Maria Niotis and Isabella Salas were both 17 years old, relatives said

'That era is finished'

'I am terrified out of my mind'

The “Schumer Shutdown” is here and Democrats have essentially reversed thirty years of messaging about the dangers of closing the government. Forty-three Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Shumer, D-N.Y., voted against a stopgap budget measure Tuesday night that triggered a government shutdown. This came over protests by congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump. It’s a remarkable reversal for America’s two major political parties. In past shutdown debates, Republicans have typically been in the more difficult position of demanding budget cuts while Democrats blast them for not supporting X, Y, and Z. In many cases there has been a Democrat in the White House who could help congressional Democrats craft any narrative they chose about the catastrophic consequence of the government closing. They’ve typically portrayed the ensuing government shutdowns as something akin to the apocalypse. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., posted a montage of Democrats arguing during past budget battles saying that shutting down the government would be devastating to the average American. Under President Biden, Democrats insisted we must keep the government open.Now under President Trump they’re saying the opposite.Last week every single House Democrat but one voted to SHUT DOWN the government.WATCH Democrats in their own words explain how damaging that is. pic.twitter.com/RNPNpCqheX— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) September 22, 2025 “We are not willing to pay $2.5 billion or $5 billion and wasting taxpayer dollars on a ransom note because Donald Trump decided that he was going to shut down the government and hold the American people hostage,” then-incoming House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in 2018. “Stop trying to negotiate. Open the government. Then we’ll talk about whatever you want to talk about,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., one of the most prominent and vocal backers of the current shutdown, said in 2018, according to the New York Post. This sort of messaging goes back even further for Democrats, who’ve used the potential for government shutdown to excoriate Republicans about “gamesmanship” for decades. President Bill Clinton was able to turn the government shutdown message in his party’s favor in 1995. Clinton, who of course had a supportive media environment to aid him, went with the consistent message that Republicans were holding the government “hostage” while he was trying to save Medicare. The plan worked. During what turned out to be the longest government shutdown in American history up to that point, the public soured somewhat on Republicans, who had made historic congressional gains in the 1994 midterm elections under the leadership of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Clinton was able to stem that tide with his success in the shutdown fight, though he later declared in his 1996 State of the Union Address that the “era of big government is over.” So, the ultimate impact was mixed, but the consensus in Washington became that Democrats won the messaging battle and Clinton continued to be popular with the American public. President Barack Obama, who had an even more favorable media environment than Clinton, pinned the blame for the 2013 government shutdown on Republicans who merely had “disagreements” over health care policy. His strategy was to create the illusion that he was a practical moderate while his opponents were wild-eyed extremists. Like Clinton, Obama went with the narrative that Republicans were trying to take away health care from Americans and were holding the country hostage to do it. He rather absurdly chimed in during the current budget fight to make the same claim. Republicans would rather shut down the government than help millions of Americans afford health care. This article tells some of their stories, and is a good reminder of what’s at stake. https://t.co/yaBBH470SF— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 28, 2025 As Fox News commentator Guy Benson pointed out though, Obama argued in 2013 that shutting down the government over differences in health care policy was just beyond the pale. He said that Republicans shouldn’t hold the whole country “hostage” over “ideological demands.” Fun flashback of a man excoriating his political opposition for forcing a government shutdown over healthcare policy disagreements: https://t.co/miJf3x8zB4 pic.twitter.com/Hy4Ha5wjN8— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 30, 2025 Ah, maybe what he meant is that Republicans can’t shut down the government over ideological differences, but when Democrats do it that’s all good and well. In the past, Democrats have tried to portray themselves as the guardians of the average American, looking out for the little guy and all that. This time they aren’t doing such a good job of making that case, since some of the health care benefits they are protecting is, in part, for noncitizens. While the media and some Democrats have denied that they are protecting benefits for illegal aliens, Vice President JD Vance explained how two programs from President Joe Biden’s tenure gave federal benefits to illegal aliens. Vance said that in the beginning of their negotiations Democrats demanded these benefits be turned back on. .@VP nukes the Democrat lie that they aren't trying to give free health care to illegals:"It's not something that we made up. It's not a talking point. It is in the text of the bill that they initially gave to us to reopen the government." pic.twitter.com/regw9fGH1i— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 1, 2025 Democrats and their allies in the media continue to deny this accusation, but as my colleague Tony Kinnett pointed out, some states controlled by Democrats have previously been clear that the programs were being used by illegal aliens. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Claims Democrats Don’t Want To Give Illegal Aliens Health Care Benefits. Democrat-Led States Say Otherwise @TheTonus Ahead of tonight’s impending government shut down, House Democrat Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries fended off claims from Republicans and senior… pic.twitter.com/EZ2480eu0H— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) September 30, 2025 Schumer used to be against giving benefits to illegal aliens, but much has changed since the 1990s it seems. Chuck Schumer once recognized that it was disastrous to give illegal aliens rewards for breaking the law. Now he wants to shut down the government unless we…reward illegal aliens for breaking the law. https://t.co/iFm9snfiQ9— JD Vance (@JDVance) September 30, 2025 “All over where we go, people say, ‘Well, can’t you stop illegal immigrants or others from coming here?’ And the number one answer we give our constituents is, when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud,” Schumer, who was at the time a congressman, said in a speech in 1996. So, Democrats are in a real pickle now. They don’t have a clear message about why they’ve chosen to go nuclear in this government funding fight besides the old “health care” throwback that has a lot of holes this time around. Democrats weren’t playing chicken with catastrophe. Instead, they were rushing blindly into a wall of their own making. The Democratic Party base is looking for confrontation and blood. They want their party leaders to oppose literally anything Trump and Republicans in Congress are a part of, regardless of what it means for the country. So here we are. By going into shutdown they’ve essentially handed Republicans a perfect opportunity to conduct DOGE 2.0. Now, it’s Democrats who are holding the country “hostage” and every day that goes by another group of bureaucrats will be fired. Quite a genius strategy from the party of big government. The post Democrats Trapped By Decades of Messaging on Government Shutdowns appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. On Sept. 23, President Donald Trump gave an address to the United Nations. It was a rare address. Believe me. No one has ever been that blunt, that explicit, and that critical of the U.N. It was scheduled to be 15 minutes—but on the other hand, if the U.N. membership was shocked at the candor of Donald Trump, Donald Trump had ample reasons to be candid because before he even gave the speech, he and first lady Melania Trump and their entourage were just, the minute they got on the escalator, it mysteriously shut down. And by the way, the London Times had run a story saying that some members wanted to shut it down in protest of Trump’s cutting back on U.N. support. That was an odd thing to happen. No. 2 was the teleprompter suddenly went out. But the escalator, by this time, was mysteriously back in service and the teleprompter would be too. And then, three, unbeknownst to Donald Trump, people, reporters, and even first lady Melania Trump said you couldn’t hear Trump. All of a sudden, mysteriously, his sound was—what do you want to call it Deamplified? And then fourth, for a minute, the translation did not come into English to the membership, but to Portuguese. All four of those circumstances were almost impossible to occur in one session. So, what am I getting at? This is very serious. It means that the United Nations has employees, or perhaps administrators, who deliberately tried to sabotage an American president while on American soil. So, Donald Trump, as he was experiencing the breakdown in the teleprompter, and had just gone through the escalator shock, decided to lengthen his speech from 15 minutes to about 55, and he had some blockbuster things to say. First of all, the U.N. did not like it. They sat in stony silence. Why? First of all, he said the U.N. had been of no real importance when he was trying to negotiate peace, or at least a ceasefire, with the Congo and Rwanda, with Serbia and Bosnia, with Russia, of course, and Ukraine, Pakistan and India. I could go on, but he had seven separate conflicts that he at least got a temporary ceasefire. There was no U.N. praise, there was no U.N. input. The subtext, what he was saying, is that most of their declarations of condemnation are against tiny Israel. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would follow his appearance at the U.N. and half—at least a lot of the contingents—just simply walked out. Now, they didn’t do that for the Palestinians, of course. And notice another thing. Israel is a democratic country, and they walk out when the prime minister speaks. But they don’t walk out when Chinese leader Xi Jinping speaks. He’s got over a million people in a Uyghur labor camp. They don’t walk out when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks. Turkey has occupied for a half-century, illegally, Northern Cyprus. And they don’t, of course, walk out when a Russian diplomat speaks, when they’ve killed over 150,000 Ukrainians in this war. It’s only selective because Israel is tiny, it’s Western, and—let’s speak frank—it’s Jewish. But Donald Trump—so, he knows all that in advance and he has no respect for the U.N. The other subtext that got the U.N. people very angry was that he talked about Europe—not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America. And they felt excluded. But he—it was very passive-aggressive. He said to Europe: I love Europe. I want you to fulfill, essentially, your shared Western heritage with us, but you’re not doing it, and you’re not doing it for three or four things. No. 1, you’ve embarked on a suicidal energy policy that subsidizes inefficient and unsustainable green energy—solar and wind, specifically—and you’ve given up oil and natural gas and clean coal and nuclear, and you’ve lost your competitive edge and your consumers are hurting. No. 2, you let in millions of illegal immigrants—and not just any illegal immigrants, mostly from the war-torn Middle East, who were Islamic and had no desire to adapt to, integrate with, or assimilate with Western civilization’s customs, cultural norms. And therefore, you’ve got a terrible problem with immigration, you’ve got inefficient energy, and you’re disarmed. And I’m lecturing you, Trump said, because I love Europe and I want you to be a full partner. And that offended the rest of the world that wasn’t—didn’t get that privilege of having a U.S. president talk directly to them, but it also got the Europeans angry because he was telling them the truth. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Silenced at the UN? Trump Faced Broken Escalator, Teleprompter Outage, and More appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The federal government is currently in shutdown mode after Democrats pushed to continue taxpayer support for health care plans that cover abortions and transgender medical procedures.  In the legislative finagling prior to the shutdown on Wednesday, Democrats pushed to extend the Obamacare enhanced subsidies, which are set to expire on Dec. 31, and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize plans that cover medical procedures many Americans find morally objectionable. The Daily Signal spoke with Chris Jacobs, the founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, a policy shop located in Washington, about the specifics of a continuing resolution supported by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Jacobs elaborated on how the Obamacare subsidies affect health care coverage. “Obamacare subsidies are subsidies that pay for a portion of the premiums. The subsidies reduce the monthly premium costs for most enrollees. Most enrollees on the exchanges have some, at least some, and in many cases, all of their premium subsidies, subsidized such that they pay $0 out of pocket,” he said. “This is one of the reasons why the enrollment has increased in the past few years, when the enhanced subsidies have been in place, because they are, quote-unquote ‘free’ to the enrollees, and therefore the enrollees sign up and remain signed up, even if they have other other forms of health coverage.” When it comes to the firewall separating taxpayer funding from abortion, Jacobs describes the ostensible separation of federal funds as a sham segregation mechanism. “[T]he problem is, money is fungible. If you are making health insurance. If you are funding the non-abortion portion of health insurance, that, by its very nature, is making the abortion portion of the policy more affordable. So, the pro-life community has consistently. since Obamacare passed in 2010, said that the only real solution is to prohibit federal funding from going to any plans that cover abortion,” Jacobs said.  During the debate over Obamacare back in 2009, a bipartisan legislative proposal, known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment—named after its sponsors, then-Reps. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Joseph Pitts, R-Pa.—would have explicitly prohibited federal funds from going to pay for any part of a health plan that includes coverage of an abortion. The measure was initially adopted by the House of Representatives, receiving votes by dozens of Democrat members. But it was left out of the final version of the legislation that was signed into law by President Barack Obama after he agreed to sign an executive order ostensibly limiting abortion.  According to Jacobs, the federal dollars are also going to support transgender procedures in some states. “There are 24 states that require they have quote-unquote, ‘nondiscrimination provisions’ in their law. And in most states, the insurance commissioners just impose these requirements on carriers, such that, for instance, if they cover a mastectomy as treatment for breast cancer, then they also need to cover a mastectomy as, quote, ‘gender-affirmative care,’ and because otherwise they would be discriminating based on gender identity,” he explained. “So, 24 states have that. And then of those 24, five have them, have the benefits, have transgender procedures included in their essential health benefits, which is the benchmark for determining coverage that all the states have as part of determining, you know, kind of the standard quote-unquote ‘benchmark’ coverage in that particular state, and five states have those included, such that they’re required in all plans,” Jacobs told The Daily Signal. The policy expert explained how the state of Colorado’s Division of Insurance webpage lists transgender surgeries that are covered by insurance plans in the state, including such procedures as genital surgeries and facial feminization interventions. Jacobs noted that the Trump administration has issued a final rule in June that would attempt to prevent taxpayer dollars going to cover transgender procedures. That rule would be subject to both legal challenges and a future presidential administration repealing it. Jacobs contended that what was needed to address those issues was a legislative fix. “[T]he Trump administration is trying to take executive action, and they’re doing what they can within the bounds of the law. But ultimately, a legislative fix is really what you need here, because any administrative fix will, by definition, be incomplete,” he said.  The post Fights Over Abortion, Transgender Procedures Are Subtexts to Shutdown Fight appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The British government has renewed its efforts to gain access to encrypted iCloud data. Not globally this time, but with a narrowed focus on UK users. In early September, the Home Office issued a new order to Apple, requesting the company build a mechanism that would allow authorities to access encrypted cloud backups belonging to British citizens. The order, though smaller in scope than its predecessor from earlier this year, carries similarly sweeping implications for privacy. It’s a familiar script: national security invoked, encryption targeted, and public accountability quietly avoided. Apple has not commented publicly, constrained by laws that prevent companies from discussing so-called “technical capability notices.” The Home Office, for its part, also declined to answer questions. That silence is telling and troubling. Earlier this year, when the UK government demanded backdoor access to all users’ encrypted iCloud data, regardless of nationality, Apple responded by withdrawing its most advanced privacy feature, iCloud Advanced Data Protection, from the UK market altogether. At the time, the company said: “As we have said many times before, we have never built a back door or master key to any of our products or services, and we never will.” That position has not changed. What has changed is the UK’s strategy. After the original order triggered backlash in Washington, including objections from high-level Trump administration officials and concerns over the impact on a future trade deal, the British government has now reissued the demand with a domestic focus, seemingly to avoid international fallout. But even a geographically limited demand like this one raises significant concerns. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s target is end-to-end encryption, the security architecture that protects sensitive user data such as messages, passwords, and personal health records from unauthorized access. Undermining it, even partially, risks exposing not only British users’ data, but the broader integrity of the system itself. Privacy International and Liberty, two UK-based rights groups, have joined Apple in challenging the original notice through the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the country’s opaque and often unaccountable surveillance court. A legal hearing was scheduled for early 2026. Now, with a new order in play, that timeline may shift. But the stakes remain unchanged. The initial demand caused serious diplomatic tension with the United States. Both Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reportedly urged UK officials to back down. President Donald Trump described the move as reminiscent of authoritarian surveillance practices. And in August, Gabbard claimed that the UK had “agreed to drop” its demand for access to encrypted data belonging to Americans. Now, with the same core demand reshaped and reissued, the risk of renewed political friction is back on the table. More importantly, this is not an isolated issue. Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, civil liberties in Britain have been quietly but steadily eroded. Arrests over social media posts, including those deemed politically sensitive or offensive, have become more common. Police forces across the country have expanded their use of facial recognition technology, often with minimal public oversight. At the same time, the government is reviving plans for a centralized digital identity system, one that critics say would consolidate surveillance powers under the guise of administrative convenience. Each of these developments is concerning on its own. Taken together, they suggest a broader downward spiral: a growing tolerance for state surveillance and a declining commitment to individual privacy. When encryption is weakened, even for supposedly limited purposes, the consequences ripple outward. A hole in iCloud security for British users is still a hole. And once that door exists, legally, technically, or even conceptually, it rarely stays shut. What once felt exceptional is now becoming a dangerous standard: biometric scans on city streets, arrests over internet posts, and government efforts to break privacy protections that were once considered non-negotiable. The latest order to Apple may not make headlines outside tech circles, but it represents another step toward a surveillance culture that is no longer hypothetical but increasingly real and increasingly difficult to reverse. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Starmer Adds To UK Civil Liberties Decline With Reckless iCloud Backdoor Demand appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Ukrainians Roman Lozynskyi and Svitlana Kisilova got married in June of 2024, and not a single bureaucrat had to lift a stamp. No paper, no awkward photo ops. Just a few swipes on Ukraine’s Diia app and some digital signatures, and boom, legally binding matrimony. In a country battered by war and bureaucracy in equal measure, that kind of efficiency practically counts as romantic. 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 Inside Ukraine’s Digital Identity Experiment the World Is Watching appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

They welcomed a stray cat, thinking he might be friendly. As it turned out, he'd been waiting for this moment all along. ChuckGreenpoint CatsAbout three months ago, a stray tabby's wish came true when he finally left the streets behind.For so long, he had dodged cars, braved the elements, and scavenged for scraps to survive. But when a kind person spotted him, he poured out his heart in desperate meows for help. Through a TNR effort, he was brought to safety."From the moment he arrived, it was clear from his gentle demeanor and sad meows that he was a friendly cat," shared Greenpoint Cats, the all-volunteer rescue that took him in. He came up to a kind person, begging for helpGreenpoint CatsThe tabby, affectionately named Lucky Chuck E Cheese, was sweet and gentle. Even while he was in the carrier, he meowed softly, seeking affection. Knowing he was never meant for the streets, the rescue began searching for a foster home.Once given a little more space, Chuck's true personality started to shine. He meowed for attention even when he was in the carrierGreenpoint CatsWhile waiting for a foster home, Chuck stayed in a kennel. For a few days, he curled up in his litter box—a refuge where he could decompress. Volunteers visited him daily, and little by little, he began to come out of his shell.Then, one day, his longing for love outweighed his fear, and he reached out for affection. Greenpoint CatsFrom then on, whenever Chuck saw someone approach, he would sing "the song of his people" until the kennel door opened.Like a trust fall, he'd flop into their hands with complete faith, purring loudly as he soaked up every stroke. He'd even try to sneak out of the door, desperate to stay close to his people. Chuck came out of his shell and started demanding affectionGreenpoint CatsKnowing he deserved so much more, a foster family welcomed him into their home.Chuck quickly embraced the comforts of indoor life: soft blankets, nourishing meals, and endless love. Before long, he snuggled against his foster mom, eyes closed, purring himself to sleep. He turned into the ultimate cuddle bugGreenpoint CatsNow, Chuck shadows his people from room to room, thriving on their companionship. Whether they're on the couch, at the table, or in bed, he is always nearby, ready to offer a cuddle.After so many lonely days on the streets, he now loves with all his heart, making up for lost time. Greenpoint CatsThanks to the community's support, Chuck is fully vetted, neutered, and preparing for a much-needed dental surgery for his inflamed gums. This will finally allow him to live a pain-free life.Despite all he has endured, Chuck remains a ray of sunshine with so much to give. Greenpoint Cats"We are finding more and more friendly cats on the street. It's overwhelming our city shelter and crippling small rescues like ours."But thanks to the dedication of volunteers and the generosity of the community, Chuck is finally safe, surrounded by caring people who are committed to giving him a bright future. Greenpoint CatsNo longer roaming the streets in search of food, Chuck now enjoys hearty meals, warm beds, and restful naps.As the ultimate cuddle bug, he melts into his people and fills their home with the most comforting sound: his soothing purrs. Greenpoint CatsShare this story with your friends. More on Chuck and Greenpoint Cats on Instagram and Facebook.Related story: Kitten Left in Stairwell, But His Face Lights Up As Soon As He's in a Home, Especially at Sight of Other Cats

Dems Now: Oh, It's Just a Teeny, TINY Little Number of UNDOCUMENTED on That Healthcare Thing