'Maintain safety with nuclear power'

'Serious act of intimidation'

'The public deserves to know'

In the lead-up to California’s Nov. 4 special election to approve its proposed Democratic gerrymander, state party leaders are butting heads over messaging strategy. Democrat mega-donor and failed 2020 presidential candidate Tom Steyer caused a stir when his last-minute early October $12 million ad buy featured a self-given monologue highlighting his opposition to President Donald […]

'I’ve been preparing'

As the government shutdown grinds through its third week, this weekend could be a major turning point, with “no kings” rallies taking place across the country. Republicans say these rallies have contributed to the partisan gridlock and are putting Democrats on blast for their support of the protests. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., has accused Democrats of refusing to support a funding extension and prolonging the shutdown to appease the Saturday crowd, or as he calls it, “the hate America rally.”  “You’re going to bring together the Marxists, the socialists, the Antifa advocates, the anarchists and the pro-Hamas wing of the far-left Democrat party. That is the modern Democratic Party,” said Johnson on Friday. “As the shutdown drags on, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this spectacle is the reason the Democrats have refused to reopen the government.” Schumer himself has praised the rallies. This No Kings Day:Don't be afraid to exercise your right to free speech.Don't let Donald Trump or Republicans intimidate you into silence.Be proud that you are standing up for our democracy. pic.twitter.com/gZl5MrR7Y7— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 16, 2025 “This weekend’s no kings rallies will be an affirmation about what America is all about. We are a democracy in America, we have no kings, despite the fact that Trump has even said he wants to become one and is acting in ways that are a threat to our democracy,” said Schumer in a floor speech Thursday. “For weeks, Republicans have tried to vilify these rallies… These are love America rallies… no kings day says we will not stay silent.” On Friday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was unclear about whether he planned on attending the rallies, but praised the goal of the rallies. “I haven’t finalized my schedule for the weekend, given the sensitivities around the government shutdown, and I’m still very hopeful that Republicans will decide to show up for work so we can get the government back open, but I support the right of every single American to participate in the rallies that are going to take place this week,” said Jeffries.  House Leader Hakeem Jeffries says that protesting is as American as apple pie ahead of the planned “No Kings” rallies across the country. READ MORE: https://t.co/EeD0YbQZJs #jeffries #nokings #governmentshutdown #news #politics pic.twitter.com/jCf4NyrhQh— The National Desk (@TND) October 17, 2025 He added, “Showing up to express dissent against an out-of-control administration, that’s as American as motherhood, baseball, and apple pie. That’s the First Amendment… What you’ll see this weekend is what patriotism looks like: people showing up to express opposition to the extremism that Donald Trump has been unleashing on the American people.” Republicans appear to hope this rally will get Democrats’ obstructionism out of their system. “I don’t expect that they have any intentions of eliminating the shutdown before their big rally on the 18th of October, apparently. At least that’s what Democrat senators have shared with us,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told reporters on Oct. 9. The post Are Dems Keeping the Government Shutdown for ‘No Kings’? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Australia is moving forward with a national facial recognition network that will link millions of citizens’ identity documents, despite ongoing uncertainty about privacy safeguards. The National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution (NDLFRS) will merge biometric data from driver’s licenses and passports so that both government departments and private businesses can verify individuals’ identities. The proposal dates back eight years but has recently accelerated. The Digital Transformation Agency confirmed that the Department of Home Affairs will host the system, while each state and territory will continue to manage its own data. The agency stated that the project aims “to protect Australian people from identity theft, to manage and prevent crime, to increase road safety and to improve identity verification.” It also noted that “Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia have provided data to the NDLFRS, with other states and territories to follow.” Although the initiative remains marked as “unendorsed,” the government is preparing to activate key components. The Attorney-General’s Department has announced that the accompanying Face Verification Service (FVS), which checks whether a person’s facial image matches the photo held in official records, is expected to begin operation in 2025. Western Australia is likely to be the first jurisdiction to share its driver’s license data before the end of this year. Once operational, the network will allow facial images from passports and licenses to be used for verification in a range of settings. However, the Digital Transformation Agency has acknowledged that governance structures, risk management systems, and oversight arrangements are still being developed. It also said that biometric decisions will continue to involve human oversight and that, at least for now, people must have the option to use non-biometric verification methods. The government has not clarified whether concerns about privacy and data security have been resolved. Greens Senator David Shoebridge criticized the rapid progress of the rollout, arguing the government had “failed to live up to its commitment to have stronger privacy laws in place to protect our online data.” He said, “This should not be rolled out until we have privacy laws fit for purpose that put far stronger barriers to this data being lost, misused or hacked,” and warned that “Facial recognition data is some of the most personal information that can be shared online, and right now, there is no confidence that the Albanese government has protections in place to keep this data safe.” The NDLFRS was first agreed upon in 2017, when federal, state, and territory leaders committed to creating a shared repository of biometric facial images for use by law enforcement and other agencies. Then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rejected claims that the plan constituted “mass surveillance.” Progress stalled when the Coalition’s Identity-Matching Services Bill 2019 failed to pass Parliament. The current government revived the proposal through a scaled-back legislative package, the Identity Verification Services Act and its related amendments. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Australia Advances National Facial Recognition Network Despite Privacy Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

During Debate, Mamdani Offers Slick Dodge When Asked About Disarming Hamas

At the end of every episode of Comedy Central’s The Weekly Show podcast, host Jon Stewart answers listener-submitted questions about various news topics. This Thursday, Stewart responded to a question about who is to blame for the government shutdown by answering “the Founders” and, more profanely, “fuck James Madison.” Stewart’s answer also made no sense, “Who is responsible for the government shutdown? I'm gonna go with the Founders, who came up with this fucking fakakta, overly complex bureaucratic web of nonsense that it takes to get anything done, and I think it's very difficult when one political party that represents 75 million voters has zero say, authority, heft, and in a functioning political environment that isn't a zero-sum game, there would have been conversations up until now that took some consideration. Some, I'm not saying a lot.”     Stewart wants Democrats to have a say in policy, but it is that “overly complex bureaucratic web of nonsense” he just finished ranting about that is allowing them to shut down the government to try to force health care concessions out of Republicans despite their own minority status. A less “complex” system would mean Democrats have no power at all. As it was, Stewart continued, “I'm not saying, like, they don't still get the shitty little offices and don't get to use the, you know, the Senate steam room, except when Schumer's in there towelless. But some consideration that those 75 million people should have a scintilla of representation in the federal budget. So, that—” After Gillian Spear chimed in to add that “seems reasonable,” Stewart rolled on, “Thank you, Gillian. Thank you. So yeah, once again, fuck you, James Madison. Boom!” That led to more crosstalk between Stewart and the show’s producers. Lauren Walker added, “You're always saying that.” Stewart added, “Every episode should end with that,” while Brittany Mehmedovic claimed that is “our new slogan.” Repeating himself, Stewart exclaimed, “Thanks so much for watching. Thanks so much for listening. Fuck you, James Madison. Boom!” That was not the end of the show, but it was the end of that question. Meanwhile, as Stewart curses the Founders, it is hard to think of another system where the minority party has as much power as the one they created. That is what Stewart said he wanted. Whether he will hold that position in the future when Washington’s balance of power changes remains to be seen.

October 11 marked the end of another Banned Books Week, the American Library Association's annual campaign celebrating works it claims have been unjustly kept from the reading public.While the event has skewed liberal since its 1982 founding, this year’s theme seems to make a direct appeal to those worried about the Trump era's incipient fascism.A book does not need to induce the behavior it depicts to have an ideological impact; it just has to imply a world in which such behavior is either normal or inevitable.“Censorship Is So 1984 — Read for Your Rights” rebukes recent successful conservative campaigns to rid local school libraries of books deemed to promote racial, gender, and Marxist ideology or to expose children to inappropriately explicit material.Censor censureOn its website, the ALA dismisses these campaigns as either disingenuous, hysterical, or malicious.“The most common justifications for censorship provided by complainants were false claims of illegal obscenity for minors; inclusion of LGBTQIA+ characters or themes; and covering topics of race, racism, equity, and social justice.”The recent Kanopy documentary "Banned Together" exemplifies this perspective, portraying book challenges as the work of fearmongering politicians like Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) or “dark money” groups such as the Heritage Foundation and Moms for Liberty.Not for teacherOpponents of these "bans" do have a point. At times overprotective adults can underestimate the capacity of high-school students to handle challenging subject matter. I recall reading Kafka, Camus, and Sherman Alexie as a senior without becoming either a nihilist or an activist.But there is a deeper question at the heart of this debate: What rights do parents have when it comes to their children's education?Teachers, progressives argue, are certified experts entrusted with the crucial duty to help students navigate complex issues and protect them from abusive home environments. Who are the parents — relative amateurs when it comes to the formation of young minds — to meddle?Yet given the recent injection of what used to be considered radical ideas about race, sex, and religion into curricula, skepticism at this expertise is understandable. Educators may laugh off the idea of "liberal indoctrination," but any parent who has been called "racist" or had his faith "deconstructed" by his newly minted college student may disagree.'Sold' outThe ALA may be technically correct that the books it defends don't meet the strictly legal definition of "obscenity," but something is nonetheless rotten in the state of Denmark (if the reader will permit me a Eurocentric "Hamlet" reference).Consider the ALA’s "Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2024." Without exception, each has been flagged by concerned parents as "sexually explicit." It's telling that the ALA diminishes these characterizations as mere "claims." Unlike "pornography," the label "sexually explicit" generally implies no judgment; it's merely descriptive.So perhaps something more than prudishness is motivating parents. To what end do these books employ explicit depictions of sex? In Patricia McCormick's "Sold," the first-person account of a 13-year-old Tibetan girl sold into sex slavery, detailed scenes of rape and abuse are used to convey the horrors of sex trafficking.In its defense of "Sold," the ALA clearly sides with McCormick, who says "To ban this book is a disservice to the women who shared their stories with me so the world could know about their plight. And to ban this book is disrespectful to the young readers who want to know about the world as it is."Conveniently overlooked here is the obvious truth that we regularly educate our children about "the world as it is" while still leaving out age-inappropriate details.Gender fear"Tricks" by Ellen Hopkins is another unsparingly graphic account of the sex trade, detailing the stories of five American teens who fall into prostitution. "Crank," Hopkins' other novel on the list, charts a teenager's descent into drug addiction.Stephen Chbosky's "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a slice of high school life that includes a ninth-grader taking LSD, a tumultuous love affair between two teenage boys, a middle-schooler's suicide, and a teen pregnancy that ends in abortion."Me and Earl and the Dying Girl" by Jesse Andrews addresses cancer and mortality through the profanity-laden, sex-obsessed voice of its adolescent male protagonist. John Green's "Looking for Alaska" is a coming-of-age novel with a heavy emphasis on drug use and sexual experimentation.Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" is a multigenerational saga that pivots on a father's brutal rape of his daughter and her subsequent descent into insanity.The memoirs "All Boys Aren't Blue" by George M. Johnson and "Flamer" by Mike Curato each recount an adolescent's discovery and eventual embrace of his same-sex attraction, while Maia Kobabe's graphic novel "Gender Queer" charts the author's journey toward a "nonbinary" identity and the use of "e, em, eir" pronouns.RELATED: Librarian group fights woke 'banned books' narrative Getty Images/AnadoluGroomer doomersLikening those who advocate putting such books in the hands of minors to "groomers" only obscures the real issue. A book does not need to induce the behavior it depicts to have an ideological impact; it just has to imply a world in which such behavior is either normal or inevitable.The "reality" these books represent is in fact the relatively recent consensus of a small liberal elite, imposed on our society from the top down. It confidently asserts that racism is an intractable quality of "whiteness," premarital sex and drug abuse are normal parts of growing up, homosexual relationships are in no way less preferable than heterosexual pairings, and one's "gender" is open to interpretation.This consensus casually dispenses with the de facto Christian values that have guided America — with varying degrees of success — since its founding.Slaves to fashionMost of the "banned" book defenders act not out of malice but rather from an unthinking adherence to fashionable opinion. As G.K. Chesterton observed, compulsory secular education inevitably produces an inoffensive, pluralistic system that offends no one and invests enormous moral authority in teachers:And if his own private opinions happen to be of the rather crude sort that are commonly contemporary with and connected with the new sciences or pseudo-sciences, he can teach any of them under cover of those sciences.In other words, educators possess enough authority to smuggle personal beliefs into the classroom. The Ten Commandments and school prayer are impermissible in our secular age, but theories of gender and race are treated as objective truth. Indeed, many insist it would be irresponsible not to teach them.A glance at what doesn’t appear on the Banned Books list reveals the imbalance. Are activists urging students to read banned right-wing literature? To restore the Bible to school libraries? To study "The Turner Diaries" — a genuinely vile book — in the name for of intellectual freedom? Of course not.Meanwhile, the publishing industry’s broken business model incentivizes controversy. Slapping a "Banned Book" sticker on a new release is can lead to a major boost in sales.School for scandalThat might be harmless if confined to a Barnes & Noble display. But it occurs in the context of public education, where foundational classics have been quietly displaced by shallower contemporary novels. Teachers boast about removing Homer, Shakespeare, and other “dead white men” from curricula. "Huckleberry Finn" languishes while legislators debate striking him from schools altogether.A student’s reading years are limited. Prioritizing great works that shape moral and intellectual formation is essential. Yet in an age of collapsing institutional trust, progressive educators flaunt their credentials and demand the state’s blessing to teach whatever they see fit.Despite left-wing rhetoric, there is no great epidemic of book-burning in America. Aside from the occasional Pentecostal preacher torching "Harry Potter" for headlines, such incidents are rare. Conservatives, generally, are classicists who want their children reading Homer and Shakespeare. Yet even modest debates over age-appropriate material draw accusations of illiteracy and bigotry.And that's by design. Banned Books Week is little more than a marketing campaign — an annual ritual of ginning up demand for “forbidden” books and laundering blatant activist propaganda into the merely "controversial." Conservatives who approach this debate on the ALA's terms only add fuel to the fire, as it were. When it comes to the left's persecution narrative, there's no such thing as bad publicity.