The altar has been targeted before

'It was an incredible day filled with love, laughter, and celebration'

'He just lies'

The Assad family secured the properties starting in 2013

the supreme achievements

WASHINGTON — In a better world, Democrats would be running at full speed away from Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee in the Virginia attorney general race. As the National Review reported Oct. 3, in 2022, Jones, a former lawmaker, actually fantasized about killing Todd Gilbert, the then-Republican Speaker of Virginia’s House of Delegates, because Gilbert had praised a recently deceased moderate Democrat lawmaker. In Jay Jones’ world, civility is a capital offense. In the 2022 texts Jones exchanged with a former colleague, Republican House Delegate Carrie Coyner, he volunteered that if he had two bullets and could use them against Gilbert, Hitler and/or Pol Pot, “Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.” “Jay, please stop,” Coyner replied. But he did not stop. Jones also offered that he believed Gilbert and his wife, Jennifer, are “evil” and “breeding little fascists.” The National Review also reported that Jones wrote that he wished Gilbert’s wife could watch her child die in her arms to see how parents feel when their children are victims of gun violence. He wrote, “Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.” So if Jones, 36, actually is elected to be Virginia’s top lawman, he would be the rare statewide officeholder who won’t only wish for awful things to happen to Republicans—but also to their children. No surprise. Jason Miyares, the Republican incumbent AG, told Fox News that Jones “is wholly disqualified for this office. Because when I took this office, I swore an oath not to a political party but to protect all Virginians — Republicans, Democrats and Independents.” Miyares did not say what I can’t help but think—that he, Miyares, is not an out-of-control nut job, unlike Jones, who is. This is where some readers might mention Donald Trump’s outrageous statements over the years. Point taken, but the media reported on Trump’s crude rhetoric about immigrants ad nauseam. So voters knew what they were getting and were free to interpret his statements for themselves. There has been little mention of the Jones story from major networks, other than Fox News. One exception is The Associated Press, which ran two stories, one with the headline: “Trump’s GOP seizes on violent rhetoric from Virginia AG candidate as high-stakes elections loom.” So the story is not the violent fantasies of a Democrat, but that Republicans are making an issue of it. Jones has other skeletons in his closet. In 2022, he was convicted of reckless driving—he was driving 116 miles per hour. That’s 46 mph over the 70-mph speed limit. His sentence was a $1,500 fine and 1,000 hours of community service. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that he spent 500 of those hours working for his own political action committee. After the text story broke, Jones issued a statement in which he blamed President Donald Trump and Miyares, not himself. “Like all people, I’ve sent text messages that I regret and I believe that violent rhetoric has no place in our politics. Let’s be clear about what is happening in the Attorney General race right now: Jason Miyares is dropping smears through Trump-controlled media organizations to assault my character and rescue his desperate campaign. This is a strategy that ensures Jason Miyares will continue to be accountable to Donald Trump, not the people of Virginia. This race is about whether Trump can control Virginia or Virginians control Virginia.” His real mistake was revealing who he is deep down—and leaving a paper trail. Later, Jones posted a more contrite response. The deadline to remove a name from the ballot has passed, so fellow Democrats have little incentive to push Jones to get out of the race. Arlington GOP Chairman Matthew Hurtt noted that a recent poll showed Jones up. “I’m not a poll denier, but I will say, since Charlie Kirk’s assassination, it’s hard to peg who are likely voters.” Kirk’s willingness to mix it up stands in sharp contrast to Jones’ shoot-’em-in-the-head remarks. The Virginia Law Enforcement Sheriffs’ Association and Fraternal Order of Police of Virginia have called on Jones to get out of the race. Hurtt added, “As voters are starting to clue in, they’re realizing that Jay Jones is an untenable selection.” Hurtt also noted that, given Jones’ remarks about shooting a Republican in the head, gun control groups like Giffords Pac and Brady Pac and Prevent Gun Tragedies PAC might want to rethink their endorsements, which remain on the Jones campaign website. Hurtt noted Americans have spent the last few weeks thinking about the Sept. 10 assassination of Charlie Kirk, the youthful conservative who loved talking with folks who disagreed with him and treated them with respect. Unlike the affable Kirk, when Jones reached across the aisle to Coyner, he wrote that he would like to shoot the speaker—”a POS”—in the head and hoped his wife could watch their child die. Did I mention Jones’ campaign slogan is “Fighting for Virginia families”? Really, his slogan should come from the very texts he wrote: “Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time.” We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Virginia Attorney General Race May Show Proof of the Charlie Kirk Effect appeared first on The Daily Signal.

You sign up for electricity, internet, cable, or phone, and think the worst that happens is a bill. What actually happens is your move becomes marketable data. Utility companies package subscriber details and sell them to data brokers. Become a Member and Keep Reading… Reclaim your digital freedom. Get the latest on censorship, cancel culture, and surveillance, and learn how to fight back. Join Already a supporter? Sign In. (If you’re already logged in but still seeing this, refresh this page to show the post.) Having trouble logging in? Get help here. The post The Secret Life of Your Utility Bill appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Legislation that would allow federal ministers to secretly order telecom providers to cut off a Canadian’s phone or internet access is advancing without any input from the country’s top privacy authority. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne told a Commons committee that his office was never asked to review Bill C-8 before it was introduced. The bill would authorize the cabinet to compel telecom companies to block services to individuals considered a security threat, without needing a judge’s approval or any public disclosure. “The issue never came up,” Dufresne said during testimony before the House of Commons ethics committee. He confirmed, “We are not consulted on specific pieces of legislation before they are tabled.” Bill C-8 would allow the federal cabinet to direct a telecom provider to deny all services to a specific person, based solely on the government’s assessment of a threat. No warrant would be required. No independent body would be tasked with reviewing the decision. Conservative MP Michael Barrett raised an alarm over what he described as a dangerous overreach. He said the bill would allow the government to quietly seize control of individuals’ communications, with no transparency and no legal checks. “Without meaningful limits, bills like C-8 can hand the government secret powers over Canadians’ communications,” said Barrett. “It’s a serious setback for privacy and for democracy.” He pressed Dufresne on whether Parliament should be required to conduct privacy assessments before passing legislation with such broad surveillance potential. “Isn’t Parliament simply being asked to grant sweeping powers of surveillance to the government without a formal review?” Barrett asked. Dufresne responded, “It’s not a legal obligation under the Privacy Act.” While acknowledging the importance of national security, Dufresne warned that such measures must not override core privacy protections. “We need to make sure that by protecting national security, we are not doing so at the expense of privacy,” he said. A previous version of the idea, Bill C-26, failed in an earlier Parliament after concerns over its civil liberties implications. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Canada’s Privacy Watchdog Not Consulted on Bill C-8, Enabling Secret Internet & Phone Shutdowns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Ultimate Townhall Media Experience Has Arrived

Hostages Reunited With Their Families