Looking to build out your record collection? Amazon are offering a three-vinyl-for-£66 dealon some all-timers

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Friday that he’s working to cut off federal benefits to people in the United States illegally, emphasizing that those benefits should be preserved for American citizens. “At [President Donald Trump]‘s direction, we are working to cut off federal benefits to illegal aliens and preserve them for U.S. citizens,” Bessent posted to X on Friday.  “[The United States Treasury] announced that it will issue proposed regulations clarifying that the refunded portions of certain individual income tax benefits are no longer available to illegal and other non-qualified aliens, covering the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Saver’s Match Credit,” he explained. At @POTUS @realDonaldTrump‘s direction, we are working to cut off federal benefits to illegal aliens and preserve them for U.S. citizens.@USTreasury announced that it will issue proposed regulations clarifying that the refunded portions of certain individual income tax benefits… https://t.co/pn2MXoxDHC — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) November 28, 2025 Bessent’s announcement was made in response to President Donald Trump declaring on Thanksgiving that he would pause all migration from third-world countries. Trump also promised to “end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.” Americans’ generosity, Trump said, has been weaponized, allowing a vast foreign-born population to overwhelm the country and inflict deep social harm. Trump said the U.S. now hosts a “foreign population” of 53 million, citing census data, and charged that many recent arrivals depend on taxpayer-supported welfare programs while coming from “failed nations, or from prisons, mental institutions, gangs, or drug cartels.” A very Happy Thanksgiving salutation to all of our Great American Citizens and Patriots who have been so nice in allowing our Country to be divided, disrupted, carved up, murdered, beaten, mugged, and laughed at, along with certain other foolish countries throughout the World,… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2025 In a separate post, Bessent stressed that illegal immigrants have “no place in our financial system.” “Illegal aliens that use our financial institutions to move their illicitly obtained funds is exploitation, and it will end,” he said. .@POTUS @realDonaldTrump is right—if you’re here illegally, there’s no place for you in our financial system. Illegal aliens that use our financial institutions to move their illicitly obtained funds is exploitation, and it will end.https://t.co/mIy7fFWWNw. — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) November 28, 2025 This past week, it was uncovered that billions of taxpayer dollars have been stolen in Minnesota, during the tenure of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz. The money was reportedly funneled through fake nonprofits and shell companies, and — alarmingly — some of that money has ended up in the hands of the al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group Al-Shabaab, The Daily Wire reported. Much of the fraud has been traced to Minnesota’s Somali community, where politically connected fraudsters have allegedly exploited numerous loopholes in the state’s welfare system. Additionally, though illegals are technically banned from being direct recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and some healthcare benefits, reports indicate millions of illegals receive these taxpayer-funded benefits. Related: In Blistering Thanksgiving Post, Trump Promises To Stop Migration From ‘All Third World Countries’

The current generation “Z”—those now roughly between 13 and 28 years old—is becoming our 21st-century version of the “Lost Generation.” Members of Gen Z are often nicknamed “Zoomers,” a term used to describe young adults who came of age in the era of smartphones, social media, and rapid cultural upheaval. Males in their teens and 20s are prolonging their adolescence—rarely marrying, not buying a home, not having children, and often not working full-time. The negative stereotype of a Zoomer is a shiftless man, who plays too many video games. He is too coddled by parents and too afraid to strike out on his own.Zoomers rarely date supposedly out of fear that they would have to grow up, take charge, and head a household.Yet the opposite, sympathetic generalization of Gen Z seems more accurate.All through K-12, young men, particularly white males, have been demonized for their “toxic masculinity” that draws accusations of sexism, racism, and homophobia.In college, the majority of students are female. In contrast, white males—9% to 10% of admittees in recent years at elite schools like Stanford and the Ivy League—are of no interest to college admission officers.So they are tagged not as unique individuals but as superfluous losers of the “wrong” race, gender, or sexual orientation. Gen Z men saw themselves scapegoated by professors and society for the sins of past generations—and on the wrong side of the preposterous reductionist binary of oppressors and the oppressed.Traditional pathways to adulthood—affordable homes, upwardly mobile and secure jobs, and safe and secure city and suburban living—had mostly vanished amid overregulation, overtaxation, and underpolicing.Orthodox and loud student advocates on campus—climate change, diversity, equity, and inclusion, the Palestinians—had little to do with getting a job, raising a family, or buying a house. During the Joe Biden years, white males mostly stopped enlisting in the military in their accustomed overrepresented numbers.In Iraq and Afghanistan, they had died in frontline combat units at twice their percentages for the demographic. No matter—prior Pentagon DEI commissars still slandered them as suspects likely to form racist cabals.Gen Z males seemed bewildered by women and sex—and often withdrew from dating.Never has popular culture so promoted sexually provocative fashions, semi-nudity, and freewheeling lifestyles, and careers of supposedly empowered single women.And never had the rules of dating and sexuality become more retrograde Victorian.Casual consensual sex was flashed as cool everywhere on social media. And when it naturally proved in the real world to be selfish, callous, and empty, males were almost always exclusively blamed as if they were not proper Edwardian gentlemen.Soon, young men feared sexual hookups and promiscuity as avenues to post facto and one-sided charges of harassment—or worse.For the half of Generation Z who went to college, tuition had soared, rising faster than the rate of inflation. Administrators were often more numerous than faculty. Obsessive fixations with race determined everything from dorm selections to graduation ceremonies.Zoomers were mired in enormous student debt. Yet they soon learned that their gut social science and “studies” degrees proved nearly worthless. Employers saw such certificates as neither proof of traditional knowledge nor of any needed specialized skill set.Unemployed or half-employed Zoomers then ended up with unsustainable five-figure student loans, and the insidious interest on them. Their affluent, left-wing tenured profs, who had once demonized them as oppressors, could have cared less about their dismal fates.Add it all up, and Zoomers puzzled their parents. And they found scant guidance from the campus.Instead, they sought needed spiritual inspiration from a Jordan Peterson, entertainment and pragmatic advice from a Joe Rogan, but sometimes toxic venting from a demagogic, antisemitic Nick Fuentes.What would shock the lost generation back into the mainstream, barring a war, depression, or natural catastrophe?One, an end to DEI hectoring and blame-gaming, and a return to class rather than race determining “privilege.”Two, some sanity in the war between the sexes. When women represent nearly 60% of undergraduates, why does gender still assure an advantage in admissions and hiring?Three, the federal government needs to stop funding $1.7 trillion in student debt, often for worthless degrees, and wasting away one’s prime 20s and 30s. Let universities pledge their endowments to guarantee their own loans. They should graduate students in four years. And they must slash the parasitical class of toxic administrative busybodies who cannot teach but can hector and bully.Four, society needs to stop granting status on the basis of increasingly meaningless letters and titles after a name.Skilled tradesmen like electricians and mechanics are noble professionals. And their status and compensation should reflect their value to society—far more so than a bachelor’s degree in a- studies major or years vaporized in off-and-on college.Finally, incentivize building homes, rather than overregulating and zoning them into unaffordability.If the lost Gen Z is not found soon, the result for everyone will not be pretty. (C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: Can the ‘Lost Generation’ Be Found? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Australia’s High Court will hear a major constitutional challenge to the federal government’s new under-16 social media ban/digital ID law, fighting for free expression and digital privacy. The case, The Digital Freedom Project Incorporated & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia (S163/2025), was filed by the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), a New South Wales-based organization campaigning against government expansion in the online space, alongside two 15-year-old plaintiffs, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland. We obtained a copy of the filing for you here. The contested law, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, will prohibit anyone under sixteen from holding a social media account from December 10, 2025. Platforms must verify user ages and impose restrictions or face penalties. This means eroding the privacy of all of their users. The plaintiffs say this “trespasses on the Constitutional right of freedom of political communication and is therefore unlawful.” The statement of claim filed with the High Court describes how the new regime forces all Australians, not only minors, into intrusive age verification systems. It argues that Macy Neyland “will be required to verify her age and identity to continue using her social media accounts,” which means “she will have her privacy compromised if she is required to upload personal identification (like a passport or driver’s license)” and that “she will lose her online anonymity, making her identifiable to social media companies and potentially others.” Jones, who uses online media for civics and political engagement, claims the law “prevent[s] or substantially burden[s] his ability to access, receive, and participate in political communication online.” The DFP submission argues that logged-out browsing is “not a meaningful substitute for the interactive functions which are integral to and necessary for contemporary modes of free political communication” for young Australians. The group’s president, NSW MP John Ruddick, framed the issue as one that affects every citizen, not just minors. “This issue should concern every Australian. This ban is disproportionate and will trespass either directly or indirectly upon the rights of every Australian,” he said. “Parental supervision of online activity is today the paramount parental responsibility. We do not want to outsource that responsibility to government and unelected bureaucrats.” Ruddick went further, calling the law “the most draconian legislation of its type in the world,” adding, “Even the Chinese Communist Party would be drooling over this.” Both young applicants also spoke publicly about their reasons for joining the case. Jones said, “We are the true digital natives and we want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world. We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket bans under-16’s rather than investing in programs to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.” Neyland said, “Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow. Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views? If you personally think that kids shouldn’t be on social media, stay off it yourself, but don’t impose it on me and my peers. Driving us to fake profiles and VPNs is bad safety policy. Bring us into safer spaces, with rules that work: age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and fast takedowns. We shouldn’t be silenced. It’s like Orwell’s book 1984, and that scares me.” The Writ of Summons details the plaintiffs’ position that the legislation is “not reasonably appropriate and adapted” to achieve its stated purpose of protecting children from harm. It outlines less invasive alternatives, including “parental-consent requirements (particularly for 14–15-year-olds), legislating an enforceable duty-of-care/design-safety obligations on providers, limiting the definition of ‘age-restricted social media platforms’…strengthened reporting/takedown standards; and digital literacy programs in schools.” The filing also notes that the law “will have the effect of sacrificing a considerable sphere of freedom of expression and engagement for 13 to 15 year olds” and describes the blanket ban as “an oppressive, overreaching and inappropriate means to achieve the object of child protection.” Bizarrely, in response to the lawsuit, Communications Minister Anika Wells accused the challengers of trying to intimidate the government. “Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges from people with ulterior motives, the Albanese government remains steadfastly on the side of parents and not of platforms,” she said. “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we stand firm.” Supporters of the challenge warn that the law effectively introduces a nationwide identity-check system for accessing social platforms. Such a requirement will erode anonymity and create a precedent for wider digital identification systems, reshaping online participation in ways that reach far beyond the intended age group. The High Court’s ruling will determine whether the government’s approach to online safety can survive constitutional scrutiny, and whether privacy and political communication will remain protected spaces in Australia’s digital democracy. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australia’s High Court to Hear Challenge to Under-16 Social Media Ban and Digital ID Law appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Some people, when they want to improve public transport safety, hire more staff, fix the lighting, or maybe even try being on time. The British Transport Police, however, have gone full Black Mirror, deciding the best way to protect you from crime on your morning commute is by pointing cameras at your face and feeding your biometric soul into a machine. Yes, for many Britons, facial recognition is coming to a railway station near them. Smile. Or don’t. It makes no difference. The algorithm will be watching anyway. In the coming weeks, British Transport Police (BTP) will be trialling Live Facial Recognition (LFR) tech in London stations. It’s being sold as a six-month pilot program, which in government-speak usually means it will last somewhere between forever and the heat death of the universe. The idea is to deploy these cameras in “key transport hubs,” which is bureaucratic code for: “places you’re likely to be standing around long enough for a camera to decide whether or not you look criminal.” BTP assures us that the system is “intelligence-led,” which doesn’t mean they’ll be targeting shady characters with crowbars, but rather that the cameras will be feeding your face into a watchlist generated from police data systems. They’re looking for criminals and missing people, they say. But here’s how it works: if your face doesn’t match anyone on the list, it gets deleted immediately. Allegedly. If it does match, an officer gets a ping, stares at a screen, and decides whether you’re a knife-wielding fugitive or just a man who looks like one. And you have to love the quaint touch of QR codes, and signs stuck up around the station letting you know that, yes, your biometric identity is being scanned in real time. Chief Superintendent Chris Casey would like you to know that “we’re absolutely committed to using LFR ethically and in line with privacy safeguards.” The deployments, we’re told, will come with “internal governance” and even “external engagement with ethics and independent advisory groups.” As Matthew Feeney from Big Brother Watch put it, without even a hint of sarcasm, which is admirable under the circumstances, “subjecting law-abiding passengers to mass biometric surveillance is a disproportionate and disturbing response.” He’s right. Because this isn’t targeted policing. It’s dragnet surveillance. Feeney continues: “Facial recognition technology remains unregulated in the UK and police forces are writing their own facial recognition rules.” Which is a bit like letting the fox draw up security protocols for the henhouse. Except the fox has facial recognition, and the hens can’t opt-out. Let’s be honest. The police love gadgets. But there’s a difference between using technology to make policing smarter and using it to make policing easier by turning humans into data points. This is a technology that, if misused (and let’s be honest, when has that not happened?), can turn a routine station visit into a Kafkaesque nightmare. And just when you thought it couldn’t get worse, it turns out this isn’t some quirky BTP one-off. It’s part of a national push. The government is now drawing up official guidance to help police decide when and where to aim their surveillance lasers. Policing minister Sarah Jones proudly announced it during the Labour Party conference, calling live facial recognition “a really good tool.” Like a hammer, one assumes, if the problem is everyone’s face. The Home Office has already splashed cash across seven more regions. Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Surrey, Sussex, Bedfordshire, Thames Valley, and Hampshire are all next in line for the big biometric bingo. In London, the Met’s watchlists have more than doubled since 2020. Tens of thousands of people scanned every single day. And still no specific law governing any of it. Police forces are writing their own rulebooks while Parliament takes a long nap in the corner. As we’ve previously reported, of course, the system’s already gone wrong. Shaun Thompson, a volunteer working to keep kids out of gangs, was wrongly flagged and stopped outside London Bridge. Despite showing ID and explaining himself, he was threatened with arrest. Now he’s suing. Because if the machine can’t tell a youth mentor from a fugitive, maybe it’s not the public that needs to be scrutinized. Maybe it’s the tech and the people pushing it. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post British Transport Police Launch Facial Recognition Trials in London Stations appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Meta is working to convince the Canadian government to introduce new laws that would make age verification mandatory at the app store level. The company has been lobbying Ottawa for months and says it has received positive feedback from officials drafting online safety legislation. To support its push, Meta paid Counsel Public Affairs to poll Canadians on what kinds of digital safety measures they want for teens. The poll found that 83 percent of parents favor requiring app stores to confirm users’ ages before app downloads. Meta highlighted those results, saying “the Counsel data clearly indicates that parents are seeking consistent, age-appropriate standards that better protect teens and support parents online. And the most effective way to understand this is by obtaining parental approval and verifying age on the app store.” Rachel Curran, Meta Canada’s director of public policy, described the idea as “by far the most effective, privacy-protective, efficient way to determine a user’s age.” That phrase may sound privacy-conscious, but in practice, the plan would consolidate control over personal data inside a small circle of corporations such as Meta, Apple, and Google, while forcing users to identify themselves to access basic online services. Google has criticized Meta’s proposal, calling it an attempt to avoid direct responsibility. “Time and time again, all over the world, you’ve seen them push forward proposals that would have app stores change their practices and do something new without any change by Meta,” said Kareem Ghanem, Google’s senior director of government affairs. Behind these corporate disputes lies a much bigger question: should anyone be required to verify their identity in order to use the internet? Embedding age checks at the operating system or app store level might sound simple, but it comes with profound consequences. Once the ability to install or use software depends on a verified identity, anonymity and therefore freedom of expression start to disappear. Putting verification inside the operating system could slightly reduce redundant data collection, yet it also creates a powerful central switch that determines who can participate online. A system-level age flag becomes another tracking mechanism tied directly to a user’s device, one that companies can link to behavioral data already gathered from browsing, shopping, and messaging. Open and independent technology would be most at risk. Community-driven projects like Linux distributions, open-source browsers, and privacy-respecting tools often avoid handling identity data precisely because it endangers users and creates liability. If age verification becomes embedded at the OS level, these developers could be pushed toward government-linked ID systems simply to stay compatible. The choice would be stark: integrate surveillance or disappear. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Meta Pushes Canada for App Store Age Verification Laws appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The FBI is going drone shopping again. But this time, they’re not just looking for something that can hover over a crime scene or follow a fleeing suspect. According to new federal procurement documents, the Bureau wants to bolt artificial intelligence onto its unmanned aerial systems, an innovation that sounds less like law enforcement and more like a Silicon Valley beta test for dystopia. Become a Member and Keep Reading… Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back. Join Already a supporter? Sign In. (If you’re already logged in but still seeing this, refresh this page to show the post.) The post The Next Surveillance Boom Is Taking Flight appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The current state of American culture ultimately leads young girls down a path that chases independence at all costs — but fathers have the power to stop it.“You think you’re a tough guy, and then you have a little girl, and you find out what an absolute sap you really are,” ex-Green Beret and Virginia delegate Nick Freitas tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”And Freitas explains that he learned three things raising daughters, which is “somewhat unique to them.”“You need to tell your daughters that you love them,” he says. “A lot of times what fathers don’t seem to understand is we do things like go to work, provide, protect, we work, you know, 70-hour weeks. And we think that’s translated in their minds as love, but it isn’t necessarily.”“And so it does have to be verbalized as well as acted out in your day-to-day life,” he says, recalling an interaction with a man he calls one of the biggest “man-whores” he had ever encountered.“I had asked him, I said, ‘How do I keep my daughter from ever falling for a guy like you?’ And he said, ‘Tell her you love her, because if you don’t, someone like me will, and she’ll believe him,’” Freitas explains.“Another thing, too, that I would say, and this is true with all of your children, the relationship and the bonds you build start when they’re infants,” he continues, noting that a lot men have the idea that as their kids get older, they will share more of the responsibilities for them.“No, from the time that they’re little, you need to be holding them and building those connections. Your daughters need to know that you will tell them the truth, but you tell them the truth from the position that you love them,” he explains.However, no one is perfect, and Freitas tells Stuckey that “there’s going to come a moment in every father’s life where your child catches you not living up to the standard that you told them was the standard.”“And in that moment, what you do is very, very important. Because if you aren’t able to look them in the eye and say, ‘You’re right, I’m wrong, and I’m sorry,’ then what you’ve taught them is not a standard of moral conduct. You haven’t taught them objective morality. What you’ve taught them is an authority structure,” he explains.“So take the time to form those bonds, because they will pay massive dividends,” he continues.And one of the most important tips Freitas has is that your daughter will “watch how you treat her mother.”“And if you treat her mother with the sort of love and respect that she deserves, that will be all the standard that she needs for when the other guy comes around that doesn’t behave that way, or there’s something slightly off,” he says.“You will be the reason why she rejects him,” he adds.Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sheriff's deputies in Wisconsin were called to a home on County Road M in Germania around 9:15 p.m. Nov. 12 for a report of a shooting, WSAW-TV reported. Germania is just under 70 miles northwest of Green Bay.The caller told dispatchers that a male — later identified as 74-year-old Brent Hofman — shot his friend in the home’s garage, the station said.'We are devastated and heartbroken over the untimely loss of a wonderful man who meant so much to all of us.'The caller had locked himself in a building on the property and told dispatchers he would defend himself if necessary, WSAW reported.Hofman tried to enter the building where the caller had secured himself, the station said, adding that the caller fired his 22-caliber rifle in Hofman’s direction through a glass door.When deputies arrived on scene, they found Hofman outside the home, WSAW reported, adding that Hofman sustained severe cuts to his face and head from the shattered glass.Hofman at first failed to comply with verbal commands but was eventually arrested, the station said, adding that deputies noticed he was very intoxicated and slurring his speech.During a search of the property, deputies found a victim dead inside a garage, WSAW reported.Hofman was taken to a local hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries, booked into the Shawano County Jail, and made his first appearance in Shawano County Court on Nov. 18 via video, the station said.RELATED: 'Cold-blooded' illegal alien murdered 15-year-old who was trying to stop him from raping his mother, ICE says Hofman was formally charged with first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree homicide, and being armed while intoxicated, WSAW reported, adding that both homicide charges carry an increased penalty for crimes against an elderly person.The deceased victim has been identified as 67-year-old Rick Roundy from the Greenleaf area, the station said, adding that all three individuals involved in the incident are connected through ownership of hunting land in the Germania area.Shawano County District Attorney Gregory Parker read the criminal complaint during the Nov. 18 hearing, WSAW reported.Parker stated that Victim 2 told investigators he has known Hofman for many years through hunting and have joint properties, the station said. The DA added that Victim 2 indicated nothing was said that in any way would have aggravated or upset Hofman to cause him to do what he did, WSAW reported."I can’t put this thing any other way, but this is a killing in cold blood," Parker said, according to the station.Hofman's bond was set at $1 million, WSAW noted.The station said Roundy’s family released a statement:We are devastated and heartbroken over the untimely loss of a wonderful man who meant so much to all of us.As we grieve, we are thankful for the prayers and outpouring of support from family, friends, and community members.Please understand our need for privacy during this difficult time. We will not be making any additional statements.A status conference is scheduled for Jan. 5, WSAW reported, and Hofman remained in the Shawano County Jail.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wikimedia CommonsRosa Parks was a leading figure of the civil rights movement. On Dec. 1, 1955, a quiet act of defiance on a Montgomery, Alabama public bus ignited one of the most significant social movements in American history. When Rosa Parks refused to surrender her seat to a white man, she didn’t just challenge a local law — she challenged a whole system of racial oppression that had defined the American South for generations. Rosa Parks is often remembered for that single moment of courage, but her story extended well beyond that act of defiance. Parks was a lifelong activist who had worked for years with the NAACP before her arrest. And her decision that December evening wasn’t spontaneous — it was the culmination of decades spent witnessing and fighting against racial injustice. The aftermath of her arrest forever changed the nation. Parks’ case became the catalyst for the 381-day Montgomery Bus Boycott, a protest that helped launch Martin Luther King Jr. to national prominence and demonstrated the power of nonviolent resistance. The boycott’s success in desegregating Montgomery’s buses proved that organized, sustained action could dismantle even the most entrenched systems of discrimination. Yet Parks paid a heavy price for her courage. She faced economic hardship and death threats due to her activism, and she was forced to leave Alabama to find safety and job opportunities in Detroit. Despite these personal struggles, she never wavered in her steadfast commitment to civil rights, continuing her activism until shortly before her death in 2005. Below are some of the most remarkable facts about Rosa Parks. Who Was Rosa Parks? Rosa Parks was a Black civil rights activist, born on Feb. 4, 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama. She became known as the “mother of the civil rights movement” for her pivotal role in challenging racial segregation. Before her famous act of resistance, she worked as a professional seamstress while becoming increasingly involved with activism in the NAACP. Parks lived through the horrific Jim Crow era and dedicated her life to fighting racial injustice until her death at the age of 92. What Is Rosa Parks Famous For? Public DomainRosa Parks arriving at a circuit court to be arraigned during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks is famous for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger on Dec. 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama. This act of defiance against racial segregation laws led to her arrest and sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a pivotal protest in the civil rights movement. Her stand became a symbol of resistance against racial injustice and helped catalyze the broader fight for civil rights in America. Was Rosa Parks Sitting In The “Whites-Only” Section? No, contrary to common belief, Rosa Parks was not sitting in the whites-only section. She was seated in the front row of the “colored” section. However, Montgomery’s harsh segregation laws gave many bus drivers the impression that they could reassign seats in the “colored” section if the white section was already filled up. When a white passenger boarded and the driver demanded that Parks move, Parks refused, leading to her arrest. Why Did She Refuse To Give Up Her Seat? Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat because she was tired of giving in to racial injustice. She later explained it wasn’t physical tiredness, as many believed, but exhaustion with constant humiliation and mistreatment. Per the National Women’s History Museum, she said: “People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was 42. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.” Was Rosa Parks The First Black Person To Refuse To Give Up Her Seat? No, Rosa Parks was not the first. Several Black people had previously refused to give up their seats on Montgomery buses, including Claudette Colvin, who was arrested nine months before Parks. Claudette was just 15 at the time. Wikimedia CommonsClaudette Colvin showed the same act of resistance as Rosa Parks, but never achieved the same level of fame. However, civil rights leaders chose Parks as the face of their legal challenge partly because they believed that her background as a respected, employed adult would garner broader support and withstand scrutiny better in court. She was also chosen for her calm demeanor and “natural gravitas.” Why Did The NAACP Choose Rosa Parks’ Arrest To Launch Their Case? The NAACP selected Rosa Parks’ case strategically because she was an ideal candidate to help them challenge segregation laws in court. Parks had also just learned of the acquittal of Emmett Till’s killers, which inspired her to take even bolder action than she had in the past. On top of that, Parks was a respected, married, employed adult with an impeccable reputation and no prior criminal record. She was also an active NAACP member who fully understood the significance of the legal battle ahead. Previous cases, like Claudette Colvin’s, were deemed too vulnerable to character attacks that could undermine the cause, especially since some adults deemed the teen too “mouthy” and “emotional.” Parks’ dignified demeanor and unassailable character made her the perfect symbol to challenge unjust segregation laws and withstand public scrutiny. What Happened To Her Immediately After Her Arrest? Rosa Parks was arrested, fingerprinted, and briefly jailed on Dec. 1, 1955. She was charged with refusing to obey the orders of a bus driver and violating the segregation laws on the city buses. E.D. Nixon, a civil rights advocate, and Clifford Durr, a sympathetic white attorney, helped bail her out that night. Parks was released and agreed to help challenge the segregation law in court. Her trial was scheduled for December 5th, and her case became the catalyst for organizing the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which began that day. What Was The Montgomery Bus Boycott? Public DomainRosa Parks being fingerprinted on Feb. 22, 1956, after she was arrested for her activism during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Her famous mugshot photo was also taken during this 1956 arrest. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a 381-day mass protest that began on Dec. 5, 1955, the same day as Rosa Parks’ trial. She was ultimately found guilty and fined $14 for her bold act of resistance. Black Americans in Montgomery refused to ride city buses to protest segregated seating. The boycott was organized by civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., who emerged as a powerful spokesperson. Black residents carpooled, walked, or found alternative transportation, significantly impacting the Montgomery bus company’s revenue and demonstrating the economic power of collective action. What Was The Result Of The Boycott? The boycott ended on Dec. 20, 1956, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Montgomery’s bus segregation laws were unconstitutional. The protest successfully desegregated Montgomery’s public buses and demonstrated the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance during the civil rights movement. It also helped launch Martin Luther King Jr. to national prominence and inspired similar protests across the South. The boycott proved that organized civil disobedience could achieve significant social change. Was Rosa Parks Active In The Civil Rights Movement Before Her Arrest? Yes, Rosa Parks was actively involved in civil rights work before 1955. She had served as secretary of the Montgomery NAACP branch and had also worked with E.D. Nixon on various criminal justice issues. In addition, she had attended civil rights training at the Highlander Folk School. She also had a prior encounter with James F. Blake, the bus driver who had her arrested. In 1943, he had her ejected from his bus because she refused to re-enter through the back door after paying her fare at the front. Clearly, her most famous act of resistance and arrest weren’t spontaneous, but reflected years of commitment to challenging racial injustice. Did Rosa Parks Know Martin Luther King Jr. Before The Boycott? Public DomainMartin Luther King Jr. at the 1963 March on Washington. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. knew each other slightly before the boycott, as King had arrived in Montgomery in 1954 to work as a pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. However, they weren’t close associates. The Montgomery Bus Boycott brought them together more closely, especially since King was chosen to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association, which organized the mass protest. Their relationship deepened through their shared commitment to the civil rights movement. What Happened To Rosa Parks After The Boycott? After the boycott, Rosa Parks faced financial difficulties and severe harassment in Montgomery. Both she and her husband lost their jobs early on during the boycott and received death threats. In 1957, they moved to Detroit, Michigan, where some of their other family members lived. There, they hoped to find safety and more employment opportunities. But Parks still struggled financially for years before finding stable work. Despite her personal difficulties — including a number of health issues — she continued her civil rights activism and remained a respected figure in the movement throughout her life. What Did Rosa Parks Do In Detroit? In Detroit, Rosa Parks initially struggled to find work, but she continued her commitment to political causes, including protesting housing segregation and battling racial inequity. She also participated in Detroit’s Great March for Freedom. Eventually, she was hired to work in Congressman John Conyers’ Detroit office, in the mid-1960s. She’d work there until her retirement in 1988. She continued her activism, speaking at civil rights events and working with various community organizations. She also participated in the rising protests against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1987, she co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development to help with youth development and education about civil rights activism, continuing her commitment to social justice. Sadly, Parks was also the victim of a terrifying robbery and assault at her home in 1994, when she was 81. Many civil rights activists quickly banded together to help her find a new home, and after her death at the age of 92, it was revealed that Michael Ilitch, the founder of Little Caesars Pizza, had paid her rent at her new home in perpetuity until she perished. What Awards Did Rosa Parks Receive? Public DomainPresident Bill Clinton presenting Rosa Parks with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Rosa Parks received numerous prestigious awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999, the highest civilian honors in the United States. She also received the NAACP’s highest honor, the Spingarn Medal, and she was inducted into the Michigan Women’s Hall of Fame. Many schools, buildings, and streets across the U.S. were named after her. In 2000, the Rosa Parks Library and Museum opened in Montgomery, commemorating her inspiring legacy and the famous bus boycott. Did Rosa Parks Have Children? No, Rosa Parks did not have any biological children. She married Raymond Parks in 1932, and their marriage lasted until his death in 1977. Public DomainRosa Parks in 1993. While they had no children of their own, Parks mentored many young people through her activism and later through the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, which she founded to help provide more guidance, education, and opportunities for youths in Detroit. When Did Rosa Parks Die? Rosa Parks died at 92 of natural causes at her home on Oct. 24, 2005, in Detroit, Michigan. She then became the first woman and the second Black American to lie in honor in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, where thousands of people arrived to pay their respects. Her funeral was attended by numerous dignitaries and civil rights leaders, and she was remembered worldwide as a courageous pioneer whose bold act of defiance helped transform America. After learning all about Rosa Parks, read about the heroic career of civil rights leader John Lewis. Then, meet Viola Desmond, the “Canadian Rosa Parks.” The post The Remarkable Life Of Rosa Parks, The ‘Mother Of The Civil Rights Movement’ appeared first on All That's Interesting.