Michigan state Senator Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat who’s running for U.S. Senate in 2026, said in a video posted to social media on Thursday that she “would not be able to control” herself if she saw conservative Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh in public. The undated video, posted on X by Towhall, shows McMorrow answering a question from someone about the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. McMorrow, a Notre Dame grad and one of the Democratic leaders in the Michigan Senate, said that it makes her “furious” that Coney Barrett also graduated from Notre Dame. “I talked to somebody yesterday who said they saw her with Brett Kavanaugh at a tailgate last weekend. I was like, ‘I would not be able to control myself,'” McMorrow said. “That would be a bad— there would be beers thrown in people’s faces.” ?WATCH: Democrat Candidate for Senate in Michigan Mallory McMorrow says that she would not be able to stop herself from hurling cans of beer at Amy Coney Barrett & Brett Kavanaugh if she saw them in public. Despicable! pic.twitter.com/aQTsPBnvQC — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) December 18, 2025 The Daily Wire reached out to McMorrow’s Senate office and her campaign team to ask about her comments, but they did not respond. Conservative Supreme Court justices have been the target of intense criticism from Democratic leaders in recent years. In 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called out Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch by name and warned that they would “pay the price” if they voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer added at the time. The Democratic leader was rebuked by many of his colleagues and by Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote, “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Then, in 2022, shortly after the court overturned Roe v. Wade, a trans-identifying male traveled to the home of Kavanaugh with plans to assassinate the conservative justice. McMorrow is one of three Democrats who are seeking to replace retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. The 2026 election in Michigan will be one of the most closely watched contests in the country, as Republicans hope to capitalize on the open seat. McMorrow, 39, has served in the Michigan Senate since 2019 and became the Senate majority whip in 2023, where she has focused on advocating for abortion, especially after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Earlier this year, McMorrow rubbed shoulders with a radical leftist blogger who mocked Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated. In late September, McMorrow attended a fundraiser alongside Rebecca Schoenkopf, who, a day after Kirk was killed, published an article titled “Second Amendment Comes for Charlie Kirk.”

'Money hungry Jews’

'It's hard to be trusted'

'Shout out to Mayor Mandami'

Researchers in Sweden found a link between eating more high-fat cream and high-fat cheeses and a lower risk of developing dementia. People who consumed 20 grams or more of high-fat cream daily had a 16% lower risk of dementia than those who consumed none. People who ate 50 grams or more of high-fat cheese—containing more […] The post Cheese May Help Stave Off Dementia Suggests Study of 27k People Followed Over 25 Years appeared first on Good News Network.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Louisiana’s attempt to make social media companies verify the ages of their users with a digital ID has been struck down, with a federal judge ruling that the law violates the First Amendment and imposes unconstitutional burdens on lawful speech. In his 94-page decision, US District Judge John deGravelles of Louisiana’s Middle District found that the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act “is at once under-inclusive and over-inclusive.” We obtained a copy of the decision for you here. The court stated, “It is under-inclusive in that minors can encounter the same potentially harmful content on unregulated websites and can gain more or less unrestricted access to covered platforms upon satisfying the one-time age-verification and parental-consent requirements. It is over-inclusive in that it burdens a large amount of protected speech for minors and adults alike. And it is seemingly largely redundant of existing parental controls, meaning that there is a less-restrictive alternative: Louisiana can encourage the use of available tools.” The case, NetChoice v. Murrill, was brought by an industry group representing Meta, X, Snapchat, and YouTube. More: The Digital ID and Online Age Verification Agenda NetChoice argued that the law forced both minors and adults to submit identifying information before they could speak or read online, an approach it said would chill speech and invade privacy. Judge deGravelles agreed, writing that “most of the Act’s restrictions are ‘all or nothing’ proposals.” He explained, “An adult or minor must verify her age, at which point she will gain access to more or less the entire platform. But if she balks at the age-verification process, then she will be barred from the platform, including its many forms of fully protected speech.” Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the judge reaffirmed that “even minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection” and that states do not have “a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” He added that “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” The court also warned of the broader risk that arises when governments justify speech restrictions as safety measures. “The protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions,” deGravelles wrote. “The risk of a chilling effect is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who defended the law, said the decision was “very disappointing” and pledged to appeal. She maintained that the policy simply aimed to reinforce parental authority online. Paul Fiske, co-director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center, said the ruling protects both speech and privacy. “Louisiana’s law would have done more than chill free speech,” he said. “It would have created a massive privacy risk for Louisianans like those playing out in real time in countries without a First Amendment, like the UK.” Judge deGravelles ordered the state to pay NetChoice’s attorney fees and court costs. In his words, “When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” The court concluded that Louisiana had failed to meet that burden. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Federal Judge Strikes Down Louisiana’s Social Media Digital ID Age Verification Law as Unconstitutional appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Senator Eric Schmitt has called on the US State Department to impose sanctions and visa restrictions against foreign officials, regulators, and organizations that he says are working to export censorship laws into the United States. In a December 18 letter to Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Sarah B. Rogers, Schmitt warned that coordinated efforts by European and other foreign governments pose “threats to American speech and sovereignty.” We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. “I write today to express my grave concerns about the threats to American speech and sovereignty posed by an emergent international censorship regime,” Schmitt stated in the letter. He described the growing influence of European-style digital speech laws as a direct challenge to US independence and warned that these systems aim to “impose hard-left ideological strictures” on American discourse. He urged the State Department to respond forcefully: “We must confront this campaign of foreign subversion with swift and decisive action. I therefore strongly encourage the State Department to impose sanctions and visa restrictions on the foreign individuals and entities involved in this assault on our freedom of speech.” The senator pointed to the European Union’s $140 million fine against X, formerly Twitter, under the Digital Services Act as an example of an attempt to force American platforms to align with European content controls. “The EU’s message to X is clear: This fine is a warning—start censoring Americans or else,” Schmitt wrote. Schmitt’s letter argues that this international pressure campaign reflects a wider “global censorship-industrial complex” modeled on structures he fought domestically. “To ensure our government would no longer censor our fellow Americans, I successfully fought to defund the State Department’s censorship apparatus and shutter the Global Engagement Center,” he noted. He urged the use of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and other statutory tools to target those advancing censorship abroad. “Sanctioning the global censorship-industrial complex would not only send an important diplomatic message that the United States will not tolerate foreign censorship but also forcefully deter and punish all the foreign individuals and entities who seek to impose it.” Schmitt tied his appeal to the principle of national sovereignty: “The fundamental principle of America First demands that we protect our citizens’ fundamental rights from the threats they face from abroad.” He closed with a broader warning about the stakes for American freedom. “The American people will not abide this brazen foreign censorship. Our Constitution and laws prohibit it. If the United States is to protect the freedoms that form the beating heart of our way of life, then we must fight back and prevent foreign governments from violating our sovereignty and eviscerating our freedom of speech by imposing their censorship laws on our citizens on our own soil.” Schmitt’s closing argument positions the issue as a matter of national defense rather than internet policy. He warns that when foreign governments dictate what Americans can say online, they are exercising power over the US public itself. His push for sanctions and visa bans is meant to flip the script, punishing those who attempt to export censorship instead of rewarding them with diplomatic deference. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Senator Eric Schmitt Calls for Sanctions on Foreign Officials Promoting Censorship in the US appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Globalized Intifada Is Here

TikTok Selling Block: Throw the Kids A Bone

Like having 102 new views of the universe!