The FBI says it stopped a potential mass shooting at the Mall of America in Minnesota. In FBI Director Kash Patel’s own words, “Today the FBI arrested an individual who allegedly obtained a weapon to carry out an attack in support of ISIS.” “Allegedly” isn’t an appropriate choice of words because weapons were actually obtained, and those weapons were given to the suspect by the FBI. Here’s some important context… Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud was 16 when the FBI began communicating with him through a confidential source in December 2024. According to federal prosecutors, the teenager spent almost two years discussing terrorism, joining ISIS and carrying out a mass-casualty attack. By July 2026, prosecutors say Mohamud had identified the Mall of America as his target and talked about killing as many as 60 people. He later discussed obtaining a gun, recruiting others and pledged allegiance to ISIS. The FBI then stepped in with what it described as an intervention. On Oct. 6, undercover agents arranged to sell Mohamud an AK-47, four magazines and approximately 200 rounds of ammunition for $600. Mohamud went forward with the deal and was arrested shortly afterward. The government says the operation prevented a planned attack. Yes, but the FBI also played a direct role in the operation that led to the planned attack, which gives the impression of entrapment. And why did it take nearly two years for the investigation to culminate in a weapons transaction? One could say they were grooming him, keeping Mohamud, a child at the time, in their back pocket. Were they waiting until he could be prosecuted as a man, right before Minnesota’s general election? Because, after all, it wouldn’t look good for the FBI to sell weapons to a child. No one should applaud this as a success if the FBI helped him get weapons. Also, this is a minor. He should’ve been flagged for help not watched for entrapment. The post The Two-Year Road to an Arrest appeared first on Redacted.

A woman in her 70s became eligible for Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program after experiencing what she felt was a devastating loss: She could no longer cook the weekly Sunday meals that had brought her family together. According to University of Toronto psychologists Gary Rodin and Madeline Li, the woman had come to believe that losing this role meant losing her value to her family. Based on this, she was approved for MAiD, but counseling changed her perspective. She realized her family valued her presence, not her ability to cook, and ultimately decided against MAiD. Her family still wanted her at the table. MAiD has faced criticism for being presented as an option before other forms of support, including counseling, are fully explored. Life can be difficult, and a counselor can help people work through challenges and feelings of hopelessness. Given the seriousness and finality of the outcome, it seems counseling should be a mandatory first step. Yet not only is it not required first, but MAiD is also being presented as the easier path. There are also situations where patients’ wishes were not respected, including individuals who reportedly expressed that they did not want to die, yet their lives were ended through MAiD anyway. Those who did consent likely expected the process to be peaceful and free of suffering. That may not have been the reality in every case, though. Ontario reported complications in 1.8% of MAiD deaths in 2023, including failed IV access, the need for additional dosing and unexpected drug reactions. MAiD began as a compassionate option for serious and incurable health issues, but has expanded far beyond its original scope. The program now allows for assisted dying for those who struggle with financial burdens, as well as ending lives on the same day that they submit their paperwork requesting it, after the previous 10-day reflection period was removed. Why eliminate the waiting period when it gives patients more time to reconsider their decision or seek counseling? Or maybe that’s the point. Canada legalized MAiD in 2016, and cases have since surged. The program now accounts for about 5% of Canadian deaths, and that number is expected to grow. Honestly this woman should never have made it to any initial stages of approval for just not being able to cook. Especially when DoorDash is an option. The post MAiD: When Death is Presented as the Easier Option appeared first on Redacted.

Israel’s own warmongering may be leading its people into a civil war. According to Drop Site News, a classified CIA report titled “Fracture From Within” was produced by the CIA’s Red Cell, a unit tasked with challenging conventional assumptions and examining worst-case scenarios. The report found that mounting political, economic and social divisions inside Israel could escalate into civil conflict or even state collapse. After years of unnecessary wars, is it really surprising that the country is now facing so much conflict from within? Israel’s attacks on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran have placed enormous strain on Israeli society. Thousands of reservists have endured repeated deployments, disrupting families and civilian life, while some veterans suffering severe psychological effects from the war have returned home traumatized and heavily armed. At the same time, the country remains divided over the military draft. Ultra-Orthodox exemptions have become increasingly controversial as reservists are repeatedly called back into combat. Economic strain is taking its toll as well. Military spending in Israel has surged while households face higher living costs. The CIA reportedly warned that these worsening economic conditions could intensify political division. Recent polling has shown both the Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu blocs struggling to reach the 61 seats required to govern. The assessment reportedly considered the possibility that political struggles could develop into a broader constitutional crisis. The report was generated by the CIA. Do we trust it? Do we trust anything the CIA has its hand in? Many would say no. But even so, there are some apparent truths in the report. As the Israeli government wages its wars, everyday citizens are bound to suffer the consequences of its destructive agenda, just as U.S. citizens are taking a hit as Washington continues to support Israel’s war efforts. The post CIA Warns Israel Could Face Civil War appeared first on Redacted.

The federal government is shifting toward a greater focus on people who say they were injured by vaccines. This would mean the very entity that was responsible for forcefully harming the public now wants to help. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Monday that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will launch a research effort examining reported vaccine injuries. Kennedy introduced the initiative during a visit to the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. Part of the effort will include a new NIH clinic established to treat patients harmed by vaccines. Really? They’ve set up a clinic within the NIH, the same institution where Dr. Anthony Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases? Who would feel comfortable putting their trust in this clinic? Even though the NIH is the same place that allowed vaccine injury, at least this is the first time they’ve acknowledged that it’s a real thing, after years of having no solutions for those who are vaccine injured. Another proposal would provide financial incentives for doctors who report suspected vaccine injuries. So they went from silencing reports of vaccine injuries to shelling out financial incentives to those who report them. Keep in mind that while they roll out this initiative to help those harmed by vaccines and prevent future harm, they are continuing, on a daily basis, to push these same vaccines while also expanding the mRNA platform into the public’s trusted flu vaccine. A truly genuine effort to protect the public would have been to focus on getting vaccines off the shelves. The post The NIH Wants to Help the Vaccine Injured? appeared first on Redacted.

The woman at the center of the alleged Cornell gang-rape claims that the university fostered a culture in which sexual violence could flourish. But her own text messages raise an even more unsettling question: Was she attending the very kind of institution that helped make this possible? Days after the encounter, she reportedly described herself as “really open minded” and wrote that “sexuality and sex” were changing, that everyone needed to “grow up,” and that experiences like hers would become more common. As she sobered up and the days passed, however, that certainty appeared to collapse. Her messages became increasingly distressed, and she later said that most of what happened had not been consensual. We cannot know precisely what she consented to. She may have recognized coercion only afterward. She may have consented to some acts but not others. Or she may have discovered that an experience she accepted in the moment violated her conscience more deeply than she anticipated. But the messages appear to capture a devastating collision: the permission offered by progressive sexual ideology at war with a young woman’s own conscience. She may have been trying to understand an extreme and potentially traumatic experience through a worldview that taught her to interpret transgression as openness and openness as progress. She did not invent that worldview. In fact, it was fostered in American academia where it still thrives. The father of modern sex education was a man named Alfred Kinsey. In 1947, he founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University. It still operates today as the Kinsey Institute. Kinsey was not an impartial scientist. He was a pervert. He practiced sadomasochism, deliberately injured his own genitals and reportedly circumcised himself with a pocketknife. He filmed masturbation, heterosexual and homosexual intercourse, and sadomasochistic acts in the attic of his home, sometimes involving members of his research team, their spouses and Kinsey himself. His research involving children was even more horrifying. Kinsey published tables cataloguing supposed “orgasms” in children, including infants. Some of his most detailed figures came from the records of a single adult male who claimed to have sexually abused children and timed their physical reactions. Kinsey treated those records not primarily as evidence of child abuse, but as scientific data about childhood sexuality. This was the man whose personal practices, political mission and research became entangled in an academic campaign to redefine sexual normality. He did not simply document and incite a sexual revolution. He helped give it the authority of science. Mary Calderone later carried that project into American institutions. The former Planned Parenthood medical director founded SIECUS, which helped move sex education beyond reproduction and disease prevention and into questions of identity, pleasure, values and social change. SIECUS eventually produced national sexuality-education guidelines for children from kindergarten through 12th grade and today openly calls itself “Sex Ed for Social Change.” These are the people at the center of the accuser’s worldview that “sexuality and sex” is changing. They would applaud what happened in that fraternity bedroom. Of course, we do not know this woman’s major, which courses she took or whether she ever encountered Kinsey’s name. But these ideas were hardly foreign to Cornell. During the semester of the alleged incident, the university offered a course called Sexual Citizenship, examining how culture, peers and physical spaces shape students’ interpretations of sex and sexual assault. Cornell maintains a Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies program, while university materials tell parents that students may encounter instruction about both the “risks and pleasures” of sexuality. Perhaps she never studied this history directly. She did not have to. At most American universities, it is basically in the water. None of this excuses the behavior of the young people involved. But universities cannot spend generations dismantling sexual boundaries, proclaim transgression to be liberation and then absolve themselves when students are harmed in the pursuit of sexual freedom. Neither can parents who send their children into these institutions without questioning the values being taught. We collectively helped create this culture, allowed it to persist, and now we cannot pretend to be surprised by its consequences. The post Did Cornell Teach the Culture It Now Condones? appeared first on Redacted.