Tuesday, August 4, 2026

 A single typo by cops led to an innocent Canadian man spending 18 months in jail.

The man, Brandon Klayme of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, was eventually acquitted of all charges on July 23 by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeals. But it was a small recompense for a catastrophic chain of incompetence that led him to being wrongly smeared as a child sex offender, completely upending his life.

In 2018, police in Wisconsin launched an investigation into a man on the Kik messaging app who had sent 125 sexually explicit messages to a 12-year-old girl. His username was fus__ro_dah, a reference to the 2011 video game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.

But when the police sent a subpoena to Kik to unearth the user’s identity, they made a critical error: they asked for fus_ro_dah, missing a single underscore.

That so happened to be Klayme’s username. Kik, working off the erroneous username the cops provided, released an email address that investigators tied to an IP address in Canada, according to Ars Technica. They then reached out to the internet service provider associated with the IP, which provided where Klayme lived.

There were plenty of warning signs that the cops had the wrong man, but they went unheeded. Perhaps when the Wisconsin police handed over the investigation to Canadian authorities, the cops inheriting the case simply assumed that their counterparts across the border had done their due diligence.

That doesn’t excuse the baffling incompetence on display. After obtaining a search warrant, the Halifax Regional Police found zero evidence tying Klayme to the case or the underaged girl that the Kik user had messaged. They couldn’t even prove that Klayme had used his Kik account during the same period those explicit messages were sent, with Klayme maintaining he hadn’t accessed the account since 2012.

Despite all that, he was arrested and charged with child luring, possession of CSAM, and sending sexually explicit material to a child. When the case went to trial, neither side seemed to have noticed that the Kik username so central to the investigation wasn’t Klayme’s.

This proved to be costly. Somehow, despite the prosecution lacking any compelling evidence, Klayme was found guilty in January 2024 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Klayme continued to protest his innocence, and eventually his lawyer, Zeb Brown, spotted the typo.

“We couldn’t figure out how Mr. Klayme’s account came into it,” Brown told the New York Times. “So we were taking a closer look at the trial evidence and the discrepancy was readily apparent in the printouts of the social media messages.”

The appeal judges, stating the obvious, said that the investigators gave Kik the wrong username. The actual person of interest lived in California.

“He should never have been charged, let alone convicted,” the judges said, per the NYT.

Klayme’s name was cleared, but by the time the judges overturned the conviction, he had already served his full sentence.

Halifax Regional Police, seemingly washing their hands of the error, merely stressed that it wasn’t the department that launched the investigation.

“This was a complex investigation as it began with a police agency in Wisconsin before the support of the Halifax Regional Police was requested,” it said in a statement, per the NYT.

 
Was MAGA a Trojan horse for the surveillance state? It’s an honest question
What if the real agenda behind Flock cameras and data centers was something so dark, so frightening, so diabolical... that most Americans would write it off as tinfoil conspiracy, or a story out of a 1980s sci-fi novel? And what if some of the men behind it are your greatest heroes?
Seemingly overnight, these two issues blew up in America. Even blurring party lines, with left, right, and middle up in arms about them.
Has this happened because the general public suddenly became aware of the digital gulag being built around them? Nope. Unfortunately not. The reason’s much simpler. It’s because these things started affecting average, everyday Americans. A lot of them.
Ask the family in Columbus, Ohio why their electric bill doubled in the last six months. Or why they can no longer drink water from their tap. They'll point to the giant new data center down the road.
Ask the grandparents in rural Texas what happened to the frogs and crickets they used to fall asleep to. They'll tell you about the mechanical hum of the server farm half a mile away, and about the neighbor's seven-figure land sale that cost the whole town its peace.
Ask Sam why seven officers pulled him out of his own car at gunpoint. A Flock camera misread his plate as stolen. The title with his name on it was sitting in the glove box.
Ask Tiffany why her abusive ex-husband kept showing up everywhere she went. The park. The bar. She got her answer from a news headline: he was a police officer, caught using Flock cameras to track the women he stalked.
These are real stories. And when enough of them piled up, Americans started showing up at city council meetings, started getting loud, started asking questions.
But there's one question almost nobody has thought to ask.
Why the sudden, almost frantic push for data centers and Flock cameras in the first place? Why the executive orders designed to make data centers as untouchable as possible by the will of the people? Why the massive taxpayer-funded contracts with a multi-billion dollar surveillance company whose entire business model was built on surveilling every single American in the country?
Getting the correct answers starts with asking the correct questions. But the answer to this question is extremely complex. It spans nearly a hundred years and involves some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. In this article, I'm going to do my best to explain that 'why' in the simplest and most honest way I can. But let me be honest about myself first. I voted for President Trump. Twice. I trusted his plan. And yes, there are things he’s done that I'm glad to see. But something else is happening under and around him, something I lay out in this article, and it's been eating me up inside. And I'd rather talk about it out loud than pretend I don't see it.
Now, back to the question very few are asking. Why this sudden acceleration of data centers and surveillance cameras in the first place? It boils down to one word: technocracy.
What’s that? Techno-what?
I’ll try to make it simple. Technocracy is a system of governance where society is run by engineers, scientists, and technical "experts." Not by the people or their representatives. In its original form, it proposed getting rid of our price-based economy and replacing it with one where unelected experts control the production and distribution of all resources, and where every citizen's consumption is measured, allocated, and monitored.
Imagine one brand of car, owned by the government, with a price set by the government. And you couldn’t buy it. You could only exchange your energy tokens for access to use it. Imagine that same scenario for homes, tools, food, clothes, medicine. Do you really own that movie you bought on Apple TV? No. You own a license to it. That can be revoked at will.
There’s no voting. No property rights. No ownership. Just a terms-of-service agreement. All managed and controlled, top to bottom, by people who believe they know how to run your life better than you.
And here is the fatal flaw at the heart of it. It’s a question no algorithm can answer: who decides what is fair? Just? Legal? Moral? Technology doesn't create values. People do. An algorithm can optimize traffic or track energy token allocation, but someone upstream already decided what counts as success and which trade-offs are acceptable. Do you think it’s an accident that your AI chatbot won’t answer certain questions? Those decisions aren't technical. They're moral. Which means technocracy doesn't eliminate rulers. It hides them behind a machine. It allows them to decide what is moral for the entire nation.
I recently interviewed Patrick Wood, an author who has studied technocracy for decades and runs the website technocracy.news, a resource I've been using for my own research for years. This was genuinely one of those "ah-ha" conversations for me, when a dozen topics I knew were related all clicked together at once. What follows is my takeaway.
This ideology isn't even close to new. It’s nearly a century old.
Technocracy was born at Columbia University in 1932, when a group of engineers and scientists decided they could run society better than markets, property, and elected government ever could. And that decision was almost certainly funded and directed by a small group of very powerful people. As Wood put it, it is "the only economic system in the world that's been created from scratch."
And they nearly pulled it off. One prominent technocrat wrote a book arguing, in Wood's words, that "FDR should declare himself dictator, dismiss Congress, and appoint technocrats top to bottom to run the country." They even drafted an org chart for governing North America, with a "Continental Director" at the top. Not a president. A director. Could this be a role they’d want Trump or Vance to fill? I’m not accusing anyone. I’m just asking a sober question.
They also drew a map. The 1934 Technocracy Study Course shows what they called the North American Technate: a single managed territory combining the United States, Canada, Greenland, Mexico, Central America, and the northern tip of South America, including Venezuela. Now think about which territories have suddenly been in the headlines since January 2025. Greenland. Canada. Panama. Venezuela. And one footnote might be worth bookmarking: Elon Musk's grandfather was a leader of the technocracy movement in Canada.
FDR declined the dictatorship. Americans got wind of the plan and, as Wood put it, ran them out of town. But the idea didn't die. In 1973, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission to create a "New International Economic Order." There was only ever one new economic system on the shelf. Brzezinski even named the destination, a coming "technetronic era," arriving roughly fifty years out.
Fifty years from 1973 ... do the math on that one.
And what does that destination look like? Here is a direct quote from Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, which he wrote in 1970.
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
He wrote that 56 years ago. So is that plan still active? How has it evolved? Enter Silicon Valley.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: a very large portion of the modern technology in our society was NOT created by private companies led by genius billionaire entrepreneurs.
It was created by private companies acting as fronts for the DoD, Military, and intelligence agencies. In various ways, these “private” companies were created, funded by our own government. And controlled by them as well.
The internet itself was invented by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The first version was called ARPANET. Google's search engine was funded by DARPA and NASA while it was still a Stanford research project. Larry Ellison built the database technology that became Oracle for the CIA; the project's code name was literally "Oracle." Palantir, now being integrated across the federal government, was seeded by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's own venture capital arm. And in February 2004, DARPA shut down a project called LifeLog, whose goal was to build a digital record of everything a person does, everywhere they go, and everyone they know. Facebook launched the very same day. The iPhone, literally the most popular phone in the world, is basically a bundle of government-funded technology. For goodness sakes, even Siri started out as a DARPA AI project.
Think of how significant these companies and technologies are. The internet. Facebook. Google. Oracle. Palantir. Isn’t it strange that all of these companies were funded by either the CIA or DARPA? Yet, we are all made to believe they were the magical creation of some college aged tech genius turned billionaire.
Why does this government and private company arrangement matter? Because the government is bound by the Constitution. It cannot legally build a dossier on every American, track their movements, read their communications, or map their relationships. Congress would never approve it. Courts would strike it down. But a private company can do all of that. And we hand over the data voluntarily, one terms-of-service agreement at a time. The controllers knew the constitution would get in the way of them building a digital control grid for American citizens. So they did it through private companies and universities instead.
It's like a wolf slipping on sheep's clothing and turning to the flock saying, "Don't worry, I won’t harm you. I'm a sheep."
Now, I want to be careful here, because I'm writing this article on that very technology, and you're probably reading it on a phone. If the technology wasn’t beneficial, it would never be adopted. With it, we can video call our family across the globe. I can write this article and thousands of people read it within a few days. Of course this technology has added real benefit to our lives. I’m not here to argue that. But benefit doesn't change something's fundamental nature. Much of this infrastructure was built, from the very beginning, for one central purpose. To push technology into every corner of American life that could one day be used to monitor, predict, and control an entire population. To build a digital prison for a nation's own citizens.
For decades, that's all it was. Infrastructure. Quietly accumulating. So what changed?
Wood used an analogy in our conversation that stuck with me. You drive down a street you've driven a hundred times, and one day a multi-story building is suddenly shooting up out of the ground. Where did that come from? But you know how construction works. That building represents years of invisible work. Permits, engineering, architecture, investors. By the time you see the steel going up, the plan is already old. "There's been a slow building of all the necessary elements, and all of a sudden, technocracy is being erected on us," Wood said.
Watch what happened around Trump's second term through that lens. The same Silicon Valley billionaires who spent years censoring and attacking conservatives suddenly pivoted, hard. Secret fundraising dinners. Hundreds of millions in donations. Front-row seats at the inauguration. And on literally the first full day of the new administration, there was the President on stage with Sam Altman and Larry Ellison announcing Project Stargate, a half-trillion dollar data center buildout.
Wood doesn't see these men as individuals who happened to change their minds. "They operated as a pack," he said. "A pack of wolves, perhaps. They were predatory." It wasn't just Musk and DOGE. It was David Sacks as AI czar, Howard Lutnick at Commerce, and a bench of PayPal Mafia alumni threaded through the administration. These men have no political home. They attached themselves to whoever would let them build. And in Wood's blunt assessment, Trump "has emerged now as technocrat in chief."
Want a concrete example of how the pack operates? Look at what happened with digital currency. Trump signed an executive order banning the Federal Reserve from pursuing a central bank digital currency, and everybody cheered. Finally, somebody stopped the CBDC! Except that's not what happened. What actually happened is that the Fed was shoved aside and a privatized digital currency system was erected in its place, controlled not by a public institution with at least nominal accountability, but by a handful of private hands.
Whose private hands? Follow the names. Tether, the largest stablecoin on the planet, keeps its billions in Treasury reserves at Cantor Fitzgerald, the firm Howard Lutnick ran until he became Trump's Commerce Secretary. His sons now run it. Circle, the second largest, has its reserves managed by BlackRock. You know, run by Larry Fink. The guy who promises that everything will be tokenized. And World Liberty Financial, the Trump family's own crypto venture, now issues its own stablecoin under the very law this administration signed. The digital dollar wasn't stopped. It was privatized, and the men who privatized it kept the keys.
And that new financial plumbing exists to enable the real prize: tokenization. Larry Fink, head of BlackRock, says it openly: "anything that can be tokenized will be tokenized.”
What’s that mean though? What’s tokenization? Here's the simple version. During our interview I held up a ten ounce bar of silver. Right now, that bar is mine in the oldest sense of the word. I can hand it to my local farmer in exchange for ten pounds of ground beef, and no government, no bank, and no algorithm has any say in the matter, or any record of it.
Tokenization replaces that kind of ownership with a digital representation of the asset, aka a token, that lives in software. And tokens are programmable. Which means an algorithm or person can program how you are allowed to use your tokens.
The tokens that represent your money can be blocked from buying a plane ticket or some extra steak at the grocery. The token that represents your house can be revoked based on your behavior, your carbon footprint, or even your politics. BlackRock has already tokenized huge portfolios of the American homes it bought up after 2008. You don't own things in that system. You hold a revocable license to use them.
The World Economic Forum told us plainly: you will own nothing, and you will be happy. "That was not just a slogan," Wood said. "That wasn't just rhetoric. They meant it." His word for where it all leads is the right one: a digital gulag. Not built by seizing your property at gunpoint, but by quietly removing your options until the tokenized version is the only version left.
Brzezinski summed it up pretty nicely in 1970: “It involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.”
At this point you may be asking: ok, so where is this now heading? What's the end state? For that, you need to meet the philosophy these men actually follow, because they have told us, in writing.
Remember when Elon Musk walked on stage in a black hat and declared himself not just MAGA but "dark MAGA"? Almost nobody knew what he was referencing. He was referencing the Dark Enlightenment, a philosophy developed by a blogger and software engineer named Curtis Yarvin, and bankrolled from the beginning by Peter Thiel, who has called Yarvin his "house philosopher." Musk consulted with Yarvin on the creation of a third political party they wanted to call “The America Party”. Yarvin basically created the blueprint for DOGE.
Yarvin is central to the technocratic agenda. And here’s what his Dark Enlightenment actually proposes. First, dissolve the constitutional republic. Democracy, in this view, is a failed experiment. Second, replace it with a monarchy. Not a metaphorical one. An actual sovereign executive, unbound by Congress, courts, or elections, running the country like a Silicon Valley startup. Third, transfer the nation's property into a "sovereign corporation,” also known as a sovcorp, managed by technocrats on behalf of the public good, as they define it.
If that sounds like a fever dream, notice something. It is almost word for word the 1933 plan. The monarch is the Continental Director. The sovereign corporation is the Technate. The org chart already exists; it's ninety years old. As Wood said, "this is the same exact playbook that they're putting on us today."
And what becomes of ordinary people in this system, once AI has taken most of our jobs? Yarvin addressed that question directly in a 2008 essay, in a passage he framed as a thought experiment. I'm going to quote it, because you wouldn't believe me otherwise: "Our goal, in short, is a humane alternative to genocide... the ideal solution achieves the same result as mass murder (the removal of undesirable elements from society) but without any of the moral stigma." His proposed solution is to "virtualize" the useless: seal them in cells, wired into "an immersive virtual-reality interface" where they can "experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world."
The Matrix, offered as a policy proposal. By the house philosopher of the men now running our government's technology infrastructure. Wood's response was unsparing: "These people are going to end up being the killers of the century."
There's one more concept you need to understand, and it explains the dizzying speed of all this: accelerationism. You'll find it in Marc Andreessen's "Techno-Optimist Manifesto." The idea is to build so fast that no Congress, no court, no regulator, and no town hall meeting can possibly keep up. Accelerate until the old system breaks.
Now we can answer the question we started with, about data centers and Flock cameras.
The data centers are the brain. You cannot run a society by algorithm without somewhere to run the algorithms, and managing the tokenized behavior of 340 million people requires computing infrastructure on a scale never before built. That's why the executive orders. That's why the half-trillion dollars. That’s why the AI bubble. That's why your electric bill.
The Flock cameras are the eyes. And it’s not just Flock. It’s multiple companies racing to get their cameras up. A programmable society requires knowing where every person and every vehicle is at all times. That's why the license plate reader points at the playground.
The tokenized dollar is the bloodstream. Control what people can buy and access, and you control what people can do. Or what they’re not allowed to do.
None of these things is an isolated annoyance. They are organs of a single body. The building Wood described is going up right now, in real time, on your street, and the permits were filed before most of us were born. We are not drifting toward technocracy. I honestly believe we’re undergoing a technocratic coup that began in 1932. And I pray to God that I’m wrong.
Now, if you've made it this far, you might be feeling that fear I mentioned at the beginning. Good. Now channel it. Because here's the thing the technocrats can't engineer around: this plan only works on a population that doesn't see it.
Think local, not federal. The fight is at your city council, your county commission, your statehouse. Even your own neighborhood. Not in Washington D.C. The large crowds showing up at planning meetings to stop data centers? That's the model. It's working. Wood drafted a Digital Bill of Rights, available on his website, designed for state legislators. It’s a legal safety net to insulate individuals from this system even where we can't tear the cameras down. Print it. Bring it to the people you elected.
Get loud while it's cheap. Data centers and Flock cameras are mainstream conversations right now. Lean into that momentum. The goal is for the word technocracy to be discussed at the average American dinner table, because these plans have a very difficult time surviving daylight. This is precisely why I’m writing this article. And why I hope you share it.
Starve the system where you can. Use cash, and tell people why. Wood hands cash to servers every time he eats out, and says you'd be surprised how quickly they get it. Drive the old car you can fix with your own two hands instead of the new one that records your conversations. Buy the silver bar. Buy from the farmer.
Ditch the smart tech. I’m not saying get rid of all technology and move to a cabin in the woods. (Though the idea is attractive …) Start with the tech that’s most infected with this system. New smart cars that monitor the driver and can be remotely shut off. Wearable devices that always track your location, heart rate, and more. Ring cameras that feed directly into this system. And if you’re really brave, ditch your smartphone for an old-school flip phone.
Build resilience and community. Grow food. Learn the skills your grandparents had. Know your neighbors and know where your dinner comes from. If you're in the smack-dab middle of a fifteen minute city with six hundred cameras in a ten block radius, your options are thin. Out in a rural area or a far suburb, with a real local community around you, every one of those relationships is a layer of protection this system can’t easily penetrate. But if you're in the middle of that big city? Make some friends in the country, and map out how to quickly exit the city if needed.
Refuse the black pill. The technocrats want you to believe this is inevitable. It isn’t. Their AI investments are losing money. Younger generations, historically the first adopters of any new technology, are actively resisting this one. They hate AI and actively sabotage it in their workplaces. Wood pointed to industry estimates that as much as forty percent of current data center capacity may ultimately fail. "They have weaknesses," he said. "They're just men, after all."
And here's an important thing to remember. This is the rare issue that can unite a genuinely divided country. Walk up to your average person with blue hair and an Antifa shirt and ask if they're worried about Peter Thiel or a government surveillance state. They'll buy you a coffee. Nobody, anywhere on the political spectrum, voted for a monarch.
We didn't sign a consent form for any of this. And as Wood said in the final minutes of our conversation, we're the only ones who can be in charge of our own future.
"Resist however you can. Resist the system. And don't let it consume you."
Now one last thing, and it's personal.
Everything you just read is why I'm building the Ark. (For those who don’t know, the Ark is a private online community platform.) I wanted to create something extremely private, a place where people can unite around their beliefs and genuinely support each other, outside the reach of the algorithms and the data brokers.
But my honest, biggest goal is this: to use an online platform to build the strongest local networks of freedom loving people possible, as quickly as possible. Because I believe there may come a time, and I hope it's still many years away, when we completely lose our privacy and lose the ability to find each other through the internet at all. If the Ark is ever taken down, and we are doing everything possible to prevent that from ever happening, I want the networks and communities it helped build around the world to be so strong that they withstand it, and go on to build even stronger local communities without us.
And these communities aren't about fighting. They're about preserving. When communities splinter, critical things are lost: shared culture, relationships, dependability. We see it as our mission to build an ark that can carry the best of human culture into the future, no matter how intense the storms get. Integrity. Self-reliance. Freedom. Virtue. Faith. The appreciation of beauty.
And you can’t forget knowledge. The knowledge of how to live off your land. How to preserve food. How to build strong local networks. How to protect yourself and your family. The more people in these communities that have this kind of knowledge, the stronger they will be if the going gets tough. That’s why the Ark also has an online academy for preparedness, survival guides for every disaster imaginable, and live Q&A’s and roundtables with leading experts from health to permaculture. It has food and gardening tools: a planting almanac calendar, local foraging guides, water and food storage calculators, and much more.
The Ark is launching very soon, and nearly 15,000 people are already on the wait list. The list is still open. Join today at buildtheark.com and be among the Builders, the core members who were there at the very beginning.
Now, despite everything I've written above, I want you to know that I'm optimistic. Not because the threat is small, but because there are a lot of really good people in America. Regardless of what the system wants us to think, there are a lot of Americans with strong faith in God and the heart to truly help out a neighbor in need. They didn’t vote for this. They weren’t ignoring this in the past because they were apathetic. It’s because they didn’t know. It’s because the system went to great lengths to hide itself. But now the masses are starting to see it. And they’re full of righteous indignation. And they know God’s on their side.
In the end, civilizations aren't remembered for the technologies they invented. They're remembered for the values they chose to preserve.
God Bless you, and God Bless America. We need it.

A police officer spent years reporting corruption inside his own department, through every proper channel available to him. He was ignored, again and again. Then he was shot in the face during a raid, and the fellow officers who were supposed to back him up never came.
His name was Frank Serpico.
He joined the New York Police Department in 1959, and by the mid-1960s was working plainclothes assignments across Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Manhattan.
There, he witnessed something systemic. Officers routinely accepted payoffs from gambling operations and drug dealers, a network of bribery woven through entire precincts.
He refused to take a cut.
For years, he reported what he saw up the chain of command, to superiors inside the NYPD and eventually to officials in Mayor John Lindsay's own office.
Here is the part that should make you angry. He was met, again and again, with concerned nods, vague promises of investigation, and no real action at all.
Eventually, alongside two colleagues, Paul Delise and David Durk, he took his story to a reporter, David Burnham of The New York Times.
On April 25, 1970, Burnham's front-page article, describing police corruption running into the millions of dollars, appeared in the Times.
The story forced Mayor Lindsay's hand. He created a special panel to investigate police corruption, which became known as the Knapp Commission.
Consider what came next, and how quickly it came. On February 3, 1971, less than a year after that article ran, Serpico was shot in the face during a drug raid at 778 Driggs Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
The bullet severed a nerve and left fragments lodged near his brain.
His fellow officers, the men assigned to back him up that night, stayed in the hallway.
Many, including Serpico himself, have never accepted that this was simple bad luck.
He survived, permanently deaf in one ear, carrying shrapnel in his head for the rest of his life.
Later that year, the Knapp Commission opened public hearings. Frank Serpico testified before television cameras, describing in detail what he had witnessed and reported for years, to almost no response, before a single newspaper article changed everything.
Ask yourself what it took to finally make the department listen. Not years of internal reports. A front-page story, and a bullet.
Frank Serpico retired from the NYPD in 1972, on a disability pension from injuries he never fully recovered from.
In 1973, Al Pacino portrayed him in the film Serpico, winning a Golden Globe for the role, and introducing his story to millions of people who had never heard his name.
The Knapp Commission's findings led to real changes in how the NYPD investigated and oversaw its own officers, reforms that shaped internal affairs procedures for decades afterward.
Think about every conversation you have heard since about police whistleblowers, the so-called blue wall of silence, or officers who report their own colleagues and pay a professional price for it. Frank Serpico's name sits at the origin point of that entire conversation.
He spent the following decades as an outspoken advocate for police reform and whistleblower protection, still, in recent years, calling for his own shooting to be formally reinvestigated.
Frank Serpico told the truth for years before anyone in power was willing to listen. It took a bullet to his face to make them finally act on what he had been saying all along.

 

Monday, August 3, 2026


 

Killing Unions: The Greatest Political Heist in American History

They didn't rob a bank. They robbed entire generations by dismantling the one institution powerful enough to stand up to corporate America…


Share

Yesterday I published Chapter 9 from my new book Who Killed the American Dream? detailing how nearly a half-century of Reaganomics have left the middle class in this country in tatters.

— Houses in 1981 — when Reagan was sworn into office and kicked off the neoliberal Reagan Revolution — cost about 3 times an individual worker’s annual paycheck; today it’s roughly 10 times.

— It was that decade when productivity stopped tracking payroll for the first time in almost a century; if workers today were paid based on the same productivity formula as they were that year and for most of a century before, the average salary would be $100,000 a year, about twice what it is today. If the federal minimum wage had simply tracked inflation since 1964 it would be around $14 nationally now, also about twice what it is today.

— Drugs were cheap, hospitals and health insurance companies were non-profits, college was free or cheap, and because anti-monopoly laws were enforced until Reagan stopped the antitrust cops in 1983 both suburban malls and downtown main streets were filled with local family-owned businesses.

All of these changes — literally every single one — has come about because Republicans working in service to America’s morbidly rich oligarchs were successful in using treason to seize political power in 1980, and then used that power to gut the Democratic Party’s single largest source of funding.

And the biggest factor in facilitating all of these decades of GOP rule since was that single variable: the 1980s destruction of America’s labor unions.

Mention unions today and the media will yawn, but they were the key component to building the world’s first middle class that reached more than half a nation’s population by the 1960s.

In 1981, two-thirds of us were in that middle class with a single paycheck; today it’s between 41 and 47 percent of us (depending on whose numbers you use) and it requires two full-time paychecks. The single largest reason for this change is Reagan’s intentional destruction of America’s labor unions.

Join the Hartmann Report Today!

Unions funded Harry Truman’s run for the White House, as they did JFK’s, LBJs, and Jimmy Carter’s. In the pre-Reagan Revolution era, there was roughly equal financial firepower between the two political parties; Republican campaigns were funded by big corporations and oligarchs, while unions paid most of the bills for Democrats.

The billionaires who funded the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing think tanks in the 1980s knew that the key to Democrats getting elected was union money. FDR had legalized unions with the Wagner Act in 1935 and even though Republicans had pushed through the despicable Taft-Hartley anti-union “right to work for less” act over Truman’s veto in 1947, unions were still growing and wealthy.

So, when Heritage issued its Project 2025-like “Mandate for Leadership” action plan for the Reagan administration in 1981, it carried an extensive section on how Reagan and Republicans across the nation could cripple the union movement.

Most people figured this was just because the big companies that helped fund these think tanks wanted cheaper labor, and that was certainly part of it. But the biggest and most audacious reason Reagan took their advice was purely political: to eliminate the largest source of campaign cash Democrats could tap into.

And it worked.

When Reagan came into office about a third of us had good union jobs, which meant about two-thirds of us had the middle class equivalents of union pay and benefits because the unions set the local wage and benefit floors that employers had to match to compete for workers.

But by 1992, Reagan’s and GHW Bush’s efforts — along with Red state governors and legislators who’d adopted the Taft-Hartey “right to work for less” provisions — had reduced private sector union density to a mere 11 percent of us.

With the unions hanging on by their fingernails, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton faced a real dilemma that year: where could he find enough big money to fund a presidential campaign?

The internet was then pretty much nothing more than AOL and CompuServe and nobody was using it for fundraising with any success. And most of the morbidly rich supported the GOP’s efforts to cut taxes on billionaires and gut regulations that protected average people so they weren’t inclined to help out Democratic candidates.

Become a Hartmann Report Supporter

What Clinton came up with was a “Third Way” that meant getting into bed with “clean industries” like banking, insurance, and pharma rather than the “dirty industries” like oil, mining, and chemicals that Republicans had embraced for decades. The new mantra for Clinton’s signing NAFTA, keeping income tax rates below 50%, and other Reaganista neoliberal policies was, he argued, that white- and pink-collar jobs should replace blue-collar factory work and this transformation of the workplace would be a good thing overall for Americans.

To make it work, Clinton had to abandon many of the traditional positions of the Democratic Party, dating back to FDR’s 1930s New Deal.

There would be no re-embrace of unions in his or Obama’s equally neoliberal administrations by passing Card Check or other progressive policies that made it easier to join and stay in a union. The “era of big government” was declared dead, as was “welfare, as we know it.”

As a result, the biggest difference today between so-called “centrist” or “moderate” Democrats and their progressive challengers is grounded in this dynamic.

Progressives know that without a strong union movement no middle class encompassing more than half a nation’s population is possible. And they know that unions have historically served as the organizing nexus for both protest and reform movements across modern history. Unions today, for example, often lead protest movements across Europe.

“Moderate Democrats” on the other hand, are happy to take money from big corporations (and AIPAC) that fight unions every step of the way; as a result, they’ve either resisted or only offered lip service for passage of the Pro Act and other pro-union efforts to rebuild America’s middle class.

Unions have always been the singular engine that creates and sustains a middle class in every country where that’s happened, throughout history.

In the 14th century when a third of Europeans died in the Black Plague, the resulting labor shortage caused workers to band together into guilds, the first modern labor unions. Those guilds set the price of labor high enough that Europe’s first middle class emerged, giving working class people the free time to explore music, philosophy, literature, and science. The result is what we call the Renaissance.

Join the Hartmann Report Today!

The same thing happened in the 1960s here in America with a musical and cultural renaissance, when Russell Kirk and his colleagues believed that the country was suddenly falling apart with students burning draft cards, women demanding equality in the workplace, and Black people pushing back against endemic police violence with both the Civil Rights movement and lighting cities on fire when cops beat or killed unarmed people. (Contrary to what Limbaugh told you, every single “riot” in that era was the result of, and in reaction to, a specific act of unprovoked police violence.)

A revitalized union movement will not only raise the standard of living for working Americans; it’ll also provide the exus for organizing against fascism, another reason why Heritage doubled down against them with Project 2025, which recommended stripping union rights from government workers, something Trump has now done.

Unions could also protect us from AI-related job losses and work America toward a universal basic income if that’s what will be necessary as the world changes with the AI revolution.

Americans living in states that have had strong union movements within living memory understand this dynamic well; it’s why Abdul El-Sayed got the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, Michigan’s largest union, and is doing so well in this Tuesday’s primary against Haley Stevens, who’s proud to take money from union-busting corporations and calls voters concerned about her campaign finance issues “zombies.”

Given that Trump and/or Vance will probably wield a veto pen for the next two-and-a-half years it’s premature to demand that Congress pass the Pro Act or a newer version that overturns Taft-Hartley and re-enshrines union rights today, but two years is also a perfect amount of time to begin building a strong consensus and pro-union movement within the Democratic Party.

The most powerful force to fight oligarchy and the GOP’s neofascism long term — and to bring back America’s middle class — is to rebuild America’s unions.

Let your elected Democrats know, and show up at your local Democratic Party meeting to offer your input.

Louise’s Daily Song: “The Greatest Heist”

 
Six days after the FDA delayed the rule that makes outbreaks traceable, the company behind a 10,000-case parasite outbreak cut a $1 million check to Trump's super PAC.
This is what a government looks like when nothing holds: the safeguards go, the money flows, and it all comes out the other end of you.
As reported by Wired and confirmed by Fox40, the Independent, and US News, here is the Taylor Farms timeline, in order.
On March 20, 2025, the FDA announced it was pushing back its Food Traceability Rule by 30 months.
That rule, set to take effect this January, would have required companies that grow, pack, and process food to keep detailed records so investigators could trace a contaminated batch back to its source fast.
It is the single tool that turns a mystery outbreak into a named one.
On March 26, 2025, six days later, Taylor Farms donated $1 million to MAGA Inc, the super PAC supporting Trump.
That same year the company gave another $1 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, which backs House Republicans.
Its CEO, Bruce Taylor, has personally given nearly $1 million more to Republican causes. Taylor Farms also gave $850,000 to an anti-regulation PAC tied to the Koch network.
Now the outbreak. This month the FDA and CDC linked more than 10,000 cases of cyclosporiasis, a severe, weeks-long gastrointestinal illness to Taylor Farms, who recalled iceberg lettuce grown in central Mexico.
Then something strange happened. The FDA announced a lettuce sample had tested positive for the parasite, and days later reversed itself, calling it a "false positive."
Taylor Farms went on to claim in a public statement that the FDA had "apologized to us." An FDA official told reporters the agency had given no such apology.
The company had met privately with White House and FDA officials during the outbreak, and was lobbying them while its customers were sick.
Under Trump, the FDA has been gutted, losing more than 4,500 employees since the start of 2025. The food safety attorney Bill Marler put it plainly after the agency quietly declined to even name the grower behind a separate deadly E. coli outbreak: investigating and reporting outbreaks "is clearly not a priority for this administration. So much for Make America Healthy Again."
A company delayed the rule that would catch it, paid the people who delayed it, and got its lab result walked back mid-outbreak.
Ten thousand people got sick eating salad. The receipts are all dated.

Saturday, August 1, 2026

The Doctor Who Made Kentucky Sicker
Rand Paul’s Pandemic of Bullshit
WHITE ROSE | AUGUST 1, 2026
Rand Paul enjoys introducing himself as “Doctor” whenever the title gives his political opinions the faint aroma of medical authority. The public should read the fine print.
Paul is an ophthalmologist, not an epidemiologist, virologist, immunologist, pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or public health physician. He was trained to treat diseases of the eye. During COVID, however, he repeatedly presented himself as though examining corneas had somehow qualified him to overrule the accumulated expertise of the world’s infectious disease community.
Even his professional credentials contain a characteristically Rand Paul footnote. After allowing his certification from the recognized American Board of Ophthalmology to expire, Paul relied upon certification from the National Board of Ophthalmology, an organization he created himself. Its officers included his wife and father-in-law. It was not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, and the experiment eventually collapsed. Rand Paul did not merely distrust the establishment. He built his own establishment and placed himself at the top of it.
That episode tells us quite a bit about the man. When a legitimate institution refuses to validate Rand Paul on his preferred terms, his instinct is not self-examination. His instinct is to declare the institution corrupt, create an alternative authority, and certify himself correct.
COVID gave him a national stage for the same performance.
Paul opposed mask requirements on public transportation. He pushed to overturn vaccination, testing, and masking requirements for Senate pages. He described school masking as “mask theater” and publicly claimed that, for healthy young people, vaccine risks could exceed the risks of COVID. He repeatedly framed basic public health precautions as government fearmongering rather than imperfect attempts to reduce infection, hospitalization, disability, and death.
Some of his individual observations contained slivers of truth. Cloth masks were less effective than well-fitted respirators. Previous infection did provide some immunity. Young people generally faced lower risks than the elderly. Public health officials sometimes communicated poorly and changed recommendations as evidence developed.
Paul’s trick was to extract each uncertainty from its context and turn it into an argument against collective action. A less effective mask became a useless mask. Lower risk became no meaningful risk. Evolving scientific guidance became evidence of dishonesty. A vaccine that did not prevent every infection became a failed vaccine.
That is not scientific skepticism. Scientific skepticism asks whether the evidence is strong enough and adjusts its conclusions when better evidence arrives. Paul’s version begins with an ideological conclusion, cherry-picks whatever evidence appears useful, and treats every correction as proof of conspiracy.
Kentucky provides an uncomfortable setting for Paul’s victory lap.
The state’s early pandemic record was not uniformly disastrous. Governor Andy Beshear declared an emergency on March 6, 2020, instituted restrictions, expanded testing, issued county-level warnings, and held regular public briefings. By October 2021, Kentucky’s cumulative COVID death rate remained close to the national average, although its infection rate was already about 17 percent higher.
The later picture became considerably uglier.
CDC mortality data published in 2026 show Kentucky with an age-adjusted COVID death rate of 11.1 per 100,000 for the reported year, compared with 7.2 in Michigan, 6.3 in California and Wisconsin, 6.9 in New York, and 5.7 in Colorado and Utah. Among the states listed, only West Virginia’s rate was slightly higher at 11.2. Kentucky’s rate was roughly 50 percent higher than Michigan’s and nearly double Colorado’s.
Those deaths cannot honestly be placed on the shoulders of one senator. Kentucky entered the pandemic with serious disadvantages, including chronic illness, poverty, rural hospital limitations, smoking, obesity, and unequal access to care. Beshear, not Paul, directed the state government’s response. Personal behavior, vaccination levels, new variants, federal policy, local politics, and existing health conditions all affected the result.
Paul nevertheless helped shape the environment in which Kentuckians made life-or-death decisions. He supplied respectable-sounding language to people who wanted to believe that masks were oppression, vaccination was more dangerous than disease, and epidemiologists were merely bureaucrats protecting their power. He converted public health into another tribal loyalty test.
That matters. A senator cannot spend years undermining preventive medicine and then wash his hands when the people he represents suffer unusually high mortality. He cannot market suspicion as courage, call resistance “freedom,” and pretend the resulting body count belongs entirely to someone else.
Paul now presents himself as the great inquisitor of the pandemic, particularly when Anthony Fauci is seated beneath the television lights. Fauci is not beyond criticism. No public official should be. Decisions involving school closures, research funding, masking guidance, vaccine communication, and the origins of the virus deserve serious examination.
Paul is not conducting serious examination.
He is staging a prosecution in search of a crime. His hearings have become exercises in insinuation, interruption, semantic traps, and made-for-social-media outrage. The goal is rarely to discover what happened or improve the next pandemic response. The goal is to place Rand Paul in the heroic role of the lone doctor exposing the corrupt medical empire.
The costume does not fit.
Fauci spent a career studying infectious disease. Paul spent the pandemic studying how infectious disease could be converted into political content.
The most revealing question is therefore not whether Fauci was always right. He was not. The question is whether Rand Paul made the public more capable of understanding COVID, evaluating risk, and protecting vulnerable neighbors.
He did not.
He made people angrier. He made them more suspicious. He made scientific uncertainty sound like fraud and basic precautions sound like tyranny. He treated every microphone as an examining room, every disagreement as malpractice, and every dead Kentuckian as somebody else’s responsibility.
Rand Paul may be qualified to examine Kentucky’s eyes.
Its COVID record suggests he should stop pretending he can see the whole patient.