Culture
Everyday Americans Being Treated As Criminals — Including You, Right Now
You’re driving to work. Picking up your kids. Going to the grocery store. Visiting a friend.
You haven’t committed a crime. You aren’t a suspect. You’re just going about your life.
But there may be a camera recording your vehicle — and creating a digital record of where you were, when you were there, and what your vehicle looked like.
And chances are, nobody asked for your permission.
Flock cameras are spreading across America. The debate isn’t simply about whether they can help catch criminals. The far more uncomfortable question is:
How much surveillance are Americans expected to accept before someone finally says enough?
You may have already driven past one without knowing it.
Small cameras mounted near neighborhood entrances, intersections, and major roads can look like ordinary security equipment. But automated license plate reader systems such as Flock Safety can capture passing vehicles, recording the license plate, vehicle characteristics, time, and location.
That means your movements can become part of a searchable database even if you have never committed a crime or been suspected of one.
And that should make every driver stop and think.
You Don’t Have to Be a Criminal
This is where the issue gets uncomfortable.
You don’t have to be under investigation.
You don’t have to be a suspect.
You don’t have to have done anything wrong.
You simply have to drive past a camera.
The system can capture your vehicle anyway.
According to unFlockIt, ALPR systems can create searchable records showing where vehicles have been seen and when. The organization argues that interconnected camera networks can allow information collected locally to become accessible beyond the community where it was originally captured. unFlockIt
Think about what that means.
A trip to the grocery store.
A visit to a doctor’s office.
A stop at a friend’s house.
A drive across town.
All of it could potentially leave another digital footprint.
And once that information exists, there is a question we should all be asking:
Who gets to look at it?
This Isn’t Just About Catching Criminals
To be fair, supporters of Flock cameras have a compelling argument.
Automated license plate readers can help police locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects, and respond to serious crimes.
Nobody wants criminals getting away with violent offenses or stolen vehicles disappearing without a trace.
But public safety and privacy don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
The real issue is what happens when a tool designed to help investigators identify suspects also captures information about everyone else.
That distinction matters.
Traditional police investigations generally begin with a reason to investigate someone.
Mass data collection works differently.
The database can exist first. The search can come later.
And that raises an uncomfortable question:
Should simply driving down a public road be enough to place your vehicle into a database that someone can potentially search later?
One Camera Is One Thing. A Network Is Something Else.
Maybe one camera doesn’t sound particularly alarming.
It sees your vehicle.
The moment passes.
You drive away.
But what happens when cameras aren’t operating independently?
What happens when they’re part of a much larger network?
unFlockIt describes a national network in which participating agencies can potentially share access to ALPR data beyond the community where it was originally collected. unFlockIt
Now the issue becomes much bigger than one camera at one intersection.
A single camera might capture one moment.
A connected network can potentially reveal patterns.
Where a vehicle has been seen.
When it was seen.
Which locations it passed.
And potentially how those sightings connect across different jurisdictions.
That is an extraordinary amount of information about ordinary Americans who may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
And once that infrastructure exists, who decides what it can eventually be used for?
What Happens When the Technology Gets Even Better?
Here’s another question worth asking.
Technology doesn’t usually get weaker.
It gets cheaper.
Faster.
More sophisticated.
More connected.
Today, we’re talking about license plates and vehicle characteristics.
But surveillance technology continues to evolve.
So the question isn’t just what these systems can do today.
It’s what they’ll be capable of doing five or ten years from now — and whether the rules protecting Americans will have kept up.
That is why waiting until the technology is everywhere could be a serious mistake.
The time to establish boundaries is before the infrastructure becomes impossible to roll back.
Communities Are Starting to Push Back
And this isn’t some fringe concern dreamed up by a handful of conspiracy theorists.
Communities are actually beginning to challenge these systems.
In August 2026, Kendall County, Texas commissioners unanimously voted not to renew a Flock Safety contract covering more than 50 cameras, following public concerns about privacy, transparency, and data protection. MySanAntonio reporting
And Kendall County isn’t alone.
Recent reporting has documented growing resistance to Flock cameras in places including Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, where residents have questioned whether the public-safety benefits justify the potential privacy risks. Axios reporting
The debate is spreading because the technology is spreading.
So Who Made This Decision?
This may be the question that deserves the most attention.
Who authorized the cameras in your community?
Did residents vote on them?
Were people given meaningful notice?
Did most residents even know they were being installed?
And perhaps most importantly:
Do ordinary citizens have any meaningful say in what happens to the information being collected about them?
Those are not anti-police questions.
They’re not anti-technology questions.
They’re accountability questions.
Citizens should be asking:
- Who authorized these cameras?
- Were residents given meaningful notice?
- How long is the information retained?
- Who can search the database?
- Can outside agencies access local data?
- What safeguards prevent abuse?
- Are searches audited?
- What happens if the information is wrong?
- Can citizens see the policies governing the system?
- Can the community vote on whether these systems should remain?
If government is going to collect information about innocent people, the public deserves to know exactly what is being collected, who can access it, and what prevents that power from being abused.
Supporting Police Doesn’t Mean Supporting Unlimited Surveillance
There is an important distinction that often gets lost in this debate.
You can support police officers.
You can want dangerous criminals caught.
You can want stolen cars recovered.
And you can still believe government surveillance should have limits.
Those positions aren’t contradictory.
In fact, meaningful limits and transparency may be exactly what is needed to preserve public trust in the technology.
Because once people begin believing that they’re being watched everywhere they go, trust starts disappearing.
Don’t Wait Until It’s Everywhere
The worst time to start asking questions is after the cameras have become permanent fixtures throughout your community.
Whether you support Flock cameras or oppose them, you should know where they’re located and how the information they collect is being used.
That’s exactly why projects like unFlockIt are drawing attention to the issue. The organization has created a national map intended to help people identify ALPR cameras near them and is organizing support for its national petition. unFlockIt
✍️ Your Community. Your Data. Your Voice.
If you believe Americans deserve greater transparency and stronger limits on warrantless surveillance, sign the unFlockIt petition and make your voice heard.
SIGN THE UNFLOCKIT NATIONAL PETITION
You can also use unFlockIt’s map to see reported surveillance cameras in your area. View the unFlockIt map
Because ultimately, this isn’t about whether technology is good or bad.
It’s about power.
It’s about what happens when the ability to collect information about ordinary citizens becomes easier than ever.
And it’s about whether Americans get to establish the rules before that power becomes impossible to take back.
So ask yourself:
Should the government be able to record and search where ordinary Americans drive when those people have never been suspected of a crime?
Maybe your answer is yes.
Maybe it’s no.
But shouldn’t you have a say?
Because the cameras are already watching.
Culture
HUGE: 9/11 Widow Goes Rogue, Makes Damning Call Out During Ground Zero Ceremony
A 9/11 widow delivered a searing message from Ground Zero during Friday’s 25th anniversary remembrance, using the solemn ceremony to demand answers over Saudi Arabia’s alleged connections to the terrorists responsible for the deadliest attack on American soil.
Terry Strada, whose husband Tom Strada was killed inside the World Trade Center’s North Tower, stood before the crowd and made clear that a quarter-century has not ended her family’s fight for accountability.
After reading her husband’s name, Strada asked a question that cut directly to the heart of the decades-long battle.
“How can it be 25 years and still we have no justice for the role that Saudi Arabia played in your murder?”
A 9/11 widow just rent rogue in NYC…
She read her husbands name and then called out Islamic terror and Saudi Arabia.
She called out Bush, Obama, Biden and JD Vance/Trump while they sat right in front of her. The entire crowd at ground zero cheered. pic.twitter.com/xICEZL6FOv
— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) September 11, 2026
Tom Strada was one of 658 Cantor Fitzgerald employees killed when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower on September 11, 2001.
His widow now serves as national chair of 9/11 Families United for Justice and has spent years fighting to uncover what families allege were Saudi connections to individuals involved in the attacks.
Standing at the site where her husband was murdered, Strada accused Saudi Arabia of having “fomented a rancid culture of anti-American terrorism around the globe and then sent its agents to support radical Islamist hijackers so they could attack you and all of our loved ones.”
Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks were Saudi nationals.
But Strada wasn’t finished.
She then turned her attention toward America’s own political leadership, accusing successive administrations of failing the families still searching for accountability.
“For 25 years, administration after administration, including leaders in front of us here today, chose to protect the Saudis instead of standing with the 9/11 families,” Strada continued as members of the crowd cheered.
Former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among those attending the ceremony. According to the account, they showed no visible reaction to her remarks.
Strada continued with another blistering accusation.
“They broke promises, both public and private. It has been one betrayal after another,”
She then directed her message specifically toward Vice President JD Vance, who was attending the Ground Zero ceremony representing the Trump administration.
“Tell the Saudis to stop lying. Tell them that if they want to be friends with the USA, they cannot continue to deny all of this, all of the pain, all of the destruction that we have been suffering through.
“Vice President Vance, thank you for being here today,” she concluded. “Please carry that message back. Stand with the families. Stand with survivors. Stand with Americans. As my husband Tom would have said, that is always the right thing to do.”
Families’ Fight for Answers Isn’t Over
Strada’s organization has spent years pursuing litigation seeking to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for alleged assistance connected to the September 11 attacks.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly denied playing any role in planning or supporting the attacks.
But 25 years later, the legal battle is still alive.
The dispute is expected to return to a federal appeals court in Manhattan next month, with part of the case focusing on Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national whose interactions with two future 9/11 hijackers have received intense scrutiny.
Al-Bayoumi encountered Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar after they arrived in California and helped the men establish themselves in the San Diego area, according to the 9/11 Commission.
He departed the United States for the United Kingdom approximately a year before the September 11 attacks.
British authorities later detained and questioned al-Bayoumi at the request of the United States, but he was never charged.
Families of 9/11 victims have continued pointing to evidence they believe raises serious questions about his activities.
Among that evidence is a video recorded in 1999 and unsealed by a court in 2024.
The footage showed al-Bayoumi recording the U.S. Capitol while discussing a “plan.” Attorneys representing victims’ families have argued that the recording depicts surveillance of the building.
The 9/11 Commission identified the Capitol as one of the possible intended targets of United Airlines Flight 93.
That plane never reached its target.
Instead, it crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back against the hijackers.
Another video from February 2000 showed a gathering hosted by al-Bayoumi for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar shortly after the future hijackers arrived in San Diego.
25 Years Later, the Questions Remain
A quarter-century has passed since nearly 3,000 people were murdered in New York, at the Pentagon and near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
But for Strada and other victims’ families, the passage of time has not erased their demands for answers.
Friday’s ceremony was designed to remember the people America lost.
Strada made sure it also served as a reminder of the questions she believes America still hasn’t answered.
Her message wasn’t confined to Saudi officials thousands of miles away.
It was delivered directly to American leaders standing at Ground Zero:
Twenty-five years later, these families are still demanding accountability.
Culture
‘The Five’ Gets Emotional As Greg Gutfeld Announces Tragic News
Greg Gutfeld and his Fox News colleagues are mourning the shocking loss of a longtime supporter after a Texas man they had come to know through years of online interactions was brutally stabbed to death in what authorities believe was a random attack.
Andrew James Wimsatt, 62, was killed in broad daylight on Labor Day while sitting near a park bench in Round Rock, Texas.
Police arrested 26-year-old Benedict Ogbodiegwu Jr. and charged him with murder after surveillance footage allegedly captured him approaching Wimsatt from behind and repeatedly stabbing him in the neck, according to authorities.
The horrifying attack unfolded shortly before 11 a.m. near Double File Trail Elementary School.
According to an arrest affidavit, Wimsatt was simply sitting on a bench when the suspect approached him with a knife, wrapped an arm around him and began stabbing.
Wimsatt desperately attempted to fight back, but was unable to escape.
Authorities said the suspect continued attacking him even after Wimsatt fell to the ground before eventually leaving the scene.
A woman discovered Wimsatt suffering from severe neck injuries at approximately 11:15 a.m. and called police.
Investigators then began piecing together surveillance footage that allegedly tracked the suspect’s movements.
Authorities said footage showed him at a nearby McDonald’s wearing different clothing before entering a red SUV registered to his family.
When detectives confronted Ogbodiegwu with a still image from the crime scene, authorities say he initially acknowledged that the person pictured was him before denying that he had been at the park.
He also allegedly told investigators he had a twin — but could not provide police with the twin’s name.
The investigation soon took another disturbing turn.
Detectives searching near Ogbodiegwu’s home discovered a trash bag containing clothing resembling what the suspect was allegedly wearing in the surveillance footage, along with a large knife.
Authorities said the blade tested presumptively positive for blood.
Investigators believe Wimsatt and Ogbodiegwu did not know one another.
The killing, they say, appears to have been random.
Adding another heartbreaking detail to the case, Wimsatt had reportedly just returned from visiting his mother at a nursing home before he was killed.
But this was not simply another crime story for several familiar faces at Fox News.
Wimsatt was an accomplished civil engineer who earned three degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. Away from his professional career, however, he had quietly built relationships with several media personalities by tirelessly clipping, preserving and sharing their television appearances online.
Greg Gutfeld remembered Wimsatt as “supremely gentle, willing to do just about anything for another person.”
Fox News contributor George Timothy Murdoch, better known as Tyrus, remembered him as “always positive … with a monster laugh.”
Kat Timpf offered an equally emotional tribute to the man who had spent years helping others while apparently expecting nothing in return.
“Andrew was a rare person: Genuinely kind just for the sake of it; it quite clearly never occurred to him to expect anything in return.”
Wimsatt reportedly created clips for Timpf’s online community and preserved old television appearances for several commentators without asking to be paid.
Now, the circumstances surrounding his killing are putting renewed attention on the murder suspect’s previous encounters with the criminal justice system.
Ogbodiegwu previously faced a felony theft charge in 2017, but the case was dismissed.
He was arrested again on a theft charge in January 2026. A court ordered a competency evaluation and he was later committed for restoration, according to the report.
That case was also ultimately dismissed.
Then, in May, Ogbodiegwu was arrested yet again, this time accused of giving police false identification.
That charge was dismissed as well.
Now, just months later, Ogbodiegwu faces a murder charge in connection with Wimsatt’s death.
For Gutfeld and the other Fox personalities who had come to know Wimsatt through his years of quiet generosity, his death is far more personal than another headline.
They lost a man they remembered not for seeking attention or recognition, but for constantly giving his time to others.
And after years spent quietly supporting the people he admired, Wimsatt is now being remembered by those same people for the kindness, generosity and unmistakable spirit he left behind.
Culture
Fox News Furious After Peter Navarro Reveals New Info On Bartiromo’s Shock Firing
The mystery surrounding Maria Bartiromo’s stunning split from Fox News just took an explosive turn.
Peter Navarro is now publicly accusing Fox executives of silencing the longtime anchor after an internal network directive made its way to President Donald Trump’s White House — allegations that could raise fresh questions about what was happening behind the scenes at the conservative cable giant.
Navarro laid out his account in an op-ed for The Washington Times and a series of posts on X, accusing Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott of “muzzling” Bartiromo following Trump’s prime-time address on China and election security.
According to Navarro, Bartiromo had booked him to appear on Fox Business the following morning to discuss Trump’s July 16 speech.
Then, he says, everything changed.
Navarro claimed Fox Business programming chief Ralph Giordano sent instructions to Bartiromo’s producers explicitly discouraging coverage of the president’s address.
“Hi – We don’t want to promote it or push to the speech at all. We don’t want to do 2020 election segments at all Thurs or Friday,” the message said, according to the copy published by Navarro.
Navarro said Bartiromo forwarded the message directly to him.
He then sent it to the White House.
According to Navarro, that triggered an angry call from the West Wing to Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott.
“That was a slap at the president and at every Fox viewer who tuned in for analysis and got censorship,” Navarro wrote.
But Navarro claims the fallout didn’t stop there.
He alleged Bartiromo was ultimately punished for exposing what happened, eventually receiving what he described as Fox’s “Golden Muzzle.”
Navarro pointed to a Just the News report claiming Bartiromo would continue collecting pay for the remaining three years of her contract while being prevented from joining a competing network.
That reported contractual arrangement has not been publicly confirmed by either Fox or Bartiromo.
Navarro also claimed that he himself was banned from Fox after forwarding the internal message to the White House. Fox has not publicly confirmed his version of those events.
The controversy is particularly striking because Fox News did carry Trump’s July 16 address live, and Sean Hannity interviewed the president afterward.
Navarro, however, claimed “Fox & Friends” failed to discuss the speech the next morning despite its focus on China’s alleged ability to interfere in American elections.
Then came Bartiromo’s abrupt departure.
Fox announced Sept. 3 that Bartiromo was leaving after more than 12 years with the network, offering little explanation beyond calling the move a “business decision.”
“Effective today, Maria Bartiromo is no longer with FOX News Media,” the network announced. “We thank Maria for her work over the last 12 ½ years and wish her all the best on her next chapter.”
But Bartiromo’s attorney quickly complicated that narrative.
Attorney Bryan Freedman forcefully pushed back against reports suggesting Bartiromo had been fired or was no longer employed by Fox.
“The irresponsible reports that have been published stating that Maria Bartiromo was fired or is no longer an employee of Fox are absolutely and unequivocally false,” Freedman said. “Make no mistake, we have the receipts and witnesses and they will come out whether through the courthouse or otherwise.”
That statement raised an obvious question: If Bartiromo is no longer with Fox News Media but remains employed by Fox in some capacity, what exactly happened behind closed doors?
Navarro is now widening his attack beyond Bartiromo.
He accused Fox executives of restricting coverage of issues that matter deeply to the network’s MAGA audience, arguing that Fox presents conservative programming to viewers while maintaining editorial guardrails around subjects including election integrity, Big Pharma, Trump’s tariffs and China.
And Bartiromo, Navarro argues, isn’t the first major conservative voice to collide with the network.
He pointed to the departures of Tucker Carlson and the late Lou Dobbs — two personalities who commanded enormous and intensely loyal audiences before their respective exits from Fox.
Navarro went even further, alleging the network maintains a “shadow ban” targeting certain Trump allies and prominent conservative figures.
Among those he claimed had been frozen out at various times were himself, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, Laura Loomer, John Solomon and FBI Director Kash Patel.
Fox has not publicly responded to Navarro’s latest allegations.
Trump himself previously expressed disbelief over Bartiromo’s departure, praising the veteran journalist as a “total professional” and a “true warrior.”
Bartiromo had been one of Fox’s most recognizable business and political personalities, hosting “Mornings with Maria,” “Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street,” and “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Fox has since renamed her Fox Business programs and announced rotating anchors will fill in while the network searches for a permanent host for her Sunday program.
But Navarro’s allegations have transformed what initially looked like a surprising television shakeup into a much bigger controversy.
If his account is accurate, Bartiromo’s departure may have involved far more than a routine “business decision.”
And with her attorney publicly promising “receipts and witnesses,” the full story behind one of Fox’s most stunning departures may only be beginning to emerge.
-
Economy5 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
Economy5 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Economy5 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
Culture3 months agoMichelle Obama Drops Nasty Bomb About ‘Useless’ Daughter
-
Economy5 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
Economy3 months agoPrayers Pour In After Fox Host Dies: ‘Senseless Murder’
-
Latest3 months agoFox News Stuns With Announcement About 5 Fired Hosts
-
Economy5 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
