Republicans are surging, and Democrats are in deep trouble. That’s what a new report from The New York Times concluded after assessing polling data from the past four presidential elections.  The new study concluded that the GOP was gaining ground in working-class counties, while Democrats were earning support increasingly in the best-educated enclaves of the U.S. Donald Trump “has increased the Republican Party’s share of the presidential vote in each election he’s been on the ballot in close to half the counties in America—1,433 in all,” the report concluded.  Democrats managed to expand their vote share continuously during the Trump election years in just 57 counties out of the country’s more than 3,100 political subdivisions. Some 435 counties were more Democratic in 2024 compared to 2012, while an astounding 2,678 counties became more Republican during that time period.  The Times dubbed those counties that went further Republican or Democrat during the Trump presidential election years of 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections as “triple-trending.” For Democrat triple-trending counties, that meant counties where 8.1 million Americans of voting age live, but for the GOP’s triple-trending counties that meant a whopping 42.7 million voting-age people.  Democrats had disproportionate gains among wealthier households. Eighteen of the 57 counties that moved steadily to Democrats had a median household income exceeding $100,000. Only three of the 1,433 counties that moved toward Trump had incomes of over $100,000. The median U.S. income sits at about $80,000, which means the Democratic Party is increasingly skewing wealthier than the majority of Americans. The Times found that areas with incomes below the U.S. median “account for 95 percent of counties voting steadily more Republican.” Republicans and Democrats are also deeply divided in terms of educational attainment. Trump did not increase his voter share continuously over the course of his three presidential races in any county that had a majority of adults with a college degree. Likewise in the counties that went steadily blue all had a percentage of college-educated adults at 20% or larger.  Republicans are also having a surge in support from Hispanic voters in the South. The president saw an astounding 89% swing in 2024 from 2012 in Starr County, a Texas county that borders Mexico and includes Rio Grande City. That county has a voting-age population that is 96% Hispanic. Meanwhile, Democrats gained support in the counties surrounding Dallas. Former Texas congressman and Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke sounded the alarm in an interview with The New York Times for the report.  “This may sound crazy to you: Maybe this had to happen for the Democratic Party to wake up and stop taking people for granted based on the color of their skin, or their country of national origin, or where they live in the state,” O’Rourke opined.  Up north, things were not much better for the liberal party. The only New York county to continuously move further into the Democrats’ camp was also home to the uber-left city of Ithaca, known for being the home of Cornell University and Ithaca College, and according to The Times, it’s a place where almost 60% of residents have a college degree. Trump, on the other hand, showed consistent gains in previously unlikely places: the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. Those areas also are some of the most ethnically diverse in the U.S. The post NYT Study Finds Widespread GOP Gains, Sounding Alarm for Dems appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien removed from the U.S. to his native El Salvador earlier this year, has been brought back to the U.S. following legal challenges to his deportation.   But the Trump administration is welcoming Abrego Garcia back from a Salvadoran prison to the U.S. with an indictment from the Justice Department charging him with human trafficking.   Abrego Garcia, 29, has been charged with unlawful transportation of illegal aliens and conspiracy to illegally transport illegal immigrants for money, according to the indictment obtained by Fox News. The outlet reports that minors are alleged to be among those Abrego Garcia trafficked. The indictment, filed under seal last month, includes two felony counts.  The illegal alien’s return follows a court order that the Trump administration “facilitate” bringing him back to the U.S.  “For the past two months, the media and Democrats have burned to the ground any last shred of credibility they had left by glorifying Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a known MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, and serial domestic abuser,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote on X on Friday.   “Today, the United States of America confronts Kilmar Abrego Garcia with overwhelming evidence. He is being indicted by a grand jury for human smuggling, including children, and conspiracy,” Noem said.  For the past two months, the media and Democrats have burnt to the ground any last shred of credibility they had left by glorifying Kilmar Abrego Garcia— a known MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, and serial domestic abuser.Today, the United States of America confronts Kilmar…— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) June 6, 2025 Citing a report from the Prince George’s County, Maryland, Police Gang Unit, a 2019 DHS form states that “Abrego Garcia was validated as a member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Gang.”    This spring, the Tennessee Highway Patrol released body camera footage of its November 2022 traffic stop of Abrego Garcia, in which he is suspected of human smuggling.    It was dark outside when the state trooper pulled Abrego Garcia over and walked up to his vehicle. The officer’s flashlight revealed eight additional men crammed into the vehicle.    The troopers discuss the likelihood that they are witnessing a human smuggling operation and point out that there is no luggage in the car, despite the fact that Abrego Garcia said all the men were traveling through multiple states, supposedly for construction work.   Police and court records also reveal that Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia’s wife, twice filed charges that her husband engaged in domestic violence against her. Despite the claims against Abrego Garcia, the illegal alien became somewhat of a rallying cry for Democrats in their efforts to oppose President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.   Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., traveled to El Salvador and met with the deported illegal alien in April. The senator said the goal of his trip was to “let the Trump administration, to let the government of El Salvador, know that we are going to keep fighting to bring Abrego Garcia home until he returns to his family.”   Democrat Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, Maxine Dexter of Oregon, Maxwell Frost of Florida, and Robert Garcia of California traveled to El Salvador shortly after Van Hollen, also to visit Abrego Garcia.   Van Hollen celebrated the news of Abrego Garcia’s return on Friday, writing on X, “After months of ignoring our Constitution, it seems the Trump admin has relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and due process for Kilmar Abrego Garcia. This has never been about the man—it’s about his constitutional rights & the rights of all.”   After months of ignoring our Constitution, it seems the Trump Admin has relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and due process for Kilmar Abrego Garcia.This has never been about the man—it’s about his constitutional rights & the rights of all.Full statement: pic.twitter.com/q28RLNEj2S— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) June 6, 2025 The post Illegal Alien Deported to Salvadoran Prison Brought Back to US to Face Human Trafficking Charges appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In recent years, a trip to a Target department store on June 1 was the only reminder needed that the month is dedicated to celebrating “gay pride,” but not so this year.   Instead of a prominent display of chest binders and swimsuits designed for “tucking” private parts, as seen at Target in the summer of 2023, the major U.S. retailer is celebrating “Coastal Classics” with red, white, and blue-themed clothing this summer.   .@Target PRIDE collection is a clear indication of a cultural shift in America… we went from tucking bathing suit to USA costal classics! What a SHIFT! American Pride > pic.twitter.com/izpIyxnqpJ— MORGONN (@morgonnm) June 2, 2025 The shift comes just months after Target announced it was ending some of its DEI initiatives, and it follows several years of declining revenues for the retailer.   While Target appears to have gotten the memo that Americans want a more traditional—and less woke—agenda, Hollywood will always be the last to learn.   The HBO series “The Last of Us,” ended its first season with 8.2 million views in February 2023, according to The Hollywood Reporter. But the show’s second season ended with half as many viewers. Why? It might have something to do with the show’s denial of reality.   The show received criticism when one of the characters, who is a lesbian, learns that her partner is pregnant from a previous relationship and responds: “I’m going to be a dad.”   The season finale drew 3.7 million viewers, down from 5.3 million when the season premiered in April.   On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women” we discuss why these incidents and others like them point to a shift away from the radical woke ideology toward a desire for traditional values in America.   Also on today’s show, we respond to the news that Biden administration press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent. Plus, the fight to protect life is far from over, a reality made evident by Planned Parenthood’s latest abortion numbers.   Catch it all and more on “Problematic Women.”  The post In the Swim of Things, Is America Ditching LGBTQ for Traditional?   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Canada’s new Strong Border Act tabled as Bill C-2, is being framed by the federal government as a step toward strengthening border security. But hidden within its lengthy legislative text is a familiar and troubling push for expanded surveillance powers, this time without the need for court authorization. Nestled deep in the bill are provisions that grant law enforcement sweeping new authority to demand subscriber data from service providers, bypassing the oversight mechanisms long seen as essential to protecting Canadians’ privacy. The bill revives the “lawful access” agenda, one that law enforcement agencies have been pursuing since the late 1990s. These digital access provisions are not new, but their inclusion in a border-focused bill appears to be a calculated effort to quietly reintroduce them under a different guise. Despite being repeatedly rebuffed by public opposition, parliamentary committees, and Canada’s highest court, the drive to erode digital privacy protections continues. This legislative maneuver follows years of setbacks for warrantless access advocates. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled decisively in R. v. Spencer that Canadians have a legitimate expectation of privacy when it comes to subscriber information. The Court stressed that identifying individuals based on their Internet activity could easily expose sensitive personal behavior and that police demands for such information constituted a search requiring proper legal authorization. According to Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, law enforcement has continued to seek ways around those constraints. Past efforts to legislate access without judicial oversight have either failed to pass or been dropped due to public backlash. A 2010 bill mandating the disclosure of customer details, including IP addresses and device identifiers, without a warrant was abandoned. In 2014, a new bill was introduced, ostensibly to tackle “cyberbullying.” In practice, it reintroduced many of the same provisions that had been defeated under earlier proposals. While dressed in the language of protecting youth online, its underlying purpose was once again to broaden law enforcement access to digital subscriber data with limited oversight. The Supreme Court’s Spencer ruling remained a major obstacle, reaffirming the privacy rights of Canadians. Then, in 2023, the Bykovets decision extended those protections further, affirming that IP addresses also warrant constitutional safeguards. The Court noted that if digital privacy is to mean anything in the modern age, then these basic digital identifiers must be protected under Section 8 of the Charter. Despite this legal precedent, Bill C-2 is attempting to carve out a new space for surveillance. Among its more concerning features is a clause that would allow authorities to issue “information demands” to service providers without needing judicial approval. These demands would compel companies to confirm whether they provide services to specific users, whether they hold transmission data related to those accounts, and where the services are or were provided, both inside and outside Canada. The threshold for triggering such a demand is alarmingly low. Law enforcement must merely suspect that a crime has occurred or may occur and that the requested information could aid an investigation. The demand doesn’t require disclosing the actual data, but it functions as a roadmap to it, alerting police to which providers hold what kind of information and where it might be found. Such indirect searches effectively sidestep the very privacy protections the courts have upheld. Notably, none of these measures relate directly to border enforcement. Their presence in a border bill serves a strategic purpose: to avoid the scrutiny that such provisions would attract if introduced through standalone legislation. This tactic, often seen in omnibus bills or unrelated amendments, allows controversial policies to advance quietly under the cover of more palatable reforms. Professor Geist has a full in-depth look at the history of such laws here. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Canada’s New Border Law Hides a Surveillance Time Bomb appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Over the past decade, nearly €1 billion in EU taxpayer money has been poured into media campaigns designed to portray the European Union in a favorable light, according to a detailed investigation by conservative think tank MCC Brussels. The analysis lays bare a sprawling architecture of publicly funded messaging that, rather than safeguarding media plurality, appears crafted to systematically advance EU political objectives and stifle dissenting perspectives. Read the report here. According to the report’s author Thomas Fazi, “this report blows the lid open on Brussels’s media machine: how the EU channels vast sums of public money into media projects across Europe and beyond, to the tune of nearly € 80 million per year (at least).” He further observes that “this is likely a conservative estimate,” as many indirect or subcontracted payments are not publicly disclosed. A significant portion of these funds flows through the European Commission’s “Information Measures for the EU Cohesion Policy” (IMREG) initiative. Ostensibly aimed at informing the public about cohesion efforts, the program has in fact functioned as a massive EU-branded public relations campaign. “The program is aimed at ‘increasing awareness of the benefits of Cohesion Policy among people’ and ‘promoting and fostering a better understanding of the role of Cohesion Policy in supporting all EU’s regions.’” Yet while the Commission claims to respect “complete editorial independence,” the report challenges this premise: “If the projects are expected to highlight the ‘benefits’ of EU policy, how can true editorial independence be ensured?” Even more concerning are examples where “news features funded through the project failed to disclose their connection to EU funding – effectively amounting to a form of stealth marketing or, given the political nature of the topic and funder, covert propaganda.” Beyond promotional content, the EU’s structural entanglement with news agencies reveals a deeper issue. Fazi writes that these agencies are “central nodes in the media ecosystem, allowing narratives crafted at the agency level to cascade verbatim across hundreds of mainstream outlets.” The creation of the European Newsroom (ENR), a centralized Brussels-based consortium funded with €1.7 million, only exacerbates this concern. ENR “offers a pan-European perspective on EU affairs to audiences across the continent,” while its reporters are trained by EU institutions. Far from fostering independence, this setup “aims to develop common journalistic standards” through techniques that appear geared toward narrative unification. Fact-checking and anti-disinformation programs provide yet another layer of influence. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), with at least €27 million in EU funding, brings together media outlets and news agencies in the name of combating disinformation. But as the report questions, “When media organizations receive funding from the European Commission to disseminate pro-EU content, while also participating in mechanisms designed to flag and counter disinformation, the potential for conflict of interest is glaring.” Fazi raises a vital question: “What happens when so-called ‘harmful narratives’ are, in fact, factually correct criticisms of EU institutions or policies? Where is the boundary between ‘disinformation’ and legitimate political dissent?” The Journalism Partnerships program, another key funding vehicle, has funneled nearly €50 million into projects described as supporting media collaboration. However many of these efforts exhibit a clear ideological bias. One funded initiative sought to “debunk and demystify the European Union and its institutions.” Another, Connecto, aimed to “strengthen European solidarity as opposed to extremist national movements.” Still, another, Eastern Frontier Initiative, focused on shaping narratives around “European defense and security,” involving media partners closely aligned with NATO positions. Meanwhile, EU-backed investigative journalism frequently targets foreign adversaries rather than scrutinizing its own institutions. “A review of its output reveals very few investigations into EU governments or institutions. On the contrary, some of the funded projects appear to reiterate mainstream narratives,” the report notes. The broader implications are troubling. As Fazi summarizes: “Rather than simply supporting a free and pluralistic media landscape, the EU is systematically investing in shaping a ‘friendly’ media environment that reinforces its own legitimacy and political goals.” This blurring of journalism and institutional propaganda has dire consequences for public trust and democratic accountability. “Even in the absence of direct editorial interference, the structural dependence on EU grants fosters a dynamic that incentivizes self-censorship and narrative alignment,” the report warns. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Inside the EU’s Billion Euro Media Machine appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. This content is available exclusively to supporters of Reclaim The Net Subscribe for premier reporting on free speech, privacy, Big Tech, media gatekeepers and individual liberty online.   Subscribe   Already a supporter? Login here.                       If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Quiet Coup Against Incognito Mode appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

FBI Director Patel: 'My House Just Got Swatted Yesterday'

War! What Is It Good For? Absolutely The Week in Review!

Pro tip: Just remember to take it out.

The Trump administration’s reversal of a Biden-era policy regarding hospitals being required to perform emergency abortions has abortion activists up in arms — despite there actually being no threat to pregnant women who need emergency care. “You have probably seen headlines going around, especially on Instagram, saying that Trump is now letting hospitals allow women to die, women who need these life-saving abortions we hear are now going to bleed out and die because of Trump’s draconian and cruel anti-abortion policies,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says on “Relatable.” “It is almost always the case when it comes to pro-abortion propaganda that the story that you are reading, that those little pro-abortion influencers and accounts are pushing, that it’s just not true,” she continues. The policy in question is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act that was passed in 1986 and requires hospitals to provide necessary emergency care, including for pregnant women, to stabilize serious medical conditions. The law’s initial intent was to ensure patient access to emergency medical care and to prevent the practice of “patient dumping,” which is when patients are transferred from private to public hospitals without considering their medical condition or stability for transfers. The Biden administration issued a guidance on this law in 2022 that interpreted EMTALA as requiring hospitals to perform abortions in emergency rooms, even in states with pro-life laws. “So you can see, if you’re familiar at all with how the left interprets these kind of health care laws, you can see the problem right away, because how the left interprets the health or life of the mother or the stability of the mother, is not that the woman’s life actually has to be at risk,” Stuckey explains. “They refer to a Supreme Court case called Doe vs. Bolton, where health and life of the mother is defined as not only the physical health of the mother, but the mental health of the mother, the financial situation of the mother, the familial circumstances of the mother,” she continues. “So it was actually the Biden administration that was infringing upon people’s rights here, it’s not the Trump administration,” she adds. The Trump administration rescinded this 2022 guidance in a statement arguing it wrongly turned emergency rooms into abortion clinics by forcing doctors to perform elective abortions. “Which is true, because a woman could come in and say, ‘I have to have an abortion, I don’t feel stable, or I’m not feeling good or whatever,’ and instead of a doctor saying, ‘We can help you in different ways,’ or ‘Here’s where you need to go, let me give you other resources,’ they would be required by the Biden administration to perform an abortion,” Stuckey explains. “So the Trump administration’s policy clarifies that EMTALA does not mandate abortions beyond what is necessary for emergency care, aligning with the law’s intent to protect both the mother and the unborn child,” she adds. Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.