Tag: corruption

Your Old Kindle Still Works Perfectly. Amazon Is Killing It Anyway

A record player from 1972 still plays records. A paperback from 1985 still opens. A Kindle from 2011, the one that works perfectly, the one with no cracked screen or dead battery, will stop functioning as an e-reader on May 20, 2026, because Amazon decided it should.

Amazon sent emails this week to owners of Kindle devices manufactured in 2012 or earlier, informing them that support for their hardware would end in six weeks.

After May 20, those devices will no longer be able to buy, borrow, or download books. The only content available will be whatever is already sitting on the device. And if you factory reset your Kindle, or deregister it from your Amazon account for any reason, you will not be able to re-register it. At that point, the device becomes a plastic rectangle.

The affected models include the original Kindle, Kindle 2, Kindle DX, Kindle Keyboard, Kindle 4, Kindle 5, Kindle Touch, and the first-generation Kindle Paperwhite. Some of these devices have been in continuous use for 14 years. They work. The screens display text. The batteries hold a charge. The page-turn buttons click. None of that matters.

Amazon spokesperson Jesse Carr said that, “These models have been supported for at least 14 years — some as long as 18 years — but technology has come a long way in that time, and these devices will no longer be supported moving forward.” He added that Amazon is “notifying those still actively using them and offering promotions to help with the transition to newer devices.”

The promotion is a 20 percent discount on a new Kindle and a $20 eBook credit. Amazon is offering customers a coupon to buy something they didn’t want to buy, to replace something that already works. The offer expires June 20, 2026, which gives affected users exactly one month to decide whether to spend money solving a problem Amazon created for them.

The deregistration clause is where this gets ugly. The email Amazon sent includes a specific warning: if you deregister or factory reset your device after May 20, you cannot re-register it. The device becomes permanently unusable as a Kindle.

Keep reading

FRAUD FUGITIVE ON THE RUN: $11M Medicaid Scam Suspect Flees U.S. Before Trial After Posting Bond — Critics BLAST Tim Walz’s “Soft-on-Crime” System for Letting Him Keep Passport

In another jaw-dropping example of Minnesota’s collapsing justice system under far-left Governor Tim Walz, a major fraud kingpin in the state’s largest-ever Medicaid scam has skipped the country, just days before his high-profile trial was set to begin.

Abdirashid Said, the top defendant in a sprawling $11 million personal care assistant (PCA) fraud scheme, is now a fugitive after skipping a scheduled pretrial hearing in Hennepin County.

The trial, expected to last weeks and expose a massive web of fraud targeting taxpayer-funded Medicaid programs, has now been abruptly canceled.

According to reporting from KARE 11’s Lou Raguse, Said had been facing serious charges including racketeering, aiding and abetting theft by swindle, and perjury.

Prosecutors alleged he played a central role in a coordinated scheme involving PCA companies that billed Medicaid for services that were never performed, effectively siphoning millions from taxpayers.

Said had already been convicted of fraud in a previous scheme and was ordered by a judge NOT to work for any company receiving Medicaid funds, KARE 11 reported.

Yet he allegedly continued the grift, complete with perjury on the witness stand, where he claimed massive checks were just “loans and gifts” to pay off prior restitution.

Keep reading

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Overturns the 45-Year Drug Trafficking Sentence of Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned this April, the conviction and sentence imposed on former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández.

The court ordered the case to be remanded to District Judge Kevin Castel with clear instructions to dismiss the accusation in full, declaring the proceedings moot following the presidential pardon granted by Donald Trump on December 1, 2025.

Hernández, who governed Honduras between 2014 and 2022, had been extradited in April 2022 and sentenced in June 2024 to 45 years in prison on charges of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and related firearms offenses.

The federal prosecution alleged that he facilitated the passage of more than 400 tons of cocaine during his term in office, relying primarily on the testimony of convicted drug traffickers.

However, Trump always maintained that Hernández was the victim of a “setup” and “unfair and harsh” treatment by the previous administration—a position that materialized in the full and unconditional pardon issued in December 2025, the same day the former Honduran leader regained his freedom.

The presidential pardon left the pending appeal without legal basis, rendering it “moot.” For that reason, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and ordered the district court’s sentence to be vacated—a step that amounts to erasing the judicial record of the conviction.

Hernández celebrated the victory on his X account with a direct message: “Court of Appeals overturns sentence and conviction, orders Judge Kevin Castel to dismiss the charges.”

Keep reading

Vaccine Amnesia: Why Did The Media Stop Covering Vaccine Disasters?

A key theme I’ve tried to highlight in this publication is that the same medical catastrophes keep repeating (because those responsible are never held accountable), so by understanding what happened in the past, you can see and understand what is happening now and what will likely happen in the future.

For example, because vaccines are “risky but necessary,” the medical profession and government, again and again, concluded that they needed to tell the public all vaccines were “safe and effective” as the potential injuries a mass vaccination campaign would cause were outweighed by “necessary” benefit the vaccines could offer. As such, examples can be found again and again of severe injuries being systematically covered up for the “greater good” (e.g., the earliest documented example I know of this happened in 1874 with the smallpox vaccine) and health authorities concocting the same set of excuses we’ve seen since smallpox as to why those vaccines failed to prevent the diseases they were supposed to.

Since the risks outweigh the benefits for most vaccines (detailed here), a mass vaccination paradigm can only be sustained by censoring all evidence of harm, and then using that absence of evidence as proof the vaccines are safe. As such, over the decades, we’ve seen more and more be done to conceal those harms.

Keep reading

Welfare Loophole That Lets Millionaires Get Food Stamps

Rob Undersander is a millionaire. He also received taxpayer-funded food stamps. His story illustrates an absurd – and intentional – loophole in America’s welfare system that taxpayers need closed immediately.

Rob applied for food stamps in 2016. A Minnesota resident, he clearly exceeded the program’s asset limits. But in the application process, he was deemed eligible to receive a brochure on domestic violence services, which under state policy allowed him to receive food stamps. Three weeks later, his first food-stamp benefits arrived in the mail. The taxpayer cash arrived like clockwork for the next 19 months, ultimately amounting to more than $6,000. (Rob only did this to prove the system was broken, and instead of keeping the money, he donated every penny to charity.)

It’s no accident that despite being a millionaire, Rob received welfare payments that are supposed to be for the truly vulnerable. The federal government and states have conspired to create a system that intentionally bypasses the program’s eligibility standards. Call it fraud by design.

Federal law establishes two ways to qualify for stamps – either by meeting the income and asset limits, or by qualifying for a cash welfare program. But in 1999, the Clinton administration issued guidance that lets states decide what qualifies as a benefit under those programs. States have responded by offering benefits that are nothing of the kind, in a deliberate attempt to bypass the asset and income limits for food stamps. The domestic violence brochure that Rob received is a good example. States routinely print pamphlets or establish hotlines that have nothing to do with food stamps, yet states deem them as benefits that let ineligible people get on the program anyway.

The Clinton administration frankly admitted the guidance violated congressional intent. The Obama administration later encouraged as many states as possible to use this loophole, while giving it a formal name: “Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility.” Today, 43 states and Washington, D.C.. have embraced this fraud. Our organization estimates that at least 5.9 million otherwise ineligible people are enrolled in food stamps through this loophole. They are also a major reason why at least one out of every $10 spent on food stamps is improper.

Keep reading

Killing and Indifference

Is personal freedom a reality or a myth? Does the government execute the will of the governed or the will of those who finance its officials? Does the Bill of Rights restrain the government? Are the levers of government power pulled by those the governed have elected or those we don’t see? Do elections change anything?

Can the president kill people whom he suspects might commit a crime? Aren’t even those who would cause great harm entitled to due process? Isn’t everyone entitled to a fair trial in front of a neutral judge and jury before any punishment can be administered?

Aren’t all persons legally innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty? Isn’t this presumption of innocence the linchpin of American jurisprudence? At trial and before punishment, isn’t it the government’s obligation to prove every element of the crimes charged? Isn’t there no such thing in American jurisprudence as a presumption of guilt?

Aren’t punishments prescribed by law? Can the president make up a punishment and direct the military to administer it to folks he thinks are probably guilty of criminal behavior? Can federal officials perform unlawful acts with impunity just because they are ordered to do so by the president? Is “probably guilty” a sufficient legal standard for punishment?

In war, can the combatants morally target civilians and their structures? Is war waged against the people of a given country, or against its government and military assets? What happens when there is killing without consequence?

Which is worse, a president who kills whomever he wishes or a Congress that funds the killing and is indifferent to the moral, constitutional and legal consequences?

Can the president morally bomb civilians “into the Stone Age” in a country where the civilian population has little control over the government? Why kill or ruin large numbers of civilians whose liberation you have urged?

What is the purpose of a Constitution if it is not followed? Why take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then not do so? Why limit war making to the Congress but then ratify the president’s war making as if the Constitution authorized it? If the U.S. bombs other countries to temper their offensive military appetite, who or what will temper America’s offensive military appetite?

Can Congress fund a war it has declined to declare? Why are undeclared wars now commonplace? What to do about a Congress that escapes its constitutional duties? Which is worse, a president who fights an undeclared war or a Congress that does nothing about it?

What is Congress afraid of? Where in the Constitution is the president empowered to spend billions killing foreign persons in an undeclared war? From what source does the president derive power to destroy a foreign land? Why was there no great American debate about war before the president began his killings?

Can the president order killings because he is in the mood for it or because it is fun? Doesn’t the Constitution establish a system of checks and balances so that one of the three branches of the federal government cannot amass power at the expense of either of the other two? Don’t the Constitution and history lay out the functions and powers of the branches of government, and aren’t they supposed to check each other so as to assure personal freedom?

What good are treaties if they’re not followed? Why are treaties the supreme law of the land along with the Constitution itself and all federal statutes? Why does the government violate treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter that U.S. officials wrote and U.S. presidents signed or acknowledged and the U.S. Senate ratified?

Can the president choose which laws he personally will obey and which he will personally violate? Can the government legally break its own laws? Can the president spend money from the U.S. Treasury that has not been authorized by Congress? Can the president impose a sales tax on all goods entering the U.S. from foreign countries? Can the president pick and choose which statutes to enforce and which to ignore? Why is computer hacking a crime, unless it’s done by federal agents?

Can the president put his own name on American cash? Can he put an image of his face on all your cash? Does Congress still write the laws and appropriate funds, or does the president now do these things on his own?

Is the president required to tell the truth? Is the government required to tell the truth? Why is it that the government can lie to the people but it is a crime to lie to the government? Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? Does the government know more about us than we do about it?

What happens when the government is untruthful and the people believe it? Isn’t truth the essential bond between the government and the governed in a free society? Doesn’t the government derive its just powers from the consent of the governed? What happens when the government does things to which the governed have never consented?

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Rips Hegseth, Orders Pentagon to Restore Press Access

US District Judge Paul Friedman, a Clinton appointee on Thursday once again sided with The New York Times and ordered the Pentagon to restore press access.

Last month Judge Friedman ruled that the Pentagon’s new press policy restricting press credential of reporters is unconstitutional.

In October, Pentagon reporters turned in their badges after they refused to sign Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s new security rule.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded that reporters agree by 5 p.m. Tuesday to a new policy, under which they would need to pledge to not obtain or use any unauthorized material, even if the information is unclassified — or hand over their press badges in the next 24 hours,” The Hill previously reported.

By that afternoon, Pentagon reporters turned in their badges.

Keep reading

Portland college to host ANTIFA TRAINING on terrorism and radicalization

Lewis and Clark College, a private institution in Portland, Oregon, is hosting an Antifa-affiliated anarchist symposium aimed at teaching individuals how to organize violent direct actions and avoid prosecution in order to effectively fight back against the US government.

The Transformative Action and Abolition Symposium, titled “Bad Trouble” and organized by the school’s Antifa-aligned Prison Abolition Club, is scheduled to run from April 13 to April 15. Antifa is a US-designated terrorist organization.

Journalist Andy Ngo first highlighted the event in a post on X, describing it as “Antifa terrorism and radicalization training.” He noted that attendees are explicitly directed to “wear a mask” and that one session involves reading claims of responsibility from anarchist blogs while learning how to help “comrades” evade arrest. Ngo, senior editor at The Post Millennial, tagged Education Secretary Linda McMahon and US Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, noting that the college receives some federal funding.

The event flyer features radical imagery such as a burning police vehicle with smashed windows, a gas can, flames, bolt cutters, and barbed wire. It asks attendees to “wear a mask please,”  a common tactic used by Antifa militants to evade detection at events.

Keep reading

Trump Launches Federal Investigation Into “Fraudsters and Charlatans” Pushing FAKE Iran Ceasefire Letters

President Donald Trump just dropped the hammer on a coordinated campaign of fraud and deception surrounding the U.S.-Iran ceasefire negotiations.

President Trump announced a full federal investigation into the flood of phony “agreements,” lists, and letters being circulated by total “fraudsters and charlatans” who have absolutely nothing to do with the real negotiations.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, President Trump announced a double-sided ceasefire just yesterday, agreeing to suspend bombing of Iran for two weeks after negotiations.

And of course, Fake News CNN is right in the middle of it, just like Trump called out. They ran with a bogus “statement” from someone with zero power or involvement.

Trump wrote on Truth Social:

“The alleged Statement put out by CNN World News is a FRAUD, as CNN well knows. The false Statement was linked to a Fake News site (from Nigeria) and, of course, immediately picked up by CNN, and blared out as a “legitimate” headline. The Official Statement by Iran was just released, and posted on TRUTH, below.

“Authorities are looking to determine whether or not a crime was committed on the issuance of the Fake CNN World Statement, or was it a sick rogue player? CNN is being ordered to immediately withdraw this Statement with full apologies for their, as usual, terrible “reporting.” Results of the investigation will be announced in the near future.”

CNN pushed back on President Trump’s claim, asserting that the Iranian statement originated from official regime spokespeople.

“The statement in question was obtained by CNN from Iranian officials and reported on multiple Iranian state media outlets. We received the statement from specific official Iranian spokespeople who are known to us.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Reverses Former Cincinnati Councilor’s Bribery Conviction

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for a former Cincinnati City Council member convicted of bribery and attempted extortion but later pardoned by President Donald Trump to have those charges dismissed in the lower courts.

The ruling came as the high court has, in recent years, been willing to overturn corruption convictions involving public officials engaging in activities some consider normal political activity. For example, in 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of the former Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, for accepting gifts from a benefactor without actually taking action to benefit that person.

On April 6, the justices granted Alexander “P.G.” Sittenfeld’s petition in an unsigned order. The court did not explain its decision. No justices dissented. The court disposed of the case summarily without hearing oral arguments. 

The Supreme Court also vacated the convictions and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be reconsidered in light of a pending motion to dismiss the indictment against Sittenfeld.

The new ruling came after Trump pardoned Sittenfeld on May 28, 2025. This act of presidential clemency eliminated his 16-month sentence of incarceration after he had served almost five months of it.

A presidential pardon forgives federal criminal offenses and removes the legal consequences of those offenses, but does not change history by erasing the judicial finding of guilt.

The pardon covered Sittenfeld’s October 2023 conviction for bribery and attempted extortion related to an FBI-led sting operation that involved campaign contributions. Prosecutors said he accepted $20,000 in donations to his political action committee from undercover FBI agents who feigned interest in developing a specific property. Prosecutors also said Sittenfeld’s actions went beyond mere campaign fundraising to bribery that constituted an illegal quid pro quo for backing the development project.

A quid pro quo—from Latin, meaning “this for that”—is something given or received in exchange for something else.

Sittenfeld’s attorney said in the petition that he was considered “a rising star in Ohio politics,” first elected to the Cincinnati City Council in 2011 at age 27, making him the youngest person ever elected to the council.

“A defining trait of Sittenfeld’s political identity was his unwavering support for economic development. He voted for every economic development deal put in front of him while on the Council,” according to the petition.

In 2018, Sittenfeld approached a local developer to help raise money for his mayoral campaign, in order to match contributions from other developers, and “nothing about this was unlawful,” the petition said.

The government was informed about this, and the FBI organized a sting operation. The local developer contacted Sittenfeld about a specific project, which the then-elected official was already supporting, and offered to connect him with potential investors, who were actually undercover agents. The agents proposed a quid pro quo, saying if Sittenfeld agreed to back the project, they would donate to his campaign, the petition said.

The petition said Sittenfeld filed a motion after the conviction for post-trial relief, saying the evidence at trial was not sufficient to prove an “explicit” quid pro quo, as required by McCormick v. United States (1991). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the receipt of a campaign contribution was not a federal crime unless the payment was part of an “explicit quid pro.”

The federal district court ruled that the evidence was “ambiguous” at best and believed that, despite that, the jury could still surmise an “explicit” exchange from the record. The court sentenced Sittenfeld to 16 months and fined him $40,000. A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit upheld the conviction, finding the jury was allowed to conclude based on the ambiguous evidence that he had accepted an illegal bribe.

In the petition, Sittenfeld’s attorney urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, saying candidates “routinely raise money based on pledges of official action: ‘Donate to me and I will vote to repeal the law my opponent supported!’ ‘Send me a campaign check and I will cut your taxes—I can’t do it without you!’”

Keep reading