'These demented and dangerous sanctuary policies have deadly consequences'

'Don't we matter? Aren't we Aussies?'

Traveling abroad opens doors to new cultures, experiences, and most importantly, people. Yet, one of the biggest obstacles travelers face is the language barrier that prevents meaningful connections. Fortunately, modern technology has revolutionized cross-cultural communication, making it easier than ever to forge genuine friendships in foreign lands. Today’s advanced translator devices are not just tools […]

The Southern Poverty Law Center was deeply involved in setting federal policy during the Biden administration, as well as law enforcement and even school policies across the country, despite labeling mainstream right-of-center organizations as “hate groups,” experts told a House panel Tuesday.  The SPLC previously claimed it was not anti-Christian, citing how it did not label Focus on the Family on its “hate map.” However, earlier this year, the group did add Focus on the Family to the list–and removed the defense of being anti-Christian from the website, said Tyler O’Neil, senior editor of The Daily Signal and author of “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.” The “hate map,” is intended to chill speech, O’Neil told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government on Tuesday.  “This contributes to the hostile climate in which conservatives keep their mouths shut in order to avoid being accused of racism, Islamophobia, or hate,” O’Neil said. “It is no accident that activists use this hate map to deplatform conservatives, or that activist groups have tried to pressure donor advised funds to blacklist the SPLC’s targets.” The Real Reason the SPLC Excludes Antifa From Its Hate MapAt today's @JudiciaryGOP hearing on the SPLC's influence on federal civil rights policy, @RepHageman asks The Daily Signal's @Tyler2ONeil why ?they exclude "Antifa, pro-Palestinian, and pro Hamas organizations on… pic.twitter.com/dfYW3Lq2TJ— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 16, 2025 The subcommittee held a hearing investigating the SPLC’s coordination with the Biden administration titled “Partisan and Profitable: The SPLC’s Influence on Federal Civil Rights Policy.”  The SPLC has frequently labeled conservative groups as comparable to the Ku Klux Klan. O’Neil noted the Biden White House hosted SPLC staff at least 18 times. During the Biden administration, the FBI cited the SPLC in its memo targeting “radical-traditional Catholics.”  He highlighted an SPLC staffer who advised the Justice Department on hate crimes and spoke at a symposium for prosecutors about the “anti-LGBTQ movement.” Further, Biden nominated SPLC attorney Nancy Abudu to a federal judgeship on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.   Daily Signal Editor Schools Democrat Rep. On How the SPLC Targets CatholicsThe Daily Signal’s @Tyler2ONeil sets the record straight with Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., on how the SPLC demonizes Catholics by labeling the Ruth Institute a “hate group” for adhering to the teachings of… pic.twitter.com/JYWBQGmEiP— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 16, 2025 During the hearing, Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., asked about why the SPLC hasn’t warned about Antifa, pro-Palestinian groups that targeted Jewish students at college campuses, or pro-abortion agitators that targeted pro-life centers.  O’Neil said it was an “absolute travesty” that conservative groups such as Turning Point USA and Moms for Liberty were labeled as anti-government extremist groups, while the SPLC “did not put actual groups that are hurling Molotov cocktails at government buildings” on its list of threats. What Happens to an Organization When Labeled a ‘Hate Group’ by the SPLC?At today's @JudiciaryGOP hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s influence on federal civil rights policy, Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin dismissed the SPLC’s hate map as something that can simply be… pic.twitter.com/LI9o0Muykh— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 16, 2025 Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said no one from the SPLC has ever been convicted in a violent crime. “The Southern Poverty Law Center has been a vigilant voice in civil society, against radical white nationalist violence and extremism, neo Nazism, and other forces across the political spectrum that spread organized hate,” Raskin said.  Members and witnesses noted that earlier this year, the SPLC added Turning Point USA to its “hate map.” In October, a gunman assassinated TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk in Utah. Kirk warned about the SPLC’s rhetoric, said Andrew Sypher, executive vice president of field operations for TPUSA.  “Charlie warned, just before his murder, that the SPLC’s hate map designation, equating campus kids who promote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and pro-life, pro family values with the KKK and neo-Nazis, would put Turning Point in the crosshairs. This proved prophetic,” Sypher said.  Subcommittee Chairman Chip Roy, R-Texas, said the SPLC began as a legitimate civil rights organization, but “has reinvented itself as a political fundraising machine built on an ever-expanding ideologically defined hate mission.” Roy noted the SPLC has more than $829 million in assets with an endowment of more than $738 million. “Fear is profitable, and this organization  built a financial model around it,” Roy said.  Toward the conclusion of the hearing, Roy asked if the SPLC rhetoric created an atmosphere that led to Kirk’s assasination. Sypher, of Turning Point USA, replied, “most definitely.” “I find it ironic that a civil rights organization is marginalizing the country,” Sypher said.  In 2012, an LGBTQ+ activist opened fire at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council after the gunman saw the conservative group on the SPLC’s “hate map.” The shooter was stopped and later convicted on terrorism charges.  “To the SPLC, the life threatening gunshot suffered by our African American building manager, Leo Johnson, was a little more than collateral damage, acceptable if it intimidated Christians who uphold biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality,” FRC President Tony Perkins said of the shooting. “Local law enforcement agencies circulate SPLC lists as though they were intelligence bulletins,” Perkins later followed. “Schools have incorporated SPLC’s material into curriculum presented to children as objective facts. Major corporations from online platforms to payment processors have used SPLC’s label to deny services, restrict donations, and cut off basic financial tools to Americans. “Once a group is branded, the SPLC label functions like a digital scarlet letter deployed to restrict speech, marginalize, and financially ruin individuals in organizations.” The SPLC did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story on Tuesday. Subcommittee ranking member, Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., complained the SPLC was not invited to the hearing to defend itself. The Democrats’ witness was Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. “Civil rights organizations, Southern Poverty Law Center included, are part of the essential infrastructure of American civil society,” she said. “Civil rights organizations have historically helped communities in many ways, including documenting and combating discrimination.” The post House Investigates SPLC’s Profiting, Partisanship in Attack on Conservative Groups appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Pentagon is plowing ahead in its investigation of Arizona Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly, who told service members they “can refuse illegal orders.” “The Office of the Secretary of War, in conjunction with the Department of War’s Office of the General Counsel, is escalating the preliminary review of Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.), to an official Command Investigation,” a Department of War official told reporters in a statement Monday. “Retired Captain Kelly is currently under investigation for serious allegations of misconduct,” it adds. Kelly retired from the Navy in 2011, having served since the 1980s. He served as a naval aviator during the Gulf War. Kelly said in a response statement Monday that it “should send a shiver down the spine of every patriotic American that the president and secretary of defense would abuse their power to come after me or anyone this way.” Kelly drew the Pentagon’s attention when he contributed to a video statement alongside other Democrat lawmakers in which they urged members of the military and the intelligence community to disobey unlawful orders. “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers state as they each say different parts of a sentence.  “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly says personally. Department of War Senior Legal Advisor Tim Parlatore said earlier in December of the investigation, “There’s a range of options here … They could give him a letter of reprimand. They could actually take one of his ranks away in retirement and lower his pension.” The Department of War has previously said that its actions in Kelly’s case “may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.”  Kelly told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday in response to the news, “This is just about sending a message to retired service members, active-duty service members, government employees—do not speak out against this president or there will be consequences.” The post Pentagon ‘Escalating’ Mark Kelly Investigation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. UK officials are preparing to urge Apple and Google to redesign their operating systems so that every phone and computer sold in the country can automatically block nude imagery unless the user has proved they are an adult. The proposal, part of the Home Office’s upcoming plan under the premise of combating violence against women and girls, would rely on technology built directly into devices, with software capable of scanning images locally to detect material. Under the plan, as reported by FT, such scanning would be turned on by default. Anyone wanting to take, send, or open an explicit photo would first have to verify their age using a government-issued ID or a biometric check. The goal, officials say, is to prevent children from being exposed to sexual material or drawn into exploitative exchanges online. People briefed on the discussions said the Home Office had explored the possibility of making these tools a legal requirement but decided, for now, to rely on encouragement rather than legislation. Even so, the expectation is that large manufacturers will come under intense pressure to comply. The government’s approach reflects growing anxiety about how easily minors can access sexual content and how grooming can occur through everyday apps. Instead of copying Australia’s decision to ban social media use for under-16s, British ministers have chosen to focus on controlling imagery itself. Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips has praised technology firms that already filter content at the device level. She cited HMD Global, maker of Nokia phones, for embedding child-protection software called HarmBlock, created by UK-based SafeToNet, which automatically blocks explicit images from being viewed or shared. Apple and Google have built smaller-scale systems of their own. Apple’s “Communication Safety” function scans photos in apps like Messages, AirDrop, and FaceTime and warns children when nudity is detected, but teens can ignore the alert. Google’s Family Link and “sensitive content warnings” work similarly on Android, though they stop short of scanning across all apps. Both companies allow parents to apply restrictions, but neither has a universal filter that covers the entire operating system. The Home Office wants to go further, calling for a system that would block any nude image unless an adult identity check has been passed. More: UK Lawmakers Propose Mandatory On-Device Surveillance and VPN Age Verification Officials have also indicated that desktop computers could eventually be included, noting that products such as Microsoft Teams already screen for content. Privacy and data rights advocates have raised alarms about the implications of linking biometric verification to content scanning. Although the analysis could happen locally on the device, it would still involve the system continuously examining personal photos and videos. Such a setup could move ordinary private devices toward a model of constant surveillance, with algorithms monitoring every image a person creates. There are also questions about enforcement and reliability. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The UK’s Plan to Put an Age Verification Chaperone in Every Pocket appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. This week in the UK, Parliament held a debate in response to a public petition that gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA). It was a rare opportunity for elected officials to prove they still listen to their constituents. Instead, the overwhelming message from MPs was clear: thanks for your concern, but we’d actually like even more control over what you can do online. One by one, MPs stood up not to defend free expression, or question whether one of the most radical internet control laws in modern British history might have gone too far, but to argue that it hadn’t gone far enough. “It’s Not Censorship, It’s Responsibility” (Apparently) Lizzi Collinge, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, insisted the OSA “is not about controlling speech.” She claimed it was about giving the online world the same “safety features” as the offline one. This was a recurring theme throughout the debate: reassure the public that speech isn’t being restricted while calling for more mechanisms to restrict it. Ian Murray, Minister for Digital Government and Data, also insisted the OSA protects freedom of expression. According to him, there’s no contradiction in saying people can speak freely, as long as they’re age-verified, avoid VPNs, and don’t say anything that might be flagged by a government regulator. It’s a neat trick. Say you support free speech, then build an entire law designed to monitor, filter, and police it. VPNs in the Firing Line There is a growing fixation inside government with VPNs. These are basic privacy tools used by millions of people every day, often to protect their data. But several MPs, including Jim McMahon, Julia Lopez, and Ian Murray, suggested VPNs should be subject to age verification or regulatory restrictions. It’s unclear whether these MPs understand how VPNs work or if they simply dislike the idea of anyone browsing the internet without supervision. Either way, the intent is clear. The government wants fewer ways for people to browse anonymously. More: From Madison to Moscow: How VPNs Work and Why Governments (Despite Trying) Can’t Stop Them The AI Panic Button Several MPs were clearly rattled by the existence of AI chatbots and called for new censorship powers to rein them in. Manuela Perteghella warned that the OSA “leaves a significant gap” around generative AI, claiming children are at risk from private conversations with bots. Ann Davies said the government wasn’t moving quickly enough to regulate this emerging technology. Lola McEvoy, meanwhile, called for bots to be labelled clearly so users would know when they’re talking to a machine. She also demanded stronger age verification. The idea that every website should identify bots like they’re wearing a hi-vis jacket is a perfect metaphor for how Parliament thinks the internet should work. Censorship as Cure-All Jim McMahon gave the clearest call for wider censorship. He argued the current OSA doesn’t do enough to tackle foreign influence, misinformation, racism, misogyny, and hate. He also claimed major platforms are suppressing “mainstream opinion” in favor of falsehoods. Emily Darlington, MP for Milton Keynes Central, joined the call for greater platform moderation. She said platforms should be able to remove false claims, even offering a bizarre example of someone saying she has pink eyes. “Somebody could post that I am actually purple and have pink eyes,” she said. “I would say, ‘I don’t want you to say that,’ and the platform would say, ‘But there’s nothing offensive about it.’ I would say, ‘But it’s not me.’ The thing is that this is happening in much more offensive ways.” Her larger point was that online slander should be taken down by force if necessary. She also supported end-to-end encryption backdoors, which would allow private messages to be scanned before being sent. A Lone Voice in the Wilderness Lewis Atkinson, Labour MP for Sunderland Central, did raise some concerns. He said he spoke with petition creator Alex Baynham and acknowledged the chilling effect of the OSA on small forums and community websites. He noted that 300 forums had already shut down or migrated to larger platforms like Facebook because of legal risk. He mentioned a Sunderland AFC message board admin who almost closed the site due to the overwhelming volume of guidance from Ofcom. But even with all this evidence in front of him, Atkinson couldn’t bring himself to support repeal. Instead, he hedged, suggesting reform would be more realistic than repeal. He backed several of the OSA’s key features, including stronger age verification. What This Debate Actually Revealed This was not a debate in any meaningful sense. It was a full-throated defense of a law that is already doing damage to online spaces and a promise that more is coming. MPs didn’t engage seriously with the petition. They didn’t question whether the OSA is overreaching or whether it might be driving smaller forums offline. They mostly ignored the fact that the law makes the internet harder to navigate unless you’re a large company with a legal department. Instead, they said the OSA is working well and that it needs more teeth. They want to control AI, crack down on VPNs, regulate encryption, and force companies to implement more age verification. The public might be concerned about censorship, surveillance, and freedom of expression. But the mood in Westminster is very different. They don’t want to repeal the OSA. In fact, their attack on civil liberties is only just getting started. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Parliament Rejects Petition to Repeal Online Censorship Law, Calls for Expanded Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Dugan Told Fellow Judge She Was In the Doghouse Because She 'Tried to Help That Guy'

Hours after the Monday edition of ABC’s Good Morning America refused to ascribe motive to the attack in Sydney, Australia on a Hanukkah celebration or label it either anti-Semitism or radical Islamic terror, the network’s flagship evening newscast World News Tonight and Tuesday’s Good Morning America promptly engaged in a serious clean-up mode. Hong Kong-based correspondent Britt Clennett arrived to take over the Sydney coverage and immediately hit the right notes: CLEAN-UP on aisle 'World News Tonight' -- ABC foreign correspondent Britt Clennett immediately does a 180 in Sydney from the Faith Abubey segment on 'Good Morning America' in using the word anti-Semitism and tying the shooters to ISIS and radical Islam pic.twitter.com/GGPawY1pe3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 16, 2025   “[N]ew details on the father and son who authorities say carried out that anti-Semitic massacre at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia’s iconic Bondi Beach....Tonight, law enforcement sources telling ABC News the two shooters are 50-year old Sajid Akram and his 24-year-old son Naveed. Sources say they pledged allegiance to ISIS, and shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ while opening fire. Authorities say two ISIS flags, weapons, and IEDs were recovered,” she reported before focusing on the victims. Clennett also surfaced on Tuesday’s Good Morning America to share Australians were “holding vigils for the 15 people killed in that anti-Semitic attack on Sydney’s Bondi Beach.” She reiterated the claims about the Islamists having expressed support for ISIS with ISIS flags in their car and IEDs having been recovered, but backed down on the part about “Allahu Akbar.” “The son was previously investigated for possible ties to a Sydney-based, ISIS-linked group but officials don’t believe the father and son were part of a wider cell,” she added. Monday’s NBC Nightly News also shifted towards reality in comparison to Today. Anchor Tom Llamas announced a pivot to “that deadly anti-Semitic terror attack in Australia” and former longtime NBC correspondent Sara James — who lives in Australia as the head of Fulbright Australia — covered the “new video showing the horror” as “two terrorists unleashed an anti-Semitic rampage.” “[I]t comes after a growing number of recent disturbing anti-Semitic attacks in Australia, including a Melbourne synagogue fire bombed, a Jewish deli set ablaze, Jewish homes vandalized, and cars burned. Jewish residents say the government has ignored warning signs,” she added. Like Clennett, James returned on Tuesday’s Today. Co-host Savannah Guthrie gave the lead in about “the anti-Semitic attack” by two men “motived by ISIS.” Importantly, James rebutted Clennett’s suggestion about the two not having any wider ties by noting Australian “[o]fficials today saying the pair had last month traveled to a region in the Philippines known for militant activity.” The one thing that didn’t change in the coverage was CBS News continuing to show moral clarity. On Monday’s CBS Evening News, foreign correspondent Anna Coren told viewers “[m]any in the Jewish community have told us, while the attack came as a shock, it, sadly, wasn’t unexpected.” She also spoke to Sheina Gutnick, the daughter of Reuven Morrison, who “fled persecution in the former Soviet Union 50 years earlier” only to die in Sunday’s attack while trying to fight off one of the gunman. According to Coren (via per Gutnick), Morrison had “feared his adopted homeland was no longer safe” as “[a]nti-Semitic incidents have increased since the October 7 attacks and war in Gaza, synagogues firebombed and vandalized.” When Coren asked “who has failed you and your family and your father,” Gutnick echoed comments from two survivors hours earlier: The Australian government is to blame. They have had the warning signs for so long. The Jewish community has been begging and begging and begging for action. They have failed us, they have betrayed us, and they have so much innocent blood on their hands. Coren closed by inadvertently proving the Jewish community’s point about a lack of concern from the Labor-run government as their reaction thus far has been “pledg[ing] to make sure it can’t happen again” through more gun control even though “Australia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.” Along with what was largely a re-air of Coren’s piece on Tuesday’s CBS Mornings, the co-hosts also brought in Noa Tishby, a bestselling author and former Israel Special Envoy for Combating anti-Semitism, to discuss the context in which the terror took place Down Under: Really solid interview on Tuesday’s ‘CBS Mornings’ with @NoaTishby about anti-Semitism and emphasizing the reality that this threat has been ignored by the Australian government for years ahead of Sunday’s anti-Semitic terror attack by two radical Islamists. Great moment right… pic.twitter.com/WxabxrOmFL — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 16, 2025 King then asked if she concurred with what two survivors had said on Monday’s show, which is the Labor government has “blood on [their] hands”: WATCH: On @CBSMornings, @NoaTishby SLAMS the Australian government for failing to thwart the rise in anti-Semitism leading up to Sunday’s anti-Semitic terror attack.... “[W]e need to understand this, consider your Intifada globalized. That’s what’s going on right now. The… pic.twitter.com/Bbp2QgqYUF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 16, 2025 Dokoupil followed up and correctly put this weekend in the context and was followed by co-host Nate Burleson wondering what each and every one of us — from governments to individuals — can do to combat anti-Semitism: Important point on ‘CBS Mornings’ with @TonyDokoupil noting Sunday’s anti-Semitic attack in Australia did not happen in a vacuum and how so many have crossed the line from criticizing the Israeli government to harming Jews writ large... Dokoupil: “Noa, we are talking about… pic.twitter.com/nQ53TPo63C — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 16, 2025   To see the relevant transcripts from December 15, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

After two Islamic terrorists attacked a Hanukkah festival at Bondi Beach in Australia — where 15 lives were taken — BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is pointing out what should have been obvious to those championing Australia’s gun laws before.That when you disarm the citizenry, only the criminals will jump through the hoops required to own weapons.“How did the terrorists end up being the ones to get the guns? It’s extremely hard. There are very few ways that you can get it. In fact, semi-automatic rifles and handguns, semi-automatic handguns, are extremely regulated in Australia. High-capacity shotguns are extremely regulated in Australia. You can get a bolt-action rifle ... but you have to have a reason to own any gun,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales explains.“You have to get the permission slip signed. You have to specify a reason. The reason isn’t, ‘Because I f**king want one,’ like it is here in America,” she continues.The permissible reasons to own a weapon under the rule of the Australian government include sport and target shooting, recreational hunting and vermin control, vertebrate pest animal control, business or employment, rural occupation, animal welfare, and firearms collection.“By the way, lacking from that list: self-defense,” Gonzales comments.“If someone comes up and tries to cause harm to my family, I want to be able to shoot them dead. By the way, I’m aiming to kill,” she adds.While no one around the two attackers appeared to have any weapons, the father of the father-son terrorist duo owned six weapons.“All six firearms were at the scene. It turns out, when you make it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to get guns, do you know what happens?” Gonzales asks. “It’s just the bad guys who end up going through the long and difficult process in order to obtain them. And that’s how you end up with the bloodbath that you ended up with in Australia.”Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.