Just about 13 minutes into his speech at a Detroit rally, former President Donald Trump’s microphone cut out. 

Kyle Seraphim, an ex-FBI constitutionalist who blew the whistle on the FBI, made note of a DOD directive on his podcast. He thinks we should pay attention to a Department of Defense document republished in September. In the document, the Secretary of Defense – the military – can assert authority in civil disturbances, which may or […] The post People Have Concerns About a Martial Law Publication appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

'Right to vote'

The pop singer, who Diddy had legal custody of at age 13, will speak at Harris’s rally

Donna Maddox took the ride of a lifetime at age 94, racing around the Michigan International Speedway in a Ferrari and hitting 150 miles per hour—proving it’s never to late to chase your dreams. A true daredevil at heart, she once pushed her Lincoln to 115 MPH. “My mother used to say I came into […] The post 94-Year-old Woman’s Ferrari Adventure Reaches 150 MPH: ‘If You’re Alive, Then LIVE!’ appeared first on Good News Network.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Red Cross (ICRC) is the latest long-established and operating international organization of considerable repute, that has found itself enlisted to, essentially, help the biometrics data-reliant ID happen. Specifically, the Switzerland-based ICRC seems to have gotten involved in a scheme developed to such an end by Germany’s CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, and also Switzerland-based Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL). The scheme is called the Janus system. While formally and generally working in any region affected by natural or human-created disasters – helping refugees, casualties, the issue of missing or displaced persons – the ICRC is mandated first and foremost by the 1949 Geneva Convention. But the times have in the meantime clearly changed quite considerably – and now there’s the initiative to “hoover up” ICRC’s many decades of experience, and repute, into a “new reality.” Such as creating new tools “aimed at verifying the identities of humanitarian aid recipients.” And once again, the focus is on developing nations. This time – not entirely unlike the stated rationale behind recent UK’s recent mass surveillance effort under the guise of fighting tax money fraud – the focus is supposedly to make sure that those caught up in humanitarian crises areas do not submit “multiple registrations.” It’s either to make sure humanitarian aid gets to as many people as possible – or, a handy opportunity to present this problem as one without a solution, other than drastic things like biometric data getting introduced into the mix. There has now been a disturbingly high number of instances of Western-based and/or majority-funded organizations, formal (like the UN), or informal but powerful ones, “testing abroad” the tech that they know would face serious and strong opposition at home. And that’s in countries and societies where the dangers to privacy and security are either not well-advocated or are simply voided by the everyday bare necessity to survive. Biometric data harvesting, retention, usage, and (ab)use fall in this category, and as much as civil rights organizations in developed countries are to be praised for the work they do or attempt to do at home, it should be said that the “backdoor experiments” taking place in poorer countries not getting enough spotlight is something these groups definitely need to work on. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Biometric and Digital ID in Crisis Zones: Is the Red Cross Paving the Way for a Privacy Nightmare? appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. UK’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle has written to the country’s media and telecommunications regulator Ofcom, asking it to implement what he said are “key components” of the Online Safety Act. These components of the legislation – also known as the UK’s online censorship law – will come into effect by the end of 2024, Kyle noted in his letter to Ofcom Chief Executive Melanie Dawes. Kyle urged Ofcom to implement these rules as a matter of urgency – Dawes is reminded that the government views this as “incredibly important” and something that needs to be implemented “as soon as possible” by the regulator. The letter also reveals that these officials already had meetings dedicated to the issue – a “discussion” that Kyle said he wants to continue in order to see how the government can “support Ofcom in delivering on this ambition.” The need for this to happen is explained by the secretary of state as necessary in making sure that services covered by Ofcom are held responsible for delivering “products safe for their users.” Kyle cites illegal harms and child safety codes as more “protections” that will be finalized next year, which include age verification (“age-checks”). Internet users, and children in particular, will then, according to Kyle, be protected from a flurry of horrors: he mentions suicide, self-harm, pornography, terrorism, “hate speech,” misogyny, and harassment. Other than age verification, this is to be achieved by forcing platforms to “quickly take down” content the codes treat as harmful. Kyle then goes into the UK’s summer riots in order to press Ofcom regarding the possibility of the agency introducing additional censorship measures to combat the spread of “misinformation.” Dawes is asked whether Ofcom is now considering new “targeted measures” that can be included in the next version of the illegal harms code. The UK government continues to put the emphasis on the spread of “disinformation” as the key problem behind the riots, and Ofcom is now quizzed by Kyle regarding its assessment “about how illegal content, particularly disinformation, spread during the period of disorder.” Another thing Kyle considers to be very important is the Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation, a body Ofcom is setting up under the Online Safety Act rules. And the secretary of state is “looking forward” to learning how this is proceeding – “and what its key areas of focus are likely to be following the events of this summer.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Tightens Grip on Internet Speech with Push for Swift Online Speech Crackdown appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Alison Morrow (formally Westover), an accomplished journalist, found herself in the throes of a legal battle over her right to free speech. Represented by the Silent Majority Foundation, Morrow has filed a lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its top officials, citing wrongful termination after she was dismissed for airing an interview on her YouTube channel. The channel, a personal project crafted during her tenure as an environmental reporter at KING 5 in Seattle, became the subject of controversy following her post featuring a highly censored doctor, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, and his views on COVID-19. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. Morrow’s career at KING 5, which spanned from 2013 to 2019, was marked by significant accolades, including two Emmy awards. Recognized for her independent journalism, DNR was fully aware of her YouTube activities when they recruited her as a communications specialist. Initially, her independent media pursuits were supported by DNR, but the tide turned with her decision to feature Dr. Kheriaty. DNR’s leadership warned Morrow that her continued interviews could lead to termination, a threat she met with a staunch refusal to abandon her First Amendment protections. Determined to uphold her freedoms of speech, press, and association, Morrow chose to defy DNR’s directive to adhere to approved narratives. This act of resistance ultimately led to her dismissal, prompting her to seek legal assistance from the Silent Majority Foundation, which took up her case to safeguard these fundamental rights. “The 1st Amendment is one of the most sacred rights of Americans. It is what differentiates our country from most others, that we have the freedom to question our government. It is also central to a free press. I was willing to lose my job – and all that it provided for our family – in order to stand up against the encroaching erosion of this right that I was witnessing at the time, not just in my case but in thousands of others across the country during the pandemic,” Morrow stated. “There was no way to do science or journalism, in the culture of censorship that was driven by our government at the time. That meant millions of people made decisions without informed consent. Given my commitment to seeking truth wherever it leads, I was unwilling to acquiesce to a demand that I remain silent.” Display content from X Click here to display content from X. Learn more in X’s privacy policy. Always display content from X Open "content" directly If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Fired for Free Speech: Alison Morrow’s Battle Against Government Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Speaker: Here's Why Biden Didn't Restore Trump's Border Policies