Apparently when President Barack H Obama said that Aliens were real, his opinion was party based on classified “classified intelligence material.” As noted by President Trump earlier today, he may have to declassify material related to the statements of Obama in order to protect him from prosecution…
.
Telegram platform founder Pavel Durov is one of very few tech CEOs who is consistent in his efforts to protect information from the grip of government censorship. Today, Durov used his platform to warn Telegram users in Spain what is pending:
[VIA Pavel Durov X Account] – Today, Telegram notified all its users in Spain with this alert:
Pedro Sánchez’s government is pushing dangerous new regulations that threaten your internet freedoms. Announced just yesterday, these measures could turn Spain into a surveillance state under the guise of “protection.” Here’s why they’re a red flag for free speech and privacy:
1. Ban on social media for under-16s with mandatory age verification: This isn’t just about kids—it requires platforms to use strict checks, like needing IDs or biometrics.
⚠️ Danger: It sets a precedent for tracking EVERY user’s identity, eroding anonymity and opening doors to mass data collection. What starts with minors could expand to all, stifling open discourse.
2. Personal and criminal liability for platform executives: If “illegal, hateful, or harmful” content isn’t removed fast enough, bosses face jail.
⚠️ Danger: This will force over-censorship—platforms will delete anything remotely controversial to avoid risks, silencing political dissent, journalism, and everyday opinions. Your voice could be next if it challenges the status quo.
3. Criminalizing algorithm amplification: Amplifying “harmful” content via algorithms becomes a crime.
⚠️ Danger: Governments will dictate what you see, burying opposing views and creating echo chambers controlled by the state. Free exploration of ideas? Gone—replaced by curated propaganda.
Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino and ICE Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Marcos Charles hold a press briefing to discuss and answer questions about ongoing operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The questions begin at 16:18 of the video below.
Greg Bovino notes the difference in Minneapolis, Minnesota is that the leftist groups are more organized and in direct communication with the state and local government. If you read between the lines what Bovino is saying is that anarchists, professional leftists and radical groups are in control of the government within the region. There is no distinction between the political officials in Minnesota and the leadership of the activists. WATCH:
.
At first, I thought this video had to be a spoof because the promoted viewpoint is, well, bizarre for a westerner to say out loud. Then I realized this guy isn’t joking – he’s deadly serious.
Billionaire Shlomo Kramer says, “I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it.” When asked what that means, Kramer responds, “I mean that we need to control the platforms, all the social platforms. We need to stack rank the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online and take control of what they are saying based on that ranking.”
When asked by who? “The government should do that, yes.” WATCH:
Israeli billionaire Shlomo Kramer’s New Year’s resolution is to eliminate America’s First Amendment.
“I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it.” pic.twitter.com/dOmb7DuLb1
— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) January 2, 2026
This is absurd totalitarian thinking.
Every month it becomes more challenging to push back against these insufferable control agents both inside and outside government. What Shlomo Kramer is advocating for is digital fascism, where private industry collaborates with government to control the flow of information and speech on the internet.
Get stuffed Mr. Kramer!
The House Judiciary Committee has released the [VIDEO] and [TRANSCRIPT] of special prosecutor Jack Smith’s deposition. What is outlined within it is alarming in the extreme. I strongly urge anyone with any platform to review the details and quickly highlight the content therein. There is no time to waste.
Jack Smith appeared before the committee with three personal lawyers to support him. The content of the deposition is chilling in the extreme. While many will focus on the granular details of the testimony, I wish to highlight one of the more alarming aspects to the bigger picture.
The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boils down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.
To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith claims Trump knowingly understood that Joe Biden had won the election; President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election; President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him, and instead chose to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.
EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions. However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election.
The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.”
The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS:
GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign in key swing states.
Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024.
The same pearl-clutching assembly, now standing jaw-agape at the Trump administration recognizing their censorship, are the same assembly who engaged in political operations intended to influence the voting voice of the American electorate.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) was a rather eclectic communist in the world of American politics for several generations. A few of his perspectives were sound and nationalistic. However, many of his perspectives were completely communist and slipped into the realm of geopolitical conspiracy theory finding British Imperialism under every rock and blaming Queen Elizabeth II for assassination attempts against him.
Susan Kokinda and Barbara Boyd of Promethean Action continue the LaRouche tradition while smoothing out some of the more outlandish elements and removing the overt communism the originating political movement was known for.
Barbara Boyd is the spokesperson and treasurer of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Boyd’s partner, Susan Kokinda, maintains a belief that eliminating British Imperialism is the objective of President Trump’s America-First policy agenda. This is where I disagree.
While the outcome of President Trump’s policy does factually lead to the result LaRouche advocated, I strongly doubt “eliminating British imperialism” is the prism through which Donald Trump’s thought process flows. That said, in the overall picture of American politics, the Kokinda and Boyd analysis of Trump’s international opposition is generally accurate, but their perspective on the domestic opposition is entirely shallow.
In their recent update, “Britains Secret Plot”, Susan Kokinda discusses how Marco Rubio is confronting the EU censorship program, and how President Trump’s national security strategy marks a significant departure from over a century of British-influenced American foreign policy. Her review delves into the geopolitical friction between the U.S. and the UK, particularly regarding their strategies toward Russia and Ukraine.
Mrs. Kokinda underscores the broader clash of worldviews between America-First sovereignty and British-led internationalism. This episode also examines the opposition Trump faces from within the U.S. political establishment and British geopolitical strategists and emphasizes the importance of maintaining political support to ensure the success of Trump’s transformative policies. WATCH:
The divergence between the worldview of the European Union and President Trump is accurately presented as above. The Ukraine/Russia war serves as a case study in how the two worldviews conflict. The core of U.K policy and national security strategy continues to view Russia as the biggest threat; the national security outlook by President Trump does not.
On the domestic side of the issue, there are several American elements in direct opposition to the geopolitical policy structure of President Trump. Understanding the domestic opposition to President Trump is where Kokinda/Boyd are shallow, while seeing British control behind every shadow.
The European Union, France and Germany are furious at the U.S. State Department and Marco Rubio for issuing visa bans against European political figures who are involved in censorship under the guise of combating online hate and disinformation. Brussels said Wednesday it will “respond swiftly and decisively” against the “unjustified measures.”
The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the first five people targeted with visa bans “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard left nothing off the table when she gave remarks to the audience at Turning Point USA. In a remarkable and very well delivered speech, Director Gabbard outlines in detail the biggest domestic and geopolitical challenges currently being faced by President Trump and his administration.
Underpinning her remarks is a refreshing focus on “freedom” versus the dark clouds of security threats drumbeat by those who seek control. Tulsi Gabbard accurately summarizes the importance of staying focused on liberty, while accepting the nature of the biggest threat to our core values, political Islam.
Director Gabbard hits on the key issues of the day as it pertains to her position in government, and she emphasizes how the message of fear/security is used against those of us who cherish freedom. As she emphasizes the administration’s efforts toward peace, she also points out how Europe and NATO may not hold the same objective. Gabbard hits multiple points that all of us can agree with, while intertwining a personal message.
There is already a visible apoplexy in reaction to these remarks, from U.S and international media on behalf of their benefactors in the Deep State. WATCH:
Both Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio have been exceptional standouts in the first year of the administration.
During a press conference on Wednesday, a Providence-area radio host, Chas Calenda, directly confronted Brown University officials and law enforcement with information he has received about the school intentionally disabling surveillance systems due to DEI concerns.
The response from university officials and the Providence Mayor indicate Mr. Chas Calenda’s informed accusation and question is directly on target. WATCH:
🚨 HOLY CRAP! A Providence, RI radio host just accused Brown University of TAKING DOWN security cameras in an effort to SHIELD illegal aliens
If this is true, this is a MONUMENTAL scandal.
This must be thoroughly investigated NOW! pic.twitter.com/kXyY51zDZF
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 18, 2025
In addition to information we previously shared {GO DEEP} reflecting requests from various “civil rights” and “humanitarian” groups who demanded Brown University disable their surveillance system, additional information about the issue comes via the Rhode Island ACLU making the same demand in October of this year [SEE HERE].
Brown University was under pressure from far-left groups as an outcome of concern the CCTV and school security system would be used by federal authorities to (a) identify radical leftists expressing antisemitic sentiments, and (b) identify the immigration status of persons on campus. It is not just isolated to Brown University.
Multiple municipal governments, private and municipal agencies have received the same demand in an ongoing effort to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. The mass shooting on Brown University is leading to a larger public awareness of an issue that has been spreading rapidly in the last several months.
The claim by Chas Calenda is that his local sources within law enforcement are confirming the university cowed to the concerns of the civil rights groups, including the removal of cameras. This is why there is no recorded CCTV footage, and the university is talking gibberish in their efforts to avoid admitting what has taken place.
Brown University and Providence police have $8 billion liability reasons to be less than honest with the alarmed public. The political ramifications of the story are also complicating the issue for Brown University, as well as local and national figures.