Peter Frampton is a rock and roll guitar player. That’s what he does, that’s what he’s always done, so writing an article like this on the 10 most rocking Peter Frampton songs just makes complete sense—it’s rock and roll 101, just like Peter Frampton. I first discovered Peter Frampton in 1975 when one of my fellow high school students was playing a track from the Frampton album on the turntables of the school’s radio station. There was something about the sound of the record, a sort of cool, organic vibe, that really spoke to me. It was only a year The post 10 Most Rocking Peter Frampton Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

In 1974, Chinese farmers dug up an unusual discovery while creating a well. Without knowing it, they had discovered the largest necropolis on earth, which had been buried for over 2,000 years. It was the burial site of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang (sometimes spelled Huangdi). The tomb contained 8,000 life-sized sculptures, a pyramid, a palace, and numerous treasures. It' Source

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Marn’i Washington, the Federal Emergency Management Administration supervisor fired for not helping supporters of President-elect Donald Trump with disaster relief, said Tuesday that this occurrence was not an “isolated” incident. Washington, formerly a FEMA disaster survivor assistance crew leader for Highland County, ordered workers to “avoid homes advertising Trump” while seeking for residents qualified for hurricane relief in Lake Placid, Florida. After getting fired over the incident, Washington told journalist Roland Martin that FEMA’s avoidance of Trump supporters is a “colossal event” that also occurred in North Carolina and South Carolina, which also had been left in devastation after Hurricanes Helene and Milton. “They all alleged that these actions were made on my own recognizance, and from my own political advances,” Washington said. “However, if you look at the record, there is what we call a community trend and unfortunately, it just so happened that the political hostility that was encountered by my team—and I was on two different teams during my own deployment—they just so happened to have the Trump campaign signage. FEMA always preaches avoidance first and then de-escalation, this is not isolated. This is a colossal event of avoidance, not just in the state of Florida, but you will find avoidance in the Carolinas.” “Senior leadership will lie to you and say that they do not know, but if you ask the [disaster survivor assistance] crew leads and specialists what they are experiencing in the field, they will tell you the demand for FEMA to give you those incident reports,” Washington continued. Washington’s instruction prevented at least 20 homes with Trump signs or flags from being considered for receiving post-hurricane aid between late October and November, the Daily Wire first reported. The avoidance of Trump supporters’ homes was on a list of “best practices” from the supervisor, along with safety tips to avoid dehydration and other health hazards. The former FEMA supervisor alleged that her team consistently witnessed hostility and “verbal abuse” from residents who had Trump signage on their property, leading to the instruction to avoid Trump supporters altogether. Washington claimed her staff did not canvass at homes with Trump signs to avoid facing the alleged “verbal abuse” and “hostile encounters” at the behest of Chad Hershey, the FEMA supervisor above Washington, who allegedly instructed them to avoid homes they felt were unsafe. “We will canvass at [homes] that do not have the community trend with the Trump campaign signage and let it go. If any of those residents come outside that have the Trump campaign signage and say ‘Hey, I want to register,’ we’ll welcome them into our arms, we will let you register, great, wonderful. But we were not going to subject our people to continue with verbal abuse or hostile encounters,” Washington said. Washington confirmed that FEMA teams also faced hostility from those with Harris-Walz signs or no campaign signage on their property, though she did not experience it on this particular trip. Workers allegedly logged the homes they skipped over with messages like, “Trump sign, no entry per leadership,” “Trump sign,” “Per leadership, no stop, Trump flag” and “Trump sign, no contact per leadership,” according to screenshots obtained by the Daily Wire. Washington allegedly gave the guidance to workers in Florida’s Highland County, where nearly 70% of residents voted for Trump. Hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated the area in September and October, leaving millions without power and causing about $50 billion in economic losses, President Joe Biden said in an Oct. 11 statement. Hershey told the Daily Wire that the agency was “aware” of the incident and was taking immediate action. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The post Ex-FEMA Supervisor: Not Helping Trump Backers With Disaster Relief Wasn’t ‘Isolated’ Event appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—After Republicans won races statewide, especially in south Texas, the chair of the Texas Democratic Party, Gilberto Hinojosa, said he plans to resign next year after serving 12 years in the role. Hinojosa and Texas Democrats have criticized Republican policies including border security measures implemented by Gov. Greg Abbott. After Nov. 5, Hispanic voters in South Texas made history by flipping nearly all border counties red, voting for President-elect Donald Trump by large margins. They also voted for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Republicans who were elected for the first time after leaving the Democratic Party, The Center Square reported. Some news outlets, pundits and pollsters at one point claimed Cruz’s Senate race was so close that he might lose. He won by nearly nine points, by larger margins than he did in 2018. Similarly, some claimed Trump was only ahead by roughly five points with some outlets claiming Texas “leaned right.” Trump won Texas by nearly 14 points. In an interview with KUT News, Hinojosa gave his perspective on the election, saying, “Why do you think that Trump did so well with Hispanics? Because Hispanics live on the border. We’re talking about thousands of people crossing into the United States, and the government [Biden administration] is perceived not to be able to do anything to solve it.” He also said the Democratic transgender agenda hurt Democrats at the polls. “We can say, OK, we respect people’s right to say we don’t want my taxpayer money to be used for that, and at the same time support transgender rights,” he told KUT News. “I’m not saying that we need to take that position right now. But when those votes happen, we need to recognize that there are going to be long-term political consequences when we do that.” “You have a choice as a party,” Hinojosa said. “You could, for example, you can support transgender rights up and down all the categories where the issue comes up, or you can understand that there’s certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support.” Brooks County Sheriff Benny Martinez, a Democrat, also told The Center Square that his constituents, mostly Democratic Hispanics, don’t support the transgender agenda and “the Democratic Party doesn’t represent us.” U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, who was the first Republican elected to her congressional district in Texas, also made a similar argument. Of the Democratic Party, she said, “They have become woke, pushing down their cultural radicalism,” which she has argued “is an insult to us, quite frankly, and just one of the many reasons why the people who were once with the Democrat Party are now walking away.” In the last election, a poll found that more Hispanic Texans say the Democratic Party didn’t represent their values. Two years later, they shifted even farther right. The top issue among Hispanic Texans is jobs, the economy/inflation and border security, according to recent polls. Some Democrats and members of the LGBTQ community criticized Hinojosa, saying his remarks were “irresponsible and offensive.” They also pointed to the Texas Democratic Party platform’s commitment to expanding LGBTQ and transgender rights. In response to the criticism, Hinojosa apologized and blamed Republicans. “In frustration over the GOP’s lies to incite hate for trans communities, I failed to communicate my thoughts with care and clarity,” he said. Not soon after, he announced he planned to resign in May, saying his reason for doing so was the “devastating defeats up and down the ballot in Texas and across the country.” He also called for party unity going forward. The same groups who criticized Hinojosa also criticized former Democrat state Rep. Shawn Thierry after she advocated for parental rights on the issue of school choice, protecting children from irreversible sex change surgeries, and protecting girls and women in sports and education from transgender policies she says are harmful. Texas Democrats vilified, censured and primaried her after she voted for a bill to ban sex-reassignment surgeries for minors in Texas, The Center Square reported. Opponents spent more than $1 million to unseat her in a runoff election that she lost to an LGBTQ activist. She next left the Democratic Party, switching to become a Republican, saying, “This is not the party I grew up with. I have witnessed firsthand how the so-called ‘liberal’ left now stifles thoughtful debate, silencing dissent with an iron fist—demanding blind allegiance to ideology, where one must ‘comply or be cast out.’” After this election, Texas Democrats haven’t won a statewide race since 1994. Originally published by The Center Square. The post Texas Democrat Resigns After Criticizing Left’s Trans Policies appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Judges involved in three different anti-trust lawsuits faced by Google in the US have slammed the tech giant, accusing it of going to great lengths to manipulate and suppress evidence (internal communications) during the legal proceedings. The cases are ongoing in San Francisco, the District of Columbia, and Virginia federal courts, where Google is fighting regulators’ allegations of engaging in monopolistic practices (concerning ads, search, and the app store), that, if proven, could result in the company being broken up. In addition to this, the judges in charge of the cases have been expressing their dismay at Google’s conduct regarding potentially incriminating evidence. Deliberate destruction, hiding, cheating, lying – these are the phrases they used to describe the giant’s handling of evidence. In San Francisco, Judge James Donato said this amounted to the worst he has seen during his career – “the most serious and disturbing,” is how he put it. Judge Donato further accused Google of intentionally subverting the submission of evidence to the plaintiffs, which is a legal obligation, and that the goal of such maneuvering was to “prevent its use in litigation.” Google denied this earlier in the week, asserting that it was in fact respecting its obligations “to preserve and produce relevant documents” – but this did not convince Judge Donato, who threatened to punish Google for the behavior he described. The policy of automatically deleting internal chats after a short period of time was one of the practices that angered the judges, as was the tactic of including a lawyer in employee communications linked to possible or ongoing lawsuits – just to later be able to invoke the attorney-client privilege in court. In the District of Columbia, Judge Amit Mehta spoke about being “taken aback by the lengths to which Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail.” This judge mentioned chats set to auto-delete and the setting of the stage for future abuse of the attorney-client privilege principle. The lawsuit considered in Virginia heard the plaintiffs, who sued for the alleged monopolistic position of Google’s digital ads business, accusing the corporation of deleting internal chats after 24 hours, and that this had been going on since 2008 until early 2024, – mere weeks before the lawsuit was filed. “An awful lot of evidence has likely been destroyed,” commented Judge Leonie Brinkema, in reference to the “clear abuse” of attorney-client privilege. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Judges Sound Off on Google’s “Serious and Disturbing” Evidence Hiding in Landmark Antitrust Cases appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post When Free Speech and Privacy Goes to Court: Texas Age-Verification Digital Law Faces the Justices appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. Politicians, on the other hand, seem to operate under a different code—call it the “hypocritical oath.” Few stories capture that paradox quite like the Biden administration’s double-dealing on immigration and surveillance. Here’s a White House that promised to bring “humanity” to the immigration process, while reportedly expanding the very surveillance policies it once denounced. As this double act rolls out in the final days of the administration, it’s raising a question: was the entire immigration reform rhetoric just a prelude to broadening government spying? Let’s take a closer look: immigration became a hot-button campaign issue, with plenty of talk about “welcoming” migrants, combined with a healthy dose of hand-wringing about border security. Now, however, critics are uncovering what looks like the real priority—an enhanced federal surveillance operation aimed at monitoring not just new arrivals, but American citizens too. In the name of keeping tabs on who’s coming and going, the administration sank more than $100 million into a social media surveillance system designed to keep an eye on everyone. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first flirted with these powers under Trump’s presidency, when ICE officials began monitoring social media under the guise of protecting the homeland. The Biden-Harris administration, having previously expressed horror at Trump-era excesses, took a softer tack, but actually increased mass surveillance. They rebranded the initiative as the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Initiative (VLVI), a name that practically exudes bureaucratic charm while implying a methodical, visa-centric approach. But if it was just an immigration program, why was it scanning communications between Americans and their international friends, family, or business contacts? According to a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the program evolved into something much larger than a mere visa vetting system. The scheme entailed broad surveillance of communications and social media activity, conveniently sidestepping pesky things like “probable cause” or the First Amendment. “Government officials peering through their correspondence with colleagues visiting from overseas and scrutinizing the opinions expressed in their communications and their work,” read a lawsuit that laid bare the VLVI’s invasive nature. What started as a system to vet foreigners’ eligibility to enter the U.S. quietly metastasized into an excuse to monitor anyone who dared connect across borders. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. We obtained a copy of documents batch one for you here. We obtained a copy of documents batch two for you here. Of course, in true Washington style, this story wouldn’t be complete without a twist of political theater. The administration’s rhetoric has leaned heavily on a supposed dedication to protecting civil rights and personal freedoms—while simultaneously doubling down on programs that do the opposite. A Little Privacy, Please? DHS Puts American Social Media on the Watchlist Ah, the Fourth Amendment — one of those quaint, old-timey Constitutional protections that grant Americans the basic human right not to be poked, prodded, or probed by their own government without a solid reason. It’s a promise that Washington will think twice before sifting through your life without a warrant. Yet somehow, in the age of social media, this Fourth Amendment right seems to be slipping into the hazy realm of memory, particularly when it comes to Uncle Sam’s latest pastime: keeping tabs on everyone’s online chatter under the banner of immigration vetting. Welcome to the VLVI, a Homeland Security special that appears to have mistaken “security” for “surveillance.” This bureaucratic marvel was dreamed up as a means to monitor non-citizens and immigrants, ostensibly for national security. But according to recent lawsuits, it’s not just foreigners on the watchlist—average Americans now get to share the surveillance limelight too, all thanks to the Department of Homeland Security’s fondness for “indiscriminate monitoring” of citizen communications. And why? Because in the brave new world of VLVI, any American chatting online with an overseas connection might just be suspicious enough to keep an eye on. A Sweeping “Security” Measure or Just Mass Surveillance? Here’s where the Constitution starts to feel like an afterthought. Traditionally, the government can’t simply jump into your emails, texts, or online rants without a warrant backed by probable cause. The Fourth Amendment makes that pretty clear. But in the VLVI’s playbook, this notion of “probable cause” becomes something of a suggestion, more of a “nice to have” than a constitutional mandate. Instead, they’ve embraced an approach that’s less “laser-focused security effort” and more “catch-all dragnet,” casting wide nets over American citizens who happen to connect with anyone abroad—no illegal activity necessary. Imagine you’re a US citizen messaging your friend in France about a summer trip, or maybe you’re just exchanging memes with a cousin in Pakistan. Under this initiative, that simple exchange could land you in a Homeland Security database, your innocent messages cataloged alongside the truly suspicious characters of the internet. And this is happening without any individual warrants, without specific suspicion, and in some cases, without probable cause. One might ask, exactly how does that square with the Constitution’s protections? Privacy Protections? That’s for Other People This is all a question of government trust and hypocrisy. The program began under a previous administration but was quickly shuttled along by the current one, despite its public stance championing privacy rights. There’s something ironic about politicians who rally for civil liberties in campaign speeches, only to maintain and expand government surveillance in office. The backlash has been predictably loud, and for good reason. Here we have a policy that effectively treats every social media user as a latent threat and a government that somehow expects people to swallow this as reasonable. Critics have slammed this “watch-all” approach, pointing out that it doesn’t take a legal scholar to see how this might just cross a constitutional line or two. It’s not just Americans with foreign friends who are worried—it’s anyone who believes the government shouldn’t rummage through citizens’ lives without cause. “This type of program, where citizens’ digital lives are surveilled under a sweeping policy without individual warrants or specific reasons, sounds like an unreasonable search,” privacy advocates say. The Price of a Free Society: Now With Less Freedom Of course, VLVI supporters wave away these concerns with a dismissive “it’s for security” mantra as if that excuse covers every constitutional breach. And true, there’s little doubt that some level of monitoring is necessary to keep the truly dangerous elements out of the country. But we’re talking about ordinary people here, law-abiding citizens getting swept up in a bureaucratic machine that fails to distinguish between a casual chat and a credible threat. When the government can tap into anyone’s social media profile because of a flimsy association, what’s left of the citizen’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”? In theory, the Fourth Amendment protects it; in practice, programs like VLVI gnaw away at it, one seemingly “harmless” violation at a time. If we keep pretending this is just another harmless tool in the security toolkit, we might as well hang up any remaining illusions about the privacy rights we’re supposedly guaranteed. Just Another Step Toward a Surveillance State? For Americans, it’s a chilling reminder that a swipe on Instagram or a chat on Facebook can mean more than just casual social interaction. For the DHS, it seems the message is clear: treat everyone as a suspect first, and figure out the legalities later. What happens to the expectation of privacy for ordinary Americans? It’s probably time we all start looking over our digital shoulders, because in the world of VLVI, “reasonableness” is a government privilege, not a citizen’s right. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post From Border Security to Big Brother: How Immigration Social Media Surveillance Also Monitors Americans appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Those paying attention do not like digital IDs, and those containing a person’s entire identity and activity, including financial — even less so. To that, the Labour government’s reaction has essentially been – “we’ll keep saying we’re not doing it, while at once looking for ways to enforce it onto you, anyway.” If you think that’s offensive, wait for it – the “guinea pigs” are none other than the country’s military veterans. 250,000 of them, in fact – have instead been chosen as the recipients of the “Veteran Card.” It sounds much better than what it actually entails: “(The card will) prove their veteran status and speed up access to services and support programs. These include health services through the National Health Service (NHS), housing through the Op Fortitude program for veterans facing homelessness, employment opportunities, cheaper public transportation, and other discounts.” Surely that – apparently – unappealing status can be proved in other ways. And “speeding the process up” is just another platitude when governments have no valid explanation for their actions. And – having caused, with Labour policies while in office, and in between – his part in creating massive global movements of people, who props up his head, but the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. This time it’s not about sending in the troops to dismantle countries. Now it’s about selling the digital ID idea to his own citizens – while citing the problems caused by his own policies that dismantled a number of countries. Believe it or not, but that’s how it goes – now Blair is concerned about “immigration controls.” And how nice would that about-face on immigration work with, at the same time promoting ID cards? Now, they’ve become “inevitable,” UK citizens are being told. To translate English to English – “Now we’ve messed up, the way we’ll mend the problem is by forcing upon you the one thing you really don’t want.” That’s an interpretation. Meanwhile – “I think they’re (ID cards) inevitably coming,” Labor MP Siobhain McDonagh spelled it out, and then some: “Not just because of immigration, but the need to keep NHS records, because of benefit entitlements – all sorts of things. They’re coming.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Government To Test Digital ID on Veterans by 2025, Amid Plans for Wider Use appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Some on the Left Abandon X for an Ideological Bubble

The Democratic Party Civil War Will Be Gloriously Entertaining