Europe shows us what happens when bureaucrats win



Americans are accustomed to innovation improving their lives. From smartphones to artificial intelligence, breakthroughs keep coming — and most of them happen in the United States, where freedom fuels invention. But across the Atlantic, the story is very different. Europe’s regulators have built a bureaucracy that smothers creativity.

The lesson is simple: Innovation thrives where government steps back, not where it rules from Brussels.

Europe doesn’t need more commissions or consultations. It needs courage to scrap bad laws and let innovation breathe again.

A recent analysis from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation drives home the point. All seven of the world’s trillion-dollar tech firms are American. Europe can claim only 28 companies worth more than $100 billion. Over the past decade, European firms raised about $426 billion — $800 billion less than their U.S. counterparts.

Rather than learn from failure, Brussels tightened its grip — proving again that when regulators fail, they regulate harder. Their Digital Markets Act and Copyright Directive saddle companies with costly mandates that make life harder for both innovators and consumers.

EU regulators insist that their rules ensure fairness, transparency, and competition. In reality, they’re strangling convenience and driving users crazy.

Take Google Maps. Because of DMA rules, Europeans can no longer click directly into expanded map views. As one user complained on Reddit, it’s become “a severe pain in the butt.” The new restrictions also hobble tourism. Google Search can’t link directly to airlines or hotels, forcing travelers through clunky intermediaries that waste time and money.

The Copyright Directive makes things worse. It tells search engines to display only “very short” snippets of news articles — without defining what that means. Bureaucrats promise to judge “the impact on the effectiveness of the new right,” which means nothing. By contrast, American courts have long recognized that snippets are fair use and help people find what they need. U.S. policy treats information as a public good; the EU treats it as a privilege controlled by the state.

The damage goes beyond search results. The EU now forces Apple and other “gatekeepers” to make their devices interoperable with third-party software — a costly demand that undermines engineering efficiency. Features like iPhone-to-Mac mirroring and real-time translation could disappear from European markets because of it.

As Cato Institute’s Jennifer Huddleston noted, “The real-time translation feature would be immensely helpful in Europe with so many languages; however, the consequence of European regulation is that it might not be available.”

RELATED: Can anyone save America from European-style digital ID?

Photo by Lab Ky Mo/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

And when companies don’t comply fast enough, Brussels slaps them with massive fines. Apple got hit with 500 million euros (around $580 million), Meta with 200 million euros (around $232 million) — punished not for misconduct but for trying to innovate.

The EU now says it will review whether the DMA “achieves its objectives of ensuring contestable and fair digital markets.” That’s bureaucratic code for “we might make it worse.” Meanwhile, the Copyright Directive’s vague language grows even more dangerous in the age of AI, where machine learning depends on large-scale data use that Brussels can’t seem to comprehend.

Europe doesn’t need more commissions or consultations. It needs courage to scrap bad laws and let innovation breathe again. If Brussels wants to compete with America, it should stop punishing success and start trusting its own entrepreneurs. A lighter-touch approach has worked for the United States — and it could save Europe from technological irrelevance.

ROOKE: UK’s Digital Dystopia Is A Warning For America — But Some Are Treating It Like A Roadmap

'U.S. and U.K. tech firms in enabling the surveillance'

New AI policing program could entrap innocent Americans



Several Arizona police departments are piloting a new AI-powered policing tool that promises to revolutionize how officers catch criminals. But without robust constitutional safeguards, this cutting-edge technology could pose a serious threat to the civil liberties of everyday Americans.

Arizona police agencies are now testing a new AI program that “deploys lifelike virtual agents, which infiltrate and engage criminal networks across various channels.” The program, called Overwatch, was developed by Massive Blue and provides police departments with up to 50 different AI personas.

While the technology could, in theory, be used for noble purposes, ... it also creates new opportunities for government overreach.

These include a sex trafficker persona, an escort persona, a 14-year-old boy in a child trafficking scenario, and a vaguely defined “college protester.” Beyond social media monitoring, the program allows police to communicate directly with suspects while posing as one of these AI-generated personas, all without a warrant.

No transparency

So far, both the police departments using Overwatch and the company behind it have been extremely secretive about its operations. Massive Blue co-founder Mike McGraw declined to answer questions from 404 Media, which first broke the story, about how the program works, which departments are using it, and whether it has led to any arrests.

“We cannot risk jeopardizing these investigations and putting victims’ lives in further danger by disclosing proprietary information,” McGraw said.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, one of the few agencies that have confirmed using the program, admitted it has not yet led to any arrests. Officials refused to provide details, saying, “We cannot risk compromising our investigative efforts by providing specifics about any personas.”

At an appropriations hearing, a Pinal County deputy sheriff also declined to share information about the program with the county council. Remarkably, the Arizona Department of Public Safety, which funds the initiative, does not appear to have been informed about the program’s specifics.

While the technology could, in theory, be used for noble purposes, such as preventing terrorist attacks or combating human trafficking, it also creates new opportunities for government overreach. Without safeguards, it poses a direct threat to the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

Invitation to entrapment

History is full of examples of government entrapment and abuse of power. In the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.), for example, FBI involvement played a central role in bringing groups together that may never have otherwise connected.

Similarly, in Jacobson v. United States (1992), federal agents sent child sexual abuse material through the mail to a man with no prior criminal record, leading to his conviction, which was later overturned.

RELATED: Netflix’s chilling new surveillance tools are watching you

Photo Illustration by Piotr Swat/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

In both cases, it is doubtful the crimes would have occurred without government intervention. A program like Overwatch makes such abuses easier, granting the government new ways to monitor and manipulate citizens who have never been convicted of a crime, and all without warrants.

The risks are compounded by the program’s vague and troubling categories, such as “college protester,” which could be redefined depending on who is in power. That opens the door for the technology to be weaponized against political dissent, even when no crime has been committed.

Without serious constitutional safeguards, programs like this are poised to become political tools of tyranny. Americans must demand warrant requirements and legislative oversight before this technology spreads nationwide and the erosion of our constitutional liberties becomes irreversible.

Britain’s Big Brother ID law is the globalist dream for America



On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood at the podium at the Global Progressive Action Conference in London and made an announcement that should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves liberty. By the end of this Parliament, he promised, every worker in the U.K. will be required to hold a “free-of-charge” digital ID. Without it, Britons will not be able to work.

No digital ID, no job.

The government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Starmer framed this as a commonsense response to poverty, climate change, and illegal immigration. He claimed Britain cannot solve these problems without “looking upstream” and tackling root causes. But behind the rhetoric lies a policy that shifts power away from individuals and places it squarely in the hands of government.

Solving the problem they created

This is progressivism in action. Leaders open their borders, invite in mass illegal immigration, and refuse to enforce their own laws. Then, when public frustration boils over, they unveil a prepackaged “solution” — in this case, digital identity — that entrenches government control.

Britain isn’t the first to embrace this system. Switzerland recently approved a digital ID system. Australia already has one. The World Economic Forum has openly pitched digital IDs as the key to accessing everything from health care to bank accounts to travel. And once the infrastructure is in place, digital currency will follow soon after, giving governments the power to track every purchase, approve or block transactions, and dictate where and how you spend your money.

All of your data — your medical history, insurance, banking, food purchases, travel, social media engagement, tax information — would be funneled into a centralized database under government oversight.

The fiction of enforcement

Starmer says this is about cracking down on illegal work. The BBC even pressed him on the point, asking why a mandatory digital ID would stop human traffickers and rogue employers who already ignore national insurance cards. He had no answer.

Bad actors will still break the law. Bosses who pay sweatshop wages under the table will not suddenly check digital IDs. Criminals will not line up to comply. This isn’t about stopping illegal immigration. If it were, the U.K. would simply enforce existing laws, close the loopholes, and deport those working illegally.

Instead, the government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Control masked as compassion

This is part of an old playbook. Politicians claim their hands are tied and promise that only sweeping new powers will solve the crisis. They selectively enforce laws to maintain the problem, then use the problem to justify expanding control.

RELATED: Europe pushes for digital ID to help 'crack down' on completely unrelated problems

Photo by Flavio Coelho via Getty Images

If Britain truly wanted to curb illegal immigration, it could. It is an island. The Channel Tunnel has clear entry points. Enforcement is not impossible. But a digital ID allows for something far more valuable to bureaucrats than border security: total oversight of their own citizens.

The American warning

Think digital ID can’t happen here? Think again. The same arguments are already echoing in Washington, D.C. Illegal immigration is out of control. Progressives know voters are angry. When the digital ID pitch arrives, it will be wrapped in patriotic language about fairness, security, and compassion.

But the goal isn’t compassion. It’s control — of your movement, your money, your speech, your future.

We don’t need digital IDs to enforce immigration law. We need leaders with the courage to enforce existing law. Until then, digital ID schemes will keep spreading, sold as a cure for the very problems they helped create.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Why states are quietly moving to restrict how much you drive



Do you spend too much time in your car?

Your local state authorities think you do — and they’re quietly pushing through laws that will give them the power to do something about it.

Don’t want to pay a mileage tax? Don’t drive. Need to commute to a job 40 miles away? That’s your problem. Visit family out of state too often? Expect to pay a premium.

Meet Massachusetts Senate Bill S.2246. Introduced by state Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem, it sets the stage for a future where the government tracks and potentially limits how many miles you drive each year. This isn’t a fringe proposal — it’s working its way through the legislature right now, and similar ideas are being tested in other states across the country.

Is this really about emissions — or is it about power and control?

What’s in the bill?

The Massachusetts legislation proposes the creation of a new government entity that would track vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, and implement policies to reduce them over time. While the bill doesn’t yet impose mileage caps, it does instruct state agencies to create a “reasonable pathway” to cut how much people drive annually.

Translation: A government-mandated limit on personal travel is no longer hypothetical — it’s being drafted right now.

Bill S.2246 also outlines coordination with automakers and the use of vehicle inspection data to monitor individual mileage. It even suggests changes to urban planning, encouraging the development of walkable neighborhoods and fewer parking options, all with the goal of getting you out of your car — whether you want to or not.

This bill didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s modeled on similar policies in places like Colorado and Minnesota, where pilot programs are already testing new ways to tax drivers based on how far they travel.

The new war on drivers

While Massachusetts leads this particular charge, it’s far from alone. A number of states are exploring ways to replace traditional gas taxes with per-mile taxes. They claim it’s about addressing the rise of electric vehicles and declining fuel tax revenue. But behind that talking point is a broader plan to monitor and manage how people use their personal vehicles.

States to watch include:

  • Minnesota: Testing mileage-based taxes and creating policies to “reduce vehicle use”;
  • Colorado: Committed to reducing VMT through state-level planning;
  • Oregon: A pioneer in per-mile taxation with the OReGO program;
  • New York and New Jersey: Both states are implementing congestion pricing in urban zones — a foot in the door for broader travel-based taxation; and
  • California and Washington: Actively developing road usage charges and congestion pricing models. Their VMT tax is well into the planning stages.

“Pilot project.” Sounds like an innocent trial run, doesn’t it? But pilot projects have a way of becoming law — slowly, quietly, and without voter input.

RELATED: A Look at Oregon's Program to Tax Drivers by the Mile

Image source: KTVL-TV

Moving violations

Supporters say these measures are about managing traffic or protecting the environment. But let’s be honest: This is about expanding state authority into private life.

It’s not just taxation. It’s surveillance. Think about it: If a government agency has the authority to track your mileage, it has the authority to restrict it. Combine that with modern vehicles equipped with GPS, connected services, and remote data-sharing, and we’re talking about a future where the state doesn’t just monitor your driving — it can penalize it.

Don’t want to pay a mileage tax? Don’t drive. Need to commute to a job 40 miles away? That’s your problem. Visit family out of state too often? Expect to pay a premium. This is a direct attack on working Americans, rural residents, and anyone who depends on their vehicle for daily life.

It’s no coincidence that many of these policies target personal liberty while funneling more money into government-approved programs — public transit, bike lanes, and urban planning initiatives that don’t serve the vast majority of residents.

Tax by another name

What’s being proposed isn’t a substitute for the gas tax. It’s an additional layer of taxation — one that disproportionately affects low-income Americans, small-business owners, and people who live outside city centers. People who can’t hop on a bus or ride a bike to work will end up paying the most.

It also opens the door to data collection on a scale we’ve never seen before. Once the government starts tracking your mileage, what’s next? Will your insurance rates be tied to state mileage thresholds? Will “excessive driving” be taxed as a form of noncompliance?

Creeping regulation

We’ve seen this approach before — quietly introduce “pilot” programs, sell them as innovative or necessary, and then expand them into mandates. It’s the same strategy used with toll lanes, emissions testing, and now digital IDs and connected vehicles.

The Massachusetts’ bill is especially troubling because the state has a reputation for pushing back on centralized control. It was one of the first states to pass a right-to-repair law and strengthen data privacy for consumers. But even in that context, this legislation is moving forward — slowly, with little attention, and under the radar of most residents.

The goal is simple: Shift transportation from a private activity to a regulated service. If that doesn’t concern you, it should.

What can you do?

Freedom of movement is a basic American right. If lawmakers are going to put a price tag on it — or worse, limit it — then every citizen should be aware and vocal.

Now is the time to contact your legislators and let them know you oppose mileage tracking and per-mile taxation.

Many of these programs are pushed by consulting firms and vendors who profit from tracking infrastructure. As I always say, follow the money.

These kinds of authoritarian initiatives don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat. And once government control over your mobility is normalized, it won’t stop at driving. The same logic can be applied to where you shop, when you travel, or how often you leave your home.

What’s happening in Massachusetts is a test case. If this legislation moves forward, expect a wave of similar bills in other states — all claiming to modernize transportation while actually expanding government power over your everyday life.

Personal vehicles represent more than just transportation. They’re a symbol of independence, flexibility, and the freedom to move as you choose. That freedom is under attack — not with a bang, but with quiet legislation buried in statehouse committees.

Watch closely. Push back early. Because once this kind of control is codified into law, it doesn’t go away easily. We need to get in front of these laws before it’s too late.

Justice at last? Obama intel chiefs face fallout from Russia hoax



The FBI has launched a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey for perjury and potentially other crimes related to the Trump-Russia hoax. This comes shortly after a CIA tradecraft review revealed their manipulation of a December 30, 2016, intelligence community assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump in the 2016 election. And on Friday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reported that former President Barack Obama, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Brennan, and others participated in the deception.

Gabbard said:

The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the president from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people. ... As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.

In the words of President Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the chickens may be finally coming home to roost.

The report and documents issued by Gabbard demonstrate that the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia probably was not using cyber means to influence the election.

On December 9, 2016, Obama’s National Security Council principals, including Clapper, Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe, and others, met to discuss Russia. After the meeting, Clapper directed an email to intelligence agency leaders, instructing them to work up an intelligence community assessment “per the president’s request” that detailed the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.”

The tradecraft review and the information released by Gabbard on Friday show a systematic breach of oath, duty, and honor by Barack Obama and the nation’s highest-ranking intelligence officials.

Even before the assessment began, Obama officials leaked false statements to media outlets that the IC had “definitively concluded” that Russia had used cyber means to intervene in the election, specifically to help Trump win.

Responding to Gabbard, Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, issued the following statement:

The years-long Russia investigation carried out by the Senate Intelligence Committee reaffirmed that the ‘Russian government directed extensive activity against US election infrastructure’ ahead of the 2016 election, and that it ‘used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign’ in order to benefit Donald Trump. This conclusion was supported on a unanimous basis by every single Democrat and Republican on the committee.

The rushed preparation of the intelligence community assessment ordered by Obama, conclusions reversing six months of intelligence analysis, and reliance on the discredited Steele dossier all suggest that Gabbard likely has the better of this argument, though calling the former Obama administration’s actions a “treasonous conspiracy” may be a step too far.

Setting the stage

John Brennan served as Barack Obama’s CIA director from March 2013 until just before Trump took office in January 2017. Since leaving office, he has been an outspoken Trump critic. In October 2020, he was one of 51 intelligence analysts who signed the intentionally misleading letter that Hunter Biden’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

Brennan and the other intelligence analysts used their training in deception to trick American voters just before the 2020 presidential election. As many signatories were aware at the time, the FBI had already vetted the legitimacy of the laptop and its contents. The oblique allegation was intended to convey that its content was fake, while preserving the analysts’ ability to deny that was their conclusion.

The letter also gave the FBI cover to deny knowledge of the laptop, allowing it and other federal agencies to influence and coerce the media into suppressing coverage. Numerous surveys suggest that wider knowledge of Hunter’s laptop could have changed the outcome of the 2020 election, sparing America the Biden-Harris administration.

Three years later, when the FBI introduced the laptop into evidence in the Hunter Biden prosecution, it publicly confirmed that its contents were authentic. Asked how that squared with the analysts’ letter, Brennan disingenuously asserted they had never suggested the content was false, but merely observed there were similarities to a Russian intelligence operation.

Mirrors within mirrors. Just days after again taking office, Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance.

Brennan was just the beginning

Brennan wasn’t the only high-profile Obama appointee targeting Trump. Obama’s FBI director Comey and Director of National Intelligence Clapper were integral to the effort.

In mid-2016, Comey opened an FBI criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, at least partially motivated by the Steele dossier. No later than January 2017, the FBI knew that much of the information in the dossier was false. Shortly after, it learned the dossier was disinformation funded by the Clinton campaign using the law firm Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS as cutouts to engage the putative author, erstwhile British spy Christopher Steele.

At the start of the first Trump administration, Comey apparently lied to Trump and then misled congressional committees by denying he was under investigation. On March 20, 2017, he finally revealed the FBI investigation to the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department’s inspector general and special counsel John Durham criticized Comey’s handling of these matters, and, as a result of Durham’s investigation, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to falsifying information in a surveillance warrant request targeting Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

They quickly learned the dossier was disinformation funded by the Clinton campaign to engage the putative author, erstwhile British spy Christopher Steele.

When Trump fired Comey on May 9, 2017, Comey retaliated by disclosing confidential information, depicting Trump in an unfavorable light, to Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman for delivery to the press. Comey became a Trump critic only somewhat less vitriolic than Brennan. Trump then revoked Comey’s security clearance.

Though Democrats and the media have savaged the criminal investigation of Brennan and Comey as political retribution, it’s evident — while in their Obama-appointed positions atop the world’s premier law enforcement and espionage agencies — they broke their oaths, exceeded their authority, ignored the Constitution, and investigated, harassed, and sought to prosecute Trump and his campaign team for their opposition to the deep state. Both lied in testimony to congressional committees about the status, origins, process, and findings of the FBI investigation and related intelligence community activities.

Shattering norms

When, just six weeks before the end of his term, Obama ordered the intelligence community to prepare a predetermined assessment of Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 campaign, the CIA completed the effort in just one week, over the Christmas holiday. The IC assessment concluded with “high confidence” that Russia sought to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Analysts buckled to pressure and included the claim that Putin “aspired” to help then-candidate Trump win the election but applied the reduced “moderate confidence” standard to that inference.

The CIA’s Directorate of Analysis routinely conducts internal after-action reviews of its work on controversial and high-profile intelligence topics, but no review was conducted after the intelligence community assessment’s publication, because it was considered “too politically sensitive,” according to analysts involved in the process.

Current Trump-appointed CIA Director John Ratcliffe rectified that failure two months ago, ordering the Directorate of Analysis to undertake a tradecraft review of the ICA. The review shed considerable light on the politicization of the intelligence community at the behest of Obama, Clapper, and Brennen — and the likelihood that agency heads repeatedly perjured themselves in congressional testimony. It also provides a view into the tortured abuse of facts that undergirds the lawfare waged against Trump by the Biden-Harris administration and Democratic prosecutors.

RELATED: Bombshell documents referred to DOJ expose Obama’s direct role in Russia hoax

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The tradecraft review concluded that the intelligence community generally — and the CIA specifically — violated norms for the development, drafting, and issuance of similar assessments. Work that usually occurs over many months was compressed into one holiday week, during which the agency heads were unusually and intensely involved in drafting the IC assessment in a “chaotic,” “atypical,” and “markedly unconventional” process. Strict compartmentalization prevented team members from accessing the information required to evaluate the proposed findings.

The conclusion that Putin “aspired” to help Trump win was largely based on one classified CIA report that Brennan refused to share with most team members. From the outset, Brennan and Clapper excluded the National Intelligence Council. In his book “Undaunted,” Brennan acknowledges that the agency heads and Obama White House agreed on this process prior to initiating the assessment.

The tradecraft review noted:

The decision by agency heads to include the Steele dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment. ... FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the ICA hinged on the dossier’s inclusion and, over the next few days, repeatedly pushed to weave references to it throughout the main body of the ICA.

The IC assessment authors and multiple senior CIA managers — including the two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia — strongly opposed including the dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards. The CIA’s deputy director for analysis warned in an email to Brennan that including it in any form risked “the credibility of the entire paper.”

The review shed considerable light on the politicization of the intelligence community at the behest of Obama, Clapper, and Brennan.

Brennan overruled their objections, insisting that narrative consistency was more important than accuracy. As the tradecraft review explained:

Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the dossier by the two mission center leaders — one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background — he appeared more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns.

Brennan issued written instructions to include the Steele dossier in the report. A summary was attached as an appendix, though it was expressly referenced in the main body of the intelligence community only once.

The tradecraft review determined that the intelligence community assessment not only relied on information from the problematic Steele dossier, but excluded “credibly sourced” differing reports.

Brennan’s perjury?

Contrary to the intelligence community’s assessment and Brennan’s written instructions to its authors, Brennan claimed in congressional testimony under oath on May 23, 2017, that the Steele dossier “wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.”

In January 2017, the Office of National Intelligence issued a statement from Clapper that “we did not rely upon [the dossier] in any way for our conclusions.” Several months later, Clapper assured Congress the dossier was “not a formal part of the intelligence community assessment.”

More recently, during a May 2023 House Judiciary Committee interview, Brennan asserted that “the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment.” Though Brennan was apparently the intelligence community assessment’s architect and gave specific instructions to use the Steele dossier, he testified he was “not involved in analyzing the dossier at all.”

Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations reported that Clapper swore in the same May 2023 House Judiciary Committee interview that the Steele dossier was not used “in” the intelligence community assessment or “for” the intelligence community assessment, and the team “didn’t draw on it.”

The tradecraft review and the information released by Gabbard on Friday show a systematic breach of oath, duty, and honor by Barack Obama and the nation’s highest-ranking intelligence officials.

The statute of limitations has likely run out on the initial wrongdoing and most efforts to cover it up, though not the 2023 testimony. A congressional investigation should bring clarity to the American public, while the FBI focuses on prosecutable crimes.

The standards for perjury should be those applied to former White House strategy chief Steve Bannon and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, both of whom were prosecuted and imprisoned for their testimony before congressional committees. To the extent other wrongdoing can be prosecuted, the standards should be those applied to senior government officials who betrayed their oaths in an effort to subvert the country.

Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

AI is coming for your job, your voice ... and your worldview



Suddenly, artificial intelligence is everywhere — generating art, writing essays, analyzing medical data. It’s flooding newsfeeds, powering apps, and slipping into everyday life. And yet, despite all the buzz, far too many Americans — especially conservatives — still treat AI like a novelty, a passing tech fad, or a toy for Silicon Valley elites.

Treating AI like the latest pet rock tech trend is not only naïve — it’s dangerous.

The AI shift is happening now, and it’s coming for white-collar jobs that once seemed untouchable.

AI isn’t just another innovation like email, smartphones, or social media. It has the potential to restructure society itself — including how we work, what we believe, and even who gets to speak — and it’s doing it at a speed we’ve never seen before.

The stakes are enormous. The pace is breakneck. And still, far too many people are asleep at the wheel.

AI isn’t just ‘another tool’

We’ve heard it a hundred times: “Every generation freaks out about new technology.” The Luddites smashed looms. People said cars would ruin cities. Parents panicked over television and video games. These remarks are intended to dismiss genuine concerns of emerging technology as irrational fears.

But AI is not just a faster loom or a fancier phone — it’s something entirely different. It’s not just doing tasks faster; it’s replacing the need for human thought in critical areas. AI systems can now write news articles, craft legal briefs, diagnose medical issues, and generate code — simultaneously, at scale, around the clock.

And unlike past tech milestones, AI is advancing at an exponential speed. Just compare ChatGPT’s leap from version 3 to 4 in less than a year — or how DeepSeek and Claude now outperform humans on elite exams. The regulatory, cultural, and ethical guardrails simply can’t keep up. We’re not riding the wave of progress — we’re getting swept underneath it.

AI is shockingly intelligent already

Skeptics like to say AI is just a glorified autocomplete engine — a chatbot guessing the next word in a sentence. But that’s like calling a rocket “just a fuel tank with fire.” It misses the point.

The truth is, modern AI already rivals — and often exceeds — human performance in several specific domains. Systems like OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic's Claude, and Google's Gemini demonstrate IQs that place them well above average human intelligence, according to ongoing tests from organizations like Tracking AI. And these systems improve with every iteration, often learning faster than we can predict or regulate.

Even if AI never becomes “sentient,” it doesn’t have to. Its current form is already capable of replacing jobs, overseeing supply chain logistics, and even shaping culture.

AI will disrupt society — fast

Some compare the unfolding age of AI as just another society-improving invention and innovation: Jobs will be lost, others will be created — and we’ll all adapt. But those previous transformations took decades to unfold. The car took nearly 50 years to become ubiquitous. The internet needed about 25 years to transform communication and commerce. These shifts, though massive, were gradual enough to give society time to adapt and respond.

AI is not affording us that luxury. The AI shift is happening now, and it’s coming for white-collar jobs that once seemed untouchable.

Reports published by the World Economic Forum and Goldman Sachs suggest job disruption to hundreds of millions globally in the next several years. Not factory jobs — rather, knowledge work. AI already edits videos, writes advertising copy, designs graphics, and manages customer service.

This isn’t about horses and buggies. This is about entire industries shedding their human workforces in months, not years. Journalism, education, finance, and law are all in the crosshairs. And if we don’t confront this disruption now, we’ll be left scrambling when the disruption hits our own communities.

AI will become inescapable

You may think AI doesn’t affect you. Maybe you never plan on using it to write emails or generate art. But you won’t stay disconnected from it for long. AI will soon be baked into everything.

Your phone, your bank, your doctor, your child’s education — all will rely on AI. Personal AI assistants will become standard, just like Google Maps and Siri. Policymakers will use AI to draft and analyze legislation. Doctors will use AI to diagnose ailments and prescribe treatment. Teachers will use AI to develop lesson plans (if all these examples aren't happening already). Algorithms will increasingly dictate what media you consume, what news stories you see, even what products you buy.

We went from dial-up to internet dependency in less than 15 years. We’ll be just as dependent on AI in less than half that time. And once that dependency sets in, turning back becomes nearly impossible.

AI will be manipulated

Some still think of AI as a neutral calculator. Just give it the data, and it’ll give you the truth. But AI doesn’t run on math alone — it runs on values, and programmers, corporations, and governments set those values.

Google’s Gemini model was caught rewriting history to fit progressive narratives — generating images of black Nazis and erasing white historical figures in an overcorrection for the sake of “diversity.” China’s DeepSeek AI refuses to acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Uyghur genocide, parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points by design.

Imagine AI tools with political bias embedded in your child’s tutor, your news aggregator, or your doctor’s medical assistant. Imagine relying on a system that subtly steers you toward certain beliefs — not by banning ideas but by never letting you see them in the first place.

We’ve seen what happened when environmental social governance and diversity, equity, and inclusion transformed how corporations operated — prioritizing subjective political agendas over the demands of consumers. Now, imagine those same ideological filters hardcoded into the very infrastructure that powers our society of the near future. Our society could become dependent on a system designed to coerce each of us without knowing it’s happening.

Our liberty problem

AI is not just a technological challenge. It’s a cultural, economic, and moral one. It’s about who controls what you see, what you’re allowed to say, and how you live your life. If conservatives don’t get serious about AI now — before it becomes genuinely ubiquitous — we may lose the ability to shape the future at all.

This is not about banning AI or halting progress. It’s about ensuring that as this technology transforms the world, it doesn’t quietly erase our freedom along the way. Conservatives cannot afford to sit back and dismiss these technological developments. We need to be active participants in shaping AI’s ethical and political boundaries, ensuring that liberty, transparency, and individual autonomy are protected at every stage of this transformation.

The stakes are clear. The timeline is short. And the time to make our voices heard is right now.

TikTok’s sinister sibling WeChat is the CCP’s real social media weapon



For years, the U.S. has debated whether TikTok poses a serious threat to privacy, democracy, and national security. This scrutiny is well founded — its vulnerabilities and potential for misuse are undeniable. But while TikTok dominates the conversation, a far more insidious platform has quietly evaded the spotlight.

With at least 4 million users in the U.S., WeChat's user base might pale in comparison to TikTok’s, but its potential for damage far outweighs its modest footprint. This is not just another social media app; it’s the backbone of China’s surveillance state.

The CCP’s go-to app

Owned by Tencent, a tech giant with undeniable ties to the Chinese Communist Party — 23% of its employees are reportedly members — WeChat functions as an extension of Beijing’s ideological apparatus. For Chinese citizens, both within and beyond the country’s borders, WeChat is not merely a tool for communication. It’s a digital leash. The app monitors messages, scans locations, and censors content deemed “politically sensitive” by Beijing.

Through China’s national security laws, Tencent is obligated to hand over any data that the CCP demands. These laws apply to servers in Hong Kong, which, contrary to its pre-1997 promises, has become another arm of Beijing’s authoritarian machine. For Chinese diaspora members in the U.S., WeChat is a lifeline to family and friends back home (more on this in a minute). But this connection comes with a hidden risk.

Straying from the party line can result in an account ban, cutting users off from essential communication, payments, and services. The message is clear: Stay in line, or face isolation.

Spyware: The digital plague

For the broader U.S. population, this surveillance tool may feel distant, but its implications are anything but. The app’s reach doesn’t stop with its users — it’s a Trojan horse capable of compromising any device it touches, spreading spyware like a virus to those who never even downloaded it.

Researchers have raised alarms about WeChat’s capacity to act as a conduit for spyware, enabling the CCP to gain access to sensitive information from infected devices. Imagine a corporate executive receiving a seemingly innocuous message from a colleague who uses WeChat. That single touchpoint could be enough to compromise the executive’s device, granting bad actors access to corporate emails, proprietary data, or even trade secrets.

The danger multiplies exponentially when applied to government officials, contractors, or anyone handling sensitive national security information. A phone compromised by WeChat spyware could become an unwitting surveillance device, allowing hostile actors to listen in on conversations, track movements, or even activate cameras remotely. The potential damage is not hypothetical — cybersecurity experts have documented similar tactics deployed by China in other cases.

Now consider the scale. With millions of WeChat users in the U.S., many of whom interact with non-users daily, the app becomes a digital contagion. Each compromised device acts as a vector, spreading the infection farther, infiltrating networks, and bypassing traditional security measures.The question isn’t whether these vulnerabilities will be exploited — it’s whether they already have. After all, the CCP has already stolen the personal data of tens of millions of Americans.

Censorship and propaganda

Beyond its technical threats, WeChat serves as a tool for censorship and propaganda, extending the CCP’s ideological reach onto American soil. By monitoring and controlling the content its users share, WeChat ensures that dissenting voices are silenced while amplifying pro-CCP narratives. For instance, posts critical of Beijing’s policies — whether related to human rights abuses in Xinjiang or military aggression in the South China Sea — are swiftly removed or shadow-banned.

Moreover, during U.S. elections, WeChat has been used as a tool for spreading CCP propaganda, such as disinformation campaigns targeting Chinese-speaking voters in states like California and Texas. False narratives, including claims that certain candidates supported anti-China policies or would harm the Chinese community, were disseminated to sway opinions and suppress opposition. In other words, China has weaponized this app to sow discord and manipulate democratic processes in America.

The US response: A necessary ban

With all eyes on TikTok, WeChat, with its proven track record of facilitating censorship, spreading spyware, and enforcing ideological conformity, has flown largely under the radar. This double standard is not just shortsighted — it’s downright dangerous.

The United States has the capacity to address both threats simultaneously. Banning WeChat is not merely a matter of convenience; it’s a necessity for national security. Arguments against such action often center on the app’s aforementioned importance to the Chinese diaspora, who rely on it to stay connected with family and friends back home. But this reliance cannot outweigh the risks posed by its continued operation. It’s 2025, for crying out loud. There are numerous alternative communication platforms that offer secure, private channels for connection without the baggage of CCP surveillance.

Allowing WeChat to remain operational in the U.S. undermines both security and sovereignty. It gives the CCP a foothold in the digital lives of millions of Americans, creating vulnerabilities that can be exploited at any moment. If the U.S. is serious about countering China’s growing influence, banning WeChat must be part of the strategy.

Trump’s Deal Is Only The First Step At Countering China’s Strategic Moves In Panama

Rubio's visit to Panama resulted in the first foreign policy victory for the Trump administration, but there is more to be done.

Tulsi Gabbard flip-flops on Section 702 — Trump's DNI pick now supports much-abused surveillance authority



Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard has changed her position on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the warrantless surveillance authority that was used to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign and was exploited by the FBI hundreds of thousands of times to spy on American citizens.

Gabbard told Punchbowl News last week that she will support the controversial act if confirmed as President-elect Donald Trump's director of national intelligence.

Section 702 allows the government to spy on foreign nationals outside the U.S. with the compelled aid of electronic communication service providers. While supposedly outward-facing, if an American contacts or is contacted by a foreign national over email, social media, or the phone, the American's communications could potentially be tapped, searched, and stored without a warrant.

Blaze News previously reported that the FBI has admitted that there were at least 278,000 "unintentional" backdoor search queries of the 702 database for the private communications of Americans between 2020 and 2021 alone. Among those citizens swept up into the warrantless 702 searches were Jan. 6 protesters, congressional campaign donors, and BLM protesters.

'Politicians talk a good game about civil liberties.'

In her final days as congresswoman for Hawaii, Gabbard joined Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in advancing a bill that would have repealed the Patriot Act and killed nearly all provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Gabbard said in a video at the time:

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution very specifically prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause. But over the last two decades, in part because of information revealed by Edward Snowden, we now know that there have been ongoing breaches of our civil liberties through programs that were instituted through the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, which basically allowed agencies within our government to conduct mass illegal surveillance on Americans without a warrant or probable cause.

Years later, Gabbard, still apparently a critic of Section 702, noted in a speech at CPAC, "Too many politicians talk a good game about civil liberties, but when it comes time to cast that vote on things like getting rid of secret FISA courts and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights to privacy, they vote on the side of the power elite and against liberty."

In an apparent effort to win over elements of the power elite in the U.S. Senate, Gabbard has adopted a new view on the spying authority.

Gabbard confirmed her flip-flop in a statement to CNN on Friday, noting, "Section 702, unlike other FISA authorities, is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons abroad. This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans."

"My prior concerns about FISA were based on insufficient protections for civil liberties, particularly regarding the FBI's misuse of warrantless search powers on American citizens," continued Gabbard, who Trump previously indicated would champion Americans' constitutional rights in the role. "Significant FISA reforms have been enacted since my time in Congress to address these issues. If confirmed as DNI, I will uphold Americans' Fourth Amendment rights while maintaining vital national security tools like Section 702 to ensure the safety and freedom of the American people."

'IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS.'

This consequential about-face may improve Gabbard's chances of confirmation in the U.S. Senate. Her embrace of Section 702 has already won over Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford (R), a longtime supporter of the controversial spying power, who told NBC News' "Meet the Press" Sunday that Gabbard's flip-flop "was a very important piece."

"She voted against that in the House when she was a member of the House of Representatives and had said she wanted changes," said Lankford. "She's now coming and saying, 'Those changes have been done,' because even since she was in Congress, there have been quite a few changes that we've made in Congress to make sure we're protecting the civil rights of Americans."

Lankford previously suggested in a Wall Street Journal podcast on Wednesday that Gabbard should abandon her opposition to the 702 program.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, similarly appears pleased by Gabbard's change of heart, telling Punchbowl News on Thursday, "Tulsi Gabbard has assured me in our conversations that she supports Section 702 as recently amended and that she will follow the law and support its reauthorization as DNI."

Trump implored Republicans to "KILL FISA" as it was nearing its expiration date last year, noting, "IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN."

To the great satisfaction of the Biden White House, the Republican-controlled House voted 273-147 in favor of reauthorizing the surveillance bill on April 12, 2024.

Despite the rejection of multiple proposed amendments that might have protected American citizens' privacy from the spying authority Gabbard now supports, Republican Sens. Lankford, John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Katie Britt (Ala.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), John Kennedy (La.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pete Ricketts (Neb.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), John Thune (S.D.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), and Todd Young (Ind.) and former Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) joined forces with Democrats to ensure its reauthorization.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!