Authored by Lewis Dovland via American Thinker,
It is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook. Anytime a Democrat politician looks into a television camera and declares a new policy is "for the kids," history tells us it is time to do three things: grab your Bill of Rights, lock your wallet, and check your firearms.
The political left has mastered the art of semantic camouflage. Because leftists' true intentions - total state control and the systematic dismantling of individual liberty - are entirely unpalatable to the average citizen, they must cloak their radical agendas in the warm blanket of public safety.
We are seeing this exact misdirection play out today across two seemingly different battlefronts: the push for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) on firearms, and the sudden, "bipartisan" stampede to pass online child safety legislation. Under the microscope, however, they share the exact same DNA. They were never about protecting children. They are about building lists to target political opponents. Period.
Currently making waves in Congress are the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in the Senate and the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS) in the House. On paper, the marketing pitch is flawless. Proponents claim these bills will shield innocent children from online predators, groomers, and illicit adult content.
At face value, it sounds reasonable. Who could possibly oppose protecting children?
The answer lies in the structural mechanics of the legislation. Just as gun control advocates use "safety" to pierce the veil of constitutional privacy, digital regulators are using children as human shields to bypass the First Amendment.
To understand the trap being set online, one must first look at the ongoing battle over Universal Background Checks. Under current federal law, licensed firearm dealers must maintain physical ATF Form 4473. Crucially, under the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regulations, the federal government is strictly prohibited from centralizing these forms into a master database. If a firearm is used in a crime, investigators must work backward - from manufacturer to dealer to buyer. It is a localized, investigative process that protects law-abiding gun owners from mass government discovery.
Enter the left's obsession with Universal Background Checks for private transfers. Proponents claim this keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals - ignoring the obvious reality that criminals, by definition, do not obtain weapons through legal channels.
The real objective is structural. A Universal Background Check law is completely unenforceable unless the state knows who owns every firearm in the country beforehand. The law has no teeth without a mandatory, centralized gun registry. It is the ultimate camel's nose under the liberty tent.
This brings us back to the digital arena. Changing the law would mean de facto digital ID for every American. The database concept that makes UBCs so dangerous is the exact same mechanism driving KOSA and KIDS.
To enforce age restrictions online and block youth from specific platforms, websites cannot simply rely on the honor system. Platforms must mandate strict age verification. To prove your age, you must verify your legal identity. Proponents make it sound like it's just the kids who must register.
However, they conveniently fail to mention the rest of the action. In order to prove they are not children, adults will be forced to upload government-issued identification simply to access standard political commentary, religious forums, or independent news sites. Platforms will choose the path of least resistance, implementing blanket identity checks to avoid massive federal fines. The immediate casualty of this regime will be political anonymity.
The author has personally witnessed this phenomenon, having friends in the UK with whom we've corresponded for many years. They have become extremely guarded in answering certain political-type questions in the past couple of years, basically avoiding commenting. And we all read now about British subjects being arrested for making comments in public or posting online viewpoints that oppose official positions.
Independent outlets like American Thinker rely heavily on robust, pseudonymous comment sections. Thousands of everyday Americans utilize digital pen names to engage in fierce partisan debates. They do not do this out of cowardice; they do it to protect their careers, their livelihoods, and their families from targeted harassment campaigns by the radical Left. KOSA and KIDS would mean the end of the dissident commenter.
If KOSA and KIDS become law, the era of the pseudonymous internet is dead. Email providers, forums, and social platforms will require positive legal identification just to open an account.
When you strip away the emotional appeals, the underlying architecture becomes clear:
If progressive Marxists secure unchecked power over the administrative state and the judiciary, they will no longer need to hunt for dissidents. The compliance architecture currently being built in Washington will hand them a pre-verified list of their political opponents on a silver platter. And since they would have already emptied all the prisons, they'd have plenty of beds to hold us all.
Tyler Durden Mon, 07/27/2026 - 20:05Save A Lot shuttered seven locations across Chicago's crime-ridden South and West sides over the weekend, once again exposing the dysfunction of a metro area run by unhinged progressives. City officials poured millions of dollars into the grocery outlets in hopes of improving food access, only to watch the stores remain unprofitable amid persistent theft.
Seven Save A Lot grocery stores in Chicago are closing their doors on Saturday, citing financial difficulties.
The company says the stores were severely impacted following the Trump administration’s cuts to SNAP benefits, which it says contributed to the closures. pic.twitter.com/DywVtWGv7B
Local outlet ABC 7 reports "frustration, anger, and concern" among the community as Save A Lot shuttered seven stores on Saturday, with many residents saying this would reduce their access to food.
The outlet noted:
Save A Lot began a partnership with retail company Yellow Banana in 2023 in an effort to keep grocery stores open on the city's South and West sides and combat food deserts.
A company spokesperson cited financial struggles and cuts to SNAP benefits as reasons for the closures. In a statement, the company said, "We are committed to the wellbeing of the communities we serve. We will continue to engage with City and Community leaders to explore ways to provide access to quality food and services for residents, and we are actively supporting impacted Yellow Banana team members throughout the transition."
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Yellow Banana had a $26 million redevelopment agreement with the city of Chicago and received more than $13 million in taxpayer financing to renovate and reopen Save A Lot locations. The rest of the funding came from federal grants and loans.
Despite the debate on X over whether the seven locations qualified as "government grocery stores," they were privately owned and operated but supported with taxpayer funding. Even with public backing, the stores failed to turn a profit. Theft was likely a major factor in the shutdowns, although the operator cited broader financial pressures and reductions in SNAP benefits.
Add Save A Lot to the growing list of retailers reducing their exposure to Chicago, alongside Walgreens, Aldi, and Walmart. Walgreens and Aldi explicitly cited theft, burglaries, and violent incidents in certain closures, while Walmart and Save A Lot pointed more broadly to persistent losses and financial headwinds.
The accelerating retail exodus suggests Chicago's progressive governing model enforced by City Hall is backfiring. Without basic public safety and a commercially viable operating environment, progressives risk even broader food and pharmacy deserts in low-income areas as businesses want no part of lawless neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, socialist politicians gaining power at the local level are promoting taxpayer-funded supermarkets and "free food for everyone." Yet history offers little evidence that government-run grocery models can remain efficient, financially sustainable, or responsive to consumers without persistent subsidies. But, of course, these politicans pitch 'this time is different' ...
Tyler Durden Mon, 07/27/2026 - 19:40