EB

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@GigaChadDad1989 @catturd2 😂😆😂😆😜 hope he doesn’t infect our prisoners with his disease when he’s getting gang raped in Federal prison.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@nofreecatnip @catturd2 And some herp cream for that sore on his lip. 😂😆😂

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

We’re dumb? People have awoken to the retardism of the left and their inability to ability to apply basic critical thinking. How is comparing apples to oranges somehow a “gotcha”? It just makes you look stupid and desperate to have an argument that isn’t there. I haven’t committed a crime, therefore I have freedom to remain anonymous. Dumb fuck.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@starnzit @catturd2 Did I commit a crime? Are you really that dumb?

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@OneWorldEndz @catturd2 Yep, was extradited and brought here to prosecute. Shame they can’t do that with all the Nigerian scammers

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@catturd2 I love that they extradited him from Romania to bring him to the United States to prosecute him. Take note lefties in other countries that think you’re going to harass American citizens, your days are numbered and we will bring your ass over here to prosecute you!!

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@catturd2 Post his face so people can see who we’re dealing with. He looks the part, another mentally unhinged leftist. Keep up the great work lefties, wouldn’t mind seeing a few more of you idiots locked up where you belong.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@SemperRaw @EndWokeness There are dwarf variants of sunflowers that grow 1-3’ tall. These are sunflowers.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@beyoncegarden @ryoung3069

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@beyoncegarden Look at that, the trash took itself out

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@theresaopines @Breaking57 They’re the same people screaming for open borders. Democrats lost the election on this issue alone. We voted overwhelming to close borders and tightly regulate. It’s common sense policy, they’re just too brainwashed to think critically any longer. That’s how propaganda works.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

It’s not hard these days to verify what you’re saying is true before saying it. This applies only inside the country, not at the border. People against inspections at the border are likely the same people that are all for open borders. The majority of Americans voted and showed we support closed, regulated borders to keep our families inside our country safe.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It generally requires warrants, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for most searches inside the U.S. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the balance of interests shifts dramatically at the border.
Key Supreme Court rationale (from cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977) and United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)):

• The United States, as a sovereign nation, has an inherent right to protect itself by controlling who and what enters its territory. This includes preventing the entry of contraband, dutiable goods, harmful items, or unauthorized persons.
• Searches at the border are reasonable per se (by virtue of occurring at the border) because individuals crossing it have a reduced expectation of privacy. Travelers know or should expect scrutiny when entering the country.
• This authority dates back to the First Congress (e.g., the Collection Act of 1789), which authorized warrantless customs searches—contemporaneous with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment itself. Courts view this as strong evidence that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to bar routine border inspections.

A routine border vehicle inspection is not an “unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment because national sovereignty and security interests outweigh the typical privacy concerns that apply in the interior of the country.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

Dude, just stop talking because you’re completely wrong about this. Stop dishing out bullshit and trying to pass it as fact.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It generally requires warrants, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for most searches inside the U.S. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the balance of interests shifts dramatically at the border.
Key Supreme Court rationale (from cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977) and United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)):

• The United States, as a sovereign nation, has an inherent right to protect itself by controlling who and what enters its territory. This includes preventing the entry of contraband, dutiable goods, harmful items, or unauthorized persons.
• Searches at the border are reasonable per se (by virtue of occurring at the border) because individuals crossing it have a reduced expectation of privacy. Travelers know or should expect scrutiny when entering the country.
• This authority dates back to the First Congress (e.g., the Collection Act of 1789), which authorized warrantless customs searches—contemporaneous with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment itself. Courts view this as strong evidence that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to bar routine border inspections.

A routine border vehicle inspection is not an “unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment because national sovereignty and security interests outweigh the typical privacy concerns that apply in the interior of the country.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

It’s not hard these days to verify what you’re saying is true before saying it. This applies only inside the country, not at the border. People against inspections at the border are likely the same people that are all for open borders. The majority of Americans voted and showed we support closed, regulated borders to keep our families inside our country safe.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It generally requires warrants, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for most searches inside the U.S. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the balance of interests shifts dramatically at the border.
Key Supreme Court rationale (from cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977) and United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)):

• The United States, as a sovereign nation, has an inherent right to protect itself by controlling who and what enters its territory. This includes preventing the entry of contraband, dutiable goods, harmful items, or unauthorized persons.
• Searches at the border are reasonable per se (by virtue of occurring at the border) because individuals crossing it have a reduced expectation of privacy. Travelers know or should expect scrutiny when entering the country.
• This authority dates back to the First Congress (e.g., the Collection Act of 1789), which authorized warrantless customs searches—contemporaneous with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment itself. Courts view this as strong evidence that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to bar routine border inspections.

A routine border vehicle inspection is not an “unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment because national sovereignty and security interests outweigh the typical privacy concerns that apply in the interior of the country.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

It’s not hard these days to verify what you’re saying is true before saying it. All of you people saying you have a constitutional right to not being searched coming across the border are completely clueless, even though you act like legal experts. What you’re saying only applies inside the country, not at the border. People against inspections at the border are likely the same people that are all for open borders, which is a policy intended to destroy America and our sovereignty by a Democrat party that hates America and everything it stands for.. The majority of Americans voted and showed we support closed, regulated borders to keep our families inside our country safe.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It generally requires warrants, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for most searches inside the U.S. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the balance of interests shifts dramatically at the border.
Key Supreme Court rationale (from cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977) and United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)):

• The United States, as a sovereign nation, has an inherent right to protect itself by controlling who and what enters its territory. This includes preventing the entry of contraband, dutiable goods, harmful items, or unauthorized persons.
• Searches at the border are reasonable per se (by virtue of occurring at the border) because individuals crossing it have a reduced expectation of privacy. Travelers know or should expect scrutiny when entering the country.
• This authority dates back to the First Congress (e.g., the Collection Act of 1789), which authorized warrantless customs searches—contemporaneous with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment itself. Courts view this as strong evidence that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to bar routine border inspections.

A routine border vehicle inspection is not an “unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment because national sovereignty and security interests outweigh the typical privacy concerns that apply in the interior of the country.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

Maybe learn the law. It’s not hard these days to verify what you’re saying is true before saying it. This applies only inside the country, not at the border. People against inspections at the border are likely the same people that are all for open borders. The majority of Americans voted and showed we support closed, regulated borders to keep our families inside our country safe.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It generally requires warrants, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for most searches inside the U.S. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the balance of interests shifts dramatically at the border.
Key Supreme Court rationale (from cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977) and United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)):

• The United States, as a sovereign nation, has an inherent right to protect itself by controlling who and what enters its territory. This includes preventing the entry of contraband, dutiable goods, harmful items, or unauthorized persons.
• Searches at the border are reasonable per se (by virtue of occurring at the border) because individuals crossing it have a reduced expectation of privacy. Travelers know or should expect scrutiny when entering the country.
• This authority dates back to the First Congress (e.g., the Collection Act of 1789), which authorized warrantless customs searches—contemporaneous with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment itself. Courts view this as strong evidence that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to bar routine border inspections.

A routine border vehicle inspection is not an “unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment because national sovereignty and security interests outweigh the typical privacy concerns that apply in the interior of the country.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

It’s not hard these days to verify what you’re saying is true before saying it. This applies only inside the country, not at the border. People against inspections at the border are likely the same people that are all for open borders. The majority of Americans voted and showed we support closed, regulated borders to keep our families inside our country safe.

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It generally requires warrants, probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion for most searches inside the U.S. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the balance of interests shifts dramatically at the border.
Key Supreme Court rationale (from cases like United States v. Ramsey (1977) and United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)):

• The United States, as a sovereign nation, has an inherent right to protect itself by controlling who and what enters its territory. This includes preventing the entry of contraband, dutiable goods, harmful items, or unauthorized persons.
• Searches at the border are reasonable per se (by virtue of occurring at the border) because individuals crossing it have a reduced expectation of privacy. Travelers know or should expect scrutiny when entering the country.
• This authority dates back to the First Congress (e.g., the Collection Act of 1789), which authorized warrantless customs searches—contemporaneous with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment itself. Courts view this as strong evidence that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to bar routine border inspections.

A routine border vehicle inspection is not an “unreasonable” search under the Fourth Amendment because national sovereignty and security interests outweigh the typical privacy concerns that apply in the interior of the country.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@fethulgulub @Steph_iscrypto @grok

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@jesusiscool39 @Muskill3r @TheGenXTruther @maddenifico @Turquoise__Cat This is more realistic with what we ALL witness with our very eyes. You people can’t even meme since you’re so fucking stupid.

[EB @SparksofSpeech]

@Muskill3r @TheGenXTruther @maddenifico @Turquoise__Cat Nobody cares. Your TDS is sickening, but expected from such a small mind that is easily manipulated.