A turtle smuggler has been arrested

'He appears to be trying on different personalities'

She faces 30 years in federal prison if convicted

'We don't know how much influence we can have on Trump'

A trio of brave locals were honored recently when a small plane crashed in Florida. Catching fire almost immediately, and with all souls both still alive and yet trapped inside, residents rushed to their aid, receiving the hero’s commendation from the Boca Raton PD. The small Cessna Skymaster aircraft was approaching North Perry Airport when […] The post Trio of Neighbors Honored for Saving the Lives of Florida Plane Crash Survivors appeared first on Good News Network.

There are enough U.S. citizens living in Israel that it could be considered America’s “436th congressional district,” according to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee.   There are about “700,000 Americans living in Israel,” Huckabee told Newsmax’s Carl Higbie during an interview in Jerusalem.   “So when you help Israel, you’re helping 700,000 Americans be safe—that’s a full congressional district,” Huckabee said.  Huckabee was responding to a question related to concerns some Americans, specifically conservative Americans, have expressed over U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. President Donald Trump has promoted an “America First” agenda, but Huckabee says this agenda does not mean “America only.”   Israel is also a purchaser of U.S. goods, mainly ammunitions. Israel tests U.S. “military equipment in real time combat operations,” Huckabee said. “We benefit from the testing that they do.”   “We benefit from the technology that they create, that becomes the Iron Dome and David’s Sling, and the Arrow Defense System that will help save American lives,” Huckabee continued. “So it’s not just that we give something, we get way more than we even give.”   WATCH: Ambassador Huckabee tells @CarlHigbie there are enough Americans living in Israel to constitute "a full congressional district.""…there are 700,000 Americans living in Israel. So when you help Israel, you’re helping 700,000 Americans be safe." pic.twitter.com/2jgrZVEmLp— Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) August 13, 2025 Some conservative commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, have criticized U.S. support for Israel, arguing Israel should handle its own conflict in the Middle East. But Trump has remained largely consistent in his support for Israel.   Trump and Netanyahu have met multiple times since Trump retuned to the White House.   In June, Trump helped broker a deal between Israel and Iran to end a 12-day conflict that began when Israel targeted Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. bombed three major nuclear sites in Iran in June, further diminishing the threat Iran has long posed to Israel.   Trump has also continued to encourage more Middle Eastern countries to join the Abraham Accords to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.   “Now that the nuclear arsenal being ‘created’ by Iran has been totally OBLITERATED, it is very important to me that all Middle Eastern Countries join the Abraham Accords,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 7. “This will insure PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.”  The post Enough Americans Living in Israel to Consider It the ‘436th Congressional District,’ Huckabee Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Like abortion zealots in the past, gender warriors today are trying to use the courts to force on the American people a dangerous agenda that neither they nor their elected representatives want. So far, at least, they are striking out. More than half the states have enacted laws banning medical interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for minors who want to identify as the opposite sex. There’s good reason for doing so. The number of adolescents claiming gender dysphoria is skyrocketing, accompanied by tremendous pressure to blindly follow what the Department of Health and Human Services calls “pediatric medical transition.” Not surprisingly, however, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved drugs for this purpose. As this trend shot forward, a group of European researchers observed that “virtually nothing is known regarding adolescent-onset gender dysphoria.” A comprehensive report published last year in the United Kingdom described this as “an area of remarkably weak evidence” in which “results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented.” State legislatures have the constitutional authority to regulate the medical profession—and they’re right to put on the brakes. This being America, losing in the legislature often means turning to the courts and claiming a constitutional “right” to do this or that. And already, activist groups are recruiting both children and parents to challenge these adolescent sex change bans. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Alabama’s ban, and the Sixth Circuit came to the same conclusion regarding Tennessee’s law a month later. The latter decision, L.W. v. Skrmetti, then went before the Supreme Court, which held that Tennessee’s ban did not violate the Constitution. Two more circuits have now followed suit. In Poe v. Drummond, the Tenth Circuit ruled on Aug. 6 to uphold Oklahoma’s ban on “gender transition procedures” for minors. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the court came to the same conclusion about the Oklahoma law. According to the court, that law is based on age, banning procedures for minors, not adults, and on medical use, banning procedures for “gender transition,” not to treat medical conditions. Neither of those is a special consideration that would justify the Constitution restricting how legislatures address the issue. Even more recently still, the Eighth Circuit concluded in Brandt v. Griffin on Aug. 12 that Arkansas’ sex change law—virtually identical to Tennessee’s—does not violate the Constitution, citing Skrmetti as justification. In 2022, the court had put Arkansas’ law on hold while its constitutionality was being litigated. While that preliminary decision was made by a three-judge panel, this final decision came from the full Eighth Circuit, which voted 8-2 to uphold the Arkansas law. Writing for the majority, Judge William Benton noted that the district court found evidence that these procedures pose risks for minors. Some of these were also noted in a May 2025 DHHS report: impaired bone density accrual, infertility, risk of stroke, and changes in cholesterol and blood thickness. The court, Benton wrote, will not “second-guess the lines” that the legislature chose to draw. The next round in the gender-litigation fight will come this fall when the Supreme Court takes up two cases, out of Idaho and West Virginia respectively, challenging laws prohibiting men from competing in women’s sports. The American people, and those we elect, have authority to tackle issues like these. Hopefully, the courts will agree. The post Gender Warriors Are Striking Out in Courts appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After almost two weeks of absence from their legislative duties, it appears the Texas state House Democrats who fled the state to prevent a vote on congressional redistricting may be making their return to the Capitol. On Tuesday, a Houston ABC affiliate “confirmed with multiple sources that House Democrats will return to Texas.” Ahead of the Texas House of Representatives’ consideration of a newly redrawn congressional map that would favor Republicans, Democrats fled the state on Aug. 3 in order to fall short of a quorum—the number of representatives required to be present for debate to proceed.  This has temporarily frozen House activity as Republicans have repeatedly failed to reach the required minimum 100-member count to begin debate while Democrats remain in “blue” enclaves such as Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. The state Capitol in Austin. (Brandon Bell via Getty Images) Republicans just need a handful of Democrats to return in order to pass a map that could hand the GOP five new congressional seats from the Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. On Monday, 95 representatives were present in the House, meaning Republicans need just five Democrats to return to Austin. The Texas state Senate passed a redistricting bill Monday which draws a map identical to one proposed by Republican Rep. Todd Hunter in the House. The Texas Democratic Caucus released a statement on X Tuesday, writing, “Members are still assessing their strategies going forward and are in a private meeting to make decisions about future plans currently.”  The post continued, “If and when Texas House Democrats breaking quorum decide to go home is squarely dependent on the actions the governor, speaker, and Texas Republicans in charge make with regard to prioritizing flood victims over redistricting that hurts Texans.” Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain (l) and Speaker of the House Dustin Burrows (r) leave the Texas House floor after a quorum was not present on Aug. 8. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images) Texas Republicans in every branch of government have made threats against Democrats to expedite their return. Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott, for example, have both filed suits to remove absent Democrats from office for abandoning their office. Paxton is additionally suing former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, for allegedly providing funds to finance the travel of the House Democrats—which he sees as an act of bribery.  Republican Speaker of the House Dustin Burrows has attempted to encourage Democrats’ return through a few punitive measures, including requiring in-person collection of paychecks and issuing non-criminal warrants for their arrest. The absent Democrats face $500 daily fines for breaking quorum. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. (Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images) The Texas Democrats’ statement on a possible return comes after Abbott announced he and Republicans would end the special session Friday if Democrats still had not returned but that special sessions would continue in perpetuity. “There will be no reprieve for the derelict Democrats who fled the state and abandoned their duty to the people who elected them,” said Abbott. “I will continue to call special session after special session until we get this Texas First agenda passed.” The post Runaway Texas Dems Weigh a Return to Capitol appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Free expression in Britain is facing what the United States now calls a serious decline, with the US State Department’s latest Human Rights Report accusing the UK government of tightening its grip on speech, particularly since Keir Starmer’s administration came to power. Among the most troubling developments, according to the report, is the enforcement of the new censorship law, the Online Safety Act. Presented to the public as a child protection measure, the legislation has drawn international criticism for creating broad powers to suppress lawful speech across digital platforms. We obtained a copy of the report for you here. The Southport murders became a turning point. Following the attack that left three young girls dead during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class, the government was accused of using the tragedy to silence online commentary. One of the most notable cases is that of Lucy Connolly, a former childcarer and wife of a Conservative councillor, who is serving a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for a post on X. Her appeal was rejected in July, ensuring she remains behind bars until late August. Critics of the government’s speech policies have pointed to Connolly’s prosecution as proof of what they describe as selective enforcement and a political agenda disguised as justice. The report suggests that these high-profile cases are no longer outliers. It claims censorship in Britain has become routine, targeting regular citizens and political speech. The conviction of Adam Smith-Connor, a British army veteran, is another case the US flagged. He was fined £9,000 ($12,210) and handed a conditional discharge after silently praying near an abortion clinic in 2022. His situation sparked interest in Washington, where Vice President JD Vance referenced the case during a speech in Munich. In March, Smith-Connor joined four other pro-life advocates in a private meeting with US State Department officials. Those officials identified increasing restrictions on political and religious expression in the UK, especially speech that authorities classify as offensive or hateful. The US report also criticized the approach taken by UK prosecutors in the aftermath of the Southport killings. Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson warned the public against reposting or repeating any messages considered false or inciting hatred. According to the report, officials involved in such efforts to stifle speech should have faced consequences. Instead, enforcement was described as selective and inconsistent. The document further noted a pattern of police threatening individuals with arrest as a way to suppress speech. It also expressed concern over rising anti-Semitic incidents involving threats and violence within the UK. The Online Safety Act remains at the heart of growing tensions. Under the law, tech companies can be fined up to 10 percent of their global revenue or £18 ($24) million if they fail to remove content deemed harmful. Although framed as a child protection initiative, it has been used to pressure social media platforms to take down content involving political debates, including discussions of grooming gangs in Parliament. In the United States, the reach of this law has raised alarms, particularly among Trump officials who see it as a threat to American values and private companies. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said during a briefing, “Societies are strengthened by free expression of opinion, and government censorship is intolerable in a free society.” She added that freedom of expression is fundamental to any functioning democracy. The report itself was delayed for several months while Trump-appointed officials revised the initial draft to better reflect an aggressive stance against censorship abroad, and after more details of the UK’s free speech crisis were made known. More fuel was added to the controversy when it emerged that a secretive Whitehall unit had been monitoring and flagging posts on social media it labeled as “concerning narratives.” In stark language, the US State Department described “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression.” The report singles out a pattern of targeting political speech and online content, warning that suppression of dissent has become increasingly common. British authorities, the report states, are using vague and expansive legal tools to punish speech that challenges official narratives or touches on politically sensitive topics. It notes that “censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech.” The Online Safety Act, which came into force this year, features prominently in the report’s criticism. The legislation gives Ofcom, the UK’s archaic media regulator, sweeping powers to monitor and restrict digital speech. “The law authorized UK authorities, including the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to monitor all forms of communication for speech they deemed ‘illegal.’” “The Online Safety Act of 2023, which came into force in 2024, defined the category of ‘online harm’ and expressly expanded Ofcom’s authority to include American media and technology firms with a substantial number of British users, regardless of whether they had a corporate presence in the UK.” “Under the law, companies were required to engage in proactive ‘illegal content risk assessment’ to mitigate the risk of users encountering speech deemed illegal by Ofcom.” Digital rights experts cited in the report warned of the law’s potential to undermine user privacy and free speech online. “Experts warned that one effect of the bill could be government regulation to reduce or eliminate effective encryption (and therefore user privacy) on platforms.” The UK government’s response to last year’s Southport murders also came under scrutiny, particularly its clampdown on online commentary about the case. The report accuses officials of working to silence public discussion about the identity and background of the attacker. “In the wake of an attack in Southport in which three young girls were stabbed to death, local and national government officials repeatedly intervened to chill speech as to the identity and motives of the attacker.” Following the incident, British prosecutors threatened legal action against those sharing posts deemed unacceptable. “Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson threatened to prosecute and seek the extradition of those who ‘repost, repeat, or amplify a message which is false, threatening, or stirs up racial/religious hatred.’” The government also produced a warning video on social media, which the US report noted as part of its enforcement strategy: “The Crown Prosecution Service shared a video online stating that citizens should ‘Think before you post!’ and threatening legal consequences for violations of the law.” The US document revealed that arrests were made for online speech related to the Southport attack, although in some cases charges were later dropped. Meanwhile, less high-profile cases also drew concern. One man was jailed for posting a meme linking knife crime to immigration. Another was prosecuted for silently praying within a restricted zone outside an abortion facility. “In July, a man was jailed and handed an eight-week sentence for posting a meme suggesting a link between migrants and knife crime.” “In October, an individual was convicted in England for engaging in silent prayer in violation of a ‘safe zone.’” While British authorities have defended their policies as necessary to maintain public order and safety, the US State Department’s report paints a picture of a country drifting toward institutionalized censorship, with speech increasingly policed by law and algorithm alike. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post US State Department Condemns UK’s Censorship Laws appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Jogging While Rotherham Burns