'You're a soldier'

'Yes, it was cozy ... nothing inappropriate going on'

'Many of them depend on that as a primary source of income'

'Personnel is policy'

'There's overwhelming evidence'

Early voting for the March 3 Texas primary elections is open now. It began Tuesday, Feb. 17, and runs through Friday, Feb. 27. Most days have no lines, hours are flexible, and all you need is a photo ID. While the primary chooses party nominees for November, one proposition on the ballot is a defining moment for Texas: Proposition 10–“Texas should prohibit Sharia Law.” This non-binding proposition is your chance to send a clear message to Austin lawmakers before the 2027 legislative session: Texas will never allow a foreign legal system to undermine our Constitution. A strong YES vote is essential for every Texan who believes in liberty, equal rights, women’s safety, and the rule of American law. Sharia is not just personal religious practice. It is a comprehensive political and legal doctrine drawn from the Quran, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence that claims supremacy over all man-made laws, including the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. While our founding documents protect natural rights, equality, consent of the governed, and separation of religion from state power, Sharia demands the opposite. Direct conflicts include: Death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy versus our First Amendment freedoms. Women receive half the inheritance and half the courtroom testimony value of men, plus allowance of polygamy and honor-based violence, versus Texas equality laws. Second-class “dhimmi” status for non-Muslims versus our ban on religious tests or discrimination. Cruel corporal punishments (amputation, stoning, flogging) versus the Eighth Amendment. Sharia’s claim to override secular law versus the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Texas has already taken strong steps. Gov. Greg Abbott signed legislation targeting Sharia-compliant compounds and discriminatory practices. Federal lawmakers from Texas, including Reps. Chip Roy and others are pushing for national action. But Proposition 10 raises the stakes. A large YES vote will push the Legislature to deliver real protections: banning Sharia in family courts and contracts, increasing scrutiny of foreign-funded groups, and ensuring no parallel legal systems take root in our state. Recent data shows significant percentages of American Muslims support implementing Sharia here. Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks openly pursue “civilization jihad” through gradual legal and cultural infiltration. Texas–with its strong economy, conservative values, and key position–is a prime target. We stopped dangerous projects like EPIC City through vigilance. Proposition 10 is the next line of defense. Voting YES on Prop 10 accomplishes three critical goals: It declares that American law is the only law in Texas–no exceptions, no compromises. It builds unstoppable momentum for binding legislation in 2027. It tells the rest of the country that Texas remains the firewall for constitutional governance. As the BanSharia.com campaign states: Save Texas, Save America. Opponents will claim “Islamophobia” and say this attacks religious liberty. They are wrong. The First Amendment protects personal belief and private worship, not the establishment of a rival legal system that treats the Constitution as inferior. We defend faith and reject supremacy doctrines. Our Founders studied these threats and designed our republic to withstand them. This proposition is non-binding, but Texas voters know the power of these messages. Strong showings in past cycles drove real action on borders, taxes, and education. A large YES turnout during early voting will do the same. Our children’s freedom, women’s rights, and the constitutional republic are on the line. Texas must lead. Save Texas–and help save America. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Texas’ Proposition 10 a Critical Test Case for Prohibiting Sharia Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The House of Representatives appears likely to vote next week on whether to advance a resolution restricting President Donald Trump’s authority to go to war with Iran. The United States has continued to mobilize forces in the Middle East, and Trump has threatened “bad things” if the Iranian regime does not negotiate on its nuclear program. Next week, Ro Khanna, D-Calif., will attempt to advance his War Powers Resolution on the House floor. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is a cosponsor of the resolution. “Trump officials say there’s a 90% chance of strikes on Iran. He can’t without Congress,” Khanna wrote Wednesday on X. “[Massie] & I have a War Powers Resolution to debate & vote on war before putting U.S. troops in harm’s way. I will make a motion to discharge to force a vote on it next week.” The War Powers Act of 1973 establishes a process for members of Congress to force a vote on whether to rein in the president’s ability to use military force. Massie and Khanna’s resolution, introduced in June, would prohibit “unauthorized hostilities” against Iran. Although the resolution is unlikely to become law, the vote on whether to advance the resolution will put members of Congress on the record. In January, a war powers resolution vote to rein in Trump’s powers to conduct war with Venezuela failed 215-215, with Republican Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie joining all Democrats in voting for it. But some members have already indicated they do not intend to support the Iran resolution. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has already ruled out supporting Massie and Khanna’s resolution. “This resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to real and evolving threats and risks signaling weakness at a dangerous moment,” Gottheimer writes in a joint statement with Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.  GOTTHEIMER AND LAWLER JOINT STATEMENT ON IRAN WAR POWERS RESOLUTION pic.twitter.com/laP3KxCGCG— Congressman Mike Lawler (@RepMikeLawler) February 20, 2026 Additionally, Bacon has said in a statement he believes Trump should use military force against Iran. The White House did not immediately respond to a request from The Daily Signal for comment on the House war powers resolution or the likelihood of war with Iran. The post House to Vote on Trump’s War Powers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Trump administration to block a California law aimed at forcing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to remove masks.  Attorney General Pam Bondi heralded the court ruling in an X post.  “Our @thejusticedept attorneys are fighting daily in court to protect law enforcement — and we just secured another key victory,” Bondi said. The 9th Circuit issued a full stay to block the No Secret Police Act, signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to force the unmasking of federal law enforcement, based on the supremacy clause.  “Law enforcement officers risk their lives for us, only to be doxxed by radical anti-police activists. Unacceptable,” the attorney general added. “This crucial ruling protects our brave men and women in the field. We will not stop fighting bad laws like these in California and across the country.” Newsom signed the law in September 2025, which only referenced federal, city, and county law enforcement, but did not apply to state law enforcement.  In an X post Thursday, Newsom stood by the law, saying, “Donald Trump’s federal agents should be unmasked and identifiable. Period, full stop.” Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled the state law discriminates against federal law enforcement, as it allowed state police to wear masks to conceal their identities while preventing federal law enforcement from doing the same. The post ‘Crucial Ruling’: Appeals Court Delivers Big Setback for Newsom’s Push Against ICE appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A federal judge has handed the FBI a win in its attempts to keep secrets. On February 4th, Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that the bureau can keep secret the precise amounts it paid Twitter between 2016 and 2023 for complying with legal process requests. Judicial Watch, which had sued under the Freedom of Information Act, walked away empty-handed. We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here. You may remember our earlier reporting on how the FBI was paying Twitter. The payments totaled at least $3.4 million between October 2019 and February 2021 alone. That figure emerged from the Twitter Files released in December 2022. The FBI has never confirmed it. Neither has Twitter. And now, thanks to Boasberg’s ruling, the quarterly breakdown that would show exactly when the money flowed, and how much, stays buried. What were the payments for? Officially, reimbursements. Federal law requires agencies to compensate companies for the cost of responding to subpoenas, search warrants, and national security legal demands. The FBI was sending those requests to Twitter in volume. During the period leading up to the 2020 election, the FBI’s Elvis Chan and colleagues were holding weekly meetings with Twitter staff about “misinformation.” They were flagging accounts. They were flagging content. And they were being reimbursed for the legal paperwork that accompanied all of it. The Trump DOJ, through US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office, filed for summary judgment in December 2025, arguing the payment amounts are shielded by FOIA’s Exemption 7(E). That exemption covers law enforcement techniques and procedures whose disclosure could help criminals evade detection. Boasberg agreed, accepting the government’s argument that quarterly payment figures, combined with Twitter’s own transparency reports, could let bad actors reverse-engineer where the FBI is looking and where it isn’t. The logic is that if you know the FBI paid Twitter significantly more in Q4 2021 than Q3, you might infer the bureau ramped up surveillance following a specific event. A foreign intelligence service could check whether its operation triggered a spike. Criminals could compare the FBI’s Twitter payments with what it pays other platforms and migrate accordingly. The government’s declarations assert this. Boasberg deferred to them, as courts in national security cases routinely do. The mosaic theory the FBI invoked is real, and courts have repeatedly credited it. The problem isn’t the legal framework. The problem is what it conceals. The FBI was not simply investigating criminals during this period. It was meeting weekly with a private company’s content moderation team, flagging accounts of vaccine skeptics, lab-leak researchers, people who questioned the 2020 election, and journalists covering Hunter Biden. The $3.4 million in payments flowed through that same relationship. The legal-process reimbursements and the content-flagging meetings ran in parallel, conducted by the same FBI personnel, aimed at the same platform, during the same politically charged window before a presidential election. The quarterly payment breakdown requested would have shown, at a minimum, whether FBI engagement with Twitter spiked during electorally sensitive periods. It would have let the public cross-reference the payment timeline with known events: the weekly misinformation meetings, the account flagging, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. That is exactly the kind of accountability information FOIA exists to surface. Instead, Boasberg ruled that the numbers stay hidden because releasing them might tell a foreign spy whether the FBI noticed something. The court gave meaningful weight to the government’s national security declarations, as FOIA doctrine requires, and no weight at all to the public’s interest in understanding how the FBI was spending money on the platform it was simultaneously using as a content moderation partner. Judicial Watch had pointed out that Twitter’s semi-annual transparency reports already publish aggregate data on law enforcement requests. Boasberg acknowledged this but found that quarterly FBI-specific figures would add enough granularity to create a meaningful risk. The detail that remains secret is not how the FBI monitors threats online. Everyone knows that. What remains secret is the scale and timing of the FBI’s financial relationship with a platform it was also directing to censor Americans. The ruling does not find that the FBI acted properly during this period. It does not address the weekly misinformation meetings or the account flagging. It simply holds that the payment figures are protected law enforcement information, and that Judicial Watch gets nothing. Boasberg wrote that disclosure could “risk circumvention of the law.” The circumvention that went unexamined in his opinion is the one that may have already occurred. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post FBI Wins Court Ruling to Keep Twitter Payments Secret appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Police Investigate and Determine Alleged Hate Crime Didn't Happen