Why anyone would risk being down there in this cess pool, where the state does not allow you to exercise your rights to self defense (as protected by the 2nd amendment) is absolutely mind boggling to me. These people are broken. Get. Out. Of. There.

Without reforming FISA, Americans’ constitutional rights will continue to be violated daily. Warrantless NSA database searches of U.S. citizens’ conversations are BS. These tools let investigators abuse the 4th Amendment with “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” logic—linking anyone to a target. Backdoor searches of Americans’ incidental communications create an irresistible temptation for abuse. Speaker Johnson should reread the Constitution and stop stalling on the reforms.

"we don't control the government" just a reminder, this is textbook 1st amendment infringement also, his reaction is very telling. a strong arm response like this is only from a cowardly person backed into a corner... they're afraid, and we're winning. push on

More police, govt agents, CPS, etc., are violating our Fourth Amendment rights. No warrant? Don't go outside! Talk through a CLOSED door/window. Say "I don't answer questions" then DON'T no matter what they say! They'll leave once you won't respond. youtu.be/rKycv8txbuA?si=njta…

"We're here because you had the audacity to exercise your 1st Amendment rights"

There needs to be a 25th Amendment for the Senate. Mitch McConnell is 84, he has taken a few falls and had some sort of min-stroke and is in the hospital once again. Something needs to be done.

RT @LozzaFox: Britain needs a first amendment. It also needs a second. To protect the first from government overreach and tyranny. Once…

Dems block FISA 702 over Trump’s Bill Pulte DNI pick, while Republicans refuse real reform of the BACKDOOR!!! This isn’t just top brass—any authorized “investigator” across agencies gets persistent access to Americans’ data with zero warrants. They cry “national security,” floodgates open, and our 4th Amendment gets pilfered. FISA hasn’t gone dark—it continues until 2027 under existing certifications. Neither party gives a damn about constitutional rights. Get a warrant! Both sides own this betrayal.

Join Us for Jane Fonda's Rise Up, Sing Out - A Concert for the First Amendment 7:30 PM ET on Mary Trump Media's Youtube Channel We're also launching Mary Trump's Transcend PAC today!! marytrumptranscendpac.org/ youtube.com/watch?v=TdV3-v97…

They blocked me and the truth on Missouri 5. It’s a trap. With Amendments 4 and 5 set for an August 4th election, politicians are proposing the most brazen power grab from our citizens on a single ballot in Missouri history,” said Scott Charton, the spokesperson for two groups set up to oppose both of those amendments. “Amendment 4 would effectively kill the century-old citizen initiative petition process and majority rule in Missouri. Amendment 5 allows lawmakers to ignore constitutional taxpayer protections previously approved by the people and raise new sales taxes sky-high without going to a vote of the people.”

As can be seen here, the Second Amendment is the freedom of speech.

🚨 Border Patrol insists the driver is smuggling; an agent tells him filming is *NOT* a First Amendment right; a K9 handler signals a false alert; driver calls them out, they then destroy his property, and finally release him.

Here you go, straight from things you’ve said per your account history: From recent posts, this user appears left-leaning/anti-Musk/anti-Trump and frequently debates immigration, free speech, and politics. Here is a summarized list of things he seems to believe that are not well-supported by evidence or are factually overstated/incorrect: • “There is less free speech in the US than the UK.” He claims upsetting Trump gets you fired and implies the US is more restrictive. In reality, the US has stronger constitutional protections (First Amendment) with far fewer restrictions on offensive or political speech compared to the UK, which has laws against “hate speech,” stirring up hatred, or online communications that can lead to arrests for tweets/posts. UK free speech is more limited in practice (e.g., monitoring social media, arrests for offensive posts).  • Elon Musk is “not welcome in the UK” / Brits broadly “hate him” due to hubris. Musk has visited and engaged with UK politics (e.g., rallies, criticism of the government); there are petitions/calls to ban him from some critics, but no actual ban or widespread prohibition. Polls mentioned in coverage show mixed/unfavorable views among some, but he remains influential and active in discourse.  • Immigrant/criminality issues are purely individual (“evil full stop. Not because of their background”) with no statistical patterns, and concerns are just “racist bigotry” or “anti-Muslim misinformation.” Data shows disparities: foreign nationals are overrepresented in certain UK prison/conviction stats for some crimes (including sexual offenses in analyses), even after some age/sex adjustments. While not all immigrants and causation is complex (e.g., age demographics), dismissing group-level patterns as entirely false or bigoted ignores official statistics and research.  • Musk/Israel “continue to kill women and children in Gaza and Southern Lebanon who are not radicals” as evidence of radicalism. This frames civilian casualties simplistically without context of Hamas/Hezbollah’s tactics (e.g., embedding in civilian areas, using human shields), which independent analyses and military reporting address as complicating factors in urban warfare casualty figures. • Musk’s kids’ names (e.g., X Æ A-Xii) prove he’s “selfish” like him; his wealth makes his opinions invalid or power-hungry. This is subjective opinion presented as fact. Unusual names are a personal/family choice; wealth doesn’t inherently invalidate opinions, and Musk’s influence stems from achievements in tech/space (Tesla, SpaceX, etc.), not just “jumping on bandwagons.” These appear rooted in strong political opposition rather than data-driven analysis. He often labels opponents “planks,” “racist bigots,” etc., in debates. Note: This is based on a sample of public posts; users can evolve or hold nuanced private views. For a fuller picture, deeper thread analysis would help.

WATCH: Sen. @RonWyden pressed NSA nominee Lt. Gen. Joshua Rudd on whether he’d honor the Fourth Amendment and require warrants before surveilling Americans under FISA Section 702. The answers raised serious constitutional concerns. Our further analysis: protectprivacynow.org/news/w…

No, Texas cannot legally secede from the United States unilaterally. Key Legal Precedent: Texas v. White (1869)The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case (decided 5-3) that states do not have the right to secede on their own. When Texas joined the Union in 1845, it entered an "indissoluble relation" and the Constitution creates an "indestructible Union composed of indestructible States." The Court declared all acts of secession (including Texas's 1861 ordinance) "absolutely null" and without legal effect. Texas (and the other Confederate states) never legally left the Union, even during the Civil War. The only exceptions noted: secession could theoretically occur through revolution (successful armed separation) or by consent of the other states (e.g., a constitutional amendment or mutual agreement involving Congress and the states). This ruling has never been overturned and remains binding precedent. Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reinforced it in 2006: "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." Common MythsTexas was once an independent republic (1836–1845): This is true historically, but the annexation agreement did not reserve a special right to secede. Texas has no unique legal privilege over other states. The Constitution is silent on secession: True, but the Supreme Court interpreted the overall structure (including the Preamble's "more perfect Union" and other provisions) as prohibiting unilateral exit. Texas could divide into up to five states: This is allowed under the 1845 annexation resolution (with Congress's consent), but it is not secession from the Union. Practical RealityNo mechanism exists in current U.S. or Texas law for a state to leave peacefully on its own. Any attempt would face massive legal, economic, and military barriers (federal authority, courts, military bases, currency, debt, trade, etc.). Secessionist groups like the Texas Nationalist Movement ("Texit") exist and occasionally push symbolic bills or referendums, but none have legal force or succeeded. In short, under established constitutional law, Texas is permanently part of the Union unless the rest of the country agrees otherwise or extraordinary (and unlikely) events occur. The question is more political/historical than a viable legal option today. x.com/Lorenjmont1964/status/…

Amendment 4 is WRONG for Missourians. We should never vote to give up our own power and hand it over to politicians and the special interests who control them. VOTE NO AUGUST 4TH!

Not familiar with those rights. Which one of the bill of rights or amendment?🤷🏼🤷🏼🤷🏼🤷🏼🤷🏼🤷🏼

17th AMENDMENT: Have I mentioned how much the 17th Amendment screwed up the senate? Thune is a creature of the bastardization of the body by William Jennings Bryan in 1913. x.com/amuse/status/206548911…