The board of Turning Point USA has named Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika, as his successor as CEO after he was assassinated on Sept. 10. Erika Kirk was unanimously elected as chair of the board and CEO of the conservative youth outreach organization. “In prior discussions, Charlie expressed to multiple executives that this is what he wanted in the event of his death,” TPUSA said on the social media platform X. “It was the honor of our lives to serve as board members at Charlie’s side,” the statement said. “Charlie prepared all of us for a moment like this one. He worked tirelessly to ensure Turning Point USA was built to survive even the greatest tests. And now, it’s our great pride to announce Erika Kirk as the new CEO and Chair of the Board for Turning Point USA.” The Turning Point Board has unanimously elected Erika Kirk as the new CEO and Chair of the Board.In prior discussions, Charlie expressed to multiple executives that this is what he wanted in the event of his death. pic.twitter.com/PazORgiHWP— Turning Point USA (@TPUSA) September 18, 2025 Tyler Robinson, 22, has been charged with aggravated murder in the fatal shooting of Kirk, the father of two young children, at a Turning Point event on Utah Valley University’s campus on Sept. 10. Erika Kirk will speak at her husband’s memorial service on Sunday in Glendale, Arizona, alongside President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The post Erika Kirk Named Turning Point CEO After Husband’s Assassination appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Just when you thought British speech policing had reached the bottom of the absurdity barrel, they bring a jackhammer. In June, Thames Valley Police managed to dispatch one of their elite to investigate a grave national threat: an American cancer patient who may have written something a bit spicy on social media. Yes. That’s not a joke. That is, in fact, the plot of a low-budget dystopian sitcom that the real world seems hell-bent on adapting in full. https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/SpeechUnion-1968419871269511561.mp4 Deborah Anderson, a mother of two, a member of the Free Speech Union, a cancer patient, and, as she put it herself, “an elderly woman,” was enjoying the blissful serenity of not being in prison when a Thames Valley Police officer showed up at her front door. Why? Because “something that we believe you’ve written on Facebook has upset someone.” Let’s pause here. We are no longer talking about crime. We are no longer talking about justice. We are now fully submerged in the soggy underworld of “upset someone.” This is what policing has become in Britain; knocking on doors to gently scold the sick and the elderly because someone got their feelings hurt. “I’m a member of the Free Speech Union, and I’m an American citizen. I’ll have Elon Musk on you so quick your feet won’t touch,” Anderson told the officer, who probably realized at that exact moment that his day’s mission had veered into Monty Python territory. The officer, in all his taxpayer-funded wisdom, suggested that Deborah Anderson could simply apologize and make the whole thing go away, as if groveling before the offended masses had suddenly become a formal step in police procedure. It was less “serve and protect” and more “say sorry and maybe we won’t waste more of your time.” Anderson refused to apologize. Refused to be cowed. Refused, in short, to play along with a theater production in which “feeling offended” is now a criminal category. “Are there no houses that have been burgled recently? No rapes, no murders?” she asked. To which the officer replied, and I swear I’m not making this up, “Yeah, that’s all going on as well.” The case of Deborah Anderson is not an isolated one. Earlier this month, Father Ted creator and Irish citizen Graham Linehan was arrested at Heathrow by five armed officers over three tweets about transgender issues. He was returning from Arizona, not plotting a coup. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Police Show Up at Cancer Patient’s Door Demanding an Apology For Social Media Post appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. People may soon be convicted of a crime based on the way they walk. A European court has for the first time accepted gait recognition as admissible evidence in a murder case, marking a new chapter in forensic identification. More: The New Face of Surveillance Doesn’t Need Your Face The decision places this form of biometric analysis alongside more traditional methods, despite longstanding concerns about surveillance technologies expanding into the justice system. Cursor Insight, the company behind the technology, argues that analyzing body movement together with 3D measurements of physical dimensions produces higher accuracy than face, fingerprint, iris, or voice biometrics. Marketing Manager Ákos Molnár told Biometric Update that the system achieves an equal error rate below 0.1 percent, describing it as a hybrid method that merges physical and behavioral markers. The case unfolded after security cameras, positioned about 30 meters from the crime scene, captured footage of a shooting. Due to poor lighting and the limitations of the night-vision cameras, the suspect’s face was little more than a handful of pixels, ruling out reliable facial recognition. Police eventually identified two possible suspects, both seen walking in separate recordings, with one also filmed running. Cursor Insight built gait profiles for each, using available video to compare their movement against the crime footage. While Molnár says that gait biometrics can involve over 150 separate parameters in controlled conditions, the quality of the material in this investigation limited analysis to just 31. “The previous recordings were also not the best quality,” he explained, noting that one was sourced from a shop CCTV system where the individual’s full body was not visible. Even so, 30 of the 31 measurements pointed to the same person as the shooter, leading Cursor Insight to submit a forensic report that the court accepted. The trial is now moving forward, with company experts scheduled to testify. Beyond this case, Cursor Insight is attempting to show that gait recognition could be used even when suspects wear masks or helmets. The court’s decision to admit gait recognition as evidence introduces concerns for privacy rights and due process. Behavioral biometrics, unlike physical identifiers such as fingerprints or DNA, can be collected surreptitiously and without a person’s awareness, turning everyday movement in public into a form of traceable data. If accepted as reliable in legal proceedings, this technology could lead to a future where individuals are identified, and potentially convicted, not by who they are, but by how they walk, even under poor-quality video conditions. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post European Court Accepts Gait Recognition as Evidence in Murder Case appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. During this week’s testimony before both chambers of Congress, FBI Director Kash Patel and several lawmakers made a concerted push to weaken protections for online platforms, advance surveillance partnerships, and promote government intervention in digital speech spaces. The hearings revealed a rare bipartisan consensus around dismantling Section 230 and tightening control over how people interact and communicate online. In the Senate, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham opened his questioning by linking online platforms to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, then repeatedly pressed Patel on whether the internet was a breeding ground for radicalization and crime. Throughout their exchange, Graham blurred the lines between criminal behavior, such as grooming or inciting violence, and broad categories like bullying. “Is there any law that can shut down one of these sites? For bullying children or allowing sexual predators on the site,” Graham asked. He repeatedly implied that websites hosting objectionable content should be held legally responsible, asking, “Would you advocate a sunsetting of Section 230 to bring more liability to the companies who send this stuff out?” Patel replied, “I’ve advocated for that for years.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a legal provision that protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users. It allows websites, forums, and social media services to host a wide range of speech without being treated as the publisher of that content. If Section 230 were repealed or weakened, platforms would face significant legal risk for everything users say or share. This could push companies to aggressively censor user content to avoid lawsuits, leading to broader suppression of speech, fewer places for open dialogue, and less room for dissenting or controversial viewpoints online. When Graham demanded action against platforms that allow bullying or grooming, Patel suggested that platforms cannot be sued under current law, adding that the explosion of AI-generated abusive material had worsened the problem. Note that Section 230 does not give platforms immunity from federal criminal law. If a website is knowingly hosting or involved in illegal content, such as child exploitation, terrorism, or sex trafficking, it can already be held criminally liable under existing statutes. Patel called the situation a “public health hazard” and stated, “I think not only are some of these sites designed to be addictive, unfortunately, the reality is some of these sites are designed to generate income, and many people are generating income based on this illegal trade.” The hearing offered no engagement with the consequences of gutting Section 230. Instead, there was a clear push to strip away those protections in the name of safety. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, echoed that sentiment. “For years I have supported repealing Section 230,” she said, arguing that the law is outdated and was crafted for a different era. While she prefaced her comments by claiming to oppose censorship, her solution was the same as Graham’s: eliminate legal protections for platforms to create a “better environment online.” Klobuchar veered into broader political territory, citing a wave of threats and violence targeting lawmakers. She asked Patel to commit to conveying her concerns to the White House and emphasized a need to “move forward” on both speech laws and gun control measures. Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn seized the opportunity to promote the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). KOSA is a proposed law that presents itself as a measure to protect children but would fundamentally alter the structure of the internet by encouraging surveillance, forced identity verification, and government-influenced content moderation. While the bill mandates that platforms shield minors from content deemed harmful, such as material linked to mental health concerns, it also gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to penalize companies over subjective definitions of what constitutes harm. KOSA directs federal agencies to develop age verification systems at the device or operating system level, setting the stage for a national digital ID regime that would eliminate online anonymity and expose users to deeper tracking and data collection. Despite revisions and corporate endorsements, the bill continues to raise alarms among civil liberties advocates who warn it would pressure platforms to over-censor, chilling free speech under the pretense of child safety. Blackburn described platforms like Discord as enablers of predation, referencing the Kirk assassination, and asked Patel what Congress could do to give the FBI more power. Patel responded with a call for financial crackdowns and more legal obligations for tech companies, stating, “Nobody’s being held accountable. They’re making money and our youth is dying.” During his exchange with Rep. Brandon Gill, Patel made one of the most interesting comments of the hearing. Patel called for expanding surveillance partnerships between the government and private tech companies, including gaming and social media platforms. “There is no way to triage the amount of information generated on these sites by the FBI alone,” Patel said. He advocated renewing a law that allows companies to report users to the FBI without fear of liability, framing this corporate-government alliance as essential to national security. This approach would effectively deputize tech companies as enforcers. No concern was raised about how such partnerships could be abused to monitor lawful political activity or dissent. Despite the repeated invocation of safety and child protection, the hearings presented little evidence that any of the proposed changes would meaningfully prevent crime. Instead, lawmakers from both parties appeared eager to empower both the FBI and online platforms to act as gatekeepers of acceptable discourse, with Patel affirming at every turn that the Bureau would welcome such powers. The push to overhaul Section 230, pass KOSA, and institutionalize surveillance under the banner of public-private “partnership” may signal a dangerous change in how speech is treated online. Rather than protect fundamental rights, lawmakers are pushing to dissolve long-standing legal safeguards in pursuit of control over what people are allowed to say, and where they’re allowed to say it. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Bipartisan Push in Congress to Weaken Section 230, Expand Online Surveillance, and Increase Platform Liability appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Read the original post "How to Make Bacon in the Oven" on A Modern Homestead. Skip the pan-frying process and make bacon in the oven instead! There is no popping grease, and you can make a pound at a time. Feed a crowd, make bacon for the whole week, or have a bunch of bacon ready for various recipes. Get my best tips for crispy or soft bacon, whichever you... Read More The post "How to Make Bacon in the Oven" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

Hizzoner: 'Law Enforcement Is a Sickness' In Chicago I Will 'Eradicate'

Big clues are found in the plants' DNA.

“At this age, orcas typically rely on milk.”

After what were described as high-stakes talks in Madrid, President Trump and the Chinese have seemingly fashioned a deal that will please both parties when it comes to TikTok.Whether users are watching Chinese factories shuck garments or consuming soft-core pornography via the platform's top star, a TikTok ban is not popular among American consumers, content creators, or activists.'I've reached a deal with China, I'm going to speak to President Xi on Friday.'After seemingly working for months to get a deal done that would not only limit the exposure of Americans' data to foreign adversaries but keep the app alive for the doom scrollers, Trump announced this week that his discussions with China have gone "VERY WELL.""The big Trade Meeting in Europe between The United States of America, and China, has gone VERY WELL!" the president wrote on Truth Social Monday. He continued, "It will be concluding shortly. A deal was also reached on a ‘certain’ company that young people in our Country very much wanted to save."According to insiders, American companies will finally have a stake in the massive app.RELATED: YouTube admits to secretly manipulating videos with AI — (@) While a U.S. buyer has not been officially identified, the Wall Street Journal has reported through unnamed sources that a group of buyers could include Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz.Oracle is a software company, Silver Lake is a private investment firm, and Andreessen Horowitz is a venture capital firm.The consortium would control TikTok's stateside business with 80% ownership, and existing American TikTokers would be asked to move their viewership or content to a new app that is reportedly being tested.Oracle will allegedly be responsible for housing user data in Texas, which is a long flight from the usual data mines of Singapore, where TikTok parent ByteDance stores some of its U.S. data.RELATED: Silent pandemic: How Big Tech is exploiting your children Photo by Li Hongbo/VCG via Getty Images "We have a deal on TikTok, I've reached a deal with China, I'm going to speak to President Xi on Friday to confirm everything up," Trump told reporters as he left the White House this week, per the BBC.As for China's side of the deal, deputy head of China's cyberspace administration, Wang Jingtao, said that part of the agreement includes "licensing the algorithm and other intellectual property rights.""The Chinese government will, according to law, examine and approve relevant matters involving TikTok, such as the export of technology as well as the license use of intellectual property," the Chinese official added.According to CNBC, the deal is expected to close in the next 30 to 45 days.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to Make America Healthy Again have consistently been paying off in the steep uphill battle against Big Pharma and Big Food. This week, a large food manufacturer joined the ranks of corporations making big changes to their ingredients in the furtherance of the MAHA agenda. On Monday, Tyson Foods announced that it will be removing some junk ingredients from several of its brands. 'Our decision to remove high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients reflects our ongoing commitment to feeding the world like family.'The press release states that it plans to remove high fructose corn syrup, sucralose, butylated hydroxyanisole/butylated hydroxytoluene, and titanium oxide by the end of 2025. “We continuously review and assess our product portfolio to ensure the highest quality products that meet the needs of consumers,” said Donnie King, president and CEO of Tyson Foods. “Our decision to remove high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients reflects our ongoing commitment to feeding the world like family, while preserving the taste, value, and integrity that define our iconic brands.”RELATED: It's been a year since Kennedy and Trump joined forces. Here are MAHA's top 3 wins. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesWhile the press release insists that all of these ingredients are FDA-approved and safe to use, critics have raised concerns over their safety in higher doses and extended periods of time. In particular, scientists have questioned the toxicity levels of BHA and BHT.Titanium dioxide, according to the Industrial Plating Company's website, "is a hard and dense ceramic coating. It is used for a variety of coating applications, including wear resistance and electrically conductive coatings." When it is not being used for industrial-grade ceramic coatings, food companies have used it as an additive to increase the whiteness or opacity of food. Among the brands that will see changes to their ingredients are Tyson, Jimmy Dean, Hillshire Farm, Wright, State Fair, Aidells, and ibp, according to the press release.Earlier this year, Tyson Foods announced that it would remove "petroleum-based synthetic dyes from its domestic-branded products."Tyson Foods did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!