'Sons, daughters, and parents who should still be alive'

'Peering over the precipice'

When combined, a subjective list of common childhood behaviors (fidgeting, losing things, distractibility, not following instructions) is commonly diagnosed in the medical community as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD. The drugs prescribed to treat ADHD have addiction potential, and a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry found that a medium-strength daily dose of Adderall […]

'Our society needs to see more children, not fewer'

‘Caring’ is a word that many Americans wouldn’t choose if asked to describe commercial aviation, but a story recently touched down from Pittsburgh International Airport of humanity and kindness that left a woman’s jaw suspended in disbelief. April Schmitt had just returned home to Pittsburgh on June 13th from a hectic business trip in Los […] The post Airport Workers Save the Day After Wife’s Diamond Goes Missing at Baggage Claim appeared first on Good News Network.

Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine is a bit tired after the multi-day battle to pass the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill through the House of Representatives, but he thinks it was worth the all-nighters. “Snoozing on my couch isn’t my idea of a good time. But you know what, whatever we’ve got to do to get the president’s agenda done,” the freshman representative told The Daily Signal shortly before the bill’s passage. The House of Representative took up the 10-year fiscal bill immediately after its tiebreaking passage through the Senate, with the House Committee on Rules drafting a rule Tuesday shortly afterward to bring it to the floor.  Leadership was working into the wee hours of Thursday morning to get holdouts to approve the rule to bring the bill to the floor. Fine told The Daily Signal he is not sure what the purpose of these delays was. “I don’t know what they got out of it. And maybe that’s been reported, and I haven’t seen it, but I always believe you have to put the team first,” he said. “I’m on the Republican team. I’m on the Trump team. And I’m also cognizant about how my actions affect my colleagues. I don’t know what they got out of behaving the way they did.” Fine says he is happy with the final product, even though he is not under any illusions that it is perfect. “I think like anything that is big, there are going to be things in it you like, and there are going to be things in it that you don’t,” he said. “And frankly, I wish we had a lot more spending cuts. I believe the greatest existential threat to the United States is our debt and our deficit, and this bill doesn’t solve that problem.” Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Still, he advises avoiding the idea that the bill—which funds border security while extending tax cuts and restructuring benefits programs—ought to solve all of America’s problems. “The bill doesn’t have to solve every problem. I look at the country as being on the one-yard line with 99 yards to go to save America. And I believe this bill takes us from the one-yard line to the 11-yard line, and then we continue to fight forward. I think we’re moving in the right direction and that’s why I’m excited to support the bill,” he said. Fine spoke to The Daily Signal as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was approaching the 7-hour mark in his record-breaking filibuster speech before the House of Representatives. “I think the self-promotion is kind of gross,” said Fine. “He’s keeping people from getting home for the Fourth of July, all for nothing. It’s not as though if he talks two more hours, he’s going to convince anyone to change their vote.” Fine additionally pushed back on Jeffries and other Democrats’ arguments that the bill is a tax break for the rich. “I actually am one of those [wealthy] people because I had a fairly successful life before Congress,” he said. “My taxes aren’t going to go down if this bill passes. What will happen is they won’t go up. And I think raising taxes that dramatically would have a disastrous effect on the economy.” He added, “There are new tax cuts in the bill, but they’re not for rich people. Rich people don’t work for tips. Rich people don’t work for overtime.” The post Inside the Last-Minute Fight to Pass the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Imagine a world where Brussels bureaucrats determine Americans’ free speech on social media platforms. It sounds absurd—but that’s the current reality under the European Union’s Digital Services Act. Little discussed on American shores, the Digital Services Act—a sweeping internet regulation in Europe—is one of the most concerning global free speech threats you’ve likely never heard of.  Though sold as a measure to “protect democracy” and create a “safe online environment,” the Digital Services Act has increasingly become a powerful tool for censorship. And while it is EU law, its impact reaches far beyond Europe—with binding effect on the content moderation practices of global platforms, including those based in the United States. Eerily, this law can censor American speech online that would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment.  Here’s how it works. The Digital Services Act compels very large online platforms—think Facebook, YouTube, and X—to remove so-called illegal content without delay. The problem? “Illegal” is defined not by clear, fixed principles, but by a moving target: whatever violates the law of any EU member state, now or in the future. That means a speech restriction passed in one small European country could trigger content takedowns across the entire internet—a lowest-common-denominator approach to censorship.  Under the Digital Services Act, if platforms fail to block “illegal content,” they face fines of up to 6% of their global revenue. As a result, they are incentivized to censor speech preemptively—not just in Europe, but across their entire services. On the other hand, there are no incentives for platforms to uphold free speech.  We’ve seen this dynamic before. During COVID-19, tech giants removed posts deemed controversial, not because the speech violated any law, but because they conflicted with the established narrative. Now, the EU regulation codifies that model, empowering “trusted flaggers” to demand removal based on shifting definitions of “misinformation” and “systemic risk.”  The Digital Services Act allows vague or politically charged laws—such as those targeting “hate speech” or “disinformation”—to become global standards. Consider the case of Päivi Räsänen, a long-standing Finnish parliamentarian criminally prosecuted three times over the last six years for sharing a Bible verse online. Though twice acquitted by her country’s courts, Päivi’s case reveals how far some authorities are willing to go to silence certain views. Under the Digital Services Act, such prosecutions may cease to be outliers.  This is far from a purely European problem. The risk to American speech is real. Because platforms operate globally, they often shape their moderation policies to comply with the most speech-limiting laws in the most powerful markets. Vice President JD Vance has already sounded the alarm, warning that Brussels is targeting U.S. tech giants with “onerous international rules” that threaten free expression.   The risk is not hypothetical: Thierry Breton, former EU commissioner, publicly warned Elon Musk that Donald Trump could be censored under the law during a high-profile exchange on X in anticipation of Musk’s interview with the then-presidential candidate.  The House Judiciary Committee has cautioned that the Digital Services Act could chill constitutionally protected speech on American-owned platforms. If companies face steep penalties for hosting content deemed problematic in Europe, they may simply delete or suppress it worldwide—including posts by American users.  What the Digital Services Act does is establish a massive censorship infrastructure, made up of national enforcers, outsourced content police, and the European Commission itself. This should concern every defender of free speech.  Americans have a vested interest in protecting the human right to free speech not only at home, but also abroad. This is not the exportation of an American value, but the defense of a universal one. Thus, the Trump administration should exert strong and sustained pressure on the EU to repeal or substantially amend the Digital Services Act—especially since the disinformation Code of Practice became legally enforceable July 1 across all major platforms. Washington should work in close coordination with democratic allies across Europe to oppose the EU action, championing free speech as a universal human right.  If left unchallenged, the Digital Services Act could become a blueprint for other regimes. Authoritarian governments are watching closely. If Europe continues to lock in centralized online censorship, why shouldn’t they? Further, they could point to the EU to justify their own crackdowns.  Free speech doesn’t stop at national borders—and neither do the threats against it. The Digital Services Act may have been written in Brussels, but its effects are felt in every corner of the internet. This is a global test case for free expression. We must vigilantly defend our freedom of expression in the digital age before it slips away.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The EU’s Internet Law, a Blueprint for Global Censorship—Including on American Platforms? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NY Times: There Really Was a Gang Problem in Aurora, Colorado

Bad Week For Poison Ivies Continues: Harvard's Budget Bust, Columbia's Bumbling Backpedal

The legacy media is pushing artificial intelligence (AI) companies into so-called licensing agreements, allowing the left to control what Americans hear from chatbots. David Sacks, President Donald Trump’s AI czar, isn’t going to stand for it.   Sacks pushed back against lawsuits from authors targeting AI firms like Anthropic and Meta, noting how badly this will handicap American AI during the June 28 edition of the All-In podcast. Instead of embracing legacy media’s so-called licensing agreements with AI companies, Sacks made an excellent analogy that showed the importance of AI models being allowed to draw information from the widest variety of sources possible.  [Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America]