A Living Nightmare: My Family Was Destroyed by a Weaponized Government Under the Biden Regime

It was 2022, or maybe even earlier, when my life—and my family’s life—was ripped apart. The United States government, through its relentless attacks by the weaponized DOJ, decided I was the enemy. No jury, no trial, just a sudden, suffocating assault that left me questioning everything: my worth, my future, and my ability to protect my children and provide for my family.

They didn’t just come for me; they came for my son Max, my daughter Victoria, and my ex-wife Martine—everyone tied to me by blood or love. They tried to break me down and destroy my family, and despite the hardship, I’m still standing, fighting to expose the ugly truth and give a warning to other Americans: what can happen to me can and will happen to you if we don’t clear out the DOJ and end weaponized government.

I woke to a pounding on my door at 5 a.m., the kind that stops your heart. Six FBI agents, armed to the teeth, stormed in like they were raiding a cartel. They dragged me out, half-dressed, in a spectacle that felt ripped from the playbooks of Roger Stone or Jeff Clark’s arrests.

It was Friday, a calculated move to ensure I’d be locked up through the weekend, no bail hearing until Monday. When I asked one agent what this was about, he smirked, “You like the showtime we gave you?” Confused, I pressed him. “The bullhorn, the lights, the 5 a.m. raid,” he said. “The full showtime.”

The FBI’s theatrics weren’t just intimidation—they were psychological warfare. Now, every knock at my door sends a jolt through me. Is it them again? The FBI? Probation? They’ve broken me to the point where I flinch at shadows, haunted by the thought of their return.

Keep reading

FBI Whistleblower Slams Promotion of FBI J6 Warlord

FBI whistleblower Steve Friend, who exposed the corruption and bias in the agency’s Jan. 6 investigation, spoke out on the promotion of one of the officials responsible for that corruption in exclusive comments to PJ Media.

Many Jan. 6 protestors were not only arrested and jailed but subject to rigged trials, long periods of solitary confinement, months or years of prison without trial, let alone conviction, and even physical abuse. The FBI was a major part of that persecution, and yet Steven Jensen, its self-described J6 architect, was just promoted to head the Washington Field Office. 

Jensen even bragged to Congress about his key role in orchestrating what we now know was a politically charged and highly biased campaign against Jan. 6 protestors, most of whom were peaceful and all of whom were treated as guilty even if proven innocent. Jensen also reportedly oversaw the FBI spying upon parents who attended school board meetings and traditional Catholics.

Friend explained, “Steven Jensen described himself to Congress as the architect of the FBI’s weaponized response to January 6th. His promotion to lead the Washington Field Office is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse.” He added, “If personnel is policy, the FBI is on a troubling path.”

Friend, who is now a podcaster and best-selling author, lost his FBI job and found himself the target of outrageous federal persecution after he respectfully challenged his superiors on the unconstitutional, illegal, rigged campaign against Jan. 6-ers. Thus, he saw from the inside how disturbing Jensen and co.’s actions were. Friend’s fellow FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin noted that Jensen was exposed as a “2021 January 6th hysteric” in congressional testimony. “Jensen was the Section Chief of the Domestic Terrorism Operations Section which fixated on J6 and ran 2x DAILY calls about J6 to cops across the country,” Seraphin declared. This is a major personnel failure for FBI Director Kash Patel.

Keep reading

DIABOLICAL: Tulsi Gabbard Declassifies Documents Which Reveal the Biden Regime Declared Patriotic COVID-19 Mandate Opponents “Domestic Violent Extremists”

The American public is still learning more about the Biden regime’s sinister nature and how it felt about its political opponents.

On Friday, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents that revealed that Americans who opposed the draconian and cruel COVID mandates were declared “Domestic Violent Extremists.” Michael Shellenberger’s Public and Catherine Herridge Reports first obtained the newly declassified records.

Former FBI agent Steve Friend explained to Public that the designation created an “articulable purpose” for FBI or other government agents to open an “assessment” of individuals, which is often the first step toward a formal investigation. In other words, COVID opponents were going to be potentially investigated as domestic terrorists.

As one will see below, Biden’s FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) co-authored a December 13, 2021 intelligence product titled “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates.”

As Public notes, the report calls legit criticism of mandates as “prominent narratives” related to violent extremism. Such narratives described in the report “include the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe, especially for children, are part of a government or global conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and livelihoods, or are designed to start a new social or political order.”

Since then, opponents of COVID mandates have been vindicated on these allegations, meaning the regime wanted to suppress the truth. Friend also added that the “Domestic Violent Extremist” designation gave the government a tool to pressure Big Tech into censoring anti-COVID mandate content, which is precisely what happened.

“It’s a way they could go to social media companies and say, ‘You don’t want to propagate domestic terrorism, so you should take down this content,’” Friend explained.

Gabbard spoke to Fox News’s Will Cain Friday afternoon following the release of the documents.

Keep reading

The New Hampshire Senate Has Rejected Every Marijuana Bill Passed By The House This Session

The New Hampshire Senate on Thursday moved to scuttle two marijuana measures already passed by the House, including a proposal to allow medical cannabis businesses to cultivate in greenhouses and a separate bill to expand the state’s annulment process for past arrest and conviction records.

Senators also voted to delay consideration until next month of a separate bill that would decriminalize small amounts of psilocybin.

The actions reflect the chamber’s broad hostility toward drug reform measures this session. While a number of bills cleared the House of Representatives—including to legalize adult-use marijuana and allow medical marijuana patients to grow cannabis at home—nearly all have gone on to die in the Senate.

“These outcomes are disappointing, but unfortunately, they aren’t surprising,” Matt Simon, director of public and government relations at the medical marijuana provider GraniteLeaf Cannabis, told Marijuana Moment.

Earlier this year, Simon said it appeared “that a few senators just want to kill every bill that deals with cannabis policy, no matter how modest and non-controversial.”

All told, senators have now moved to table or kill eight House-passed measures related to marijuana this session.

One of the bills taken up at Thursday’s Senate floor session—HB 301, from Rep. Suzanne Vail (D)—would have allowed medical marijuana operators (known in the state as alternative treatment centers, or ATCs) to each establish a single additional cultivation location, including in a greenhouse.

Under current law, all growing by ATCs must happen indoors, with greenhouse cultivation prohibited.

Though House lawmakers passed the bill in February, a Senate committee earlier this month marked the proposal “inexpedient to legislate,” effectively recommending it be abandoned. On Thursday, senators voted to table it.

Simon noted that in New Hampshire, there’s strong support for broader legalization of marijuana, “so it’s hard to understand why letting ATCs grow in secure greenhouses is even remotely controversial.”

Keep reading

Cities nationwide are quietly deploying facial recognition technology to track your every move

Police in cities across America want to deploy AI-driven facial-recognition technology that’s capable of tracking and identifying every human being who enters public spaces in real time.

Even politicians in some cities are calling for a pause or outright banishment of this technology from ever getting into the hands of cops. But the battle is shaping up to be a big one in cities nationwide, and if I was a betting man I would put my money on the technocrats and the cops. They will likely win out over the few politicians and taxpaying citizens who are concerned about privacy and civil liberties. They almost always do. They have the money and the media propaganda machine on their side.

According to an article in Biometric Update, two-thirds of Milwaukee’s city council says no, they don’t want this technology given to cops. An article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel says 11 of 15 city alderpersons signed a letter opposing use of the facial recognition technology by the Milwaukee Police Department, citing concerns about bias, ethics and potential overreach.

Below is an excerpt from the article in Biometric Update, and notice the rationale — it’s always the same whenever technocrats are involved: Safety, speed and efficiency.

Milwaukee police currently don’t have a facial recognition system — but they want one, and have tested the technology. They say it makes solving crimes faster, and “can be done with the appropriate parameters in place to ensure that the use will not violate individual civil rights.” They say it would not be, and had never been, used as exclusively as probable cause to arrest someone. They have pledged to engage in public consultation as part of any formal acquisition process.

Nonetheless, the Council’s letter, written “in strong opposition to the deployment of facial recognition technology by the Milwaukee Police Department,” says that “while we understand the desire to enhance public safety and the promises people have made for this emerging technology, we believe these benefits are significantly outweighed by the risks.”

The article goes on to note that the council’s letter “names potential overreach by the administration of President Donald Trump as a risk factor, as well as studies showing that the majority of facial-recognition algorithms are more likely to misidentify people with darker skin, women and the elderly.

How absurdly shortsighted that their major concern is Trump using this technology. This suggests they’d be perfectly fine with facial-recognition being deployed if we just had a different person in the White House, someone with a “D” in front of their name like Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin has asked the Milwaukee Council to adopt a two-year pause on any new surveillance technology across city services, including police.

Keep reading

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Around 11:30 on a Wednesday night in April 2023, three police officers repeatedly knocked on the door of Robert Dotson’s house at 5305 Valley View Avenue in Farmington, New Mexico. They were responding to a report of “a possible
domestic violence situation,” but they were in the wrong place: They were supposed to be at 5308 Valley View Avenue, which was on the opposite side of the street. When Dotson, a 52-year-old father of two, came to the door with a gun in his hand, the cops shot and killed him.

That response, a federal judge in New Mexico ruled last week, was reasonable in the circumstances and therefore did not violate Dotson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The officers “reasonably believed that Dotson posed a severe risk of imminent harm” to them, U.S. District Judge Matthew Garcia writes in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit that Dotson’s family filed in September 2023. Garcia rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the officers—Daniel Estrada, Dylan Goodluck, and Waylon Wasson—”recklessly created the need to apply deadly force by going to the wrong address.”

Garcia concedes that the defendants’ conduct prior to the shooting was “not a paragon of careful policework,” which is quite an understatement. When the cops were dispatched to 5308 Valley View Avenue, he notes, Wasson “utilized his service vehicle’s mobile data terminal” to “locate the address, incorrectly placing the [house] on the right (south) side of the street.” Meanwhile, Goodluck, who was in a separate vehicle, “searched Google Maps to locate the property,” and that search correctly located the house as “being situated on the left (north) side of Valley View Avenue.”

When the officers arrived at the scene, Goodluck “continued to question whether [they] were headed to the correct residence,” Garcia says, but “he deferred to Officer Wasson’s seniority and said nothing.” After Wasson knocked on the front door of Dotson’s house three times without getting a response, Goodluck “finally voiced his concern that the Defendant officers went to the wrong address.” Pointing across the street, he said, “It might have been 5308. Right there.” Wasson was puzzled: “Is this not 5308? That’s what it said right there, right?” No, Goodluck replied: “This is 5305, isn’t it?”

Wasson then asked the dispatcher to confirm the correct address. After the dispatcher said “5308 Valley View Avenue,” Wasson jokingly said, “Don’t tell me I’m wrong, Dylan.” By this point, the plaintiffs say, the cops “were realizing they were at the wrong residence and were laughing about it.”

According to the lawsuit, Dotson and his wife, Kimberly, were upstairs in their bedroom when Wasson knocked on the front door. “The knock was not loud, and his announcement ‘Farmington Police’ could not be heard” on the second story, the complaint says. “The police vehicles were parked down the street and did not have their lights on.” But the couple “believed that they heard a knock,” so Dotson “put on his robe and went downstairs.” For “personal protection,” he “picked up the handgun which was kept on top of the refrigerator in the Dotson residence, not knowing what he might encounter at that late hour.”

When Dotson “opened his front door,” the lawsuit says, he “was blinded by police flashlights.” At that point, “the police did not announce themselves,” and Dotson “had no idea who was in his yard shining bright lights at him.” According to the lawsuit, Wasson, upon seeing Dotson’s gun, “opened fire instantly,” and “the other officers, Estrada and Goodluck, immediately followed by firing their guns.” Dotson was struck by 12 rounds.

Hearing the shots, Kimberly Dotson rushed downstairs and “saw her husband lying in his blood in the doorway,” the lawsuit says. She “still did not know what had happened [or] that police officers were in her front yard.” She “fired outside at whoever had shot her husband,” and the officers “each fired at Mrs. Dotson—another 19 rounds. Fortunately, she was not hit.”

At that point, according to the complaint, the officers “finally announced themselves, and Kimberly Dotson told them that someone had shot her husband and requested their help.” She “did not realize even at that moment that the three police officers had killed her husband,” which she did not learn “until she was finally told eight hours later at the police station where she was detained.”

After the shooting, the lawsuit says, “the officers involved did not disclose to investigators that they were at the wrong address, which was the error leading to the tragic result and without which it would not have occurred.” The mistake “was discovered by other officers who arrived at the scene.”

Keep reading

EU Commission Sues Five Member States Over Censorship Law Non-Compliance

Five EU member countries are being taken to court by the EU Commission for failure to “effectively” comply with the bloc’s online censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).

DSA, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are EU’s key regulations often criticized for centralizing the bloc’s power in the digital sphere at the expense of free speech, and tech companies’ business interests – but also, it appears, the sovereignty of member countries.

Among the “May infringements package” covering various areas regulated by the EU is the section dedicated to the digital economy. It is here that the Commission announced legal action against Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.

These countries have been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union; Bulgaria, meanwhile, has been put on notice and may eventually also find itself in court, unless it empowers a national digital services coordinator (DSC, a role established under DSA) and “lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements (of DSA).”

The EU Commission said that designating and empowering DSCs is an essential step in enforcing the DSA rules and “in ensuring the uniform application” of the regulation across the bloc.

Of the five EU members that are already in court, Poland has not designated or empowered a DSC at all, while the other four have done that – but failed to “entrust them with the necessary powers to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

All five countries have yet to come up with rules regarding penalties for DSA infringement.

Keep reading

French justice minister calls for abolishing cash

France’s Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin has proposed abolishing cash transactions, arguing that digital payments – including cryptocurrencies – are much easier to trace than physical money and would help authorities combat drug trafficking and other criminal activity.

Restrictions on cash transactions in France and across the EU have already tightened in recent years.

Speaking before a Senate commission on Thursday, Darmanin said that “a large part of daily delinquency and even criminal networks rely on cash,” and declared that “the end of cash would prevent the establishment of drug dealing points.”

Darmanin, who previously oversaw public finances as Minister of Public Action and Accounts, acknowledged that banning physical money wouldn’t eliminate the drug trade, but insisted that “once the money is traceable,” it becomes “more complicated” for both consumers and dealers to escape financial oversight.

Keep reading

Texas Democrats Slam GOP Lieutenant Governor For Championing Hemp Product Ban That Has Now Passed The House

Lawmakers in the Texas House of Representatives have passed a measure to establish a statewide ban on consumable hemp products that contain any detectable amount of THC.

The House approved the bill, SB 3, on third reading vote of 87–54 on Thursday.

Under the latest version of the proposal, championed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who presides over the Senate, adults could face a $500 fine for possessing a hemp product containing any THC—a penalty that would climb to up to 180 days in jail for subsequent offenses.

Earlier this week, Patrick wrote on social media that “we cannot in good conscience leave Austin without banning THC.”

“I’ve been here for 17 years at the Texas Capitol—10 years as your lieutenant governor,” he said in a video Monday evening. “I’ve never been more passionate about anything.”

Democrats have attacked the bill as an assault on personal liberty and gone after Patrick for his zeal around the ban.

“Dan Patrick is coming for your THC,” the party posted on social media. “Why doesn’t he bring this kind of energy to fully funding our public schools and raising teacher pay?”

“In the so-called ‘freedom state’,” it added, “adults should have the right to use cannabinoid products. We allow alcohol and tobacco—why not a gummy or oil to relax and ease pain?”

Keep reading

A Top Antitrust Enforcer Is Open To Prosecuting People Who Disagree With Him

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Mark Meador recently insinuated that his agency may investigate nonprofits and academic institutions that object to antitrust enforcement actions without disclosing their donors for deceptive practices. While Meador may think it’s OK to probe parties for disagreeing with him, the FTC’s consumer protection remit does not sanction prosecuting those who reject the commissioner’s antitrust ideology.

Meador recently reposted a video of him discussing the “academic whitewashing” of antitrust during an event hosted by American Compass and the Conservative Partnership Institute on May 1. (While no full recording of the event exists at press time, an employee of American Compass tells Reason that the clip is from the aforementioned event.)

Meador complains about academics “renting out their Ph.D. [and] their reputation to advocate for the interests of giant corporations.” He rightly acknowledged that people are free to do whatever they want but then said that the FTC brings “enforcement actions against influencers and reviewers who advocate for products without disclosing that they’re being paid for it.”

Meador wondered aloud whether nonprofit employees and academics who advocate “for the interests of certain corporations or mergers in their white papers and their op-eds without ever disclosing that they’re being paid to do so” may also be guilty of deceptive practices. He did not state that the FTC would bring enforcement actions against academics but said it’s “worth investigating.”

While Meador may think “it’s an interesting question” whether he may prosecute his ideological opponents, the Supreme Court has already provided an answer. Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, understands the ruling in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) as holding that, “when it comes to speech that is neither commercial advertising for a product…nor specifically election-related, broader First Amendment precedents would indeed preclude such disclosure requirements.”

Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason that “the Supreme Court has expressly distinguished between commercial and other communications.” Citing Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985), Strossen says “compulsory disclosure regarding non-commercial expression is presumptively unconstitutional.”

Keep reading