UK Government Warns Against VPNs, Caught Using Them Themselves

The UK’s technology secretary urged citizens to think twice before using virtual private networks (VPNs) to bypass the country’s new oppressive online digital ID checks, framing it as a matter of child safety. His comments have landed awkwardly, given that many MPs, including senior ministers, rely on taxpayer-funded VPN subscriptions themselves.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Peter Kyle warned: “For everybody out there who’s thinking about using VPNs, let me say this to you directly: verifying your age keeps a child safe. Keeps children safe in our country, so let’s just not try to find a way around.”

Politico reported that official spending records show parliamentarians across party lines have been billing the public for commercial VPN services.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds charged taxpayers for a two-year NordVPN subscription in April 2024.

Labour MP Sarah Champion, who in 2022 pressed the government to investigate whether teenage VPN use could undermine online safety rules, also has a subscription on record.

The government says it has no intention of outlawing VPNs but admits it is monitoring how young people use them. This comes after a sharp increase in downloads following the rollout of mandatory digital ID checks under the new censorship law, the Online Safety Act.

For security experts, VPNs are not a subversive tool but a vital one.

The real danger lies in the age verification industry itself.

Keep reading

The Government Seized 7 Horses From a Georgia ‘Urban Cowboy.’ A Court Says He Can Sue.

The Constitution pledges that the government cannot take your property without “just compensation.” So if that happens, and no statute passed by the legislature applies to your specific case, can you sue?

That this is even a question may sound, at a minimum, harebrained. After all, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But whether or not that promise—as found in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause—is effectively an empty one when it is not paired with a relevant law is a matter of active legal debate.

A federal court attempted to answer it last week in a case that hinged on, of all things, a local “urban cowboy.”

Fulton County, Georgia, seized seven horses from Brandon “Brannu” Fulton in 2017 after he was charged with animal cruelty. (The identical last name here is an unfortunate coincidence for the sake of clarity, but we will persevere.) Those charges were later dropped. But the government still declined to return the animals to Fulton—long ago dubbed Atlanta’s Urban Cowboy after his affinity for riding into town on horseback—nor would it compensate him for their value. One of those horses, he said, is worth $35,000.

Fulton (the man, not the county) sued under Section 1983, the federal statute that allows plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against state and local governments for violating their constitutional rights. But his suit was ultimately doomed by the Monell doctrine, which shields municipalities from facing liability for such claims unless a plaintiff can pinpoint an official government policy or custom that caused the alleged violation.

Fulton (the county, not the man) didn’t have an applicable policy. And for procedural reasons, the Urban Cowboy’s claims were barred under state law, as well. So he sought to rein back and redirect his complaint to sue directly under the Takings Clause itself.

In what is somewhat of a seismic opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said he could. “Our Constitution explicitly promises exactly two remedies: ‘just compensation’ if the government takes our property, and the writ of habeas corpus if it tries to take our lives or liberty,” wrote Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum for the majority. “And the Constitution delivers directly on each. It doesn’t taunt us by naming these remedies but then holding them out of reach, depending on the whims of the legislature.”

Many had hoped the Supreme Court would answer this exact question just last year. In DeVillier v. Texas, the justices heard a case brought by people whose property was damaged after the state constructed highway barriers that diverted massive amounts of floodwater onto their private land. Texas did not contest that the Takings Clause necessitates just compensation for people whose private property is taken by the government. But it promptly had the case moved to federal court, where it argued it could not be sued for damages because Congress has not passed a relevant statute ordering Texas to abide by the Takings Clause.

The 5th Circuit agreed.

The Supreme Court did not. In a unanimous opinion, the justices ruled that the plaintiffs could sue Texas—in state court. Yet while the Court agreed the property owners could invoke a state law cause of action, it did not address the broader dispute over whether a legislative cause of action is required at all. “Our precedents do not cleanly answer the question whether a plaintiff has a cause of action arising directly under the Takings Clause,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. “But, this case does not require us to resolve that question.”

Keep reading

Another powerful Democrat nabbed by U.S. Attorney Leah Foley

U.S. Attorney Leah Foley has become the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s worst nightmare.

Foley nabbed yet another powerful Democratic elected official on Friday, indicting longtime Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins for extorting a Boston cannabis company executive.

Tompkins, who has loomed large on the Boston political scene, allegedly demanded a $50,000 “pre-equity interest” in the cannabis company right before it went public with an IPO, according to Foley’s office.

“His alleged actions are an affront to taxpayers who elected him to his position, and the many dedicated and honest public servants at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department,” Foley said in a statement.

Tompkins is the most prominent Democrat in a string of indictments that Foley has secured this year, including Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson on a bribery charge and state Rep. Chris Flanagan on wire fraud.

Anderson eventually resigned in disgrace and is awaiting sentencing. Flanagan is still holding on to his seat in the Legislature.

Foley has single-handedly done more damage to the state Democratic Party than the feeble Massachusetts Republican Party.

She has been a breath of fresh air in this politically corrupt state, doing the job because few have the guts to take on the powerful Democratic establishment.

“Public corruption remains a top priority for my administration and we will continue to investigate and prosecute anyone who uses their position of trust and power for their own gain,” Foley said.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell has been a no-show when it comes to prosecuting political corruption, choosing instead to issue frivolous lawsuits against President Donald Trump.

The Tompkins case exposes the continued culture of corruption in Massachusetts politics. It also exposes the corrupt cannabis industry, where a number of politicians have tried to cash in on the lucrative business.

Tompkins’ predecessor in the Sheriff’s office, Andrea Cabral, left to become a top executive for a Boston area cannabis company, Ascend Cannabis, which looms as a likely player in the Tompkins case.

The indictment charges that Tompkins tried to bully a cannabis executive to give him the early $50,000 equity stake in exchange for cooperating in a program the Suffolk Sheriff’s office was participating in with the company. The company was hiring ex-cons from jail to work for the cannabis firm.

The indictment never names the cannabis company or executive, but according to a 2018 story in the Boston Globe, Cabral’s company “plans to work directly with the Suffolk County Sheriff to hire people recently released from jail as workers at its facilities.”

Cabral and Tompkins were also college classmates and close friends, according to the story.

Tompkins “is downright enthusiastic about the partnership,” the fawning Globe story went on to say.

“We’re a nation of second chances, or at least that’s what they used to tell us,” Tompkins was quoted as saying. “If someone who hasn’t had good opportunities in life can catch on and make a decent living? It’s awesome. There’s no squeamishness on my part at all.”

Now we know just why Tompkins wasn’t so “squeamish.” He was allegedly planning to make a pile of cash on the deal as well.

Keep reading

The Government Is Not Your Friend

This week’s guilty verdict for Roman Storm on the count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money service business is absolutely insane.

FinCEN, the regulator responsible for licensing, monitoring, and enforcement actions concerning criminal activity in money transmission has itself explicitly stated that self-custodial tooling that facilitates the transmission of value using cryptocurrencies are not money transmitters and are not subject to the relevant regulations.

So, how did we get here? Eight months after the election of a president who describes himself as a Bitcoin and cryptocurrency advocate, after the Department of Justice themselves have explicitly stated that they are not going to engage in regulation by prosecution, or prosecute mixing services, how was Roman Storm found guilty?

There is nothing to describe this situation except pure, unbridled insanity. Incoherence. Hypocrisy and contradiction. There is a lesson here, though, one that I think it’s time more people in this space learn. 

The government’s word is worthless. It means nothing. 

They will continue cracking down on privacy, they will continue pushing KYC surveillance through things like the GENIUS Act and through the backdoor, applying them to just stablecoins (for now). They will continue treating the desire for privacy as evidence of criminal intent. They will do all these things while talking out of the other side of their mouth about supporting Bitcoiners and the “importance of self custody.” 

This is what the government does. This is what politicians do. It is inherent in their very nature. 

We need to stop treating these people as our friends. We need to stop pretending and lying to ourselves that they can be won over and become powerful allies to push the values and tools that we wish to see in the world. They are not our friends. They will not become allies, sharing a common cause with us. They are our enemies. 

It is time to stop pretending. These people must be treated as hostile, and dealt with as such. 

We need to stop begging them for clauses and riders in bills. We need to take them to court. We need to stop kissing their ass and pandering to their egos and notion of public persona. We need to call them out as the two-faced spineless people they are. 

If there is any legitimacy whatsoever to the legal foundations of the United States government, we do not need new laws, we do not need these people’s permission — we have the Constitution. Remind them of that in court. 

If, at the end of all of that, this system is so corrupt and hypocritical that it functionally ignores the constitutional rights of Americans (and non-Americans), then we need to ignore them.

Keep reading

FBI Arrests Sanctuary County Sheriff in Massachusetts After Cannabis Retailer Extortion Investigation

The FBI announced the arrest of a sheriff from Suffolk County, Massachusetts, on charges of extortion. The arrest of the immigration sanctuary county sheriff follows an investigation into allegations that he extorted $50,000 from a Boston-based cannabis company.

FBI agents arrested Sheriff Steven W. Tompkins on Friday in the Southern District of Florida, according to a statement released by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. He will be transported to Boston after an appearance in the Florida federal court.

Tompkins is charged by indictment for two counts of Extortion under Color of Official Right. He allegedly extorted $50,000 from the owner of a national cannabis retailer based in Boston.

“Mr. Tompkins is a sitting Sheriff, responsible for over 1,000 employees, who was elected by the good people of Suffolk County,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Ted E. Docks said in a written statement. “Today, he is alleged to have extorted an executive from a cannabis company, using his official position as Sheriff to benefit himself.”

Elected officials, particularly those in law enforcement, are expected to be ethical, honest and law abiding – not self-serving,” Docks said. “His alleged actions are an affront to the voters and taxpayers who elected him to his position, and the many dedicated and honest public servants at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department. The people of Suffolk County deserve better.”

Court records reveal that the cannabis company sought to open a retail cannabis dispensary in Boston. Following the application with the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, Sheriff Tompkins allegedly pressured one of the owners to obtain stock in the venture. After increasing pressure from the sheriff, he wired a $50,000 payment for shares in the company.

The stock eventually decreased in value to the point that the sheriff allegedly lost money in his investment and demanded a refund of the $50,000. The individual refunded the money in smaller payments, labeling them as “loan repayments” to disguise the nature of the payments, prosecutors stated.

Keep reading

How To Make America Great Again

Donald Trump and his supporters were certain that by restoring him to the presidency, they could make America great again. They are going to be as sorely disappointed at the end of Trump’s term in office as they were after his first term in office. Trump will not make America great again.

The problem, however, is not Donald Trump. The fact is that no one can make America great again — at least not if America maintains the same political and economic systems that have characterized our nation for almost 100 years. It is those systems that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to making America great again, no matter who is elected president.

Unfortunately, however, conservative Americans are not ready to accept that. They are convinced that by electing Trump and then vesting him with unchecked, omnipotent power, he will be the “man on the white horse” who will make America great again.

It won’t happen. At the end of this road to national “greatness” lies an increasingly weakened, dysfunctional society — one in which liberty and privacy have been destroyed — one in which the American people will be existing as subservient, dependent, and fearful serfs whose purpose in life is simply to serve the state and the greater good of society.

There is one — and only one — way for America to be great again. That way is to restore the sound, founding principles of liberty of our nation and then build on them.

Obviously, this entails deep soul-searching of how we started as a nation and how we ended up where we are today. It also requires Americans to think at a higher level — one that involves principles and ideals. Let’s examine what needs to be done to restore greatness to our land.

The national-security state

America’s founding political system was a limited-government republic, one that was characterized by three separate and independent branches, with a very small military force falling under the control of the executive branch. The Constitution, which called the federal government into existence, prohibited the government from killing people without “due process of law,” a term that encompasses notice of charges and a hearing or trial where the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed some crime. The Bill of Rights guaranteed that the accused had the right to trial by a jury composed at random from regular citizens in the community. The Bill of Rights also prohibited the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments.

All that changed in the late 1940s, when the federal government was converted into what is called a national-security state. It effectively involved a fourth branch of government consisting of the Pentagon, a vast and powerful military establishment, an empire of domestic and foreign military bases, the CIA, the NSA, and, to a certain extent, the FBI.

Although this conversion took place without a constitutional amendment, it constituted the most radical change in America’s political system in the history of the country. Over time, the national-security branch became the most powerful branch — the branch to which the other three branches defer, especially in foreign affairs.

Moreover, the constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government disintegrated with the conversion to a national-security state. The Pentagon and the CIA now wielded the power to engage in state-sponsored assassinations, thereby nullifying the constitutional prohibition against killing people without due process of law. They also wielded the power to inflict cruel and unusual punishments on people, including torture. They also now had the power to keep people incarcerated for as long as they wanted, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against indefinite incarceration without trial. They also wielded the power to engage in mass secret surveillance, especially through the NSA. Moreover, once U.S. officials launched their “war on terrorism” after the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA wielded the power to nullify the right of trial by jury and employ trial by military tribunal instead.

It is worth mentioning that all of these omnipotent, dark-side powers apply not just to foreigners but also to American citizens. The fact is that Americans now live under a national-security state system in which their very own government wields the power to assassinate, torture, surveil, and indefinitely detain them. What makes the whole thing so perverse is that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing that all this tyranny is “freedom.”

It’s also worth mentioning that the conversion to a national-security state was accompanied by a foreign policy of foreign wars and interventions, as well as an empire of foreign military bases, which have been used to inflict massive death and destruction on people in foreign lands.

There is one solution to all this: Dismantle the national-security state and restore America’s founding system of a limited-government republic, with just a relatively small, basic military force — one that lacks the capability to engage in foreign wars, interventions, coups, and wars of aggression.

Keep reading

The Payment Giant That Wants to Be Your Digital ID

As European authorities accelerate efforts to introduce centralized digital identity frameworks, Mastercard is working aggressively to insert itself into the core of this transformation.

The payments giant presents its involvement in the EU’s digital ID agenda as a natural extension of its expertise in secure transactions. Under the branding of “convenience” and “trust” is a much deeper issue: a private corporation with a history of controlling access to commerce is helping to shape how individuals will prove their identity across both public and private life.

Michele Centemero, Mastercard’s Executive Vice President for Services in Europe, has publicly endorsed the European Commission’s ambition to roll out the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet to as many as 80 percent of EU citizens by 2030. “By 2030, the European Commission expects up to 80% of EU citizens could use it for everyday tasks like renting a car, signing a lease or verifying age online,” he said. “At Mastercard, we are working to support this evolution.”

According to Centemero, identity verification should feel as seamless as tapping a card. That framing serves Mastercard well, since it also helps justify why a payment processor should be involved in identity infrastructure at all.

The company’s involvement isn’t superficial. Mastercard holds a central role in two major EU-funded pilot programs: the NOBID project and the WE BUILD Consortium.

Both are focused on testing real-world scenarios where identity verification is built directly into the act of making a payment.

Mastercard’s goal is to link verified attributes such as age, student status, or residency to its transaction systems. The result is a system where every purchase can also double as a form of ID verification.

While Mastercard calls this innovation, it also has been accused of tightening its grip on how people access services. The company has already been accused of a willingness to restrict purchases or services based on opaque internal policies. Giving it a hand in identity verification extends that influence into areas that go well beyond finance.

If your access to goods or services depends not just on having the money to pay, but also on Mastercard’s approval of your identity data, the line between public service and corporate control becomes dangerously hard to find.

Online identity verification is already a source of friction for many users. Mastercard points to the fact that over 40 percent of online fraud in Europe involves identity theft and claims that its participation in digital ID development will reduce both risk and inconvenience. But the promise of greater efficiency often masks the loss of autonomy that comes with centralized, corporate-managed identity systems.

The company is also leveraging its role in shaping international standards. Mastercard is a participant in organizations like the FIDO Alliance and EMVCo and is a founding member of the OpenWallet Foundation.

These bodies influence how identity attributes are secured, shared, and verified globally. Mastercard is not only helping define the technical framework; it is working to ensure that its own infrastructure is embedded within it.

Keep reading

“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

Brazilian Woman Granted Refugee Status in Europe After Facing 25-Year Sentence for ‘Misgendering’ Trans Politician

In a precedent-setting move, a European country has officially granted full refugee protections to a Brazilian women’s rights activist who was facing 25 years in prison in her home country for misgendering a transgender politician. Isabella Cêpa is the first person to be recognized as a victim of state persecution for her outspoken opposition to gender identity ideology.

As previously reported by Reduxx, Cêpa first came under criminal investigation after she made a social media post about Erika Hilton – a male politician who “identifies” as a woman. Hilton was elected to São Paulo’s municipal government in November of 2020, winning his seat by a landslide that gave him the title of the most voted-for ‘woman’ in Brazil.

At the time of his victory, Hilton was celebrated in international media as being a “symbolic triumph” for transgender people. Hilton was amongst the top 10 most-voted for candidates in all of Brazil, and was touted as the “only woman” to make the list. 

It was the widespread announcement of his victory that first put him on Cêpa’s radar.

“At the time I didn’t even know who this person was. I just saw a headline on an Instagram page celebrating that ‘the most voted woman in São Paulo is a transwoman,’” Cêpa told Reduxx during a 2022 interview, recounting how her ordeal began. “Then, I shared a video with my followers saying I was disappointed to hear that the most voted-for woman in São Paulo – later found out that it was in the entire country – was a man.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Anti-Crime Order Brings Back Long Term Facilities to House the Mentally Ill and Addicted

President Donald Trump issued a July 24 executive order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.” A record of more than 274,000 individuals were found to be experiencing homelessness. Homelessness often leads to increased crime and fires. Trump’s order pushes local governments to redirect the homeless to “long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment.” Cabinet heads have been instructed to prioritize funding to cities that work to abolish open drug use and camping on the streets. During the Biden administration, from 2022 – 2024, the federal government spent $28 billion, with most of the money going to Democrat cities that include New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Denver, Portland and San Francisco. During this period, homelessness increased by a whopping  33%. 

As of 2025, an estimated 72,308 people experienced homelessness in Los Angeles County. Homelessness is a business, and non-profit organizations are getting rich, in Democrat -majority California. The state currently is “missing” $24 billion in funds intended for the homeless! The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) is set to lose $300 million in funding, about 40% of its $875-million budget. LAHSA the lead agency that coordinates and manages federal, state, county, and city funds for the homeless.

Keep reading