fox files

The FBI’s obsession with January 6th protesters has left a bunch of victims in its wake. For almost three years the Bureau has been focusing enormous resources to find, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate people who for the most part did little more than trespass in the US Capitol.

Not only has the focus on the January 6th rioters been utterly disproportionate to the point of being oppressive, it has also caused the FBI to take their eyes off the ball. Time and again we see the FBI go off on a wild goose chase, looking for mythical Right-wing terrorists in Catholic Churches, at school board meetings, and in secret Islamophobic cabals. They are obsessed with the idea that there are insurrectionists everywhere except, you know, in those masses of crowds where Leftists declare they want to overturn the system.

The result? Actual predators who commit actual crimes are being let go. Even when the FBI has them dead to rights.

Post

Daily Wire

@realDailyWire

On January 6, 2021, the FBI explicitly chose to abandon a sting on a child pornographer in Virginia who was messaging with an undercover agent about having sex with a nine-year-old boy, opting instead to focus on prosecuting Donald Trump’s supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol. Less than three years later, the FBI discovered the same man living in Alaska where he appears to have been performing sex acts on a 10-year-old boy, according to court documents. On December 2, 2020, an internet user with the screen name “gayboy69freak” messaged an undercover agent with the FBI’s Washington Field Office, who was posing as a father pimping out his 9-year-old son, and told him that he wanted to travel to D.C. to have sex with the boy. The man also sent the agent a video of “a prepubescent minor male being anally penetrated by an adult male’s erect penis.” His IP address led the FBI to Brogan Welsh of Glenn Allen, Virginia. What appears to be a slam-dunk case against a child predator was abruptly abandoned just one month later. “On January 6, 2021, FBI, Washington Field Office, [decided] this investigation was halted due to events that occurred at the United States Capitol Building that day,” court documents say. The man was only arrested, and the court documents only filed, because Welsh moved to Alaska and crossed the Anchorage FBI’s radar in an unrelated perversion investigation. On October 24, 2023, after coming across troubling chats from Welsh on a phone they seized from a different alleged pervert, Alaska FBI agents went into his house and “located items including sex toys that are very small in size and apparently consistent with the body size of an approximate 10-year-old boy,” as well as children’s underwear. “The investigation has revealed that a 10-year-old boy was, in fact, residing at the residence belonging to Welsh,” the agents wrote. In other words, because the FBI called off the dogs even after Welsh sent child porn to an FBI agent, he appears to have gone on to molest a 10-year-old. It was as FBI agents worked through the Alaska case that they realized that the bureau’s Washington Field Office had slam-dunk evidence that it had never bothered to do anything with, and added it to charging documents filed November 6, 2023. The Alaska arrest of Welsh was made based on the initial child pornography crime in Virginia, not even his apparent crimes in Alaska. The Washington Field Office wouldn’t say how many other ordinary criminal investigations were put on hold because of January 6, but it did acknowledge that resources were diverted. “In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, WFO resources were surged to support the FBI’s response and investigation,” the office told The Daily Wire in a statement. Federal prosecutors have charged more than 1,000 defendants in what they call the “Capitol Breach,” and more than 65,000 legal documents have been filed in the cases, according to a Daily Wire database. Investigators and prosecutors have limited time, so it turns out that all that work likely comes at the expense of the cases they’d normally be handling.

READ MORE: https://dailywire.com/news/the-fbi-dropped-probe-of-pedophile-to-focus-on-january-6-now-hes-accused-of-abusing-10-year-old-boy

The Daily Wire has an extremely disturbing story up today about a particular case that should make you ill. It is beyond horrifying because it tells you a lot about how indifferent the Bureau is to actual victims and how much they care about prosecuting (and suppressing) conservatives.

The facts:

On December 2, 2020, an internet user with the screen name “gayboy69freak” messaged an undercover agent with the FBI’s Washington Field Office, who was posing as a father pimping out his 9-year-old son, and told him that he wanted to travel to D.C. to have sex with the boy. The man also sent the agent a video of “a prepubescent minor male being anally penetrated by an adult male’s erect penis.” His IP address led the FBI to Brogan Welsh of Glenn Allen, Virginia.

What appears to be a slam-dunk case against a child predator was abruptly abandoned just one month later.

“On January 6, 2021, FBI, Washington Field Office, [decided] this investigation was halted due to events that occurred at the United States Capitol Building that day,” court documents say.

They had the man dead to rights. He was negotiating to get access to a child in order to rape him and demonstrated his intent by distributing horrific child pornography. Not only was the case a slam dunk, but more importantly the FBI had the opportunity to take a child rapist off the streets.

They chose not to. Not for any legal reasons, or to focus on defending the US government from an actual conspiracy to overthrow the government (as they pretend), but to pursue investigations that result in FBI SWAT teams raiding the houses of people who in many cases did little more than trespass. The FBI to this day spends enormous resources on monitoring people who, if they simply treated them normally, would turn themselves in. Instead, we get manhunts, presumably to generate publicity.

So why are there court documents that lay out this sorry history?

The man moved to Alaska where he started raping a young boy.

The man was only arrested, and the court documents only filed, because Welsh moved to Alaska and crossed the Anchorage FBI’s radar in an unrelated perversion investigation. On October 24, 2023, after coming across troubling chats from Welsh on a phone they seized from a different alleged pervert, Alaska FBI agents went into his house and “located items including sex toys that are very small in size and apparently consistent with the body size of an approximate 10-year-old boy,” as well as children’s underwear.

“The investigation has revealed that a 10-year-old boy was, in fact, residing at the residence belonging to Welsh,” the agents wrote.

In other words, because the FBI called off the dogs even after Welsh sent child porn to an FBI agent, he appears to have gone on to molest a 10-year-old.

These are the priorities of the FBI under Joe Biden.

To give you an idea of just how absurd the focus on January 6th has been, consider the Newsweek story from earlier this week where the “podium guy” describes his legal odyssey.

When Adam Johnson first heard the media describe him as an “insurrectionist,” he wasn’t sure he understood the correct meaning of the word. After Googling it, he said to himself: “Oh. That’s bad.”

This was shortly after he entered the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and was photographed with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lectern, thus becoming one of the poster children for an event some have likened to Pearl Harbor or the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Johnson has spent a few years being publicly contrite about his participation in the siege on the Capitol and cooperating with authorities, but not speaking much to the mainstream media that has largely dubbed him an insurrectionist who disrupted the peaceful transfer of power from former President Donald Trump to President Joe Biden.

When you read the interview with Johnson you discover a far less sinister figure than has been portrayed in the media. He literally just wandered into the Capitol because the door was open and the police seemed fine with him being there. He wasn’t part of the initial crush of people who actually did force their way into the Capitol, but more a tourist who wandered around.

Johnson said he wanted nothing to do with that group of rioters, so he wandered around for 10 minutes until he saw others walking into an open door. “I thought that’s where the protest was going,” he said. “I was under the impression that you were allowed to protest at the Capitol. I’ve seen it happen so often over the past 10 years.”

Once inside, he said, he broke from the pack and was roaming around alone for awhile.

“I was never ordered by police to not enter the building,” he said. “I was lost in the building and asked a police officer for directions to leave. He gave them to me, I thanked him and told him to stay safe.”

But prior to exiting, he got the notion to attempt to meet Pelosi, talk to her, maybe take a selfie, so he jiggled the handle of her locked door, then headed back to the Rotunda, which is when he saw an unattended “podium.”

Johnson, 37, said he had no idea it was Pelosi’s lectern and, when he saw news cameras pointed in his direction, he decided to grab it, then he smiled and winked at the photographers.

“I thought it would make a great picture, so I carried it 20 yards to the center of the room, gave a short speech and left it there.” His speech, he said, consisted of him railing against traitors and treason and his idea that budget items ought to be voted on separately.

Was Johnson wrong to enter the Capitol? Of course, although even the FBI had to concede he wasn’t a dangerous guy, and he was only convicted of a misdemeanor (after they had threatened to send him to jail for 20 years, they dropped most of the charges), but in order to convict him of a minor crime (they did manage to jail him for 71 days, which is hardly usual for a trespassing charge) they expended enormous resources.

For this they let a pedophile rape a child.

It was as FBI agents worked through the Alaska case that they realized that the bureau’s Washington Field Office had slam-dunk evidence that it had never bothered to do anything with, and added it to charging documents filed November 6, 2023. The Alaska arrest of Welsh was made based on the initial child pornography crime in Virginia, not even his apparent crimes in Alaska.

The Washington Field Office wouldn’t say how many other ordinary criminal investigations were put on hold because of January 6, but it did acknowledge that resources were diverted.

“In the immediate aftermath of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, WFO resources were surged to support the FBI’s response and investigation,” the office told The Daily Wire in a statement. “However, WFO continued to diligently pursue its ongoing investigations. While I can’t speak to the specific circumstances of this case, the FBI takes all crimes against children investigations extremely seriously and facts must be followed to where they lead and with enough evidence collected for publishing.

Really? If so, it appears that letting child rapists roam free is standard practice for the FBI, and I sure hope this isn’t the case. I would rather believe that the FBI is lying now rather than believing that they shrugged a child rape.

This sort of admission, that a case was dropped, rarely appears in court filings, because a dropped investigation means nothing ever makes it to court. Welsh’s case is an exception because he tripped the wires of a different field office in Alaska, which picked up the case.

Federal prosecutors have charged more than 1,000 defendants in what they call the “Capitol Breach,” and more than 65,000 legal documents have been filed in the cases, according to a Daily Wire database. Investigators and prosecutors have limited time, so it turns out that all that work likely comes at the expense of the cases they’d normally be handling.

There are so many disturbing elements to this case, but I want to focus on just one more: it took The Daily Wire to bring it to light when the MSM should be trumpeting it to the world. It should be a national scandal, but the MSM is fully on board with prioritizing January 6th. because doing so helps the Democrats.

They, too, care less about child rape and more about a 3-year-old protest. It’s not like other group gatherings get this much attention–quite the opposite in fact. Only protesting’s in which the establishment can smear Republicans that is.

This, my friends, is your elite law enforcement agency’s and your MSM’s view of the world: prosecuting trespassers is more important than a child rape.

Insane. Just absolutely friggin’ insane I tell you.

We should have seen this coming!

The flagship publication of Hillsdale College, Imprimis, which the College claims has a readership of more than six million, has recently published an article by the current enfant terrible of conservatism, Christopher F. Rufo, entitled “Inside the Transgender Empire.” The article explores the question of how transgenderism became so successful, and especially how the transgendered and Drag Queens became so celebrated among the ruling elites. Rufo rehearses all the horrors that have been visited upon American society and politics by the transgender movement and, I believe, he thinks his analysis of that danger goes to the radical source of that danger.

It does not! His analysis is not radical enough; it ignores the fact that the triumph of the transgender movement will inevitably lead to cannibalism. If you think that statement is too harsh for polite readers, read on.

The Los Angeles Times has published not one but two rave reviews of a movie celebrating cannibalism. Glenn Whipp, reporting from the Telluride Film Festival in September of 2022, describes Bones and All as “a tender story of young love” starring two “fine young cannibals trying to negotiate their natures and doing their best to ethically source their next meal.” What makes the cannibalism ethical, one supposes, is that the movie’s two cannibal stars are “people on society’s margins” who are stigmatized and shunned. Whipp seems to think that this brings ethical issues into the equation. In this clash, the ethical conundrum seems to be a choice between the right to life of the victims of cannibals, and the cannibals’ desire to pursue the food of their choice; who is the real victim?—those who are eaten by the cannibals or the cannibals whose way of life is considered unacceptable and stigmatized by society?

The second review, by Mark Olsen describes the film as “part horror film, part coming-of age tale, part romance.” He explains part of the movie’s plot as “two young ‘eaters’” “attempting “to stake out a semblance of normalcy and stability.” But, of course, it is difficult to imagine normalcy and stability developing among cannibals, and the reviewer observes that “the film is driven by a sadness, a mournful, haunted quality that covers even moments of freedom and joy.” The “freedom and joy” presumably breaks forth from the mournful gloom when then cannibals have stalked and succeeded in consuming their next meal.

We should have been prepared for the praise of the morality of cannibalism. I, for one, have been prepared for it for years. Friends, casual acquaintances, and bystanders have endured my discussions, sometimes polemics and even screeds, on how the result of progressive thought would ultimately be cannibalism. All those many years ago, it sounded utterly fantastic, but when I first heard the claims from anthropologists and other social scientists that opposition to cannibalism was merely western food aversion—in other words, an irrational prejudice—I knew that cannibalism was coming.

Liberation movements from the very beginning sought to free human beings from the restraints of nature and of nature’s god. Marx, of course, wasn’t the first, but his simple account is the easiest to explain. We create God to put moral restraints upon ourselves. Creating this non-human or divine source gives the restrains greater authority. But once we realize that God is only a myth or creation, it loses its authoritative power as a tool of oppression for the ruling classes. Once the proletariat seizes power in the inevitable dialectic of history, God, will be exposed as a fraud foisted on the people and can be dismissed. A new, secular morality will be designed to support the party of the working class. Today’s secular religion of the “woke” resembles that party, but it no longer has its roots in the working class, even as it demands the same loyalty and metes out the same harsh discipline as Marxist-Leninism.

Feminism was a successful liberation movement. Once feminism realized that there are no significant or relevant natural differences between the sexes, it became obvious that there were no grounds in law or politics for any inequality. Elimination of classifications by sex for civil rights issues—equal opportunity in employment, voting rights, etc.—were certainly warranted and just, but once the natural distinction between the sexes was deemed irrelevant for civil rights, then it was almost inevitable (and here I paint with a broad brush) that it became irrelevant for all purposes.

Nonbinary ideology was the result of feminism, though I very much doubt it was ever its intention. In a non-binary world, men can have babies, and in the universe of political correctness the punishment for denying this form of irrationality is swift and severe. Just ask teachers and professors who refused to leave the world of reason and science. They have experienced the peculiar wrath that the nonbinary world can generate. Because it is so irrational in its insistence that commonsense be ignored, their wrath defies description and logic.

Liberation theology indulged the same conclusions as the Marxist-Leninists. Once it is realized that God is dead, then morality was “humanized,” or in the more radical vision of Nietzsche, once God is dead, everything is permitted, and nothing is forbidden. Homosexual liberation denies that the natural distinction between male and female is relevant for sexual congress; the gay rights movement denied nature and natural distinctions. Gays insisted that their lifestyle should be publicly accepted because gays lived and acted in a manner that demonstrated their belief that nature provided no standards for morality, and their demand to be seen and accepted in public was essential to the affirmation of this belief. In fact, the demand was not that the gay lifestyle be accepted, but that it should be recognized as superior because it was liberated from the constraints that restrained the lifestyles of heterosexuals whose sexual freedom was restrained because of their belief that nature imposed limitations. Bisexuals and polysexuals and other kinds of sexuals were still—well, “sexuals,” i.e., in the same situation.

Transgenders, however, made a much more serious commitment to their denial of nature and therefore made a greater claim to moral superiority. They resorted to technology, a much more radical and irreversible commitment to their attempt to extinguish nature altogether. Transgenderism seeks the ultimate victory of technology over nature—the goal of science at its very origins, “the conquest of nature.” Anyone who knows me could confirm that I predicted transgenders would soon outrank gays in the new morality, a morality which judges based on who is most committed to the denial of the relevance of nature and all standards of nature.

But has transgenderism succeeded? Has it driven out nature with its virtual pitchfork of technology? Or is it merely deluding itself? Isn’t cannibalism a greater denial of human nature? Doesn’t cannibalism outrank transgenderism in the new morality? Cannibalism is not just the technological transformation of nature. The limitation of transgenderism is its reliance on technology; it allows transformed nature to survive. Cannibalism, in radical contrast, doesn’t recognize human nature or nature in any form. It is the ultimate liberation—it is free from any restraints because it doesn’t recognize nature or nature’s God.

One thinks here of the state of nature, where, in the famous formulation of Thomas Hobbes, life, is nasty, brutish, and short. In other words, the state of nature is inhuman, inhabited by cannibals and virtual cannibals. Reason, the highest faculty of the human soul, is required for civilization to bring an end to the state of nature which is always looming in the backdrop of civilization. The state of nature and cannibalism are the antithesis of civilization and reason. Reason is the foundation of the West. It is Western reason that created science and technology and those creations have done much for the relief of the human estate, alleviating poverty and disease among other things.

But science, of course, cannot address the most important human and political questions—what is the good? what is justice? What is the best regime? What is moral?—those questions that animated classical political philosophy. These became known as value questions and were said to be beyond the competence of science, which rested on the fact-value distinction, a distinction that was crucial to the progress of science. Its power over nature—its conquest of nature—would not have occurred without the distinction between facts and values. Mathematical physics, the heart of modern science, would not have developed without the fact-value distinction. But modern science without a ground in morality inevitably led to complications of great magnitude: power over nature without any sense of how to use that power justly or for the good. It is power without purpose. It was truly a bargain with the devil. It eventually led to what a prominent political philosopher described as “the self-destruction of reason.”

Authoritative liberal opinion today holds that reason can tell us nothing about value questions; reason cannot decide between competing values or competing value systems because modernity has led us to believe that reason itself is merely the epiphenomenon of sub-rational forces, either one’s irrational passions, or one’s race, one’s ethnicity, one’s sex, one’s trans sex, or a host of other irrational factors. Reason is the basis of civilization, constitutionalism, and the rule of law; cannibalism is the antithesis of civilization, no matter how much individual cannibals might love one another (utterly impossible no matter how you define “love”) or how civilized people may marginalize them. Should Western Civilization adopt and protect cannibalism out of deference to those uncivilized (did I actually write that?) parts of the world that remain in the state of nature and practice cannibalism? We used to call this the Third World—sometimes the uncivilized world. The celebration of cannibalism forces us to give up the view that all cultures are equal and we must continue to believe that the West stands for white supremacy, exploitation, colonialism, and practically every other evil. If we can’t say that cannibalism is evil and uncivilized and should be condemned then it is not Western reason talking, but reason simpliciter. If we are so unreasonable to believe that cannibals are a “marginalized people” and should receive preference as a class, then the West will vanish, not with a bang, but with an inaudible whimper.

To think that it all started when the most advanced progressives were worried about “western food aversion.” Did this not mean that the non-western world, parts of which practiced cannibalism, often for religious or sacred purposes, was culturally inferior to the West? Shouldn’t we be more accepting of the cultures of others? Shouldn’t we be more open-minded? Should we not only respect other cultures but show the ultimate form of respect by imitating their culture? Shouldn’t we create a “diversity lottery” for cannibal immigrants? Isn’t diversity our strength? I am sure we will be better off (and stronger!) for it. Would it be unethical for me to become a vegetarian? This is a moral conundrum that may be the death of me!

You may have heard that as of yesterday, it’s been decided that beginning in 2026 all cars sold in the United States will be equipped with a “kill switch,” whereby the car can be disabled remotely if it is determined that you are driving poorly.

Rep. Thomas Massie sought to defund this provision of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a bill of over 1000 pages. His amendment was defeated.

But I want you to see the differences in how he argues from the distorted Democrat points of views. You’ll IMMEDIATELY see it!

First Massie:

My amendment is simple. It will defund the federal mandate that requires all new vehicles after 2026 be equipped with a kill switch that can disable a vehicle if the vehicle has monitored the user’s driving performance, and that the vehicle determines that the driver is not performing well.

It’s so incredible that I have to offer this amendment. It almost sounds like the domain of science fiction, dystopian science fiction, that the federal government would put a kill switch in vehicles that would be the judge, jury and executioner on such a fundamental warrant as the right to freely travel. But here we are. It is federal law that this is mandated. And so I am offering this amendment to defund this mandate.

Then Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) delivers her response:

I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me be clear. This act that the gentleman is trying to defund does not require auto manufacturers to install kill switches. It does not do that. Passive drunk driving technology is a vital tool in safeguarding our loved ones and other innocent people on our roads. This new technology offers a lifeline of hope to not only save lives, but to prevent the lifelong emotional toll and gargantuan costs these accidents inflict on families. Deadly drunk driving accidents can echo across generations, but we can seize this opportunity to stop such tragedies.

Between 2019 and 2021, Florida saw a 31% increase in drunk driving crashes in Mr. Massie’s home state of Kentucky, 190 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2021 alone. That was a 26% increase. When we saw these grim statistics, we acted in a bipartisan fashion in Congress. And how often do we see that both Republicans and Democrats supported the Halt act to require auto manufacturers to make this passive technology standard in new vehicles?

The sponsor of this misguided amendment will tell you that he worries about privacy concerns. We heard the same inane calls with seatbelt requirements. But you don’t have a right to engage in potentially fatal behavior that we know poses a major health threat to public safety. Passive drunk driving technology is pro-police. This anti-drunk driving technology lightens the load on police officers, allowing them to focus on more pressing safety concerns. The importance of this technology goes far beyond statistics. It’s about saving lives, preventing heartbreak and making our roads safer. It’s a passionate call to action to prevent alcohol-impaired driving from shattering the lives of those we hold dear.

This amendment, I understand, was dubbed the kill switch amendment and it does not require a kill switch. It simply requires passive technology to help us prevent drunk driving. In the name of the 406 people who were killed by a drunk driver in my own state of Florida last year alone, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Let’s take steps to reduce deaths due to drunk driving and not increase them.

Now here’s Massie again:

Drunk driving is a serious problem. That’s why 31 states already have laws to implement interlock ignition technology, where if you’ve been convicted of a DUI, you have to pass this test in order to operate your vehicle. But this federal law that I seek to defund goes far beyond that. And I regret that I even have to spend some of my time reading this law to the other side of the aisle. But I will do that.

This law that was passed in a thousand-page bill two years ago requires that auto tmobiles can passively monitor the performance of a driver, not the blood alcohol content, but the performance of a driver in the operation of a motor vehicle that would accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired and not drunk. It says impaired, and to prevent or limit motor vehicle operation. That’s a kill switch.

Now the question is, how much time do you have once your dashboard tells you that it doesn’t approve of your driving? What if you’re a single mother and you’re out on a in bad weather and you’re trying to avoid some obstacles? Ice perhaps. And you’ve swerved three times and your dashboard says: swerve one more time and you’re going to be forced over to the side of the road, that you’ll have 100 yards to park this vehicle in the middle of nowhere and with your children in the back seat.

This isn’t some fantastical scenario. This is what will happen if this is implemented.

And this is the law. I have read it to you here. Now, you maybe all should have read it two years ago when you all voted for it on that side of the aisle, but it was in a bill that was 1039 pages long and so I can understand how you don’t know what the law has in it because it was never read in its entirety . But I’ve read the applicable parts to you here and now.

Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) then speaks, evidently having heard none of what Rep. Massie just said:

More than 10,000 people die every year from drunk driving crashes. Drunk drivers are seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a sober person. So you would think that the Republicans would want to do something about it. Democrats have done something about it and said that NHTSA now will have drunk driver protection prevention technology.

You know that this technology has the potential of saving thousands of lives and I don’t see that you’re agreeing that we should be saving those lives. And I would say that we should all vote against the Drunk Driver Protection Act [her sarcastic name for the Massie amendment], and I yield back.

And finally Massie, who as you’ll notice is the only one who doesn’t sound like he’s reading a fourth-grade book report:

Well, we actually don’t know how this technology is going to work. And they don’t know over at the DoD, either, because we’ve sent a letter to them that they haven’t responded to yet, asking: will this have cameras inside the car? Will it monitor your eyes to see if you’re focused on the road? Will it have cameras on the outside of the car? How will it know what your performance is relative to the road that you’re driving on if it doesn’t in fact know which road you’re driving on?

Will it need to know where you are when you are driving? If so, who has access to this data? Who has access to those cameras? Will the Fourth Amendment be followed? Will you require a warrant for your insurance company to access this data? Will you require a warrant for the government to access this data once your car has been disabled and now you’re stuck on the side of the road with your children in it for reasons you don’t understand? How long until the police show up? Or what if you truly are disabled and you’re over to the side of the road? Does anybody show up? How long do you have to get out of the vehicle? Who decides when your vehicle kill switch is disabled and you get to drive again? Who’s going to adjudicate that on the side of the road?

What if it’s rush-hour traffic? What if you know you’ve already got points against you according to your dashboard, and it’s monitored your performance, and now there’s somebody’s pet in the road? Do you swerve to miss it and get your car disabled? What if there’s an emergency vehicle approaching from behind you, and you know, the right thing is to swerve off the road and let that vehicle pass? After you’ve done that three times and now your car says, do it one more time and we’re going to leave you on the side of the road and so then what?

This is in the law. This will become law in 2026. For every single vehicle manufactured after that. And it’s not about drunk driving. If it were, it would be just about blood alcohol content. This law has far more than that in it. It violates the Fourth Amendment. It violates so many amendments. It violates things that are so fundamental to our rights that they’re not even in the Constitution, like the right to travel freely. And so I urge support of this amendment. It will defund the law that was passed two years ago, that the other side of the aisle doesn’t even know exists because they haven’t even read it.

It’s an open-and-shut case, yet all the Democrats and 19 Republicans voted to keep this ‘kill switch’.

The rate at which things are getting crazier has truly gotten way out of control now.

So when others state that they’re having meetings on the protections of personal privacies, just understand that they’re trying to protect it from complete sociopaths like democraps and a lot of RINO fake Republicans.

Privacy concerns aren’t something that only weirdos care about. It’s not a niche issue. It’s for every last one of us.

The data gathering by Big Brother and Big Tech is not something unavoidable that we have to reconcile ourselves to, or that you have to be a tech whiz to fight against. The conversations need to begin talking about simple actions anyone can take to stymie the bad guys.

Please begin giving this some very serious thought here on in.

Israel knocked out internet and cell service in Gaza on Friday as its troops prepared to enter the terrorist stronghold but were forced by the Biden White House to restore communications within 48 hours.

Israel’s action took place as Israel Defense Forces spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari hinted that the upward tempo of air strikes was a prelude to ground action.

Israeli military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said ground forces were “expanding their activity” Friday evening in Gaza and “acting with great force … to achieve the objectives of the war.” Israel says its strikes target Hamas fighters and infrastructure and that the militants operate from among civilians, putting them in danger.

The Hamas media center reported heavy nighttime clashes with Israeli forces at several places, including what it said was an Israeli incursion east of the refugee camp of Bureij in the central Gaza Strip. Asked about the report, the Israeli military reiterated early Saturday that it had been carrying out targeted raids and expanding strikes with the aim of “preparing the ground for future stages of the operation.”

By Saturday, internet and cell service were being restored. 

Two days after cellular and internet service abruptly vanished for most of Gaza amid a heavy Israeli bombardment, the crowded enclave came back online Sunday as communications systems were gradually restored.

That’s a welcome development for Gaza following a communications blackout that began late Friday as Israel expanded ground operations and launched intense airstrikes that illuminated the night sky with furious orange flashes. A rare few Palestinians with international SIM cards or satellite phones took it upon themselves to get the news out.

By Sunday morning, phone and internet communications had been restored to many people in Gaza, according to telecommunications providers in the area, Internet-access advocacy group NetBlocks.org and confirmation on the ground.

⚠️ Confirmed: Metrics show a brief disruption to internet service in parts of the #Gaza Strip with indications of recovery; comms have been heavily affected by air strikes and damaged infrastructure as well as a near-total outage on Friday attributed to measures imposed by Israel pic.twitter.com/3xcQc6Vv6F— NetBlocks (@netblocks) October 29, 2023

What caused the about-face by Israel’s military command? Pressure from the White House.

A senior U.S. official said Sunday that Israel had shut off communications in the enclave of 2.3 million and the United States had pressured the government to switch them back on. The Israelis did not tell their U.S. counterparts why they had switched off communications, the official said.

“We made it clear they had to be turned back on,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. “The communications are back on. They need to stay back on.”

Jake Sullivan gave more details Sunday on Jake Tapper’s “State of the Union.”

Speaking to MSNBC on Sunday, Sullivan underscored the importance of communications networks in Gaza, saying, “We do feel strongly that the restoration of that communications was a critical thing.”

“Because aid workers need to be able to communicate, civilians need to be able to communicate, and of course, journalists need to be able to document what is happening in Gaza to report it to the wider world,” he said.

Sure, internet connectivity aided aid workers. But it also aided Hamas. Most of the press in Gaza seem to have a personal interest in seeing Hamas emerge victorious and armed Hamas terrorists (as an aside, why is it that no one mewling about the Geneva Conventions ever wants to mention that Hamas terrorists are illegal combatants and not covered by the Law of Land Warfare?) use internet and cell connections to plan terrorist attacks, monitor the progress of the IDF, and coordinate combat operations.

What we are beginning to see is the White House imposing the same nonsense restrictions on Israel that it has on Ukraine. It is almost as if the policy of the United States is to drag out every conflict as long as possible and maximize suffering because of escalation or something.

The US has gradually increased the quantity and quality of weapons flowing to Ukraine and, at the same time, put targets of operational and strategic importance off-limits to attack. It took 20 months of warfare to agree to provide Ukraine with ATACMS and begin training F-16 pilots, unnecessarily extending that war. This was all done because of Jake Sullivan’s unreasoning fear that caused intestinal palpitations every time Putin or one of his lackeys mentioned a “red line,” see Putin’s War, Week 86. The Very Resistible Force Meets the Immovable Object in Donbas for more on the subject. Now, you can see the same impulse at work as Iran blisters.

“We have had numerous conversations – from the prime minister and the president on down, and certainly among military leaders and their counterparts – about Israeli military objectives and about the steps that they have taken and intend to take to achieve those objectives,” he said.

“We’ve asked them hard questions, the same hard questions that we would ask ourselves if we were seeking to conduct an operation to take out a terrorist threat,” he went on. “We’ve pressed them on questions like objectives and matching means to objectives, about both tactical and strategic issues associated with this operation.”

Sullivan said Hamas was “making life extremely difficult for Israel” by using civilians as human shields and placing its rocket infrastructure among civilian populations.

“That creates an added burden for Israel. But it does not lessen Israel’s responsibility under international humanitarian law to distinguish between terrorists and civilians, and to protect the lives of innocent people,” he said.

An astoundingly simple three-move checkmate of Western civilization:
1. UN & Israel must ensure safety of Gaza civilians.
2. Civilians shield Hamas, hiding in its secure tunnels.
3. Hamas attacks Israel, as Israel must not target Hamas because of civilianshttps://t.co/st5SyUOznA— Ukraine Reporter (@StateOfUkraine) October 30, 2023

The meddling in Israel’s entirely just chastisement of Hamas will result in more Israelis and Gazans dead because imposing limits on violence in warfare does not add to the humanity of essentially inhumane activity. It merely drags it out to ensure more and more people are killed; factually, Sullivan is wrong when he says, “It does not lessen Israel’s responsibility under international humanitarian law to distinguish between terrorists and civilians, and to protect the lives of innocent people.” Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions says:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. 

The International Criminal Court statute covers the same ground. 

Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

It is Hamas’ obligation to ensure civilians are removed from possible targets and not used to shield terrorists or their fortifications (Hamas Leader Says They ‘Need the Blood of Women, Children, and the Elderly’ to Inspire Terrorist Attacks).

The reason for White House meddling is apparent. The Biden administration is heavily infiltrated by Iranian agents who are developing US policy for the Middle East (Shocking: Shadowy Iranian ‘Youth Network’ Secretly Influences America’s Foreign Policy, What Was the Role of the Iranian Spy Ring in the US Government in the ‘Intelligence Blunder’ With Hamas? and Why Is Alleged Iranian Operative Ariane Tabatabai Still Working in the Pentagon?) and Biden desperately wants to complete the Obama project of creating a regional superpower out of Iran. But like everything else this bunch touches, you can rely on it turning to crap.

Three and a half years too late, New York magazine just published an article called “COVID Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure.” It’s the most popular article on their site right now.

I think we’re long past the point at which we say: good for them for figuring it out, even if belatedly. The time for that has officially gone by.

We don’t award partial credit for admitting the problems with lockdown three and a half years after the policy was implemented.

These belated statements of regret do no good. First and most obviously, it’s far too late to undo the damage from the policy. But second, these tend to be the same kind of people who always, after the implementation of some disastrous policy, can be heard saying, “This was a mistake in hindsight, but nobody could have known at the time.”

Yeah, sure.

Instead, we should draw lessons from episodes like this so we don’t get snookered the next time something stupid and evil comes along.

How’s this for one such lesson: the American establishment is not to be trusted, does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and does not have your best interests at heart.

Whatever the establishment’s current obsession is, it’s almost certainly a boondoggle based on lies, and it never makes your life better. It only impoverishes you.

Oh, and if you have a dissenting opinion you’ll be called evil, a fool, a conspiracy theorist, a dupe of a foreign power, whatever.

Just a super bunch these people are.

John McCain ultimately admitted that the 2003 Iraq war “can’t be judged as anything other than a mistake, a very serious one, and I have to accept my share of the blame for it.”

Well, that’s super. But as a result of this mistake, how did McCain look at the world differently? What new caution would he now exercise? How would his approach to future conflicts change?

We never got any answers, because nobody bothered to ask him these obviously central questions.

So again, what good does it do to admit, years later, that Boondoggle X was a mistake, if you’re assuredly going to go along with Boondoggle Y, as if Boondoggle X never occurred?

Don’t be the dolt who years later has to say, “We now know X was a mistake.” Be the person with a functioning brain who says at the time, “No way am I supporting X.”

Unfortunately for the mainstream media, this video is everywhere now.  There were all sorts of news stories about someone shooting at “mostly peaceful” “pro-Palestinian” protesters Sunday evening in Skokie, IL.  As if he just couldn’t contain his hatred for Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular.  Of course, now that the video is released, it shows the violent mob swarming the man and beating the hell out of him before he pulled his gun and fired a warning shot instead of shooting one of the thugs beating him with sticks.

You want to know what else is remarkable?  How the Skokie cops didn’t converge on the attack until after the shot was fired.  Were they told to stay “hands off” even with the pro-Palestinian “protesters” attacking people and beating them severely?  Seconds after the shot was fired, the Skokie officers were right there taking the man into custody.

What else is troublesome?  I guarantee you those “mostly peaceful” protesters are busy trying to find out the man’s identity and will undoubtedly vandalize his residence, share plenty of death threats and try to get this guy fired from his job and similarly harass his family.

Here’s a snippet from the Chicago Sun-Times.  I’ve left out all of the paragraph after paragraph of the Palestinians casting themselves as the victims when they were the bullies and instigators of violence, NOT the guy defending himself in a not-so-friendly to self-defense Cook County.

Charges will not be filed against a man who fired a gun near pro-Palestinian protesters in the north suburbs Sunday night, according to the Cook County state’s attorney’s office.

The 39-year-old man, who prosecutors declined to name, was released from police custody. In a statement issued Monday, prosecutors said the man, a Firearm Owner Identification Card and Concealed Carry License holder, had “no criminal history.”

“After reviewing the evidence, which includes surveillance video and witness statements, we have determined the individual … acted in self-defense upon being surrounded by a crowd and attacked by some of those individuals,” according to the statement.

People scream and the crowd scatters, and the man can be seen holding the gun as someone screams, “Get him! Get him!”

Yes, even after he fired his gun, the crowd was still going to get him.  If the cops hadn’t arrived when they did, he probably would have shot a few of his attackers before being overtaken and likely beaten to death.

This all coming from the left who label themselves as the peaceful, for the common middle people party.

Think about that long and hard.

For the better part of the last decade, many Americans have wondered just how much is being censored from social media. While horrific content of people killing, raping, and robbing other people is consistently lauded across the platform as “music,” the conservative voice is being gagged. Choked out by the powers that be, their ivory tower mindset has kept them from being reachable for decades.

Now thanks to the Supreme Court upholding a lower court ruling, they can bring back their censorship. Announced on October 23rd, Justice Samuel Alito penned his dissent from a split ruling.

“This case concerns what two lower courts found to be a coordinated campaign by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.” By allowing the ruling to stand, the left could now resume “either coercing social media companies to engage in such censorship or actively controlling those companies’ decisions about the content posted on their platforms.”

Alito’s dissention was also joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

Such a crucial ruling hands the federal government the right to fully censor what we see. Thanks to the liberal left and their “free spaces” and prevention of “disinformation” we can no longer guarantee the free speech of what we read online. While there has always been a grain of salt taken with much of the information available online, by censoring it, they are preventing people from doing their own research to learn the unadulterated truth about controversial topics.

This doesn’t just change what we’ll see in terms of COVID. Now they’ll resume shaping the narrative around Israel and Hamas, Ukraine and Russia, and especially Republicans versus Democrats. Poisoning the idea of free thought and the free exchange of ideas like this is more than a slippery slope. It’s outright setting us on course for 1984 to move from movie to reality.

EXCLUSIVE CIVIL LIBERTIES DOC

Dinesh D’Souza Documentary “Police State” To Stream Exclusively on Rumble

Rumble, the rapidly expanding video-sharing platform and provider of cloud services, has revealed the launch of exclusive film content, featuring an explosive piece of cinema from political filmmaker and author, Dinesh D’Souza. His latest film, titled “Police State,” has created waves by aligning itself with free speech and anti-censorship ideals, displaying a commitment to the unfiltered dissemination of content. The film, co-created alongside political commentator Dan Bongino, will be accessible on Rumble and Locals from October 28th. In the face of rampant online censorship, D’Souza’s “Police State” intends to shed light on the impending risks to American civil liberties. Recognizable for his uniquely unfiltered voice, D’Souza aims to expose the encroaching threat of a police state in a country that has traditionally valued individual freedoms above all else.

The film also underlines the urgency of recognizing an increasingly invasive state machinery. For D’Souza, this project represents not just a movie but an urgent call to action. In this vein, he voiced his pleasure to be streaming his utmost critical work on uncensored platforms such as Rumble and Locals. “This movie will expose the threat to the basic rights of Americans and the alarming movement toward the country becoming a police state,” said D’Souza. “It’s my most urgent and powerful film, and I’m delighted to be streaming it on Rumble and Locals.” Rumble, known for its mission to challenge cancel culture and encourage the unimpeded flow of ideas, has welcomed the addition of D’Souza’s latest pivotal work. Chris Pavlovski, Rumble Chairman and CEO, expressed his enthusiasm about the progress they have been making with their pay-per-view functionality. “We’ve made a lot of progress with our pay-per-view functionality, and we are excited to bring this movie to the platform,” said Pavlovski. “With a significant following and an impressive portfolio of movies, D’Souza is a powerful voice, and we expect a great turnout,” he added. Dinesh’s Locals community includes access to stream “Police State.” Members will also gain access to exclusive live streams and other films like “2000 Mules.”

HYPOCRITICAL

The Australian Government Says It Will Be Exempt From Its Own Online “Misinformation” Laws

The Albanese administration’s pursuit of overreaching legislation intended to tackle “false” content on social media platforms is drawing sharp criticism and questions about its implications for free speech. A notable exclusion from this potential crackdown is the very government pushing for it. This exemption, which would allow government messages to bypass these stringent regulations, was questioned by Independent Senator David Pocock. He rightly posited why governmental communications should remain unexamined when content from other entities would be under scrutiny. To many, the exemption smells suspiciously like a double standard, allowing the government to avoid the very accountability they seek to impose on others. “It would not ‘pass the pub test’ for the exemption to stand when the laws were eventually introduced,” Senator Pocock remarked. Assistant Minister for Infrastructure Carol Brown rushed to defend the exemption, stating that it is intended to prevent critical emergency communications from the government being accidentally removed by social media platforms. Special Minister of State Don Farrell, who oversees electoral matters, conveyed the complexity of the issue. “It’s a difficult topic,” he admitted. The balance between preserving free speech and battling misinformation is indeed a delicate one. Senator Farrell remarked, “You don’t want to stop free speech in this country, and we do want people to be able to express their views, even if you consider them crazy and so forth.”

PUSHING BACK AGAINST LAWMAKERS

X Won’t Demonetize Russell Brand, The Company Tells Pro-Censorship British MPs

Demonstrating its commitment to upholding principles of free expression, Twitter recently affirmed that it would continue to financially support comedian Russell Brand, refusing to be swayed by mere accusations leveled against him. Elon Musk has promoted the position of not penalizing account holders unless they deviate from the platform’s guidelines or violate local laws. Detailing its stance in a letter addressed to Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the Commons Culture, Media, and Sport committee, and who was widely criticized for asking platforms whether they would allow Brand to earn a living from online platforms, the company explained that its resolution to allow Brand’s financial pursuits on the platform aligns with its intent to protect free expression. The company said: “X is not able to provide confidential commercial information relating to individual accounts, including for privacy reasons.” It added: “We do not take action on accounts where they have not violated our own rules or local laws. This is essential to protect free expression on the service. In order to ensure that all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely, all content on X, including monetised content, is subject to our User Agreement and the X Rules.”

X’s chosen course of action resonates with perspectives against encroachments on free speech and accentuates the necessity for platforms to observe impartiality, without resorting to knee-jerk reactions based on unproven insinuations. This development comes after YouTube barred Brand from generating revenue from his account in the wake of allegations implicating him in incidents of sexual assault, which purportedly transpired between 2006 and 2013. This was based on allegations alone, despite Brand not being convicted, or even charged with such offenses. Consequently, Dinenage had sought an audience with Linda Yaccarino, X’s CEO, expressing apprehensions regarding the comedian’s ability to monetize his content on the platform amid the accusations. She also queried whether Musk had influenced the decision-making process pertaining to Brand’s case, given the billionaire owner’s public defense of the comedian.

INVASIVE

Visitors to the EU Will Soon Face Fingerprinting and Facial Scans

A significant shift is looming in the way American citizens will be allowed to enter a large majority of European nations. The European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS), an arm of the European Union, has unveiled its plans to implement a system in Spring 2025, requiring Americans to secure prior approval for travels up to 90 days in any of the 30 EU countries. This is a departure from the current practice where US travelers enjoy effortless entry into these countries without a visa requirement. However, the new regulation will insist on individuals proceeding with their travels only after registering their intent via the official ETIAS website or mobile application, both of which currently do not process such requests.

In a radical departure from the norm, from 2025 onwards, American passport holders will no longer receive passport stamps. Alarmingly, the planned regulatory changes involve intense intrusions into personal privacy. The new rules state that visitors will be subjected to both face and fingerprint scans aside from surrendering other biometric data. It’s disconcerting that this data will be reserved within the European Commission’s Common Identity Repository (CIR), a database accessed by numerous agencies, including law enforcement. The implications of this regulation change could be even more disconcerting from a privacy perspective. Critics and advocates of digital privacy have sounded the alarm on not just the possible misuse of this extensive data pool by governments, but also the potential exposure to hacking threats, be they criminal outfits or invasive foreign governments. There’s also the risk of rogue insiders dealing with this sensitive information. These regulations reflect a worrying escalation towards a surveillance state that doesn’t differentiate between law-abiding citizens and potential threats but treats them both as data sets to be tagged, traced, and retained. It’s worth noting that the US began collecting fingerprints of international tourists as part of the US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program, which was initiated in 2004.

Beware of These Links

As people start to get wise to the vast amount of online tracking, using ad blockers and tracker blockers to protect themselves, marketers are getting smart and are looking for new ways to track people. That’s why, these days, you have to be extremely careful of the links you click. This is explored here below.

CENTRALIZED SURVEILLANCE

How Mastercard’s Digital ID Project Is Being Used by Governments To Track Health and Vaccination

In Mastercard’s ongoing technological pursuits, there seems to be an agenda of consolidating digital dominance. The so-called “Community Pass” project, helmed by Tara Nathan, Mastercard’s executive vice president, claims to integrate marginalized communities into the digital world. However, with only 3.5 million users so far, skeptics of digital ID plans may wonder about its real reach and intentions. Nathan’s recent appearance on the company-sponsored podcast “What’s Next In,” touted the supposed merits of the Community Pass. Launched in 2019, this platform ostensibly provides individuals in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific with a digital ID and wallet, allowing them access to services such as government benefits and humanitarian assistance. Nathan waxed eloquent about the supposed benefits of digitization for developing economies. But her emphasis on using offline digital channels to supposedly empower marginalized individuals raises eyebrows. Is this another case of a multinational company trying to sell its tech solutions to unsuspecting communities under the guise of altruism?

While they sing praises about aiding farmers with their digital identity system, one can’t help but question the underlying motives. Is this just a method to tap into the vast, underexplored markets of rural areas? Community Pass seems to be less of an inspiration from their previous mobile money humanitarian ventures and more of an extension of their global financial grip. Nathan was eager to elaborate on the various components of Community Pass – Farm Pass, Wellness Pass, and Commerce Pass. Each appears tailor-made to address specific challenges. For instance, Farm Pass supposedly helps farmers gain visibility and a credit record. However, this digital interference might just be a ruse to infiltrate local markets and dictate terms. The Wellness Pass initiative seems particularly odd. While it’s positioned as a system to monitor vaccine roll-outs, isn’t there a clear risk of tracking individuals’ personal health data? Even if institutions like the Ministries of Health in Ethiopia and Mauritania endorse it, the broader implications can’t be ignored. Their goal to expand the reach of Community Pass to over 30 million people by 2027 sounds more like a corporate conquest than a genuine effort to assist. The project’s privacy concerns are evident. Digital identities, under the pretense of progress, could well turn into tools for invasive surveillance, jeopardizing the very rights of the people they claim to uplift. Their recent ID2020 certification might vouch for their intention to offer financial inclusion and digital identity services, but with technology’s relentless pace, there’s a dire need for strict regulations. Policymakers must be wary and ensure that such initiatives don’t compromise individuals’ freedoms under the guise of inclusion and so-called progress.

This is shocking. Klaus Schwab, in his best German pre-war stylistic accent voice says the world will no longer be run by countries, or superpowers like America but instead by the World Economic Forum stakeholders such as Blackrock and Bill Gates. This is the man who wants us to have no property, eat bugs and plants, live in dense cities so the countryside can re-wild, and only allow the elites to travel.

Reminder: Globalists Vs. The People:

Klaus Schwab says the world will no longer be run by superpowers like
America… Instead, it will be run by globalist like World Economic Forum stakeholders, such as BlackRock, Bill Gates, and others.

Reject them and call them out for their… pic.twitter.com/EXfQyyXwWy

— Blake (@_BlakeHabyan) October 16, 2023