UN moves forward with plans to take control of AI globally

Nobody panic. The UN and its vast globalist elite bureaucracy is ready to claim central oversight, control, and administration of future artificial intelligence (“AI”) development to ease worries about the fast-developing science.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made the declaration Wednesday, warning world leaders AI poses ‌risks – known and unknown – that cannot be ignored.

The former Portuguese Socialist Prime Minister spoke after pushback from President Donald Trump, who called threats that AI might destroy humanity “a HOAX” and claimed efforts to limit the technology are part of a “SICK conspiracy.”

He and Mark Zuckerberg both argue market pressure, not government mandates and centrally administered bureaucracy, will keep AI developers in line.

Guterres disagrees, embracing political and industry AI controls rather than trusting the marketplace.

Cautioning that “the world cannot afford a race to the bottom on AI safety,” the chief bureaucrat said concerns raised by those on the front lines of AI technology that its development “is racing ahead of our understanding of the risks” can’t be ignored, the Associated Press (“AP”) reports.

Governments must assume their first responsibility to protect civilians from AI threats, which means “national action is essential,” Guterres told UN reporters. “But global coordination is also indispensable.”

“We need guardrails to build trust – and that make AI safe, transparent, accountable, with human dignity at the centre.”

That’s where the UN and its strictures come in, Guterres outlined.

He said AI will be a major topic in his discussions with world leaders at their annual gathering next week for the high-level session of the UN General Assembly.

“The United Nations will continue to explore practical ideas and approaches in the immediate days ahead,” Guterres said, per the AP report.

“We need a shared understanding of how to advance the safe, secure and responsible development of AI – while identifying when increasingly powerful systems may require stronger safeguards, or additional measures to manage potential risks.”

Expect a global UN summit sooner rather than later on AI controls, Guterres said in response to a question asking whether next week’s meeting of top officials from the UN’s 193 member nations wouldn’t be the perfect opportunity for talks on curbing the excesses of AI.

The career bureaucrat said, “I think it makes full sense at the right moment to have a serious international summit on artificial intelligence.” And at a summit, he said, “it is absolutely essential to have everybody on board” – governments, companies, scientists and civil society – “and I hope that this will be possible.”

Keep reading

Flock Camera Ping Jails Innocent Woman For 13 Days

A 23-year-old Palm Coast Florida woman spent 13 days in a Volusia County jail cell facing life in prison after Florida Highway Patrol troopers treated a Flock Safety camera hit like a confession.

Lindsey Brooke Isaacs did not cause the crash. Her black Dodge Durango had no collision damage. A 911 caller had already described a maroon Durango and a partial plate that was not hers. None of that stopped the machine-assisted hunt.

The October 4, 2025 hit-and-run on eastbound I-4 near DeBary killed motorcyclist Joaquin Deno, Flagler County Deputy Administrator Jorge Salinas, and Salinas’ wife, Nancy. A fourth person was badly hurt. Witnesses described a Dodge Durango fleeing the scene. Investigators searched nearby Flock cameras for a black Durango and found Isaacs’ tag, RJVN10, crossing the Seminole-Volusia line at 9:51 p.m., about three miles west of a wreck that started around 9:53 p.m.

That ping became the case.

Troopers later pounded on Isaacs’ door while she was asleep. “I thought I was getting set up. I didn’t understand what was going on,” she said. They seized the Durango for months and claimed “marks” consistent with the crash.

Photographs later showed an immaculate 2025 SUV. “Where is the damage on the vehicle? Because I’m standing right in front of it and I don’t see any damage,” Isaacs recalled.

On April 17, 2026, FHP booked her on eight felonies, including three counts of vehicular homicide and three counts of leaving the scene of a crash involving death. She was held without bond, then sat in G Block for 13 days. “Being incarcerated, falsely incarcerated, in jail, in G Block, was the worst 13 days in my life,” she said. “I was devastated, I was scared. I thought my life was over.”

Attorney Patrick McGeehan did the work the camera search replaced. A time-and-distance analysis using the same Flock timestamp put Isaacs past the crash site when the collision happened. “In Lindsey’s case, there was nothing indicating that she was ever there,” he said.

A 911 caller described a maroon Durango and the partial plate “458.” Paint transfer on a struck Ford Focus was maroon. Isaacs’ plate did not match. Witnesses had described three different vehicles: black, white, and maroon. “For some reason, [Florida Highway Patrol] never went past the black Dodge Durango,” McGeehan said. “They hooked onto this black Dodge Durango to the exclusion of everything else.” He called it “confirmation bias, to the highest degree” and “a major failure of basic investigative skills.”

“Lindsey wasn’t even at the crash scene,” he told NewsNation. “These were investigators that got it in their mind that there was a black Dodge Durango involved. They got on Flock, found the first black Dodge Durango, that belonged to Lindsey Isaacs, and pinned that on her.”

Keep reading

George Orwell’s Warning to Britain

Great Britain, where I live, once prided itself on eccentricity, irreverence, and the right to say unpopular things. Today, people living in my country have been arrested over social media posts and other digital communications. Some have been imprisoned. Online censorship has become more sophisticated, surveillance technology continues to advance, and cancel culture has taught millions of people that expressing the wrong opinion can carry severe consequences. As a result, people are self-censoring out of fear of reprisals.

Books have a particular role to play here. They give people permission to explore ideas away from the noise and intimidation of social media. A reader can encounter something privately, consider it, question it, disagree with it, return to it, and perhaps find the confidence to openly express an opinion they had previously been afraid to voice.

This is why my publishing house, Free Speech Press, is launching with a reprint of George Orwell’s 1984.

For this special edition, I asked the British writer and broadcaster Neil Oliver to write a new prologue. Neil travelled back, intellectually and geographically, to the circumstances in which Orwell created his final novel.

What follows is an extract from that prologue:


George Orwell was dying when he wrote 1984. Like the setting sun, he had travelled into the west: to Jura, the Deer Island in the Inner Hebrides off Scotland’s west coast. George Orwell was his nom de plume – Eric Arthur Blair is on the stone over his clay in the churchyard of All Saints’ Church in Sutton Courtenay, in Oxfordshire – and 1984 would be his swan song. As well as dying (he did not know it then) he was grieving the loss of his wife. It was with his sister Avril then, that he arrived at the lonely farmhouse of Barnhill in the north of the island in May of 1946. Eileen Orwell had died the year before, during a hysterectomy, and the couple’s son Richard joined father and aunt, along with housekeeper Susan Watson later that summer.

Barnhill was remote and on the point of being reclaimed by the elements, until the infusion of life, lives saddened, and from an unlikely source. Jura can be hard to love. Sparsely populated then as now, a place of blanket bog and bare rock. Getting to Barnhill was a matter of two ferries – first to Islay, second to Jura – then 20 miles by motor vehicle until the road dwindled and the last four had to be covered on foot. Food, fuel and the rest had to be carried along with everything else required. “Extremely un-get-atable” is how Orwell described their billet, and he loved it. He was middle-class – a literary type, obviously – and while he had written about the travails of the workers – including the degraded and degrading lives of coal miners and their families in Lancashire and Yorkshire in The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) – and had put in time in self-inflicted poverty as a Down and Out in Paris and London (1933) – by 1946 he still hankered after the hardship of other men’s lives, and the possibilities of a life lived far from the madding crowd.

If it sounds as though I am being unkind, it is not my intention. 1984 was a book I was given to read at school and along with many I have had reasons to think about George Orwell over and over in the years since. Most recently, when it has seemed for all the world as though his last novel is received and used less as dire warning of totalitarianism and more a must have How To handbook for would-be dictators everywhere, I have learned to see the author as nothing less than a seer.

That he was drawn to the Deer Island for the writing of it says to me that his last months and years were ordained for a vision, or a dreary dream the telling of which was nothing less than a calling, or perhaps a penance. It is Highland tradition that deer, the Red Deer, are portents of death. When the deer come down out of the hills and walk the streets of human habitations, their fleur-de-lis hooves clipping through the quiet dark, it is deep sadness they are foretelling. Dying of Tuberculosis still undiagnosed, though it had him coughing red blood while he wrote and wrote within the white walls of Barnhill, he and the world around him were also grieving all that had been lost in the World War just past. It was a shell-shocked world, and Orwell no stranger to its ways. Homage to Catalonia (1938) had been the product of his time fighting Fascism in the Spanish Civil War, and there he had been shot through the throat by a sniper, the wounding leaving him with a voice rendered faint. 

Made gaunt anyway by war’s privations, broken hearted, during that harsh cradling on Jura he saw the future as clear as any Highlander gifted or cursed with the Second Sight. The future he saw was populated by citizens denied hope, made hopeless. Everything shaped to grind souls to lifeless matter. Tasteless food, ill-made and ill-fitting clothes. War everywhere and forever, pointlessly consuming whatever the proles made in soul-sapping factories. No privacy. Big Brother watching over all. The world of 1984 is as familiar to my generation as a half-remembered dream and yet for so many of us the last handful of years have had us sense its version of reality not as a dream but as an inevitability. Big Brother is made real in the apparatus of panopticon surveillance and those we are expected to call leaders foment war after war. 

Keep reading

“No Help for a White Man”: Inmate Found Dead in Feces-Filled South Carolina Jail Cell After Water Was Cut Off — Autopsy Finally Rules HOMICIDE After Two Months

A South Carolina inmate who told his family he was being intentionally starved inside the Chesterfield County Detention Center has now been ruled a homicide victim, nearly two months after jailers found his dehydrated, emaciated body on the floor of a feces-covered cell with the water shut off.

Gary Donald “Bubba” Blair, 43, was found lifeless on the floor of his E Pod cell at the Chesterfield County Detention Center on July 24. The cell was covered in inches-deep feces.

For context, Blair was not serving time for a violent crime. Deputies arrested him on February 22 after he showed up at his sister’s house wearing a Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office golf shirt, a security badge, handcuffs, and pepper spray. He was charged with impersonating a law enforcement officer.

A judge later found him incompetent to stand trial but restorable with treatment and ordered the South Carolina Office of Mental Health to take him on June 3. The agency never did. Officials cited a nine-month backlog. Blair sat in the county jail for another 51 days and died there. His family says he has suffered from serious mental illness since age 18.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Governor Defends State Taking Catholic Couple’s Daughter Away After They Refused to Call Her a Boy

Democrat Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey is defending the Department of Children and Families after Catholic parents accused the state of seizing their teenage daughter because they would not refer to her as a boy.

Healey told reporters the removal had nothing to do with gender, but the family’s lawyer says that is not true.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko of Southborough say they have not spoken to their daughter, Sophie, since late 2024.

The child was 15 when DCF took her, and she is now 17.

The couple claims that Algonquin Regional High School began using a male name and pronouns for their daughter without telling them.

They have said that a school counselor reported the family after they refused, on Catholic and scientific grounds, to treat the girl as a boy.

“They exposed our daughter to teachings on LGBTQ and topics that conflict with our Catholic beliefs about human dignity, creation as male and female in Catholic teaching,” Joseph Kutzko said on the Lighthouse Faith podcast.

Massachusetts law allows schools to use a student’s chosen name and pronouns without notifying parents, a practice that has survived federal court challenges in other cases.

The parents say DCF has housed Sophie in a boys’ dormitory, put her on birth control and psychiatric drugs, and kept her from Sunday Mass.

A permanent restraining order bars the parents and an older brother from contact.

Attorney Vernadette Broyles of the Child and Parental Rights Campaign says the state is now seeking court permission to give the girl high-dose testosterone. A judge temporarily blocked that treatment. The next hearing is October 29.

Healey was asked about the case after an event in Boston this week.

“Let me be clear about the facts in that matter,” she said, according to a Boston Herald report. “First of all, DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents, including the father. As you know, DCF is responsible for the care and well-being of kids, and that’s what happened in this instance.”

Healey added that the matter is “currently a subject of criminal prosecution right now against the parents,” then declined further comment while insisting the child “was not removed because of a gender-affirming care issue.”

Keep reading

Grandmother jailed for six months after facial recognition mistake launches $10 million lawsuit against Fargo and detective

A Tennessee grandmother who spent six months in jail after facial recognition tech falsely linked her to a North Dakota bank fraud investigation now wants compensation for what happened. Angela Lipps is suing the City of Fargo and a Fargo Police Department detective for $10 million over the incident, which led to the loss of her home, car, and dog.

In July 2025, a team of US Marshals arrested 50-year-old Lipps in Tennessee at gunpoint while she was babysitting four young children. She was booked into the county jail in Tennessee as a fugitive from justice wanted in North Dakota.

The arrest stemmed from an investigation into bank fraud cases in April and May 2025. Detectives reportedly reviewed video of a woman using a fake US army ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars.

By using facial recognition software, the investigators identified Lipps as a possible match. She was charged with eight felonies, the most serious of which carried a 10-year prison sentence.

But Lipps had never been to North Dakota in her life, and bank records later confirmed she was more than 1,200 miles away at the time of the alleged crime.

She was held in a Tennessee county jail for 108 days before being transported to North Dakota. Jail staff allegedly denied her access to her dentures and medication for extended periods.

Keep reading

The Constitution Can’t Protect You If You Don’t Protect It

“What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution have been so distorted in the past 200 years as to be unrecognizable by the Founders? What if the government was the reason we don’t have a Constitution anymore? What if freedom’s greatest hour of danger is now?”—Andrew P. Napolitano

What’s the point in celebrating the Constitution one day a year if we permit the government to violate it the other 364?

September 17 marks the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, a document designed not merely to establish a government but to restrain it.

Yet restraint is in increasingly short supply.

Across the political spectrum, Americans continue to tolerate abuses of power so long as those abuses are carried out by the “right” people, against the “wrong” people, or in the name of some emergency deemed too important to question.

That is how constitutional government dies.

Not all at once. Not with the Constitution formally abolished or the Bill of Rights ripped from the National Archives.

It dies by degrees: through executive power that expands while congressional authority withers; emergency powers that never quite disappear; wars waged with little regard for constitutional restraints; surveillance systems capable of tracking whole populations; federal agents empowered to operate with ever less accountability; military forces normalized on American streets; and courts that too often allow questions of standing, immunity and procedure to determine whether unconstitutional conduct will ever be confronted on its merits.

Every such precedent makes the next abuse easier. Every exception becomes a justification. Every temporary power becomes harder to claw back.

And every time Americans excuse an unconstitutional act because they approve of the person wielding the power, they help dismantle another guardrail meant to protect them when someone they distrust eventually takes control.

That is the danger we face.

The Constitution was never intended to depend upon the goodwill of those in power.

Quite the opposite.

Those who drafted the Constitution understood that power corrupts, that governments inevitably seek more authority, and that liberty survives only when power is divided, constrained, challenged and made answerable to the people.

The Constitution creates friction intentionally.

Keep reading

EU’s Social Media Ban Could Bring ID Checks for Adults

As expected, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced that the EU Kids Act will propose that no child under 13 should be allowed on social media, while 13 and 14-year-olds should have limited accounts.

The announcement, just in time for the EU’s planned digital ID rollout, was made in von der Leyen’s State of the European Union address in Strasbourg on Wednesday.

According to von der Leyen, the Act would ensure that “no social media under the age of 13. No personal account under the age of 15.”

Children between the ages of 13 and 14 will be allowed a limited account, with a limited set of features, and with a time limit of one hour a day, and parents will have to set up and supervise these “mini accounts.”

Von der Leyen also said that the Act would reverse the burden of proof, so that instead of regulators having to prove that a service is unsafe, it will be up to the platforms to prove that their product is safe for minors.

The Commission President also took aim at Big Tech, saying, “I am aware that many perceive the power of big tech as overwhelming and impossible to roll back. I disagree.” She added, “Europe has the power to act. It is us who decide the rules, not Big Tech.”

The scope of the Act will cover social media, video sharing platforms, app stores, online games, as well as AI companions and chatbots, with a focus on “high-risk” services, although the definition of that category is not yet clear.

Other rules that have been reported as part of the Act are age checks for every new account, with existing users also subject to “proportionate” checks, taking into account the time they have been subscribed to a service. Verification will be done via an app, either the one developed by the Commission or a national equivalent. These apps will only return information about whether a user is over or under a certain age.

The draft also reportedly seeks to ban certain design features, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications, as well as artificial notifications and rewards. The text is said to state that “technology companies bear primary responsibility for making their products safe.”

Fines for non-compliance can reach up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover, while a supervisory fee will be introduced to make sure the Commission can enforce the new rules.

The Commission’s app was presented by von der Leyen in April in Brussels, and at the time, she said it was “fully open source. Everyone can check the code.”

But security consultant Paul Moore took the Commission up on that and found that the app stores sensitive data on phones and leaves it unprotected. According to Moore, he was able to hack the app in under two minutes.

The Commission first responded to this by saying the app was ready and could always be improved. A week later, a spokesperson described the version presented as “a demo version.”

Keep reading

DOJ Sues San Jose, Alleging $1,600 Firearm Fee Is Unconstitutional

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose, California, alleging that its nearly $1,600 firearm licensing fee infringes the Second Amendment right to carry firearms for self-defense. The fee has risen by about $300 over three fiscal years to $1,591.

“San Jose is a national outlier when it comes to burdening the exercise of fundamental rights. Its fees are abusive and violate the Second Amendment,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in the Sept. 16 lawsuit.

The DOJ asked the court to issue permanent injunctive relief that would prevent defendants from imposing any “abusive licensing fees.” The San Jose Police Department is also a defendant in the case.

“The City’s law enforcement officers are charged with enforcing its abusive licensing scheme and are doing so. Such law enforcement misconduct is unlawful,” the DOJ added.

In Washington, the nation’s capital, a concealed carry license costs $75, while in New York, a handgun license costs $340. In Boston, the nonrenewable processing fee for a license to carry is $100. And in Philadelphia, a new license to carry firearms costs only $20.

Compared with other California locations, such as San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Clara, and Alameda County, San Jose’s fees are still high, the DOJ said in the complaint.

Keep reading

Friedrich Merz Again Calls For An End To Online Anonymity

German Chancellor and CDU leader Friedrich Merz is once again advocating for an end to online anonymity.

Merz spoke at the Chancellery in Berlin on Tuesday, where he received the winners of the 61st federal “Jugend forscht” youth research competition, and took their questions. The event was streamed live by the government.

One of the participants asked Merz about introducing a real-name requirement on the internet, and how it could be reconciled with the work of informants, investigative journalism, and the need to sometimes be able to communicate anonymously.

Merz’s answer did not address the question of journalism at all. Instead, he spoke about the difficulties in establishing who is behind an online message, and who to hold responsible, as well as the proliferation of messages generated by bots.

“Please, nobody come to me with free speech. This has nothing more to do with free speech,” Merz said. Free speech, he continued, is “at best” a libertarian understanding of politics out of parts of the United States, “that I personally do not share.”

A liberal society, he went on, must be able to protect its citizens “from false information, from personal denigration, from discrimination.”

Merz, who “grew up in the analog world” said he often wonders if the digital world should be allowed to have “completely different rules.”

In the old world, he said, if a newspaper published false information, one could take action against it, and this, he said, created a certain “hygiene.”

In the digital world, Merz is unhappy that people can use pseudonyms, abbreviations, or made-up names, “and we have enormous difficulty establishing at all who is responsible for it. Is it the platforms or is it the authors themselves? And if so, who actually are the authors?”

He mentioned the “coarsening of manners” and the role of bots in generating messages. According to Merz, his party’s (CDU) competitor, AfD, had benefited in Saxony-Anhalt from messages generated by bots.

It is essential to protect personality rights and “our democracy,” Merz said.

He did allow that there are good reasons to allow for anonymous expression, but did not go into any of them.

It’s also important to note that Merz was not announcing any new policy, bill, or law, and was answering a question from a teenager.

Keep reading