Great Reset
From Border Security to Big Brother: Social Media Surveillance

By Christina Maas
Was the entire immigration reform rhetoric just a prelude to broadening government spying?
Let’s take a closer look: immigration became a hot-button campaign issue, with plenty of talk about “welcoming” migrants, combined with a healthy dose of hand-wringing about border security. Now, however, critics are uncovering what looks like the real priority—an enhanced federal surveillance operation aimed at monitoring not just new arrivals, but American citizens too. In the name of keeping tabs on who’s coming and going, the administration sank more than $100 million into a social media surveillance system designed to keep an eye on everyone.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first flirted with these powers under Trump’s presidency, when ICE officials began monitoring social media under the guise of protecting the homeland. The Biden-Harris administration, having previously expressed horror at Trump-era excesses, took a softer tack, but actually increased mass surveillance. They rebranded the initiative as the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Initiative (VLVI), a name that practically exudes bureaucratic charm while implying a methodical, visa-centric approach. But if it was just an immigration program, why was it scanning communications between Americans and their international friends, family, or business contacts?
According to a lawsuit from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the program evolved into something much larger than a mere visa vetting system. The scheme entailed broad surveillance of communications and social media activity, conveniently sidestepping pesky things like “probable cause” or the First Amendment. “Government officials peering through their correspondence with colleagues visiting from overseas and scrutinizing the opinions expressed in their communications and their work,” read a lawsuit that laid bare the VLVI’s invasive nature. What started as a system to vet foreigners’ eligibility to enter the U.S. quietly metastasized into an excuse to monitor anyone who dared connect across borders.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
We obtained a copy of documents batch one for you here.
We obtained a copy of documents batch two for you here.
Of course, in true Washington style, this story wouldn’t be complete without a twist of political theater. The administration’s rhetoric has leaned heavily on a supposed dedication to protecting civil rights and personal freedoms—while simultaneously doubling down on programs that do the opposite.
A Little Privacy, Please? DHS Puts American Social Media on the Watchlist
Ah, the Fourth Amendment — one of those quaint, old-timey Constitutional protections that grant Americans the basic human right not to be poked, prodded, or probed by their own government without a solid reason. It’s a promise that Washington will think twice before sifting through your life without a warrant. Yet somehow, in the age of social media, this Fourth Amendment right seems to be slipping into the hazy realm of memory, particularly when it comes to Uncle Sam’s latest pastime: keeping tabs on everyone’s online chatter under the banner of immigration vetting.
Welcome to the VLVI, a Homeland Security special that appears to have mistaken “security” for “surveillance.” This bureaucratic marvel was dreamed up as a means to monitor non-citizens and immigrants, ostensibly for national security. But according to recent lawsuits, it’s not just foreigners on the watchlist—average Americans now get to share the surveillance limelight too, all thanks to the Department of Homeland Security’s fondness for “indiscriminate monitoring” of citizen communications. And why? Because in the brave new world of VLVI, any American chatting online with an overseas connection might just be suspicious enough to keep an eye on.
A Sweeping “Security” Measure or Just Mass Surveillance?
Here’s where the Constitution starts to feel like an afterthought. Traditionally, the government can’t simply jump into your emails, texts, or online rants without a warrant backed by probable cause. The Fourth Amendment makes that pretty clear. But in the VLVI’s playbook, this notion of “probable cause” becomes something of a suggestion, more of a “nice to have” than a constitutional mandate. Instead, they’ve embraced an approach that’s less “laser-focused security effort” and more “catch-all dragnet,” casting wide nets over American citizens who happen to connect with anyone abroad—no illegal activity necessary.
Imagine you’re a US citizen messaging your friend in France about a summer trip, or maybe you’re just exchanging memes with a cousin in Pakistan. Under this initiative, that simple exchange could land you in a Homeland Security database, your innocent messages cataloged alongside the truly suspicious characters of the internet. And this is happening without any individual warrants, without specific suspicion, and in some cases, without probable cause. One might ask, exactly how does that square with the Constitution’s protections?
Privacy Protections? That’s for Other People
This is all a question of government trust and hypocrisy. The program began under a previous administration but was quickly shuttled along by the current one, despite its public stance championing privacy rights. There’s something ironic about politicians who rally for civil liberties in campaign speeches, only to maintain and expand government surveillance in office. The backlash has been predictably loud, and for good reason. Here we have a policy that effectively treats every social media user as a latent threat and a government that somehow expects people to swallow this as reasonable.
Critics have slammed this “watch-all” approach, pointing out that it doesn’t take a legal scholar to see how this might just cross a constitutional line or two. It’s not just Americans with foreign friends who are worried—it’s anyone who believes the government shouldn’t rummage through citizens’ lives without cause. “This type of program, where citizens’ digital lives are surveilled under a sweeping policy without individual warrants or specific reasons, sounds like an unreasonable search,” privacy advocates say.
The Price of a Free Society: Now With Less Freedom
Of course, VLVI supporters wave away these concerns with a dismissive “it’s for security” mantra as if that excuse covers every constitutional breach. And true, there’s little doubt that some level of monitoring is necessary to keep the truly dangerous elements out of the country. But we’re talking about ordinary people here, law-abiding citizens getting swept up in a bureaucratic machine that fails to distinguish between a casual chat and a credible threat.
When the government can tap into anyone’s social media profile because of a flimsy association, what’s left of the citizen’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”? In theory, the Fourth Amendment protects it; in practice, programs like VLVI gnaw away at it, one seemingly “harmless” violation at a time. If we keep pretending this is just another harmless tool in the security toolkit, we might as well hang up any remaining illusions about the privacy rights we’re supposedly guaranteed.
Just Another Step Toward a Surveillance State?
For Americans, it’s a chilling reminder that a swipe on Instagram or a chat on Facebook can mean more than just casual social interaction. For the DHS, it seems the message is clear: treat everyone as a suspect first, and figure out the legalities later. What happens to the expectation of privacy for ordinary Americans? It’s probably time we all start looking over our digital shoulders, because in the world of VLVI, “reasonableness” is a government privilege, not a citizen’s right.
2025 Federal Election
Poilievre promises to drop ‘radical political ideologies’ in universities

From LifeSiteNews
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to prioritize funding scientific research over ‘radical political ideologies’ at Canadian universities.
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has promised to scrap government funding of “radical political ideologies” in higher education if elected prime minister.
During an April 2 speech in Toronto, Poilievre told a French reporter that his Conservative government will focus on promoting scientific research rather than furthering radical ideologies in Canadian universities.
“The money we spend on research will go to research, not to promoting political ideologies,” Poilievre said. “We want, for example, our science and technology research to go into technological breakthroughs, inventions, innovations, discoveries, cures for terrible diseases that can improve Canadian lives.”
“That is what Canadians expect their tax dollars to go to, not to spend it on radical political ideologies that are first of all completely out of touch with the values of Canadians, and second of all, have no scientific value to our people,” Poilievre added.
This was the second time Poilievre denounced woke spending at universities, the first time being at a Quebec rally last week.
The policy proposal has seemed to draw the ire of some in academia, with Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) executive director David Robinson stating, “It’s worrying that a leader of a political party in Canada would try to dictate how research funds will be granted.”
“We’ve seen the impact of this political meddling south of the border where the Trump administration has launched a full-scale assault on universities and the scientific community,” he continued. “This kind of American-style culture war has no place in Canada.”
Under U.S. President Donald Trump, public schools and universities were given until the end of February to eliminate their DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs or risk losing federal funding.
More than 30 states have introduced legislation that would eliminate DEI programs from education as part of a broader push against woke ideology spearheaded by Republicans such as Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Conservatives have long criticized DEI and other forms of identity politics for stoking rather than curtailing division. Moreover, many take issue with left-wing ideologies, such as gender ideology, because they contain objective falsehoods such as the denial of biological reality in determining sex.
2025 Federal Election
WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals

From LifeSiteNews
‘We’re going to need a fundamental transformation, really a revolution in the financial system,’ Mark Carney said in a 2023 World Economic Forum video heralding ‘net zero’ policies.
A 2023 video by the World Economic Forum shows Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, then working as an executive for Brookfield Asset Management, heralding the idea of “net zero” climate goals in order to spur a financial “revolution.”
“Time is running out to make this transition to net zero, to have a sustainable world,” said Carney in the three-minute video which was released as part of the WEF’s Centre for Financial and Monetary Systems series.
“We need to transition the energy system on the scale of the industrial revolution at the speed of the digital transformation,” Carney continued, adding that “we’re going to need a fundamental transformation, really a revolution in the financial system.”
Carney explained the progress globalists have been making in achieving this goal, detailing that at the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, called COP26, only “$5 trillion in the financial system was explicitly committed” to “net zero,” but that as of 2023, that number had gone up to “130 trillion dollars,” which represents 40 percent of global financial assets.”
Carney then took a more direct climate alarmist approach, saying that the world is going to continue to experience “more droughts, more hurricanes, more extreme weather, and more damage” because of so-called “climate change.”
LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on the World Economic Forum, its origins and its agendas, and most infamously its “Great Reset” plan, which contains many aspects of socialism.
As for Carney, he was installed as Canada’s 24th prime minister in March, taking over from Justin Trudeau. In addition to being an admitted “elitist” and a “globalist,” Carney has a history of promoting or endorsing anti-life and anti-family agendas, including abortion and LGBT-related efforts.
Shortly after being sworn in as prime minister, Carney called an election, with Canadians slated to head to the polls on April 28.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
‘Coordinated and Alarming’: Allegations of Chinese Voter Suppression in 2021 Race That Flipped Toronto Riding to Liberals and Paul Chiang
-
Alberta2 days ago
Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
‘I’m Cautiously Optimistic’: Doug Ford Strongly Recommends Canada ‘Not To Retaliate’ Against Trump’s Tariffs
-
Catherine Herridge2 days ago
FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
WEF video shows Mark Carney pushing financial ‘revolution’ based on ‘net zero’ goals
-
Business2 days ago
Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs
-
Business1 day ago
B.C. Credit Downgrade Signals Deepening Fiscal Trouble
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Liberal MP resigns after promoting Chinese government bounty on Conservative rival