The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.

Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata.  Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists.  It really is that simple.

That said, there remains ZERO justification for the wholesale capture of U.S. citizen data by the government. It is not the searching of the database that presents the issue; the capture itself violates the Fourth Amendment.

The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it.  That’s where FISA-702 comes in.

Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification.  702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.

This is a very key component to fully understand.  Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking.  Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification.  The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.

The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay supporting President Trump and the administration’s lawful position that SNAP benefits cannot be paid without congressional funding.

In the most bizarre example of her voting record to date, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson votes against a short-term extension to the emergency stay she herself created. [SOURCE]

On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court extended the administrative stay, keeping [Rhode Island Judge] McConnell’s ruling on hold until 11:59 p.m. EST on Nov. 13. With the House of Representatives slated to vote on Wednesday on a deal to end the shutdown, the brief unsigned order presumably gives the government time to reopen, and for SNAP benefits to resume. Jackson indicated that she would not have extended the administrative stay, and that she would have turned down the government’s request. (source)

(more…)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on ABC This Week to combat the narrative engineering of DNC transcriptionist George Stephanopoulos.

Sometimes it’s worth watching Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, because he frames the political position, current and future, for the Democrat party. Video and Transcript Below:

[Transcript] STEPHANOPOULOS: And we’re joined now by the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent.

Mr. Bessent, thank you for joining us this morning.

We’ve just heard about all these impacts from the shutdown — government shutdown right now. Are we starting to see — see a permanent impact on the economy?

TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Sure, George.

And good to be with you.

And we’ve seen an impact on the economy from day one, but it’s getting worse and worse. We had a fantastic economy under President Trump the past two quarters. And now there are estimates that the economy, economic growth for this quarter, could be cut by as much as half if the shutdown continues.

(more…)

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears on NewsMax to discuss his perspective on the Supreme Court oral arguments surrounding the legal challenges to President Trump’s tariff authority.

Secretary Lutnick attended the court arguments today and is very optimistic about the outcome of the arguments.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Today, the Dept of Justice Solicitor General Dean John Sauer provided oral arguments to the Supreme Court in support of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. The issue at the heart of the matter is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president the power to levy tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, leaned heavily on the argument that tariffs are taxes against the American people, and all taxes must come from Congress.  The ‘tariffs are taxes’ argument seems to be the linchpin for the leftists on the court and the Gorsuch ‘conservatives’.

Solicitor Sauer countered the IEEPA tariffs are “regulations” against foreign imported goods. “The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce, which is what the phrase ‘regular importation of commerce’ in IEEPA naturally evokes,” Sauer said.

The full audio of the arguments is provided below. (I’m working on the transcript). WATCH (prompted):

.

(more…)

President Trump posted the importance of the Supreme Court case to support presidential authority on Tariffs.

The heart of the argument really is the “trillions at stake” aspect we have discussed on these pages for the past ten years.  If the institutions of our government factually want to dispatch President Trump and diminish the American middle-class, the Supreme Court will support the multinational corporations and Wall Street in decision to remove presidential tariff authority.

[Via Truth Social] – “Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and National Security that is second to none.

Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals. If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good.

I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”

President Donald J Trump – Nov 02, 2025, 6:54 PM

(more…)

It’s one thing to understand that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was DEI nomination to the Supreme Court, and another thing entirely to listen to her own words as she proves it.

During oral arguments in ‘Louisiana v. Callais’, a case before the high court considering whether Louisiana’s congressional map (which includes two majority-black districts), where plaintiffs in the case argue the congressional map is unconstitutionally gerrymandered based on race; Justice KBJ compares black people to disabled people.  The comparison for the argument she is trying to make is ridiculous.  Listen:

Ketanji Brown Jackson literally and directly compares black people not electing their preferred candidates to disabled people not being able to enter buildings

“They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re disabled.” pic.twitter.com/aCJXeBwHTl

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 15, 2025

[SOURCE] There is no benefit in the color of skin that makes voting easier or more difficult. The tailoring of congressional districts to cluster all the black voters into congressional districts is itself ‘racism as policy.’

(more…)

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Sea Isl) has become a parody of himself as he takes dramatic acting to new levels during his monologues.  Apparently, Senator Cruz and CBS’s Margaret Brennan have the same acting coach.

That said, I’ve cut to the chase on part of the Cruz question that matters as he asks AG Bondi about the investigation into the Supreme Court leaker of the Dobbs decision. [::cough:: Sheldon Snook ::cough::]  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Affirming a decision that was made in May 2025, and subsequently blocked by an ideological lower court ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has again affirmed Secretary Kristi Noem can remove the Temporary Protect Status (TPS) from Venezuelan migrants and deport them back to their home country [RULING HERE].

[SOURCE]

Once again, the Obama/Biden installed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, outlined a dissent from the majority, framed around emotional opposition to President Trump that is devoid of legal substance.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, is only on the Supreme Court to undermine the Supreme Court from within; that was her purpose.  That was why CTH said when Merrick Garland was selected as U.S. Attorney General, that ¹KBJ was the true goal behind Garland’s appointment.

(more…)

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer has filed a motion with the Supreme Court [SEE HERE] requesting intervention in a lower court ruling that blocks President Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

As noted in the filing, “As her removal notice observed, before taking office, Cook had made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that both a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence. Each mortgage agreement described the representation as material to the lender, reflecting the reality that lenders usually offer lower interest rates for principal-residence mortgages because they view such mortgages as less risky. When her apparent misconduct came to light, the President determined that Cook’s “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter” renders her unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board, and at a minimum demonstrates “the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question[her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” App., infra, 29a. To this day, Cook has never attempted to reconcile these representations.” (READ MORE)

“The Federal Reserve Act’s broad ‘for cause’ provision rules out removal for no reason at all, or for policy disagreement,” Sauer wrote. “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination … is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”

“The President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Sauer wrote.

Cook maintains she dindunuffin.

(more…)