News A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms Will Be Smaller, More Intimate Than Game of Thrones Showrunner Ira Parker reveals how the upcoming series will be different from Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on October 6, 2025 Credit: Steffan Hill/HBO Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Steffan Hill/HBO We’re finally getting some glimpses of A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, the series set in the Game of Thrones universe that’s based on George R.R. Martin’s novella, The Hedge Knight. One of those glimpses reveals that the show will start differently than Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon: There will be no big opening title sequence with a musical number, just a simple title card. That move by showrunner Ira Parker was intentional. Unlike the shows before it, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms will be a smaller story told from the point of view of common folk in Westeros, a hundred years before the events of Game of Thrones and fifty years after the last dragon died. And that dragon, Parker told Entertainment Weekly, was a sad little thing: “It couldn’t even fly. If you can’t fly, what are you really? They’re just a fancy lizard.” Harsh! That dragon would still be a dragon to me! Parker added, however, that while the world is closer to 14th-century Britain than not, it’s also a place where magic once existed. “This is the ground and the grass that has seen dragons and dragon fire before,” he said. “So everything is just like how the world is, but a little stranger, a little different.” The show centers on Ser Duncan the Tall, aka Dunk, who is played by actor Peter Claffey. Dunk’s just minding his own business, talking to his horses, when a bald boy who goes by Egg (Dexter Sol Ansell) convinces Dunk to let him squire. They head to a tourney, the Targaryens currently grasping at power are there, and events ensue. A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms premieres on HBO in early 2026. [end-mark] The post <i>A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms</i> Will Be Smaller, More Intimate Than <i>Game of Thrones</i> appeared first on Reactor.

Movies & TV All of You Romantic Drama All of You Merely Flirts With the Science of Soulmates Brett Goldstein and Imogen Poots resist their romantic fates in a movie that’s heavy on the yearning, light on worldbuilding. By Natalie Zutter | Published on October 6, 2025 Image: Apple TV+ Comment 0 Share New Share Image: Apple TV+ In the near-future London of William Bridges’ All of You, a new technology called Soul Connex promises love at first sight—that is, via an eye exam that purports to identify one’s soulmate. The test represents a potential crossroads for best mates Laura (Imogen Poots), who’s dying to learn her romantic destiny, and Simon (Brett Goldstein, also co-writer), who would rather be surprised by life’s twists and turns. The fact that they’re mutually pining for one another is a wrinkle that neither acknowledges, though Simon jokes that Soul Connex ruins friendships by elevating these soulmates over every other relationship. When Laura gets matched, they spend the next decade pushing back against this assumption, doggedly determined to remain in each other’s lives as best friends… even once they cross the line into a romantic ticking time bomb that threatens to include partners and children in the blast radius. With an engaging pace that doesn’t hand-hold as it moves briskly through time, and palpable chemistry and wry humor from its leads, All of You hits all the right notes of darkly funny and quietly devastating meditation on types of love. But despite its speculative premise, this poignant romantic drama doesn’t seem all that enamored of its own science fiction. Here is where I should cop to the fact that I misunderstood exactly what sort of movie this was. Misreading the logline, I thought that Laura and Simon discovered they were soulmates, then spent a decade fighting against that match—which would make the “Black Mirror x When Harry Met Sally” pitch make sense. Instead, they resist their respective Soul Connex pairings, prioritizing their increasingly complicated bond over supposed scientific data. Yet their defiance is without real consequence; the only people they’re hurting is themselves. Simon is a different kind of romantic hero for Goldstein, less growly than Roy Kent but still wonderfully acerbic; when he softens for Laura, it’s clear that they are each other’s ride-or-die, each other’s emergency contact, each other’s person. Poots has the greater challenge in keeping Laura (mostly) sympathetic; as the one with a spouse and daughter waiting at home, she has to really sell why she’s railing against the stability and comfort of their love. Her volatility threatens to derail their relationship several times, but Poots manages to balance it with an earned world-weariness of a woman in her late 30s trying to have it all. Their dynamic is written and acted superbly, with layers of history not over-exposited but lending nuance to every conversation. Their relationship is so wonderfully lived in, but the larger world is not. We never see the soulmate test; we don’t sit in on Laura’s session, and we only know that it involves an eye exam from the many posters crowding Tube stations and stretching as high as London’s skyscrapers. Initially this makes for clever worldbuilding, especially as watching Soul Connex’s numbers rise (from 6 million to 31 million happy matches) helps track the passage of time. But these advertisements quickly fade into the background—perhaps an intentional move, to show how much it becomes part of the fabric of society—removing any urgency to follow up on how it has supposedly reshaped culture. There are only a few intriguing hints: competing billboards from a law firm specializing in “already married but matched with your soulmate?” divorce cases; an anecdote from Simon’s serious girlfriend Andrea (Zawe Ashton) about a polycule in which a pair of soulmates are still romantically involved with other partners. Clearly these happily-ever-afters anticipate or even invite complex juggling of commitments. But these tantalizing details have little impact on Laura and Simon’s romantic conundrum, even (or especially) once they embark on a years-long affair. They play house in a series of Airbnbs and hotels in dreamy pastoral locations, never in danger of being discovered or witnessed as outright defying Soul Connex’s status quo. Their genre-typical neutral wardrobes slowly give way to brighter colors as they discover these new dimensions to their established dynamic—still in their same nigh-impenetrable bubble, now fortified with the dopamine burst of sex and the evolution from platonic love to romantic love. What’s interesting is that these two, who constantly remind everyone that they’re so close because they met in uni at the cusp of adulthood, consistently fall back on other chemical reactions—namely, jokes about drinking themselves into blackouts, grooving on party drugs until they need the harder stuff, going out in a blaze of glory. They take turns mocking one another for being “so grown-up” at different milestone markers, with it unclear who envies the other more—the one whose life seems successful yet boring, or chaotic but thrilling.  What seems to be most polarizing about Soul Connex is its stability; some clients crave the assurance of their future, while others are disappointed to have it all figured out. Those couples certainly aren’t having the passionate fights that Laura and Simon are, second-guessing their ability to keep sneaking away or keep putting their lives on hold for one another. Just as at times they seem stuck in time as their uni selves, they also seem to exist perennially in the honeymoon phase, unwilling to take the leap into the eventual monotony that comes to most long-term couples. Or perhaps it’s that Laura is only willing to give so much of herself (saving the rest for her family), and Simon is willing to take those stolen moments as enough. I admit that I’m biased because my platonic ideal of the speculative soulmates romance is Jac Schaeffer’s (WandaVision) TiMER, in which the eponymous devices are embedded into users’ arms and count down the moments til love—or bafflement, disappointment, resentment—at first sight. Not that I’m trying to unfairly compare the two, but TiMER plays out so many heartbreaking and awkward and lovely scenarios of its nationwide cultural shift, whereas Soul Connex seems to occupy the more niche position of online dating: plenty of people use it, but it’s still not the majority. That said, however, Black Mirror riffed on the highs and lows of online dating with their episode “Hang the DJ,” in which two lovebirds suffer through relationships of varying timeframes in order to find one another across a thousand simulations. Simon and Laura’s affair interludes mimic the insularity and finite timeframe of each simulated tryst, but in “Hang the DJ” every potential match lives in an enclosed space and moves within the same dating pool, as opposed to Laura and Simon carrying on in remote locales where there is no fear of anyone intruding. In fact, that’s what’s most compelling about this romantic chapter in their dynamic; the decision-making rests solely on their shoulders. It illustrates the fate-versus-free-will dilemma of Soul Connex, but only for the two of them; neither Laura’s husband (her supposed real soulmate) nor Simon’s revolving door of dates get any say. All of You poses challenging questions about relying on science versus pure feelings, but it lets the questions hang unanswered. Even without a wrist TiMER or a crumbling simulation, All of You does acknowledge that every soulmate story must come up against a ticking clock. Time does eventually run out for Laura and Simon to make a decision about their future, with a bittersweet ending that comes full circle from that first moment at Soul Connex. In some ways, the technology did serve to bring them together, just not in the way that its inventors likely intended. Yet the movie could have better committed to its speculative premise and really played out the scenario on a macro level with the same attention and affection it offered on a micro scale—that is, the ways in which two souls connect, and disconnect, and connect again.[end-mark] All of You is streaming on AppleTV+ The post Romantic Drama <i>All of You</i> Merely Flirts With the Science of Soulmates appeared first on Reactor.

The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to grant a stay of a lower court decision telling South Carolina it has to allow a transgender girl to use the boys’ bathroom in a public school emphasizes the importance of issues the court will be reviewing when its new term starts Oct. 6. The court’s last term featured significant issues ranging from nationwide injunctions to parental rights to religious liberty, and it delivered no shortage of important rulings. This new term looks no different. Here are a few of those significant cases: Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections Do we face an economic emergency due to our huge, debilitating trade deficit and trade barriers imposed by other countries, as President Trump claims? And does the president have the authority under applicable federal law to make that determination and impose tariffs unilaterally? That’s the issue in these combined cases that the Supreme Court recently accepted and may affect everything from the authority of a president to the nation’s economic well-being. West Virginia v. B.P.J. Despite refusing to issue a stay keeping girls who think they’re boys out of a boys’ school bathroom in South Carolina, the court did take this case from West Virginia, which could decide the fate of women’s sports in more than two dozen states. West Virginia’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” mandates that biological sex serve as the defining condition for participation in female sports. This was challenged by an 11-year-old boy who claims he is really a girl. In a decision defying common sense and biological reality, the liberal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the law, claiming that preventing this pretend “girl” from competing in girls’ sports constituted sex-based discrimination. A ruling by the Supremes against West Virginia would be a disaster for the future of women’s sports—and for the safety and achievements of the women who participate in those sports. Louisiana v. Callais Redistricting is an issue that frequently appears before the Supreme Court in litigation, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to complain about it in a prior decision. After the 2020 census, Louisiana redrew its six congressional seats, creating one majority/minority black congressional district. The NAACP and others sued, claiming that given the size of the black population, the state’s failure to create a second such district violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A federal district judge agreed and ordered the state to draw a new map with two majority-black districts. The state was then sued by other voters, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. A three-judge panel agreed. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in March. Instead of issuing a decision at the end of its term in June, the court ordered a new round of arguments this fall on whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-black district violates the 14th or 15th amendments. The outcome could influence redistricting nationwide as the court decides to what extent, if any, race can be used as a factor in drawing the boundary lines of legislative districts. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission This case examines the spending limits that federal law imposes on political parties engaging in candidate-coordinated campaign activities. Limits, previously upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001 in a case from Colorado, mean this decision involves reconsidering that precedent. The National Republican Senatorial Committee and then-Sen. JD Vance filed a lawsuit claiming that such limits on the activities of political parties violate the First Amendment. The lower courts all ruled against them, following the 2001 precedent. However, the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit acknowledged a “tension” between that 2001 holding and more recent decisions by the Supreme Court, in which it has struck down other campaign finance provisions as violating the First Amendment. This promises to be an eventful Supreme Court session. There is no doubt that as these and other cases are being argued and decided, everyone from the president to the typical American will be paying attention to what happens in the highest court in the land. Originally published by TribLive The post Another Momentous Term Is in the Offing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, entered the Lone Star State’s 2026 Senate GOP primary on Monday, altering the dynamics of Sen. John Cornyn’s re-election bid. The two-term Hunt, who has represented his Houston-area district since 2023, kicked off his campaign with a three-minute video full of testimonies from friends, family, and colleagues. “He has a lot of integrity. He has a lot of character. When he tells you he’s going to do something, he absolutely follows through and does it,” Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., says in the kickoff video. The time is NOW.For Faith. For Family. For Freedom.FOR TEXAS. I’m Wesley Hunt, and I’m running for Senate. pic.twitter.com/DHJPl0wnI8— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) October 6, 2025 Hunt is entering an already fiercely contested primary between Texas state Attorney General Ken Paxton and Cornyn, who has represented the state in the Senate since 2003 and once was a top candidate to succeed Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as the Republican leader in the Senate. Both of those candidates have been vying for President Donald Trump’s endorsement and have challenged each other’s conservative bona fides.  By highlighting Crane, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, as a supporter in his kickoff video, Hunt may be attempting to emphasize his own conservative credentials. It does not appear that Hunt will get any support from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) as he takes part in an attempt to unseat a longtime incumbent. What’s In Your Office Rep. Wesley Hunt?What does a former U.S. Army Apache helicopter pilot turned “Energy Congressman of the World” have in his office?A Zen garden podcast studio and Zyn “snacks” are just a few of the novelties visitors to @WesleyHuntTX's Capitol Hill office… pic.twitter.com/jqQ7s6Mo4X— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) September 5, 2025 “John Cornyn is a battle-tested conservative who continues to be a leader in delivering President Trump’s agenda in the U.S. Senate, and he’s the best candidate to keep Texas in the Republican Senate majority,” Joanna Rodriguez, a spokeswoman for the NRSC, said in a stern statement shortly after Hunt’s announcement.  “Now that Wesley Hunt has chosen personal ambition over holding President Trump’s House majority, there will be a full vetting of his record. Senator Cornyn’s conservative record of accomplishment stands tall against Wesley’s,” Rodriguez added. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images) Hunt’s campaign directed The Daily Signal to a statement in which the Texas congressman said the race “must be about more than a petty feud between two men who have spent months trading barbs. With my candidacy, this race will finally be about what’s most important—Texas.” Hunt also appeared to take a shot at the Republican establishment, stating, “Bureaucrats in D.C. do not choose Texas’ leadership; Texans do. This race will be settled by Texans, not entrenched political figures from inside the Beltway.” A September poll from One Nation, a group that supports Cornyn, found the incumbent leading with 32% in a then-hypothetical three-way matchup against Paxton at 31% and Hunt, at 17%. The Texas Republican Senate primary is set for March 3, 2026. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, it would trigger a runoff election on May 26. Mail-in voting for the primary starts on Jan. 1. Hunt’s impending departure from the House is part of a major reshuffling of Texas’ congressional map going into the midterms. A recently passed redistricting bill could lead to almost a half-dozen Democrat seats flipping red in the midterms, and Republican Reps. Chip Roy, Michael McCaul, and Morgan Luttrell will not be seeking re-election. The post ON THE HUNT: Texas Rep. Shakes Up Senate Race appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Mexico’s Congress is once again at the center of a free speech storm. This time, Deputy Armando Corona Arvizu from the ruling Morena party is proposing to make it a crime to create or share AI-generated memes or digital images that make fun of someone without their consent. His initiative, filed in the Chamber of Deputies, sets out prison terms of three to six years and fines for anyone who “create, manipulate, transform, reproduce or disseminate images, videos, audios or digital representations” made with artificial intelligence for the purpose of “ridiculing, harassing, impersonating or damaging” a person’s “reputation or dignity.” Read the bill here. The punishment would increase by half if the person targeted is a public official, minor, or person with a disability, or if the content spreads widely online or causes personal, psychological, or professional harm. The bill presents itself as protection against digital abuse but is, as always, a new attempt at censorship. The initiative would insert Articles 211 Bis 8 and 211 Bis 9 into the Federal Penal Code, written in vague and sweeping terms that could cover almost any form of online expression. It makes no distinction between a malicious deepfake and a harmless meme. By criminalizing content intended to “ridicule,” the bill allows courts or public figures to decide what counts as ridicule. That opens the door to arbitrary enforcement. There are no explicit protections for parody, satire, or public-interest criticism, all of which are essential to a free society. Even more troubling, the law increases penalties when the alleged victim is a public servant. That provision could turn the law into a tool for politicians to insulate themselves from criticism, since any joke, meme, or cartoon could be claimed to harm their “dignity.” Mexico has long relied on humor as a form of political expression. Memes, cartoons, and viral jokes often serve as the public’s way of questioning authority. Turning that humor into a potential crime would be a serious step backward. Instead of making the internet safer, this measure could create a chilling effect that discourages users from speaking or joking freely for fear of prison time. This is not the first time Morena has tried to police online humor. Former Puebla governor Alejandro Armenta introduced what became known as the Censorship Law, which sought to punish people for “insulting or offending” others online. The watchdog group Article 19 warned that its broad language could easily be used against journalists or ordinary citizens. Earlier this year, Ricardo Monreal suggested an Anti-Memes Law that would have required humorous posts to be labeled as “memes” to avoid penalties. Public outrage forced him to abandon the idea. Corona’s proposal follows the same path under a new label. While it claims to address the dangers of AI manipulation, its vague wording threatens free expression instead of safeguarding it. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Mexico Bill Proposes Prison for AI Memes Mocking Public Figures appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Some counties get botanical gardens. Some get aquatic centers with water slides named after local mayors. Baldwin County, Georgia, got a $650,000 real-time crime center with facial recognition, license plate readers, and enough data-wrangling software to make your old Facebook privacy settings weep in the corner. It’s a place where 911 calls, camera feeds, and digital breadcrumbs all meet in a gleaming new facility that promises to fight crime, solve cases, and, one assumes, know what kind of car you were driving when you rolled that stop sign on Liberty Street. 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 Across Counties and Cities, The Eyes and Ears Are On appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Chicago's Brandon Johnson Sets Up 'ICE Free Zones'

Google viciously smeared a key Trump advisor while he was fighting to secure a potentially historic peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and engaged in a high-stakes battle to reopen the federal government.  Google has been working overtime to send users to websites dripping with disdain for Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Google repeatedly elevated Miller’s Wikipedia page, which does not even pretend to be neutral. The search giant went on to promote the Southern Poverty Law Center’s far-left agitprop on Miller above even a White House link, while adding a side of unhinged media headlines. [The story continues on MRCFreeSpeechAmerica.org]  

ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg apparently didn’t learn a lesson from her former lover Ted Danson’s controversy of wearing blackface as a white man (which she defended). During Monday’s edition of The View, Goldberg instructed people to attend the Super Bowl in 2026 while wearing Latinoface in an effort to confuse the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that would be at the event as part of the usual Homeland Security deployment. Racism was a key aspect to the conversation as co-host Joy Behar accused DHS Secretary Kristi Noem of being a racist because she was sending ICE to the Super Bowl where Latino singer Bad Bunny was performing: She's threatening to go to the Super Bowl when Bad Bunny is there and round up all these people that are illegal immigrants. Do you think that she would go if it was Garth brooks or Eminem or Taylor Swift or any other white person?! This caused Goldberg to wonder, “How is she going to know who’s who?” as if Secretary Noem would be the one making the arrests. With Behar again pushing the lie that the Supreme Court legalized racial profiling, Goldberg solution was for attendees to dress up in Latinoface: BEHAR: Because the Supreme Court has given permission to question anyone who has a Spanish accent, who has a dark skin. That's why! GOLDBERG: Here is the thing, everybody, get a little cocoa butter, sit in the sun, that's the first thing. And then -- and this is the only time you can probably ever do this, give yourself a Latin accent. BEHAR: You know, Whoopi, that is such a good idea! GOLDBERG: And just see -- and see if she can tell who’s who!     Behar would go on to praise Goldberg’s racist idea as “very smart” and suggested it had historical context to support it, of course, it meant comparing the Trump administration to a Nazi occupation. “During the Nazi occupation there was one country, I believe it was Denmark or Norway. One of those. Where everybody put the Jewish star on and they didn't know who was Jewish or who was not,” she declared. Once again, despite proclaiming she knows history, Behar’s tale was a lie. During the war, Norway was very much an ally of Nazi German and according to the Holocaust Museum, the Danish didn’t wear the star on masse either. “In another version, the Danish people decided to wear yellow stars. Both of these particular stories are fictional. In fact, unlike Jews in other countries under German occupation, Jews in Denmark never wore an identification mark such as a yellow star,” the museum wrote about Danish King Christian X and Denmark during the war.     Previously, while declaring “I know history,” Behar once claimed that it was NATO military alliance that fought and defeated Hitler. It’s also worth noting that Behar herself had worn blackface in a similar way to what Goldberg described. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View October 6, 2025 11:04:32 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: She's threatening to go to the Super Bowl when Bad Bunny is there and round up all these people that are illegal immigrants. Do you think that she would go if it was Garth brooks or Eminem or Taylor Swift or any other white person?! WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Let me understand what you're saying because she's going to go to the Super Bowl and round up -- how is she going to know who’s who? BEHAR: Because the Supreme Court has given permission to question anyone who has a Spanish accent, who has a dark skin. That's why! GOLDBERG: Here is the thing, everybody, get a little cocoa butter, sit in the sun, that's the first thing. And then -- and this is the only time you can probably ever do this, give yourself a Latin accent. BEHAR: You know, Whoopi, that is such a good idea! GOLDBERG: And just see -- and see if she can tell who’s who! ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Who do they think are buying Super Bowl tickets?! I can't afford a Super Bowl ticket. BEHAR: During the Nazi occupation there was one country, I believe it was Denmark or Norway. One of those. Where everybody put the Jewish star on and they didn't know who was Jewish or who was not. So what you are saying is very smart! (…)

Hold on to your britches because you’re not going to believe this one. The Washington Post Editorial Board just admitted that the so-called "Affordable Care Act," one the most notorious pieces of Obama-era legislation foisted upon consumers by legislators and the liberal media as the saving grace of American health care, turned out to be an expensive mess. The Post tried to play both sides of the fence in the ongoing government shutdown stand off with Republicans and Democrats, the latter of which demanded “Republicans agree to extend the Covid-era insurance subsidies without proposing any way to pay for it.” Then The Post ran one of the biggest plot twists ever to hit American politics in the last 15 years: “The real problem is that the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] was never actually affordable.” Nope, your eyes didn’t deceive you. The architects of former President Barack Obama’s 2010 “signature achievement,” wrote The Post, “assumed that risk pools would be bigger than they turned out to be. As a result, policies cost more than expected.” Gee, that’s an awfully different tone than the liberal rag was striking in 2024 when the editorial board celebrated how “Obamacare is working brilliantly — for now.” That’s despite the fact that premiums for individual market plans doubled in costs and “the per enrollee cost of Medicaid expansion is nearly 60 percent greater than what experts projected,” as the Paragon Health Institute summarized in an October 2024 study. It’s as if the newspaper detected that the proverbial statute of limitations had run out and the risk of consumers viciously  prosecuting them in the public square for lying to them over the years was minimal. Over 11 years ago, the editorial board sang the praises of Obamacare’s so-called “free-market economics.” The newspaper then deflected criticism of Obama’s infamous phony pledge that “if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor:”  “Now, critics say, those people can't keep their doctors, either. Another broken promise? More proof the ACA is a disaster? Not quite: As with all of those canceled policies, this ‘outrage’ isn’t good evidence that the law is flawed, no matter what the president may have promised.” Another 2013 news item from The Post celebrated how “Obamacare is winning.”  In 2014, once the major ACA provisions were put into place, The Post editorial board was gleefully keeping track of the disastrous law’s illusory “W’s.”  “OBAMACARE'S CRITICS have had a bad week. On Thursday, President Obama announced that 8 million people have enrolled in new health insurance plans,” wrote The Post. “[T]he initial figures are encouraging, and Mr. Obama is right to insist that continued Republican demands for repeal are unproductive and unwise.” In 2017, Post Tokyo Bureau Chief Michelle Ye Hee Lee channeled her inner Glenn  Glesser and played pro-Obamacare fact-checker against President Donald Trump: “Decoding the White House spin on Obamacare ‘failures.’” But now, the years of nonstop pro-Obamacare gaslighting and narrative-twisting that got spewed out of The Post’s printers seems to have been undone by, er, The Post itself: This is how entitlement programs work. Once you habituate people to some generous government handout, they grow dependent on it. And it becomes politically perilous, if not impossible, to fully claw it back." That is how the Democrat Party works. Install entitlement, blame Republicans when anyone tries to limit it in any way.