Birthright DECISION, Trump is WRONG.

[QP!]

Yep.

Which shows how dangerously dishonest Kavanaughs concurrence in this case is as he has suggested that while he voted to maintain the status quo it was not because this was disallowed and he felt COngress had the power, via statute, to change this.

That is simply a lie. It requires a Constitutional Amendment.

But then so to did granting the POTUS immunity from prosecution and that did not stop the SCOTUS who not only acted as a Legislature in creating new law, but went well beyond that by unilaterally amending the Constitution. Had a united bipartisan Congress tried to do what the SCOTUS did they would have need a full Constitutional amendment process under taken.

 

[Diogenes]

It is a reason to do a pregnancy test on every female from age 14 to 50. when the enter the country.

Really? Explain the legal grounds for such an action, if you can.

Meanwhile,


Q. Would Trump v. Barbara lead a reasonable person to conclude that "This isn't over. It is grounds to deny pregnant foreigners visas to come to America, though. Also to expedite the cancellation of visas and removal for any pregnant foreigners here," and " "It is a reason to do a pregnancy test on every female from age 14 to 50. when the (sic) enter the country"?

A. No, a reasonable person would not conclude that Trump v. Barbara provides legal or practical "grounds" for those specific policies.

What the Ruling Actually Says​

The 6-3 decision (June 30, 2026) reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause grants birthright citizenship (jus soli) to nearly all children born on U.S. soil, including those born to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily present. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion emphasized the broad, common-law understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” citing Wong Kim Ark (1898) and historical practice. It struck down Trump’s Executive Order 14160 as unconstitutional.

The ruling is a defeat for efforts to narrow birthright citizenship by executive action.

It does not:

• Limit Congress’s or the executive’s existing immigration powers (visa issuance, admissibility, removal).
• Create new authority to target pregnancy.
• Address or endorse screening, testing, or pregnancy-based visa denials.

​

Analysis of the Proposed Measures​

1. Denying visas to pregnant foreigners / expediting visa cancellations and removals:
   • U.S. immigration law already gives consular officers and DHS broad discretion to deny visas or initiate removal for various reasons (e.g., immigrant intent under INA § 214(b), public charge rules, or fraud/misrepresentation). Pregnancy alone has never been a categorical bar, and using it as a proxy for "future birthright citizenship" would be a novel policy.
   • Trump v. Barbara does not strengthen such grounds. It reinforces the constitutional reality that a birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship, which could make courts more skeptical of policies that appear designed to evade the 14th Amendment through upstream restrictions. A reasonable person would see this as highlighting limits on executive creativity, not opening doors.
   • Precedents and equal protection concerns (gender/ nationality discrimination) would likely invite immediate legal challenges. Blanket pregnancy-based visa denials could violate due process, international obligations, and anti-discrimination norms.
2. Mandatory pregnancy tests for females aged 14–50 at entry:
   • This is an extreme, invasive proposal with no support in the ruling. It would raise serious Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches), Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment (privacy, bodily integrity, equal protection), and international human rights issues.
   • A reasonable person would view it as disproportionate overreach unrelated to the case’s narrow holding on citizenship after birth. The decision says nothing about entry screening or medical testing. Routine pregnancy testing at borders is not standard U.S. practice and would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.

​

Reasonable Interpretation​

A reasonable person reading the opinion would conclude:

• Birthright citizenship is constitutionally entrenched and broad.
• Executive attempts to redefine “subject to the jurisdiction” failed.
• Policy responses to concerns about “anchor babies” or chain migration must go through Congress (legislation) or a constitutional amendment — not executive orders or ad hoc visa/pregnancy rules.
• “This isn’t over” is fair as political commentary (advocates can still push legislative fixes), but the ruling itself is a strong endorsement of the status quo on jus soli, not ammunition for the suggested tactics.

The statements reflect frustration with the outcome and a desire for stricter immigration enforcement, which is a legitimate policy debate.

However, they overread the decision as affirmatively enabling pregnancy-targeted measures. It does the opposite: it entrenches the incentive for such concerns by making post-entry citizenship hard to limit.

Any aggressive new policies would face their own separate legal fights.

 

[Diogenes]

Which shows how dangerously dishonest Kavanaughs concurrence in this case is as he has suggested that while he voted to maintain the status quo it was not because this was disallowed and he felt COngress had the power, via statute, to change this.

That is simply a lie. It requires a Constitutional Amendment.

But then so to did granting the POTUS immunity from prosecution and that did not stop the SCOTUS who not only acted as a Legislature in creating new law, but went well beyond that by unilaterally amending the Constitution. Had a united bipartisan Congress tried to do what the SCOTUS did they would have need a full Constitutional amendment process under taken.

The statement is partially accurate on one point but overstated, partisan, and misleading overall.


It reflects a strong policy preference for expansive birthright citizenship and distrust of the current Supreme Court, but it mischaracterizes Kavanaugh’s position, overstates constitutional certainty, and draws a flawed analogy to the presidential immunity case.

1. Kavanaugh’s Concurrence in​

Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment (striking down Trump’s EO) but dissented in part from the majority’s broad constitutional holding. He concluded the EO violated the existing federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)), which codifies birthright citizenship, but argued that Congress could amend the statute to create additional exceptions consistent with the 14th Amendment (e.g., for children of unlawfully or temporarily present parents). He did not join the majority’s view that the Constitution guarantees citizenship in all such cases.

• Is this a “lie”? No. It is a reasonable (if contested) legal position. The majority (Roberts + liberals + Barrett) treated the broad jus soli rule as constitutionally fixed by text, history, and Wong Kim Ark. Kavanaugh and some dissenters viewed the Clause’s “subject to the jurisdiction” language as leaving more room for legislative line-drawing, especially given modern immigration realities unknown in 1868. Legal scholars and lower courts have long debated the precise scope; it is not “simply a lie” to argue Congress has some flexibility.
• Critics (including the statement) argue any restriction below the traditional understanding requires a constitutional amendment. This is the prevailing academic and precedent-based view for core cases, but it is not universally settled beyond the narrow Wong Kim Ark facts. Kavanaugh’s view leaves the constitutional floor intact while allowing statutory tweaks—hardly dishonest.

​

2. The Presidential Immunity Analogy​

The statement claims SCOTUS “unilaterally amended the Constitution” on immunity, something even a bipartisan Congress could not do without a full amendment process.

• This is hyperbolic and inaccurate. The immunity decision interpreted the separation of powers and Article II (executive authority). It held presidents enjoy absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts (with unofficial acts unprotected). This drew from historical practice, constitutional structure, and precedents on executive privilege—not inventing new text out of nothing.
• Courts routinely interpret the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison, 1803). This is not “acting as a legislature” or amending it. Critics called it overly broad and outcome-driven, but it fits within judicial review. A constitutional amendment would be needed to override such an interpretation explicitly, but that does not mean the ruling itself was an “amendment.”
• The analogy fails: Birthright citizenship turns on a specific textual clause in a post-Civil War amendment with strong historical precedent. Immunity involves structural inferences from the original Constitution. Equating the two as equivalent judicial overreach is rhetorical, not impartial analysis.

​

Overall Assessment​

• Strengths of the statement: It correctly notes that changing core birthright citizenship is extraordinarily difficult (amendment or major SCOTUS reversal) and highlights Kavanaugh’s narrower statutory rationale as potentially opening a legislative path. Concerns about judicial activism vs. restraint are fair game in polarized times.
• Weaknesses: Calls Kavanaugh’s view a “lie” when it is a debatable interpretive stance. The immunity comparison exaggerates by implying SCOTUS rewrote the Constitution rather than interpreted it. The tone assumes bad faith (“dangerously dishonest”) rather than good-faith disagreement on originalism, text, and history.
• Impartial takeaway: Reasonable experts disagree on whether Congress could pass narrow statutory limits without violating the 14th Amendment (most say no for broad changes; some say yes for edge cases). Trump v. Barbara makes clear executive action is off the table, pushing any reform to Congress (statute) or the amendment process. The ruling reinforces the broad status quo but leaves some room for debate, as Kavanaugh signaled. Claims of unilateral constitutional “amendment” by the Court are common partisan critiques but overstate the judicial role.

 

[Diogenes]

Look on the bright side, @FastLane and @Matt Dillon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2072354092224033109

View: https://x.com/StefanMolyneux/status/2072354092224033109?s=20

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That is true and always has been true, because the people he listed are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He did not list forigners who are not the families of Ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Are you unable to see the difference? Read things closely.

Are people here illegally foreigners? Are people here on a tourist visa foreigners?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Doesn't give you much hope moving forward does it? When shit is allowed to go on that 95% of Americans know is wrong and are against how fucked up have we become?

All because some 19th century legislators used vernacular of the time the current population can't understand even if there is overwhelming evidence as to what their intentions were based on Senate deliberations leading up to the 14th.

It's mind boggling that this country and it's leaders are that fucking stupid. Again it's those illogical women voting and represented perfectly on the Supreme court sinking this country into hell. Men were meant to lead and it's perfectly clear why.

You are missing the point. For the Left, they know it's wrong, but it's not what they want. They want open borders and One World (aka a Communist dictatorship) Government. They have wanted that since the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[QP!]

Doesn't give you much hope moving forward does it? When shit is allowed to go on that 95% of Americans know is wrong and are against how fucked up have we become?

All because some 19th century legislators used vernacular of the time the current population can't understand even if there is overwhelming evidence as to what their intentions were based on Senate deliberations leading up to the 14th.

It's mind boggling that this country and it's leaders are that fucking stupid. Again it's those illogical women voting and represented perfectly on the Supreme court sinking this country into hell. Men were meant to lead and it's perfectly clear why.

the over whelming evidence, PROOF, is that the Framers and Congress understood EXACTLY that this amendment could be used by those they saw as undesireable, as a path to citizenship.

They argued over it and debated and then passed the Constitutional amendment ALLOWING IT.

 

[QP!]

Repeating since this CANNOT be disputed.

AI Summary:

During the congressional debates over the 14th Amendment in May 1866, the framers explicitly discussed and accepted that its sweeping language—protecting "all persons" and establishing birthright citizenship—would extend protections to highly unpopular immigrant groups, most notably Chinese migrants and Romani people (referred to at the time as "Gypsies"). [1, 2, 3]
Opponents of the amendment vehemently argued against it precisely because it would grant civil rights and birthright citizenship to these non-white immigrant groups. The authors of the amendment openly acknowledged this outcome and insisted that the law must apply universally to everyone within U.S. borders. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The key congressional exchanges from the Congressional Globe show how clearly this was understood:

The Opposition: Warning Against "Gypsies" and the "Mongol Race"
Senator Edgar Cowan, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, led the opposition by explicitly painting a picture of states being culturally and politically "overrun" by undesirable foreign populations. He argued that states should have the right to deny them citizenship and equal standing: [1, 2, 3]



The Authors' Response: Demanding Universal Equality
The principal architects of the 14th Amendment directly answered Cowan, confirming that the amendment was intentionally drafted to include these groups, regardless of how unpopular they were.
Senator John Conness of California—the very state Cowan claimed would be "overrun"—responded by defending the inclusion of Chinese children born in America: [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

[Nordberg]

You are missing the point. For the Left, they know it's wrong, but it's not what they want. They want open borders and One World (aka a Communist dictatorship) Government. They have wanted that since the beginning of the 20th century.

Name a lefty who has advocated for open borders. Who is pushing one world govt? You have 370 million people to pick from. Then show us how those dishonest claims are the policy of the Democratic Party.You lie like Trump.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Name a lefty who has advocted for open borders. Who is pushing one world govt? You have 370 million people to pick from. Then show us how those dishonest claims are the policy of the Democratic Party.You lie like Trump.

On a recent episode of Making Sense (#418), Sam Harris posed a pointed question to Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres: Why did President Biden fail so dramatically to control the southern border? Torres didn’t pull any punches. He said the Democratic Party had been captured by its extreme left wing — and what he called its “open borders ideology.”

Open Borders: The Ideology That Could End The West

On a recent episode of Making Sense (#418), Sam Harris posed a pointed question to Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres: Why did President Biden fail so dramatically to control the southern border?

michaelhughsouthon.substack.com

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117827/documents/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD011.pdf

Immigrant rights advocate and journalist, John Washington has made a case for open borders.

Washington’s book, The Case for Open Borders, published by Haymarket Books, puts forward this ambitious demand, bringing a vision for open borders to immigrant rights activists and mainstream left-leaning publications like The Intercept and The Nation, and receiving high praise from leading border abolitionist intellectuals including Justin Akers Chacón, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, and Harsha Walia.

Open Borders Require Socialism: A Debate With John Washington - Left Voice

John Washington has written a case for open borders. But his inability to imagine the fight for open borders beyond the constraints of capitalism leads him to compromise on the demand.

www.leftvoice.org

The DSA, and their candidates, for one:

DSA’s goal is to build a political movement that ends the squandering of public resources on jailing, harassing, and impoverishing the working-class migrants who bear the brunt of the United States’ anti-worker domestic policy and anti-democratic foreign policy. This goal cannot be achieved without ending the US foreign interference that compels migration and instead advancing policies which respect working-class migrants’ ability to travel, work freely and participate fully in US society alongside their US-born working-class neighbors.

Statement on Migration and International Solidarity Between Working People - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

The Democratic Socialists of America denounce the efforts of both Republican and Democrat politicians to whip up a frenzy about a so-called ‘crisis’ at the border, and more broadly, to sow fear or hate towards immigrants as people and immigration as a social reality. We are outraged both by the...

www.dsausa.org

Clinton Foundation Timeline

We are doggedly investigating and chronicling the Clinton Foundation, Email and Dossier scandals.

www.clintonfoundationtimeline.com

 

[LurchAddams]

And ban entry if found to be pregnant.

Please, you and @FastLane keep spraying that shit - you're making Democrat campaign ads. Yesterday I saw a Republican congressional candidate when asked about affordability - he said, "what are you talking about - I'm looking forward to having ribeye with my family on the 4th - I guess I must work harder than those people".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fuckin' amazing shit!!! Keep it up!

 

[Matt Dillon]

Are people here illegally foreigners? Are people here on a tourist visa foreigners?

Tourist to come drop a baby here and claim it's American when you're a foreign national is fucked up.
No. This needs fixed ASAP. Fuck that shit.
That dog ain't gonna hunt. Nope.
Foreign tourism to the U.S. is going to be taking a hit.

 

[Diogenes]

Name a lefty who has advocated for open borders. Who is pushing one world govt? You have 370 million people to pick from. Then show us how those dishonest claims are the policy of the Democratic Party.You lie like Trump.

Nordberg's challenge (post #149 in the thread) is essentially: "Name a lefty who has advocated for open borders. Who is pushing one world govt? ... show us how those dishonest claims are the policy of the Democratic Party."

This is a common rhetorical pushback in immigration debates. While the Democrat Party platform does not officially endorse "open borders" (they support managed immigration with pathways to citizenship, asylum reforms, and border security measures), there are prominent voices on the left, activists, organizations, and some elected officials who have pushed policies or rhetoric that critics reasonably describe as open-borders adjacent or ideologically favoring very high/less restricted immigration. "One world government" is more fringe/conspiracy-tinged, but globalist or cosmopolitan ideas exist in some circles.

Examples on Open Borders / Lax Immigration Views:​

• Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): Explicitly calls for ending many deportations, defunding aspects of enforcement, and advancing policies that treat migration more freely. Their statements emphasize solidarity with migrants and criticize border enforcement as rooted in imperialism/capitalism. This influences some progressive Democrats.
• Activists and writers: John Washington (The Case for Open Borders) has been platformed in left-leaning outlets like The Intercept and The Nation. Some academic/activist left arguments frame open borders as a moral/human rights imperative or tied to anti-capitalism.
• Politicians and rhetoric: Figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and members of the "Squad" have criticized ICE, called for abolishing or drastically reforming it, supported decriminalizing border crossings, and pushed expansive sanctuary policies. During the Biden years, progressive pressure contributed to policies that led to record encounters (critics called it de facto open borders; defenders called it humanitarian/backlog issues). Sam Harris has highlighted internal Democratic critiques of "open borders ideology" capturing parts of the party.
• Historical/ideological: Some left internationalists (e.g., certain Marxist or global justice strains) view strong national borders as tools of exclusion/oppression.

Mainstream Democrats (Biden, Harris, Schumer, etc.) have repeatedly said they oppose open borders and support "secure borders" + legal pathways + reform. The party platform emphasizes fixing the system, not eliminating controls. However, enforcement lapses, catch-and-release, parole expansions, and resistance to stricter measures fuel the perception that elements of the party prioritize other goals.

On "One World Government":​

This is rarer and usually exaggerated. It's more common to see:

• Strong support for global institutions (UN, WHO, Paris Agreement, international law overriding national sovereignty in some areas).
• Cosmopolitanism among elites/academics: Ideas that national identity is outdated, open migration benefits everyone economically/morally, or supranational governance on climate/trade.
• Clinton/Obama-era globalism rhetoric, or figures like George Soros funding open-society NGOs (often cited critically).

No major Democrat leader openly calls for dissolving the U.S. into a world government. It's typically a strawman for "globalist" foreign policy or anti-nationalist views.

Broader Context on the SCOTUS Ruling (Trump v. Barbara, June 30, 2026):​

The 6-3 decision (Roberts + liberals + Barrett; Kavanaugh concurred in judgment but was narrower) struck down Trump's EO trying to limit birthright citizenship via executive action. It reaffirmed Wong Kim Ark precedent: broad jus soli for those born on U.S. soil (with narrow exceptions like diplomats). Majority saw "subject to the jurisdiction" as covering undocumented/temporary visitors. Dissenters (Thomas et al.) wanted more room for limits.

This entrenches the constitutional status quo. Changes would need Congress (statute, per some like Kavanaugh) or a full amendment (prevailing view for core restrictions). Executive workarounds like pregnancy screening at borders face massive legal hurdles (4th/5th/14th Amendment issues, discrimination). Congress could tighten visas, asylum, chain migration, or public benefits—but birthright itself is sticky.

Nordberg's challenge highlights real tensions: public polling often shows majority opposition to "anchor baby" incentives and unchecked illegal immigration, yet legal/precedent/elite opinion makes major reform hard. Both sides have valid points on incentives, rule of law, demographics, and humanitarianism. The debate isn't settled by labeling claims "lies."

Nordberg Challenges Open Borders Rhetoric | Shared Grok Conversation

Nordberg has issued a challenge: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/birthright-decision-trump

grok.com

 

[christiefan915]

It is a reason to do a pregnancy test on every female from age 14 to 50. when the enter the country.

How would that be legal?

 

[QP!]

How would that be legal?

@FastLane and magats would gladly turn America into a pariah State.

Required pregnancy tests for every women coming to America for a vacation, conference or other such visit is so baselessly invasive and intrusive that America would truly become a laughing stock, shit hole country.

More and more i see this magat plague as a disease that America truly needs to excise.

 

[Matt Dillon]

@FastLane and magats would gladly turn America into a pariah State.

Required pregnancy tests for every women coming to America for a vacation, conference or other such visit is so baselessly invasive and intrusive that America would truly become a laughing stock, shit hole country.

More and more i see this magat plague as a disease that America truly needs to excise.

It's not baseless at all, you fucktard!
For one thing The Supreme Court has failed at their core job which is to uphold The Constitution, which they didn't.
The 14th Amendment was written for Black Americans that were already living here for generations, dumbass.

 

[Sailor]

It's not baseless at all, you fucktard!
For one thing The Supreme Court has failed at their core job which is to uphold The Constitution, which they didn't.
The 14th Amendment was written for Black Americans that were already living here for generations, dumbass.

Since when do democrats care about blacks in this country? Their historical record from past to present certainly shows otherwise.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Since when do democrats care about blacks in this country? Their historical record from past to present certainly shows otherwise.

This latest thing throws black Americans under the bus against The Constitution for real!
Seriously unbelievable BS! Half these "justices" are traitors and lied when they swore to uphold The Constitution.
The worst part is that they know they're going against the 14th Amendment, and did it anyway.
Well, maybe not that black woman, she's hella dumb.
Thomas knows what's up. If I was black, I'd be madder than a wet hen about this thing.

 

[QP!]

It's not baseless at all, you fucktard!
For one thing The Supreme Court has failed at their core job which is to uphold The Constitution, which they didn't.
The 14th Amendment was written for Black Americans that were already living here for generations, dumbass.

I know you struggle to read and worse cannot comprehend what you read but here AGAIN is exactly what the Founders and Congress intended with the 14th Amendment, which was for the 14th Amendment to be for ALL INCLUDING those from countries considered "undesirable, from their actual debates and passionate arguments at the time.

--------

During the congressional debates over the 14th Amendment in May 1866, the framers explicitly discussed and accepted that its sweeping language—protecting "all persons" and establishing birthright citizenship—would extend protections to highly unpopular immigrant groups, most notably Chinese migrants and Romani people (referred to at the time as "Gypsies"). [1, 2, 3]

Opponents of the amendment vehemently argued against it precisely because it would grant civil rights and birthright citizenship to these non-white immigrant groups. The authors of the amendment openly acknowledged this outcome and insisted that the law must apply universally to everyone within U.S. borders. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The key congressional exchanges from the Congressional Globe show how clearly this was understood:

The Opposition: Warning Against "Gypsies" and the "Mongol Race"
Senator Edgar Cowan, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, led the opposition by explicitly painting a picture of states being culturally and politically "overrun" by undesirable foreign populations. He argued that states should have the right to deny them citizenship and equal standing: [1, 2, 3]


The Authors' Response: Demanding Universal Equality
The principal architects of the 14th Amendment directly answered Cowan, confirming that the amendment was intentionally drafted to include these groups, regardless of how unpopular they were.
Senator John Conness of California—the very state Cowan claimed would be "overrun"—responded by defending the inclusion of Chinese children born in America: [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

[Matt Dillon]

I know you struggle to read and worse cannot comprehend what you read but here AGAIN is exactly what the Founders and Congress intended with the 14th Amendment, which was for the 14th Amendment to be for ALL INCLUDING those from countries considered "undesirable, from their actual debates and passionate arguments at the time.

--------

During the congressional debates over the 14th Amendment in May 1866, the framers explicitly discussed and accepted that its sweeping language—protecting "all persons" and establishing birthright citizenship—would extend protections to highly unpopular immigrant groups, most notably Chinese migrants and Romani people (referred to at the time as "Gypsies"). [1, 2, 3]

Opponents of the amendment vehemently argued against it precisely because it would grant civil rights and birthright citizenship to these non-white immigrant groups. The authors of the amendment openly acknowledged this outcome and insisted that the law must apply universally to everyone within U.S. borders. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The key congressional exchanges from the Congressional Globe show how clearly this was understood:

The Opposition: Warning Against "Gypsies" and the "Mongol Race"
Senator Edgar Cowan, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, led the opposition by explicitly painting a picture of states being culturally and politically "overrun" by undesirable foreign populations. He argued that states should have the right to deny them citizenship and equal standing: [1, 2, 3]


The Authors' Response: Demanding Universal Equality
The principal architects of the 14th Amendment directly answered Cowan, confirming that the amendment was intentionally drafted to include these groups, regardless of how unpopular they were.
Senator John Conness of California—the very state Cowan claimed would be "overrun"—responded by defending the inclusion of Chinese children born in America: [1, 2, 3, 4]

You retard! That was for people already living here. Slaves, Chinese, Basque, Gypsies cuz they're kinda like Basque.
It wasn't for foreigners to just come in here and drop babies, you idiot!
The basque still have places like Indian reservations in the west.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2072718026210775244

View: https://x.com/zkwerrell/status/2072718026210775244?s=20