Michael and Adam discuss Wizard’s irreverent take on the Fantastic Four, a Last Man Standing battle between rookie versions of Batman and Daredevil, outrageous comic book legal battles and more Wizard magazine goofiness. Plus, William CONTINUE READING... The post WIZARDS The Podcast Guide To Comics | Episode 114.5 appeared first on The Retro Network.

Fierce invective flew back and forth at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, with committee chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Nigel Farage putting on the gloves and removing the restraints. The hearing, titled, “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” was held to discuss EU and UK censorship, including acts that Jordan described as “infringing on Americans’ First Amendment rights.” Witnesses included Farage, an avidly pro-free speech British member of parliament. Jordan began by denouncing several European laws that he said “target our tech companies that provide the modern town square.” “Laws like the Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act,” two EU statutes, “are the engines of a global censorship regime targeting political speech disfavored by European bureaucrats,” Jordan said.  The laws “effectively require social media platforms to change their terms of service to moderate more content,” imposing policies Americans like Jordan worry will extend beyond the EU into the U.S., harming Americans’ free speech rights. Jordan decried recent examples of censorship in the EU and the UK, condemning their lack of respect for free speech. Then, Raskin took the floor, denouncing Farage, who he called a “far-right, pro-Putin politician.” “This hearing’s just a drive-by hit against a strong democratic ally to benefit a Donald Trump sycophant and wannabe,” Raskin said. “Not only are our colleagues ignoring intensifying repression in the world’s dictatorships, they’re also trying to distract the world from the attack on freedom taking place right here in America every single day.” Raskin pointed to alleged examples of censorship under Trump, concluding, “There’s a free speech crisis in America today. But there’s no free speech crisis in Britain.” In a brief response, Jordan was ready with a sharp rejoinder: “The gentleman alleges there’s no free speech in America under Donald Trump while his staff member holds up countless articles criticizing the Trump administration.” Farage opened his testimony with a strong dose of irony. “I’m delighted to reacquaint with the charming Mr. Raskin.” “Delightful testimony you gave me earlier on with your speech,” he continued. “But hey that’s fine, you can say what you like, I don’t care, because that’s what free speech is.” Farage pointed to the UK’s recent arrest of an Irish comedian at Heathrow Airport for posting supposedly transphobic tweets. “This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow that has said things online that the British government and the British police don’t like,” he said. “At what point did we become North Korea? Well, I think the Irish comedy writer found that out two days ago at Heathrow airport,” he concluded. The post Fireworks Erupt at House Judiciary Hearing as Jordan, Raskin, and Nigel Farage Scorch Europe—and Each Other appeared first on The Daily Signal.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Wednesday declared the need for an economy that “emphasizes a large middle class that makes and grows, rather than a small elite that extracts, reallocates, and squanders.” “Ultimately, to support a conservative society as conservatives, it’s been drilled into us to always lament that politics is downstream from culture, but I would say that even culture itself can often be downstream from economics and the systems that it sets up,” Greer contended in remarks at the National Conservative Conference in Washington. “So, if we want a conservative culture, we have to create a conservative economic system,” he contended. Greer, a lawyer and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a rising star in conservative policymaking. In his address, Greer outlined what he sees as the correct form of a conservative economic system; namely, one that prioritizes a production economy. “A production economy is one that’s oriented around production, rather than consumption, as an end in itself,” Greer explained, adding: America became great because, for most of our history, we had a production economy. Greer grounded his political philosophy in what he characterized as reflections of what the Founding Fathers actually thought about trade policies. “The Founders knew that other nations should not automatically benefit from free access to a market. The debates between Thomas Jefferson’s nation of farmers and Alexander Hamilton’s nation of manufacturers actually resulted in a practical compromise. We would be both, whether through toil on the land or labor in the factory. We would be a nation of producers, and even in their commitment to the yeoman farmer in his fields, the Jeffersonians recognized the need for industrial might to maintain our independence,” he explained.  The U.S. trade representative cited the trade policy of the first U.S. secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.  “Alexander Hamilton had argued that America needed tariffs and industrial policy to promote manufacturing and allow our young country to develop without being subject to the coercive economic policy of the British Empire. Eventually, this view was perfected by Henry Clay, and his unique model was called the American system,” he said.  The trade representative also decried the trade policy of past decades, going so far as to characterize it as trading Americans’ birthright for instant gratification.  “The heartland became a Rust Belt. The streets less safe. Our divide seemed to get sharper, and as we all know very well. People reverted into tribes, essentially, of identity. They latched on to ever-thinner slices of that identity to define themselves,” Greer said of the outcome of the trade policies of the past. Greer concluded his speech by emphasizing American sovereignty and how that principle guides his work. “Americans, we elect our own leaders, whether it’s in the White House, Congress, or state capitals, so we can make decisions for ourselves. We have autonomy, we have sovereignty, and that’s the work of a free and independent people, the work I support as U.S. trade representative, and it’s the work that I believe will set our country right,” he concluded. The post US Trade Rep Outlines Policy That Puts Middle Class First appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Department of Justice is taking Illinois to court over state laws it says unlawfully offer in-state tuition and scholarships to illegal aliens.  The DOJ filed a complaint Tuesday asking a federal court to prevent Illinois from enforcing those laws, which it says are both unlawful and unconstitutional.  “Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This Department of Justice has already filed multiple lawsuits to prevent U.S. students from being treated like second-class citizens—Illinois now joins the list of states where we are relentlessly fighting to vindicate federal law.”  The challenged laws include Illinois’ 2011 DREAM Act, which established a fund that offers scholarships to “undocumented students” in Illinois, as well as the 2020 RISE Act, which extended Illinois financial aid to “noncitizen student[s]” who have “not obtained lawful permanent residence.”  The DOJ says those laws discriminate against U.S. citizens in violation of federal law. Specifically, it points to a 1996 law that bans states from offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless they offer the same tuition to all U.S. citizens from any state.  By violating federal law, the DOJ says, the laws also violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which establishes federal law as “the supreme Law of the Land.”  Its complaint names as defendants the state of Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker, state Attorney General Kwame Raoul, university officials, and others.  The case comes amid a battle between President Donald Trump and Pritzker over Trump’s threat to deploy National Guard troops to the state to help local law enforcement in Chicago fight crime.  On Tuesday, Trump said in an Oval Office event, “We’re going in. I didn’t say when, we’re going in.”   Pritzker responded on X, “The President’s absurd characterizations don’t match what’s happening here. There’s no emergency that warrants deploying troops in Chicago. He’s insulting Chicagoans by calling our home a hellhole—and anyone who takes his word at face value is insulting them, too.”  The post DOJ Takes Illinois to Court Over Benefits for Illegal Aliens  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, British MP Nigel Farage issued a stark warning about Britain’s trajectory on speech regulation, arguing that UK law now poses a direct threat not only to free expression at home, but also to core American liberties abroad. In testimony submitted to the US Congress during a hearing titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation,” the Reform Party leader detailed how the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (OSA), passed in 2023, is already being used to pressure American platforms into adopting restrictive UK speech codes, many of which would be flatly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Farage said the OSA “integrates the United Kingdom’s broad, speech-related criminal offenses with sweeping duties imposed on online platforms,” placing enforcement power in the hands of Ofcom, Britain’s communications regulator. That authority, he warned, now includes the right to demand self-incriminating data from platform operators, punish non-compliance with up to two years’ imprisonment, and seek court orders to block access to non-compliant services. “Ofcom has already threatened four American companies with exactly these penalties,” Farage told lawmakers. “I repeat: regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom are actively threatening to imprison American citizens for exercising their protected Constitutional rights.” This is not a hypothetical scenario. Just last week, two US-based platforms filed suit in Washington, DC, seeking protection against UK enforcement attempts. Their case shows the growing tension between the UK’s new speech suppression regime and America’s longstanding protections for political and controversial speech. Under the OSA, the UK can extend its rules to any platform with “links to the UK,” a vague standard that includes merely having British users, even if a platform has no physical or legal presence in the country. This creates what Farage calls “powerful, and unconstitutional, extraterritorial pressures.” Ofcom’s fines, which can reach 10% of a company’s global revenue, effectively force international platforms to choose: either conform to UK censorship demands or face financial ruin and bans within the UK market. Farage remarked: “Claiming that American companies using American servers must follow UK content moderation law is like claiming that UK law applies to Americans who receive a telephone call from the UK.” Startups and smaller companies are especially vulnerable. The cost of compliance with Ofcom’s complex takedown rules, record-keeping requirements, and risk assessments amounts to a structural disadvantage for any US-based service that refuses to preemptively silence speech the UK might find offensive. Adding to the alarm, Farage noted the new criminal offenses created under the OSA, including a “false communications” law that criminalizes sending messages known to be untrue and intended to cause “non-trivial psychological harm.” The law does carve out exemptions for certain broadcasters and news publishers, but applies broadly to ordinary citizens. Farage pointed to the prosecution of Lucy Connolly as a clear sign of the UK’s hardline approach to online expression. After posting a charged message on X following a violent incident in Southport, Connolly was arrested and sentenced to 31 months in prison under the Public Order Act. Though her case was not brought under the OSA, Farage argued it revealed a legal system increasingly willing to criminalize speech that is merely provocative or offensive. “What Lucy Connolly said in her X message, which was only visible for 3.5 hours, may have been expressed inelegantly, but it was a sentiment that was being felt by a lot of the public at that moment, and it should not have been criminalized,” Farage stated. “When the government starts regulating speech in this way, it is rarely those that agree with the government who find themselves in court.” He emphasized that the UK has long prosecuted even silent protest, such as praying on a sidewalk, and warned that such examples show how low the UK’s threshold has become for punishing speech that would remain protected in the US. The OSA’s requirements also place encrypted communications at risk. Farage pointed to growing concerns that UK mandates will lead to the deployment of surveillance tools, such as client-side scanning, that undermine privacy and are incompatible with end-to-end encryption. He cited industry analysis warning that “no ‘accredited technology’ currently exists that can both scan at scale and preserve genuine E2EE,” suggesting the UK’s approach risks eroding cybersecurity while offering only the illusion of safety. This, combined with the burden of compliance, may drive American innovation out of the UK altogether. “If the UK forces American companies to block VPN access, that would prevent legitimate American users of those VPN services from accessing content that is lawful in the USA,” Farage added. Farage argued the problem is one of legal incompatibility. UK law has increasingly adopted a censorial posture, while American law remains anchored to the principle that the government may not ban speech simply because it is offensive or upsetting. “Ofcom’s ambitions are to ensure that every internet platform in the world, if it is accessible by UK nationals, must implement the Online Safety Act’s ‘illegal content’ rules,” he said. “This effectively means that American platforms must choose between surrendering their First Amendment rights or complying with the Online Safety Act.” Such a conflict, he warned, cannot be reconciled. It forces companies to pick a side: freedom or conformity. To counter the spread of foreign censorship norms, Farage called on Congress to take a firm stance: Declare that foreign speech laws have no bearing on Americans or American-hosted services, even when accessed overseas. Protect strong encryption without backdoor scanning requirements. Establish safe-harbors for US startups, insulating them from foreign regulatory overreach. Demand due-process guarantees for any foreign content takedown orders. “Americans share the UK’s goals of combating illegal content and protecting children online,” Farage said. “But those objectives must not become a back door for importing foreign speech standards that erode First Amendment values, weaken encryption, and stifle US innovation.” Farage concluded with an appeal to shared Anglo-American heritage. He reminded Congress that “every signatory of the American Declaration of Independence was, after all, a British subject.” “Free speech is a fundamentally British value,” he said. “On the question of civil liberties, Britain has, unfortunately, now lost her way. I will do my part, as a participant in UK democracy, to help our country find its way back to the traditional freedoms which have long bound together our two countries in friendship.” Until then, he called on the United States to stand firm. “British free speech rules, applicable to Britons, are made in Britain, and American speech rules, applicable to Americans, are made in America.” Farage left no room for ambiguity: the future of global speech freedom may depend on whether the US remains a place where open platforms can still be built without submission to authoritarian regulatory demands. “Somewhere on this planet of ours, innovators must remain free to build the next generation of platforms without being hamstrung by illiberal and authoritarian censorship regimes that are alien to both American and traditionally British values,” he said. “Right now, that place is America.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Nigel Farage Warns US Congress: UK Censorship Law Threatens American Free Speech, Encryption, and Tech Innovation appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Malcolm Gladwell Apologizes for Supporting Trans in Sports

Japan has good reason to be wary of Mount Fuji.

In one shot, Buzz Aldrin can be seen clinging to the side of his spacecraft during his first-ever spacewalk.

The New York Magazine''s Intelligencer section certainly knows its liberal readers as one that lately, along with many others of the their fellow liberals, is suddenly very very interested in the health of President Donald Trump. Not out of any sympathetic concern for his health but out of a ghoulish fascination that could remove him from performing his presidential duties which is currently a sick fascination among the "When It Happens" cult at TikTok. They don't come right out and specifically state what they hope happens (to Trump) but any sentient observer knows exactly what they are talking about despite them acting as if they are oh so clever and coy. Very consciously catering to the extreme desires of the ghouls was Intelligencer senior editor Margaret Hartman giving her readers a strong dose of liberal Hopium on Sunday with "What’s the Deal With Trump’s Hand Bruise and Health Issues?" Hartman served up a microanalysis of Trump's hands in extreme detail, something that most would normally find boring, but has been of intense interest to her ghoulish liberal readers precisely because of whose hands was being discussed: Normally, a 79-year-old man having a bruise on his hand wouldn’t be much of a story. But that changes when the septuagenarian in question is Donald Trump. Trump’s injury was first spotted weeks after the 2024 election, which he won in part by bullying Joe Biden for his decrepitude while pretending he himself possessed almost superhuman health and mental acuity. For months, the White House dismissed Trump’s bruising as one of those hand-shaking injuries you’re always hearing about. Then when Trump’s terrible hand makeup and swollen ankles raised too many questions, the administration admitted he has a condition known as chronic venous insufficiency. Yet questions about Trump’s health, and his bizarrely terrible attempts to conceal his physical issues, have persisted. Here’s a guide, which we’ll keep updated, to everything we know about Trump’s health and how the White House is handling his illness. You can easily discern by the second paragraph which expresses hostility towards Trump that that there is no genuine concern on the part of Hartman over the President's health. All she seems to do is provide a lot of details in which her readers can fantasize about "When It Happens." The rest of the article was Hartman listing a bunch of questions which she attempts to answer in a way to provide grist for the rumor mill of liberal ghouls hungering for any bit of information to fill their joyless lives. Here is the list of her section heading questions: How long has Trump had this hand bruise? What did Trump say about the bruise? How did the White House explain Trump’s hand bruising? Is Trump’s bruise always in the same place? How long has Trump been putting makeup on his hand? What’s going on with Trump’s ankles? What happened with those red mark on Trump’s hand? How did Trump reveal his chronic-venous-insufficiency diagnosis? What is chronic venous insufficiency? Is chronic venous insufficiency fatal? What treatment is Trump being given? What’s the latest news on Trump’s health? Is Trump still covering up the hand bruise? One question that seems to be missing is "When did Margaret Hartman become a TDS Hopium Ghoul?" To be clear, this mental sickness has spread even to elected officials with former Democrat vice-presidential candidate and current Minnesota governor Tim Walz going full hopeful ghoul on the state of the President's health:   .@Tim_Walz, mocking President Trump’s health is a new low, even for you. Wishing ill on others doesn’t make you a leader—it makes you small. Minnesotans deserve better. pic.twitter.com/6Kw05CBg5l — Tom Emmer (@tomemmer) September 2, 2025

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) said on Tuesday that the real reason why his city had a Labor Day weekend filled with shootings and other crimes is because Republican-run states have more gun rights than Illinois.Johnson made his remarks after President Donald Trump confirmed that he will be sending National Guardsmen and federal law enforcement into Chicago to lower the city's crime rate.'Chicago will continue to have a "violence problem" as long as Red states continue to have a gun problem.'"We're going in. I didn't say when. We're going in. ... This isn't a political thing. I have an obligation. When 20 people are killed over the last two and a half weeks, and 75 are shot with bullets," Trump said, pointing to how his deployment of personnel to Washington, D.C., has made the city safer.Johnson and Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) have repeatedly said they do not want the extra help to address crime."Chicago will continue to have a 'violence problem' as long as Red states continue to have a gun problem," Johnson reiterated on X. "The endless flow of illegal guns into Chicago can be traced to Red states like Mississippi, Indiana, and Louisiana. It is up to the federal government to step up and stop interstate gun trafficking networks."RELATED: 'That is an outright lie!' Chicago pastor rips into Democrats over crime — (@) Johnson said the "vast majority" of firearms used in crimes do not come from Chicago. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Firearms Trace Data for 2023, at 9,147, Illinois was the number-one source state of guns that were recovered. Indiana was number two at 2,796.Johnson rallied protesters on Labor Day, telling the cheering crowd, "Are you prepared to defend this land? This land that [was] built by slaves. The land that was built by indigenous people. The land that was built by workers. Are you prepared to defend this land? I need you all to stand firm, to stand strong, if this president decides to continue to break this Constitution."Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed on Sunday that extra immigration agents will be sent to the sanctuary city in a manner similar to what has been happening in Los Angeles, using U.S. Border Patrol agents.RELATED: Federal judge says Trump unlawfully sent military troops into Los Angeles — (@) It remains to be seen where National Guardsmen will placed in Chicago after they are deployed there. Chicago Alderman Raymond Lopez (D) suggested that the soldiers protect the tourist areas of the city so that Chicago police can go back to patrolling other areas of the city that have higher crime rates.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!