If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Another day, another attack on online encryption: now it’s the turn to (re)launch one by Australia’s spies, the Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO). ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess is telling Big Tech to get ready for the day when encrypted communications on their platforms will no longer be safe and private for their users. A government demanding that private companies create conditions for mass government surveillance, you may say? Burgess says, not at all. (And has the arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov emboldened all manner of state actors in the mass surveillance “theater”? Perish the thought. /s) But – commenting specifically on why he thinks now is the right time to bring back Australia’s encryption-breaking ambition, Burgess is quoted as saying by Australia’s ABC, “We’re not asking for mass surveillance. We need their cooperation.” A – somewhat – formidable turn of phrase to signal coercion on the part of the government. Standing on its own, it’s sort of acceptable, but Burgess wastes no time to reveal the ominous intent, through and through: “If they (tech companies) don’t cooperate, then there’s a private conversation I need to have with government about what we accept or what I need to do my job more effectively.” There is nothing new on the “Government Attempts to Break Encryption Front” here – it’s always the claim that law enforcement can only these days do their job with this backbone of the internet’s not only privacy but also security (consider your bank account transactions!) – broken. Here’s Burgess’ other thoughts that may or may not sit well with Australia’s public and law, such as that those who are considered “a threat to security” (and let’s remind ourselves, these attempts to gain access to communications are about investigative efforts – therefore, targeting people who should be innocent until proven guilty). With that in mind, somebody perceived as “a threat to security” in Australia, according to Burgess – loses the right to privacy. Just as a suspect! “I’ve been asking for those companies that build messaging apps (to) respond to the lawful requests. So when I have a warrant you give me access to that communication,” the ASIO director expressed his pattern of thinking – and frustrations. There have been legislative efforts in that country going back as far as 2018 to force tech platforms to allow access to encrypted communications to law enforcement. The encryption backdoor creation doesn’t seem to be going so well, though. And, it would be surprising if, say, Mark Zuckerberg traveled to Australia any time soon. Or made big investments there. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australian Intelligence Official Threatens To Ban Private Messaging appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Anybody who’s spent time in New York City (and even broader, the state) is likely to tell you – New Yorkers are empowered, alright. By their very nature. Direct and opinionated – do they really need the government to “empower” them some more? And to do what – snitch on fellow citizens? But that’s the gist of what New York Attorney General Letitia James is now proposing, all buzzing with buzzwords like “election misinformation” (“AI generated,” mind), and just in general, what somebody might decide to consider “misleading” online content. “The OAG (Office of Attorney-General) will operate an Election Protection Hotline, which voters can contact to ask questions and file complaints during the voting period” – said a press release. And while at it, waste no time. Report your fellow New Yorker now. James has announced a guide, including on how to report “AI misinformation” ahead of the presidential elections. The “unwashed masses” might also need to be told how to actually go out of their way to “identify” that content. It’s all in the guide. Let’s flag content pretty much arbitrarily – that’s the point NY AG James is essentially making. The whole concept of artificial intelligence (AI) is proving – or so some think – so useful to a certain political grouping in the US, but not only. Yet it is never properly explained – and therefore understood – to people who are not directly involved in “AI” development and implementation, so it leaves a lot of room for scaremongering. What Machine Learning (ML, a small subset of AI) is currently doing is creating more or less useful “chats” – and a lot of memes. People used to photo editing an image to create a satirical meme may now tell an “AI” generator to – just generate it. Big difference. Still funny and obviously exaggerated satirical content. Except now the “AI scare” narrative has been so normalized – or so James and her political comrades hope – that she can issue a “guide” like this: “Artificial intelligence tools can be used to create fake or misleading videos, images, or audio that impersonate people or candidates and spread misinformation to try to impact voters.” Like, say, memes. “Showing” Kamala Harris addressing a Chinese communist rally in Chicago. Well if you believe that – but still can’t afford to buy a bridge – James has a guide ready. “The guide my office created will be a useful resource to help voters better identify AI-generated misinformation, and to empower them to arrive at the polls with accurate information about the elections and the candidate they wish to support. I urge New Yorkers to be more careful about the sources they use and the information they consume about the elections.” “Consume” – there’s another point of the message. Consume information – rather than think about it critically. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post New York Attorney General Letitia James Produces Guide Encouraging Citizens To Flag “Misleading” Online Speech appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Kamala Harris Is Slip Slidin' Away

The virus could have escaped from an facility anywhere in the world before ending up in Wuhan.

While the recipient has no sight in the eye, it’s still a great step forward.

Turns out there are more than two exits!

When we last left off with The CW’s racist, anti-cop drama 61st Street, we had such a ridiculous amount of woke, hateful, liberal, ACAB/BLM propaganda that you would've thought it couldn’t get worse. But hoo boy, does it get worse! And we haven’t even gotten to the finale yet, which is Monday night. As always, we watch so you don’t have to. So, here’s a rundown on all the newest garbage being spewed by this awful show, which, with an abysmal 160,000 viewers (only 20,000 in the key 18-49 demo), is absolutely tanking in the ratings and coming in dead last in network rankings, we can only hope this will all soon come to an end for good. In episode 5, “Two Truths and a Lie,” Officer Johnny Logan’s (Mark O’Brien) trial has begun for the murder of Jalil Watts (Marcus Hopkins-Turner). Everyone was shocked to find out black activist lawyer Franklin Roberts (Courtney B. Vance) is defending Logan, unaware the two are working together to uncover the evil corruption that’s in the entire Chicago Police Department (CPD). When Franklin sees the video of the assault for the first time, he becomes furious with Logan for killing Jalil “over a song.” (Granted, the song was about only needing 12 shots to kill a cop and Jalil mimicked shooting Logan while saying, “12. You.” But, of course, that doesn’t justify assaulting or killing him.) Franklin confronts Logan, and Logan expresses shame, asking what happened to him. Franklin tells him this country is racist and proclaims, “America happened to you, boy.” Franklin: Over a song? You killed Jalil Watts over a song?! How old are you?! Logan: 32. Franklin: 32 years ago, you were a baby. You were born with nothing, and everything was possible. And yet, here we are 32 years later, and you do this. Logan: What happened to me? Franklin: I don't know. I don't believe in a racist gene. I don't believe Baby Logan was born ready to club someone to death because of the color of their skin. But I do believe this is a racist country, and you were educated into that racism and into this. America happened to you, boy. But is it worth fighting against? Logan: I think so. Franklin: Yeah. I think so, too. I think so, too. In Episode 6, “Argue the Facts,” the prosecution makes its opening statement. It’s clear the show’s writers want everyone to believe that any debate about removing “bad apples” from police departments as a way to reform is a joke because Logan is not the only bad apple but is being set up to take the fall to cover up the corruption that’s in the entire department: Pearson: I have a confession. This is personal. I'm not your usual zealot prosecutor. I don't want to put people in cages forever just because I can. But- and it's a really big "but" and it's why I'm standing here today- when I see somebody who's been given civic responsibility and a sacred duty of care to look after people do a thing like this...you better know I'm coming for you. And here's the really big news. So's the organization you work for. The CPD has changed. This is an institution that has learned from its mistakes and is prepared to say, "No. Enough is enough. We won't have it anymore when a colleague behaves in this appalling way." Officer Logan is a bad apple in the barrel. It's my job and it's your job and it's the job of everyone who worked with him to remove that bad apple. Franklin takes his turn next and angrily rants, “We’ve had enough of being told how the world looks by white people.” Franklin: Somehow Ms. Pearson has decided that that Naimah's loss is not a part of this story. Why not? Why no Naimah? Because the same police department my opponent asks you to believe is reforming itself as we speak was not even remotely interested in investigating the brutal beating of her husband outside a bar habituated solely by police officers. Why is she not calling Naimah? How dare she put up a photograph of a smashed-up face, with a bashed-in head and claim she's on his side. And everyone who made it possible for this to happen to another innocent black man is now on the right side of the argument? No, no, no, no. No, we've had enough of being told how the world looks by white people. How dare she stand there and claim she's on the side of angels coming down for the bad apple? But I know why she's doing it. I see her. She doesn't want to feel guilty. She doesn't want you to feel guilty. She wants to be able to say, "There's nothing wrong with the world as long as we cut down some rotten fruit." She wants this to be personal. Okay. Let's be personal. If she thinks this trial is about one individual, one cop, then she's a part of the problem. No, it's bigger than that. If she thinks this trial is about one individual, one cop...then she is the problem. In episode 7, “The Offer,” Franklin questions the bartender at the cop bar where the murder happened. Franklin argues the cops did “what cops do,” and covered up the murder for Logan. So, apparently, we’re to believe that cops stick together even when their fellow officer commits murder while off-duty just because he was drunk and angry. Right. Franklin then declares Logan is, “the poster boy for police brutality, taking all the shots for a rotten, stinking racist pig of an organization.” Franklin: Look, I know you can’t say, what with your Tesla and your solidarity with the good old boys in blue, but so, let me make this easy for you. I'm not saying somebody's lying. I'm saying y'all all are lying. It's like y'all got together beforehand and worked out what the story was gonna be. Wayne: What lie? What story? Franklin: The bad apple was faced, members of the jury. Faced and crazy. It grieves me to have to say it, but this new culture of openness and integrity at the CPD makes me have to do it- "Johnny Logan can be relied on for nothing! He's a rotten, stinking racist pig. Me and the boys were all very sober the night Moses walked into the promised land, and we can be relied on to remember everything that happened, and you can be sure we are entirely credible witnesses." Pearson: Your Honor. Franklin: Your witness asked me a question. I'm answering it. Did I leave anything out, Wayne? Uh, Ms. Pearson? Judge: You better spell it out, Counselor. If you're going where I think you're going, Ms. Pearson and her witness are entitled to know what's coming. Franklin: I think you were all there when Jalil was dying. I think you let him die. I think you did what cops do- you covered up for a brother officer until you realized you couldn't stand it up, so you cut him loose. And so there he is -- the poster boy for police brutality, taking all the shots for a rotten, stinking racist pig of an organization. Geez! Tell us how you really feel, 61st Street. Meanwhile, Norma (Andrene Ward-Hammond) is aware now that her boyfriend Phil (Jerod Haynes), who got her pregnant, is actually an undercover cop who’s married with children and is there to spy on her and her son Joshua (Bentley Green) for the police. When another black cop, who had previously planted drugs in her apartment to frame her other son Moses (Tosin Cole), shows up at her door with a conscience and valuable information, he’s unaware that Phil is also a cop. He laments how difficult it is to be a black officer and claims he wouldn’t feel welcome in the cop bar, to which Norma remarks, “Nobody loves you. Nobody.” The notion that black cops don’t feel comfortable or welcome with their fellow white officers and that their job is to help white supremacist officers frame and murder black people is absolutely ludicrous: Norma: Did you lie on the stand at Moses' trial? I want to hear you say it. Cop: We all did. Norma: The gun? Cop: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Norma: What if he would've been found guilty? Cop: That's the question I've been asking myself all this time. Norma: And your conscience is all of a sudden getting the best of you?! Cop: It's the reason I'm here right now. Phil: It's okay, it's okay. Hey, hey, hey. All right. That brother cop. Now, is he willing to testify? Cop: I don't know. Phil: Well, what about you? Cop: I... Phil: Okay… Were you at the Low Bar the night Jalil died? Cop: No. Phil: Why not? Cop: Because I knew that I wouldn't feel like I belonged. You wouldn't understand. Being a black cop? Norma: Nobody loves you. Nobody. Cop: Before you pass judgment, ask yourself this- Do we need more black officers on our streets, or fewer? Phil: Okay. So, listen… You bringing and giving this to us, is that so it's not coming from you? What we doing? Cop: Tell Franklin Roberts what I just told you. Only, he can't know it came from me. Or else I'm not safe. Can I trust you with this? Phil: Yeah, of course. Yeah, man, of course, you can. Sigh. Later, Franklin must switch cars with an old buddy so he can sneak Logan out of the courthouse to keep him safe from the police who are trying to kill him. His friend offers his support, complaining the police exist as “one giant web of complicity to keep the black man down.” Lou: I see what you're doing. Franklin: You do? Lou: Don't worry. I'm the only one that see it. Franklin: What you see, Lou? Lou: Police reform? That ain't it. Deeper than that. See, the way I see it, one giant web of complicity to keep the black man down. Franklin: Yeah. Lou: No, we got to get serious. There's a threshold of seriousness, and we got to get over it. 30 years on, this man's still proud of the public defender they gave me that day. I see where you going. Don't stop, Franklin Roberts. Franklin: Bless you, brother. Lou: God keep you. Franklin: And you. As Franklin drives Logan away, a group of protestors outside the courthouse are holding signs that say, “ACAB” and “Blue Lives Murder.” Finally, there was another anti-white dig as Norma meets with a gang leader who wants to offer Joshua what he claims is a legit opportunity, and he tells her he’s “done with white people and what they do to us.” Norma: Who the hell you think you are? Gang Leader: Hey, Miss Norma. Can I get you a scone or something'? Norma: Whatever it is you want with my son, it ain't gonna happen. Gang Leader: You came here for an explanation. I got one. Come on, sit down. Norma: I can't compete with the flash or the fast money, but what I will do is die to protect my kids just to make sure they don't end up like you or… Gang Leader: Like Speak? I agree with you. I'mma be real straight up with you. I want to exploit your son. Sure I do. I want to exploit the (censored) out of his potential because I see that he could be somebody. He ain't no gangster. Oh, we agree on that too. But you ain't hearing me. I'm paying for his schooling so he can make me money, so he can make himself money, so he can make your life better. And all of it legit. But more than that. I am done with white people and what they do to us. You should know that better than anybody. We need to police ourselves. We need our own businesses for our own people run by our own people. Whisper it- What we really need? The Republic of South Side Chicago. So, they need segregation? Alrighty then. Yeah, this show is absolute trash. Let’s hope tonight’s finale is the series, and not just the season, finale. After getting cancelled once, it’s looking likely a second cancellation is coming based on their dismal ratings, and deservedly so. Go woke, go broke.

Lingo update!  On today's Morning Joe, a furious Mika Brzezinski accused the so-called "mainstream" media of "sanewashing" Trump -- never confronting him with his alleged affronts to democracy as described by Dick Cheney in his statement explaining why he, like his daughter Liz, will be voting for Kamala Harris. You knew it was going to be a tough morning for Mika and Joe Scarborough, having to deal with the new New York Times/Siena poll showing Trump with a one-percent lead among likely voters.  Scarborough dismissed NYT/Siena polls as regularly being an "outlier." In fact, Five Thirty Eight has rated it the #1 poll! Any look at the 2020 polls demonstrates most of them were "outliers" compared to the actual vote totals.  Scarborough wondered Trump's lead is due to all the "disinformation" that is leading almost half of Americans to support Trump. That led to this answer from an angry Mika:   MIKA: Well, it's a mixture of that and a lot of other things, including, I think, the mainstream media that claims to be objective. They are, there's some sort of instinctive sanewashing. Like, I wonder if he gets asked about any of this [Dick Cheney's allegations] during the debate. I would be surprised. [Angrily] It should happen, but it never does. And they never ask. The MSM never challenges Trump over his denying the 2020 results or the January 6 riot?  What have the last three-plus years been other than a non-stop torrent of the media accusing Trump of being a "threat to democracy?" That's an hour-by-hour cable-news talking point.  Googling that term just now returned . . . 20,300,000 results!  Somebody's gonna have to "sanewash" me. If I hear anything more about the MSM not being objective, in the sense they go too easy on Trump, I might go crazy! Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 9/9/24 6:01 am EDT MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Former Vice President Dick Cheney, the former Republican Vice President, following the warning we heard from his daughter: that it's not enough just to not vote for Donald Trump. He will take the next step and vote for Kamala Harris. In his statement released on Friday, he called Trump a threat to our republic and pointed to his repeated 2020 election lies. Quote, he tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again. . . .  JOE SCARBOROUGH: Even if Kamala Harris wins. Even if Kamala Harris wins comfortably -- which, which right now, it's a tie. We've been telling you, it's a tie. So, Democrats, if they want Kamala Harris to win are just going to have to work harder than Republicans. But even with that, about half of Americans will be voting for a man who did all the things that Dick Cheney said Donald Trump did. MIKA: Yeah. SCARBOROUGH: All the things that we've listed. All the things that they know. And Americans, I think all of us, we need to, we need to sit back and try to figure out, is it really just the disinformation that these people see every day that are leading almost half of Americans to support that? MIKA: Well, it's a mixture of that and a lot of other things, including, I think, the mainstream media that claims to be objective. They are, there's some sort of instinctive sanewashing.  Like, I wonder if he's asked about any of this during the debate. I would be surprised. SCARBOROUGH: I doubt it. MIKA: It should happen. SCARBOROUGH: I doubt it. MIKA: It should happen, but it never does. They never ask. SCARBOROUGH: They'll probably start with monetary policy or quantitative easing, something like that. MIKA: Yeah. Acting like it's 1978. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.  

On an episode of “Unashamed,” Jase Robertson dove into the convoluted subject of anger. The Bible has no shortage of verses regarding the emotion that makes our blood boil and our fists clench. But it can be challenging to tease out exactly how Christians are to respond to that specific feeling. Take the following verses from Ephesians 4 as an example. Ephesians 4:26 : "Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger." Ephesians 4:31: "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice." It’s easy to see how some might walk away confused about how they are to handle their own anger. But Jase Robertson has a question for you: “Are you angry about the things that God is angry about?” “There's just some things that are so bad that happen to other humans that make us angry, and that's okay, but the only thing we can do is leave room for God's wrath. We got to move on and live a life of love in Christ Jesus,” he says. And when it comes to the subject of God’s wrath, Jase says that’s where many Christians get it very, very wrong. - YouTube www.youtube.com “About 80% of the text in the entire scripture that uses the word anger or angry are a reference to God … when somebody's angry it's usually God in the Bible,” says Al. “Two-thirds of Jesus' parables, when he got to the end, he was either talking about the resurrection or standing before God or judgment or hell,” Jase echoes, adding that “some people read Ephesians, and they start serving an angry God.” These misguided people proclaim falsities like “God doesn’t love everybody,” he says, adding the notion is far more “controversial” than he ever imagined. “I Googled it,” he admits. “Out of the top 30 searches … 28 of them” said something to the effect of “‘God didn't love everybody,’ which I found troubling.” Jase says that his Google search results reveal something profoundly concerning: A huge percentage of Christians sincerely believe that “God doesn’t love everybody” or that “He loves some people more than others.” “I disagree with that profoundly,” says Jase. To hear the Robertsons’ take on righteous anger, God’s wrath, as well as His love, watch the episode above. Want more from the Robertsons?To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

BOOM: BRUTAL, Receipt-Filled Thread Takes Tim Walz APART for His Latest BETRAYAL of Combat Soldiers