If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In a world where politicians crave safe spaces from jokes, California’s latest move to suppress satire might just take the cake. California has decided that it’s time to put an end to all that pesky “political humor.” Yes, the state that brought us Hollywood is now terrified of a few biting punchlines, and naturally, satire site The Babylon Bee and outspoken attorney Kelly Chang Rickert are not having it. The champion of online irreverence has just slapped the State of California with a lawsuit that reads less like legalese and more like a desperate plea for common sense. They’re arguing, quite reasonably, that California’s new laws—AB 2839 and AB 2655—are a massive overreach, a heavy-handed attempt to quash their First Amendment rights and kill the punchline before it even has a chance to land. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. But first, let’s backtrack for a moment: what are these draconian laws, and why did they even happen? In a nutshell, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, got his feathers ruffled. Back in July, Newsom, apparently so thin-skinned that a parody video of Kamala Harris could pierce his carefully curated aura of poise, tweeted that such parody “should be illegal.” The state legislature swiftly leaped into action, dutifully crafting laws that now demand political satire clearly label itself as satire. Because, evidently, nothing preserves the cutting edge of a joke like a flashing disclaimer that says, “Warning: This Is Supposed to Be Funny.” It’s like telling a comedian to announce, “Prepare to laugh,” before delivering a punchline—a sure way to extinguish any humor from the room. Newsom’s Joke-Free Zone: New Laws with a Convenient Agenda So what exactly do these laws entail? The new legislation, signed by Governor Newsom with an air of grim satisfaction, allows government officials to step in and silence political parody that they deem “materially deceptive.” Translation: if it makes someone in power look bad or hurts their chances at the polls, the government now gets to play editor-in-chief. From the Attorney General to your local district attorney, state officials are suddenly arbiters of comedic taste, wielding the power to enforce takedowns and even seek damages. And while Newsom might see himself as the hero here—defender of public trust against rogue jesters—what’s really happening is a good old-fashioned power grab, dressed up in the language of “protecting the electoral process.” The law essentially strips satire of its teeth, forcing creators to telegraph their intent lest someone, somewhere, might be misled into believing Kamala Harris really did try out for “America’s Got Talent.” The lawsuit from The Babylon Bee and Rickert hammers this home. “We don’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” they declare, and rightly so. Once the government starts policing humor, it’s not too long before all criticism—wrapped in satire or not—gets shoved into the same locked box. And that box, incidentally, is labeled “Do Not Open Unless You Want to Be Sued.” Parody: An Endangered Species? The irony here is staggering. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect polite discourse or agreeable speech; it exists precisely because political debate is messy, uncomfortable, and often incorrect. It shields our right to say things that might be offensive, incorrect, or yes, deceptive—because without that, democracy’s rough edges get filed down to nothing. But apparently, the legislators in California are less concerned about democratic principles and more about making sure their candidates aren’t subjected to those pesky internet memes. Related: Gavin Newsom Just Signed an AI-Deepfake Ban That Could Impact Free Speech. This Is the First Lawsuit Against It. “These broad and vague laws will chill speech and debate that criticizes politicians and their platforms,” the lawsuit argues as if that’s somehow a controversial point. What’s really chilling is the idea that a piece of content, because it bruises the ego of a candidate or calls into question the integrity of the election process, could now be erased at the whim of an irate governor. If politicians like Newsom are uncomfortable with people pointing out the absurdity of their actions—like, say, responding to a video parody by outlawing videos—they might want to reconsider whether they belong in public life at all. The Battle for the Right to Laugh Let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t about “misleading” the public or safeguarding democracy. It’s about control. It’s about a group of powerful people in Sacramento deciding that humor isn’t allowed unless they’re in on the joke. And for creators like The Babylon Bee and Rickert, being forced to spell out the gag in advance isn’t just censorship—it’s death by clarity. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, effectively pleading with the courts to keep these laws off the books before any more damage is done. The Babylon Bee and Rickert want nothing more than to keep the playing field open, a space where humor—dark, satirical, biting, or outrageous—can still shine a light on the often ugly underbelly of politics. As they put it: “Such censorship threatens the heart of public discourse.” California, the land of endless sunshine, tech utopias, and mind-numbing bureaucracy, has suddenly found itself on the frontlines of a cultural battle over what constitutes acceptable speech. Will satire survive when the joke itself is put on trial? Will politicians need to start every policy debate with a laugh track to indicate it’s okay to chuckle? For now, the comedians are fighting back. Because someone has to point out that, when a governor calls for a joke to be made illegal, the punchline isn’t just on him—it’s on all of us, too. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Babylon Bee Strikes Back: Lawsuit Takes on California’s Anti-Satire Laws appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Yes, Take Trump's Mass Deportation Vow Seriously

Spoiler: it’s pretty big.

The tail does not tell you the comet's direction half the time.

Don't be fooled by David Frum's rather reserved academic mien. The CNN regular is as rabid a Trump/JD Vance hater as anyone on the liberal media's Team Kamala. In recent times, we have caught Frum calling Vance a "racist, corrupt" Trump with better hair and a law degree. And comparing Trump to psychopathic mass murderer Charles Manson. Frum was back at his incendiary attacks on today's CNN This Morning. The topic was the appropriateness of Trump calling Kamala Harris mentally impaired and disabled. Frum suggested that instead of making personal insults about Harris, Trump should speak about his plans, but America has too many racists: "the issues are not going to work for him, that's why -- the genius of Donald Trump was to understand, look, the Paul Ryan message doesn't sell. What does sell in America is racialized contempt." Frum's suggestion was made in utmost bad faith. He mischaracterized Trump's plans in the worst, most misleading ways. Thus, he suggested that Trump should say: "I want to talk about my plan to build a network of concentration camps to hold 10 million people, and then dump them all in Mexico, wherever they came from before and without regard to what the Mexicans think. " It's a commonplace for the liberal media to analogize Trump to Hitler. But for my co-religionist Frum to accuse Trump of planning to build "concentration camps" plumbs the depths of the despicable. Frum's "concentration camp" accusation was far worse than the insults Trump aimed at Harris. But that irony was obviously lost on Frum, who certainly knows better and should be ashamed of himself. But surely isn't.  Republican Scott Jennings soundly refuted Frum's claim that the issues aren't working for Trump, pointing out that polling shows people trust Trump more than Harris on the key issues of immigration, the economy, and foreign policy. Jennings did diplomatically question whether insulting Harris' mental ability is the "correct vector" for the Trump campaign, given that the issues are working so well for him. Frum claimed that Trump calling Kamala mentally impaired and disabled reflects his supposedly core message of "racialized contempt." In fact, Trump is an equal opportunity insulter of his opponents' intelligence. As the the Washington Post has documented, among the people of pallor whose intelligence Trump has mocked are: Karl Rove, Tim O'Brien, Glenn Beck, Robert DeNiro—and the  Mika Brzezinski.  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 9/30/24 6:43 am EDT DONALD TRUMP: Kamala is mentally impaired. Joe Biden became mentally impaired. Kamala was born that way. If you think about it, only a mentally disabled person could have allowed this to happen to our country. . . .  MANU RAJU: What should he say? DAVID FRUM: He should say, look, I want to talk about the issues. I want to talk about my plan to allow health insurance companies to deny coverage again to people with preexisting conditions. I want to talk about my plan to build a network of concentration camps to hold 10 million people, and then dump them all in Mexico, wherever they came from before, and without regard to what the Mexicans think.  I have a plan to make Social Security finances less stable. I mean, because the issues are not going to work for him, that's why -- the genius of Donald Trump was to understand, look, the Paul Ryan message doesn't sell. What does sell in America is racialized contempt. So that is what I'm going to offer. I mean, plus Paul Ryan, but racialized contempt.  And that has always been the core of the message. That is the message. So when he, he's not off message, he's on it. And he's always understood television better than any of the other people in the Republican party. Say what does galvanize the people who support Trump, who rejected better, cleaner, more decent, more intelligent Republicans in the past who rejected Mitt Romney, although Mitt Romney got more of the vote? What is Trump's special sauce? Racialized contempt. So of course he's going with that as his closing argument.  . . .  SCOTT JENNINGS: I disagree with you that the issues aren't working for Trump. And the fact is, in all of the polling we've done, the Gallup poll, everything that's come out in the last few days, they trust him more on the economy. They trust more on immigration. They trust him more on foreign policy.  So, the issues actually are working for him. To what extent this is the correct vector right now, when you have this issue set that is quite clearly working for you? I think that's a debating point for a campaign strategy. But I just disagree. I think the issues are setting up quite nicely for him.

UFC lightweight Renato Moicano continued his winning streak while continuing to pump out crowd-pleasing political rants.Moicano fought in the main event at Accor Arena in Paris, defeating French national Benoit Saint Denis by TKO in two rounds. The fight was halted via doctor stoppage after Saint Denis was unable to see out of his right eye due to brutal elbows from Moicano.After the win, UFC announcer Michael Bisping congratulated Moicano on an "epic performance," but it wasn't long before the fighter started parrying questions in order to talk about politics."First of all, French, I came here and I wanted to talk a lot of s**t about France. But, I went to the Louvre ... I went to all the beautiful places in Paris, and I just have one thing to say," Moicano said, with his palm gripping Bisping's hand and mic."The people from France don't suck, but the government of France is f***ing horrendous! French revolution 1789 tried to erase God from the map, but guess what? Jesus Christ is alive more today," Moicano exclaimed.'Globalists ... are trying to push a politically corrupt agenda ... democracy is a fallacy.'After Bisping asked the Brazilian who he wants to fight next, Moicano completely ignored the question and proceeded with his political message, trashing French President Emmanuel Macron."F*** Macron! F*** all globalists!" he said as the crowd cheered. "F*** all these motherf***ing globalists that are trying to push a politically corrupt agenda ... democracy is a fallacy, democracy is not a real government."A confused translator held in laughter as he relayed the majority of Moicano's message before the fighter eventually called out other UFC stars for a fight.The 35-year-old has become a source for patriotism every time he gets on the mic following a win. In April, he told Joe Rogan in the Octagon about his love for America and the Constitution."I'm a huge advocate of the First Amendment, and of course, I want the $300k bonus, but they [are] not going to give [it to] me because somebody says this is f***ing Disney, you cannot curse ... so I'm not going to do my speech."The broadcast was on UFC partner ESPN, which is of course owned by Walt Disney Studios."I love America. I love the Constitution. I love the First Amendment," Moicano told the Las Vegas crowd. "I want to carry and own f***ing guns. I love private property," he continued.He went on, "And let me tell you something, if you care about your own f***ing country, Ludwig von Mises and the six lessons of the Austrian economic school, motherf***ers."Fans can continue to look forward to book suggestions from Moicano in his speeches. During his speech in Paris, he recommended "Democracy: The God That Failed," by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The National Border Patrol Council torched Democratic presidential nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris for her recent "photo op" visit to the southern border.On Friday, Harris visited Douglas, Arizona, marking her first trip to the border since 2021. After her brief visit touring the wall, Harris gave a speech on border security, during which she took credit for increasing overtime pay for agents and vowed to curb illegal entries and drug trafficking. Harris also promised to bring back the rejected Senate bill that she claimed would have cracked down on the border crisis, but "Donald Trump tanked it."'After years of not just ignoring the problem, but helping create it, Vice President Kamala Harris is finally headed down to the border.'"He prefers to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem," she declared. "And the American people deserve a president who cares more about border security than playing political games and their personal political future."As soon as Harris and President Joe Biden were sworn into office, the administration immediately killed the ongoing construction of former President Trump's border wall, which Harris has previously called a "complete waste of taxpayer money" and Trump's "vanity project."Since then, her campaign has done a complete turnaround, claiming that a Harris administration would support placing barriers to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking.After Harris' speech in Douglas, the Border Patrol union released several statements, slamming the vice president for her contributions to the immigration crisis.On social media, NBPC wrote, "VP Harris asserted in Arizona that CBP needed more resources. We have apprehended over 8 million illegal immigrants over the last 4 years and now you realize we need more help 38 days before the election."In a separate post, the union fact-checked Harris' claim that she helped increase officer overtime pay."Today, VP Harris claimed that she played a role in increasing Border Patrol Agent overtime pay. This couldn't be further from the truth. As with all things border related she was no where to be found when we needed her," NBPC explained."Vice president Harris has ignored the border problem she created for over three years. She goes down there for 20 minutes for a photo op and decides to repeat some of the things the NPBC has said before. But again, where has she been the last 3 1/2 years?" the union questioned.Art Del Cueto, NBPC vice president, told Fox News' Bill Melugin, "After years of not just ignoring the problem, but helping create it, Vice President Kamala Harris is finally headed down to the border. This is nothing more than for her to check the box, but what it is in reality is a slap in the face towards the men and women that put their lives on the line every day, and also a slap in the face to the American public. Where has she been?"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Two members of the environmental extremist group Just Stop Oil will spend a considerable time behind bars after they threw soup at a priceless painting from legendary artist Vincent van Gogh.In October 2022, Anna Holland and Phoebe Plummer marched into the National Gallery in London and threw tomato soup at "Sunflowers," a work of art van Gogh painted in 1888. They subsequently glued their hands to the wall underneath it as well.'Non-violent civil resistance is the best, if not the only, tool that people have in order to bring about the rapid change required to protect life from the accelerating climate emergency.'The soup caused roughly £10,000 — or about $13,400 — worth of damage to the frame surrounding the painting but, thankfully, did not damage the painting itself.But it could have, Judge Christopher Hehir of the Southwark Crown Court argued during their sentencing hearing on Friday. For that reason, Hehir sentenced both defendants to prison after a jury back in July found them guilty of criminal damage."The pair of you came within the thickness of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or even destroying this priceless treasure, and that must be reflected in the sentences I pass," Hehir said during the hearing. Judge Hehir was not finished lambasting the unrepentant extremists. "You two simply had no right to do what you did to 'Sunflowers,'" he continued, "and your arrogance in thinking otherwise deserves the strongest condemnation."After all was said and done, Holland, 22, received a sentence of 20 months behind bars while Plummer, 23, received 27 months, three of which were added for interfering with national infrastructure for her role in a march through western London in November, the Guardian reported.When her turn to address the court came, Plummer — who prefers "they/he/she" pronouns, according to her X account, ziggystardyke — expressed no remorse and instead likened herself to other famous protest leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. She also apparently considers physically attacking a priceless cultural artifact simply another form of "non-violent" protest."On 14 October 2022 and in November 2023 I made the choices to take actions that I knew would likely lead to my arrest and prosecution," she said, painting herself as a victim of unjust prosecution. "I made those choices because I believe that non-violent civil resistance is the best, if not the only, tool that people have in order to bring about the rapid change required to protect life from the accelerating climate emergency and the political decisions being made that pour fuel on the flames and which sentence us all to a catastrophic future."According to the Guardian, both Plummer and Holland "blew kisses to the public gallery" in the courtroom before they were led away "to their cells."In a show of solidarity to their imprisoned comrades, two other members of Just Stop Oil apparently copied Plummer and Holland's crime just an hour or so after the women were sentenced and threw more soup at the "Sunflowers" painting."Future generations will regard these prisoners of conscience to be on the right side of history," Phil Green, one of the alleged participants, said following the latest soup incident. Just Stop Oil posted a video of it to social media.Meanwhile, more than 100 artists likewise stand with Plummer and Holland, who, they claimed, ran almost no risk of damaging van Gogh's artwork with their act of vandalism. The group also views the defendants as artists, boldly tossing about "splatter" and "blooms" of color à la Jackson Pollock to make political statements."As artists, art workers and art historians, we are concerned by the courts’ defence of a false notion of artistic purity in their judgement and sentencing. Art can be and frequently is, iconoclasm. These activists should not receive custodial sentences for an act that connects entirely to the artistic canon," they said in the letter.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Football Manager 25 system requirements have been revealed, and they're a complete shock to the system, especially when compared to previous years. Having played these football management games for close to two decades, I can confidently say that this is the most demanding installment yet. Lofty demands are expected from triple-A releases, but simulation games like Football Manager 25 often have super basic specs, with only a minimum tier released. This has been the case in years gone by, but now one of the best soccer games on PC comes with a brand new engine and  loftier hardware demands. Continue reading Football Manager 25 system requirements are a huge change for the franchise MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best graphics card, Best gaming PC, Best SSD for gaming

Broken Arrow looks like one of the most ambitious upcoming strategy games. It blends the deep customization and tactical considerations of military simulators like War Thunder or World of Tanks with the top-down, real-time combat management of RTS games such as Command and Conquer, Company of Heroes 3, and Hearts of Iron 4. Because of its ambition, it doesn't come as a massive surprise, then, that we've just learned that Broken Arrow has received a delay that will push back its launch but, luckily, also see its creator kicking off an open beta very soon. Continue reading Huge RTS milsim Broken Arrow delayed to “guarantee a quality product”