Long before cinematic universes became the norm, Universal Pictures created a world of monsters that terrified and thrilled audiences across generations. From the fog-drenched castles of Dracula to the stitched-together tragedy of Frankenstein, these films CONTINUE READING... The post Fascinating Facts About the Universal Monster Movies appeared first on The Retro Network.

Every election season, mayors and governors step before cameras to boast that crime is down. Charts are waved, statistics are cited, and carefully crafted talking points are deployed to assure anxious citizens that their streets are safer than ever. Yet when you leave the press conference and walk the sidewalks of Baltimore, Chicago, or Los Angeles, the reality feels far different. The gap between official numbers and lived experience is wide enough to swallow public trust whole. The reason for this disconnect is simple: Most crime never gets reported in the first place. The Baltimore Sun recently highlighted what criminologists have known for decades—about half of all crime in America isn’t captured in police data. Burglaries are only reported 45% of the time. Simple assaults, 37%. Sexual assaults, a shameful 21%. Think about that for a moment: Nearly 4 out of 5 sexual assaults never reach the official record. Yet politicians still spin a story that safety is improving. Why aren’t Americans calling the cops? For many, it’s because they believe the system won’t deliver justice. Victims of property crimes often assume police won’t recover stolen items. Domestic violence survivors fear financial ruin if their abuser is arrested. Immigrants worry that calling 911 might lead to a knock on the door from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In cities like Baltimore, there is a deeply rooted stigma against “snitching” that makes reporting crimes socially dangerous. And for those who simply distrust the police, staying silent feels safer than engaging. Here’s the political problem: Declining reported crime becomes the official narrative, but citizens’ fear of crime continues to climb. Gallup recently noted Americans are near record highs in expressing concern about violent crime. This is not paranoia—it’s the rational conclusion of people who judge their safety not by government reports but by what they see in their neighborhoods, what they hear from friends, and what they experience personally. The anecdote of Julian and Kristen Mack, attacked in Baltimore by a group of teenagers, is telling. They never called police because they feared the children might be shot. Another former Homeland Security Department official recounted being assaulted in a D.C. coffee shop but choosing not to report it because he believed nothing meaningful would happen to the mentally ill attacker. When even former law enforcement officers don’t bother reporting crime, the legitimacy of the system is in question. So, what happens next? Officials trumpet lower homicides or robberies as proof of progress. They cut ribbons on new community initiatives and point to “data-driven policing” as evidence of reform. But residents quietly arm themselves, avoid walking alone at night, and lose faith in institutions meant to protect them. A society where people stop trusting the guardians of order is a society drifting toward vigilantism. This is not just a policing issue—it’s a governance issue. A political class eager to tout success selectively leans on crime statistics that do not represent reality. Meanwhile, communities drowning in fear feel gaslit. That disconnect breeds cynicism, disengagement, and eventually rage. It is one reason why “law and order” rhetoric resonates so powerfully in American politics. People know something is wrong, even if official numbers deny it. Rebuilding trust requires a cultural and institutional shift. First, public safety leaders must stop treating crime statistics as political props. Transparency demands acknowledging the limits of reported data and the reasons victims stay silent. Second, cities must address why people don’t report crime—fear of retaliation, distrust of police, and inefficiencies in prosecution. This means deeper community policing, stronger witness protections, and reforms in how cases are handled. Politicians must stop assuming that fear of crime is just an irrational voter quirk. Fear is a rational response to disorder. If a mother refuses to let her children play outside because drug dealers loiter on the corner, it does not matter if homicides are technically down 12%. Her world is not safe, and no statistic will convince her otherwise. The lesson here is timeless: Statistics do not govern—trust does. Crime numbers can be massaged, but fear cannot. If Americans no longer believe in the story their leaders are telling them, they will write their own—and it will not be a story kind to those in charge. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Myth of Falling Crime: Why Americans Don’t Trust the Numbers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. YouTube is opening a narrow door to some of the creators it previously purged, but many will find it locked. On Thursday, the platform rolled out a program it’s calling “Second Chance,” aimed at selectively allowing certain banned users to return, provided they meet updated criteria. The policy change follows Google’s confirmation that it acted under direct pressure from the Biden administration to suppress lawful content during the pandemic and election cycles, even when that material didn’t violate YouTube’s own stated rules. The new reinstatement process is now live, following Google’s prior announcement of the plan. Users who lost their channels under now-abandoned policies, including those targeting election and COVID-19 narratives, will be able to submit requests to rejoin. “We know many terminated creators deserve a second chance,” YouTube stated in a blog post. “YouTube has evolved and changed over the past 20 years, and we’ve had our share of second chances to get things right with our community too.” The initiative is limited in scope. Anyone banned for copyright reasons or for violating YouTube’s broad “Creator Responsibility” rules, a category that includes undefined acts of “cruelty,” “deceptive behavior,” or anything judged to “cause malicious harm,” will remain locked out. Creators who deleted their channels or associated Google accounts are also excluded. Applicants must wait a full year after termination before becoming eligible to apply for a new channel. Those who do qualify will gradually see a new option appear when logging into YouTube Studio via desktop, allowing them to request a channel restart. If approved, they can upload content again, including old videos that fit current guidelines, and attempt to rebuild their following. “You can build back your community through your new channel,” the company said, pitching the program as a reset. “You can also re-upload any of your prior videos that are within our Community Guidelines.” YouTube claims it will weigh several elements when deciding who gets through the gate, such as whether someone committed “particularly severe or persistent violations” or whether their content is believed to have caused ongoing harm. It also emphasized that appeals to reverse a ban still exist. “If your appeal is successful, your old channel will be reinstated. If your appeal is unsuccessful, you now have the option to apply for a new channel one year after your channel was terminated,” the blog read. The timing of this program is no coincidence. The company’s recent admission that federal officials urged them to take action against content that didn’t break the rules has reignited concerns about the scale of political interference in online speech. Google, in a letter released under congressional investigation, revealed that White House figures “conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.” The letter made it clear that the company now sees this pressure as unacceptable. “This pressure was – and remains – unacceptable and wrong.” Google also noted that the political climate during the pandemic made it difficult to function independently, with mounting demands to censor narratives inconvenient to those in power. In direct response to this period of government-fueled censorship, Google says YouTube will now offer reentry to creators previously expelled under COVID-19 and election-related policies that are no longer enforced. “Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect,” the letter confirmed. The company also clarified its content moderation strategy, distancing itself from outsourced information control. “YouTube does not use third-party fact checkers to determine whether content should be removed or labeled.” As for claims of ideological bias, Google insisted that it values political diversity. “YouTube values conservative voices on its platform. These creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse.” The letter concluded with a clear stance on government involvement in online speech. “The federal government should not play a role in pressuring private companies to take action on lawful speech.” These revelations were unearthed during a wider investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who issued a subpoena and led efforts to uncover the depth of government influence over content moderation decisions at Google and YouTube. The findings detail a pattern of suppression aligned with official narratives, often targeting speech that was legal but politically inconvenient. Legal challenges have echoed similar concerns. Although the Supreme Court ultimately threw out the case on procedural grounds, the fundamental questions about state-driven censorship of lawful speech remain unresolved. With the “Second Chance” rollout, YouTube appears to be making a quiet course correction. But it’s a calculated one. While the platform seeks to reposition itself as more open to dissenting viewpoints, it continues to set the terms of speech, offering redemption only to those who fit within boundaries it alone defines. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post YouTube Offers Limited Reinstatement to Banned Creators appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Is the reign of fossil fuels coming to an end?

It’s time to dust off those jazz shoes, bring out that cookbook, or get that musical instrument down from the attic.

These types of objects are usually so reliable they are compared to atomic clocks, so an extreme exception needs to be explained.

When most people talk about preparedness, the conversation turns to gear, stockpiles, or the next big disaster. Beneath all that noise lies something quieter and far more important: the reason we prepare. We prepare because we value life. Real life. The kind built around family, honest work, and peace that lasts through hard times. Preparedness […]

Politicians, celebrities, and billionaires who lecture ordinary people about their carbon footprints live by another set of rules. They travel by private jet, dine in excess, and retreat to mansions powered by the very energy sources they want banned. It’s a spectacle of hypocrisy so pervasive, the media barely blinks.Even scientists who scold the public about emissions fly thousands of miles to United Nations climate conferences — racking up the same greenhouse gases they claim will destroy the planet. This is two-tiered climate morality: Those with power indulge, while everyone else is told to sacrifice. Preaching austerity from a private jet has become the “let them eat cake” of our age.Hypocrisy that paysThe real question isn’t whether the hypocrisy exists but why it’s so tolerated. The answer, in part, is that too many people have found ways to profit from it — through subsidies, grants, and the ever-expanding green grift.Families pay more and travel less, while the jet-setters congratulate themselves for ‘saving the planet.’According to data from Yard, celebrities such as Taylor Swift and Leonardo DiCaprio emitted between 3,000 and 4,400 tons of carbon dioxide in 2022 from private jet travel alone — hundreds or even thousands of times the annual emissions of an average citizen.For perspective: Bangladesh emits about 0.71 tons of carbon dioxide per person annually. Ghana emits 0.74, Ethiopia 0.13, and Kenya 0.4. A single year of indulgence by an American climate icon outweighs the lifetime footprint of entire villages in the developing world.The climate eliteFilmmaker Steven Spielberg, who condemns “climate deniers” as morally deficient, has a carbon footprint equivalent to nearly 280 average Americans or more than 2,200 Indians. DiCaprio built his global brand on climate activism — then took a private jet from Europe to New York to collect an environmental award.If the hypocrisy of celebrities is glaring, the behavior of politicians is worse.Records show that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign spent over $221,000 on private jets in just one quarter — even as the Vermont socialist voted for laws that punish fossil fuel use and floated the idea of criminal charges for energy executives.New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Fighting Oligarchy tour, meant to challenge wealth and privilege, relied on carbon-intensive travel of its own. The Bronx Democrat later scaled back her private jet use after criticism — by switching to first-class flights instead.The priesthood of carbonAt United Nations climate conferences, the hypocrisy reaches liturgical heights. The gatherings are usually held in luxury destinations like Dubai, Glasgow, or Sharm El Sheikh. Each transcontinental flight emits roughly 2 tons of carbon dioxide per traveler — the annual output of a citizen in many poorer nations.Yet these same scientists and bureaucrats push for energy restrictions in developing countries, demanding that millions forgo affordable electricity to meet arbitrary “net-zero” targets. Their supposed moral authority rests not on sacrifice but on self-congratulation.RELATED: Airlines and banks admit net-zero promises were pure fantasy Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty ImagesA reckoning awaitsThe hypocrisy would be merely irritating if the consequences weren’t so destructive. The push for “net-zero emissions” — a fantasy that defies both physics and economics — is driving up the cost of gasoline, electricity, and food while shrinking personal freedom. Families pay more and travel less, while the jet-setters congratulate themselves for “saving the planet.”They’re not leading an energy transition. They’re entrenching a new aristocracy — one in which elites keep their privileges while the working class bears the pain in the name of the “greater good.”The rise of Donald Trump and other skeptics has interrupted this march toward a green oligarchy, but the climate faithful persist. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s alliance with the Vatican to “terminate” global warming is only the latest display of moral vanity.Eventually, voters will see through this 21st-century version of aristocratic corruption. The public may not wield guillotines, but the electoral version will do just fine. Off with their subsidies!

James Woods Burns Greedy Gavin Newsom for Crying Over Federal Fire Relief Funds

The design, specs, and features of Samsung's Galaxy XR Headset have been leaked online, and it seems like a promising alternative to Apple's Vision Pro.