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

Their square-shaped faces help them survive, but also make them look a lil' judgy.

Human evolution wasn’t a straight line. Our tree of life? More of a shrub.

If it ruptures, it could produce an earthquake of “at least” magnitude 7.5, say researchers.

The key is to make your opponent's head explode.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is upset with Texas. There’s a reason he should be upset. California companies are pulling up in droves and moving to the Lone Star State and elsewhere. But that isn’t what’s bothering him. Newsom cares about politics and power, not markets and business. He’s upset that the Texas state legislature is moving to redistricting that could add up to five Republican seats in 2026. So, Newsom wants to redistrict, which could add another five Democrat seats in California. California’s congressional districts are already gerrymandered to death to favor Democrats -- 17% of the State’s 52 congressional seats are held by Republicans in a state in which Donald Trump garnered 38% of the popular vote in 2024. In ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2010, Californians amended the state constitution to establish an independent redistricting commission, with five representatives from each party and four unaffiliated, to take rote politics out of the process. But removing rote politics for Gavin Newsom is like asking the LA Dodgers to show up for a game without bats, balls and gloves. Newsom wants to circumvent the commission by putting new district maps for 2026 before voters in a special ballot initiative this November. It is too bad Newsom’s obsession is accumulating power rather than improving his state. Just listen to one Orange County resident -- much followed economist and blogger Scott Grannis. From Grannis’s latest post, which he calls “California Leavin’:” “Between 2020 and 2025, approximately 500 companies have moved their headquarters out of California or shifted significant operations elsewhere, with a notable spike in relocations since 2019. From 2018 to 2021 alone, the Hoover Institution reported 352 companies relocating their headquarters out of the state.” Grannis continues: “Government has become increasingly lazy and dysfunctional; the roads are a mess, traffic is the bane of everyday existence, taxes and regulations are oppressive, and modest cottages start at $1 million.” U-Haul annually reports its U-Haul Growth Index. This ranks the 50 states according to “each state’s net gain (or loss) of customers utilizing one-way U-Haul equipment in a calendar year.” Which state was first in one-way departures out of the state for the last five years? Yes, you’re right. “California Leavin’” And what state was number two in the nation in arrivals into the state in 2024? Yes, Texas, the Lone Star State. Texas has ranked first or second every year since 2016. According to visualcapitalist.com, of the top five cities in the U.S. with new corporate headquarters openings from 2018 to 2024, three are in Texas -- Dallas, Austin and Houston. The other two are in Nashville and Phoenix. All five are in red states in 2024. In the top five cities for corporate headquarters closures from 2018 to 2024, three of five are in California. San Diego, Greater Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area. The other two are Chicago and New York City. All five are in blue states in 2024. Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies documents which states had the largest migration gains from 2014 to 2024 and which states had the largest losses. Of the top 10 that gained over this period, seven of 10 were red states in 2024. Of the top 10 losers over this period, seven of 10 were blue states in 2024. Needless to say, Texas is in the top 10 gainers. It is a state that is booming because it provides a tax and regulatory environment conducive to those who want to work and grow. It makes all the sense in the world, with the huge influx of businesses and people, that the Texas population landscape has changed dramatically since the last census. There is rationale for the redistricting initiative in Texas. But in California, Newsom just wants to institutionalize failure. Let’s hope, in the interest of Californians, that he doesn’t manage to get this misguided initiative on the ballot. And if he does, that it fails. Star Parker is founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now.

Every parent braces for certain awkward but necessary conversations. The “birds and the bees” talk has long been the gold standard — a dreaded rite of passage. You put it off, swallow hard, and finally sit down to answer your kid’s questions without squirming too much. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s also sacred. That talk belongs to parents — not to culture, not to corporations, and certainly not to a marketing executive at Ulta Beauty.But thanks to Ulta, I had a different conversation recently — one I never saw coming, and definitely not before we’d covered the birds and the bees.It’s time to remind corporations: You may sell products, but you don’t get to sell souls — especially not our children’s.I was watching news coverage of Ulta’s latest ad campaign when my preteen daughter walked into the room. She’s just developing an interest in makeup and skin care, so she stopped to watch. Excited interest turned to confusion.“Daddy,” she asked, “why is that man in a dress?”That moment was not in my parenting playbook. It didn’t come from a question at church, a talk with her mom, or an overheard comment from an older sibling. It came from a cosmetics company that used to focus on blush and lip gloss but now pushes gender ideology.What made it worse was her age. My daughter is 10 — right on the edge of girlhood and young womanhood. As I look forward to teaching my sons to shave one day, my wife cherishes the bond of teaching our daughter to apply a little makeup like Mommy: a touch of lip gloss, a dab of blush. It’s about dignity, not performance. Self-care, not spectacle. Those moments have been quiet lessons in self-respect.Then Ulta barged in with a campaign that turned that rite of passage into a political statement. The timing, the tone, and the topic were no longer mine to decide. That’s the heart of the issue.The left mocks parents who warn they’re “coming for our kids.” But they’ve already arrived — and they’re bypassing us entirely.Ulta is just the latest brand to treat womanhood as a marketing gimmick. The company has joined Bud Light, Target, and far too many others in pushing gender ideology not just as an option but as a virtue to be celebrated. Now it’s stunning and brave for a man to dress as a woman to sell eyeliner to our daughters.For generations, makeup helped women embrace femininity, express beauty, and boost confidence. Ulta didn’t just hijack that tradition — it erased it. The company replaced women with men in costumes, turning the beauty aisle into a battleground for ideological performance art.Worse, Ulta disrupted the slow, intentional process parents follow to teach their daughters about dignity, modesty, and authentic femininity. Being a woman is not a costume or an act — it’s inherent, worthy, and profoundly meaningful.In our home, makeup is a subtle tool, not a mask. It’s meant to refine, not transform. I want my daughter to understand that true beauty starts within and that femininity is strong, graceful, and rooted in truth.This isn’t about hating anyone or debating gender theory. It’s about parental autonomy — our God-given, biologically affirmed, and constitutionally protected right to decide when and how our children learn about adult topics. We expect to teach them about sex, life, and morality — not to have those lessons ambushed by a YouTube ad or a store display.A decade ago, the hardest talk I expected was the birds and the bees — rooted in reality, biology, and responsibility. Now parents are forced to explain gender identity, cross-dressing, and surgery on minors before we’ve explained where babies come from. We’re no longer the gatekeepers of our children’s innocence — we’re cast as obstacles to their “authenticity.”This isn’t progress. It’s cultural colonization.RELATED: ‘Queer Eye’ star celebrates Ulta Beauty collab by making a mockery of women Blaze News IllustrationAnd it’s everywhere — school curricula, library displays, streaming specials, toy aisles. Ten years ago, parents couldn’t imagine explaining “preferred pronouns” to a third-grader. Now, if we don’t, someone else will.The woke mob cleverly rebranded indoctrination as inclusion. They tell us our kids need “exposure,” but they really mean submission. Refuse, and you risk social isolation, bullying, or being labeled a bigot — for believing men are men, women are women, and parents should shape their children’s moral formation.I didn’t sign up for a cultural hostage situation. I signed up to be a dad — to shield my daughter’s innocence until she’s ready for the truth. These conversations are too important to be rushed by a marketing department chasing diversity quotas.Ulta didn’t just sell mascara that day. Ulta sold out parents — and sold out women.But here’s the unexpected part. After the awkwardness passed and the questions came, we talked about how some people struggle with who they are. We talked about a broken world and how people search for answers in the wrong places. We talked about compassion — not compromise. About loving people without lying to them. About truth delivered with grace.Yes, Ulta forced a conversation I wasn’t ready to have. But it reminded me my daughter is watching — not just what I say, but how I say it. She’s watching me model manhood. She’s watching how I treat people, even those I disagree with. She’s watching how I protect her — and how I pray for the lost.She deserves better than marketing masquerading as moral authority.So does your daughter.It’s time to remind corporations: You may sell products, but you don’t get to sell souls — especially not our children’s.