‘Dada never did nothing to anybody, right?’

LA DA Gascon allegedly violated the California Public Records Act.

'Refused to meet with us off-the-record'

When a three-day music festival was called off and the organizers declined to offer a refund to pass holders, a totally different festival decided to welcome them all for free. Now in its 12th year, the Lucidity Festival was set to kick off in Santa Barbara, California this September. But citing “unforeseen last-minute changes in […] The post When Music Festival Ticket Holders Couldn’t Get a Refund, Another Unaffiliated Festival Stepped Up appeared first on Good News Network.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. America First Legal (AFL) has pulled back the curtain on yet another government meeting that makes “free speech” sound like some quaint idea from the past. AFL has released documents from a 2021 interagency get-together where the UK’s top experts on “disinformation” offered a master class in censorship, all under the guise of “protecting democracy.” And because nothing screams transparency quite like a secret strategy session on silencing opposing voices, the revelations come with just a hint of irony. On August 10, 2021, the Biden-Harris National Security Council (NSC) hosted a cozy little chat with the United Kingdom’s “Counter Disinformation Unit” (CDU). The occasion? An instructional session on how to manage—read: censor—COVID-related speech in the US But why stop at the pandemic when there’s so much more to control? This wasn’t just about virus talk; it was a step-by-step guide on how to choke off the flow of any inconvenient truth that might muddy the government’s preferred narrative. We obtained a copy of the documents for you here. The slide deck AFL obtained from its litigation against the CDC offers a glimpse into how keen the US government was to import a few censorship tips from its UK friends. The CDU wasn’t shy about sharing its best tactics and judging by the meeting’s outcomes, the Biden administration was more than happy to take notes. When it comes to controlling what people say, why not learn from the pros? The Censorship Playbook Here’s what the CDU was pushing during that presentation, and what the US government was apparently eager to explore: 1. A Government-Led Censorship Unit: First order of business? Set up a dedicated task force to oversee censorship across the government. You can’t leave this stuff to chance. A coordinated effort is much more efficient when it comes to silencing unwanted speech. 2. Legislation to Regulate Tech Companies: The next move was all about turning up the heat on tech companies. The CDU advised the US to push for laws that would force social media platforms to regulate speech, with harsh penalties for those who didn’t comply. Basically, get them to do the government’s dirty work or face consequences. 3. Partnerships with Tech Giants: Why stop at regulation when you can partner up? The UK’s suggestion was to build close relationships with tech companies, getting them to “flag” any content the government found disagreeable. It’s always easier to silence dissent when you’ve got Big Tech doing it for you. 4. Global Cooperation on Censorship: This wasn’t just a domestic agenda. The CDU recommended that the US coordinate with other governments and international bodies to create a global network of censorship. Because if everyone’s in on the same scheme, it’s a lot harder for the truth to sneak through. 5. Control the Narrative on Social Media: The real goal? Not just to stop misinformation but to ensure that only the approved version of events gets amplified. The CDU’s advice: leverage social media to push the “correct” message. This wasn’t about letting the public make up their own minds; it was about making sure they never got the chance. A Pandemic of Irony The CDU laid out how they’ve been censoring the British public, piece by piece. Their censorship model was no amateur operation—it was a coordinated effort to suppress anything the government found disagreeable, all under the guise of fighting “misinformation.” The Biden-Harris National Security Council (NSC), not wanting to miss out on the fun, welcomed this information with open arms. They were eager to learn from their British friends and figure out how to impose these tactics back home. After all, why reinvent the wheel when you can just copy someone else’s authoritarian playbook? The Government-Wide Censorship Hub The CDU has been busy over in the UK, working as a cross-departmental censorship machine, connecting the dots between private companies, social media platforms, and non-profits to control what the public sees and hears. This unit isn’t just some random bureaucratic office—it includes components of the UK’s intelligence services, foreign policy apparatus, and individuals directly linked to the Prime Minister’s National Security Unit. So when they suggest the US create a centralized hub to lead its own censorship program, the recommendation carries a certain weight. The idea is simple: a one-stop shop for squashing speech the government doesn’t like. And of course, they’ve partnered with private companies to flag content that challenges the state-approved narrative. This cozy arrangement is made to look like cooperation, but it’s really just government pressure disguised as a “partnership.” When the government controls the narrative, dissenting voices don’t stand a chance. Legislation to Keep Big Tech in Line One of the key points of this meeting was the CDU’s recommendation that governments pass legislation to coerce social media companies into submission. Why just nudge platforms to censor speech when you can force them by law? The British approach has been to legislate the boundaries of free speech, giving them the power to punish companies that refuse to toe the line. It’s the government’s way of ensuring that no rogue tech CEO suddenly gets a conscience and decides to protect the public’s right to speak freely. The Biden-Harris administration was more than willing to listen. It wasn’t enough to pressure Big Tech behind closed doors—they were looking for a legal framework that would guarantee compliance. What the CDU laid out was the path to making sure the platforms did what they were told, or else. This wasn’t about protecting public safety, but about controlling the flow of information at all costs. Global Censorship: A Team Effort Why stop at national censorship when you can take it global? The CDU emphasized the importance of coordinating censorship efforts internationally. After all, what good is a tightly controlled narrative in the US if your citizens can just hop online and hear what’s happening from someone in another country? The solution? Work with foreign allies and multilateral institutions to keep the story straight around the world. A global censorship agenda ensures that pesky facts don’t slip through the cracks, no matter where they originate. The US Department of State was ready to jump in on this, with the Biden-Harris administration eager to align with like-minded governments. It’s all part of an international push to keep information flowing just one way—from the top down. Election Time: Censorship on Overdrive It’s no surprise that election time is when the censorship machine really kicks into high gear. Around this period, the CDU stood up its “Central Election Cell,” an ominous-sounding office dedicated to ramping up suppression efforts. The idea was to make sure the wrong people didn’t get heard at the wrong time. The US took careful note of this strategy, preparing to hit the censorship button even harder when it matters most. And as AFL’s separate litigation has uncovered, these public-private partnerships between the government and tech companies have continued to evolve. The Biden administration carried on with its own version of a censorship alliance well into 2024, a web of control that was spun to keep the public in check. Take, for example, the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group. If the name sounds creepy, it’s because it is. This was another outfit AFL managed to bring down in court—an Orwellian experiment where political dissent, especially from Trump supporters, was rebranded as “domestic terrorism threats.” With this group dissolved, it’s clear AFL is keeping a close watch, but that doesn’t mean the gears of government censorship have stopped turning. The Real Threat to Free Speech The documents from this 2021 meeting pull back the curtain on how left-wing governments across the globe are working hand-in-hand to suppress free speech. The idea that this is about stopping misinformation is the excuse they give, but the reality is much darker. This is about power—keeping the public’s access to information tightly controlled and making sure that the “wrong” ideas never gain traction. This UK initiative has already borne real-world consequences. In October 2023, the UK Online Safety Act came into force, allowing British officials to threaten legal action—including the extradition and jailing of US citizens—if their social media activity runs afoul of UK censorship standards. It’s a bold, if not absurd, attempt to extend British censorship across the Atlantic. Meanwhile, over in the US, there’s a familiar ring to all this. Back in 2019, then-Senator Kamala Harris was already calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to come down hard on social media companies that allowed “disinformation” and “misinformation.” It’s no coincidence that now, as Vice President, those ideas are coming full circle. A Transatlantic Censorship Alliance A separate investigation by AFL revealed that the Biden-Harris administration has been taking notes from the British censorship playbook for some time. Specifically, the administration solicited policy recommendations from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), the same group that helped lay the foundation for the UK’s Online Safety Act. Not content to just slap fines on tech companies, the White House has explored using DOJ prosecutions and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement actions to punish platforms that fail to sufficiently censor “online harassment.” Translation? If the companies don’t play ball, the government will bring out the legal hammers. Part of the CDU’s plan involves establishing regular lines of communication between governments and social media platforms. In other words, governments direct platforms on what to censor. This is more than just a suggestion—these are “trusted flagging relationships.” When the government flags a post, the platform is expected to act. It was this very behavior that led AFL to file the lawsuit that has now exposed these documents. The infamous “trusted relationship” setup was alive and well in the Biden-Harris administration long before this meeting even took place. Prior releases from AFL’s litigation against the CDC and the NSC confirmed that the administration had already been cozying up to Big Tech, with a clear goal: silence dissenting voices before they gain traction. Global Pressure, Coordinated Censorship The CDU’s strategy wasn’t limited to pushing domestic censorship; they were actively exporting it. The UK Foreign Office engaged its foreign policy apparatus to help nudge other countries into adopting similar censorship tactics, and it encouraged the US to do the same. This approach wasn’t just about handling misinformation within borders—it was about uniting governments to put collective pressure on platforms worldwide. According to the CDU, one of the “significant benefits” of this international approach is that it would encourage cooperation from platforms more easily. The underlying message? When governments around the world are all leaning on Big Tech to enforce the same censorship policies, it becomes much harder for companies to resist. The US Department of State, apparently a willing participant, mirrored the UK’s efforts by playing its own role in this global censorship orchestra. In fact, the UK proudly touted its close working relationship with the US, Australia, Canada, and a growing number of other countries. By 2021, the CDU had bilateral relationships with 20 additional nations, raising the question: how many more governments have joined this international censorship alliance since then? It’s clear that this isn’t just a domestic issue—it’s a full-scale global effort to control information flows. In response, AFL has launched investigations into whether the Biden-Harris administration’s Department of State has been leaning on platforms like Telegram and X (formerly Twitter) for refusing to toe the censorship line. Censorship Through Multilateral Channels The CDU’s presentation didn’t just highlight direct government intervention but also emphasized the role of multilateral institutions in pushing the global censorship agenda. They pointed to platforms like the G7’s Rapid Response Mechanism and the United Nations’ Interagency Platform on Culture for Sustainable Development (IPCSD) as key tools for uniting governments in the fight against “disinformation.” But what does “disinformation” really mean in this context? It’s whatever these governments want it to mean—conveniently flexible to serve political purposes. Logos of major international institutions like NATO, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the European Center for Excellence of Countering Threats flashed up under the CDU’s heading “International training and capability.” These aren’t just bit players in the game; these are some of the biggest, most powerful organizations in the world. Their involvement in this coordinated censorship effort makes one thing clear: this isn’t about protecting people from fake news—it’s about solidifying government control over the global narrative. The Rising Tide of Authoritarianism This latest batch of documents reveals a troubling trend. What started as a government push to counter supposed misinformation during the pandemic has spiraled into a global movement to control speech on an unprecedented scale. By working in lockstep with international allies and multilateral institutions, the Biden-Harris administration, alongside other left-wing authoritarian governments, is pushing a narrative that there’s no alternative to censorship. It’s a strategy designed to slowly tighten the reins on free speech, all while claiming it’s for the greater good. The chilling takeaway is this: as governments and tech companies work closer together, censorship becomes not just a possibility but a well-oiled machine. This international alliance, driven by countries like the UK and enabled by the US, is setting the stage for a future where your right to speak freely is increasingly dependent on whether your speech aligns with what the government deems acceptable. And with bilateral partnerships and multilateral institutions on board, this global censorship movement is showing no signs of slowing down. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

'Absolutely Not': ABC News Denies Leaking Debate Questions to Harris (Updated)

The Memes Are Lit...

A federal official in El Paso, Texas, recently confirmed a Mexico law enforcement officer's statements claiming that cartels are deploying drones to transport narcotics into the United States, according to Border Report.On Thursday, Chihuahua Public Safety Director Gilberto Loya stated that he is seeing an increase in drone use by Mexican drug cartels flying drugs into El Paso.'We have 15 countermeasure devices against drones.'He said, "In the area of the [Big Red X] monument, they have been using drones to cross packages of drugs and drop them off on the other side."The monument, about 100 yards south of the border, is also known as Plaza de la Mexicanidad.Loya also noted that the cartels in Juarez, Mexico, are using the drones to monitor law enforcement activity on both sides of the border and "as a guide to caravan the migrants into the United States," KTSM reported, translating his comments.A U.S. federal official told Border Report that there have been drug-drone encounters in the area. However, the official could not provide any details about the number of drones or what types of narcotics are being transported.The news outlet noted that Juarez cartels are primarily known for trafficking methamphetamine.Despite confirmations from that official, the Border Report noted that federal officials in El Paso were unable to verify whether drones are crossing into the U.S. or whether they are being used to direct illegal immigrants.Loya reported that his team has taken down a number of drones in the mountains of Chihuahua near the U.S.-Mexico border. "We have 15 countermeasure devices against drones. Some force the drone to turn back, some cut off its signal entirely, so it falls to the ground, and some just track the drone to its base," he remarked.Last month, a leaked bulletin reportedly from the U.S. Border Patrol's Yuma Sector Intelligence Unit warned that Mexican cartels were using drones to "drop explosives" on rival gangs, Blaze News previously reported.Air Force General Gregory Guillot told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year that there were "over 1,000" drone incursions each month near the border."I haven't seen any of them manifest in a threat to the level of national defense, but I see the potential only growing," he told lawmakers.While authorities report an increase in drone activity at the southern border, law enforcement officials in Juarez are attempting to stave off a cartel's attacks against their surveillance cameras, according to Border Report. Loya told reporters on Thursday that authorities recently installed 11 cameras on the streets of Juarez to monitor the cartel's activities. Since then, members of the cartel have reportedly shot at the cameras and struck them with hammers. In another instance, they allegedly set a utility pole on fire to destroy the equipment. "Organized crime feels threatened by this system that is being installed throughout the state," Loya stated.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Biden-Harris administration is considering the possibility of committing the U.S. and other NATO countries to a direct shooting war with Russia — assuming Russian President Vladimir Putin is not bluffing about what for him constitutes a red line. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy met with Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Wednesday in Kyiv, discussing the country's supposed progress toward NATO and EU membership as well possible escalations in its defensive war against Russia. Extra to announcing more than $700 million more in assistance for Ukraine and speaking of "Ukraine's success, Ukraine's victory," Blinken signaled possible support for the embattled nation employing Western long-range weapons to strike targets deep within Russia. The U.S. has up until now blocked the use of such weapons over fears of escalation. The Times (U.K.) indicated, however, that American and British governments have been under mounting pressure to relax such restrictions, including by former elements of the military-industrial complex, NATO, and European political establishment. Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha indicated at a joint press conference Wednesday that he had emphasized to Blinken and to Lammy that it was necessary to "remove all the obstacles and limitations with the use of British equipment, American equipment in the territory of Russia against military targets." Blinken said that he was going to raise the matter with President Joe Biden who is meeting Friday with Britain's leftist prime minister, Keir Starmer, in Washington, D.C. A reporter subsequently asked the trio about the use of American supersonic tactical ballistic missiles, which have a range of up to 190 miles, and the British-made Storm Shadow missiles, which have a range of roughly 155 miles. Ukraine already has the latter but is only allowed to use them within its own territory. 'It would mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia.' The reporter asked further whether the Blinken and his counterparts were still worried "about managing escalation with Russia." "We discussed long-range fires, but a number of other things as well. And as I said at the outset, I'm going to take that discussion back to Washington to brief the president on what I heard," said Blinken. Blinken intimated, however, the U.S. is open to lifting its restrictions, stating, "Just speaking for the United States, from day one, as you heard me say, we have adjusted and adapted as needs have changed, as the battlefield has changed, and I have no doubt that we'll continue to do that as this evolves." Regarding fears of escalation, Blinken said, "Of course that's one of the factors that we always consider, but it's certainly not the only factor and it's not necessarily a dispositive factor." According to the Agence France Presse, Putin said Thursday that an easing of the restrictions on long-range weapons would "in a significant way change the very nature of the conflict." "It would mean that NATO countries, the US, European countries, are at war with Russia," added Putin, whose nation has over 5,000 nuclear warheads and boasts a supersonic missile with a range of 625 miles. "If that's the case, then taking into account the change of nature of the conflict, we will take the appropriate decisions based on the threats that we will face." Putin characterized the decision to ease restrictions as a matter of choosing "whether NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not." Citing British government sources, the Times (U.K.) noted that the Biden-Harris administration might shift its position prior to the gathering of global leaders at the UN headquarters in New York later this month. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

We all knew it was coming, didn’t we? Taylor Swift has been an outspoken advocate for abortion and LGBTQ+ “rights.” She endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. That she has voiced support for Kamala Harris should surprise no one. Although we’re far from shocked, we should still be concerned, according to Liz Wheeler. - YouTube www.youtube.com Swift has “283 million people who follow her on Instagram,” and she “has the ear of an extremely vulnerable demographic,” says Liz, adding that that demographic is people her own age. “We’re talking 35-year-old women,” she says. “If she gets them to turn out to vote, I think that's probably more powerful than the debate and will have more impact on the election than the debate.” Some have speculated that Swift’s endorsement was planned – that it was part of Harris’ strategy. However, Liz doesn’t think so. “If you read Taylor Swift's Instagram post, you'll see it's actually about Taylor; Taylor made it about Taylor. She's like, ‘Oh, there was an AI image, a fake image, of me going around pretending that I endorse Donald Trump, so I want to clarify this,”’ says Liz. “If she actually does care about the election, her endorsement would have been more valuable at a different time,” like if “Trump had a win,” for example, but “she wanted to post it then because of her own image.” To hear more of Liz’s commentary, watch the episode above. Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.