Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 2:39 a.m. No.20287776   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7793 >>7840 >>8032 >>8070 >>8098

Supreme Court allows Border Patrol agents to remove razor wire Texas installed at Mexico border.

The court weighed in on a dispute between the Biden administration and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who installed the wire in an effort to prevent illegal border crossings.

 

Jan. 22, 2024, 3:01 PM EST / Updated Jan. 22, 2024, 9:39 PM EST

WASHINGTON — A closely divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to cut through or move razor wire Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border as part of the state’s effort to prevent illegal border crossings.

 

The court on a 5-4 vote granted an emergency request filed by the Biden administration, which had argued that Texas was preventing agents from carrying out their duties.

 

The brief order noted that four conservative members of the nine-justice court would have rejected the government's request. They were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

 

The Biden administration says the wire prevents agents from reaching migrants who have already crossed over the border into the U.S.

 

Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott, a Republican, installed the razor wire near the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass as part of an operation to address illegal immigration that has brought the state into conflict with the Biden administration.

 

A White House spokesperson on Monday said: "Texas’ political stunts, like placing razor wire near the border, simply make it harder and more dangerous for frontline personnel to do their jobs. Ultimately, we need adequate resources and policy changes to address our broken immigration system."

 

Texas sued after Border Patrol agents cut through some of the razor wire, claiming the agents had trespassed and damaged state property.

 

A federal judge ruled for the Biden administration, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month reversed that decision, saying agents could not cut or move the wire unless there was a medical emergency.

 

Abbott’s immigration enforcement plan, called Operation Lone Star, includes busing thousands of migrants to Democratic-led cities and arresting migrants on trespassing charges. The state previously placed buoys in the Rio Grande to prevent crossings, prompting the Biden administration to sue. The barrier remains in place while litigation continues.

 

Even while the Biden administration's application was pending at the Supreme Court, the standoff intensified.

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton rebuffed a Biden administration request that the state back off its takeover of a public park at Eagle Pass. That followed an incident in which three people drowned trying to cross the Rio Grande. The Department of Homeland Security said Border Patrol agents were "physically barred" from entering the area in responding to the incident.

 

"It is impossible to say what might have happened if Border Patrol had had its former access to the area — including through its surveillance trucks that assisted in monitoring the area," Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a court filing on behalf of the Biden administration.

 

The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the high court’s order.

 

“Enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement. “Rather than helping to reduce irregular migration, the State of Texas has only made it harder for frontline personnel to do their jobs and to apply consequences under the law.”

 

Paxton, in a statement posted to X, said that the Supreme Court's order "allows Biden to continue his illegal effort to aid the foreign invasion of America."

 

"The destruction of Texas’s border barriers will not help enforce the law or keep American citizens safe," he said. "This fight is not over, and I look forward to defending our state’s sovereignty."

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-border-patrol-agents-remove-razor-wire-installed-rcna132890

 

There’s something seriously wrong with the Supreme Court

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 3:13 a.m. No.20287850   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Survey of 1,085 National Likely VotersNovember 30 – December 6, 2023 Conducted by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute

 

  1. If your state banned mail-in balloting in next year’s presidential election, would you choose to vote in-person or would you choose not to vote at all?

94% you would vote in person

2% you wouldn’t vote

4% not sure

 

  1. We are now going to ask you several questions about voting in the 2020 Presidential election. Your responses will remain anonymous, so please answer honestly. Who did you vote for in the 2020 Presidential election?

45% Donald Trump

46% Joe Biden

4% some other candidate

3% didn’t vote

1% not sure

 

  1. Did you vote with an absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election?

30% yes

68% no

2% not sure

 

Answered by respondents who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot:

  1. During the 2020 election, did a friend or family member fill out your ballot, in part or in full, on your behalf?

19% yes

79% no

2% not sure

 

  1. During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?

21% yes

78% no

0% not sure

 

  1. During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a state where you were no longer a permanent resident?

17% yes

82% no

1% not sure

 

  1. During the 2020 election, did you sign a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member, with or without his or her permission?

17% yes

81% no

1% not sure

 

Answered by all respondents:

  1. During the 2020 election, did a friend, family member, or organization, such as a political party, offer to pay or reward you for voting?

8% yes

91%no

1% not sure

 

  1. Do you know a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who has admitted to you that he or she cast a mail-in ballot in 2020 in a state other than his or her state of permanent residence?

10% yes

86% no

3% not sure

 

  1. Do you know a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who has admitted to you that he or she filled out a ballot on behalf of another person?

11% yes

87% no

2% not sure

 

The results of this poll should be eye-opening to anyone that claims to care about the legitimacy of our democratic institutions. Since the 2020 elections, anyone who questioned the security of widespread mail-in balloting was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Now, those people are 100 percent vindicated in their concerns.

 

“The only question that remains is whether these stunning admissions by voters will result in reforms to our country’s election laws.”

 

“This survey emphatically suggests that the 2020 presidential election results were contaminated by widespread voter fraud, despite the mainstream media’s constant attempts to gaslight the American public into believing the opposite. Of the 30 percent of Americans claiming they voted by mail in this survey, at least one in every five engaged in one or more kinds of voter fraud.

 

With the 2024 elections right around the corner, it is imperative that state officials do everything in their power to shore up the integrity of their voting processes. Eliminating or vastly restricting mail-in voting would be a good place to start.”

 

“These survey results show the importance of implementing forward-looking fixes to election rules and procedures that currently allow and encourage fraud. Regardless of what one’s views are on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, Americans deserve an election system that is undeniably transparent and immune from mischief. These survey results conclusively illustrate that election fraud is a rampant and pervasive problem that undermines our democracy.”

 

“Anyone who believed that the 2020 election was ‘the most secure in American history’ trusted a corrupt Deep State more than their eyes and common sense. Yet this narrative continues to dominate corporate media coverage.

 

Our election systems are broken in this country. If we do not fix them – including harsh punishments who break the law, as many admitted to in this survey – it will be impossible to trust any election moving forward. If you don’t protect the integrity of the election process and every single ballot, the franchise means nothing and we no longer live in a society governed by the actual will of the people.”

 

https://heartland.org/opinion/heartland-rasmussen-poll-one-in-five-mail-in-voters-admit-to-committing-at-least-one-kind-of-voter-fraud-during-2020-election/

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 3:27 a.m. No.20287883   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7904 >>8029 >>8093 >>8134

>>20287045 Mother of all breaches - a historic data leak reveals 26 billion records: check what's exposed PN

 

Mother of all breaches - a historic data leak reveals 26 billion records: check what's exposed

18 January 2024

Updated on: January 22, 2024

The supermassive leak contains data from numerous previous breaches, comprising an astounding 12 terabytes of information, spanning over a mind-boggling 26 billion records. The leak is almost certainly the largest ever discovered.

 

There are data leaks, and then there’s this. A supermassive Mother of all Breaches (MOAB for short)includes records from thousands of meticulously compiled and reindexed leaks, breaches, and privately sold databases. The full and searchable list is included at the end of this article.

 

Bob Dyachenko, cybersecurity researcher and owner at SecurityDiscovery.com, together with the Cybernews team, has discoveredbillions upon billions of exposed records on an open instance whose owner is unlikely ever to be identified.

 

You can check if your data was exposed in historic data breaches using the Cybernews data leak checker. Our team is working hard to update the tool and provide you with means to check if your data was exposed in the MOAB.

However, the researchers believe that the owner has a vested interest in storing large amounts of data and, therefore, could be a malicious actor, data broker, or some service that works with large amounts of data.

 

“The dataset is extremely dangerous as threat actors could leverage the aggregated data for awide range of attacks, including identity theft, sophisticated phishing schemes, targeted cyberattacks, and unauthorized access to personal and sensitive accounts,” the researchers said.

 

The supermassive MOAB does not appear to be made up of newly stolen data only and is most likely the largest compilation of multiple breaches (COMB).

 

While the team identified over 26 billion records, duplicates are also highly likely. However,the leaked data contains far more information than just credentials – most of the exposed data is sensitiveand, therefore, valuable for malicious actors.

 

Link to data link checker: https://cybernews.com/personal-data-leak-check/

 

 

A quick run through the data tree reveals an astoundingly large number of records compiled from previous breaches. The largest number of records, 1.4 billion, comes from Tencent QQ, a Chinese instant messaging app.

 

However, there are supposedly hundreds of millions of records from Weibo (504M), MySpace (360M), Twitter (281M), Deezer (258M), Linkedin (251M), AdultFriendFinder (220M), Adobe (153M), Canva (143M), VK (101M), Daily Motion (86M), Dropbox (69M), Telegram (41M), and many other companies and organizations.

 

The leak also includes records ofvarious government organizations in the US, Brazil, Germany, Philippines, Turkey, and other countries.

 

According to the team, the consumer impact of the supermassive MOAB could be unprecedented. Since many people reuse usernames and passwords, malicious actors could embark on a tsunami of credential-stuffing attacks.

 

“If users use the same passwords for their Netflix account as they do for their Gmail account, attackers can use this to pivot towards other, more sensitive accounts. Apart from that, users whose data has been included in supermassive MOAB may become victims of spear-phishing attacks or receive high levels of spam emails,” the researchers said.

 

The leak’s scale is of yet unseen proportions. For example, in 2021, Cybernews reported a COMB that contained 3.2 billion records –only 12% of the supermassive MOAB of 2024

https://cybernews.com/security/billions-passwords-credentials-leaked-mother-of-all-breaches/

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 3:54 a.m. No.20287944   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7946 >>7949 >>7959

>>20287793

>>20287793

We have no rights.1/3

You Don’t Own What You Think You Own

By Bette Grande, Don Grande

Published January 10, 2024 :Great Resetindividual libertiesGreat TakingProperty Rightsd

“The board is set; the pieces are moving. We come to it at last.” My husband and I re-watched Lord of the Rings over the holidays and that line stuck with me.The board has been set without us knowing, and when the pieces move, we will lose. A 2016 World Economic Forum video included a young women’s view that in 2030 you will own nothing and be happy. In many ways, 2030 is already here; the board is set.

 

If you call your stockbroker and put in an order to buy 100 shares of Apple, or any company, you probably think that you own 100 shares in that company. You don’t. In the old days when you bought a stock or bond, you received a paper certificate of ownership: you owned the shares on the certificate, no middleman. But paper certificates are so yesterday.

In today’s enlightened digital age, your purchase is simply an entry at your broker’s computer, and you do not own what you think you own. Under laws in all 50 states what you actually own is a “securities entitlement.” This is a new form of “property ownership” that is more like a contract between you and your broker.

 

If financial markets are functioning, this new type of “property” is not really a problem. There are some benefits, in fact, such as being able to immediately buy and sell your “stock,” rather than mailing in your grandmother’s IBM stock certificate.

 

But if the financial system faces a systemic collapse—think 2008 housing bubble but much bigger—nearly every stock and bond that is in electronic (noncertified) form will be taken as collateral by the largest “too big to fail” financial institutions. Sure, it will crush many millions of individual investors (and public pension plans) but it’s all for a good cause: saving the systemically important financial institutions. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

 

This will happen without your knowledge and without any action or fault on your part—even if you are entirely debt free and your stock portfolio is free and clear. If that sounds wrong, it’s because it is. It is also legalized fraud.

So, how did we get here? It is a fascinating story involving some of the most boring and dense state laws on the books. Cut through the fog and there it is. Hat tip to ZeroHedge for posting a article titled “Intentional Destruction: First COVID, Now Comes ‘The Great Taking’” by Matthew Smith that was in part based on the work of David Webb and his book The Great Taking. These resources are well worth your time and got me started down the long road to understanding this ticking financial timebomb.

 

Property

Most of us have a pretty good understanding of private property. If you buy something outright. you own it. You are free to do what you will with that property. Private property rights were a significant issue at the formation of the United States and played a vital role in the expansion and success of the American experiment.

 

The concept of private property rights as we know it is not very old. It took root in the 1700s from thinkers like John Locke, the men behind the Scottish Enlightenment, and the Founding Fathers.

Private property rights were well understood and worked fairly well for a few hundred years. In the 1980s, however—as digital technology was gaining traction and stocks and bonds evolved from certificate form to digital entries—some felt that the well-accepted laws and rules for private property rights would no longer work. So, they set about to move the concept of property rights forward.

 

UCC Article 8

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) was formed in the late 1800s for the purpose of developing state-level laws that would change the patchwork quilt of state laws into a more uniform set of statutes. This would promote commerce and other matters across the country.

 

The grandaddy of uniform laws is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a lengthy statute regulating commerce from state to state. There are several separate articles in the UCC, with the most well-known being Article 9, which covers secured transactions. But it is the immediately preceding Article 8, which covers securities, that plays the larger role in the topic of this column.

 

The ULC formed a drafting committee to bring Article 8 into the digital age. The product of that committee was presented to state legislatures in 1994, and ultimately adopted by every state over the next several years. This revised Article 8 was over 50 pages of complicated legalese drafted by “experts.” And state legislators already cramped for time during the legislative session relied on those experts and quickly and overwhelmingly passed the model legislation…

 

https://heartland.org/opinion/you-dont-own-what-you-think-you-own/

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 3:56 a.m. No.20287949   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7951

>>20287944

2/3

 

Sitting inside the new Article 8 language, however, were several provisions that put the rights of individual investors at risk. As I said above, the widespread negative impact of these provisions will surface only if (when?) financial markets face systemic collapse; in other words, right when people will most need access to their financial assets. Until then, the provisions sleep.

 

The first significant change to Article 8 revision is the concept of “securities entitlement” mentioned above. This is a new form of “property right” that is actually more like a contract between the investor and his or her broker. When you buy 100 shares of stock your broker punches a few keys, and the 100 shares show up in your account. In a normal functioning system, your broker will pass any dividends on the stock into your account, take orders from you to sell the stock, et cetera.

 

A full explanation of a securities entitlement is beyond the scope of the column, but the key takeaway is that you do not fully own the 100 shares of stock because other parties also have a claim. The real problem with Article 8 is the section entitled “Priority among security interests and entitlement holders.” In simple terms, a brokerage company has two accounts with a custodian, which is a company a few levels above the brokerage company. One account holds the brokerage company’s own financial assets (the securities entitlements to the underlying security) and the other account holds all of their customers’ securities entitlements, including the entitlement to your 100 shares of stock.

When the brokerage company borrows money from their bank, the assets of the borrower are pledged as collateral for the loan, which makes sense. But if the brokerage firm becomes insolvent, say due to a systemic financial crisis, a secured lender has priority over all of the accounts of the brokerage firm, including your 100 shares of stock.

 

UCC Article 8 provides:

A claim of a creditor of a securities intermediary who has a security interest in a financial asset held by a securities intermediary has priority over claims of the securities intermediary’s entitlement holders who have security entitlements with respect to that financial asset if the creditor has control over the financial asset.

 

Clear as mud, right? Here is what it says in English.A secured lender (creditor) who has control over the financial asset, as a custodian for example, has priority (meaning they can take ownership of the financial assets) over the securities intermediary’s (the brokerage firm) entitlement holders (this means you and all other individual investors with accounts at the broker). Another conspiracy theory?

 

Here is a summary of a proof-of-concept example offered by David Webb in The Great Taking:

 

Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy when the 2008 housing bubble burst. One of the primary lenders to Lehman Brothers was JP Morgan Bank (JPM). A subsidiary of JPM was Lehman’s custodian, both of Lehman’s own assets and the assets of Lehman’s customers. As custodian JPM had control of Lehman’s assets and as lender JPM had a security interest in Lehman’s assets. As a result of UCC Article 8 (and a friendly change to the federal Bankruptcy Code made in 2006) JPM took all of Lehman’s accounts as collateral for the loans that Lehman could no longer pay.

 

It gets worse. The next provision of Article 8 gives clearing corporations—securities intermediaries that handle the flow of stock and bond transactions—priority over you even if the clearing corporation does not have control of the financial asset….

 

https://heartland.org/opinion/you-dont-own-what-you-think-you-own/

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 3:57 a.m. No.20287951   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20287949

3/3

Cui Bono?

At this point, you may be asking yourself: why would the Article 8 drafting committee do this? The individual investors have no role in the lending practices of their broker, why does the law allow the taking of their assets?

To answer that question, you need to know the fundamental objective of the Article 8 revisions and you need to know more about the composition of the drafting committee. The driving motivation was systemic risk in the financial markets (if they were worried about systemic risk in 1994 what do think about it now?). Importantly, the Article 8 revisions did not do anything to reduce the likelihood of systemic risk. In fact, the committee made it worse by removing risk and consequences for shady financial activity. Instead, what the changes actually do is protect the “too big to fail” banks if a systemic financial collapse occurs.

 

This motivation makes perfect sense once you understand that the attorneys driving the committee’s revisions worked for law firms whose clients were the large money-center financial institutions who are the beneficiaries of the revised Article 8.

 

What Can Be Done?

The United States is mired in debt. Wall Street continues to create derivative securities out of thin air. All this debt and all of the derivatives are backed by the stocks, bonds, IRAs, and 401(k)s as collateral. And the dirty secret is that each $1 of that collateral is “backing” multiple dollars of debt. Because there are not nearly enough assets to back the debt and derivatives tied to those assets if the financial system crashes, there will be cascading insolvencies of financial institutions up the food chain. Investors, including public pension plans, will be in the back of the line in bankruptcy court as unsecured creditors.

 

But,because the UCC is state law, state legislators can restore the rights of investors by giving them priority over secured lenders. Moreover, a few other simple changes to the UCC can reduce the impact of the theft authorized in current law. But time is ticking, and despite what the Biden administration says, the economy is on shaky ground.

What event could set off a systemic financial crisis? Over the last three years, it seems like every news cycle brings a major new event. Will it be the next crisis that finally tips the scale? Or will it simply be the collective weight of debt, prior crises, and loss of trust? One thing is certain: we are far closer to a systemic financial crisis in 2024 than we were in 1994.

 

As states step up to protect their citizens, the “too big to fail” financial institutions will likely claim that any changes to Article 8 will bring down the financial system; that it will be the end of the world as we know it. Perhaps it will, but for me, any system that requires the people to sacrifice their property to support the financial institutions that built this mess in the first place is not a system worth saving.

 

https://heartland.org/opinion/you-dont-own-what-you-think-you-own/

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:04 a.m. No.20287967   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7986

>>20287781

I seriously don’t know how Mike Flynn and everyone doesn’t know this, it came out in the beginning.

 

But then they didn’t research for a full year or more here. I guess people don’t have memories that anons have, and the info has to be refreshed for them

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:10 a.m. No.20287985   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7990

I'M ENJOYING THIS TOO MUCH!!!😭Ben Shapiro giving a cheer up speech for DeSadist losers, and now we have to support Donald Trump

 

That must have hurt for him! Kek

 

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v45zww8/?pub=4

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:13 a.m. No.20287998   🗄️.is 🔗kun

I think there is going to be a new party next time around. The Party of Common Sense

 

AMERICA FIRST!!!

 

0:30

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v45v53n/?pub=4

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:19 a.m. No.20288013   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8018 >>8019 >>8027

SHE CAN'T HANDLE PETER!!!

 

Ducey question to Jeane Pierre:

 

“Why do you think people feel Pres. Bidan is getting less and less mentally sharp?

 

She walks out!

 

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v460kpi/?pub=4

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:26 a.m. No.20288032   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20287776

Chris Chmielenski Discusses The Supreme Court’s Ruling This Week That Harms Border Security

 

7:56

 

This sucks!

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v462kox/?pub=4

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:41 a.m. No.20288098   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20287776

Mike Davis: "The Democrats Won Today At The Supreme Court But They're Gonna Pay The Price In 2024"This is a really good explanation of the consequences of what they did

 

14:17

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v461pc0/?pub=4

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 4:56 a.m. No.20288131   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8133 >>8140 >>8185

Tiffany Justice: "You Don't Need To Be An Expert To Know Dildo's Don't Belong In Public Schools"

Joy Reid is an idiot, seriously a dunce!

 

17:13

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v461qdr/?pub=4

Anonymous ID: c1927f Jan. 23, 2024, 5:04 a.m. No.20288153   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Jim Hoft Discusses Voting Machines, Georgia Election Fraud Case, And The End Of DeSantis 2024Bannon wholeheartedly disagrees that DeSadist was gracious in his suspension and endorsement speech. I can see why Trump used those words but Ronnie boy was not at all gracious

 

15:22

 

https://rumble.com/embed/v462b7b/?pub=4