'Thuggery'

News Gen V Gen V Season 3 Is Up to the “TV Gods,” Says The Boys Creator Eric Kripke “That’s what’s great about a college show—everyone’s always going to college!” says Gen V’s showrunner. By Molly Templeton | Published on October 22, 2025 Screenshot: Prime Video Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Prime Video The second season of The Boys spinoff Gen V had a lot of heavy lifting to do—not least in terms of dealing with the tragic death of star Chance Perdomo. Gen V also sets up part of the upcoming fifth season of The Boys, which will involve the resistance against the super-strong and super-monstrous Homelander. But Gen V executive producer and The Boys creator Eric Kripke tells The Hollywood Reporter, “We still work hard to try to maintain our balance that The Boys is about The Boys, and Gen V is about Gen V. The characters provide crucial assists, but it’s still about The Boys, and you can watch it without having watched Gen V and vice versa. But watching both is still a much more fun experience.” But what about the future of Gen V itself? The series hasn’t yet been renewed, and, as THR notes, the second season finale somewhat gives the impression that “the shows were merging.” Kripke says that’s not the plan: “We don’t play it in season five of The Boys that this is the end of Gen V. We leave them open-ended because we actually have more Gen V story to tell, and we’d love to tell it. It depends on the ratings and how many people end up tuning in. We have to make it so Amazon picks us up for another season.” If Gen V does continue, it will be with a new person at the helm: Showrunner Michele Fazekas is departing the show either way. (In April, she signed on as the first female showrunner of Law & Order: SVU.) In an interview with Variety, she was a bit more straightforward about the purpose of Gen V’s second season: “Our task here was launching into The Boys, which doesn’t really mean that there wouldn’t be another season of Gen V. That’s what’s great about a college show—everyone’s always going to college! But our task was launch us into the new season of The Boys.” The Boys will end with its fifth season, which doesn’t have a release date yet. Last year, Prime Video greenlit a prequel series, Vought Rising, which is set to star Aya Cash and Jensen Ackles. They’re clearly not done with this universe, and Kripke sounds like he isn’t done with Gen V: Its fate is “a little bit up to the audience and TV gods, but we’re ready and willing if we get the nod,” he tells THR.[end-mark] The post <i>Gen V</i> Season 3 Is Up to the “TV Gods,” Says <i>The Boys</i> Creator Eric Kripke appeared first on Reactor.

More than three weeks into what is now the second-longest federal government shutdown in history, Republicans have to decide whether or not to change their strategy or keep putting the same government funding bill on the floor. The future of the appropriations process could be at stake. The seven-week funding extension Republicans brought to the Senate floor to buy time for funding negotiations has now shrunk down to four weeks, and Democrats have shown few signs they plan on letting it pass any time soon. Even if Republicans got Democrats to end the near record-breaking shutdown, it would simply set up another fiscal cliff. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., recently indicated an openness to the idea of bringing the House back into session to put a longer-term continuing resolution on the floor and also expressed worries that a full-year CR is possible. “Yup, for sure. I mean, every day that passes, we have less time to fund the government,” he said when asked whether the House should consider reconvening. “Every week that drags by, it becomes harder and harder to actually have a normal appropriations process, which pushes us into a CR mode, a long-term CR mode,” Thune said. “And I just don’t think that’s the way that we ought to be funding the government around here, and every day that passes, that becomes more possible as an eventuality.” House Leadership: ‘Day-By-Day’ Decision On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., acknowledged those concerns and said Republicans were debating their next move. “Look, we’re running out of time to do very important, necessary things,” Johnson told reporters when asked about Thune’s remarks. “We have been in good faith every single day on this, and [Democrats] are eating up the clock. So, as we’re getting closer to November, it is going to be more and more difficult with each passing hour to get all the appropriations done on time. We acknowledge that, but we have to decide this on a day-by-day basis.” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Later, in a press call with the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., spoke candidly about the possible need for a later funding cut-off in order for the appropriations process to succeed, but said that decision cannot be made at the moment. “Democrats have eaten up most of that time, and so we know at some point [appropriators will] need a later date, and we don’t want it to be jammed up against a holiday,” Scalise said.  In the past, congressional leaders have placed funding deadlines up against holidays, exerting pressure on members to vote for omnibus spending packages. The current House leadership team has repeatedly vowed to avoid that tactic. “Democrats love the Christmas Eve omnibus bad deal,” said Scalise. “We’re not going to do that. We got away from that years ago. But at the same time, whatever date might be needed is really not something you can negotiate, because Democrats aren’t negotiating” He added, “until they stop having their temper tantrum against Donald Trump and are willing to negotiate, it doesn’t matter what date you put down, because they’re not voting for anything. They want to keep the government shut down.” Still, Scalise also expressed optimism that appropriators could work together if Democrats voted to reopen the government. “All 12 appropriations bills are out of committee [in the House],” and so we can negotiate on all of those bills, but it takes a willing partner,” the Louisiana lawmaker told The Daily Signal. “We had an agreement on three bills, and that’s still in a conference committee that can pick up tomorrow.” Would a Long-Term CR Be So Bad? Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who serves as the policy chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, joined Scalise on the call, and discussed the possibility of a full-year continuing resolution, an outcome he says is not disastrous, since it keeps spending flat.  “If we can have a long-term CR so we have guaranteed funding at current levels while we’ve got Donald Trump and [Office of Management and Budget Director] Russ Vought and the strong leadership over in the executive branch using taxpayer funds wisely, then that’s a good position to be in,” Roy told reporters.  Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) Before the shutdown, multiple Freedom Caucus members were publicly expressing openness to a long-term continuing resolution, arguing that keeping spending flat is a political victory in Washington. “We’d love to get our appropriations bills done, of course, but Democrats won’t work with us. Like, that’s the key issue here,” said Roy. “[If] we do a long-term CR, good by us. We trust the president and Russ Vought to do good work if the Democrats aren’t going to let us get appropriations bills done.” The post Are Republicans Rethinking Their Shutdown Strategy? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Algeria has once again punished an opposition voice for online speech, sentencing political figure Fethi Ghares to two years in prison for a Facebook post that authorities claimed insulted President Abdelmadjid Tebboune. His lawyer, Abdelghani Badi, confirmed the verdict, saying Ghares was convicted “for remarks concerning the president.” Despite the sentence, the court did not order his immediate imprisonment, and his legal team plans to appeal. Ghares, who remains at liberty, chose not to attend the hearing. According to another defense lawyer, Fetta Sadat, the court also imposed a fine of 300,000 dinars (roughly $2,300). She noted that prosecutors had sought a harsher three-year sentence in addition to the same fine. The charges accused Ghares of “insulting a state institution” and “spreading false or malicious information likely to harm public order or security.” The 50-year-old has faced repeated prosecutions over his online posts. In May of last year, he received a one-year prison sentence in a similar case but was never jailed as the appeal reached the Supreme Court. Two years earlier, in 2021, he was detained and later convicted on comparable allegations. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Algeria Jails Opposition Figure Over Facebook Post appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Three of the tech industry’s most recognizable leaders, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Evan Spiegel of Snap, and Adam Mosseri of Instagram, will be required to testify in court early next year. The order came from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who ruled that their participation is essential in a lawsuit alleging that social media platforms were deliberately designed to harm young users’ mental health. Attorneys for the companies had tried to prevent the CEOs from appearing, arguing that earlier depositions and other executive testimonies already provided sufficient information. Judge Kuhl disagreed, stating, “The testimony of a CEO is uniquely relevant, as that officer’s knowledge of harms, and failure to take available steps to avoid such harms could establish negligence or ratification of negligent conduct.” She also noted that their testimony would be “unique,” since the claims center on design features built to “be addictive” and “drive compulsive” use among minors. Meta argued that compelling both Zuckerberg and Mosseri to testify would disrupt their ability to manage the business and “set a precedent” for future cases. Snap’s lawyers said the decision to call Spiegel to the stand was an “abuse of discretion.” Judge Kuhl rejected both arguments, saying that those in charge must directly answer questions about their companies’ conduct instead of delegating that responsibility. After the ruling, Meta declined to comment. A statement from Snap’s legal representatives at Kirkland & Ellis said the decision “does not bear at all on the validity” of the allegations. The firm added, “While we believed that the previous hours of deposition testimony and numerous other executives who may testify were sufficient, we look forward to the opportunity to explain why Plaintiffs’ allegations against Snapchat are wrong factually and as a matter of law.” This case is part of a growing number of lawsuits claiming that social media companies intentionally designed their products to keep young users hooked, resulting in widespread anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. New York City recently filed a similar case, accusing several major platforms of worsening the mental health crisis among children. Lawmakers in Washington have also turned up the pressure. Earlier this year, Zuckerberg and several other tech executives testified at a Senate hearing focused on protecting minors online. Judge Kuhl’s latest order follows her earlier decision to let hundreds of related cases proceed. She rejected arguments by Meta, Snap, TikTok, and Google that the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded them from responsibility. Kuhl ruled that these companies cannot rely on federal immunity to block claims about how their products were designed. While social media sites are not legally considered “products” under traditional product liability law, Kuhl said the negligence theory at the center of the lawsuits “is not barred by federal immunity or by the First Amendment.” She warned that courts should be careful “not to stretch the immunity provision of Section 230 beyond its plain meaning.” More than 600 lawsuits have now been consolidated under Judge Kuhl’s supervision in Los Angeles County, including over 350 personal injury cases and 250 suits filed by school districts. “This decision is an important step forward for the thousands of families we represent whose children have been permanently afflicted with debilitating mental health issues thanks to these social media giants,” the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel said in a statement back in 2023. The California proceedings run parallel to a federal case in the Northern District of California, where more than 400 plaintiffs are bringing similar claims. A hearing on the companies’ motions to dismiss that case is scheduled for October 27. This new wave of litigation against social media companies represents a deeper change in how governments and courts might regulate online expression by going after the algorithms and design systems that amplify speech rather than speech itself. At first glance, the lawsuits and hearings seem focused on mental health and child safety, not expression or censorship. But the legal and political framing is important. By targeting “engagement-driven design” and “addictive features,” these cases and proposed laws are implicitly treating the underlying algorithmic systems that determine what speech is seen, promoted, or buried as a form of harm in themselves. This marks a subtle but profound change: it allows the state to regulate speech indirectly by claiming to regulate “design,” “product features,” or “recommendation architecture.” If a court or legislature decides that a platform’s recommendation algorithm is “negligent” or “harmful,” that determination inevitably affects what kinds of speech can be distributed or discovered. Recommendation algorithms are, in essence, systems of speech prioritization, decisions about what messages reach whom, when, and how often. Restricting or reengineering those systems under the banner of safety can therefore function as a form of speech control without ever invoking traditional censorship language. This distinction between speech and design is legally strategic. US law strongly protects speech, but not necessarily the tools that shape it. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has long shielded platforms from liability for user-generated content, but courts like Judge Kuhl’s are now carving out a space where the “design” of a system can be treated as a separate, actionable product feature. Once that line is established, governments can begin to compel changes to algorithms, ostensibly for reasons like child safety, misinformation, or mental health, but with broad implications for the flow of political or cultural discourse online. It’s an elegant censorship workaround: instead of banning or penalizing specific types of speech, regulators can frame their interventions as protecting users from “harmful engagement mechanisms.” This could pressure companies to downrank controversial content, demote political extremes, or silence fringe voices, while claiming that the target is the algorithm, not the speech itself. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Judge Orders Tech CEOs to Testify in Case Using Algorithmic Design Rules as a New Avenue for Indirect Online Censorship Pressure appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Problem With AI: It Doesn't Really Know Anything

As some of you may know, I am counsel to the plaintiffs, together with my co-counsel Ron Coleman, in the case 4chan Community Support LLC and Lolcow LLC dba Kiwi Farms v. the UK Office of Communications aka Ofcom.That case concerns the question of whether the U.K. can enforce its domestic censorship laws within the United States. I am quite unable to talk about the legal aspects of the case, and I also do not discuss English law. This article is about general principles regarding cross-border enforcement of censorship codes, in particular EU law, as I observe a change of mindset among European lawyers as they start to ask hard questions about the offshore enforceability of their censorship laws.This article also sets out a new doctrine for transatlantic free speech defense, a doctrine that can be used to beat inbound censorship and will eventually become more widely recognized in the U.S. and European legal communities, which I can sum up in one line: “The law of the server is the law of the (web)site.”Or, for the more classically minded among you: Lex loci machinae.We Americans already know that emailed demands from European speech and data protection regulators are not legally binding in the United States.This article is prompted by a knowledge update published by London law firm Taylor Wessing about the 4chan litigation. TW correctly identifies the general legal point that, if Americans can obtain confirmation from U.S. courts that European notices sent by email are not legally binding, it’s not just the Online Safety Act that will become difficult to enforce — it’s the Digital Services Act and the EU General Data Protection Regulation too.This is in contrast to other takes in the London legal market, such as this piece written by the London office of Katten — titled “A (Byrne &) Storm Is Brewing,” in reference to my law firm — warning Americans to not “ignore the Online Safety Act’s international reach.”Respectfully, the United States, not Ofcom or the European Commission, sets the rules on what orders Americans may safely ignore in the United States. Although the Europeans may not know this, we Americans already know that emailed demands from European speech and data protection regulators are not legally binding in the United States. They’re also almost certainly unenforceable here even if validly served.Although a new precedent would be nice, as a practical matter, we don’t especially need one — these points are largely settled law in the United States, and indeed there’s a recent example from February of earlier this year that, because it involved a couple of conservative social media websites, went largely unnoticed. Foreign censorship mandates are just something the U.S. judicial system hardly ever sees, because European censorship colonialism was fairly uncommon until this year. More on that below.But back to the firm’s article, Taylor Wessing writes:Scope creep: If the challenge is successful, it has potential implications for a range of other extra-territorial effect UK and EU laws subject to the wording of the judgment and the wording of the legislation in question. It may impact both how to enforce (ie whether it can be done by email or whether the Treaty procedure has to be followed), and whether enforcement is even recognised under US law. The Trump administration is already pushing back on what it sees as foreign interference with US companies as a result of recent EU and (to a lesser extent) UK digital legislation, so this challenge, if successful, could impact more than just the OSA.As a general rule, laws are contained by sovereign boundaries: Legal notices issued in or by one country are not legally binding on persons or entities in any other country. This is an ancient principle of international comity, practically as old as the Westphalian system itself.This can present some coordination problems among countries that share significant links, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, or the United States and many of the member states of the European Union. For this reason, the United States has executed treaties with these countries, either reciprocal treaties such as Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties for criminal proceedings or the Hague Service Convention for civil proceedings, to deal with the issue of what happens when a legal process in one country needs to have legal consequences in another.RELATED: Britain’s Big Brother ID law is the globalist dream for America Photo by SOPA Images / Contributor via Getty ImagesTaylor Wessing observes that Ofcom, under the OSA, has the power to serve via email. The firm points out that in many European countries, “emails are routinely used to exchange official correspondence.”“Official correspondence” here means legal orders. America does not, as a rule, use email to communicate legally binding orders, because the U.S. Constitution imposes due-process requirements that require judicial supervision of any process that would deprive Americans of their constitutional rights or compel the disclosure of information or the seizure of property.Ergo, as I said to the BBC about the 4chan case a month ago, having chosen my words extremely carefully, “Americans do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an email.”I’m sure a lot of lawyers in London read that and thought I was firing off a snarky quote as bluster and/or in lieu of a coarser retort to the U.K., to which I would remind them that Americans are, despite our reputation, quite capable of subtlety. In fact, I was communicating to European politicians that, to get an American to do something, you cannot simply send them a message. You must send them process. That process must comport with American due-process requirements, and in the case of a foreign order, that means utilizing the relevant treaty.This brings us to the subject of the European Union.As the EU seeks to export its regulatory schemes to American shores, practitioners would do well to remember that, where U.S. law is concerned, the rule that we will wind up applying here after enough litigation works its way through the courts is simple: The law of server is the law of the site.The ruling on a motion for a TRO by the plaintiffs in Trump Media and Technology Group v. De Moraes — which held, while denying the TRO, that the service of the Brazilian censorship orders outside of a treaty procedure is of no force and effect in the U.S. — is the first time a component of this principle has won in our courts. There will be more such wins as the Europeans try to enforce their rules here.Per the Court’s ruling in Trump Media:The Court finds that the pronouncements and directives purportedly issued by Defendant Moraes, (Dkts. 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, and 16-5), were not served upon Plaintiffs in compliance with the Hague Convention, to which the United States and Brazil are both signatories, nor were they served pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Brazil. The documents were not otherwise properly served on Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court is aware of no action taken by Defendant or the Brazilian government to domesticate the “orders” or pronouncements pursuant to established protocols.For these reasons, under well-established law, Plaintiffs are not obligated to comply with the directives and pronouncements, and no one is authorized or obligated to assist in their enforcement against Plaintiffs or their interests here in the United States. Finally, it appears no action has been taken to enforce Defendant Moraes’s orders by the Brazilian government, the United States government, or any other relevant actor.Lex loci machinae holds that an American company engaged in constitutionally protected conduct through the operation of a website must comply with the legal rules where it actually operates, not the legal rules of a much wider world in relation to which it has no connection, save that its American servers may merely be accessed from there remotely via the Internet.European speech rules don’t govern American metal, American communications, and American conduct on American soil.The United States has fought multiple wars to settle that issue. The case law is out there, too, if you want to look it up. When speech or the hosting of speech is lawful in the U.S. and the hosting and editorial acts occur here, no foreign regulator may compel acts on U.S. soil or export penalties into the U.S. by email. They must use the treaty and clear U.S. constitutional review.An American site is only obliged to obey American law, and any purported foreign attempt to the contrary — to be properly served — must also comply with American law, namely the applicable treaty. For that demand to then be enforced, it must comply too with the rest of our laws, including the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.Sending an email that demands unconstitutional censorship, data disclosure, or self-incrimination — for example — doesn’t comply with any of that. This has not stopped Europe from sending America a great many emails, or from planning to send a great many more. Nor has it stopped Americans, for the most part, from obeying those emails, even when they don’t have to.The failure of lawyers on two continents to notice or do very much to stop Europe’s failure to adhere to our due-process requirements has occurred, in my view, for two principal reasons:First, because international law firms have, historically, largely refused to represent U.S. companies who were targets of global censorship efforts and therefore have no experience in this area; andSecond, because the Big Tech companies those law firms represented have, historically, been willing to comply with European rules as they have domestic European establishments, meaning that it doesn’t make a lot of business sense for them to consider their U.S. constitutional defenses.To give you some idea of how thin Big Law’s bench is in this area, until Ofcom tried to extract a fine from 4chan, as far as I am aware, the only time a U.S. company has refused a European censorship fine — ever — was when the most long-standing of the European online censorship laws, the German “Network Enforcement Act,” known also as the “NetzDG,” purported to enforce a fine on U.S. social media company Gab, which operates a strict moderation policy that explicitly follows the U.S. First Amendment. Accordingly, for nearly a decade, Gab has been targeted for destruction by politicians and activist groups alike.That particular German case was, again to my knowledge, also the only time that a U.S. MLAT procedure has ever been knowingly and intentionally utilized by a foreign government to try to restrain constitutionally protected speech and conduct. (The German Federal Office of Justice also fined Telegram in 2022, but Telegram is a BVI company with operations in the UAE and no operations in the U.S., hence not entitled to American constitutional protection.) This happened under the first Trump administration and later the Biden administration. I had a word with a couple of Hill staffers about it earlier in the year, and the notices from Germany have since ceased, presumably because they are now being blocked by the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Justice.When contacted by Der Spiegel to explain its refusal, Gab replied plainly that “Germany lost the chance to regulate American free speech in 1945.” Gab was also one of Ofcom’s American social media targets, all four of whom I represent against the agency, and all four of whom, lawfully exercising their constitutional rights, refused Ofcom’s orders. I note for the record that, despite eight years of attempts, the Germans have not been able to enforce the NetzDG on American soil.Because they can’t.It is therefore unsurprising that there are few direct precedents in this area. It’s also entirely expected that it never occurred to anyone working at big law firms — with one notable exception, chiefly, counsel for the plaintiffs in Trump Media from Boies Schiller and DLA Piper — that funneling an EU regulatory demand through a treaty, where it would presumably go no further or expose itself to U.S. judicial or executive branch scrutiny, was a viable option. This is why law firms, particularly European law firms, are only starting to write public-facing notes about this now and — judging from the hedging in those notes — still haven’t wrapped their heads around the applicable law.I would expect that the U.K.’s blitzkrieg global rollout of the OSA was enough of a shock that larger U.S. companies are starting to review their global compliance posture and are beginning to figure this out for themselves.Popular U.S.-based image-sharing site Imgur certainly appears to have gotten the memo. The company, in response to a threatened U.K. regulatory fine, pulled out of the U.K., invoked the Constitution, and told British regulators to go to hell — a move that is being referred to as the “4chan maneuver” online.Taylor Wessing’s note correctly identifies that practically all European tech regulation, including the EU DSA and the EU GDPR, is potentially vulnerable if U.S. companies decide to force European speech and data protection regulators to behave like any other European state or non-state actor, and render service through the treaties — service which may not be waved through (in the case of MLAT) or, if it gets through one way or another, becomes vulnerable to constitutional attack the moment it is properly served, if not sooner.It is difficult to see how the EU’s tech regulations will be effective at carrying out their objectives at all if U.S. lawyers begin to challenge them, through our actions and in our courts.It would be nice for the U.S. Congress to enact a law like the SPEECH Act that created more robust defenses for American companies and American internet users. In the meantime, American lawyers have plenty of procedural machinery available to us to bring foreign censorship to a grinding halt at our shores.Europe will be able to do very little in the face of mass refusal of its orders and daring them to utilize a treaty procedure, and U.S. litigation, to attempt to enforce them in U.S. courts.I doubt the Europeans have the stomach for that.

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon is gunning for a record-breaking filibuster in hopes of blocking President Donald Trump's "attempts to trample on the Constitution." Merkley began his filibuster Tuesday night in order to prevent Trump's "authoritarianism" in the form of a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution that Democrats have blocked nearly a dozen times. As of early Wednesday afternoon, over 18 hours into his Senate floor spectacle, Merkley appears to be aiming to beat New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker's record-breaking 25-hour filibuster back in April.Democrats' $1.5 trillion funding bill aims to undo every policy implemented by Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.Addressing an empty chamber, Merkley railed against Trump's efforts to address crime in Portland after an appeals court ruled in favor of the administration deploying the National Guard.“Portlanders have responded in a very interesting way,” Merkley said. “They are demonstrating with joy and whimsy.”RELATED: Trump administration mocks outrage of 'unhinged leftists' as construction of ballroom begins at White House Photo by Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty ImagesThe whimsical response from Portland residents included a horde of naked cyclists temporarily blocking an ICE facility's driveway to protest the crime crackdown. Several arrests were later made after some protesters became rowdy, refusing to move out of the driveway. "They want to make it clear to the world that what Trump is saying about there being violent protests or a rebellion in Portland,” Merkley said, “it’s just not true.”RELATED: Appeals court rules Trump can lawfully order National Guard troops to Portland Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty ImagesDue to Merkley's drawn-out floor speech, the Senate has not been able to schedule another vote to reopen the government as the shutdown approaches its fourth week. Democrats originally shut down the government after they blocked the Republican-led funding bill, allowing the September 30 deadline to lapse. Despite Democrat posturing, the GOP's bill remains a clean continuing resolution with no partisan anomalies. In contrast, the Democrats' $1.5 trillion funding bill aims to undo every policy implemented by Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Democrats are also insisting on addressing Obamacare subsidies even though they expire at the end of the year. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Graham Platner, a Maine-based oyster farmer, announced in August that he was running as a Democrat to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins, quickly securing the endorsement of independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).While the entry of Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) into the race last week was undoubtedly bad news for Platner, competition from a geriatric fellow traveler is hardly the greatest threat now facing his campaign.'Graham has an anti-Semitic tattoo on his chest. He's not an idiot, he's a military history buff.'Last week, a number of damning posts Platner previously made on Reddit came to light — including posts where he apparently identified as a communist, branded rural white Americans as racists, suggested service members worried about being raped should buy "Kevlar underwear," and smeared all police officers as "bastards." Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that Platner's posts were not disqualifying.California Rep. Ro Khanna (D), who previously endorsed Platner, also rushed to defend the Democratic candidate, stating, "I respect Platner's journey & the man he is today," adding, "I stand by my endorsement. I won't cower to the establishment."RELATED: 'Cracks in the Schumer armor': White House adviser says government shutdown may be ending soon Rep. Rohit Khanna. Photo by PEDRO PARDO/AFP via Getty ImagesWithin days of Platner issuing an apology for his past remarks on Reddit and Khanna's defense, the Collins challenger found himself once again having to address poor decisions from his past.Footage recently went viral showing Platner lip-syncing to a Miley Cyrus song with his shirt off. Astute observers noticed in the newly resurfaced video that Platner had a "totenkopf" tattoo on his chest. Totenkopf, which is German for "death's head," is a skull image popularized by Adolf Hitler's Schutzstaffel elite guard and adopted as the symbol of the SS-Totenkopfverbande, the branch that guarded the concentration camps. "It was not until I started hearing from reporters and DC insiders that I realized this tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol," Platner said in a statement to Politico on Tuesday. "I absolutely would not have gone through life having this on my chest if I knew that — and to insinuate that I did is disgusting. I am already planning to get this removed."Genevieve McDonald, who resigned as the political director of Platner's campaign last week over the Reddit posts, noted in a Facebook post that "Graham has an anti-Semitic tattoo on his chest. He's not an idiot, he's a military history buff. Maybe he didn't know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and he should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means."McDonald suggested that Platner's campaign released the footage "to try to get ahead of it."Blaze News has reached out to Sen. Collins' office for comment.The National Republican Senatorial Committee was among the groups that made hay of the tattoo, sharing a screenshot from the video and referring to the totenkopf image as a "Nazi tattoo.""This tattoo appears to be a ‘death’s head’ symbol used by the SS, the organization most responsible for the genocidal murder of 6 million Jews and millions of other victims during WWII," Zach Schwartz, director of the Jewish Community Alliance of Southern Maine's Jewish Community Relations Council, said in a statement. "We hope that Mr. Platner would condemn, in no uncertain terms, the meaning behind this tattoo and everything it stands for."On the Monday episode of the podcast "Pod Save America," Platner said, "I'm not a secret Nazi.""I think you can pretty much figure out where I stand on Nazism and anti-Semitism and racism in general," added Platner, whose comment history on Reddit also hints at an affinity for Antifa.Sanders has underscored his continued support for Platner's campaign, suggesting to Politico that Platner got the Nazi tattoo while inebriated and is "not the only one in America who has gone through a dark period.""People go through that, he has apologized for the stupid remarks, the hurtful remarks that he made, and I'm confident that he's going to run a great campaign and that he's going to win," added Sanders.Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) told Semafor on Tuesday that he too continues to support Platner, stating, "The Democratic Party needs to be big enough to accept people who have hard lives, who have made mistakes and have actually owned up to those mistakes. And that's what he's done."Heinrich, who has reportedly directed money from his leadership PAC to Platner, suggested that while he does not like some of the Maine candidate's past remarks, he likes "what he's campaigning on and the way he's connecting to working-class voters."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

More information has been released regarding Carlitos Ricardo Parias, the man federal authorities say attempted to use his vehicle to ram agents' cars as they carried out his arrest before having to shoot him in self-defense.Parias, originally from Mexico, was known to law enforcement prior to Tuesday's shooting. He had established a social media presence by following U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operations in the city and live-streaming their actions.'Vehicles are deadly weapons.'Known as "Richard LA," he was honored by the office of Democratic Los Angeles Councilman Curren Price with a "Certificate of Recognition" for documenting ICE operations on TikTok. Just after news broke of the shooting, Price's official Instagram account posted a photo of Parias receiving the award, calling Parias a "fearless citizen journalist."Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli provided a screenshot of a video from the shooting incident on Tuesday appearing to show a suspect turning the wheels of his car while being boxed in by federal agents. Essayli identified the suspect as Parias."Parias rammed a Toyota Camry into the law enforcement vehicles in front of and behind him, spun the Camry's tires, spewing smoke and debris into the air, causing the car to fishtail and causing agents to worry for their safety. An agent breaking the Camry's driver's side window was not enough to subdue Parias," Essayli wrote.A witness told Fox LA reporter Matthew Seedorff that agents attempted to arrest Parias for nearly 15 minutes before shots were fired. Sound from the video the witness provided indicated that someone was screeching car tires as Essayli described.RELATED: DHS: Illegal alien shot after ramming federal vehicle during operation City of Los Angeles Parias and a U.S. marshal were wounded in the shooting. Both are expected to recover from their injuries, Essayli added.Essayli revealed that Parias, "a 44-year-old illegal alien from Mexico living in South Los Angeles, is now charged in a criminal complaint with assault on a federal officer" and could face up to eight years in prison if convicted."Vehicles are deadly weapons," Essayli continued. "Anyone who uses them against federal agents risks arrest, imprisonment, and life-threatening injuries. We will continue to use every tool in our legal arsenal to protect our agents and enforce immigration laws passed by Congress."As previously reported by Blaze News, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin blamed Democrats for creating a dangerous environment for federal agents carrying out lawful operations.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!