Julie Kelly added new information to the events leading up to the shooting death of Alex Pretti, known in the media as a wronged ICU nurse. ICE killed Alex Pretti this week while he was obstructing justice and resisting arrest. He is on video directing SUVs to form a barricade on the street. It prompted […] The post The Democrat Revolution at Minneapolis Ground Zero appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

When Alex Foley and his partner, Giorgina Martino, brought home their baby girl, it took some time to adjust. A newborn is a lot of work, and it seems like never-ending laundry, feedings, and diaper changes. Alex tried to make the mundane tasks more exciting, so when he changed baby London’s diaper, he sang. Giorgina took a video of one of those moments and posted it on TikTok. Now Alex is a full-blown influencer, and the family can’t believe how life’s changed in just five months. @giorginamartino It’s the lil baby hand for me #newbornbaby #newbornlife #firsttimeparents #sleepdeprived #diaperchange ♬ original sound – Giorgina Martino Alex Foley Just Wanted to Have Some Fun Alexy Foley told People that his songs started as a way to cheer up Giorgina. “In those early weeks, Giorgina was suffering from postpartum depression, and I was honestly just doing whatever I could to make her laugh. It’s my favorite pastime anyway,” he said. “Making up silly songs during diaper changes was one of those things. Eventually, she started filming me when I’d come up with one on the spot.” Alex takes popular songs like Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror” and remixes their lyrics to fit the current state of affairs in London’s diaper. He told People that the singing had made that time fun for him and had kept the baby relaxed. “Diaper changes are usually framed as this stressful or dreaded part of parenting, but for us, they became something our daughter actually looks forward to,” Alex Foley said. “She smiles the whole time, and it’s turned into a moment we all enjoy and look forward to instead of rushing through.” Seeing Alex singing to London just makes people happy. “That’s the greenest flag I’ve ever seen ma’am. You are blessed,” someone shared on TikTok. “My man’s put his entire soul in the ‘change’ at the end,” another person wrote. We agree with this comment. Alex Foly is so much fun. “It’s all great but the way he laughs at himself is everything,” they wrote. This story’s featured image can be found here.

'Real figures are still way higher'

'We cannot fund a Department of Homeland Security that is murdering American citizens'

In the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, which ended on New Year’s Eve, the federal government spent $1,827,134,000,000—and, according to the Treasury Department, ran a deficit of $602,376,000,000. The federal debt closed the calendar year at $38,514,009,184,232.72. That equaled approximately $285,733 for each of the 134,790,000 households there were in the United States in 2025, according to the Census Bureau. What did Congress do when it came back from its Christmas break? It passed a spending bill full of earmarks. On Jan. 8, the Republican-controlled House took up a 407-page spending bill. It funded multiple federal departments and agencies, including the departments of Commerce, Justice, Energy, and the Interior, and also the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Indian Health Service. In total, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill authorized $215,073,000,000 in spending. Large bipartisan coalitions in both houses supported this spending. In the House, it passed 397-28—with 206 Democratic supporters and 191 Republicans. On Jan. 15, it passed 82-15 in the Senate—with 46 Republican supporters and 36 Democrats. After it passed, numerous Democratic senators put out statements to applaud the earmarks it included for their state. “I’m also proud to once again work with countless Wisconsin communities in every corner of the state to deliver direct federal support for projects that address their specific needs,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis. What earmarks did taxpayers from Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Nebraska help fund for communities in Baldwin’s Wisconsin? Among the benefits to Wisconsin, according to Baldwin, were “$406,000 for replacing a water main, two sewer lines, and several fire hydrants and manholes” in Brandon, Wisconsin. Another was “$1,630,000 for replacing the broken watermain and replacing lead service lines” in Nekoosa, Wisconsin. Another was “$1,100,000 for upgrading the raw water service, as well as fixing the well and watermain” in Vesper, Wisconsin. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., put out a similar statement. It declared that Delaware’s congressional “delegation,” including Rochester, Democrat Sen. Chris Coons, and Democrat Rep. Sarah McBride, had “secured over $40 million in funding for more than 30 projects across the First State.” “As Delaware’s sole appropriator, I’m proud to have worked with so many communities and organizations from Wilmington to Seaford to get them the resources they need to continue serving the First State,” said Coons. So what will taxpayers in Arizona, Utah, Montana, and Indiana be paying to fund in Coons’ Delaware? Among other things, $5 million will go to “clean hydrogen-related investments, supporting the University of Delaware’s Center for Clean Hydrogen.” Another $3 million will “support the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), a public-private partnership on the University of Delaware’s campus focused on advancing biopharmaceutical production with private and public measures across the country.” Another $500,000 “will be used for historic preservation efforts of the Grand Opera House,” and another $450,000 “will be used for historic preservation efforts of the Smyrna Opera House.” Democrat Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona also put out a statement celebrating the earmarks they were able to put in this massive spending bill. “I’m proud to have fought to secure more than $32 million for Arizona projects,” said Gallego. “This funding shows exactly how Congressional spending should work, directing federal dollars toward projects that solve real problems in our state, like supporting the City of Chandler’s water supply wells.” “I’m proud to deliver this funding and will keep fighting to make sure Arizona communities get ahead,” said Kelly. Among other things, the earmarks for Arizona will spend $4,200,000 to “provide new police response vehicles for the Tucson Police Department,” and $810,000 to “upgrade handheld radios for the Sahuarita Police Department.” This bill also empowers the federal government to buy up more land in the West. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., published a press release stating that: “The bill includes funding for a $17 million land purchase and a $5 million land purchase, both of privately-owned parcels near Leavenworth in the Upper Wenatchee River watershed, for a total of over 11,000 acres to be managed by the U.S. Forest Service.” From Jan. 20, 2025, to Dec. 31, 2025, when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, the federal debt rose from $36,206,593,315,575.15 to $38,514,009,184,232.72—an increase of $2,307,415,868,657.57. And Democrats are continuing to insert self-serving earmarks into spending bills approved by a Republican-majority Congress. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post Democrats Celebrate Their Earmarks appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Washington lawmakers are advancing two proposals that would expand the state’s control over how 3D printers and similar equipment can be used, citing the spread of untraceable firearms as justification. The measures have raised concern among those who see them as an overreach that risks curbing lawful innovation and digital design freedoms. House Bill 2321 would require that all 3D printers sold in Washington after July 1, 2027, include built-in safeguards that detect and block attempts to produce firearms or firearm components. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. The measure defines these safeguards as “a firearms blueprint detection algorithm,” which must be able to reject such print requests “with a high degree of reliability” and prevent users from disabling or bypassing the control system. To meet the new rule, manufacturers could either embed the detection algorithm directly in a printer’s firmware, integrate it through preprint software, or use an authentication process that screens design files before printing. Companies that fail to comply could be charged with a class C felony, facing penalties of up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. A related bill, House Bill 2320, would prohibit the use of 3D printers, CNC milling machines, or other tools to produce unregistered firearms. It would also make it illegal to distribute or possess digital files capable of creating gun parts. The bill targets both the physical manufacturing of ghost guns and the online exchange of design data used to make them. Representative Osman Salahuddin, who introduced the legislation, said it is meant to close a dangerous gap in state law. “With a 3D printer that costs a few hundred and a digital file that can be downloaded online, someone can now manufacture an untraceable firearm at home,” he said. “No background check, no serial number, and no accountability.” The main problem with all of this is that the algorithm must be built so it cannot be bypassed by a technically skilled user, effectively outlawing the ability to modify a device’s firmware or gain root access to it. In short, tinkering with your own hardware could be treated as a criminal act. Once that model is codified in law, manufacturers would gain a powerful excuse to roll out closed systems that require server authentication or proprietary software to function. The 3D printer would no longer be a tool you own; it would become a managed service, dependent on the company’s servers and subject to its terms. When the server is shut down or the software license expires, the device could simply stop working. There are no provisions in the bill to guarantee continued functionality or support when the manufacturer moves on. This kind of policy invites the same behavior already seen in other industries: forced obsolescence disguised as security. Consumers have watched other “smart” devices turn useless when companies went bankrupt or changed their business models. Embedding mandatory authentication systems into 3D printers guarantees that the same pattern will repeat, except this time, companies can claim they are acting under government mandate. It also poses serious legal and practical problems. Many 3D printers rely on open-source firmware governed by licenses that explicitly permit modification. Mandating that these systems must include unremovable restrictions directly conflicts with those licenses and makes compliance impossible. The bill’s vague definition of “three-dimensional printer” even extends to CNC mills, lathes, and other fabrication tools, threatening far more than just hobbyist printers. The legislation gives the state’s attorney general broad authority to expand what must be blocked in the future, without requiring further legislative approval. That creates a moving target, where new categories of restricted designs could be added at any time, leaving both users and manufacturers scrambling to comply. Supporters of the bill frame it as a matter of public safety, but the mechanism it creates, mandatory, remote-controlled restriction systems, would normalize the idea that ownership of physical devices is conditional. It would turn open hardware into closed platforms and give manufacturers a built-in justification to lock down, disable, or replace products at will. The real question is not whether people should be allowed to 3D print guns; it is whether the state should empower corporations to decide what a person is allowed to do with their own machine. The structure of this law would make permanent the shift from ownership to permission, one firmware update at a time. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post New Washington Legislation Makes 3D Printers Surveillance Tools appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Federal investigators obtained access to encrypted computers for the first time through Microsoft’s own recovery keys, a move that has intensified long-standing concerns about how much control the company retains over user data. The development emerged from United States v. Tenorio, a fraud case in Guam tied to alleged misuse of pandemic unemployment funds. Investigators believed three laptops contained evidence of the scheme. When they discovered the machines were protected with BitLocker, the encryption system built into Windows, they turned to Microsoft. BitLocker is designed to shield all files on a drive by scrambling the data so it can’t be read without a recovery key. Since Windows 10, the system has been enabled automatically on many new PCs. When users sign in with a Microsoft account, those recovery keys are usually uploaded to Microsoft’s servers for convenience. That same design, however, quietly gives the company the technical ability to hand those keys over when faced with a lawful demand. Microsoft confirmed that it complied with the FBI’s warrant, saying it provides recovery keys only when required by law. “While key recovery offers convenience, it also carries a risk of unwanted access, so Microsoft believes customers are in the best position to decide… how to manage their keys,” a spokesperson said. According to the spokesperson, the company receives roughly 20 such requests each year, though it cannot always fulfill them because many users never upload their keys to the cloud. The disclosure is believed to be the first known case where Microsoft has given any encryption key to US law enforcement. For years, company engineers had maintained that BitLocker contained no “backdoors” or secret access methods. One engineer publicly stated in 2013 that he had refused a government request to add such capabilities. The incident sets Microsoft apart from other major technology companies that have built systems designed to prevent themselves from accessing user encryption keys. Apple, for instance, faced down the FBI in 2016 after the agency tried to compel it to unlock the iPhones of the San Bernardino shooters. Apple refused, and the FBI ultimately paid a private contractor to break into the device. Google and Meta have taken similar steps to encrypt user backups with keys the companies cannot retrieve. By contrast, Microsoft’s account-based key storage keeps the door open for government access. When encryption keys are saved to Microsoft’s cloud, they are effectively within reach of legal orders from any government with jurisdiction over the company. Users can avoid this by setting up a local Windows account and manually storing their keys offline, but that process has become less visible and less encouraged with newer versions of Windows. Court filings confirm that the search warrant was executed and that prosecutors later disclosed data from one defendant’s computer referencing BitLocker keys Microsoft had provided. Charissa Tenorio, one of the defendants, has pleaded not guilty. Without Microsoft’s cooperation, the FBI would have faced steep technical barriers. Internal documents from Homeland Security Investigations have previously acknowledged that agents “do not possess the forensic tools to break into devices encrypted with Microsoft BitLocker, or any other style of encryption.” The Guam disclosure reveals the fragility of user control when cloud-based systems hold decryption power. Once Microsoft complied with the warrant, investigators gained full visibility into each device’s contents, something privacy advocates view as far beyond the intent of a targeted search. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post FBI Accessed Encrypted PCs Using Microsoft Recovery Keys appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. By the time you’re reading this, there’s a decent chance that somewhere, quietly and with a great deal of bureaucratic back-patting, someone is trying to figure out exactly how old you are. And not because they’re planning a surprise party. Not because you asked them to. But because the nine horsemen of the regulatory apocalypse have decided that the future of a “safe” internet depends on everyone flashing their ID like they’re trying to get into an especially dull nightclub. This is the nightmare of “age assurance,” a term so bloodlessly corporate you can practically hear it sighing into its own PowerPoint. This is a sprawling, gelatinous lump of biometric estimation, document scans, and AI-ified guesswork, stitched together into one big global initiative under the cheery-sounding Global Online Safety Regulators Network, or GOSRN. Catchy. Formed in 2022, presumably after someone at Ofcom had an especially boring lunch break, GOSRN now boasts nine national regulators, including the UK, France, Australia, and that well-known digital superpower, Fiji, who have come together to harmonize policies on how to tell whether someone is too young to look at TikTok for adults. The group is currently chaired by Ireland’s Coimisiún na Meán. This month, this merry band of regulators released a “Position Statement on Age Assurance and Online Safety Regulation.” If that sentence made you feel like time had stopped moving, you’re not alone. Inside this gem of a document is a plan to push shared age-verification principles across borders, including support for biometric analysis, official ID checks, and the general dismantling of anonymity for the greater good of child protection. But don’t worry, it insists that all of this should be “accurate, reliable, fair, and non-intrusive,” which is a bit like saying you’d like your chainsaw to be “gentle, precise, and whisper-quiet.” More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda The pitch, of course, is that it’s all for the kids. But behind the scenes, it’s starting to look suspiciously like a surveillance infrastructure. Most of these tools rely on facial recognition, third-party credential brokers, and databases that not only guess your age, but also remember you. Forever. The moment you hand over your ID to prove you’re 18, that information is out there, possibly shared, possibly stored, and quite possibly turned into a marketing profile. And once this machinery exists, it won’t stop at pornography. It never does. Mission creep is the only thing in government that’s ever truly efficient. If they can check your ID to block adult content, they can check it to block content they decide is “psychologically harmful,” “emotionally damaging,” or “financially risky.” According to GOSRN’s own terms, those categories include anything that might affect your social, emotional, or even “psychological” safety. Which is basically everything. Part of the plan is to make all these systems “interoperable,” which is just regulator-speak for “you’ll only need to have your soul scanned once, and then everyone gets to share it.” The goal is to stop companies from “forum shopping,” or in other words, choosing to operate in countries that don’t insist on scanning your face every time you log in. Imagine telling someone in 1996 that the internet would one day be patrolled by a global safety committee ensuring you’re old enough to watch a cooking video that contains a swear word. They’d have laughed in your face, then uploaded a .wav file of it to their Geocities page. But here we are. Ofcom, the UK regulator, is fully on board and already flexing its new muscles. Under the Online Safety Act, it has launched 83 investigations and started handing out fines to websites that fail to deliver “highly effective age assurance.” That’s the phrase. “Highly effective.” Not “sensible,” or “proportionate.” “Highly effective,” as in industrial-strength nannying. Spray it over the entire internet until everyone under 18 is bubble-wrapped in an algorithmic playground built by committee. This is part of what they call “Safety by Design,” but it is actually a regulatory philosophy that wants everything on the internet pre-chewed, sterilized, and algorithmically approved. It’s a blunt instrument wielded by people who think the web should be a combination of Sesame Street and LinkedIn. That’s fine if you want to reduce the most dynamic communication tool ever invented into a glorified brochure for soft drink companies, but not so great if you believe in things like privacy, freedom of speech, or not being treated like a criminal. The most alarming part of all this isn’t the bad tech or the condescending tone, it’s the creeping normalization of digital identity checks as the price of entry to online life. Once it’s built, this system will be hard to dismantle. You’ll be expected to prove who you are, how old you are, and what you’re allowed to see. Every. Single. Time. Anonymity? That’s for criminals and weirdos, didn’t you know? Real people sign in with their real names, linked to their real faces, and behave like good little users in the polite, sterile techno-state. And that’s the plan. All wrapped in a warm blanket of child safety, drizzled with concern, and served up by a committee that no one voted for but who’ve decided they know what’s best for everyone. GOSRN might say it’s committed to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. But its definition of “online harm” is so elastic it could be used to classify sarcasm as a threat to national security. And once everyone agrees on the need for interoperable, identity-based age gates, we won’t just have lost our privacy. We’ll have signed it away, smiling politely, because we were told it was for the children. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Nine Bureaucracies Walk Into Your Browser and Ask for ID appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Sunday Smiles