Love LT. I've listened to him fairly regularly since 2020.
Anyone who is part of creating that crap is seriously mentally disturbed. Disgusting.
WTH did I just watch???
My banned account also reposted a lot of Q info. As well as everything else we had learned as a group from 2018-2021.
I did. Permanent suspension the same day as President Trump back in Jan 2021. I tried in vain to get it reinstated. Even after Elon bought Twitter. No luck with any appeal ever. I tried making a brand new Twitter/X account after Elon bought it, 2 times, and it removed me again each time, saying that I was against the rules for trying to avoid a ban. Ironically I was still on X with a business account! I finally succeeded in creating a new X account about 2 years ago, using a completely different email address, then linking back to my cell phone AFTER. Then immediately paying for the Blue Check. That finally worked! I think I outwitted them. I've been on for 2 years now, no problems.
The problem is, this would take YEARS. Many years. We don't have that much time.
Sounds like the making of a horror movie.
Love him, such a good and decent man.
When is this video from? This year, or is it older?
Many years ago, he wrote that his greatest fear was the month of February. I'm waiting to see how that pans out.
I love Grok! I asked, Did President Trump Sign EO That He Will IGNORE All Lower Court Rulings Until SCOTUS Rules on the Constitutionality of Activist Judges?
Grok: There is no credible evidence from official government sources, reputable news outlets, or legal records to confirm that President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) stating he would ignore all lower court rulings until the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on the constitutionality of activist judges. This claim appears to have originated from a post on X on March 12, 2025, and was subsequently reported on a website called NC Renegades, which labeled it as satire. However, no official documentation from the White House, the Federal Register (where all EOs are published), or mainstream news corroborates this assertion as of March 16, 2025.
The idea of a president issuing an EO to bypass lower court rulings would raise significant constitutional questions, as it conflicts with the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which grants courts the authority to interpret the law and bind the executive branch. Historically, presidents have complied with court orders, even when disagreeing, as seen with Richard Nixon during Watergate or Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (though Lincoln initially resisted, he ultimately aligned with Congress). Defying courts outright would likely provoke a constitutional crisis, a scenario legal experts frequently discuss but which has not materialized in this context. Posts on X and some web sources have circulated this claim, but they lack substantiation beyond anecdotal or satirical framing. Without an official EO number, publication in the Federal Register, or confirmation from Trump administration statements, it remains unverified and likely misinformation. That said, the Trump administration has faced numerous legal challenges to its executive actions in 2025, with federal judges issuing injunctions on policies like birthright citizenship and federal funding freezes. Trump has criticized these rulings but has so far followed the legal process by appealing them, not ignoring them.
In short, as of now, no such Executive Order exists based on available evidence. Always check primary sources like the Federal Register or White House announcements for definitive confirmation of executive actions.
So USAID money went to foreign countries to send students to Columbia?
Put up ads with Black people driving Teslas. For sure there are a LOT.
It is just like when we see scammers in our email trying to get our credit card number by pretending to be someone they are not. Are we really that stupid?
Exactly, the police need to be accountable as well. What, are they retarded or something?
We want arrests. Before updates.
Did you say Maga Storm?
This is not a public facility. Why the hell are they there?
President Donald Trump signed a groundbreaking executive order on Tuesday designed to clamp down on the growing abuse of America’s judicial system by radical activist judges and far-left organizations.
The order specifically targets the reckless pursuit of frivolous injunctions, which have repeatedly cost taxpayers millions and disrupted republican governance.
President Donald Trump has been bombarded with a staggering 119 legal challenges in just two months since his January 20 inauguration.
These cases, driven by radical activist judges, threaten to paralyze the administration before it can fully enact the mandate delivered by voters in the 2024 election. So far, only two of these cases have been resolved.
The memorandum, addressed directly to the heads of executive departments and agencies, instructs them to firmly enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which says that anyone who asks a court for an injunction (a temporary order stopping a government action) must first deposit money or a bond with the court.
This money is intended to cover potential harm or costs to the government if the court later decides that the injunction was improperly issued.
Trump argues that activist organizations have been abusing the courts, frequently filing weak or meritless lawsuits against the government to slow down or block policies they disagree with, often choosing sympathetic judges to hear their cases.
These groups do not typically face consequences when their lawsuits fail. Instead, taxpayers pay the cost when government policies are halted by these injunctions.
The memo tells federal agencies to make sure that whenever someone sues the government for an injunction, the agency should request that the plaintiff (the person or organization suing) provides enough money upfront to cover possible costs and damages the government might suffer if the injunction turns out to be unjustified.
Agencies must work with the Attorney General to decide how much money to ask for, and they must clearly justify that amount to the court.
The goal is to prevent misuse of the court system by ensuring groups think carefully before filing lawsuits and asking for injunctions, because they will have to financially cover the government’s potential losses if they’re wrong.
According to the executive order:
This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail.
Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for Government policies they voted for.
Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the Nation’s chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety.
The effective administration of justice in the Federal courts depends on mechanisms that deter frivolous litigation, protect parties from unwarranted costs, and streamline judicial processes.
One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued.
Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.
In requests for security under Rule 65(c), agencies shall include, among other things, that:
(a) Rule 65(c) mandates the court to require, in all applicable cases, that a movant for an injunction post security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party;
(b) the security amount the agency is requesting is based on a reasoned assessment of the potential harm to the enjoined or restrained party; and
(c) failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief.
I love calling out the retards!
It's a man, baby!!!!
I don't like where this is going, as I am 100% opposed to the liars of the "esoteric" false religions of Theosophy, and all the other "I am really god" demonic liars. New Age, New Thought, BULL CRAP. I will give Elon the benefit of doubt right now. But if this is leading to a fake New Age religion scam, well damn on us. There is only ONE TRUTH and that is Jesus Christ, end of story.