'What are we gonna do? Have more lumber made in the United States now?'

News The Last of Us The Last of Us Will Return for a Third Season The infected will continue until morale improves By Molly Templeton | Published on April 9, 2025 Credit: Liane Hentscher/HBO Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Liane Hentscher/HBO The second season of The Last of Us begins this Sunday—but HBO has already decided this isn’t the end of the story. Following the largely glowing reviews for season two, HBO has already renewed the video game adaptation for a third season. The series—which stars Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey, and comes from Craig Mazin and game creator Neil Druckmann—was a huge hit when it premiered in 2023, and hype for the second season is basically off the charts. At IndieWire, Ben Travers writes, “Season 2 doubles down on what it asks of its audience, unveiling a challenging narrative filled with challenging ideas — ideas people base their entire lives on, and thus ideas people may struggle to reassess.” But there are some quibbles—and some questions about how far into the second game season two gets. The Hollywood Reporter notably uses the word “incomplete,” and an Entertainment Weekly headline says “Season 2 will only begin to adapt 2020’s The Last of Us Part II sequel game.” In a press release, Mazin said, “We approached season two with the goal of creating something we could be proud of. The end results have exceeded even our most ambitious goals, thanks to our continued collaboration with HBO and the impeccable work of our unparalleled cast and crew. We look forward to continuing the story of The Last of Us with season three!” Last summer, Mazin was already muttering about the possibility of a fourth season to Deadline, saying “We feel like it’s almost assuredly going to be the case that — as long as people keep watching and we can keep making more television — Season 3 will be significantly larger. And indeed, the story may require Season 4.” Mazin has also compared season two to The Empire Strikes Back, so make of that what you will. The second season of The Last of Us premieres April 13th on HBO and Max. The post <i>The Last of Us</i> Will Return for a Third Season appeared first on Reactor.

Books Reading the Weird Hitting Bottom: Stephen King’s Pet Sematary (Part 21) Once more over the deadfall as we reach King’s terrifying conclusion… By Ruthanna Emrys, Anne M. Pillsworth | Published on April 9, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share Welcome back to Reading the Weird, in which we get girl cooties all over weird fiction, cosmic horror, and Lovecraftiana—from its historical roots through its most recent branches. This week, we wrap up Stephen King’s Pet Sematary with Chapters 61, 62, and the epilogue. The novel was first published in 1983. Spoilers ahead! Ongoing content warning for dead kids and pets. Having collected what he needs from his doctor’s bag, Louis crosses to Jud’s house. Church watches warily from the roof of the blue Chevette in the driveway, but he accepts Louis’s offering of cat food. While Church eats, Louis seizes him and injects a heavy dose of morphine. Church keels over and dies, for the second time. In the Chevette are Rachel’s purse, scarf and ticket folder. His fears confirmed, Louis goes into the Crandall house. Beer cans and cigarette ashes show him where Jud kept overnight vigil, yet somehow missed Louis’s return. Though small muddy shoe prints lead to the kitchen, Gage doesn’t answer when called. Louis follows the tracks to Jud’s scalpel-slashed corpse. The old man’s eyes are open, accusing, but who’s to blame for this outcome? How far back does the chain of whispered secrets about the Micmac burial ground go? As Louis covers Jud with a tablecloth, a stealthy scrape sounds upstairs. After loading three more syringes with morphine hyperdoses, Louis investigates. A giggle, “cold and sunless,” makes his skin crawl. He can feel his sanity slipping now. It’s an interesting, even amusing sensation. Then he sees the splayed and bloody body of his wife in the upstairs hall, and he screams. Images flood his tottering mind, from Victor Pascow’s death to the Wendigo “whose touch awakens unspeakable appetites.” And Rachel’s not only been stabbed to death, something’s “been at her.” Gage appears grinning, mouth and chin dripping blood. He attacks with Louis’s stolen scalpel; luckily, he’s clumsy, and Louis is able to jab the contents of two syringes into him. Gage’s monstrously contorted face returns to that of Louis’s son, unhappy, in pain, and so he too dies again. Louis crouches in a corner, thumb jammed in his mouth. It’ll be two hours before he recovers enough to turn the Crandall house into a pyre for Jud and Gage. Rachel he lovingly wraps in a sheet and carries outside. * * * Louis’s PA, Steve Masterton, has been worried about his friend. The day after Rachel’s call to the infirmary, he motorcycles to Ludlow to check on him. He arrives to find Jud’s house engulfed in flames. Neighbors have rushed to the scene, but there’s no sign of Louis. As siren-blaring firetrucks approach, Steve glimpses movement on the well-mown path leading from the Creeds’ backyard toward the wooded hills behind. It looks like a man carrying a large white bundle. An irrational certainty hits him that Louis is in terrible trouble. Steve’s scared, yet he feels a certain attraction to the path, and once on it he breaks into an all-out run. He arrives at the Pet Sematary in time to see a suddenly white-haired Louis climbing its terminal deadfall with the insouciance of a sleepwalker. This close, Steve sees his burden is a body swathed in a bedsheet. The single dangling foot wears a woman’s black shoe. He’s convinced it’s Rachel’s corpse, and he screams Louis’s name. Louis continues climbing. He reaches the top of the deadfall and begins to descend the other side miraculously unscathed. Back on the ground and heading deeper into the woods, he finally turns toward Steve, who’s struck dumb by how much his face has aged. Louis’s mouth twitches, as if he’s trying to smile. He says he’s going to bury Rachel—will have to do it bare-handed, which will take a long time, given the stoniness of the soil. Maybe Steve could give him a hand? Steve’s horrified to realize he wants to help Louis; burying someone up in the woods seems so… natural. When Louis adds that he waited too long with Gage, that Rachel will be different, it’s clear he’s gone insane. Even so, when Louis tells him how to climb the deadfall safely, Steve tries it. He gets to the top, at which point Louis warns him not to worry about strange sounds—it’s just the loons down south. Figuratively, Steve totters between following Louis or not. What’s about to happen seems “very important. It seems like a secret. Like a mystery.” Then a branch snaps underfoot, and Steve actually totters. He just manages to make it back to the Pet Sematary. Maybe Louis has killed Rachel, he thinks. He’s utterly mad—but there’s something worse, something in the woods acting like a magnet on Steve’s own brain. A “low, chuckling laugh” rises, so huge Steve can’t imagine what sort of creature could be the source. Panic grips him, sending him running back toward houses and the road. Afterwards, he’ll remember little about this day, but in dreams “he would sense that something huge had shrugged by him—something which had reached out to touch him… and had then withdrawn its inhuman hand at the very last second.” The next year he will move to St. Louis. And he’ll never go to Ludlow again. * * * The police come late in the afternoon to question Louis. He wears a hat over his white hair, gloves on his ruined hands. They don’t seem to suspect anything. That night he plays solitaire until long after midnight. At last the back door opens, and he thinks “What you buy is what you own, and sooner or later what you own will come back to you.” “Slow gritting footsteps” approach, and a cold hand descends on his shoulder. Rachel’s voice, too, is “grating, full of dirt.” “Darling,” it says. What’s Cyclopean: Not-Gage’s eyes are “baleful, insectile in their stupid hate.” The Degenerate Dutch: Steve Masterton was warned, in college, that being part of the Atheists’ Society could hurt his chances for a med school scholarship. His skepticism, however, doesn’t keep him from sensing something very wrong in the woods. Madness Takes Its Toll: Louis’s sanity collapses, because sanity would get in the way of one last terrible choice. This is reflected by his hair going white, not even overnight but in a single moment of horror. Anne’s Commentary My last blog about Pet Sematary was all about the “if-onlies,” the character decisions and actions that could have prevented catastrophe, or the chance circumstances and events that could have saved the characters from themselves. The closing chapters of the novel provoke me to add some last if-onlies to the list: If only Louis’s response to the carnage at Jud’s house had been to leave bad enough alone. Instead he tries to cut his losses by hauling Rachel’s corpse to the burial ground. There’s some twisted reasoning to this act, I guess. Of the human corpses deposited there—at least the ones Louis knows of—Rachel’s is the freshest. The fresher in, the less screwed-up out. Although Church was pretty fresh, too. If only the police who investigated the Crandall fire had checked out the rental car in the driveway. Rachel’s purse is in plain sight, presumably holding her driver’s license and other IDs. Maybe she died in the fire; its ashes have yet to be raked for victims’ remains. Or maybe she’s returned to her own house. In which case, not finding her there, wouldn’t they have questioned Louis more closely and taken him into protective custody? Not, I guess, that undead Rachel would have quietly returned to her stony grave just because she came home to an empty house. If only PA Steve had arrived in Ludlow before Louis had gotten such a head start to the Pet Sematary and beyond. He might then have prevented Rachel’s resurrection and gotten Louis help. That’s if Louis didn’t disable or kill his would-be rescuer. But… The difference between these if-onlies and the previous set is that none would lead to a much happier ending. Or, let’s get real, to a much less miserable ending. The effective end of all tolerable ever-afters comes to Louis when he sees that not only has Rachel been killed, she’s been cannibalized. The legends are true: Who the Wendigo touches, it makes into a monster of “unspeakable appetites.” Too much. There’s a “(!CLICK!)” in Louis’s head, “the sound of some relay fusing and burning out forever.” The last connection to his former realities has snapped, and his sanity is bleeding out of the rupture. No more if-onlies. On to “what-happens-next.” The novel ends with Louis avoiding detention at least long enough to receive Rachel home. She approaches him from behind, puts a hand on his shoulder, and grates, “Darling.” That’s it, cut to black and let the reader’s imagination take over. Is Rachel-returned going to be less a monster of “unspeakable appetites” than Church and Gage? Less malignant than Timmy Baterman? Grateful to Louis for rescuing her from Oz the Great and Terrible? Furious at Louis for burning Gage’s dead-again corpse instead of saving it for a second resurrection? After all, if you’re going to have one Returned in the family, why not two? What about Ellie? Leave her with Grandpa and Grandma? Hope that her psychic abilities may allow her to rejoin her sanity-challenged and post-living family? She did get used to Church 2.0 after a while, though she no longer loved the cat. Also, she got along pretty well with Pascow’s ghost when he slipped into her dreams. Can we hope to see Ellie strolling hand in hand with her parents through Disney World? Uh, no. I don’t think Disney World is in any of the Creeds’ futures. If Louis survives Rachel’s return, he’ll still be so deeply traumatized that there’s no road back for him. The loss of both parents as well as Gage will likely leave Ellie broken; the question then will be whether she can heal, and to what extent. There are two Pet Sematary movies, plus a prequel and sequel. Pet Sematary-1989 follows the novel closely. Pet Sematary-2019 makes a major change to the plot: It’s Ellie, not Gage, who dies in the road and whom Louis resurrects. I find the returned Ellie scarier than 1989’s returned Gage, who reminds me too much of Chucky. Besides, Ellie’s age has given her more personality and history; that makes her close-but-not-close-enough resemblance to the living Ellie the more harrowing. PPet Sematary-1989 adds a brief coda to King’s ending. Louis embraces the resurrected Rachel. She takes advantage of his distraction to stab him (presumably to death) with a steak knife. Pet Sematary-2019 draws out the agony. Louis wakes up in time to see Rachel lowering Gage out the window of the bathroom in which she’s taken shelter from Ellie. He catches Gage and locks him for safety into Rachel’s car. Meanwhile, Ellie stabs Rachel, whose dying words to Louis are: Don’t bury me in the Pet Sematary. He doesn’t get a chance to honor her request, because Ellie knocks him out and drags her mother up to the burial ground. Rachel returns in time to save Ellie from Louis by, yep again, stabbing him. She and Ellie drag Louis into the woods. Back to Gage, waiting anxiously in the car. He’s glad to see Dad, Mom, and Ellie shambling toward him. Louis indicates that Gage should unlock the car doors, which Gage does. The End. I assume Gage gets a quick trip to the burial ground, so that all the Creeds will be reunited in a second “life.” Look out, Mickey. You may be seeing the Creed family after all. Ruthanna’s Commentary I was taught in high school that there were four basic types of story conflict: man versus man, man versus nature, man versus self, and man versus society. This is a dubious and oversimplified taxonomy (nor did we consider the possible variations on “man”). Nevertheless, it came to mind during the rapid wrap-up of Pet Sematary. Counting monsters as an aspect of nature, the pace for “man versus nature” here is really weird: First half of book: normal life punctuated by normal death, and intro the power and problems of the burial ground. Second half of book, minus a handful of chapters: unbearable death, followed by extremely slow build-up to Louis choosing to use the burial ground, and slow-train-crash implementation of that plan as everyone else fails to stop him. 3 chapters: Gage and Church easily kill everyone but Louis. 1 chapter: Louis easily re-kills Gage and Church. 1 chapter: Louis goes and makes the same mistake over again. Masterson doesn’t stop him but doesn’t get grabbed by Wendy either. Epilogue: Mistake appears, with consequences by implication. The actual killing is very brief, with little meaningful resistance: both the killing by the monster puppets and the killing of the monster puppets. This pacing isn’t built around those confrontations. It’s built around Louis versus temptation: by Wendy, sure, but the fundamental conflict here is Louis versus Louis. Louis the doctor (and husband, and father) who knows death is natural, versus Louis the doctor (and husband, and father) who can’t accept his lack of absolute control. His conviction that he can overcome the risks of the unknown through pure rationality. His conviction that he can undo what he’s done, if it turns out to be a mistake, with no one the wiser. And yes, Wendy has its claws in him, but I think there’s a reason it uses him, and that it’s stronger in his presence than in all those prior years of dogs and bulls and Vietnam vets. Louis doesn’t simply have bad timing: he’s an opportunity. Even Stephen King knows, at some level, that toxic masculinity is a fatal flaw—and that its fatalities aren’t always well-contained. Because the danger here, fundamentally, comes from Louis not being able to handle failing at the impossible. He’s been raised and educated to find his worth in protecting his family, not expressing easy affection to them. To find emotional comfort in sex with his wife, not conversation. To make hard decisions on his own, not in collaboration. And to be the last stand between mortals and death, regardless of whether there’s any meaningful ground there on which to stand. Under mundane-ish circumstances, this results in someone like Jud: a well-meaning guy who drinks too much, lies to his wife to “protect” her from his own weaknesses, and gives other men bad advice. You can track that advice all the way back, generation after generation, to Stanny B’s father’s north country trader and beyond. But provide a path to walk farther outside the bounds of sense and sanity, and enough pressure—of course the inheritor of all that terrible advice will walk that path. No matter the consequences for everyone around him. Poor Rachel. She tried so hard, and now has exactly the mad death that was her worst nightmare. And poor Ellie. Most of all, poor Ellie. Chapter 64 will be beyond all imagining. Next week, we celebrate National Poetry Month with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s unfinished “Cristabel”. Then in two weeks, join us as we begin our new (short-ish) longread, Hildur Knutsdottir’s The Night Guest as translated by Mary Robinette Kowal![end-mark] The post Hitting Bottom: Stephen King’s <i>Pet Sematary</i> (Part 21) appeared first on Reactor.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A senior Pentagon official ordered employees to cease all communications promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as climate change, The Daily Signal has learned. Department of Defense employees must end all communication initiatives that violate President Donald Trump’s executive orders, according to a March 11 memo sent to senior Pentagon leadership by press secretary Sean Parnell. Signage and promotional materials related to DEI, climate change, and other topics that violate the executive orders must be removed. On Day One of his presidency, Trump signed an executive order to terminate “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) discrimination in the federal workforce and in federal contracting and spending.”  Communication_Priority_Alignment_Across_the_Department_of_Defense_11MAR2025 2Download Trump’s separate “Unleashing American Energy” executive order established that the administration will focus on “having efficient, reliable, and affordable energy,” rather than on climate-related regulation. “DoD will cease all communication initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); climate change programs; or topics inconsistent with the President’s executive orders and other policy guidance,” the memo obtained by The Daily Signal reads. “Signage and other promotional materials displayed in DoD facilities or on DoD installations that are inconsistent with the President’s executive orders and policy guidance must be removed.” One such sign that was deemed to be in violation of Trump’s executive orders reads, “Recycle Today, Tomorrow Depends on It.” A recycling sign within the Pentagon Parnell also ordered principal staff assistants in the office of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other military leaders to review all communication initiatives for alignment with executive orders and Hegseth’s priorities and provide updated guidance. The Department of Defense did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. Since Hegseth was sworn in as secretary of defense, he has made clear that violations of Trump’s orders against DEI would not be tolerated. “The President’s guidance (lawful orders) is clear: No more DEI at Dept. of Defense,” Hegseth wrote on X. “The Pentagon will comply, immediately,” he continued in a handwritten letter. “No exceptions, name-changes, or delays.” The post EXCLUSIVE: Pentagon Orders Removal of Signage Violating DEI Executive Order appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Anyone who has his First Amendment rights trampled by an unconstitutional act of government should be able to regain those rights in court, but that might not be the case if the Supreme Court allows a recent federal court’s decision to stand. That’s the argument attorneys at First Liberty Institute made recently in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of Gabriel Olivier. Olivier’s religious faith compels him to share his beliefs with his fellow citizens in public settings. The First Amendment grants him the right to do so. But a local ordinance in the city of Brandon, Mississippi, sets limits on where and when he can engage in the free exercise of his beliefs, effectively censoring Olivier’s evangelism. He was arrested and fined when he attempted to share his faith in a public park near a well-attended event in the city’s amphitheater. He was outside the city’s designated “protest zone,” an out-of-way spot Brandon has reserved for Olivier’s and others’ expression.   Olivier did not contest the charge and paid the fine, but he wanted to go back to the park at a later time to continue with his evangelism. Looking to avoid a second arrest, Olivier   challenged the ordinance in federal court to stop the city from enforcing it against him in the future. But the district court dismissed his constitutional claim, and, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with this result, holding that Olivier could not challenge the local ordinance even if its future enforcement would violate his constitutional rights. That’s a subversion of constitutional freedoms that should scare us all. The two courts believed the state court criminal system rather than the federal courts should be the final arbiter of Olivier’s right to free speech and free exercise of religion in this context.   The 5th Circuit relied on a misreading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey. In that case, the court held a plaintiff prisoner serving a sentence under a state conviction could not bring a lawsuit under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act challenging the conviction or the sentence. The Supreme Court reasoned that prisoners are afforded a different option, known as habeas corpus, to pursue their rights in this regard.    However, Olivier was not a prisoner. Nor does he seek to overturn the conviction. He just wants the court to strike down the unconstitutional ordinance so he can share his faith again. The court should have at least considered his arguments. Nothing in Heck precludes forward-looking claims like that sought by Olivier. When Olivier was denied a hearing before the full panel of judges of the 5th Circuit, Judge James Ho wrote a dissent, noting the absurdity of  the three-judge panel’s original decision holding that Olivier’s claims were barred by the Heck precedent: The fact that Olivier was previously convicted under the ordinance should make him not just a permissible but a perfect plaintiff. But instead, [5th Circuit precedent] uniquely prohibits citizens like Olivier from bringing suit. That gets things entirely backwards. And it sends an odd message to citizens who care about defending their constitutional rights. On the one hand, we tell citizens that you can’t sue if you’re not injured. But on the other hand, we tell them that you can’t sue if you are injured. With Olivier’s petition to the Supreme Court, the court has the opportunity to intervene and resolve an issue that has sharply divided circuit courts: whether a person previously convicted under a law can bring a lawsuit to attempt to declare that law unconstitutional and prevent its enforcement against him and others in the future. Until the Supreme Court provides clarity on this question, lower courts may continue to—as stated in the case Martin v. City of Boise— “struggle applying Heck to ‘real life examples’” such as this one. This case has significant implications for other citizens who are doubly protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise and free speech clauses. As stated in New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, “There is no greater federal interest” than enforcing this “explicit constitutional guarantee.” All Americans deserve their day in court when constitutional rights are at stake. Olivier’s case gives the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to make sure they get that day. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Government Trampled His Rights Then Denied Him His Day in Court to Fight Back appeared first on The Daily Signal.

While Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., spoke for 25 hours on the Senate floor last week, a series of emails with contribution links and links to his campaign store were sent out, according to an ethics complaint from the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.  FACT, a conservative nonprofit watchdog group, says that violates Senate ethics rules that prohibit tying an official Senate action with solicitations for campaign contributions.  Booker’s speech denouncing the Trump administration’s positions on deportation and other policies began on March 31 and continued into April 1. He alerted followers on X he was about to begin the speech.  Then, during and immediately after the speech, his campaign and the Democratic National Committee sent several email and text messages, which are included in the complaint. FACT references six separate campaign messages. One of the messages was sent twice, first on April 1 at 11:19 p.m. and again at 3:11 a.m. on April 2, after the talkathon had ended, saying, “If you were inspired by what you saw today, split a contribution between Cory Booker and the DNC,” the ethics complaint says. That was followed by a “contribute” link.  Another message, at 2:52 p.m. on April 1, said, “[H]e’s been on the floor of the United States Senate speaking all night, and he’s still going.” The message included a request to sign up for Booker’s campaign list and a link to his campaign store. Other messages asked recipients to sign up for the Booker campaign list or provided a link to the Booker campaign store.  “The ethics rules draw a clear line between official government business and campaign activity, and it is important these rules are enforced to prevent Congress from simply becoming a venue for campaigning,” FACT Executive Director Kendra Arnold said in a public statement. “Specifically, with respect to fundraising, it is not allowed to be tied to any official action a senator undertakes, including a speech on the Senate floor.” The Senate ethics rules state “every senator always must endeavor to avoid the appearance that the senator, the Senate, or governmental process may be influenced by campaign contributions.” Spokespeople for Booker’s office did not respond to inquiries for this article on Tuesday and Wednesday. Arnold sent a seven-page complaint to Senate Ethics Committee Chairman James Lankford, R-Okla., and Vice Chairman Chris Coons, D-Delaware. “The public rightly expects its representatives to exercise impartial judgment in performing their duties, completely independent of the prospect of personal or political gain,” the ethics complaint says, adding: In essence, by employing this tactic, Sen. Booker indicates to potential contributors that his official actions can be influenced by campaign contributions. This is exactly the kind of appearance of impropriety that the Senate ethics rules aim to prohibit. Moreover, this tactic dangerously incentivizes other senators to follow suit and engage in similar performances on the Senate floor with the aim of raising campaign funds and building email lists/supporter lists for future elections. FACT-CoryBookerDownload The post Ethics Complaint Claims Booker Improperly Linked 25-Hour Talkathon With Fundraising appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The right to vote is one of America’s most sacred privileges, making the integrity of our elections an issue of paramount importance for our country. So why is the Left so determined to undermine it? The surge of illegal aliens pouring across the border during the Biden administration, combined with lax voter ID laws in many states, has eroded Americans’ trust in federal elections. How do we know that illegal aliens and other noncitizens aren’t voting and undermining our voices? Conservatives have been fighting for years to restore election integrity across the country and reassure Americans that our votes are the only ones that count. And Congress has taken up the fight to ensure that they do. This week, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, commonly known as the SAVE Act, will be considered on the House floor after being introduced in January by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas.) The bill was first introduced last year by Rep. Roy and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the Senate and quickly garnered more than 120 co-sponsors between both chambers.  The SAVE Act will keep foreign nationals from voting in U.S. elections  The SAVE Act codifies President Donald Trump’s executive order to restore the American people’s trust in federal elections by banning foreign nationals from interfering in elections. It’s a long-overdue action that preserves Americans’ voices against those who try to disrupt the electoral process. The SAVE Act is simple, widely supported by the American people, and even received bipartisan support when the House voted on the bill in 118th Congress. It’s the common-sense solution that will help restore confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.  This crucial bill requires states to obtain proof of both United States citizenship and identity when registering an individual to vote in a federal election. To most Americans, it is a no-brainer to require proof of citizenship to vote. In fact, 88% of Americans support implementing voter ID laws. Yet, Democrats killed the bill in the Senate last year.  The SAVE Act isn’t enough to save American elections  Congress must now take bold, comprehensive action to defend the will of the American people, prevent noncitizens from diluting our votes, and pass the SAVE Act. But the SAVE Act alone isn’t enough. Election integrity demands a sweeping overhaul, under the mandate the American people handed Trump and Congress in November. Congress should also pass the Equal Representation Act to ensure congressional apportionment reflects only citizens, not illegal aliens or noncitizens, to safeguard fair representation.   Additionally, Congress must pass a bill to prohibit the president from weaponizing and politicizing federal agencies for get out the vote efforts, ensuring that taxpayer money isn’t used to tip the balance. The 119th Congress must act decisively. Passing the SAVE Act is an essential step, but it’s not the finish line.  Every state requires an individual to be a U.S. citizen to register and vote in state and federal elections, and it’s a felony to falsely claim to be a citizen for any purpose (including to register to vote or to actually vote). Without universal proof-of-citizenship mandates, enforcement is completely ineffective. The SAVE Act paired with these additional reforms, would ensure that states have the proper tools to secure the vote.  Congress must listen to the American people   Americans should not let the Left’s fearmongering fool us. Congress must take action now to prevent noncitizens from illegally participating in elections and disenfranchising American voters. Americans want to step into the voting booth knowing that our ballots will be counted fairly, without interference from those who don’t have our best interests at heart. Members of Congress who support free and fair elections should listen to the American people and support the SAVE Act.  The post Congress: Defend Americans’ Voices at the Ballot Box and Pass the SAVE Act appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In 2025, over 200,000 foreign nationals in Russia handed over their facial and voice data to the government’s Unified Biometric System (UBS) as a prerequisite for acquiring or renewing mobile SIM cards. This surge in biometric registrations, announced by the Center for Biometric Technologies, reflects a sharp year-over-year increase and highlights the expanding role of state surveillance in everyday access to essential services. A regulation introduced at the start of the year mandates that all foreign residents must now appear in person at designated service centers to provide biometric samples before being granted a SIM card. The UBS database, which stores both facial and vocal identifiers, serves as a central tool for identity verification across numerous public and private services, from banking to digital administration. More: Russia’s Biometric Boom Faces Rising Data Security Fears Authorities have stated their intention to consolidate several bureaucratic processes into a single visit. As reported by Izvestia, individuals may soon be able to register their biometrics, create a Gosuslugi account, and obtain their pension insurance number (SNILS) in one streamlined session at a government service center. Gosuslugi functions as the digital interface between Russian citizens, businesses, and state institutions. It is the main platform through which individuals access government services online. Beyond expanding data collection from foreign residents, the Russian government is now targeting the private sector. Over the next two years, it plans to integrate the UBS across a wide range of businesses. “Get ready to have UBS integrated into every business in a couple of years,” Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadayev said during a February meeting with business leaders, where new anti-fraud policies and biometric implementation were discussed. Representatives from major online platforms, including Ozon, Wildberries, Avito, Yandex, Lamoda, MegaMarket, Cian, and HeadHunter, were in attendance. These companies, however, pushed back on the proposal, describing it as an unnecessary financial burden with few real-world applications. Shadayev countered by asserting that participation would not be compulsory. Despite that reassurance, infrastructure is rapidly being built. Sixteen firms have already received authorization to operate as commercial biometric systems (CBS), and around 200 organizations are reportedly engaging with the national biometric framework. Nearly 3 million individuals have been enrolled in UBS so far. Sberbank reports that the bulk of its Smile to Pay users are based in urban centers like Moscow and St. Petersburg, with 25 to 44-year-olds comprising more than half the user base, followed by individuals aged 45 to 64. “The transaction count in 1Q25 has already surpassed the entire 2024,” said Dmitry Malykh, senior vice president and head of Transaction Banking at Sber. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Russia Expands Biometric Surveillance: Over 200,000 Foreign Nationals Enrolled in Unified Biometric System Amid SIM Card Mandate appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

No, It Was Not a Few Bad Apples In the Media Who Lied to the American People

Noem: An Ounce of Prevention on Visa Applications Is Worth a Pound of Deportations