If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Over the past decade, nearly €1 billion in EU taxpayer money has been poured into media campaigns designed to portray the European Union in a favorable light, according to a detailed investigation by conservative think tank MCC Brussels. The analysis lays bare a sprawling architecture of publicly funded messaging that, rather than safeguarding media plurality, appears crafted to systematically advance EU political objectives and stifle dissenting perspectives. Read the report here. According to the report’s author Thomas Fazi, “this report blows the lid open on Brussels’s media machine: how the EU channels vast sums of public money into media projects across Europe and beyond, to the tune of nearly € 80 million per year (at least).” He further observes that “this is likely a conservative estimate,” as many indirect or subcontracted payments are not publicly disclosed. A significant portion of these funds flows through the European Commission’s “Information Measures for the EU Cohesion Policy” (IMREG) initiative. Ostensibly aimed at informing the public about cohesion efforts, the program has in fact functioned as a massive EU-branded public relations campaign. “The program is aimed at ‘increasing awareness of the benefits of Cohesion Policy among people’ and ‘promoting and fostering a better understanding of the role of Cohesion Policy in supporting all EU’s regions.’” Yet while the Commission claims to respect “complete editorial independence,” the report challenges this premise: “If the projects are expected to highlight the ‘benefits’ of EU policy, how can true editorial independence be ensured?” Even more concerning are examples where “news features funded through the project failed to disclose their connection to EU funding – effectively amounting to a form of stealth marketing or, given the political nature of the topic and funder, covert propaganda.” Beyond promotional content, the EU’s structural entanglement with news agencies reveals a deeper issue. Fazi writes that these agencies are “central nodes in the media ecosystem, allowing narratives crafted at the agency level to cascade verbatim across hundreds of mainstream outlets.” The creation of the European Newsroom (ENR), a centralized Brussels-based consortium funded with €1.7 million, only exacerbates this concern. ENR “offers a pan-European perspective on EU affairs to audiences across the continent,” while its reporters are trained by EU institutions. Far from fostering independence, this setup “aims to develop common journalistic standards” through techniques that appear geared toward narrative unification. Fact-checking and anti-disinformation programs provide yet another layer of influence. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), with at least €27 million in EU funding, brings together media outlets and news agencies in the name of combating disinformation. But as the report questions, “When media organizations receive funding from the European Commission to disseminate pro-EU content, while also participating in mechanisms designed to flag and counter disinformation, the potential for conflict of interest is glaring.” Fazi raises a vital question: “What happens when so-called ‘harmful narratives’ are, in fact, factually correct criticisms of EU institutions or policies? Where is the boundary between ‘disinformation’ and legitimate political dissent?” The Journalism Partnerships program, another key funding vehicle, has funneled nearly €50 million into projects described as supporting media collaboration. However many of these efforts exhibit a clear ideological bias. One funded initiative sought to “debunk and demystify the European Union and its institutions.” Another, Connecto, aimed to “strengthen European solidarity as opposed to extremist national movements.” Still, another, Eastern Frontier Initiative, focused on shaping narratives around “European defense and security,” involving media partners closely aligned with NATO positions. Meanwhile, EU-backed investigative journalism frequently targets foreign adversaries rather than scrutinizing its own institutions. “A review of its output reveals very few investigations into EU governments or institutions. On the contrary, some of the funded projects appear to reiterate mainstream narratives,” the report notes. The broader implications are troubling. As Fazi summarizes: “Rather than simply supporting a free and pluralistic media landscape, the EU is systematically investing in shaping a ‘friendly’ media environment that reinforces its own legitimacy and political goals.” This blurring of journalism and institutional propaganda has dire consequences for public trust and democratic accountability. “Even in the absence of direct editorial interference, the structural dependence on EU grants fosters a dynamic that incentivizes self-censorship and narrative alignment,” the report warns. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Inside the EU’s Billion Euro Media Machine appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. This content is available exclusively to supporters of Reclaim The Net Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers and individual liberty online.   Subscribe   Already a supporter? Login here.                       If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Quiet Coup Against Incognito Mode appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

FBI Director Patel: 'My House Just Got Swatted Yesterday'

War! What Is It Good For? Absolutely The Week in Review!

Pro tip: Just remember to take it out.

The Trump administration’s reversal of a Biden-era policy regarding hospitals being required to perform emergency abortions has abortion activists up in arms — despite there actually being no threat to pregnant women who need emergency care. “You have probably seen headlines going around, especially on Instagram, saying that Trump is now letting hospitals allow women to die, women who need these life-saving abortions we hear are now going to bleed out and die because of Trump’s draconian and cruel anti-abortion policies,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says on “Relatable.” “It is almost always the case when it comes to pro-abortion propaganda that the story that you are reading, that those little pro-abortion influencers and accounts are pushing, that it’s just not true,” she continues. The policy in question is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that was passed in 1986 and requires hospitals to provide necessary emergency care, including for pregnant women, to stabilize serious medical conditions. The law’s initial intent was to ensure patient access to emergency medical care and to prevent the practice of “patient dumping,” which is when patients are transferred from private to public hospitals without considering their medical condition or stability for transfers. The Biden administration issued a guidance on this law in 2022 that interpreted EMTALA as requiring hospitals to perform abortions in emergency rooms, even in states with pro-life laws. “So you can see, if you’re familiar at all with how the left interprets these kind of health care laws, you can see the problem right away, because how the left interprets the health or life of the mother or the stability of the mother, is not that the woman’s life actually has to be at risk,” Stuckey explains. “They refer to a Supreme Court case called Doe vs. Bolton, where health and life of the mother is defined as not only the physical health of the mother, but the mental health of the mother, the financial situation of the mother, the familial circumstances of the mother,” she continues. “So it was actually the Biden administration that was infringing upon people’s rights here, it’s not the Trump administration,” she adds. The Trump administration rescinded this 2022 guidance in a statement arguing it wrongly turned emergency rooms into abortion clinics by forcing doctors to perform elective abortions. “Which is true, because a woman could come in and say, ‘I have to have an abortion, I don’t feel stable, or I’m not feeling good or whatever,’ and instead of a doctor saying, ‘We can help you in different ways,’ or ‘Here’s where you need to go, let me give you other resources,’ they would be required by the Biden administration to perform an abortion,” Stuckey explains. “So the Trump administration’s policy clarifies that EMTALA does not mandate abortions beyond what is necessary for emergency care, aligning with the law’s intent to protect both the mother and the unborn child,” she 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.

Nearly four and a half years after Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd shot and killed Ashli Babbitt at the U.S. Capitol, her husband on June 6 signed an agreement to settle his $30 million wrongful-death suit against the federal government. The agreement includes a $4.975 million payout. Other terms were not immediately announced. 'She was alive and breathing after being shot.' “This fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashli Babbitt’s family. Ashli should never have been killed, and this settlement destroys the evil, partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Twenty-five percent of the lawsuit settlement will be held in a trust account against any possible award to Babbitt’s former attorney, Terrell N. Roberts III. Roberts asked to intervene in the lawsuit earlier this year, claiming he is owed 40% of any settlement amount. Roberts terminated his relationship with Aaron Babbitt in early 2022. Babbitt’s D.C. attorney, Richard Driscoll, demanded that the issue be arbitrated by the Attorney/Client Arbitration Board of the District of Columbia Bar. Despite repeated corporate media claims to the contrary, Judicial Watch handled the wrongful-death lawsuit pro bono. Although the federal government admitted no liability in the settlement agreement, it is a tacit admission by the U.S. Department of Justice that Byrd was reckless and used excessive force when he slid from a hidden position in the House Speaker’s Lobby and fired one shot at Babbitt, who had climbed into a sidelight window just outside the entry doors. The lawsuit complaint, filed on Jan. 5, 2024, alleged that Byrd was negligent in the handling and use of his Glock 22 sidearm and reckless in his decision to fire into the crowded hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby. The suit also claimed the Capitol Police department was negligent in its supervision of Byrd, who has a long disciplinary history that includes firing his pistol into a fleeing vehicle near his home in 2004 and leaving his gun on a toilet tank in the Capitol Visitor Center. Aaron Babbitt filed claims against the Capitol Police in June and September 2021 and augmented the claims in February 2022 and January 2023, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego. RELATED: Capitol Police name permanent chief hours after union slams controversial interim pick Ashli Babbitt was a 14-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard. Photos courtesy of Micki Witthoeft and Aaron Babbitt The suit was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the entire federal government, of which the Capitol Police department is a part. According to the lawsuit, Byrd’s bullet struck Ashli Babbitt in the left anterior shoulder at 2:44 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021. The round “perforated her left brachial plexus, trachea, upper lobe of the right lung and second anterior rib, and came to rest in her right anterior shoulder. “Video recordings show her alive and conscious, writhing uncontrollably immediately after the shooting,” the suit stated. “Ashli remained conscious for minutes or longer after being shot by Lt. Byrd. Ashli experienced extreme pain, suffering, mental anguish and intense fear before slipping into pre-terminal unconsciousness." “Furthermore, nothing about the wound track described in the autopsy report would be expected to result in immediate death or instantaneous loss of consciousness,” the suit said, “and Ashli’s lungs contained blood, further confirming that she was alive and breathing after being shot.” Babbitt was unarmed, hands raised Although Byrd claimed that he feared for his life at the time he shot Babbitt, he “later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female,” the lawsuit said. “Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and officers in the lobby. “Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone,” the suit said. The killing became a polarizing event for Jan. 6 and drew vile responses from the left, with many claiming that Babbitt deserved to be shot because they believed her to be a rioter who was part of a mob. Death threats and harassment were directed at Aaron Babbitt. Immediately after the shooting, people would call the Babbitts' pool-cleaning business and ask, “Can Ashli come over and clean my pool?” A self-described “anarchy princess” stomped on a birthday floral tribute to Babbitt on the steps of the Capitol in October 2022. The woman, Brianne Marie Chapman, often heckled Babbitt’s mother, Micki Witthoeft, at public events. 'Then-Lieutenant Byrd’s weapon was left unattended in a public restroom for approximately 55 minutes.' Long investigations carried out by news media and Judicial Watch Inc. revealed that Ashli Babbitt tried to stop rioting that erupted in the Speaker’s Lobby hallway between 2:36 and 2:44 p.m. She shouted at rioters to stop and eventually threw a left hook to the face of rioter Zachary Alam to end his spree of vandalism and mayhem. The suit was filed in San Diego, but the Biden DOJ immediately moved to have it transferred to the friendly confines of federal court in the District of Columbia. Judicial Watch was still fighting to move the case back to California when the “settlement in principle” was first announced May 2. The DOJ declined to prosecute Byrd in 2021, stating there was not enough evidence that the officer willfully used excessive force in killing the 14-year U.S. Air Force veteran. The shooting-justification report was loaded with errors and did not use the proper U.S. Supreme Court litmus test for fatal use of force. Byrd promoted, rewarded A U.S. House subcommittee outlined how the Capitol Police covered up Byrd’s identity for eight months in 2021, paid more than $35,000 to house him in an admiral’s suite at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, provided $37,000 in unrestricted retention bonuses, and helped Byrd open a GoFundMe account that brought in more than $164,000. Former U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) made a $200 donation to Byrd's GoFundMe on Nov. 18, 2021. At the time, Kinzinger was a member of the now-defunct Jan. 6 Select Committee appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Kinzinger wrote on social media, “A worthy cause, as this man has faced quite an onslaught of misinformation and extreme threats.” Capitol Police planned to use money from the Officers’ Memorial Fund for fallen officers to pay Byrd’s expenses, including overtime pay he lost by being off work following Jan. 6, the House report said. The plan was to submit Byrd’s proposal ahead of any other Memorial Fund payments, including those for 90 officers injured on Jan. 6. The Capitol Police general counsel worked directly with Pelosi's staff to find ways to assist Byrd after the shooting. A police source who was in attendance at a Capitol meeting with Pelosi told Blaze News the speaker emerita declared that Byrd was not to be touched. RELATED: Lawmaker who visited El Salvador to spring MS-13 gang member attacks Ashli Babbitt as a ‘domestic terrorist’ U.S. Capitol Police Officer Steven Robbs peers into the House Speaker’s Lobby after Lt. Michael Byrd shot Ashli Babbitt. A wrongful-death lawsuit filed against Byrd said tactical officers were in the hallway when Byrd aimed and fired at Babbitt at 2:44 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021. Photo by Tayler Hansen Capitol Police assigned Byrd a dignitary protection detail and planned to provide him with a department-issued shotgun for personal protection. However, Byrd failed the FBI background check and the shotgun proficiency test, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) said. Byrd was promoted to captain in 2023. Loudermilk said he was troubled by the promotion, asking then-Chief J. Thomas Manger to provide more information on the standards used for the promotion. Manger never responded, a Capitol Hill source told Blaze News. Blaze News reached out to the USCP for comment. Blaze News investigations exposed how Capitol Police have covered for Byrd for nearly 25 years. Byrd was recommended for termination in 2001 when an internal affairs investigation found he abandoned his post in the Speaker’s Office for a card game in a nearby cloakroom. When Byrd was confronted by a supervisor, he lied, defying video evidence to the contrary, the investigation found. Byrd was suspended for a week after a 2015 incident in which he shouted at a Montgomery County police officer working security at a Maryland high school football game. Byrd “became argumentative with the officer and began yelling profanities at the officer, calling him a ‘piece of sh**, a**hole, and racist,’” according to a report issued in 2024 by Rep. Loudermilk. Byrd accused the officer of “targeting the ‘black side’ of the field and then jumped the fence” to confront him. In 2019, Byrd was again referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility for leaving his Glock pistol in a Capitol Visitor Center restroom. “Then-Lieutenant Byrd’s weapon was left unattended in a public restroom for approximately 55 minutes before it was discovered by another officer,” Loudermilk wrote. Byrd was suspended without pay for 33 days. Loudermilk disclosed that the records of three other OPR discipline cases against Byrd were somehow missing. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A believer in "toxic masculinity" challenged Charlie Kirk to defend his position against the "hyper-feminization" of the West, and the challenge led to a thoughtful discussion, even if combative at times. The Turning Point USA founder took on students of the Cambridge Union in the U.K. on Monday about various topics, but one exchange about toxic masculinity was especially engrossing. 'We're actually living under a hyper-feminist West that is toxic. What does that mean? Speech police, feelings first, emotion over reason, community over individualism.' The unidentified interlocutor first defined Kirk as a supporter of the idea that "there is an active attack on masculinity, that men are being oppressed in a way, [and] that men's rights need to be advocated for." He asked Kirk if he acknowledged other possible reasons for the growing apathy of males in the West. "Do you see this generation of lost boys as a failure of, say, masculinity, or are there potential other factors — social, economic factors — such as the death of the American dream, increasing costs of living in America, increased cost of education?" "Yes, I acknowledge all of them, of course," Kirk responded. "It's a very good faith question, thank you." Kirk agreed that some of the causes of the fall of masculinity were rooted in economic decisions in the '70s, '80s, and '90s that led to hardship among the working class. "A family used to be able to be supported on a single income of 35 weeks of labor a year. Now it takes upwards of 60 weeks of labor a year," he explained. "However, given all the economic and social factors, the largest of all of them is the cultural and the educational that has infantilized men and hyper-feminized them in the messaging, in the outreach, and in the treatment."When the questioner asked for specific examples of the educational system feminizing males, Kirk pointed to the overmedication of males and the insistence on criticizing "toxic masculinity" in school curricula. They launched into a debate about whether such a thing as toxic femininity exists and why it is not taught in schools. "Toxic femininity often comes from a reaction to a misogynistic system which fundamentally oppresses and systematically oppresses women," said the Cambridge man. "And I'm not saying that toxic femininity is a good thing, but I'm saying it's a much more understood and valid reaction to a system of oppression versus toxic masculinity, which oppresses." His explanation garnered enthusiastic applause from the audience. Then Kirk responded. RELATED: Charlie Kirk exposes the moral rot at Cambridge in a devastating exchange Photo by Nordin Catic/Getty Images for the Cambridge Union He argued that "toxic masculinity" was the result of a backlash against the total vilification of masculinity in schools and elsewhere in society. "Young men see this pattern in the West and in our country, from the authors, from our curriculum, from the music, from the movies. And we see in the educational system proper, we have seen the infantilization of the young male," said Kirk. "We're actually living under a hyper-feminist West that is toxic. What does that mean? Speech police, feelings first, emotion over reason, community over individualism. We're seeing this. And by the way, is it working? Is the West stronger as it's become more feminine in the last 30 years? No." They went on to debate whether the TV series "Adolescence" was an example of society oppressing young males. Kirk described the controversial movie as a "slow-motion humiliation ritual for the boys of Britain" and asked if a similar series about girls was even possible. "Could you imagine if there was a similar movie criticizing young women?" he asked rhetorically. Kirk then cited suicide rates in the Anglosphere to support his thesis that the feminization of the West has led to disastrous results for males. "I guess I would just ask this question in closing: Do you think men would be happier if they are married and providing for a family?" he asked. "I don't think marriage or the institution of marriage is the only way that man can be happy," the interlocutor responded. "That's not what I said," Kirk replied. "I said generally happier. Do you think men will be generally happier if they're married, providing, and have children?" RELATED: How US universities morphed from cradles of liberty to cages of conformity "I don't think that's a necessary factor to contribute to happiness," the man responded. "Then what is your solution to bring about male happiness in the West? Mine is: Men, get married, have children, and provide. What is yours?" Kirk asked. "That's a good question," he responded. "Um." After a moment of consideration he responded: "I think an affirmation of their emotions, their emotional states. I think an openness to allowing men to express themselves in whatever way they want, even if that is in a more effeminate way." The man then argued that British males were unhappy because of austerity, the policy of lower government spending. "You're scrambling for an excuse to get away from the truth that's right in front of you!" Kirk challenged. "Maybe men should get married and have children! Because it's worked for 2,000 years!"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The huge success of Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 was another reminder of just how appealing living out a medieval fantasy existence can be. But what if, instead of embodying Henry’s story, you told a tale all your own? That’s the premise of Chronicles Medieval, revealed during the Summer Games Fest with a trailer featuring the ever-iconic Tom Hardy. With the grandiose battles of Total War and the storytelling potential of Crusader Kings 3, Chronicles Medieval drops you into a 14th-century land with complete freedom. Continue reading Chronicles Medieval is a new sandbox RPG challenging Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best new PC games, Best upcoming PC games, Best PC games

There are so many games created with direct influence from FromSoftware's action RPGs that a new genre has been created from projects similar to Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Sekiro, Demon's Souls, and Bloodborne. What sets the most worthwhile of these soulslike games apart, though, isn't their ability to replicate the unforgiving combat design of From's catalog, but their approach to making absorbing, often foreboding settings. It's in this kind of world design that 2020's Mortal Shell excelled. Now that we've just seen a first glimpse of its sequel, Mortal Shell 2, it looks like creator Cold Symmetry is offering an increasingly detailed nightmare world to explore that continues this effort. Continue reading Brutal new soulslike is the next best thing to Bloodborne 2, and you can sign up MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best new PC games, Best upcoming PC games, Best PC games