MAIL SYSTEM — not deciding who may vote, whose ballot counts, or how states administer elections.
That distinction now goes back before SCOTUS.
But the larger problem should concern everyone regardless of politics:
Election-security changes cannot be evaluated in a vacuum while litigation consumes the very implementation window needed to put them in place.
Every court challenge has consequences.
Every lost week has consequences.
And when the disputed measures involve ballot traceability, standardized mailpieces, verification procedures and controls over how millions of ballots move through the federal mail system, the public should be watching - Everyone
Every party, Every eligible voter.
Unite4Freedom is watching. Stay tuned as we follow this application and report the events as they happen.
SCOTUS application: 26A305.
Responses due September 9.
The clock is running.
#Unite4Freedom
#SCOTUS
#USPS
#ElectionValidity
#ElectionSecurity
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
You cannot burn through the calendar fighting a rule before it is final—and then pretend the calendar has nothing to do with the litigation.
Follow @unite4Freedom as we track what happens next.
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
THE MAIL-BALLOT FIGHT IS BACK AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT — AND THE TIMELINE MATTERS.
DOJ is asking SCOTUS to immediately lift Obama-appointed Judge Indira Talwani’s latest block on the USPS election-mail security rule.
And DOJ’s argument is straightforward:
This rule does not regulate who can vote, who qualifies for mail voting, when ballots are counted, or whether a ballot is accepted. STATES retain those powers.
USPS is regulating the U.S. Mail.
Congress gave USPS broad authority under 39 U.S.C. §§401 and 404 to establish rules governing the collection, handling, transportation and delivery of mail. DOJ argues that states cannot choose to use a federal instrumentality - the U.S. Postal Service - to administer mail voting and then claim their election mail is somehow exempt from USPS mailing requirements.
What are those supposedly radical requirements?
- Standardized ballot-envelope design
- Official Election Mail identification
- Automation-compatible envelopes
- Unique Intelligent Mail barcodes
- Submission of basic ballot-mail recipient information through a USPS portal
- Verification that outbound ballot mail complies with those standards before entering the federal mail system
USPS says these are mail-security and processing requirements, not a federal takeover of elections. States still determine voter eligibility, maintain their voter rolls and determine which returned ballots count.
We can't lose sight that the first challenge attacked the Executive Order before USPS had even issued its final rule.
The Supreme Court stepped in on August 24 and stayed that earlier injunction because the lower court had been forced to speculate about whether a rule would issue, what it would say and whether it would actually harm the states.
In other words: the challenge came before there was even a final administrative action to challenge.
USPS then finalized the rule.
And three days after SCOTUS intervened, the same federal judge blocked major portions of the finished rule again.
DOJ is now telling the Supreme Court that this continued judicial intervention is causing irreparable harm because actual ballot-mailing deadlines are arriving. North Carolina begins mailing ballots September 4. Alabama follows September 9. Once ballots enter the mailstream under the old system, DOJ points out, they cannot simply be retrieved later if the government ultimately wins.
Think about what has happened here.
An administration established an aggressive timeline to implement additional tracking, standardization and verification safeguards around one of the most consequential categories of mail in America: federal-election ballots.
Instead of allowing the administrative process to finish and then challenging an actual final rule if it was justified, opponents went to court early and broadly. SCOTUS effectively told them the first challenge was premature.
Now we are weeks from ballots entering the mail, the rule is finally complete, litigation is still flying between the district court, First Circuit and Supreme Court, and everyone is suddenly screaming about timing, disruption and confusion.
But who created that timeline?
We have to ask whether months of aggressive litigation against a rule that did not yet exist helped manufacture the very last-minute chaos now being cited as a reason the finished rule cannot be implemented.
Looking objectively at this chronology, it seems clear that lawfare against the order before the administrative process was complete consumed the very implementation window election officials are arguing they would have needed.
The argument is dissolving into a timing issue, and “we waited until the deadline was too close” rings pretty hollow when litigation burned through the calendar in the first place.
Follow @unite4Freedom as we watch the details of this legal battle unfold
#Unite4Freedom
#ElectionValidity
#SCOTUS
TheBase-IsBack retweeted
BIG WIN FOR ELECTION TRANSPARENCY IN NEVADA
A Preliminary Injunction has been WON — and Nevada must preserve the remaining 2024 election records.
They cannot destroy them. They cannot allow them to disappear. They must preserve what remains for at least six more months.
And the timing is critically important.
Under 52 U.S.C. § 20701, federal law requires election officials to retain and preserve covered records relating to a federal election for 22 months. For the November 5, 2024 election, that federal preservation period reaches September 5, 2026 — just days away.
That means records that have been federally protected for nearly two years are approaching the end of that statutory retention window.
This injunction matters because once election records are destroyed, the evidence necessary to independently examine what happened may be gone with them.
Preservation protects the evidence. It protects the ability to audit, investigate, compare records, challenge discrepancies, and determine whether the official election record can withstand scrutiny.
At Unite4Freedom, we have been sounding this alarm across the country: election records are evidence of our representative government. Preserve the records. Preserve the evidence. Preserve the truth.
Congratulations to everyone who fought to make this happen.
@RobertBeadles @KingSolomon006
#Unite4Freedom
#U4F
#ElectionIntegrity
#Nevada
#PreserveTheRecords
