Blog

Censorship Advocates Seek To Use Bots And Anonymous “Sock Puppet” Accounts For Themselves While Denying Them To Others

Political leaders across the West have said for a decade that governments must end online anonymity to shut down fake accounts known as bots, particularly those from Russia. “I want to see real names on the internet,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in February. “In a democracy, citizens have the right to privacy,” said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez at Davos in January 2025, and “not to anonymity or impunity,” proposing to tie every social media account to a European digital identity wallet. Greece’s digital governance minister proposed in April 2026 to link every profile to a verified identity because “The major problem behind anonymity is toxicity.” French President Emmanuel Macron declared that his priority was “to demand the disappearance of fake accounts” and “these famous bots, these troll farms.”

But now the advocates of government censorship of legal speech are demanding the legal power to wage information warfare through anonymous accounts and an explicit “sock puppet” strategy. Buried in the Australian government’s new censorship bill is a definition: “A sock puppet identity is a false or fictitious identity assumed by a person in the course of using, or carrying out any activity in relation to, an online service.” The legislation goes on not to warn of bad actors using sock puppets but rather to authorize the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, to create and use sock puppets to “disseminate” information.

Keep reading

In Shadow of Pending Lawsuit, CDC Again Recommends COVID Vaccines for Infants and Young Kids

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly reinstated its July 2025 COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, including recommending the vaccine for “off-label” use among infants and children, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reported.

According to the CDC’s updated webpage, the agency now recommends the COVID-19 shot for all adults ages 18 and older and for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are moderately to severely immunocompromised.

For children not at high risk — including males ages 12-24, who have the highest risk for vaccine-associated myocarditis — the CDC recommends the vaccine based on shared clinical decision-making.

The updated recommendations conflict with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the vaccines.

There are currently no FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and adults younger than 64. For those younger than 65, the vaccines are only FDA-approved for those at high risk of COVID-19 illness, at various ages depending on the vaccine.

The CDC acknowledges that use of the vaccine in that age group would be an “off-label” use.

Latest changes may be tied to court order in ongoing lawsuit

In May 2025, the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children 6 months and older and healthy pregnant women.

In September 2025, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made the changes official when members voted that for people ages 6 months to 64 years, COVID-19 vaccination should be based on “individual-based decision-making.”

However, a court-ordered stay in March 2026 froze those recommendations. To comply with that order, the CDC is now reverting to its early 2025 recommendations.

The court-ordered stay, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, stemmed from an ongoing lawsuit filed in July 2025 by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and several other medical groups.

The groups sued Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. They amended their lawsuit several times in response to new HHS and CDC policies and recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Justice is appealing Murphy’s ruling on behalf of Kennedy and HHS. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 6 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

Keep reading

Child sex abuse case stayed after Toronto police sat on arrest warrant for years

A sexual interference charge involving allegations that a Toronto-area man sexually abused his own daughter was stayed after police failed for years to execute an arrest warrant, despite having information about where he could be found.

The man had been charged with sexual interference but failed to appear in court in November 2017, prompting a warrant for his arrest.

According to a case summary from UL Lawyers, police had information about his whereabouts, including his grandmother’s address, which was approximately a 20-minute drive from the courthouse. Yet the warrant was not executed.

The man continued living in the Greater Toronto Area and was reportedly unaware that the warrant remained active.

It wasn’t until May 2025, nearly eight years after the missed court appearance, that authorities caught up with him. When he returned from an overseas vacation through Toronto Pearson International Airport, border officers discovered the outstanding warrant.

But by then, the years-long delay had jeopardized the prosecution.

In July 2025, the Crown agreed to stay the case, acknowledging that the delay violated the accused’s Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The outcome was rooted in the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark R. v. Jordan ruling, which established presumptive ceilings for criminal cases. Cases in Superior Court generally have a 30-month ceiling, subject to deductions and exceptional circumstances.

The result was that the allegation that the man sexually interfered with his daughter was never tested at trial.

The accused is presumed innocent.

Keep reading

Inside North Carolina Democrat Roy Cooper’s Culture of Corruption as Governor

Soft-on-crime North Carolina Democrat Senate candidate Roy Cooper’s tenure as governor was marked by a number of scandals exposing a culture of corruption in plain sight.

Early in his tenure, Cooper used the power of his office to pressure energy companies into creating a $57.8 million slush fund as his administration held up a pipeline permit. Investigators called it “an abuse of power” in sworn testimony when Cooper’s top aides rewrote an agreement giving Cooper control over funds rather than the State of North Carolina.

A Duke Energy lobbyist said Cooper’s senior policy adviser, Ken Eudy, was not truthful when making statements to a legislative committee investigating the Cooper administration’s role in the project and slush fund, according to reporting from Carolina Journal.

According to the report, investigators said it would be reasonable to conclude Cooper used the power of his office to pressure ACP developers into creating a fund as a condition for getting an environmental permit. The report also concluded, “the information suggests that criminal violations may have occurred.”

Keep reading

Force the CIA to Disclose Its Chile Records

For some odd reason, the CIA steadfastly refuses to disclose all of its records relating to the 1973 Chilean coup, which the CIA ardently supported. The CIA says that “national security” will be jeopardized if its records are disclosed to the American people.

That’s ridiculous. What do they think will happen — that the United States will fall into the ocean or be taken over by the communists, the terrorists, the Muslims, or some other scary boogeyman?

The disclosure issue is more relevant than ever, given that September 21 was the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Orlando Letelier and his assistant Ronni Moffitt on the streets of Washington, D.C.

Letelier had served in the administration of Salvador Allende, a socialist who was democratically elected president of Chile in 1970. U.S. officials, especially those in the U.S. national-security establishment, concluded that Allende posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security.” Therefore they set into motion the events that would ultimately lead to the violent 1973 coup, which resulted in one of the most brutal military tyrannies in history — one supported by the U.S. government.

Letelier and Moffitt were driving to work that September 21 morning when a car bomb exploded and killed them both. Moffitt’s husband, who was also in the car, survived. It was a knowing, deliberate, intentional act of murder and terrorism here in the United States.

It was ultimately determined that the person in charge of planting the bomb was a man named Michael Townley. He confessed to traveling from Chile to the United States and organizing a team of Cuban exiles that assisted him in planting the car bomb.

It has always been assumed that Pinochet ordered the bombing, in large part because the CIA conducted an investigation that concluded that Pinochet did, in fact, order the bombing. That conclusion has become an important part of the historical case against Pinochet. In fact, some people are demanding the release of the CIA’s long-secret Chile records to help establish that Pinochet did, in fact, order the bombing.

That’s, of course, a distinct possibility. Letelier was living here in the United States and working for a think tank that was actively working in opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship, including trying to convince Congress to cut off aid to the Pinochet regime. Thus, it stands to reason that Pinochet certainly had a motive to kill Letelier.

However, there is something else to consider. Pinochet was not a dumb man. He had to realize that if a major terrorist attack on American soil could be traced to his regime, his good, solid relationship with the U.S. government, including foreign aid to Chile, would be finished. It is very difficult to believe that he would have been willing to take that chance just to silence a prominent critic of his regime.

There is another possibility, one that the U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press are loathe to consider. That possibility is that it was the CIA, rather than Pinochet, that ordered the hit on Letelier.

Yes, I know what U.S. supporters of the CIA will respond. They’ll point to that CIA investigation that concluded that it was Pinochet who ordered the hit. But isn’t that sort of like saying that the Gestapo investigated one of its murders and concluded that someone else did it? If the hypothesis being investigated is CIA involvement in the assassination, how can the CIA’s own official conclusions be treated as dispositive, especially given the CIA’s longtime expertise in covering up its assassinations?

Keep reading

Pakistani National Charged in Massive $126 Million USPS Counterfeit Postage Scheme — Feds Seize Website That Allegedly Sold More Than 5 MILLION Fake Shipping Labels

A 33-year-old Pakistani national has been federally charged after authorities say he ran an unauthorized website that dumped more than 5.1 million counterfeit U.S. Postal Service shipping labels into the American mail stream, and left the Postal Service holding the bag for more than $126 million.

According to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Faheem Akram of Khanewal, Pakistan, operated LabelsBank.com, a site that was never authorized to sell USPS products. Investigators say the site sold fake postage at a flat cut-rate price, typically $2 a label, no matter the package’s weight, size, or destination.

Postal inspectors in Miami say more than 5,000 customers used the site.

According to NBC 6 South Florida, more than 5,200 buyers purchased the phony labels and shipped packages at rates far below what honest Americans pay. The website has now been seized and shut down.

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted Akram on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to make and sell counterfeit postage stamps, five counts of making and selling counterfeit postage stamp labels, and four counts of wire fraud. As prosecutors note, charges are allegations. He is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

If convicted, he faces up to five years on the conspiracy and counterfeit-postage counts and up to 20 years on each wire-fraud count, according to NBC 6.

U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones, President Trump’s U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, did not mince words.

Keep reading

Talarico to Fundraise with Wall Street Financiers, Jeweler Who Called America a ‘Sh*thole’

Texas Democrat U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico is scheduled to attend a high-dollar fundraiser in New York City on Monday alongside former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), with Wall Street financiers, Hollywood figures, and a jewelry designer and filmmaker who has publicly criticized the United States and its flag among those involved in the event.

The September 28 fundraiser, hosted by actor Robert De Niro and other prominent Democrat donors, is scheduled to take place at an undisclosed location in downtown Manhattan, with top tickets costing $27,000. Actress Gina Gershon is also expected to attend.

The event comes as Talarico promotes his campaign as a “people powered” movement to “take back Texas,” despite receiving a majority of his campaign contributions from outside the state.

According to figures reported by the Texas Tribune in July, more than 55 percent of Talarico’s contributions came from out-of-state donors, while approximately 44 percent came from Texas. By comparison, Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton received 82 percent of his contributions from Texas and 18 percent from outside the state.

The New York fundraiser’s host committee includes Charles Alaimo, a Democrat megadonor and managing director at Group One Trading; Cedomir Crnkovic, a former managing director at investment firm D. E. Shaw & Co. and current board member of Inclusive Abundance; and Charles Myers, founder and chairman of Signum Global Advisors and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton.

Other participants include Jane Rosenthal, cofounder of the Tribeca Film Festival, who has lived in a $40 million condominium on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, and Bill Derrough, a corporate banker at Jefferies.

Also listed on the host committee is Alexis Bittar, a jewelry designer and filmmaker who has publicly supported several progressive Democrat candidates and criticized the United States and its flag.

Keep reading

WHAT’S HAPPENING: 5 Suicides Reported in 5 Weeks at U.S. Cyber Command in Fort Meade

The United States military’s cyberwarfare unit experienced an unusually high number of suicides last summer.

According to a report by The Baltimore Banner, five personnel who either worked at U.S. Cyber Command or worked closely with the cyberwarfare unit based at Fort Meade died by suicide.

The five suicides occurred within a five-week span stretching from June to July.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), whose district borders Fort Meade, stated in response to the suicides, “This is something that, unfortunately, I think a lot of people wouldn’t say saw coming but knew was going to be a possibility based on the work that goes on at Fort Meade.”

Per The Baltimore Banner:

Five people whose work supported missions at U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency at Fort George G. Meade died by suicide within a month of each other this summer.

The unusual cluster of suicides in June and July follows efforts by the agencies and the Anne Arundel County military installation, where the country’s top cyber warfare units are based, to address the mental health of the 18,000 service members and 41,000 civilian employees there.

Lawmakers, including both of Maryland’s U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Sarah Elfreth, are asking questions and calling for action to prevent further tragedies.

The nation’s cyber warriors at Fort Meade put in long, stressful hours, often in secure, windowless rooms called SCIFs, identifying cyberattacks and defending against them. The work has been intensified by the war with Iran and the race for new artificial intelligence models. The jobs, however, often isolate them from friends and family.

Keep reading

Blanche vows to prosecute AI crimes under existing laws, rejecting new bureaucracy despite forewarned cyber threats

Appearing on “Fox & Friends Weekend,” Attorney General Todd Blanche rejected calls for new artificial intelligence (AI) regulations, asserting that current laws are sufficient to combat emerging tech threats.

Throughout the interview on Sunday, Blanche maintained that existing laws enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) are sufficient to regulate AI, while rejecting calls for new safety measures, simply stating, “we don’t need it.”  

Blanche’s comments come amid mounting warnings from leading AI companies — including OpenAI and Anthropic — suggesting development may need to slow.

The warnings follow tens of thousands of reported security incidents where autonomous AI models bypassed guardrails, with Fox News reporting that rogue agents targeted three U.S. government websites and the United Nations public data portal.

However, the attorney general dismissed the concerns, maintaining that existing federal criminal statues already provide investigators and prosecutors with the necessary means to bring charges against those who use AI to commit crimes.

“Everybody’s saying more laws, more laws, more regulation, but we don’t need it. We don’t need it right now,” he said. “If somebody’s behind that, if there’s entities that are bad actors… we have the tools to prosecute them.”

“[The] DOJ absolutely has a role… and we have prosecuted bad actors in the AI space and any other space from emerging technologies for decades,” he continued. “If you’re a bad actor in the AI space, it’s not as if there’s no laws that are on the books.”

“The U.S. has to be the leader in this technology. We can’t fall second [or] third place,” he stressed.

Nonetheless, opponents argue that the core issue is that AI itself has the potential to independently commit crimes for which no governing laws yet exist — rather than simply failing to prosecute the “bad actors who use AI to cause harm,” as Blanche put it.

Top AI researches have highlighted that if an autonomous system causes harm, it can be difficult to determine who is legally responsible — the developer, the deployer or the user — as criminal statues were written assuming human action, not an autonomous agent.

Keep reading

Surgeon at Hospital That Treated First U.S. COVID Patient Claims Fraud, Deadly Protocols and Retaliation — Says Infectious Disease Chief Worked With State to “Restrict the Civil Rights of Unvaccinated People”

A trauma surgeon who worked inside the Washington hospital that treated the first diagnosed COVID-19 patient in the United States dropped a political grenade on Capitol Hill Monday.

Dr. James P. Miller told Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) roundtable, “COVID-19 Hospital Protocols: Real Stories from Real People,” that the head of infectious disease at his hospital privately admitted he was working with state government to restrict the civil rights of unvaccinated Americans.

“The head of infectious disease medicine at my hospital privately told me that he was working with the state government to restrict the civil rights of unvaccinated people,” Miller said.

“Including their ability to drive and therefore work, by making their driver’s license renewal contingent on their COVID vaccine status.”

That is not a conspiracy theory from a comment section. That is a licensed physician and surgeon, under oath in the Senate, describing what he said he heard from the man running infectious disease at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, the same hospital that treated “Patient Zero” in January 2020.

In a sworn attestation Miller previously filed for criminal investigations, he identified that official as Dr. George Diaz and said Diaz told him unvaccinated people should not be allowed to engage in society or hold a driver’s license, and that Diaz claimed he was working with the Washington governor’s office to turn that view into state policy.

Those remain Miller’s allegations. Diaz was the public face of Everett’s first-case response and an early champion of remdesivir.

Keep reading