14/08/2026
Sometimes, the Jester is the only one that can speak the truth with impunity
Taking mic checks more seriously now… 🎤. #charliekirk #shorts #standupcomedy
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
06/08/2026
A 13 shot Ta**us 9mm? I have so many questions...
Loaded handgun found in man during jail intake x-ray screening
CHICAGO — A 23-year-old man faces additional felony charges after Cook County Jail staff allegedly discovered a loaded handgun during the intake process last week. Correctional officers recovered t…
04/08/2026
Who's larping now?
The man who carries an umbrella every day is a fool except the day it rains.
If this guy doesn't get free In N' Out for the rest of his life, there is no justice in this world.
27/07/2026
📱 BREAKING: DOJ Charges US Citizen For Using Phone's "Self-Destruct" Passcode at Airport Border Checkpoint
In a landmark and highly controversial case, the Department of Justice is prosecuting US citizen Samuel Tunick under a federal property destruction statute—marking the first known time someone has been criminally charged for triggering a privacy-focused phone's auto-wipe feature.
Here is what went down:
The Stop: Returning from a trip through Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Tunick was flagged for secondary inspection by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) due to a watchlist alert tied to his environmental activism.
The Trigger: Agents demanded access to his Google Pixel. When Tunick provided a password, it turned out to be a GrapheneOS "duress" PIN—which instantly and irreversibly wiped the phone's cryptographic keys, clearing all data.
The Charges: The DOJ indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a) 📌 for intentionally destroying property to prevent government seizure.
Why it matters: Privacy advocates and cybersecurity experts are sounding the alarm, warning that prosecuting built-in safety features sends a dangerous message that privacy tools like GrapheneOS are "criminal by default." Meanwhile, Tunick’s defense team is fighting back, arguing the border stop was a warrantless fishing expedition that violated his constitutional rights.
Where do you stand on this digital privacy showdown? Let us know in the comments below