'The ways that autism expresses itself'

'Most predatory corporate practices I have seen'

'cases were mostly mild and quickly resolved'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. It was only a matter of time before Elon Musk’s X became the designated piñata for Britain’s shiny new censorship law, the Online Safety Act. The regulator, Ofcom, has now waddled into the room with the ceremonial clipboard and a trembling sense of purpose, launching a formal investigation into the platform. It follows reports that Grok, X’s resident AI, has been used to create non-consensual images of women and minors in bikinis. Ofcom hasn’t yet proved anything, but the tone in Westminster already suggests they’ve got the torches and pitchforks ready. Tech Secretary Liz Kendall arrived with a statement to make the morning news. “I welcome Ofcom’s urgency,” she beamed. “The public, and most importantly the victims, will not accept any delay.” And sure enough, the “ban” word has been thrown into the air like confetti. If X fails to comply, Ofcom says it could be booted from Britain entirely. A platform with over half a billion users and where the Labour government’s biggest critics have a voice would be gone. Blocked like a dodgy Russian gambling site. All because of a content moderation “crisis” that (and here’s the punchline) is happening on pretty much every AI tool, but apparently only X deserves the guillotine. You can’t really say what you think on Facebook anymore unless you enjoy being suspended for “context missing.” Instagram? That’s for lifestyle influencers and performance art. TikTok’s run by an algorithm that buries anything more controversial than a dancing dog. LinkedIn is basically a corporate cult. But X? On X, people talk. Not because they’re all radicals, but because they care, and because they’re allowed to. And that’s what makes it dangerous. Not Grok. Not memes. Not edgy posts. But freedom. The kind of freedom where the wrong story can go viral before the BBC’s morning meeting. Where a health minister’s mistake doesn’t disappear into committee minutes but gets clipped, posted, and scrutinized by thousands. Where the narrative can’t be managed by press officers and their PowerPoint decks. Under the Online Safety Act, the UK’s censors can fine companies up to 10 percent of their global revenue. For X, that’s hundreds of millions of pounds, enough to make even Elon blink. But what happens if they actually push the button? Imagine the optics: Britain becomes the first Western democracy to ban a major global platform. It would, at least, be in keeping with its recent rapid decline in civil liberties over the last few years. Of course, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman said at a lobby briefing of journalists on Monday that the government would support a ban if that’s what Ofcom calls for. “Ofcom has a back stop power to apply to the courts to block services in the UK where they refuse to uphold our law. If Ofcom deems that to be necessary, they will have our full support,” the spokesperson said. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Regulator Ofcom Opens Official Investigation Into X appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Keir Starmer and NHS Promoting First Cousin Marriages for Muslims

Iran Foreign Minister to Trump: Call Me, Maybe?

In the latest escalation between the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice has issued grand jury subpoenas against the Fed, according to Chairman Jerome Powell. On Sunday, the official Federal Reserve X account posted a video of Powell explaining the subpoenas and claiming that the DOJ was "threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June."'The cost overruns are what they are.'"That testimony concerned in part a multiyear project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings," Powell added. In the video, Powell shows no sign of capitulating to President Trump's calls to lower interest rates, dismissing these calls as merely the "preferences of the president": "This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation."RELATED: 'My new Fed Chairman': Trump hints at major changes coming to Federal Reserve amid great economic report Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images"I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. In every case, I have carried out my duties without political fear or favor, focused solely on our mandate of price stability and maximum employment," Powell said. "Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats. I will continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to do, with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people."Powell said that the subpoenas were served last Friday.During his testimony in June, Powell was asked about the cost of the renovations around the 36-minute mark of the hearing. He began by saying, "We do take seriously our responsibility as stewards of the public's money," but concluded, "The cost overruns are what they are." He also denied several of what he said were media inaccuracies, including reports of "special elevators," new marble, "roof terrace gardens," and "beehives." In a rare confrontation with Powell, President Trump, wearing a hard hat, visited the construction site in late July to challenge him on the "overruns." Powell said he was "unaware" of the new numbers Trump presented to him. Days before the July confrontation between Powell and Trump, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) sent a criminal referral for Powell to the Department of Justice. On Sunday evening, Luna responded to the news of the grand jury subpoenas, repeating her allegations against Powell: "It’s good to see my criminal referral working in real time. You CANNOT lie to Congress. That is called PERJURY."No criminal charges have been brought against Powell at the time of writing. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, the Massachusetts-based Obama judge who blocked the Trump administration from cutting federal funds to Planned Parenthood last month, issued a temporary restraining order on Saturday preventing the Department of Homeland Security from revoking the legal status of tens of thousands of foreigners.The Trump administration announced last month that it was terminating all categorical family reunification parole programs and corresponding work authorization for aliens from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras as well as for their immediate family members, effective Dec. 15.Per the announcement, the "temporary parole period of aliens who have been paroled into the United States under the FRP programs, and whose initial period of parole has not already expired by January 14, 2026 will terminate on that date."'We aren't in the clear.'There are two circumstances under which foreign nationals' parole status would not immediately be revoked: if they have pending applications to register permanent residence or adjust status, or if DHS Secretary Kristi Noem determines otherwise on a case-by-case basis.The DHS indicated that those set to be stripped of status — well over 10,000 noncitizens — who stay in the U.S. beyond their parole termination date with no lawful basis to remain would likely be removed.According to the notice in the Federal Register, the FRP programs failed to achieve the goals set by past administrations and are at odds with President Donald Trump's current priorities and foreign policy objectives.RELATED: 'You don't want this smoke': Philly DA and sheriff threaten ICE officers — DHS just laughs Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty ImagesNot only did the programs fail to sufficiently discourage or reduce unlawful migration, the programs "increased administrative strain across multiple [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] directorates and [Customs and Border Protection] ports of entry," said the notice."The desire to reunite families does not overcome the government's responsibility to prevent fraud and abuse and to uphold national security and public safety," the DHS said in a release."The FRP programs had security gaps caused by insufficient vetting that malicious and fraudulent actors could exploit to enter the United States, which posed an unacceptable level of risk to the United States," continued the release. "DHS is prioritizing the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans."The Trump administration touted the move as a "necessary return to common-sense policies" and a matter of "prioritizing the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans."On Dec. 29, plaintiffs in the class-action case Svitlana Doe v. Noem — represented by the liberal migrant advocacy groups Justice Action Center and Human Rights First — requested a restraining order and a preliminary injunction, claiming the DHS "fell well short of satisfying their most basic obligations under the [Administrative Procedures Act], due process, the parole statute, and its own regulations."The plaintiffs' primary contention in the emergency motion appears to have been that the DHS allegedly failed to properly notify the so-called "future green card holders" of the programs' termination.The government argued in response that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims challenging parole termination; that the termination of parole wasn't arbitrary and capricious as alleged; that Noem was within her statutory authority to make the change; and that the notice given complied with the law.Indira Talwani, the daughter of immigrants from India and Germany, gave the migrant activists exactly what they wanted — a 14-day stay of the administration's termination of FRP grants of parole — and certified a new subclass of migrants, namely those FRP beneficiaries whose parole was terminated.While the government previously indicated that individual notice would be provided to each parolee through their USCIS online accounts, Talwani expressed doubt about whether the parolees were ultimately provided with written notice of the termination and claimed that the publication of the announcement in the Federal Register "does not satisfy this requirement.""The court finds that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on their argument that the Defendants failed to provide proper notice of DHS's decision to revoke grants of parole under the FRP program in contravention of DHS’s own regulation, the Administrative Procedure Act ... and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution," wrote the Obama judge.Karen Tumlin, director of Justice Action Center, celebrated Talwani's ruling, stating, "We join families across the country in breathing a huge sigh of relief. While we aren't in the clear, this immediate pause on de-legalizing individuals who came here with Family Reunification Parole means that people will not be forced to separate from their loved ones next week."Tumlin added that it's "cruel and completely unnecessary for the Trump administration to try to yank the rug out from under them."The White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.Despite drawing out the process, Talwani has acknowledged that the Trump administration can end the program.The Supreme Court lifted her previous injunction in Svitlana Doe v. Noem on May 30, clearing the DHS to proceed with terminating humanitarian parole.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The president is only hurting himself.

Never-Trumper Cathy Young Exploiting Charlie Kirk Murder to Shame the Right Over Renee Good Goes SO Wrong