Blog

“Chat Control” – EU Proposal To Scan All Private Messages Gains Momentum

A controversial European Union proposal dubbed “Chat Control” is regaining momentum, with 19 out of 27 EU member states reportedly backing the measure.

The plan would mandate that messaging platforms, including WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, must scan every message, photo and video sent by users starting in October, even if end-to-end encryption is in place, popular French tech blogger Korben wrote on Monday.

Denmark reintroduced the proposal on July 1, the first day of its EU Council presidency. France, once opposed, is now in favor, Korben said, citing Patrick Breyer, a former member of the European Parliament for Germany and the European Pirate Party.

Belgium, Hungary, Sweden, Italy and Spain are also in favor, while Germany remains undecided. However, if Berlin joins the majority, a qualified council vote could push the plan through by mid-October, Korben said.

A qualified majority in the EU Council is achieved when two conditions are met. First, at least 55 percent of member states, meaning 15 out of 27, must vote in favor. Second, those countries must represent at least 65% of the EU’s total population.

Keep reading

GOP Congressman Pushes Bill That Could Block Texas Republicans from Redrawing Districts to Secure House Majority

Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley (R-CA) introduced legislation Monday that could kneecap the GOP’s efforts to reclaim and secure dominance in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I’ve officially introduced legislation to stop Newsom’s plan to abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission, seize its powers for himself, and remove all checks and balances in California. I’m calling on House Leadership to bring it up for a vote and end this insanity,” Kiley wrote on X.

I’ve officially introduced legislation to stop Newsom’s plan to abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission, seize its powers for himself, and remove all checks and balances in California.

I’m calling on House Leadership to bring it up for a vote and end this insanity. pic.twitter.com/ggXDMTuYNI

— Rep. Kevin Kiley (@RepKiley) August 5, 2025

According to the press release:

“Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) will be introducing legislation to prohibit Mid-Decade Redistricting nationwide. The bill, which Kiley plans to introduce tomorrow, will nullify new maps adopted by states before the 2030 census, including any that are adopted this year.

For decades, the California Supreme Court has held that the State Constitution forbids mid-decade redistricting, and since 2010 redistricting in the state has been done by a voter-approved Independent Citizens Commission. But now, Governor Gavin Newsom is seeking to overturn that long-standing precedent, sideline the Citizens Commission, undo the will of voters, and return line-drawing power to himself and other partisan politicians. The Governor’s brazen scheme has been denounced by groups ranging from Common Cause to the California League of Women Voters.

“Gavin Newsom is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,” Rep. Kiley said. “Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.””

But the problem with Kiley’s bill is that it would not only affect California, but would also ban all 50 states from redrawing their congressional maps before the 2030 census.

Keep reading

Whites underrepresented in prestigious high schools after courts uphold ‘proxy’ preferences: suit

What good is the Supreme Court’s two-year-old ban on racial preferences in educational admissions if the high court lets other high-demand schools flagrantly flout it?

That’s what justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas asked their colleagues last year when SCOTUS declined to review a ruling that upheld an admissions scheme explicitly designed to change racial demographics in Boston’s most prestigious public high schools, several months after the duo scolded the court for declining a similar Virginia case across the river from D.C.

The plaintiffs in the Boston challenge have come back with a new 14th Amendment lawsuit claiming the mid-litigation pivot to a different admissions scheme for the so-called exam schools, based on socioeconomic “tiers” instead of the original zip codes, has created the “disparate impact” result required by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: underrepresentation.

“Now, by clustering most white students together in one ‘tier’ where they compete only against each other for Exam School seats, the current Tier System ‘succeeded’ in reducing the proportion of white students admitted to the Exam Schools below the group’s share of the applicant pool three years in a row,” the suit says.

Filed by the Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence on behalf of dozens of parents of white and Asian-American students denied and seeking admission to Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy and John D. O’Bryant School of Science and Mathematics, the lawsuit includes data on the composition of the applicant pool from a public records request.

“Because these students were denied admission to their Exam School of choice due to their race, court-ordered admission to those schools is the only remedy for this race-based harm,” and a permanent injunction on the tier system is the only remedy for future applicants, the suit says.

“Boston Public Schools cannot launder racial quotas through socioeconomic labels” in the tier system, said the coalition’s lawyer, Chris Kieser of the Pacific Legal Foundation. “The Equal Protection Clause forbids government discrimination, whether done openly or by proxy.”

The defendants, Boston School Committee and Superintendent Mary Skipper, on Tuesday got an extension of time to file an answer until Sept. 11. The district’s lawyers didn’t answer queries by Just the News, and a district spokesperson referred the query to another office, which did not respond.

Northern Virginia’s prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, the subject of Justice Alito’s first fiery rebuke of his colleagues for tacitly allowing “intentional racial discrimination … so long as it is not too severe,” continues facing political and regulatory scrutiny for alleged discrimination against Asian Americans.

The U.S. Department of Education opened a civil rights probe of Fairfax County Public Schools this spring, from a referral by state Attorney General Jason Miyares, into its admissions policy adopted in 2020 that eliminated standardized testing and implemented a “holistic” evaluation process for TJ, as it’s known, that includes personal experiences.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Sudden Obsession With Jeffrey Epstein Is An Opportunistic Ploy To Bash Trump

Matt Taibbi recently flagged this choice tidbit from a New York Times story attempting to downplay damning new revelations about the Russiagate hoax from Trump’s first term: “The administration is trying to distract supporters who are angry about its broken promise to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.”

There’s no evidence whatsoever this is the reason why the Trump administration is trying to hold people accountable for falsely accusing the president of colluding with Russia. Trump is rightly angered that his first term was derailed by manufactured accusations of treasonous collusion. His current FBI director, Kash Patel, was involved in unraveling the bogus Russia claims as they were being made and has been warning of a conspiracy against Trump emanating from the FBI and CIA for years — and nearly all of Patel’s warnings have been subsequently validated.

Even without digging through the particulars of the latest Russiagate revelations, since when has it been a respectable journalistic practice to make unsupported assertions that are little more than Democrat Party talking points? Well, major media organizations have been behaving this way ever since I can remember, but the point about it being bad journalism still stands.

Fair or not, it’s hard not to concede that the Trump White House brought this attack on itself. A month ago, Trump’s DOJ issued a memo bluntly refuting the existence of an Epstein “client list,” downplaying conspiracies surrounding Epstein’s death in jail and the blackmailing of wealthy powerbrokers, and announcing that, due to privacy concerns and the court-ordered sealing of documents, the release of more Epstein files wasn’t forthcoming. These might be reasonable conclusions based on the evidence, but the Trump admin had swept into office all but guaranteeing dramatic Epstein revelations. This was overpromising and underachieving on a fairly grand scale, and lots of Trump supporters weren’t happy about it.

It’s worth noting that the recent round of Russiagate revelations began on July 2 when CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued a report on the faulty Intelligence Community Assessment process in 2016. That was five days before the DOJ memo on Epstein that spurred the recent controversy; if anything, the facts support the notion Democrats are seizing on the Epstein memo to distract from very serious new allegations that implicate President Obama in weaponizing the CIA to go after a political rival. On that point, Lee Smith has a lot of eye-opening things to say about how the sudden Democrat interest Epstein is an attempt to obscure the new Russia revelations.

However, it’s not all strategic. At a base level, Democrats are simply trying to exploit a rift in Trump’s base to drag his approval down by tarring him with Epstein. This why you now have even the most milquetoast figures in the Democrat Party — Quick, what’s the name of the senator from Arizona again? Wasn’t he an astronaut or something? — gleefully intimating Trump is covering up and/or implicated in a dark pedophile conspiracy.

If they were so alarmed by this pedophile conspiracy and convinced it implicated Trump, you’d think they would have done something about this last year when Democrats controlled the DOJ and Trump was running for president. You’d think releasing concrete evidence of his unsavory involvement with Epstein would have put a damper on his reelection chances. After all, it has been reported that Trump’s name pops up numerous times in the Epstein files.

The problem is that, as we’ve noted, Trump has already been victim of a major conspiracy emanating from the Justice Department. Even Trump’s tax returns were leaked. New York state combed through his real estate docs to invent a charge against him and fine him $400 million for the crime of receiving a loan and paying it back with interest. It’s entirely possible Trump’s name appearing in the Epstein files is a reason why they haven’t been released; but it strains credibility to think that Democrats controlled the DOJ the last four years and didn’t bother splashing damaging information about Trump from those same files all over The New York Times.

What we do know is this: Trump and Epstein were friends throughout the 90s, but that the pair had a major falling out around 2004 when Trump supposedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. The source of the feud is not clear, but one of Epstein’s most outspoken victims, Virginia Giuffre, had been working at Mar-a-Lago’s spa, and Epstein reportedly “stole” her from Trump’s employment. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said, “The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.” The investigation into Epstein was opened a year later in 2005.

These facts, combined with the total lack of leaks of damaging info from a hostile DOJ, are pretty thin gruel. And yet, the media and Democrats, but I repeat myself ad nauseum, are really flooding the zone here.

Keep reading

First Omar, Then James, Now AOC Accused of Lying About Who They’re Married To – The Truth Means Nothing to Them

It turns out some of the country’s best-known and most infamous Democratic women seem to have a strangely flexible concept of marriage.

While progressives tend to despise the institution, they appear to have an appreciation for it under certain circumstances (particularly circumstances involving two men and a baby).

But when it really suits their personal desires and, even better, their personal finances, boy how liberals love it.

First, there was Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somalia-born immigrant, who has been credibly accused of presenting her own brother as her husband in a scam to help him move to the front of the line in obtaining immigration papers.

Next, New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James found herself under investigation for real estate activities that reportedly included listing herself as her father’s “wife” for mortgage purposes.

Then, as July drew to a close, the bipartisan House Ethics Committee issued a report on New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attendance at the 2021 Met Gala — a soiree of the rich and fatuous where Ocasio-Cortez appeared wearing an obnoxious “Tax the Rich” designer gown on the arm of a man who isn’t her “spouse” — by any definition of the word.

That last part matters a great deal because, according to the committee report, the New York City democratic socialist accepted a free ticket for then-boyfriend, now-fiance Riley Roberts (a beau whose status with AOC appears to depend on which form she’s filling out).

And there’s more to this than just a standard liberal grift.

Congressional ethics rules in force at the time, according to the report, allowed House members to accept free attendance at such events only “for themselves and either a spouse or dependent child.”

The report then helpfully noted that the House Ethics Manual defines “spouse” as “someone to whom you are legally married.”

To be fair, that’s a footnote from page 39 of the manual, but most Americans were probably already hip to that definition without needing to be told. Ethics manuals, however, have to spell things out.

Unfortunately, that’s only effective if the lawmakers covered by the manual actually choose to accept the manual’s definitions, which AOC did not.

According to the report, Ocasio-Cortez’s legal counsel claimed “the Congresswoman chose to follow campaign finance laws,” adding that such a determination “was and is a reasonable and logical conclusion to make, and the Committee should not so brazenly apply guidance limited to other sets of rules in other contexts.”

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom’s Gerrymandering Post Backfires in Spectacular Fashion

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has moved forward with legal efforts to hold Democratic lawmakers accountable after they fled the state in protest of Republican-led redistricting efforts.

The Texas Supreme Court has now ordered Democratic State Representative Gene Wu, a central figure in the walkout, to formally respond to the governor’s legal action.

The controversy stems from a renewed push by the Texas legislature to pass new redistricting maps.

In response, several Democratic legislators left the state to prevent the Republican-controlled House from reaching the quorum necessary to conduct legislative business.

The move effectively stalled legislative action in Austin and has now resulted in potential legal consequences.

Governor Abbott’s legal filing seeks to challenge the Democrats’ decision to abandon their legislative duties.

The Texas Supreme Court’s directive to Rep. Wu marks the latest development in an ongoing standoff over the redistricting process. The Court has not yet announced a timeline for a final ruling on the matter.

While the legislative impasse continues, other state issues remain unresolved, including responses to recent flooding and other critical matters requiring legislative attention.

The walkout has drawn criticism from those who argue the legislators’ absence is hindering necessary governance.

The debate over redistricting has also spilled into the national political scene.

California Governor Gavin Newsom weighed in on the matter with a post on X, where he listed red states with zero or just one Democratic House representative.

Keep reading

California Hospital Concealed Evidence Linking ‘Catastrophic Surge’ in Stillbirths to COVID Vaccine, Lawsuit Alleges

A California hospital concealed data linking a “catastrophic surge” in stillbirths among women who received COVID-19 vaccines, according to a lawsuit filed last week in the Superior Court of California, Fresno County.

Michelle Spencer, a nurse at Community Medical Centers’ (CMC) Community Regional Medical Center, said the hospital “deliberately and selectively” concealed from staff, patients and regulators a spike in unborn baby deaths that began in spring 2021, and retaliated against her when she publicized the information.

The lawsuit also says the hospital concealed medical data related to the fetal deaths that showed a link to COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant mothers.

The data include hospital-wide medical records documenting the number of stillbirths and the vaccination histories of those babies’ mothers. One managing nurse at the hospital told a staff member that nearly all of the stillbirths occurred among vaccinated mothers.

According to the complaint, Spencer “witnessed firsthand the exponential increase in unborn baby deaths directly correlating with pregnant women who received a Covid vaccine and then would deliver a dead baby a close number of days or weeks following their injection.”

Keep reading

Gone with the Wind: Joe Biden’s Last Minute ‘Green’ Project Cancelled in Idaho

The Department of the Interior announced Wednesday that it is moving to terminate the Lava Ridge Wind Project in southern Idaho, reversing an approval made by the Biden-Harris administration in December 2024.

The Department of the Interior announced Wednesday that it is moving to terminate the Lava Ridge Wind Project in southern Idaho, reversing an approval made by the Biden-Harris administration in December 2024.

The agency cited legal deficiencies in the project’s authorization and pointed to widespread opposition from Idaho residents, many of whom raised concerns about the project’s proximity to a World War II memorial site.

The Lava Ridge Wind Project was slated to include up to 231 wind turbines spread across nearly 60,000 acres of land.

The Biden-Harris administration’s approval of the project came during its final weeks and was met with criticism from lawmakers, local officials, and residents concerned about its impact on the Minidoka National Historic Site.

“Under President Donald Trump’s bold leadership, the Department is putting the brakes on deficient, unreliable energy and putting the American people first,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a statement.

Keep reading

Entitled Virginia Superintendent Wants Security Guard To Protect Her From Criticism

T.S. Eliot claimed that “April is the cruelest month,” but in this homeschooling dad’s opinion, that dubious honor belongs to August. In one of the great ironies of modern American life, we choose to send our kids back to school amid the dog days of summer, a sweltering time that would be better spent at the community pool.

Back-to-school time is also an expensive proposition. The National Retail Federation claims that between new clothes and shoes, school supplies, and electronics, the average family will fork out over $850 this year to outfit their K-12 children. Teachers have it even worse; according to Adopt-A-Classroom, the average teacher spent almost $900 out of his own pocket to buy classroom supplies in the 2024-2025 school year.

But there’s at least one group that won’t need to make hard financial decisions this month: high-level educational bureaucrats. Take Dr. Michelle Reid, the superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). Not only does her new contract give her a salary higher than that of the president of the United States, but she also gets a car allowance and is currently seeking a taxpayer-funded “executive protection agent” to shield her from the peasants she supposedly serves. “Queen Reid” embodies the entitled mindset of an educational establishment that refuses to learn from its mistakes.

Keep reading

Smoking gun? Obama endorsed bogus CIA claims on Trump and Putin before analysis was even finished

President Barack Obama made public statements as early as mid-December 2016 indicating that he was endorsing a predetermined CIA view about Vladimir Putin allegedly wanting Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose. The intelligence community assessment (ICA) had not even been completed and was still being debated and drafted.

The record — bolstered by newly-declassified documents — shows that Obama was a central figure at key points throughout the Russiagate saga. Obama directed the creation of a new ICA on Russian meddling only after Trump was victorious in November 2016. Well before the ICA was finalized, Obama repeatedly endorsed the controversial and inaccurate conclusion from the CIA, run at the time by Director John Brennan. That conclusion was spun into a widely-adopted narrative that Putin had allegedly ordered election meddling in 2016 to hurt Clinton’s chances and to help Trump win.

Obama endorsed an anonymously-leaked CIA assessment on Russian meddling in mid-December 2016 during an interview with NPR, roughly two weeks before the ICA was finalized in late December 2016. Obama said during the interview that no one should be “surprised by the CIA assessment that this was done purposely to improve Trump’s chances” — a claim he was making following anonymous leaks to the media about the CIA’s alleged position, preempting the completion of the formal ICA later that month.

Obama’s pre-judged outcome

Obama similarly hinted that he had already come to the conclusion that Russia had allegedly meddled to hurt Clinton and help Trump during a mid-December 2016 White House press conference and a mid-December 2016 appearance on The Daily Show — both roughly two weeks prior to the ICA being completed.

Despite Obama’s perpetuating the falsity in mid-December 2016, a recent CIA review ordered by Director John Ratcliffe stated that the most-highly classified version of the ICA would not be completed until December 30, 2016. A less declassified version of the ICA would be dated January 5, 2017 — with the public version of the ICA dated the following day.

The post-election January 2017 ICA was put together by just the CIA, FBI, and NSA — led at the time by then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers, and since-fired FBI Director James Comey — with input from then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Gabbard: Proof that Obama knew it was false

“There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false,” Gabbard asserted from the podium at the White House press briefing room last month. “They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn’t.”

A spokesperson for Obama released a statement in response to Gabbard’s allegations, where he sought to deny Gabbard’s claims.

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” the Obama statement read.

Keep reading