A poll worker in Syracuse posted that the agent who killed Renée Good should be indicted. Five months later, two federal agents arrived with a dossier — and the word terrorism aimed the wrong way
A citizen says an agent should be indicted, and suddenly the federal government shows up with her height, weight, eye color, address, and a letter that smells like authoritarian cologne. That is not public safety. That is the state tapping the microphone and reminding everyone the cage has paperwork. The chilling part is not that she had an opinion. It is that the machine treated her opinion like a search warrant without needing one.
Not very close to. You already are. Whether that will change in November is a different matter. But even that is in question. I have serious doubt that they (the entire wretched cabal, not the senile orange dementor haunting the whitehouse) will let the power slip from their hands after going so far.
They can't let go. They are in too deep. The public knows they are trying to prevent free and fair elections, which turns the public against them even more.
That's why we need massive turnout. They may try to obstruct the election and not honor the outcome, but if they do either, they will have to deal with the massive blowback.
They must be forced to turn people away from the polls, with smartphones and TV cameras showing the world what is happening. They must be forced to lie to the world about the results despite a massive turnout against them.
Once people see what is happening, they will lose their legitimacy to rule. Their only legitimate power is that given to them by the public, and the public can take the power back at anytime. If they refuse to relinquish it, the Constitution becomes void, and the public is no longer bound to obey.
Right after 911 when the government was creating Homeland Security many of us knew that was was too much power and way too little accountability in a government agency.
“For the first time in American history, a federal directive names beliefs — not acts — as indicators of terrorism…” - I’m not sure this is accurate. This same type of classification was done under the Biden administration with the focus pointed the other direction. I mention this because I think it illustrates that these tactics are used regardless of who happens to be at the helm at any given time.
FBI Richmond memo. I’m sure some pedant will argue that an FBI memo is not the same as what Trump signed, but that’s disingenuously missing the forest for the trees.
Good example — and a fair hit on my phrasing, which I'll tighten. But I don't think the FBI/Trump distinction is pedantic; it's the whole point. The Richmond memo was a single field-office intelligence product the bureau repudiated and withdrew within weeks, after the IG found it violated professional standards. It also grew out of an actual weapons investigation of a guy who called himself a "Clerical Fascist" and had Molotov cocktails — so even there, "beliefs not acts" is contestable.
NSPM-7 is a different category of object: a standing presidential directive naming "anti-Christian," "anti-capitalist," and "anti-American" views as terrorism indicia, with an AG implementation memo and a multi-agency mission center built to act on it. One is a flawed staff memo the institution rejected; the other is the institution's stated policy. The honest claim isn't "first time anyone in the federal government did this" — it's "first time a published presidential directive made belief-markers the explicit, standing basis for an all-of-government effort." And notably, Stephen Miller agrees it's a first — he called it "the first time in American history" there's an all-of-government effort against left-wing terrorism. We just disagree about whether that's something to brag about.
Read my comment more closely. It references the OP’s description of a document. Then read about the Biden FBI’s Richmond memo. Both are documents. Both documents categorize certain groups as potential threats based, broadly, on thought based grounds.
But one is an analysis of an actual weapons case by a single office, retracted quickly, and the other is a National Security POLICY memorandum. So, while there is a common thread, the differences are not pedantry.
Thanks for the facts on this case. And I agree her being prosecuted on the basis of that post is indefensible.
But you are wrong when you repeatedly imply that what is going on is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
If the government merely buys legally collected, legally sellable, commercially available data from a private party, with no compulsion, no agency relationship, no special government-only access, no illegal collection, and no government-directed surveillance, that is not a Fourth Amendment violation.
It may be bad policy. It may deserve a statute. It may be creepy or abusive. But it is not in any way a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.
I do think the issue is thornier than you imply. Carpenter v United States opened a crack between information a company has and what the government can request. But you are right purchasing information is not considered a forth Amendment violation.
But this is where we may diverge a bit. i think this is not settled either way. And that other courts in the past held interpretation strategies that would read this as a violation.
But then we are probably agreed that the current court absolutely will not.
That is why I think we need ‘The Fourth amendment Is Not For Sale Act,’ which would ban the government from buying the data it would otherwise need a warrant to get.
The House passed it with a bipartisan majority, 219–199, in April 2024; the Senate never took it up, and when that Congress ended the bill died with it.
If by “thornier” you mean “if we had a left-activist Supreme Court they might rule it a violation of the 4th Amendment”, then we agree.
But on no other axis is it the case.
There is no 4th Amendment violation here.
The data in question is not the property of the person being investigated.
Carpenter indeed opens a crack in terms of what the government can require companies to give up in terms of information. Require as in compel. And I agree with that decision re: “compel”.
But no one is being compelled to do anything when the government buys on the open market legally available, legally-sourced, non-exclusive information it didn’t pay to have created.
I have no problem that you advocate for a law to change public policy on the issue.
I’m actually conflicted on this point. If it could be crafted carefully enough I’d likely support it. But that’s a pretty big “if”.
A brutal heatwave sweeping across Europe and the United States is no longer just weather. it is a warning.
And experts are clear: this is only the beginning.
Extreme heat is no longer a seasonal inconvenience. It is a rapidly accelerating global crisis driven by human emissions that is transforming cities into deadly heat traps and pushing critical infrastructure to the brink of collapse.
Power grids are failing.
Hospitals are overwhelmed.
Roads are cracking under pressure.
And nights no longer bring relief.
This is what a warming world looks like.
Scientists warn that these extreme heat events would be nearly impossible without human-driven climate change. What we are witnessing is not natural variation. it is a system under stress.
And the trajectory is clear:
Hotter heatwaves.
Longer durations.
Higher humidity.
Greater loss of life.
Agriculture will suffer.
Outdoor work will become dangerous.
Vulnerable populations will pay the highest price.
This is no longer a future threat.
This is the new normal accelerating faster than our systems can adapt.
But this path is not irreversible.
We still have a window to act:
Rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
Climate-resilient urban planning to reduce heat traps
Stronger, modernized infrastructure that can withstand extreme conditions
Early warning systems and public health preparedness
Global cooperation that prioritizes survival over short-term gains
The cost of inaction is no longer abstract.
It is measured in lives.
The question is no longer if this crisis will escalate
Every detail there is in the public record, most of it in court filings. It's a maroon Honda Pilot — confirmed in the family's federal court motions and in CNN's and ABC's frame-by-frame video reviews. The wheel turning away from Ross is on the video Ross shot himself, the same footage the Vice President posted to defend him. "That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you" is audible on it.
The only figure that's changed since I published the original piece the shot count: the fire report and the family's autopsy found four wounds, not three, and I've updated the piece to reflect it. Now — which word was the lie?
The officer had every reason to believe his life was in danger. And it was correctly ruled justified self defense. She was put up to a stupid game and lost. I take no joy in that.
Not really. It’s happened under first Trump admin & Biden admin as well. I know since I’ve posted videos of it at the time. If you Google "In Biden’s America, FBI Agents Are Visiting Homes to Police Thoughtcrimes" you’ll find articles with a few videos attached as an example
I searched the phrase you suggested and found a fact-check rating that claim "Unfounded" — no evidence was found that Biden ordered those visits. The sourcing traces back to an unverified social media post.
The broader instinct isn't wrong — knock-and-talk visits, fusion center surveillance, and data-broker purchases by federal agencies all predate this administration.
But the specific mechanism in this piece — a presidential directive naming beliefs as terrorism indicators, operationalized by a DOJ memo — is documented and new.
The infrastructure is old. What's running on it right now is different in kind, not just degree.
"no evidence was found that Biden ordered those visits."
That's a different, unrelated article. I'm referring specifically to several videos being posted of such visits under Biden admin over social media posts. I'd link it, but it doesn't allow it here, presumably due to your own settings.
"But the specific mechanism in this piece — a presidential directive naming beliefs as terrorism indicators, operationalized by a DOJ memo — is documented and new."
Being antifa isn't merely about "beliefs," but even if one was to be that generous, the same has applied to "white supremacy" and various others. Furthermore, you just need to look at 1930s and 1940s, the "House Un-American Activities Committee" which at one point was chaired by a Soviet spy, and for that matter, 1944 sedition trial of dozens of people where the 'evidence' of sedition was "These people held beliefs that we assert align with Nazis, therefore they were cooperating with Nazis in Germany to overthrow the government."
The historical precedents you're naming are real — HUAC, the Smith Act, the 1944 sedition trial. The pattern of using belief-adjacent frameworks to criminalize dissent is long and genuinely worth documenting.
But I'd note that we started with a specific empirical claim — that Biden ordered mass home visits based on social media posts — and the sourcing for that didn't hold up. The broader historical argument is a different conversation, and a more defensible one.
The piece doesn't claim the architecture is new. It claims what's sitting on top of it right now is different in kind — a presidential directive explicitly enumerating belief categories as terrorism indicators, without a predicate act requirement.
That's documented and specific.
The history you're citing IS important context for why it's dangerous.
"that Biden ordered mass home visits based on social media posts"
That's literally not what I said. Here are my words: "It’s happened under first Trump admin & Biden admin as well. I know since I’ve posted videos of it at the time."
Once again (for the third time) I was referring to an article that has specific videos of it happening, not "mass home visits based on social media posts." There were other videos (once again, I know since I've posted them myself), but this didn't amount to "mass home visits," no more than it's the case now.
"a presidential directive explicitly enumerating belief categories as terrorism indicators, without a predicate act requirement."
As I've already said, this has been the case already with "white supremacy" and other things.
A citizen says an agent should be indicted, and suddenly the federal government shows up with her height, weight, eye color, address, and a letter that smells like authoritarian cologne. That is not public safety. That is the state tapping the microphone and reminding everyone the cage has paperwork. The chilling part is not that she had an opinion. It is that the machine treated her opinion like a search warrant without needing one.
Sadly, we are very close to being an authoritarian country. Horrible.
Not very close to. You already are. Whether that will change in November is a different matter. But even that is in question. I have serious doubt that they (the entire wretched cabal, not the senile orange dementor haunting the whitehouse) will let the power slip from their hands after going so far.
They can't let go. They are in too deep. The public knows they are trying to prevent free and fair elections, which turns the public against them even more.
That's why we need massive turnout. They may try to obstruct the election and not honor the outcome, but if they do either, they will have to deal with the massive blowback.
They must be forced to turn people away from the polls, with smartphones and TV cameras showing the world what is happening. They must be forced to lie to the world about the results despite a massive turnout against them.
Once people see what is happening, they will lose their legitimacy to rule. Their only legitimate power is that given to them by the public, and the public can take the power back at anytime. If they refuse to relinquish it, the Constitution becomes void, and the public is no longer bound to obey.
Yes, very true.
Yes, it is scary
This Trump government is just really freakingly scary
Indeed.
Right after 911 when the government was creating Homeland Security many of us knew that was was too much power and way too little accountability in a government agency.
And, here we are.
“For the first time in American history, a federal directive names beliefs — not acts — as indicators of terrorism…” - I’m not sure this is accurate. This same type of classification was done under the Biden administration with the focus pointed the other direction. I mention this because I think it illustrates that these tactics are used regardless of who happens to be at the helm at any given time.
Can you give me an example, I would love to document this pattern over time.
FBI Richmond memo. I’m sure some pedant will argue that an FBI memo is not the same as what Trump signed, but that’s disingenuously missing the forest for the trees.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/us/politics/catholic-extremists-fbi.html
Good example — and a fair hit on my phrasing, which I'll tighten. But I don't think the FBI/Trump distinction is pedantic; it's the whole point. The Richmond memo was a single field-office intelligence product the bureau repudiated and withdrew within weeks, after the IG found it violated professional standards. It also grew out of an actual weapons investigation of a guy who called himself a "Clerical Fascist" and had Molotov cocktails — so even there, "beliefs not acts" is contestable.
NSPM-7 is a different category of object: a standing presidential directive naming "anti-Christian," "anti-capitalist," and "anti-American" views as terrorism indicia, with an AG implementation memo and a multi-agency mission center built to act on it. One is a flawed staff memo the institution rejected; the other is the institution's stated policy. The honest claim isn't "first time anyone in the federal government did this" — it's "first time a published presidential directive made belief-markers the explicit, standing basis for an all-of-government effort." And notably, Stephen Miller agrees it's a first — he called it "the first time in American history" there's an all-of-government effort against left-wing terrorism. We just disagree about whether that's something to brag about.
As rephrased, I think it drives the point home much more effectively. I appreciate the discourse and your highlighting of this whole issue.
Thank you for pointing me at the Richmond Memo. I am very interested in tracing the history of these patterns.
Sure Cletus.
Read my comment more closely. It references the OP’s description of a document. Then read about the Biden FBI’s Richmond memo. Both are documents. Both documents categorize certain groups as potential threats based, broadly, on thought based grounds.
But one is an analysis of an actual weapons case by a single office, retracted quickly, and the other is a National Security POLICY memorandum. So, while there is a common thread, the differences are not pedantry.
Thanks for the facts on this case. And I agree her being prosecuted on the basis of that post is indefensible.
But you are wrong when you repeatedly imply that what is going on is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
If the government merely buys legally collected, legally sellable, commercially available data from a private party, with no compulsion, no agency relationship, no special government-only access, no illegal collection, and no government-directed surveillance, that is not a Fourth Amendment violation.
It may be bad policy. It may deserve a statute. It may be creepy or abusive. But it is not in any way a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.
Quotes from Ron Wyden notwithstanding.
I do think the issue is thornier than you imply. Carpenter v United States opened a crack between information a company has and what the government can request. But you are right purchasing information is not considered a forth Amendment violation.
But this is where we may diverge a bit. i think this is not settled either way. And that other courts in the past held interpretation strategies that would read this as a violation.
But then we are probably agreed that the current court absolutely will not.
That is why I think we need ‘The Fourth amendment Is Not For Sale Act,’ which would ban the government from buying the data it would otherwise need a warrant to get.
The House passed it with a bipartisan majority, 219–199, in April 2024; the Senate never took it up, and when that Congress ended the bill died with it.
If by “thornier” you mean “if we had a left-activist Supreme Court they might rule it a violation of the 4th Amendment”, then we agree.
But on no other axis is it the case.
There is no 4th Amendment violation here.
The data in question is not the property of the person being investigated.
Carpenter indeed opens a crack in terms of what the government can require companies to give up in terms of information. Require as in compel. And I agree with that decision re: “compel”.
But no one is being compelled to do anything when the government buys on the open market legally available, legally-sourced, non-exclusive information it didn’t pay to have created.
I have no problem that you advocate for a law to change public policy on the issue.
I’m actually conflicted on this point. If it could be crafted carefully enough I’d likely support it. But that’s a pretty big “if”.
Indicted, arrested tried and adjudicated to life in prison for cold blooded murder.
Johnathan Ross, WE WILL FIND YOU …
Hundreds are already dead.
A brutal heatwave sweeping across Europe and the United States is no longer just weather. it is a warning.
And experts are clear: this is only the beginning.
Extreme heat is no longer a seasonal inconvenience. It is a rapidly accelerating global crisis driven by human emissions that is transforming cities into deadly heat traps and pushing critical infrastructure to the brink of collapse.
Power grids are failing.
Hospitals are overwhelmed.
Roads are cracking under pressure.
And nights no longer bring relief.
This is what a warming world looks like.
Scientists warn that these extreme heat events would be nearly impossible without human-driven climate change. What we are witnessing is not natural variation. it is a system under stress.
And the trajectory is clear:
Hotter heatwaves.
Longer durations.
Higher humidity.
Greater loss of life.
Agriculture will suffer.
Outdoor work will become dangerous.
Vulnerable populations will pay the highest price.
This is no longer a future threat.
This is the new normal accelerating faster than our systems can adapt.
But this path is not irreversible.
We still have a window to act:
Rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
Climate-resilient urban planning to reduce heat traps
Stronger, modernized infrastructure that can withstand extreme conditions
Early warning systems and public health preparedness
Global cooperation that prioritizes survival over short-term gains
The cost of inaction is no longer abstract.
It is measured in lives.
The question is no longer if this crisis will escalate
but whether we act fast enough to stop it.
You try to make a case by lying. “Sitting in her Honda…” I have no confidence in the rest of your post, though it is possible there is merit.
Every detail there is in the public record, most of it in court filings. It's a maroon Honda Pilot — confirmed in the family's federal court motions and in CNN's and ABC's frame-by-frame video reviews. The wheel turning away from Ross is on the video Ross shot himself, the same footage the Vice President posted to defend him. "That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you" is audible on it.
The only figure that's changed since I published the original piece the shot count: the fire report and the family's autopsy found four wounds, not three, and I've updated the piece to reflect it. Now — which word was the lie?
The officer had every reason to believe his life was in danger. And it was correctly ruled justified self defense. She was put up to a stupid game and lost. I take no joy in that.
CK became a fulfilment of his own rhetoric. He played a stupid game and lost. We take no joy in that.
Totally agreed, this has been brewing for decades, but the administration is certainly ramping it up.
Not really. It’s happened under first Trump admin & Biden admin as well. I know since I’ve posted videos of it at the time. If you Google "In Biden’s America, FBI Agents Are Visiting Homes to Police Thoughtcrimes" you’ll find articles with a few videos attached as an example
I searched the phrase you suggested and found a fact-check rating that claim "Unfounded" — no evidence was found that Biden ordered those visits. The sourcing traces back to an unverified social media post.
The broader instinct isn't wrong — knock-and-talk visits, fusion center surveillance, and data-broker purchases by federal agencies all predate this administration.
But the specific mechanism in this piece — a presidential directive naming beliefs as terrorism indicators, operationalized by a DOJ memo — is documented and new.
The infrastructure is old. What's running on it right now is different in kind, not just degree.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-biden-ordered-fbi-183300171.html
"no evidence was found that Biden ordered those visits."
That's a different, unrelated article. I'm referring specifically to several videos being posted of such visits under Biden admin over social media posts. I'd link it, but it doesn't allow it here, presumably due to your own settings.
"But the specific mechanism in this piece — a presidential directive naming beliefs as terrorism indicators, operationalized by a DOJ memo — is documented and new."
Being antifa isn't merely about "beliefs," but even if one was to be that generous, the same has applied to "white supremacy" and various others. Furthermore, you just need to look at 1930s and 1940s, the "House Un-American Activities Committee" which at one point was chaired by a Soviet spy, and for that matter, 1944 sedition trial of dozens of people where the 'evidence' of sedition was "These people held beliefs that we assert align with Nazis, therefore they were cooperating with Nazis in Germany to overthrow the government."
The historical precedents you're naming are real — HUAC, the Smith Act, the 1944 sedition trial. The pattern of using belief-adjacent frameworks to criminalize dissent is long and genuinely worth documenting.
But I'd note that we started with a specific empirical claim — that Biden ordered mass home visits based on social media posts — and the sourcing for that didn't hold up. The broader historical argument is a different conversation, and a more defensible one.
The piece doesn't claim the architecture is new. It claims what's sitting on top of it right now is different in kind — a presidential directive explicitly enumerating belief categories as terrorism indicators, without a predicate act requirement.
That's documented and specific.
The history you're citing IS important context for why it's dangerous.
"that Biden ordered mass home visits based on social media posts"
That's literally not what I said. Here are my words: "It’s happened under first Trump admin & Biden admin as well. I know since I’ve posted videos of it at the time."
Once again (for the third time) I was referring to an article that has specific videos of it happening, not "mass home visits based on social media posts." There were other videos (once again, I know since I've posted them myself), but this didn't amount to "mass home visits," no more than it's the case now.
"a presidential directive explicitly enumerating belief categories as terrorism indicators, without a predicate act requirement."
As I've already said, this has been the case already with "white supremacy" and other things.
No this administration is just doing openly what under Obama and Biden they did surreptitiously.
Denying applications for Tea Party groups, tapping Trump’s campaign phones based on the leak of a dossier they knew was phony, etc.