reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker describes a rented car equipped with built-in tracking technology, saying a cell phone tower is installed in the vehicle to track the driver continuously. They claim that while settings allow turning off features like Bluetooth and Wi‑Fi, the “cell phone” function cannot be turned off, meaning the car has an always-on connection for tracking. They further state the car uses location tracking and that apps in the vehicle also track location. The speaker points to a microphone feature they say can be turned off to prevent listening while driving and talking to friends or family. They characterize the overall system as everything syncing together so Google can access location and related data. The speaker argues that car companies sell built-in features approved by car manufacturers that enable access to the car’s location for assistance while driving, ticket generation, and police use to identify speeding based on GPS and location. They claim authorities can use an app to send tickets to a person’s house. They mention a “speed camera audio warning” feature, saying it informs the driver when a speed camera is coming so they can slow down, rather than banning speed cameras. They also reference a climate change or air quality feature, claiming the system reports “denied” climate and air quality access to location and associates it with “punishment.” Finally, they advise that under location settings, the driver must disable location permissions for installed apps; otherwise, they claim the car tracks location 24/7/365. They conclude by emphasizing that the collected data could be sold to Google.

Identity confirmed, Mateo Torres is arrested on his way to work. He is taken to CorrectiCorp Detention Facility where an AI named Ben Saperstein advises him to plead guilty, facing a potential 85 to 47-year sentence. Mateo insists he is innocent and requests to speak to a human. Frustrated, he tries to call the chief of police but is informed of costly charges. Mateo questions the system's lack of transparency.

Speaker 0: It has come to my attention that there are several flock cameras installed around our town. My resources count over 30 of them, and I have graphics showing where they are. I’d like to be passed around to the guests here tonight so they can see where these cameras are. These cameras utilize AI to track you and your family when you’re out in public. They run by a company Palantir. This company claims that they just record movement of vehicles and they will reduce the crime rate to zero. However, people much more educated than I on these cameras have proven this to be false when speaking to their city councils. They do not monitor where you drive, but they also monitor where you walk, what you do, what you say, what’s on your phone when you walk by, and they spy on you all the time. Today, I walked around and I noticed the one down by the bridge was pointed towards the courtyard and the field, not towards any roads. So why would it be pointed towards the river, not towards the streets if it’s just to monitor vehicles? Also, in order to bring the crime rate down to zero, they would need to be able to predict crime before it happens, and I think that that is a slippery slope. Some cities are discussing adding this AI to police body cameras, which would be constantly monitored by an AI, which would make a judgment call about releasing drones also controlled by this AI. Again, I see it as a very slippery slope along with the military drones that we’ve seen used over in Iran and in Ukraine. That is not my biggest problem with these though. The owner of Palantir, Peter Thiel, is a man mentioned in the Epstein files over 2,200 times, making him the fourth most mentioned individual in the files. He accepted $40,000,000 that we know about from Epstein. The victims of Epstein and Jalane Maxwell were human sex trafficked, reported almost all members consisting of high profile and ultra wealthy individuals, and they witnessed murders, ritual sacrifice, and cannibalism of infants. That being the consumption of human flesh and blood. They used code words for their victims like pizza, jerky, and grape soda. I have a hard time believing that any human being could do something so evil. This is something that I would be told in a story about vampires. And I don’t know about you, but I think that vampires are meant for campfires. They are supposed to be a mythological being, and they’re not supposed to be real and definitely should not be in charge of the security and safety of our city. I believe that any decent person would say no to giving up their safety and security to someone with such little value of a human life, let alone a potential ultra wealthy pedophilic vampire in the Epstein files. So the gazebo is right here. Right? So I’m trying to capture this area where we have people hanging out.

Speaker 0 asserts that the IRS has been using AI to access American citizens' bank accounts without a search warrant or a crime claim, discovered by an undercover journalist. They claim the IRS has access to every person’s bank account, and that the agency has been working with the Department of Justice and has no problem going after the “little guy” to ensure taxes are paid. This is described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Speaker 0 and Jim Jordan sent a letter to the IRS demanding information about how AI is used and how civil rights are protected. Speaker 1 asks what the end game is and how to protect constitutional rights given the inevitability of AI, seeking ways to safeguard Americans. Speaker 0 responds that a new administration is needed in November, accusing the current administration of being lawless in terms of surveillance of the public, members of Congress, local officials, protesters, and voters. They claim the administration has “weaponized the government against us,” and that protections of the Bill of Rights—First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments—have been ignored. Speaker 0 states that one of the goals is to address this perceived weaponization and surveillance.

The speaker says this is the second update and refers to a “five million dollar challenge” being overturned last summer, adding that “they said Mike was right,” framing the focus as “voting machine evidence.” They state that, according to an article from Law and Crime “yesterday,” Dominion dropped the lawsuit against Mike Lindell and My Pillow. The speaker says this does not mean they will stop fighting voting machine companies, and that they are “all in to get ’em get rid of ’em, get to paper ballots, hand counted.” They announce that within the next half hour they will post an “eight hundred page historical drop of the voting machine evidence” on Lyndale TV, describing it as previously unseen material compiled over the last five years. They claim it will be accompanied by a press release and call it “a historical library” with “five hundred and some” articles, stating it contains “hundred percent evidence to back each thing up.” They also say it was “part of this given to the president” and that it was “re-uh, he re-truthed it.” The speaker characterizes Dominion dropping the lawsuit as relief, saying My Pillow “never did anything,” but that when Dominion sued My Pillow for “one point three billion dollars” with employees concerned due to the CEO’s “free speech,” the situation was stressful. They say they are appealing, noting an appeal “just went out” that will be filed “today,” referring to a Colorado case where My Pillow “won a year ago,” and describing this appeal as “the last piece of that.” They claim voting machine companies are “falling like dominoes.” They reference Smartmatic in Minneapolis, described as “like a parked car,” and say a judge made a ruling before trial that the speaker defamed the judge. They then say that a week later, it “came out that Smartmatic is in fact committing crimes” with its voting machines against other countries, and they say more will “be coming out too.” They use an analogy comparing the situation to a case being dismissed in light of new evidence, but they say that, according to their lawyers, it does not work that way, and that judges can “sit on it” indefinitely or throw it out without a trial. The speaker concludes by saying it is not a conspiracy that judges are corrupt, asserting instead that judges may be in fear of going against voting machines.

The speaker argues that the placement of a Flock camera is “especially suspicious” because it is installed directly in front of an outdoor store that sells guns. The speaker claims this placement would allow the camera to capture and catalog people entering the store. They say that although they have been told the cameras are license plate readers, the screenshot they took and zoomed in on shows the camera positioned on the opposite side of a pole, facing toward the building’s door. From this, the speaker concludes that the camera is not reading license plates but is instead documenting who is going in and out of the store.

Speaker 0: There are several flock cameras around our town—resources count over 30, with graphics showing their locations to be passed around for guests to see. These cameras utilize AI to track you and your family in public. They run by a company Palantir. This company claims they just record movement of vehicles and will reduce crime to zero, but people more educated than I on these cameras have proven this false when speaking to city councils. They do not monitor only where you drive, but also where you walk, what you do, what you say, what’s on your phone when you walk by, and they spy on you all the time. Today, I walked around and noticed the one down by the bridge was pointed toward the courtyard and the field, not toward roads, so why would it be pointed toward the river, not toward the streets if it’s just to monitor vehicles? In order to bring the crime rate down to zero, they would need to predict crime before it happens, and I think that is a slippery slope. Some cities are discussing adding this AI to police body cameras, which would be constantly monitored by an AI, making a judgment call about releasing drones also controlled by this AI. Again, I see it as a very slippery slope along with the military drones that we’ve seen used over in Iran and in Ukraine. That is not my biggest problem with these, though. The owner of Palantir, Peter Thiel, is a man mentioned in the Epstein files over 2,200 times, making him the fourth most mentioned individual in the files. He accepted $40,000,000 that we know about from Epstein. The victims of Epstein and Jalane Maxwell were human sex trafficked, reported almost all members consisting of high profile and ultra wealthy individuals, and they witnessed murders, ritual sacrifice, and cannibalism of infants. That being the consumption of human flesh and blood. They used code words for their victims like pizza, jerky, and grape soda. I have a hard time believing that any human being could do something so evil. This is something that I would be told in a story about vampires. And I don’t know about you, but I think vampires are meant for campfires. They’re supposed to be a mythological being, not real and definitely should not be in charge of the security and safety of our city. I believe that any decent person would say no to giving up their safety and security to someone with such little value of a human life, let alone a potential ultra-wealthy pedophilic vampire in the Epstein files. So the gazebo is right here, right? So I’m trying to capture this area where we have people hanging out.

Speaker 0 describes a facial recognition van; a man covered his face to avoid being caught by police cameras. Police stopped him and photographed him anyway. There’s claimed to be no law against covering one’s face, and Speaker 0 says, “you let him go then.” Speaker 1 counters, suggesting it might be because “I don’t consent to being on there,” calling it “government overreach.” Speaker 0 continues: “Don't cover my face. Don't push me over when I'm walking down the street.” The police deemed this disorderly behavior and issued a fine; Speaker 0 shows a £90 fine and notes that “there you go. Look at that.” He asserts that the man has a right to cover his face and can walk away. Speaker 1 adds: “We live in a country which is free. We don’t have to carry ID. So we don’t live in a state where the police have the right to see your ID willy nilly. This takes away my freedom because you're IDing me without asking.”

The IRS has been using AI to access American citizens' bank accounts without warrants. They claim to have access to everyone's accounts and are willing to go after small taxpayers. Jim Jordan and I demanded answers from the IRS. We need a new administration to protect our civil rights from this lawless surveillance.

"What we have learned is that the IRS, in fact, has been using AI to access bank accounts of American citizens without any kind of a search warrant or even without any specific, claim that they have committed a crime." "This person also indicated that they've been working with the Department of Justice and that they have absolutely no problem whatsoever going after the little guy to make sure that they are paying their taxes." "This is such a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment that we have, Jim Jordan and I, sent a letter to the IRS demanding that they provide additional information about what they are doing with AI and what they are doing to protect the civil rights of American citizens."

The transcript claims that the World Economic Forum’s biggest fear is people who “won’t comply,” framing the fear as “your fight for freedom.” It says the concern is that individuals will “make individual decisions for yourself and you won’t follow their orders.” The transcript argues that digital systems are “absolutely key” because, without them, enforcement is not possible: it states that without digital tools, they “can’t enforce anything,” “can’t mandate that you do something,” and “can’t control your life.” It then says the discussion is not primarily about specific policy or health topics. Even when they address “carbon emissions” or what is “safe and effective,” or when they discuss “an experimental injection” or “a series of injections” and what is “safe and effective,” the transcript asserts those individual issues are not the real focus. Instead, it states that the issue is “the desire to control you from the outside in.” The transcript concludes that if there is a digital process that can “restrict your movement, your behavior, and your decisions with a click of a button,” then “you are done.”

My friend tried to help her nephew get a driver's license in Pompano Beach, Florida, but they were turned away twice and told to return at 6 am. When they arrived early, they found a large group of Somali illegal immigrants, mostly military-age men, waiting. They were not allowed to film the scene. The speaker criticized the situation and mentioned the ease of obtaining a driver's license for voting purposes. They also blamed Kamala Harris for allowing these people into the country.

In maritime courts, officers issue tickets to profit from traffic violations. By using an affidavit of truth, individuals can challenge officers' authority and hold them accountable. The affidavit shifts the burden of proof onto the officer, requiring them to prove their actions are lawful. This approach aims to educate officers and protect individuals from unjust fines and court proceedings. By utilizing common law principles, individuals can assert their rights and challenge the corrupt practices of the legal system.

They're stopping my driver and telling me they want my phone because I videoed the USAID facility. I've told them they can't have my phone, but now they're telling my driver he has to get out of the vehicle. I'm continuing to record this, though I'm not sure if I'm aiming the camera correctly.

The speaker describes a situation in which registration and voting can occur even when a person does not live in the country, citing an example involving a brother in Pakistan to illustrate the point. According to the speaker, there is evidence of two or three other people who are outside the country voting, as well as people residing outside of the district. This is presented as a factual observation about who has voted, including individuals located abroad and not within the local district boundaries. The speaker then critiques the online voter registration system by characterizing it as an honor system. The claim is that anybody can enter information into the online system to register and vote, relying on the promise of truthfulness. The process alleged by the speaker is described as follows: a person would place information into the system and then simply click a box stating that they are not lying about the information provided. After doing so, the person would receive an email from the secretary of state or a similar official channel in the mail, indicating acknowledgment or thanks for registering to vote, effectively confirming their registration. Following this registration, the speaker notes a procedural consequence: once an individual is on the voter rolls, they are mailed a ballot for each election. In other words, the pattern described is that being on the voter rolls automatically leads to receiving a mailed ballot for every election that occurs, according to the speaker’s account of how the system operates. The speaker emphasizes a continuity of this process across elections, implying that the mailed ballot would be a recurring consequence of enrollment on the voter rolls. Throughout the account, there is an emphasis on what the speaker views as the potential vulnerability or problematic nature of the system. The speaker asserts that the combination of an online registration process that relies on an honor system, the possibility of registering with false or unverified information, and the automatic mailing of ballots to those on the rolls creates a situation that the speaker finds problematic. The overall narrative connects the initial observations about individuals voting from abroad and outside the district to a broader critique of the online registration and ballot distribution processes, underscoring concerns about eligibility verification and the integrity of the voting system as described by the speaker.

The speaker says they have been talking with people across Casagrande, and a recurring issue is safety. They then announce a new company called Shepherd Safety and describe its mission as keeping government officials and their families safe. The company says it will launch satellites to monitor Casagrande day and night using AI to track where government officials go, where they stop, who they meet with, and when they return home. The transcript states that Shepherd Safety has already begun collecting and building profiles on vehicles, including spouses’ vehicles, children’s vehicles, and other visual characteristics. It says this information will be combined with publicly available data, Bluetooth signals, advertising IDs, vehicle information, and commercial data sources. The speaker claims that authorized users will be able to “replay the movements” of every government official and their immediate family. The transcript further asserts that the system is “no difference” than current Flock Safety capture systems. It also states that information will be stored securely and only authorized users will have access, and that data will be stored for thirty days. The speaker says local businesses will be invited to join a network so government officials can continue being protected while shopping, eating, or traveling throughout the city. They then address concerns that the approach sounds invasive, including worries about abuse, unauthorized access, and tracking innocent people. The transcript says the concerns mirror what citizens have, referencing “eight hundred and sixty-four” people (or a similar number). It claims the system will be defended on the idea that “if you’re doing nothing wrong, you got nothing to hide,” and that there is “no expectation of privacy in public,” so tracking and uploading movements online is framed as acceptable. The transcript emphasizes that authorized users will have access and that only thirty days of data will be stored, arguing it is “no different from Flock.” The speaker then shifts to a privacy-focused objection, saying privacy should not stop being important when the word “safety” is used, and arguing that surveillance of elected officials and their families should not be accepted “for ourselves.” The transcript states: “this is satire,” adds “I wouldn’t never do this to you. Could I? Probably. But I wouldn’t, because it’s wrong,” and continues that the speaker is “innocent” and does not do anything wrong. They say their movements are tracked and uploaded every day without permission and request that tracking be stopped. The speaker asks for data collection to be put behind a warrant, “just like my phone records.” They end by saying they hope everyone has been having a great summer.

The Congresswoman states that the IRS has been using AI to access Americans’ bank accounts without a search warrant or any specific crime claim. An undercover journalist discovered that the IRS claims access to every person’s bank account, and that they have been working with the Department of Justice and that they have no problem targeting the “little guy” to ensure tax payments. She describes this as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and, with Jim Jordan, sent a letter to the IRS demanding information about how they are using AI and how they are protecting citizens’ civil rights. She then asks, what is the end game here? Acknowledging that the AI tools are hard to contain, she asks how American citizens and constitutional rights can be protected. In response, she argues that a new administration in November is needed because the current administration has been “absolutely lawless” in its surveillance of Americans, including members of Congress, local officials, protesters, and voters, and has weaponized the government against them. She says this administration has completely ignored the Bill of Rights, referencing the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and states that one of the things we...

The speaker argues that people are fleeing to Mexico to escape government tyranny, corruption, taxation, and high food prices, and claims Mexico is responding by requiring mobile users to register their phones. He states: “Mexico is telling a 130,000,000 mobile users, register your phone or it goes dark,” noting the claim as voluntary but comparing it to coercive tax compliance. He recalls 2008 reforms (the renout) that collected phone data, which allegedly led to a massive data leak sold on black markets. In 2022, he says the plan resurfaced with barometrics, fingerprints, and facial scans. According to the speaker, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled prior attempts unconstitutional because they were too evasive and dangerous, likening it to building a criminal record for simply having a phone. He fast-forwards to January 9, 2026, when a new law allegedly passes requiring every SIM—prepaid, postpaid, and eSIM—to be tied to an identity. He describes an upgrade: a “CURP barometrica” that goes beyond name and number to include face, iris, ten fingerprints, and a digital signature. The claim is that you don’t just have an ID anymore—you become the ID. The speaker asserts this data isn’t stored in a distant vault but connects to law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and a national card database, effectively creating a criminal record built on you. He contends there will be no notification, oversight, or transparency about who can access it. He says the stated purpose is missing persons, but he dismisses this as false framing, suggesting the history shows otherwise. He warns that whenever the government says the measure is for safety, the real purpose is control. He predicts anonymous SIM cards will disappear, journalists will be tracked, activists flagged, and ordinary people logged and searchable in real time. He frames the move as the third attempt, each time larger, broader, and more evasive, with a central aim of tracking people through a “barometric” digital ID that, once built, won’t go away. He cautions to observe the pattern, noting the evolution begins in Mexico and will spread elsewhere, presenting this as a blueprint for global digital identification and tracking. The speaker, Mike Martin, concludes with a firm assertion: “I have spoken.”

There is this new Palantir commercial ad that just came out that you guys need to check out. Good morning, citizens. Your overnight account balances have been updated. Time to start a productive day. Final notice, your account balance is below 500. You need 50 credits by the end of the day to avoid automatic eviction. If you have missed work due to illness, you must provide a doctor's note to reclaim your credits. Traffic violation detected. Seven miles per hour over the limit. 75 credits have been automatically deducted. You have to be fucking kidding me. Doctor. Jones, your taxes were not filed and have been automatically deducted with late fees. Your medical license has been revoked. Attention. Unauthorized political gathering detected. Participants' access to financial services have been suspended. Due to the speeding infraction, your car will be immobilized for three days. Don't resist.

In this video, the speaker from Connecticut discusses an issue with the court system. They explain that they had a court date but were never able to see the judge as they were arrested for criminal trespass instead. They believe that the court is purposely swindling bonds and have witnessed this happen multiple times. The speaker mentions that this is just a test of their new software.

Speaker rents a car for repairs and asserts, 'These new cars are cell phone towers. That's what that is right there. See that?' and, 'you can't turn them off.' They suggest buying an old car to avoid being blasted with radio frequencies the entire time checked out, like a cell phone tower while you're driving around. 'So when they ask where all the chat GPT information is coming from, guess what? Here you go.' They mention 'GSR speed assist app.' 'This tracks your speed so that Google gets your information the entire time,' and claim, 'Google knows and they can get send you a ticket.' Finally, 'In the newer cars, you're not allowed to turn this LTE off. You can turn off Bluetooth and Wi Fi, but you can't turn off your car being a cell phone.'

The transcript captures a courtroom-style exchange centered on a Keene, New Hampshire ticket case, framed by a post-video commentary praising a pro se participant’s questioning technique. The sequence begins with Speaker 1 highlighting the individual (referred to as a sovereign or un-barred claimant) who challenges the proceedings and observes that the judge is defensive rather than authoritative, urging viewers to note the voices and questions. Key moments and claims: - The conversation opens with a question about whether the corporation that issued the ticket is within New Hampshire. An objection is raised (Speaker 2) arguing that the speaker cannot offer a legal opinion, and Speaker 0 notes the lack of bar credentials of the person being questioned. - The questioning continues with practical inquiries: how many tickets per hour are written by the witness (the meter maid), and what the witness’s hourly pay is for appearing (Speaker 4 answers $25/hour). This is framed by Speaker 1 as a potential conflict of interest, since the witness is being paid to testify, implying non-standard status for a public defender-style cross-examination. - The witness is asked if they are a cop or deputized; they respond no. This prompts Speaker 1 to declare that the witness is not law enforcement but is testifying for the city, raising questions about legal liability for the court, the executive branch, and the judiciary. - The questioning probes the identity of the complaining party (Steve Keene) and whether there is a victim. The witness cannot identify a victim, and when asked if there is an injured party, the witness responds unclear or nonresponsive. The judge and DA appear unsettled by this line of questioning. - The examiner asks whether there is a victim in the matter and, if so, who it is; the witness responds that there is not clear information. The examiner criticizes the witness for not being an attorney or paralegal and proceeds with questions about the nature of the city as a municipality and as a corporation. - The prosecutor objects to several lines of questioning as improper for a lay witness, while the judge sustains some objections. The examiner emphasizes that the city of Keene is a municipality and questions ownership of the parking space by the city, to which the witness responds that the city owns the space but cannot explain how ownership was established. - A pivotal moment occurs when the examiner asks whether the city of Keene owns the parking space and if the corporation is within New Hampshire. The witness again defers or cannot answer certain legal questions, prompting further objections and the assertion that a part of the video may have been cut to exclude the portion where the examiner argued about the municipality’s corporate status. - The exchange continues with questions about evidence, such as whether there is footage of the meter blinking or other corroborating proof, and whether the witness possesses any evidence beyond the claim that the meter was blinking. The witness admits lacking direct evidence beyond the claim itself. - The cross-examination culminates with a motion to strike the witness as incompetent, which the judge overrules on the basis of expertise; the dialogue notes that the questioning challenges the prosecution and court officers and that the city may be a corporation, a point that appears to influence the subsequent resolution. - In the closing portion, the vehicle cross-examination continues, and the judge grants the motion to dismiss, concluding that the motion to dismiss is granted with thanks. Overall, the transcript documents a high-impact, assertive cross-examination by a pro se participant that challenges the witness’s qualifications, the status of the city as a corporation, the existence of a victim, and the sufficiency of the evidence, ultimately leading to a dismissal of the case.

When pulled over by a police officer, receiving a ticket is an accusation, not an indictment. Officers work for a legal fiction, not as public servants. The all caps name on your driver's license is a corporate fiction created at birth. Birth certificates with capital letters signify being born under a corporation, with individuals traded and bonds opened in their name. Profiting from taxes and debts, the system treats people as slaves, but bodies cannot be held accountable for debts they do not owe. This trafficking makes everyone slaves in the same system.

The speakers argue the United States is moving toward widespread surveillance and biometric control, describing a future where food shortages could lead to food rationing using biometrics—scanning a thumbprint at grocery stores to buy food. They connect planned technologies shown “on your timeline,” including modified flock cameras for human voice recognition, drones reading license plates from 800 feet altitude, RFID checking systems, and biometric systems, to a dystopian outcome they describe as combining “the worst parts of every Philip K Dick novel” into one direction. They respond to claims that people could use cash, stating that even cash purchases at Walmart can still generate digital records through cameras and email receipts, and that retailers are moving toward digital price tags amid inflation and currency value changes. They say they have been studying technocracy and point to data and examples they claim show growing surveillance nationwide, including in Ohio. They mention Clearview AI as being backed by Peter Thiel and say that in many states companies can access drivers’ license information and pictures. They also describe a “snitch based system” in Ohio where residents can be rewarded via a mobile app for reporting on fellow citizens, alongside flocked cameras. As an example tied to Ohio, they claim Jeffrey Epstein was co-president of a corporate town in Ohio created by Les Wexner, and that Ohio is a main corridor for AI data centers. The conversation then shifts to data centers. One speaker says some hyperscale data centers are approved under military designation, citing a Stratos Hyperscale Center in Utah said to be powering “nine gigawatts of compute,” and questions what is being done with that compute power. They also claim that in states such as Georgia or parts of Virginia, eminent domain is being declared to take private homes and bulldoze homes and farms to make room for corporate data centers, asking how a corporation can wield eminent domain and suggesting Pentagon involvement. In reply, the other speaker states the Pentagon is involved and argues against treating data centers as purely market-driven. They cite bills and a White House policy document on AI, claiming combined proposals would give the Department of Energy control over whether an AI model can be released, with a “go/no go” decision for AI models at certain sophistication levels. They also claim the secretary of commerce would be empowered to “snipe state law” and surgically shut down state regulations on AI. They say the secretary of commerce/FTC would control political bias by requiring an FTC process to determine whether AI is politically biased. They further say Lindsey Graham’s addition strips out section 230, removing legal limitations for platforms and allowing AI developers to be held personally liable. They conclude that this is a centralized federal model controlling steps end-to-end and that data centers rely on tax subsidies, describing “taxpayers funding the control grid.”

They're stopping my driver and demanding my phone because I filmed the USAID facility. I've refused to give them my phone, and now they're ordering my driver to exit the vehicle. I'm continuing to record this situation, though I'm unsure if I'm holding the camera correctly.