Tells a lot, suckers: Sup. ct. refuses to hear Musk's case against feds--Sup. ct. doesn't stand for people or law--they stick up for fed murderers

[Apollonian]

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Elon Musk’s X Challenge on Ban Against Disclosing Surveillance Requests by Federal Authorities​

JANUARY 09, 2024

Link: http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2024/01/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-elon.html/

The United States Supreme Court has denied a high-profile appeal by Elon Musk’s X Corporation regarding the disclosure of government requests for user information.

In 2014, Twitter initiated a lawsuit following the FBI’s prohibition on publishing a report that would reveal the frequency of government requests for user information related to national security investigations, according to Daily Caller.
The SCOTUS ruling upholds the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, asserting that free speech limitations regarding surveillance requests for national security do not necessitate specific procedural mandates for judicial review.

In March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its conclusion, “The Government’s prevention of Twitter from publishing classified, redacted information satisfies strict scrutiny, and Freedman’s procedural protections do not apply in this case. Due process also does not demand that Twitter’s counsel obtained access to classified information. I therefore agree with the majority to affirm the district court.”
In September, X filed a petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case.
“If this Court does not intervene, different standards will apply in different circuits when entities like Twitter want to disclose how and how often the Government has demanded information from them,” the petition reads. “History demonstrates that the surveillance of electronic communications is both a fertile ground for government abuse and a lightning-rod political topic of intense concern to the public.”
The ruling is a significant blow to privacy advocates and tech companies pushing for more transparency regarding government surveillance.
Elon Musk, the CEO of X, took to Twitter immediately after the decision, expressing his disappointment.
“Disappointing that the Supreme Court declined to hear this matter,” Musk wrote in response to a tweet.

Disappointing that the Supreme Court declined to hear this matter
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 8, 2024

The appeal was part of a broader initiative by X to increase transparency and build public trust after several high-profile incidents eroded confidence in how user data is managed.
In August, Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained a secret search warrant for Trump’s Twitter account @RealDonaldTrump according to newly unsealed court filings.
X, formerly known as Twitter, was fined $350,000 because it delayed producing the subpoenaed records.
The search warrant was so secret that Trump didn’t even know Jack Smith issued a subpoena for the records.
Biden’s corrupt Justice Department obtained a nondisclosure order that prohibited X from informing Trump about Jack Smith’s subpoena.
Over the course of the months-long legal battle, X argued that the nondisclosure order violated the First Amendment and Stored Communications Act.
The Justice Department argued Trump would put the so-called ongoing investigation in jeopardy.
According to CNN, the DC Circuit Court Appeals said the court found that there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Trump would ‘jeopardize the ongoing investigation’ if he knew about the search warrant.
“The district court, according to the DC Circuit’s opinion, “found that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that disclosing the warrant to former President Trump ‘would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation’ by giving him “an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates.”” CNN reported.
Jack Smith admitted to Judge Howell he included inaccurate information when he suggested Trump would become a flight risk if he learned about the secret gag order.
Jack Smith also sought Trump’s private messages and ‘draft tweets’ which are tweets that are created and then deleted.
X pushed back and argued Trump’s private messages were covered under executive privilege.
X appealed Judge Howell’s ruling but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Judge Beryl Howell.
Trump lashed out at Jack Smith and Joe Biden in a Truth Social post.
“Just found out that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ secretly attacked my Twitter account, making it a point not to let me know about this major “hit” on my civil rights. My Political Opponent is going CRAZY trying to infringe on my Campaign for President. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Does the First Amendment still exist? Did Deranged Jack Smith tell the Unselects to DESTROY & DELETE all evidence? These are DARK DAYS IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote.

 

[Apollonian]

Financial Surveillance: Feds Flagged Banks Transactions With Terms Like ‘MAGA’ & ‘TRUMP’​

by Jamie White
January 17th 2024, 4:51 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/fina...anks-transactions-with-terms-like-maga-trump/

House subcommittee exposes FBI's alarming surveillance of Trump supporters ahead of 2024 election.

"Individuals who shopped at stores like Cabela's or Dick's Sporting Goods, or purchased religious texts like a bible, may also have had their transactions flagged."

The federal government has flagged terms like “MAGA” and “Trump” for financial institutions if those terms were included in transactions, according to the House Judiciary Committee.

The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government claimed Wednesday it had obtained documents proving the FBI was flagging these terms as well as “individuals who shopped at stores like Cabela’s or Dick’s Sporting Goods, or purchased religious texts like a bible, may also have had their transactions flagged.”

“This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with and at the request of federal law enforcement, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious concerns about the FBI’s respect for fundamental civil liberties,” the subcommittee stated in a press release.

We now know the federal government flagged terms like “MAGA” and “TRUMP,” to financial institutions if Americans completed transactions using those terms.

What was also flagged? If you bought a religious text, like a BIBLE, or shopped at Bass Pro Shop. pic.twitter.com/jjRaVNItWz
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) January 17, 2024

“In light of these revelations, Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has requested transcribed interviews from Peter Sullivan, Senior Private Sector Partner for Outreach in the Strategic Partner Engagement Section of the FBI, and Noah Bishoff, former Director of the Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations Division of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).”

In the letter to Bishoff, Jordan explained the documents obtained by the committee show that in the wake of January 6, 2021, FinCEN distributed materials to banks directing them to search for “extremism indicators” in transactions like “the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”

“In other words, FinCEN urged large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression,” Jordan wrote.

Jordan also explained that the committee has evidence FinCEN presented slides to banks instructing them to flag firearm purchases at sporting supplies stores like Cabela’s and Dick’s Sporting Goods.

“Despite these transactions having no apparent criminal nexus—and, in fact, relate to Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights—FinCEN seems to have adopted a characterization of these Americans as potential threat actors,” Jordan wrote.

“This kind of pervasive financial surveillance, carried out in coordination with and at the request of federal law enforcement, into Americans’ private transactions is alarming and raises serious doubts about FinCEN’s respect for fundamental civil liberties,” he added.

This comes after Newsweek reported in October that the FBI had created a new “extremism” category to track mainly Trump supporters ahead of the 2024 election.

Notably, the number of domestic extremism cases has dropped since Jan. 6, but journalist William Arkin told Newsweek that “sociopolitical developments—such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence—will almost certainly spur some domestic terrorists to try to engage in violence.”

Read Jordan’s letter to Bishoff: [ck site link, above, top]

 

[Apollonian]

Elon Musk TORCHES Brazil’s Lula and Justice Moraes, and Tells the Unvarnished Truth About the Country’s Rigged Election​

By Paul Serran Apr. 9, 2024 8:00 am

Link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ls-lula-justice-moraes-tells/?utm_source=rss/

[see vid at site link, above]

Musk, Lula and de Moraes.
Brazil’s conservatives and freedom lovers are in a state of bliss watching billionaire Elon Musk stare down their very own Supreme Court Justice-turned tyrant Alexandre de Moraes, using the unvarnished truth to demolish his reputation, and subjecting the justice to a barrage of ridicule that he so deserves.
The story is very simple: not only is Moraes demanding that X suspend the accounts of prominent conservatives, against Brazilian law, and under the penalty of heavy daily fines, but he also ‘forbids’ the company from even mentioning the reason for their suspension – X would have to pretend they were struck because they broke the platform terms of use – which they have not.
Musk: “We kept getting these demands from Judge Alexandre to suspend accounts of sitting members of the parliament and major journalists. We could not tell them that this was at the behest of Alexandre, we had to pretend that it was due to our rules. And that was the last straw, and we said no.”

So, now it seems as if Musk is the iceberg into which the Titanic ship of Brazil’s unbridled censorship will crash and sink.

Moraes included Musk on the ridiculous inquiry against the – nonexistent – ‘digital militias’ and so X’s head started to tell the world the real deal about the reality of Brazil’s politics:

He even ‘went there’ and said what every free-thinking Brazilian knows: Lula is only out of prison and into power because of Moraes’ actions:

So, now, Musk will disclose all the petty tyrant’s demands for the world to see:

Just read this from Glenn Greenwald: “The only time in my entire career as a journalist that I have ever wondered if I should really be questioning, challenging, or critiquing a political official is this person, who has gone so far as to order people to be imprisoned without a trial for criticizing him. […] If you criticize Alexandre De Moraes, you get banned or perhaps imprisoned, which is why I spent every second up until this show started on the phone with my lawyers.”
Criticism of Moraes actions came even from where you’d least expect it, with the founder of Eurasian Movement of Russia, Alexander Dugin declaring support for the African-American billionaire in his Free Speech stance against liberal-aligned Brazilian Supreme Court:

“I think the decision of Brasil to censor http://x.com/ is wrong and disastrous. It is obvious that it is for now the only global network without any censorship.
We can hate something that is going on on http://x.com/ or adore. But the real freedom is like this.

And it is wothless in the era of total falsehood. Obviuosly, http://x.com/ is not ultimate truth and it doesn’t pretend to be it. Just good old freedom of speech we have lost anywhere else…”
Brazil is watching this unfold with a big smile on its face. But, while the country’s shortcomings are being shown to the world in an spectacular fashion, it’s also good to know that this is also made by the US State Department and Joe Biden, who were behind the sudden emergence of Moraes as an über censor.

Read more: [see site link, above, top]

 

[Apollonian]

​ ​ Repeal the 17th Amendment​ Ignored Anti-Federalist Predictions and Warnings on the Senate Link: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...-anti-federalist-warnings-we-must-not-ignore/

​ ​ ​ Repealing the 17th Amendment has become a rallying cry for those seeking to restore federalism. But the Anti-Federalists warned during the ratification debates that structural flaws in the Senate run much deeper than merely the method of election. Corruption, careerism, and usurpations of power won’t disappear with repeal alone - not even close. The Anti-Federalists identified three fundamental issues that plagued the Senate, even under its original structure: No Recall Power In Office Too Long Blending of Powers in the Senate Together, these flaws created what the Anti-Federalists feared most - a breeding ground for corruption and consolidation of power - leading to a destruction of liberty. No Recall Power​ The Anti-Federalists strongly and repeatedly criticized the lack of a mechanism for recalling senators under the Constitution, arguing that this absence eliminated a key check on unaccountable power - a concern that remains critical today. Under Article V of the Articles of Confederation, states reserved the power to recall and replace their delegates to congress at any time, for any reason. “For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.” This power was intentionally removed by the framers of the Constitution in Philadelphia because they generally felt that recall would keep each senator, as Alexander Hamilton described it, “in such a state of vassalage and dependence, that he never can possess that firmness which is necessary to the discharge of his great duty to the union.” George Nicholas explained “The dread of being recalled would impair their independence and firmness.” Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry disagreed, vehemently. “At present you may appeal to the voice of the people, and send men to Congress positively instructed to obey your instructions. You can recall them if their system of policy be ruinous. But can you in this government recall your senators? Or can you instruct them? You cannot recall them. You may instruct them, and offer your opinions; but if they think them improper, they may disregard them.” ​ ​ Learn more about this essential history they don’t teach in government schools. Podcast - Repeal the 17th Amendment: Ignored Anti-Federalist Warnings on the Senate Article - Repeal the 17th Amendment: The Anti-Federalist Warnings We Must Not Ignore ​ George Mason made the case that with a Senate disconnected from the states, senators could easily ignore state interests, pursue their own agendas, or succumb to national-level influences, including foreign bribery or political factions. “In the new Constitution, instead of being elected for one, they are chosen for six years. They cannot be recalled, in all that time, for any misconduct, and at the end of that long term may again be elected. What will be the operation of this? Is it not probable that those gentlemen, who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of our state?” Mason continued, warning that in such a scenario, Senators would “exercise those machinations and contrivances which the many have always to fear from the few.” In Massachusetts, Dr. Taylor followed up saying that without a recall power, once Senators are chosen “they are chosen forever.” In Office Too Long​ The six-year term for senators was a major Anti-Federalist concern, as they feared it would encourage careerism, entrenchment, and the rise of a permanent political class. They called for rotation of six out of 12 years, or just shorter terms, or even a hard limit on time in office. Col. William Jones of Massachusetts warned that “senators chosen for so long a time will forget their duty to their constituents.” Melancton Smith of New York also raised concerns about senators becoming disconnected from the people, stating that without rotation or recall, “there is no doubt that the senators will hold their office perpetually; and in this situation, they must of necessity lose their dependence and attachment to the people,” and instead, they would in essence act as independent agents of federal power. Mercy Otis Warren echoed these warnings, “A senate chosen for six years, will in most instances, be an appointment for life, as the influence of such a body over the minds of the people, will be coeval to the extensive powers with which they are vested, and they will not only forget, but be forgotten by their constituents.” Too Much of a Mixture or Blending of powers​ The Senate’s role as both a legislative and executive body deeply alarmed the Anti-Federalists. This blending of powers - approving treaties, confirming executive appointments, and legislating - was seen as a dangerous breach of the separation of powers, creating significant opportunities for corruption and abuse. Anti-Federalists criticized the Senate’s intertwined functions with the executive branch - especially its ability to approve appointments and make treaties - arguing that this concentration of power created opportunities for unchecked influence and corruption. They warned that placement of the Vice President as the president of the Senate, with the ability to cast tie-breaking votes, only compounded these concerns. Additionally, they objected to the Senate’s role in trying impeachment cases. Since senators had the power to confirm appointments, critics warned that they would be unlikely to convict those they had helped appoint, rendering impeachment an ineffective check on power. Patrick Henry went so far as to call impeachment “a sham.” Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists expressed these fears clearly, stating: “The senate is a constituent branch of the legislature, it has judicial power in judging on impeachments, and in this case unites in some measure the characters of judge and party, as all the principal officers are appointed by the president-general, with the concurrence of the senate and therefore they derive their offices in part from the senate.” Centinel echoed this, warning that the Senate’s blending of legislative and executive powers “highly tends to corruption.” Centinel emphasized the foundational principle of separation of powers, "When the legislative and executive powers (says Montesquieu) are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty." For the Anti-Federalists, these overlapping powers in the Senate were a clear threat to liberty. Lessons for Today​ The Anti-Federalists repeatedly predicted dire consequences due to these structural issues in the Senate. Luther Martin, a staunch opponent of centralized power, highlighted the lack of accountability for senators as a major concern. Comparing the structure of the new Constitution with his state’s practices, he observed: “In this State it is provided by its constitution, that the representatives in Congress, shall be chosen annually, shall be paid by the State, and shall be subject to recall even within the year; so cautiously has our constitution guarded against an abuse of the trust reposed in our representatives in the federal government.” He contrasted this with the Senate under the Constitution, where senators were far removed from state control: “Whereas by the third and sixth sections of the first article of this new system, the senators are to be chosen for six years instead of being chosen annually; instead of being paid by their States who send them, they in conjunction with the other branch, are to pay themselves out of the treasury of the United States; and are not liable to be recalled during the period for which they are chosen.” Martin’s concern was clear: the Senate’s structure severed the vital connection between senators and the states they were meant to represent. He warned of the dangers this independence could bring: “Thus, Sir, for six years the senators are rendered totally and absolutely independent of their States, of whom they ought to be the representatives, without any bond or tie between them - During that time they may join in measures ruinous and destructive to their States, even such as should totally annihilate their State governments, and their States cannot recall them, nor exercise any controul over them.” Martin feared that this independence would open the door to corruption, unaccountable governance, and policies destructive to federalism and liberty - issues that remain relevant as centralization continues to grow. In the first century or so after ratification of the Constitution, Anti-Federalists appear to have been prophetic. Corruption was becoming rampant, power was centralizing, and senators were becoming less and less accountable to their states. In the next century or so after ratification of the 17th Amendment, which changed the election of Senators in congress from a choice by state legislatures to the direct popular elections we have today, none of these issues have been resolved - in fact, they have only worsened. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a step toward decentralization and restoring federalism, but it is far from a complete solution. Addressing the deeper structural flaws identified by the Anti-Federalists and educating the public about these lessons is essential to preventing a repeat of the same mistakes. It’s no wonder why government-run schools rarely teach these foundational principles and views - they’re a huge part of the system that has given us the biggest government in history.

 

[Apollonian]

DOGE Investigating Feds Whose Net Worths Have Exploded After Samantha Power Bombshell​

by ZeroHedge February 11th, 2025 4:37 PM

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/doge...have-exploded-after-samantha-power-bombshell/

[numerous vids at site link, above]

Samantha Power, former head of USAID, saw her net worth exploded to $30 million despite an annual salary under $250,000.

Image Credit: Andrew Harnik / Staff / Getty

DOGE head Elon Musk said on Tuesday that DOGE is going to investigate federal employees whose net worths have exploded despite their comparatively low pay.

The announcement comes after a bombshell report that Samantha Power, former head of USAID, saw her net worth exploded to $30 million despite an annual salary under $250,000.

Power, a former ambassador to the United Nations under President Obama, and was sworn in as head of USAID in May of 2021, reported a net worth between $6.7 million-$16.5 million in January of 2021 on a disclosure form. Her net worth is now estimated as high as $30 million, according to the website Biden’s Basement.

According to various reports, Power’s sources of income have varied over the years. After serving as UN Ambassador, she reportedly made $471,000 per year as a Harvard professor, and made $351,000 from speaking engagements with major firmst such as Nestle, Google and UBS, along with $1 million in book royalties.

Most notably, however, was an $11.73 million gain in her investment holdings.

If we had to venture a guess, DOGE’s access to information from the Treasury, USAID, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), run through Palantir’s intelligence apparatus (including AI), will quickly unravel graft hidden through multiple layers of organizational fog.

Meanwhile, there’s the issue of lawmakers who have become unbelievably ‘lucky’ when it comes to growing their net worth via insider trading.

Screenshot via Quiver Quant

In July, a bipartisan group of senators including Josh Hawley (R-MO) came to an agreement on a renewed effort to ban members of Congress from trading stock.

“Congress should not be here to make a buck,” Hawley said at the time. “There is no reason why members of Congress ought to be profiting off of the information that only they get.“

---

BREAKING: President Trump Orders Elon Musk’s DOGE To Attack The Globalist Mother Ship — Trump Has Directed DOGE Auditors To Investigate The Private Run For-Profit Federal Reserve

 

[Apollonian]

Here's a great vid--been watching this guy's vids for a while (he talks toooooo much, the failing of 99.9% of Jew-tubers), but this had an outstanding vid for CNN vs. Cong.-man Burchett fm Tenn, then decent talk fm the narrator guy. My take is the CNN talking-head wants to pt. out Elon is making mistakes & inaccuracies, dear, dear. Burchett rather makes stronger pts. which naturally offends the CNN talker.