'They Needed A Show': Mike Johnson Obliterates Premise Of ‘No Kings’ Protests In 41 Seconds

'I was awakened by big booms.'

'OSU law enforcement is on scene and investigating'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A growing storm has erupted over the UK Home Office’s refusal to release details about which NGOs and charities have been shaping asylum accommodation policy, after officials cited a journalist’s social media activity as a supposed “safety risk.” The department rejected journalist Lewis Brackpool’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request, claiming that disclosure could lead to “public backlash” and endanger individuals involved in policy meetings. Documents show the Home Office leaned on provisions under Sections 36 and 38 of the Freedom of Information Act to justify secrecy, arguing that publication might “inhibit free and frank discussions” and “increase the risk of targeted protests.” More: The Freedom of Information Act and How To Use It The withheld material reportedly includes internal notes and summaries from the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum (NASF) and the Strategic Engagement Group (SEG), key bodies where government officials meet with NGOs to discuss asylum housing, hotel placements, and safeguarding policies. Officials insisted that transparency in this case could “reduce the quality of decision-making” and place “additional strain on public order resources.” Brackpool, who published the full exchange online, condemned the decision as an abuse of power. Calling it “the most ABSURD FOI response I’ve had to date,” he pointed out that the Freedom of Information Act explicitly prohibits authorities from considering a requester’s identity or opinions. “A government department just used my identity as a journalist to justify blocking a lawful transparency request,” he wrote. He accused the Home Office of protecting politically connected NGOs from accountability while using the language of “safety” as a shield against scrutiny. “They’re shielding well-connected NGOs and contractors from scrutiny, the same organisations shaping policy on illegal migration and housing at taxpayers’ expense,” Brackpool said, adding that he has filed an internal appeal demanding the decision be overturned. The refusal has drawn political backlash of its own. MP Rupert Lowe wrote to the Home Secretary, calling the move “a clear breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and its central principle that requests must be treated applicant-blind.” Lowe demanded a full explanation of how Brackpool’s social media activity came to influence the decision, along with confirmation of whether senior officials sanctioned it. Lowe warned that allowing personal or political views to determine who can access public information “risks politicising the FOI process itself,” and urged the Home Office to issue a corrective disclosure and reaffirm its legal obligation to impartiality. What began as a routine transparency request has now escalated into a larger test of press freedom and government accountability. By treating a journalist’s online presence as justification for secrecy, the Home Office has raised profound concerns about whether officials can selectively decide who deserves access to the truth. This is dangerous precedent: when the state can withhold information because it dislikes the person asking, transparency ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Home Office Blocks Journalist’s FOI Request on Asylum Policy NGOs, Citing “Safety Risk” from Social Media appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The World Health Organization has introduced a major overhaul of its global monitoring network, unveiling an AI-powered platform that tracks online conversations and media activity in real time. Known as Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources 2.0 (EIOS), the system is being presented as a new step in “pandemic preparedness,” but its reach extends well beyond disease surveillance. The upgrade is part of a growing merger between health monitoring, digital tracking, and centralized information control. Developed with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the new version of EIOS is designed to scan the internet for signals of emerging health threats. According to the WHO, it now automatically analyzes social media posts, websites, and other public sources to detect possible outbreaks. More: World Health Organization meets to discuss granting of increased surveillance powers under pandemic treaty While this is described as a tool for early warning, it effectively allows a global health authority to observe the world’s digital conversations under the banner of safety. The WHO’s EIOS Collaboration page indicates that partners are also exploring projects such as “News Article Credibility Detection” and “Misinformation Classification Systems.” These initiatives suggest a growing interest in shaping how information is categorized and filtered. The latter effort appears linked to the JRC’s “Misinfo Classifier,” released in 2020, which the JRC described as an AI program that detects “fake news” by analyzing the tone and intensity of language in articles. The organization claimed the tool achieved an 80% success rate and stated that “this is comparable to the state of the art right now.” At the time, the JRC said the classifier was already in use by the European Commission and European Parliament, and that it would soon be shared with professional fact-checking organizations. The existence of that project highlights how data analysis and information control are being integrated into public health infrastructure. The WHO reports that EIOS now operates in more than 110 countries and collaborates with over 30 organizations, including national governments and the European Commission. The platform is being offered “free of charge” to eligible users, along with training materials and support. This approach ties national monitoring systems directly into a WHO-managed network that continuously gathers and processes global data. The WHO’s concept of “social listening” sheds more light on this strategy. It defines social listening as “the process of listening to and analyzing conversations and narratives” to understand people’s “attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, and intentions.” In practical terms, this means that the organization is not only collecting data about disease but also analyzing how citizens think and communicate online. In its October 13 announcement, the WHO described EIOS 2.0 as “more open, more agile and more inclusive.” However, under that language lies an expanding surveillance framework that uses artificial intelligence to interpret global social behavior. A system supposedly for improving health security could easily function as a tool for monitoring public opinion and online expression. This initiative combines artificial intelligence, government cooperation, and social media tracking under the label of global health security. It represents a change from traditional disease control toward the ongoing analysis of public communication, where algorithms determine which discussions appear “relevant” or “misleading.” This is something that the WHO has been looking at implementing for some time. For countries choosing to adopt EIOS, dependence on WHO data and analysis may come at the cost of digital independence. Under the justification of protecting public health, the WHO is establishing an always-on digital network that watches, classifies, and evaluates global discourse, quietly redefining what it means to manage health and information in the same breath. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post WHO and European Commission Launch AI System to Monitor Social Media and Online “Misinformation” in Real Time appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Canada continues to slip even farther into a totalitarian, dystopian nightmare. On the global playing field, the nation is the front-runner for euthanasia, which it euphemistically calls medical assistance in dying.Since legalizing MAID in 2016, Canada has seen the fastest increase in euthanasia deaths worldwide, surpassing even long-established programs in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium. In 2023, one in 20 deaths in Canada was a result of euthanasia.This disturbing number is due to Canada’s broad criteria when it comes to who qualifies for the MAID program. Unlike most countries that practice euthanasia, Canadians don’t need to have a terminal illness to be eligible. To qualify for MAID, a Canadian citizen must be at least 19 years old, be mentally competent, and have some kind of insufferable condition, which can be psychological.The intentional subjectivity of the program has allowed many Canadians with long lives ahead of them to die prematurely. There is even an increasing number of cases of citizens who cannot find affordable housing being recommended or approved for the MAID program.Glenn Beck says this is the dark reality of universal health care. Canada’s medical system is overwhelmed, and euthanasia has become a means of controlling the population. “These Canadian citizens — they get kicked out of the home. They can't find a place to live, and they're getting depressed about it. They go to the doctor and the doctor's like, ‘Well, we don't have any beds for you. It'll be months before we can see you,”’ he says.Tragically, euthanasia has become the easy fix.“When you have a government health care system, all it takes is a shortage of any kind, and then you start devaluing life on both ends of the spectrum,” says Glenn.He unveils the sinister methodology that undergirds “free” health care: “Up until 12 years old, you get very little medicine and care, and over 50, they begin to cut your care. They keep the ones who are actually working hard and making all the money. They keep all of the care there because that's what's good for society.”“This is exactly what's happening in Canada, and they're just not saying it,” he says. “They can't keep up with the system of care that they have up there … and so what they're trying to do is just reduce the surplus population.”This is what happens when a society stops valuing life.“If you don't prioritize life, at least from a legal standpoint, you put your society on a slippery slope that ends this way every single time,” says co-host Stu Burguiere.While suicide has always been a sad part of reality, “coming to a societal acceptance of [it] puts you on a road to darkness,” he warns.Canada is far down that dark path already, says Glenn. Before Canadian patients receive life-ending “medication,” they are given a drug called heparin that preserves their organs.“And so as soon as the doctors off you, other doctors take you and take out your organs. And now Canada is becoming one of the biggest organ warehouses since Hammond,” he says.To hear more, watch the clip above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Mike Johnson Levels the 'No Kings' Protests With a Little Reality

President Trump Speaks on China, Democrats, Hamas and More

Results of No Kings Rallies? Participation Trophies - For Everyone!

Many people spend extra money each month for a subscription to Amazon Prime, but here's a breakdown to determine whether that cost is actually worth it for you.