The tiny Oxfordshire village of Piddington has held a symbolic referendum to leave the United Kingdom after the government proposed housing up to 1,200 male asylum seekers at a former Ministry of Defense base roughly half a mile away. Piddington has only about 350 residents, yet 285 voted to secede while just 26 voted against it. Parish chairman Tim McNally declared that the community would henceforth call itself the “Principality of Piddington,” saying residents had sent a message not merely to the region or country but “to the world.” Obviously, Piddington has not legally left Britain, but anyone laughing at this as some village publicity stunt is missing what the vote actually represents.
The government is proposing an asylum facility capable of housing more than three times the population of the village beside a community of roughly 350 people. Residents have raised concerns about safety, crime, property values, and the impact on local services, while the government insists the site will be largely self-sufficient to minimize the effect on the surrounding community. Refugee organizations have criticized the plan from the opposite direction, arguing that remote military facilities are also inappropriate places for asylum seekers and can damage social cohesion. Yet Westminster still expects everyone involved to accept a decision imposed from above.
The timing could not be more remarkable. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have just seen their nationalist leaders gather in Cardiff and declare that “Westminster’s time is coming to an end.” Scotland continues debating independence, Northern Ireland has a legal mechanism for eventual reunification with Ireland, and Welsh nationalism is gaining support among younger generations. Now, inside England itself, a village has overwhelmingly voted to symbolically withdraw from the United Kingdom because residents believe Westminster is imposing policies upon them without meaningful local consent.
Political fragmentation does not start with governments disappearing overnight or borders suddenly being redrawn. It begins when people stop believing that the central government represents their interests. I have explained for years that separatist movements are driven by economics and declining confidence in centralized authority. The Scottish independence movement was already appearing in our models long before the 2014 referendum shocked Westminster, and what politicians continually fail to understand is that confidence is never permanent.
Immigration has become one of the mechanisms accelerating that collapse across Europe because national governments increasingly make decisions while local communities absorb the consequences. Britain recorded more than 41,000 people crossing the English Channel in small boats during 2025, although crossings so far this year are reportedly down more than 40% compared with the same period last year. The government is trying to move asylum seekers out of expensive hotels and into alternative accommodations, but simply transferring thousands of people into military facilities does not eliminate the political problem. It merely moves the burden from one community to another.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham says he understands the strength of feeling and will examine the concerns raised by Piddington, while maintaining that Britain needs a fair system for distributing asylum accommodation. That is the government’s position, and there is a legitimate national problem that must be addressed, but governments create these political explosions when consultation comes only after communities discover that major decisions have already effectively been made.
When 285 people in a village of roughly 350 vote to “leave” their own country as an act of protest, they are expressing something deeper than opposition to one migrant facility. They are saying they no longer believe the political system gives them meaningful control over their own community.
Britain now faces constitutional pressure from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland while resentment toward Westminster is appearing inside England itself. These movements are different and should not be confused with one another, but they share a common foundation in declining confidence that centralized government understands or represents local interests. The more Westminster attempts to solve national problems by imposing solutions upon individual communities, the more it risks feeding precisely the political fragmentation it fears.
Piddington will remain part of the United Kingdom, but the message from its residents could hardly be clearer. When a village of 350 people is prepared to declare itself a principality because it believes London will not listen, the real story is no longer about one asylum center. It is about how far confidence in government has fallen and what people will do when they decide that political authority has become too distant from those it supposedly represents.
Categories:BRITAIN
Apparently, understanding debt is optional when you are running for the authority to create more of it. Legal Insurrection reports that Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon complained about repaying taxes and student loans, including her statement: “I don’t wanna pay it back. Education supposed to be free.” There you have the promise that keeps politics in business. Declare something free, hand the obligation to government, and pretend the cost has disappeared.
Nixon said it is “crazy” to expect she repay $17,600 in outstanding student loan debt and $14,000 in back taxes. What is “crazy” is seeking a seat in the United States Senate while complaining that somebody expects you to pay what you owe. Once you seek the authority to vote on everyone else’s taxes and the government’s borrowing, you should be prepared to explain how your promises are financed.
Too many politicians treat debt as something they authorize and other people must manage. Borrow today, refinance when it comes due, and leave the next officeholder to deal with the consequences. Governments routinely roll over debt. But the ability to refinance has encouraged a political culture in which there is always money for another promise and never a convenient time to explain the accumulating expense. The politician’s career can end. The obligation keeps collecting interest.
Then comes the lecture to the great unwashed. You must pay more because the government needs revenue. You must accept less because the budget is under pressure. You must tighten your belt because difficult choices can no longer be postponed. Where was this sudden devotion to responsibility when the commitments were being made? They collected the applause for spending the money. Now the people working to earn it are expected to shoulder the responsibility for keeping the arrangement afloat.
No economics examination is required to enter the Senate, although its members help make decisions affecting taxes, borrowing, businesses, and household finances. An examination would hardly guarantee good judgment, but the absence of any requirement to understand finance is striking when you consider the authority involved. A candidate can promise to tax wealth without explaining how it will be valued, promise new spending without identifying dependable revenue, and promise debt relief without discussing the cost. The public gets the sales pitch. The financing is somebody else’s problem.
There is an extraordinary arrogance in borrowing money and then acting offended when repayment comes due, as though your obligation became somebody else’s responsibility. That is the entitlement behind the socialist promise that somebody else should foot the bill. The person who worked extra hours, skipped the expensive degree, or spent years repaying a loan is now expected to accept another charge in the name of fairness. Fairness to whom?
Government can tax and borrow, but neither power guarantees that financing remains cheap or that the tax base remains healthy. Businesses can postpone investment. People can change where they work and where they put their money. Creditors can demand higher yields. When interest expense rises, more revenue is committed to servicing past decisions before anyone addresses present needs. That is how yesterday’s promises begin restricting tomorrow’s choices, regardless of what the next campaign brochure says.
If someone cannot explain how they intend to meet their own financial obligations, why should the public trust their judgment over obligations imposed on millions of others? Treating repayment as an outrageous imposition is idiotic. A balance sheet does not improve because you resent the liabilities. If the entire plan depends on somebody else always having enough money to cover the shortfall, there is no plan. There is merely a bill waiting to arrive.
Nixon believes she personally does not need to meet her debt responsibilities. She will appeal to voters who lack long-term vision and sound, logical minds. Socialists will always find someone else to blame, another wallet to pick through, before accepting responsibility.
The public does not need another speech about compassion from someone unwilling to discuss a balance sheet. It needs an honest account of the obligations being created in its name. Who pays? For how long? What happens if the projected revenue does not arrive? Those questions should come before the spending vote. Politicians can behave as though rolling over a debt means escaping it, but the interest must still be financed. They may be gone by the time the bill becomes unbearable. You will still be there.
.png?width=1200&name=shutterstock_1376790440%20(1).png "shutterstock_1376790440%20(1).png?width=1200&name=shutterstock_1376790440%20(1)")
I wrote about Angela Lipps back in March because her case demonstrated exactly what happens when government begins trusting a computer more than basic human investigation. Now this 50-year-old Tennessee grandmother is suing the City of Fargo and a former detective for $10 million after spending nearly six months behind bars for crimes she says she could not possibly have committed. She had never even been to North Dakota before this nightmare began, yet facial recognition software identified her as a possible match in a bank fraud investigation and the government machinery took over from there.
Lipps was arrested at gunpoint by U.S. Marshals in Tennessee in July 2025 while babysitting four children. Fargo police were investigating a woman who allegedly used fraudulent identification to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars from banks, and facial recognition technology produced Lipps as a possible match. According to the lawsuit, investigators then compared photographs from her driver’s license and social media and proceeded against her. She eventually faced eight felony charges, including offenses carrying the possibility of years in prison, while basic financial records later showed she was more than 1,000 miles away in Tennessee when the crimes occurred.
AI did not walk into her house and put handcuffs on her. PEOPLE did that. The computer produced a possible identification and human beings entrusted with the power of the state allegedly failed to perform the basic investigation necessary before destroying someone’s life. Technology gives government enormous power while simultaneously giving bureaucrats something else to blame when they get it wrong.
Lipps reportedly spent 108 days jailed in Tennessee before being transported to North Dakota and remained incarcerated for months until her attorney produced records supporting that she was in Tennessee when the thefts occurred. The charges were dismissed on Christmas Eve. By then, according to her lawsuit and attorneys, she had lost her home, car, possessions, and even her dog because she could not pay her bills while sitting in jail. She was released in Fargo during winter without a coat and with practically nothing to her name. No computer experiences those consequences because the computer simply produces another output and moves on.
Facial recognition poses a serious threat to privacy, and as I warned years ago, would eventually track ordinary people simply walking through public places. At the time, this sounded like something out of Minority Report. Now facial recognition is embedded throughout policing, airports, border systems, private security networks, and massive surveillance databases. I recently wrote about Flock’s network of more than 120,000 cameras spread across 49 states, where law enforcement agencies can search vehicle movements across jurisdictions. Add facial recognition and AI to that infrastructure and government gains the ability to identify, locate, categorize, and investigate people on a scale that previous governments could never have imagined.
The problem is that AI is not some all-knowing intelligence. It identifies patterns and probabilities based upon the information and methodology behind the system. A match is not proof that someone committed a crime, yet people have an extraordinary tendency to surrender their own judgment once a computer produces an answer.
I wrote about Jason Killinger in 2025 after facial recognition at a Nevada casino reportedly identified him as a “100% match” for another person. Killinger produced identification, vehicle registration, and other documentation, yet authorities still arrested him. The machine had spoken, so reality itself became suspect.
Angela Lipps is hardly the only person caught in this mess. The ACLU says more than a dozen people in the United States are now publicly known to have been wrongfully arrested after police reliance on facial-recognition results. Kimberlee Williams of Oklahoma was arrested because Maryland authorities were looking for somebody else even though she said she had never been to Maryland. These are not harmless glitches where Netflix recommends the wrong movie. When government plugs imperfect technology into the criminal justice system, an error can mean armed agents at your door, jail, extradition, lost employment, financial destruction, and months of your life that nobody can ever return.
This is why the expansion of biometric databases should concern everyone. Your face cannot be replaced like a password. Governments are increasingly collecting facial scans, fingerprints, iris patterns, location records, license plate data, financial information, and countless other identifiers. AI can connect those databases in seconds. Once that infrastructure exists, government does not need to follow you physically because the cameras, databases, banks, phones, cars, and computers can reconstruct your life for them.
People respond by saying they have nothing to hide, but Angela Lipps apparently did not need anything to hide. The entire point of due process is that government must prove YOU committed the crime rather than forcing you to prove that the computer picked the wrong face. When technology reverses that burden, we have abandoned one of the most fundamental principles of a free society.
Technology itself is not the enemy. AI can be extraordinarily useful, but it cannot become a substitute for evidence, investigation, probable cause, and human accountability. A facial recognition hit should be an investigative lead, not a conviction generated by an algorithm. The moment government begins treating probabilities as facts, every innocent person becomes one bad computer match away from having to prove who they are.
Angela Lipps lost months of her life because a machine allegedly pointed government in her direction and the humans involved failed to establish the truth quickly enough. Her $10 million lawsuit will now force the courts to examine who is responsible when technology gets it wrong, but the larger question is far more important. We are building the most sophisticated surveillance infrastructure ever created while simultaneously discovering that the machines watching everyone can identify the WRONG person.
is holding elections for the ninth State Duma from September 18–20, 2026, making this the first national parliamentary election since the West Neocons instigated this war against Russia through Ukraine as their proxy, forcing Putin to come to the Russians’ rescue in the Donbas in February 2022. All 450 seats in the lower house are up for election for five-year terms. The election therefore comes at an unusually important moment: the Ukraine war has lasted more than four years, and Ukraine’s drone attacks have deliberately sought to influence these elections with the objective of supporting the Russia hawks.
We expect that United Russia will retain control of the Duma. The key here is not simply who controls parliament, but how large United Russia’s majority will be at the end of the day. The open question will be what turnout looks like, how the Communist Party and other parties perform, and what the Kremlin does after the election.
How the election works
The State Duma contains 450 deputies. Russia uses a mixed electoral system: 225 seats are elected from single-member constituencies, while another 225 are distributed through the nationwide party-list vote.
That distinction matters because United Russia’s strength does not come solely from its national percentage. Its organization and position in individual constituencies can allow it to win a considerably larger percentage of seats than its share of the party-list vote.
United Russia currently has a very large parliamentary majority. It has 310 seats and needs at least 300 seats to retain the two-thirds supermajority necessary to approve constitutional amendments without support from other parties. This is why Zelensky is not merely seeking to influence the election with his attacks, but is already claiming that the Russians in the Donbas should not be allowed to vote and that this should be rejected by the international community. I suppose he refuses to allow Ukrainian to vote, so what should Putin allow Russians to vote who were attacked by the Ukrainians to start this civil war in the first place.
Consequently, 300 seats is one number to watch when the results are released and you can bet that Zelensky will be screaming that any election in Russia should not be recognized by the world.
United Russia remains dominant
A late-August survey from the state pollster VTsIOM put United Russia at approximately 37% support among respondents, compared with about 11.6% for the Communist Party. Independent polling produces a substantially different picture. For example, an ExtremeScan survey conducted September 4–10 reported considerably lower support for United Russia among decided voters and substantial hypothetical support for Yabloko. Different methodology and Russia’s political environment make direct comparisons between these surveys difficult.
The opposition
The Communist Party, LDPR, A Just Russia and New People provide alternatives on the ballot, but the major parliamentary opposition parties broadly support the Kremlin on the Ukraine war and frequently support the government on major national-security issues.
The liberal Yabloko party, which opposed the war, the Russian Supreme Court removed from the nationwide party-list contest. Individual Yabloko candidates can still contest some single-member constituencies. Zelensky knows this, so his attacks inside Russia have intensified all the more to ensure that the war continues, supporting the hawks – not the anti-war crowd.
Ukraine has changed the political environment
The 2026 election is taking place under circumstances that did not exist during the 2021 Duma election. Ukrainian drones have increasingly attacked refineries, logistics facilities, and other targets inside Russia. These attacks, along with concerns about fuel supplies and another possible mobilization, have contributed to public anxiety, and Zelensky knows he has turned up the heat on the hatred of Ukrainians. He takes his marching orders from Boris Johnson, who wants war with Russia.
A voter can support Putin or the Russian state while still being unhappy about inflation, economic conditions, mobilization, casualties, or the war’s duration. They realize that Putin did NOT start this war and that the West simply hates Russians. Consequently, the election should not automatically be interpreted as a straightforward referendum on whether Russians support every aspect of the war in Ukraine.
Post-Election Draft
One particularly sensitive issue is speculation about another military mobilization. Even Reuters reported that some Russians had left the country temporarily because they fear another call-up after the election. Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly denied that another mobilization is necessary, saying Russia has sufficient manpower. There is currently no basis for treating a post-election mobilization as established fact. Zelensky has been putting that in the press to disrupt politics in Russia, trying to instigate some sort of revolution.
Nevertheless, what happens after September 20 may ultimately prove more consequential than the parliamentary arithmetic itself.
If there were a major change in manpower policy, military spending, taxation, capital controls or economic mobilization after voting concludes, analysts would inevitably examine whether the election had served as a political dividing line. Conversely, continuation of current policies would weaken the argument that the Kremlin had been postponing unpopular measures until after the vote.
The economy is another pressure point
The election is also occurring against a more difficult economic background. AP describes recessionary/stagnation pressures, weaker living standards and damage from Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure as part of the environment surrounding the vote.
That matters because prolonged wars often shift domestic political concerns from the initial geopolitical issue to wages, prices, taxes, manpower, and living standards.
Voting in Donbas
Zelensky has made this a major issue, arguing that the Russians, whom he hates with a passion, living in the Donbas were entitled to vote under the Minsk Agreement, which Ukraine has refused to honor. Zelensky is trying to make this another major international issue. Russia’s decision to conduct voting in Crimea and Russian-controlled portions of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions.
Ukraine rejects Russia’s annexation claims despite the Minsk Agreement they signed in bad faith and has called on foreign governments and international organizations NOT to recognize voting conducted in those territories. Russia considers the territories part of the Russian Federation and rightfully so after Ukraine started this civil war, attacking the Donbas on the orders of the Neocons by the installed “interim” unelected government.
The election results from these territories will therefore remain internationally disputed regardless of the national result. This is further evidence that Zelensky takes his orders from Boris Johnson and NATO, praying for war, and could care less if any Ukrainians are still standing at the end of the day.
What the election can actually tell us
Zelensky is deliberately trying to get Russia to attack aggressively so he can claim some violation and drag in all of NATO into this war to destroy Russia, the same as Netanyahu has used the United States to fund and carry out his war, also constructed on sheer hatred of Iran. In both cases, these psychopaths are trying to drag the world into war for their personal vendettas.
The election will not transfer parliamentary power. United Russia is expected to remain dominant. However, the more revealing information will come from the margins: United Russia’s national vote share, whether it remains above 300 seats, Communist and other systemic-opposition performance, turnout, regional differences, and evidence of protest voting.
We expect the real story to unfold in the post-election period through the first quarter of 2027. What is very clear is that people like Johnson are pulling the strings in Ukraine and have blocked every peace deal, rushing to Ukraine to order Zelensky to reject peace. Moreover, he insisted that Zelensky move the signing of the deal on resources to the White House to embarrass Trump and keep the US funding the war. That backfired.
Boris Johnson’s hostility toward Russia is a deep personal grudge, in addition to a historical political calculation. The tension between Britain and Russia has deep roots. From the “Great Game” rivalry of the 19th century to the Cold War, the UK has often viewed Russia with suspicion and as an enemy. In the post-Soviet era, this “Rusophobia” (as Russia’s Foreign Ministry has called it) has remained a structural feature of British political and media discourse, often portraying Russia as a persistent threat.
For Johnson, taking a hard line against Russia also served clear political purposes, creating the media image that being tough on Russia has long been a point of cross-party consensus in the UK. This made it a politically safe and popular position to adopt, especially after incidents like the 2018 Salisbury poisoning of Litvinenko, which they blamed on Putin, but I found was false to begin with. That too involved Berezovsky who was the only one with the motive – not Putin. That was the nerve-agent attack on a former Russian spy in the UK, which Britain blamed on Russia, plunged relations to “freezing point” and set the stage for Johnson’s subsequent hostility. My research established that it was Berezovsky and his own bodyguard who said that he was killed by British MI6 when he wrote his begging letters apologizing to Putin and asking to please allow him to come home. He would have provided the truth, and MI6 took him out.
Then there was the laughable “Missile Threat” Call of 2022, that appears to be a political stunt by Johnson. Indeed, he claimed that in a pre-invasion phone call, Putin threatened him with a missile strike, saying it would “only take a minute.” The Kremlin denied this, calling Johnson a liar. Johnson used this narrative to paint Putin as unpredictable and dangerous.
Johnson is a vocal supporter of Ukraine and imposed heavy sanctions on Russia following the 2022 invasion, cementing his role as a leading critic of the Kremlin on the world stage. Yet, he has now admitted that sanctions will not work and advocates military action.
The most direct conflict of interest involves a £1 million donation Johnson received from Christopher Harborne, a businessman who owns a 13% stake in QinetiQ, a UK defense firm that supplies drones and demining robots to the Ukrainian military. This donation was reportedly recorded as a personal benefit to Johnson’s company and did not appear in the UK’s Electoral Commission database, which tracks funds for political activity, suggesting it was a personal commercial contribution rather than a political one.
Harborne accompanied Johnson on a visit to Ukraine in September 2023, where he was listed as an “advisor to Boris Johnson’s office” and a closed-door meeting with a “Military Technology Research Center” was on the schedule. This connection suggests Johnson has a financial incentive to keep the conflict going, as the longer the war continues, the more business companies like QinetiQ do.
Since leaving office, Johnson has built a lucrative career as a speaker and media personality. He earned over £1 million ($1.2 million) from paid speeches alone in the months immediately after stepping down, with individual engagements paying between £215,000 and £277,000. By 2024, his speaking fees had reportedly totaled around £5 million.
Maintaining a high-profile role as a leading advocate for Ukraine keeps him in the international spotlight, which is essential for his commercial success as a speaker, columnist, and documentary maker. He recently produced a documentary about his trip to the frontline and wrote a column for the Daily Mail about his experiences, both of which generate income and publicity.
Johnson’s opposition to peace deals is not new. In November 2023, David Arakhamia, the head of President Zelensky’s parliamentary faction and Ukraine’s chief negotiator at the Istanbul peace talks in 2022, stated that Johnson visited Kyiv after the talks and told Ukraine to “just continue fighting” rather than sign any agreement with Russia. This intervention is widely credited with derailing a potential early ceasefire.
His public rhetoric has remained consistent. In a 2023 speech, he said “A peaceful solution with Putin cannot be achieved,” and called for Ukraine’s fast-track NATO membership. In his recent Daily Mail column, he argued that the West is not doing enough and that Ukraine must win on the battlefield. He made the front page of the Norwegian press, publicly stating that Ukraine was Britain’s proxy war against Russia. He advocates for the destruction of Russia with ZERO forethought of what comes next.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has dismissed Johnson’s recent frontline visits as “another PR show on bones.” She accused him of personally participating in “canceling the negotiation process and escalating the conflict,” calling him “a villain who returned to the crime scene.”
My own discussions with members of Congress reveal the same view of Boris. I was told they see him as a serious threat to peace.
While Johnson frames his involvement as a moral commitment to Ukrainian victory and to fulfilling the UK’s promise under the Budapest Memorandum, his financial entanglement with a defense contractor and his reliance on Ukraine-related publicity for income make the conflict of interest hard to ignore.
Boris Johnson has destroyed the world order for he has so prejudiced the West against Russia, I fear that there is no putting the world economy back together ever again. This may in fact simply now require the crash & burn outcome.
Categories:BRITAINCorruptionGeopoliticalUkraine
Readers here have significant knowledge of how the overall western intelligence apparatus works to control the activity of their respective governments. Factually, the intelligence apparatus never really changes with each election within each of the respective nations that makes up the “Five Eyes” assembly.
The U.K, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States make up the intelligence control group. Together with the U.K., four of the five eyes are British Commonwealth nations, so it doesn’t seem odd to see the intelligence assembly follow the geopolitical shift underway.
Great Britain has previously outlined how despite their Brexit the institutional intelligence remained connected to the European Union. With Canada now taking on “Associate Member” status within the EU, Carney is just bringing them into alignment. Now, reports are surfacing that Australia and New Zealand are also open to remaining attached to their British cousins.
(AUSTRALIA) – The Albanese government is open to considering associate member status with the European Union despite threats issued by US President Donald Trump.
EU Parliament President Roberta Metsola put the idea on the table following an address by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney where he welcomed the possibility of becoming an “associate member” of the Union.
Ms Metsola said Australia and New Zealand were among the countries “with which we want to deepen our relationship”. Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Matt Thistlethwaite told News24 the government would “consider” the proposal. (read more)
The yellow nations on the map above also happen to be the ‘western powers’ who organized the sanctions against Russia.
Posted inAustralia, Banking and Finance, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Deep State, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2026, European Union, Fourth Branch of Govt, media bias, NATO, President Trump, propaganda, Russia, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain, USA
Posted originally on the CTH on September 17, 2026 | Sundance |
As the story is told, a 40-year-old British intelligence officer named Major Paul Wilks was killed in an “automobile accident” while traveling in Ukraine. The British media frame the incident as a car crash “away from the front lines” of the conflict.
One has to wonder how many British intelligence military officers are just innocuously traveling around Ukraine. Who knows, maybe it’s just a great place for a holiday. However, common sense would seem to indicate that Major Wilks was probably not on vacation.
Sky News – […] Remembered as a “man of great intellect”, Major Wilks was deployed on multiple tours, including to Afghanistan, and was recognised with two Operational Service Medals. And he was awarded the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal in May.
He was commissioned from Sandhurst in 2012 and joined the Intelligence Corps, where he remained throughout his career. (source)
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned on Thursday that Russia is planning hybrid strikes with drones or rockets on European countries supporting Ukraine, among them Poland.
Russia will pretend the attacks are “accidental” in order to “paralyze or at least weaken the motivation of NATO countries” to rush to the defense of the member state coming under attack, Tusk said in a speech to the Polish parliament.
Posted inBig Government, Conspiracy ?, European Union, media bias, NATO, propaganda, Russia, Ukraine, Uncategorized
Palantir CEO Alex Karp is a little quirky but, on this issue, I tend to agree with him.
According to Karp in the interview below the request by OpenAI and Anthropic AI labs for government regulation is related to a legal issue within their business model. Right now, massive multinational corporations are working with AI groups under contract. As part of those contracts the leaders of the corporations are discovering their individual business plans, what they call their intellectual property (IP) has been uploaded into the dataset of the AI models themselves.
These corporations have spent billions of dollars on their detailed business plans, marketing plans, logistics and revenue systems that are now part of the AI dataset. These CEOs are not happy and talking about lawsuits against the AI developers for stealing their corporate intellectual property. However, at the same time the CEOs are furious at the loss of proprietary information, they are simultaneously bound to the AI developers for forward revenue. This is creating a problem.
Example: By some analyst’s estimations, Amazon’s forward revenue projection is approximately 51% dependent on further technological capability through the use of AI. However, Jeff Bezos likely does not appreciate his business model, which includes a massive dataset that he makes money from, being taken and uploaded to the AI database. Bezos could sue Anthropic for ip theft.
All of the AI labs are exposed to this litigation if it was to unfold. Additionally, all of the investors into the AI frontier labs would be at risk if the AI developer were sued by these corporations. Both the AI developers and their investors would/are demanding protection from these lawsuits.
Here’s where it gets complicated.
If a wave of lawsuits were launched it would seriously hurt the market valuation of the AI developers. However, simultaneously, if the AI developers get government protection (ie Sec.230, federal immunity from lawsuits) that removes entry barriers for startup AI companies, which increases AI competition, which could also reduce the market value of the major AI developers.
Alex Karp with Palantir already has this type of immunity from lawsuits due to the collaborative nature of the national security dynamic that Karp has developed with the U.S. government. However, the AI developers do not have this type of relationship. The AI developers previously said they did not want government interference, but now they want government protection. Privatize the upside (profit), then socialize the risk (losses).
As this dynamic unfolds, you can well imagine all the high-finance influencers who fund various political candidates and Super-PACs are positioning their own interests. An investor in AI would seek the protection of the investment and the elimination of lawsuit risk. Those institutional investors and billionaires would pay political campaigns and special interest advocacy to secure the value of their investment.
The politicians are being purchased by the investors into AI development. The goal is to grant the AI labs immunity from lawsuits.
There are trillions at stake.
If a potential AI threat has to manifest in order to force public support for the liability protection, then so be it.
Perhaps that’s what we are seeing.
Under this unfolding scenario, the tech sector of the stock market looks a little sketchy right now.
Posted inArtificial Intelligence (AI), Banking and Finance, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2026, Lawfare, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized, US Treasury, USA
Florida Representative María Elvira Salazar is well known to the CTH audience; she is a decepticon. Having secured President Trump’s endorsement in the primary, Salazar now moves to attack the position of President Trump, DHS and Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) over the issue of deporting illegal aliens.
In a 30-second video ad Representative Salazar claims the ICE deportations have gone too far. WATCH:
DHS Responded:
“Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Mullin, there will be NO amnesty for illegal aliens. Not now, not ever. DHS is focused on delivering the most HISTORIC mass deportation campaign in American history—exactly as President Trump promised. Whether Congresswoman Salazar likes it or not, the men and women of ICE are enforcing the laws passed by Congress. To be clear: the only thing America should be giving illegal aliens is a one-way ticket home, or a generous $3,000 check for them to self-deport immediately. We will not ignore the rule of law.” –DHS spox.
CTH also interprets this ad to indicate Mrs. Salazar is likely aware of polling indicating she will lose her Miami area seat. That said, Salazar has other allegiances (like Ukraine and WEF globalism) that are not aligned with making America great again.
Posted inBig Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Cultural Marxism, Decepticons, Deep State, DHS, Election 2026, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized
I have written, deleted, remained quiet and also absorbed frustration likely similar to many of you. Now, perhaps, it is worth presenting the brutal truth of the matter; or, as was said in my family, it’s time to call the baby ugly.
Since the resignation of Joe diGenova as counsel to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche there have been many opinions shared. diGenova himself has given statements to some media outlets {NBC, non-paywall}. Other outlets have encapsulated with their customary spin {Citation}, and diGenova has also talked to others we might consider closer allied to a presentation of truth {source}.
As with all matters of significance, there are points missed, context missing, structural understandings that go beyond quick articles or soundbites. This is one of those examples. It’s highly likely the White House and Main Justice had a strong opinion about the pace of the South Florida effort and the lack of substantive action; I mean, aren’t we all? However, the root of the issue is one I am very familiar with, and with that in mind here’s the part that very few really understand.
If I had to give you the cliff notes version it would sound like this: Yes, the slowness is the problem, but the context is not entirely accurate. One of diGenova (and anyone else’s) problems, is that they don’t know the background material well enough. I have personally encountered this so much I no longer get frustrated; it just is what it is.
The investigators, prosecutors, inquisitors et al, spend too much time trying to figure out the storyline, and it is the storyline that is critical. Because, well, in brutal honesty, they don’t know it. They know it in a cursory fashion, at a high level; at a level of political talking points, media hits, clickbait headline discussion; but unfortunately, that’s not good enough for this case.
A granular level working knowledge of the specifics of Spygate and Russiagate are needed. That level of learning, understanding takes up so much time that it becomes almost impossible for them to act decisively and quickly. It is the complexity of the matter that becomes a self-fulfilling defense. Joseph diGenova was/is no exception. This is the central problem with all of these guys; they just don’t know the material well enough.
I’m not making excuses, I’m stating facts. Facts that are based upon my personal experience after almost a decade deep inside this issue.
That’s the cliff notes. If you want the full understanding, keep reading.
.
Right about here someone will likely ask, ‘well, why don’t you help them’? I’ll explain that also. It’s more complicated that you might think.
The one thing you must remember about exposing Washington DC corruption with Washington DC people is their primary prism. It took me a while to figure it out, but after a while of seeing the pattern, I realized their outlook is a feature of everyone.
Everyone associated with the system of exposing corruption, soup to nuts – everyone, comes into the matter with this outlook. They are deathly afraid of losing their personal credibility, while simultaneously they demand full credit for any resulting positive public opinion.
They are afraid of the story, but they want credit if it becomes mainstream. Now, think carefully about that for a moment, because it is the one common characteristic amid all of them. I repeat, all of them. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit. This forms the baseline for what I am describing.
Joe diGenova wanted the job; he wanted to investigate Spygate/Russiagate and deliver accountability. However, diGenova was limited in the outset to the information he understood, which to his credit was more than most but still only at a surface level.
There are others like diGenova, and all carry the same challenge inherent within their ability.
What does this look like in real life? Well, when I have a conversation about the storyline of Spygate/Russiagate that originates back in 2015 (note with some small references to the previous 2011 IRS operation), it takes me about three hours to walk through the timeline of activity. If there are questions, that conversation can take another few hours. Let’s put the total at four hours just to be fair.
Four hours. That’s per person.
You start with the 2nd asst to the 1st asst of the primary. That’s 4 hours of explaining. Then you wait until you are given a meeting with the 1st asst of the primary. That’s another 4 hours explaining everything you previously explained. Then you wait again until the 2nd and 1st asst have explained to the primary. Then the initial background vetting takes place, just to make sure the storyline factually makes sense, and ensure you are not nuts. Then you may, maybe not, get to explain it all again to the primary. Another 4 hours, and the primary will have questions. If they don’t have questions, you are pissing in the wind and all effort to this point is time wasted.
Once the primary agrees on the merit of the storyline, then you are tasked to explain it to the designee of the primary who will then go look closer at the information you are citing, just to ensure the evidence of the citation you are referencing is factually accurate. Another four-hour outline and conversation. If that evidence is factually accurate, the designee of the primary then begins the process to capture it, declassify it, make it public, or add it to the list of evidence needed to continue.
If there are any other stakeholders in the process, they too will request the 4-hour explanation of why this matters.
Everything you just read can pertain to one, singular document; one singular point in the storyline. How many weeks just passed?
It took me eight months to convince around a dozen people of the need to review, retrieve, declassify, return and then ultimately release the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) transcript of testimony from former Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
[SIDEBAR: For a case study in ‘No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit’ look at John Solomon; who, in my personal opinion, was/is the biggest mistake by President Trump in the effort of transparency in Term-2. Special Govt Employee John Solomon is to White House transparency as Joe diGenova was to Main Justice accountability].
No one knows the granular details. No one fully understands the storyline, the connections, the matrix of names and activities, so nobody really knows where to look. Worse still, no one is willing to say, ‘we don’t know’ – until Tulsi Gabbard. DNI Tulsi Gabbard was the first person in a position of importance who was willing to walk into the situation admitting a lack of knowledge, yet wide open and enthusiastic to understand the specific issues.
No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit. This also applies to an odd fear of personal harm (or targeting) from understanding the issues. To me this is like being afraid of mythical dragons. Walk boldly in the light, be right with God and there is no sense of fear. However, I digress.
Please accept this is not me saying I’m the only one who understands the granular details; far from it. There are parts of the storyline I just don’t care about because they seem self-evident. Ex. State Dept officials involved in supporting the targeting of Donald Trump. Of course they did, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and that institution is soup-to-nuts compromised. What’s to prove? What’s the value in exposing their activity? It’s all self-evident.
There are many researchers in a small group on the X platform who have a solid understanding, a granular level understanding, and who can cite chapter and verse of evidence to highlight details in the storyline. I’m sure there are other people on other platforms who can do the same, but not many. The point is not a detail or a series of details; the challenge is the entire storyline of complex details that weave together.
It’s the storyline that makes each point of evidence hold value.
When a prosecutor is building a conspiracy case the storyline is the most critical aspect.
The storyline highlights the motive and intention of each of the participants as they branch off into their specific activity and then return to build upon the sum of the targeting. This is the challenge for anyone who first enters with a willingness to understand.
When it comes to the Office of the President, again no one wants the risk – everyone wants the credit. The concentric circles around the Office of the Presidency are full of lawyers (legal filters), advisors/staff (territorial filters), stakeholders and those who look at everything through the prism of political risk to the office. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Catherine Herridge will not walk into a Trump hotel out of fear for being seen. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Maria Bartiromo. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Bill Alderman. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
The need for control is a reaction to fear. No one wants the risk – Everyone wants the credit.
Do you remember when I outlined specifically how President Trump could cut through the fog of obstruction by those who seek control and operate from a position of fear as it pertains to declassifying information? {IMPORTANT REMINDER}
That process of releasing information is as true and effective today as it was when I published it in 2020. However, no one associated with the Office of the President has the guts to stand against the institutional and political fury of that approach. Additionally, everyone associated with the territorial objectives of Washington DC would work to ensure President Trump never took that approach. This is one small example.
Joe diGenova asked for the job with all the best intents and objectives. However, it is also true that a lack of granular understanding of the details led to months and months of time wasted in piecing it together. That delay likely led to Main Justice and White House frustration, which culminated in diGenova’s exit. Two things can be true at the same time.
That’s the cold, ugly reality of the situation as outlined by me, a simple guy, who has tried, failed and in some small measures succeeded in getting information extracted from within a system that both protects itself and is surrounded by those who fear it.
If the South Florida team cannot succeed in organizing a conspiracy case, then my advice or hope is that they take all the evidence to the White House and do what should have been done years ago…..
IMPORTANT ADD: I forgot to mention another important part. If investigation reached a point where prosecutors were going to take action against those who engaged in corrupt activity, one of the first things the defense lawyers are going to ask is the source of the information that led to the evidence against their client. The prosecution is then bound to tell the defense (Brady discovery) who may have assisted, how the assistance unfolded, and that would provide a path for the defense to scrutinize any motive.
That requirement places the source of assistance in the spotlight of the defense team. The source may then need to get independent counsel to protect against a very predictable Alinsky effort that will be triggered in order to create maximum discomfort for the prosecution team and the evidence being used. That legal counsel is very expensive ($3k to $10k/hr) just to protect the information provider from the Lawfare defense network.
Understanding this dynamic explains why former and current corrupt FBI, CIA and DOJ officials were leaking information during Spygate/Russiagate to the media; that information then became part of the evidence explanation used by the corrupt prosecutors.
If the DOJ were to use information provided by a bunch of anonymous online X researchers: (a) imagine what the defense would do with that, and (b) imagine what the media allies of the defense would do to expose, isolate, ridicule and marginalize those same X researchers. [See Clancey juror holdout]
Lawfare is not a level field.
In one way it protects the information provider(s) if the DOJ retains primary responsibility to discover the raw evidence on their own. However, there is no guarantee they will find it, and that too is a big delay factor.
Posted inBig Government, Big Stupid Government, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Election 2020, Election 2026, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, USA, White House Coverup
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
