Hadar Goldin had just gotten engaged when Hamas terrorists ambushed and killed him during a ceasefire in Gaza. For 11 years, his family worked to bring his body home. Over the weekend, Goldin’s remains were finally released.   “Victory means bringing home the hostages and bringing home our soldiers to Israel,” Simcha Goldin, the father of Hadar Goldin, told press Sunday.   Goldin was 23 when he fell in battle in August 2014 in the southern Gaza city of Rafah during Operation Protective Edge. Israel and Hamas were engaged in an armed conflict at the time, but a ceasefire had just taken effect about two hours before Hamas attacked and killed Goldin, reportedly then dragging his body into a tunnel.   “The effort to retrieve him involved extensive intelligence and operational activity by the [Israel Defense Forces] and the [Israel Security Agency], which continued throughout the past decade and during the current war,” the IDF wrote on X.   Goldin leaves behind a mother, father, sister, two brothers, and a fiancé.   You've heard the name, now learn who he was.Hadar Goldin was a 23-year-old from Kfar Saba, a son, a twin, a brother, a fiancé. An officer in the Givati Reconnaissance unit who believed in doing things bigger than himself.Days before Rafah, he got engaged to Edna Serusi. The… pic.twitter.com/ZJebDfJ0XM— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) November 9, 2025 Goldin’s release was negotiated as part of the hostage deal Israel and Hamas, through third-party negotiators, reached in October.   “The Goldin family’s relentless decade-long effort to bring him home gave strength to countless others whose loved ones remains are being used as sick bargaining chips by Hamas,” Michael Waltz, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote on X Sunday above a photo with Goldin’s mother.   After 11 years, Hadar Goldin has finally been returned to his family. He was killed Aug 1, 2014, in Rafah, during a Hamas attack hours into a UN-brokered humanitarian ceasefire. I had the privilege of meeting his mother, Leah, whose resilience is an inspiration. The Goldin… pic.twitter.com/BrFeKIBcrQ— Ambassador Mike Waltz (@USAmbUN) November 9, 2025 “I hope Hadar will continue to be the symbol he has been until now. I’m not just fighting for Hadar—I’m fighting for the next hostage. And if Oct. 7 didn’t become a wake-up call for everyone in the State of Israel, it’s time for you to look at us and let us explain why it’s important and imperative to fight for our children,” Goldin’s mother, Leah Goldin, said Sunday night according to the hostage advocacy organization Bring Them Home Now.   Hamas took 251 hostages into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023. When a deal was reached to stop the fighting and release the hostages last month, there were still 20 living hostages and the remains of 28 other deceased hostages in Gaza. All of the remaining living hostages were returned to Israel on Oct. 13. Following Goldin’s release, Hamas is still believed to be holding the remains of four dead hostages.   Israel has accused Hamas of slow walking the release of the hostages in violation of the peace deal that is based on President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan between Israel and Hamas. The plan required all hostages, living and dead, be released within days of the deal’s signing. Despite multiple reported violations of the ceasefire, the fighting remains largely paused. The next phase of the deal is expected to include a complete end to the war.   The post After 11 Years, Remains of Young Hostage Soldier Returned to Israel   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Recently, a United Nations human rights official appeared before a UN committee to present her research on the topic of surrogacy. For social conservatives skeptical of anything done by UN officials, it was a refreshing change of pace. The report, written by Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, examined surrogacy through the lens of violence against women and girls. It concluded that the practice of surrogacy—whether in its “altruistic” form or commercial—commodifies and exploits women and children. And despite surrogacy’s rapid global expansion, the report noted, it is incompatible with human rights. After detailing many of the ways surrogacy harms women and children, the new report ultimately recommends that all countries ban surrogacy completely, calling upon UN member states to adopt a legally binding treaty that would prohibit surrogacy globally while supporting its victims. The special rapporteur’s report, first released in July, has already influenced policy discussions in several countries. In September, the Slovak Republic adopted a constitutional amendment prohibiting surrogacy. Meanwhile, governments in Australia, Ecuador, and San Marino are currently reviewing the legal status of surrogacy in their countries. Other developed countries have a wide range of positions on surrogacy. Last year, Italy banned its citizens from going abroad to have a baby through surrogacy. Along with Spain, France and Germany, it also outlaws all forms of surrogacy domestically. The UK limits the amount of money that commissioning parents can pay a surrogate, while in Greece the surrogate mother has no legal rights at all over the child. The Wild West. While most developed nations have outlawed or strictly regulated commercial surrogacy, the United States is in the minority in its explicit support of the practice. Surrogacy is a particularly underregulated industry. Unsurprisingly, California and New York are the leaders in the American surrogacy market. Nearly all states permit surrogacy and enforce surrogacy contracts, while Louisiana, Michigan and Nebraska are the only states in which it is illegal. Sadly, in stark contrast to the screening processes for adoptive or foster parents, there are almost no limits to who can enter into a surrogacy contract. This allows all kinds of bad actors to commission a child. For this reason, the United States is a leading destination for foreigners seeking to commission a baby. As Heritage experts Emma Waters and Simon Hankinson put it in a report last year, “The international ‘rent-a-womb’ industry is disproportionately fueled by Chinese nationals (41.7 percent), with France (9.2 percent) and Spain (8.5 percent) as the next highest nationalities” employing surrogates in the United States. Selling Children. Commercial surrogacy contracts amount to the sale of a child. As David Smolin, a leading legal expert on surrogacy, points out, “intending parents are not merely paying for a child to be created, gestated, and birthed, for they certainly would not be satisfied unless they were also given exclusive physical and legal custody of the child.” It’s hard to see how this is different in kind from purchasing a designer puppy from a dog breeder. In fact, the primary legal difference between selling a baby—which is rightly illegal—and a commercial surrogacy contract is the timing. If the contract is signed prior to the child’s conception, it is a legal transfer of parental rights from the surrogate to the commissioning parents. However, if the parties sign the contract after the child is conceived, they’re guilty of child trafficking. While not a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the U.S. has signed and ratified the convention’s optional protocol banning the sale of children.  Unfortunately, the official position of the U.S. is that “surrogacy arrangements fall outside the scope” of the protocol’s protections against child exploitation. Children’s rights. Regardless of international law, a child has a natural right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. And parents have a duty to direct the upbringing of their child. A proper understanding of parental rights recognizes the family as the fundamental unit of society and the best protector of children. In contrast, surrogacy puts the desires of adults over the needs of children. In doing so, it sacrifices the natural right of a child to be cared for by his or her mother and father. Those who employ surrogates are usually those unable to have their own biological children: single men, same-sex couples, and women who are unable to carry a child. That means any child raised by commissioning parents will have been intentionally separated from at least one of his or her parents. The child born of a surrogate would never consent to the intentional loss of his or her mother. As child rights advocate Katy Faust explains, surrogacy “splices what should be one woman, ‘mother,’ into three purchasable and optional women.” These are the genetic mother (the egg donor), the birth mother (the surrogate), and the social mother (commissioning parent). According to Faust, “for children, none of these three mothers are optional, and anytime they are not found in the same woman, the child experiences loss…. Surrogacy intentionally, and often commercially, forces a child to lose one or all of them.” That is an injustice against the child, no matter how much the commissioning parents desire to have him or her. To regulate or to ban? Alsalem, the UN rapporteur, is no stranger to controversy. During her tenure at the UN, she has already tackled the contentious topics of gender ideology, prostitution, and violence against women and girls in sports. Her latest report on surrogacy was met by its own share of emotional exchanges.  While diplomats from several countries welcomed the report, many bristled at Alsalem’s unequivocal condemnation of surrogacy. The representative from Australia argued that surrogacy “is not inherently exploitative” and that Australia is committed to “ethical surrogacy in accordance with human rights law.” The diplomat from Latvia noted that surrogacy is a way people build their families, implying that banning it would be undesirable. The South African representative called for regulating surrogacy without banning it. And the diplomat from Spain spoke in favor of “the rights of LGBTQ people” in the context of surrogacy. But in her conclusion, Alsalem rejected the idea that surrogacy can be both legal and protective of human rights. “The fact is,” she said, “that commissioning parents pivot to where there are the [fewest] regulations, the least safeguards and the cheapest options.” The more we normalize surrogacy, the more common its use will become. Legal doublespeak and regulation cannot address the inherently exploitative nature of surrogacy. If government leaders really want to protect human rights, they should heed the special rapporteur’s advice and ban the practice entirely. The post UN Diplomats Weigh Banning Surrogacy at Advice of Special Rapporteur appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump keeps growing his strategic engagements to advance American national security via peace through strength. After facilitating timely conversations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Trump announced Thursday that Kazakhstan would be joining the Abraham Accords—making it the first country to do so during Trump’s second term. “This is a major step forward in building bridges across the world,” Trump declared. “There are many more countries trying to join this club of strength.” Kazakhstan has maintained its diplomatic relationship with Israel for over three decades. Its addition to the now five-year-old accords highlights their strength: an ability to facilitate enhanced partnership. Since their inception in September 2020, when Trump institutionalized the bilateral pacts between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco, the Abraham Accords have yielded measurable steps forward. The accords paved the way for high-level political and diplomatic visits as well as practical economic agreements like a comprehensive economic partnership agreement between the UAE and Israel. Meanwhile, defense and security cooperation grew in the fields of air defense, satellites, drones, and homeland security. More will certainly follow, particularly given that the accords are the best practical example of the U.S. exercising its leadership in relationship with Jerusalem and the surrounding region. During the historic Abraham Accords signing ceremony in 2020, Trump announced,“Together, these agreements will serve as the foundation for a comprehensive peace across the entire region—something which nobody thought was possible, certainly not in this day and age…one founded on shared interests, mutual respect, and friendship.” Since then, America’s diplomatic engagement has been robust, with Trump publicly expressing optimism regarding additional countries joining the accords. Though the pace of developments has moderated amid geopolitical tensions, the steady dialogue and concrete progress achieved unambiguously underscore the continuing vitality and future promise of the Abraham Accords. Now is not the time to discount that process of the Abraham Accords—or, worse, to loosen our commitment to the accords. The agreements have raised the prospects of peace and stability in the region to the highest point in many decades, and that must go on. Now more than ever, the Abraham Accords are integral to establishing peace and prosperity in the region and beyond. Five years after the signing of the Accords, Trump’s pragmatic vision for a regional peace based on American leadership and strategic cooperation with our allies and partners has led to a historic shift. The accords have witnessed a measurable surge in engagements like trade, tourism, innovation cooperation, interfaith dialogue, and civil society initiatives—establishing a new model for people-to-people peace in the region. Even in the face of the regional upheaval following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, and the resulting war in Gaza, The Abraham Accords have remained intact. In April 2025, recognizing the accords’ vital importance, The Heritage Foundation adopted the mission of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute. In a recent joint publication, the two institutions point out, While The Abraham Accords have remained resilient, restoring their positive momentum will require the determined U.S. leadership provided by President Trump as well as commitment from all Accords partners. Two critical missions must now be carried out. The first is to strengthen and deepen existing ties, including on the people-to-people level. The second is to expand regional cooperation, integration, and normalization. Now is the time to uphold and continue to advance the accords. That will be the true celebration of their 5th anniversary and beyond. The post Trump Moves Onward and Forward with the ‘Club of Strength’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Buried deep in Canada’s 2025 federal budget, on page 490, a few measured sentences reopen a debate that had seemed politically shelved. The document proposes to “modernize legislative authorities to support information sharing and digital services” within the Department of Employment and Social Development. The phrasing is unremarkable at first glance, bureaucratic, almost sleepy, but the implications stretch far beyond form-filling convenience. The government’s new focus is on a digital identification system for individuals applying for Employment Insurance and Old Age Security. It’s a modest-sounding pilot for a much larger idea, one that would eventually link benefit programs under a single, unified identity. “This modernization would benefit all Canadians by enabling the development of more efficient and convenient government services,” the budget promises. The text adds that it would be particularly helpful to “seniors, newcomers, persons with disabilities and rural residents,” who often struggle with “outdated, paper-based processes.” Canada’s federal bureaucracy has flirted with digital identification before, always under the banner of convenience and modernization. Yet previous governments had distanced themselves from the concept of a centralized ID system, wary of the political backlash surrounding data privacy and surveillance. This time, the framing is narrower and more pragmatic, tied to benefit delivery rather than a broad identity overhaul. Behind the scenes, the groundwork has been quietly forming. In 2024, Employment and Social Development Canada commissioned consultants to examine how its many benefit systems could be merged. The solution, officials concluded, lies in integration. A digital ID could function as a master key, unlocking multiple programs without the need for redundant paperwork. The department describes this vision as creating “more integrated and efficient services across government.” If the proposal’s appeal rests on simplicity, its challenge lies in trust. Digital identity systems consolidate sensitive personal data such as banking records, biometric details, and health information into single points of vulnerability. When breached, these systems erode confidence in the institutions meant to protect them. Canada’s privacy commissioner made that point explicit in a 2024 report, noting “limited trust, particularly when it comes to social media companies, and growing concern about how personal information is protected in the digital age.” The report also cautioned against increasingly sophisticated “state-sanctioned” data breaches, a reminder that the stakes are not purely domestic. For a government still recovering from multiple high-profile cybersecurity incidents, the optics of centralized data control are delicate. The budget’s language tries to soothe: participation will be voluntary, and “existing in-person, mail, or telephone-based services” will remain available. But voluntary participation often becomes de facto mandatory once systems mature and paper options fade into obsolescence. The 2025 budget acknowledges some of the logistical hurdles: “Digital literacy gaps among seniors, connectivity issues in rural and remote areas, and language barriers for newcomers can create obstacles to navigating digital platforms.” It’s a candid admission that modernization does not automatically translate into accessibility. The government insists the goal is equity, simplifying access for “lower-income people” and reducing the bureaucratic friction that keeps vulnerable groups from receiving timely benefits. But even well-intentioned digital reforms can widen divides if the human layer is neglected. Whether the new initiative becomes the seed of a national digital ID or fades into another bureaucratic experiment will depend on more than legislative amendments. It will hinge on how the government addresses privacy safeguards, transparency, and consent. For now, the move is framed as a modernization of service delivery, a simple fix for outdated systems. Yet in the language of “information sharing” and “integration,” there’s a glimpse of something more profound, a slow but steady redefinition of the relationship between citizen and state. The push toward digital identification is not unique to Canada. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has revived plans for a national digital ID, pitching it as a voluntary system to streamline access to public services and curb fraud. Australia’s 2024 Digital ID Bill and the EU’s Digital Identity Wallet pursue similar goals, linking citizens’ credentials across platforms and borders. These initiatives point to a coordinated global experiment in state-backed digital identity, where efficiency is sold as progress but the fine print touches on power and trust. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Buried in the Budget Is Canada’s Quiet Turn Toward Digital Identity appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Texas has become the latest state to take legal action against Roblox, joining a growing number of attorneys general who accuse the gaming platform of failing to protect children. The case also renews attention on the broader push for online age verification, a move that would lead to widespread digital ID requirements. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit on November 6, alleging that Roblox allowed predators to exploit children while misleading families about safety protections. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. The filing claims the company “put pixel pedophiles and corporate profit ahead of safety” by neglecting to prevent grooming, sexual exploitation, and access to explicit material. Paxton said, “We cannot allow platforms like Roblox to continue operating as digital playgrounds for predators where the well-being of our kids is sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.” He added that “any corporation that enables child abuse will face the full and unrelenting force of the law.” Texas is now the fifth state since August to pursue action against Roblox, following Louisiana, Kentucky, and Florida, with Oklahoma conducting a related investigation. There’s no doubt that Roblox has had problems with predators in the past. But the proposed solution and these coordinated efforts reflect a rising demand for stricter safeguards around online activity, which in practice could mean mandatory digital ID systems. Such requirements risk turning into digital identification programs that collect and centralize personal data. Roblox rejected Paxton’s accusations in a statement, calling them “misrepresentations and sensationalized claims.” The company said it “shares Paxton’s commitment to child safety” and has introduced “industry-leading protocols” designed to remove bad actors. “We are disappointed that, rather than working collaboratively with Roblox on this industry-wide challenge and seeking real solutions, the AG has chosen to file a lawsuit based on misrepresentations and sensationalized claims,” a spokesperson said. The company reported implementing over 145 new safety measures in 2025 and said it is developing an age-estimation system to stop adults from interacting with minors. Roblox calls this a safety innovation, but privacy experts have voiced concern that such systems often rely on biometric or government-issued information, increasing the risk of long-term data collection on children. Other states have echoed similar complaints. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued criminal subpoenas to Roblox in October. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman sued Roblox in October as well, accusing it of creating “a hunting ground for child predators” by failing to verify users or alert parents to risks. In August, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said Roblox “is overrun with harmful content and child predators because it prioritizes user growth, revenue, and profits over child safety.” Roblox says it works closely with the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, submitting more than 24,500 reports to NCMEC last year. With Texas now entering the legal fight, pressure on Roblox continues to build. Yet the lawsuits are also driving a larger conversation about digital identity and whether government-backed verification will become the new condition for accessing online platforms. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Texas Sues Roblox Over Child Safety Failures, Joining Multi-State Push for Digital ID appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Happy 250th Birthday to My Beloved United States Marine Corps

Chick isn't wrong, but you can do better than that...

Please save us, Duolingo.

I guess you could say these lizards have a lot of (optic) nerve.

Despite detailed photographic evidence to the contrary, many liberals continue to assert that the Venezuelan boats recently destroyed by the U.S. Navy are merely fishing, not drug, boats. The Associated Press has jumped into the fray and in a roundabout "nuanced" way admitted that the destroyed boats are indeed drug boats. The "nuance" comes in via the AP asserting that among the crews of the drug boats, some worked mostly as fishermen or other low paying jobs with drug smuggling only as a side gig to boost their income.  The AP reluctantly made the 'nuanced' admission that the destroyed boats were drug boats on Friday with this report by Reginia Garcia Cano, "Trump has accused boat crews of being narco-terrorists. The truth, AP found, is more nuanced." One was a fisherman struggling to eke out a living on $100 a month. Another was a career criminal. A third was a former military cadet. And a fourth was a down-on-his-luck bus driver. The men had little in common beyond their Venezuelan seaside hometowns and the fact all four were among the more than 60 people killed since early September when the U.S. military began attacking boats that the Trump administration alleges were smuggling drugs. President Donald Trump and top U.S. officials have alleged the craft were being operated by narco-terrorists and cartel members bound with deadly drugs for American communities. And the rest of the article confirms that the boats were indeed operated by narco-terrorists and cartel members who have hired some people who work part time smuggling drugs in order to supplement their incomes. Oddly, AP makes the strange assertion that the boats were probably transporting only cocaine, not synthetic opioids as if being a natural drug somehow alleviates the offense. Trump has said each sunken boat has saved 25,000 American lives, presumably from overdoses. The boats, however, appear to have been transporting cocaine, not the far more deadly synthetic opioids that kill tens of thousands of Americans each year. Among the human interest stories about a fisherman and a bus driver who were forced due to economic circumstances aboard the drug boats were also these stories: Luis “Che” Martínez was killed in the first strike. A burly 60-year-old, Martínez was a longtime local crime boss, and he made most of his living smuggling drugs and people across borders, according to several people who knew him. He had been jailed by Venezuelan authorities on human-trafficking charges after a boat he had operated capsized in December 2020, killing about two dozen people, law enforcement officials said at the time. Among those who died in the accident were two of his sons and a granddaughter, relatives told the AP. The AP was not able to determine the disposition of his criminal case, but Martínez was eventually released from custody and returned to smuggling people and drugs, according to acquaintances. ...Dushak Milovcic, 24, was drawn to crime by the adrenaline rush and money, so much that he dropped out of the country’s National Guard Academy, according to those who knew him. He started as a lookout for smugglers, they said. Though he had no experience at sea, he eventually won a promotion to the more lucrative and coveted jobs on drug-running boats. It’s not clear how many trips he had undertaken before he was killed last month. Bottom line is that AP (while attempting to somehow alleviate the situation with "nuanced" descriptions) admitted that the destroyed boats carried drugs (either natural or synthetic) crewed by both full time drug smugglers or those working part time to supplement their income. No "nuanced" about that.