If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A Senate committee in the US state of Michigan has approved Bill 707, which seeks to impose fines on those who, under the proposed legislation’s scope, are found to be spreading election misinformation, and doing that intentionally. Introduced earlier in the year by Senator Mary Cavanagh, if adopted, this bill would amend the Michigan election law to introduce fines ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 and qualify “spreading of election disinformation” as an offense. Disinformation here is defined as statements and misrepresentations that are considered false by the authorities – but the authorities would also have to determine if those statements are made intentionally. This is not the first time Cavanagh, a Democrat, has tried to push through legislation of this kind; the first attempt happened in 2022. And it’s not the first time that similar proposals, similarly vaguely worded have seen the light of day in the US these last years; here as well, opponents are wondering who would be “the judge and jury” that declares somebody had intent to spread false information – but also, how the amended bill would be enforced. “What is the burden of proof here? Is it clear and convincing evidence?,” asked Senator Ed McBroom, a Republican. Supporters of the new bill – accepted by the Senate’s Elections and Ethics Committee along party lines – say it would “clarify” the state’s existing law dealing with voter intimidation, and adapt it to “modern” intimidation techniques. Senator Cavanagh said that in addition to “specifying” that an individual (or a company employing them) must know their election-related statements are false, the bill aims to make sure voters in this swing state are aware of a Michigan Supreme Court ruling. Namely, it decided that the First Amendment protections somehow “do not extend to intentionally false speech about election misinformation,” Cavanagh noted. Therefore, what was left to do was introduce a new bill that “specifies” (but crucially, opponents think – it actually doesn’t) what passes for “intentionally spreading election disinformation,” and then suppress this speech. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Michigan Senate Advances Bill To Impose Fines for Spreading Election “Misinformation” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Anthony Fauci in the Crosshairs

I often report on fake “crises” pushed by media. Here’s one that may be real: Kids are anxious. In my new video, Lenore Skenazy, founder of the non-profit Let Grow, says it’s because today’s parents rarely allow their kids to experience the joys of independence. Skenazy once let her 9-year-old ride the New York City subway on his own. For that, the media labeled her “America’s worst mom.” “Law and Order,” the TV show, produced an episode where the child riding alone is kidnapped and murdered. But in real life, what Skenazy allowed isn’t so risky. Her son told me, “I know how to get around.” Nothing bad happened to him, and he gained the confidence that comes with taking care of yourself. Skenazy argues that not letting kids take care of themselves makes kids insecure. Anxiety and depression are “spiking off the charts,” she says, citing the Journal of Pediatrics, “How do you know the cause is lack of freedom?” I ask. “Maybe it’s social media.” “Anxiety and depression were going up before cellphones,” she replies. She says that the cause is the media’s hyping of isolated examples of child kidnapping and “stranger danger.” “That actually points everyone in the wrong direction,” she says. “The biggest threat to any child is somebody that they know, not a stranger.” Skenazy says parents should just teach kids to “recognize no one can touch you where your bathing suit covers. Resist, run, kick, scream. If somebody’s bothering you, don’t be nice. Resist. And then report.” “Those three R’s,” she says, “keep kids way safer than ‘stranger danger’ because most strangers do not present a danger.” Allowing kids to experience independence doesn’t just help kids, she says; it helps parents. “It’s no fun to think that the second your kids go outside, they’re going to be kidnapped ... and it’s no fun to have to be with your kids every single second.” The U.S. Surgeon General issued an “advisory on the mental health and well-being of parents,” writing, “Over the last decade, parents have been consistently more likely to report experiencing high levels of stress.” “It’s miserable if you have to spend every second watching, supervising, entertaining,” says Skenazy, “when there’s so much that you could be doing with your life!” “Let Grow, the nonprofit I run, has teachers give kids the homework assignment to go home and do something new on your own ... just so parents have the experience of ... watching the kid go off to the store, the park, or if you’re in a dangerous neighborhood, the kitchen to make pancakes without parents there to turn on the stove.” She says kids who do this “Let Grow Experience” feel better about themselves “because they’re trusted and doing something new, and it’s exciting.” Again, it’s not just kids who benefit. “The parents are ecstatic,” she says. “I used to think it was because they were so happy that their kid wasn’t kidnaped ... But then I started thinking, you have kids so that they will live on when you’re not around. Until you let your kid do something without you, you don’t know that they’re ever going to be OK without you. So, it is this ecstatic moment of realizing, ‘Hey, I had a kid who is going to be all right.’” She says Let Grow “is exposure therapy for parents” because they “have not been exposed to letting their kids go. They think that if I let my kid out, something bad will happen, or I’m a bad parent, or I could never forgive myself.” Kids need independence for the same reason adults do; it’s how we grow.

Climate correspondent and man with more frequent flyer miles than you, Bill Weir, joined CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta on Thursday to discuss what President-elect Donald Trump and EPA Administrator nominee Lee Zeldin mean for the environment. Naturally, Weir was quite gloomy, warning “these are such vital years” and worrying if the agency will be “able to hold the line.” Acosta began, “Bill, what can you tell us about this? Because, I mean, he could have picked a coal industry lobbyist or something like that, but Lee Zeldin?”     After recalling Trump’s previous EPA administrators, Weir dove into Zeldin’s environmental biography: Lee Zeldin, like all of these picks, a true loyalist, of course voted against the 2020 election certification, sat with Trumps in the box many times. Former New York, from Long Island, put himself, actually, on climate solutions caucuses and estuary committees, because the environment matters very much to folks on Long Island there. But if you look at his voting record, 50 times he voted against climate change legislation, against clean water legislation, eleven times, clean air eight times. The League of Conservation Voters tracks the voting records of every member of Congress, and on a scale of 100, he gets a 14, which is actually better than most Republicans, who are in the single digits.  The EPA may be the poster child for unaccountable, undemocratic governance, but Weir claimed that Zeldin’s confirmation hearing is a test to see how healthy the Senate is as an institution, “But it just seems like if these other picks, Jim, that you're talking about, are any indication, these are pressure tests, you know, for the American and for the Senate, and when it comes to environmental rollbacks and what, you know, what he would hope to do and gut from day one on, you've got to imagine the sky is the limit for Lee Zeldin and that agency.” Weir would add, “And there's a lot of folks who were there who survived the first term who are terrified today, Jim.” Acosta followed up by declaring, “And Bill, this is happening as we're still getting new indicators, warning lights, about our climate.” Weir naturally concurred, “Yeah, I mean, the temperatures are off the charts, the ocean temperatures, we're at the verge of these tipping points that once we go past them, when it comes to ocean currents or, you know, permafrost melting, we can't get back, right? So, these are such vital years right now that we're dealing with and this new administration, not only ambivalent about the science, but almost antagonistic. So, we'll see, we'll see who's able to hold the line.” Claiming the EPA should try to thwart the will of its elected leaders is what makes people want to support disruptive outsiders like “these other picks” in the first place. Nobody voted for the EPA, something both it and CNN would be well-advised to remember, just like they should remember that constantly doom prophecying about the environment tends to fall on deaf ears after years of being wrong. Here is a transcript for the November 14 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 11/14/2024 10:53 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: Bill, what can you tell us about this? Because, I mean, he could have picked a coal industry lobbyist or something like that, but Lee Zeldin? BILL WEIR: Yeah, that was the move, the last go around.  ACOSTA: Right. WEIR: You remember, Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general who spent most of his year suing the EPA, put in charge of it, and then he flamed out during ethics scandals. Andrew Wheeler, a coal lobbyist, replaced him there, and probably wanted that job back, from what we understand. But Lee Zeldin, like all of these picks, a true loyalist, of course voted against the 2020 election certification, sat with Trumps in the box many times.  Former New York, from Long Island, put himself, actually, on climate solutions caucuses and estuary committees, because the environment matters very much to folks on Long Island there. But if you look at his voting record, 50 times he voted against climate change legislation, against clean water legislation, eleven times, clean air eight times. The League of Conservation Voters tracks the voting records of every member of Congress, and on a scale of 100, he gets a 14, which is actually better than most Republicans, who are in the single digits.  He did vote for regulating PFAS, forever chemicals, at one point and to give Native American tribes some money to actually release wild Buffalo, so that boosted his League of Conservation score a little bit.  But it just seems like if these other picks, Jim, that you're talking about, are any indication, these are pressure tests, you know, for the American and for the Senate, and when it comes to environmental rollbacks and what, you know, what he would hope to do and gut from day one on, you've got to imagine the sky is the limit for Lee Zeldin and that agency. ACOSTA: Yeah. WEIR: And there's a lot of folks who were there who survived the first term who are terrified today, Jim. ACOSTA: And Bill, this is happening as we're still getting new indicators, warning lights, about our climate. WEIR: Exactly. Yeah, I mean, the temperatures are off the charts, the ocean temperatures, we're at the verge of these tipping points that once we go past them, when it comes to ocean currents or, you know, permafrost melting, we can't get back, right? So, these are such vital years right now that we're dealing with and this new administration, not only ambivalent about the science, but almost antagonistic. So, we'll see, we'll see who's able to hold the line. ACOSTA: All right, Bill Weir, and of course, Donald Trump at the head of all of this has made a lot of claims that are just outright climate denialism. Bill Weir, thank you very much for your time.

Morning Joe has been among the most vituperatively anti-Trump shows in television. As NewsBusters has documented over the years, the show's stock in trade has been to vilify Trump as a fascist, a Hitler, and an existential threat to Madisonian democracy. So it would be a remarkable development if Morning Joe, in the wake of Trump's victory, were to drastically change course and go fair 'n balanced in its treatment of the incoming president. And yet, on Thursday's episode, that was Morning Joe's stated intention. Joe Scarborough opened the show by noting the compliments it's received from viewers on the "calm and measured" way that the show reported Trump's win (which NewsBusters also noticed in the item the morning after election day). "Many of you have reached out to us since the election, and though many were disappointed results, you let us know you appreciated our reporting, and the reporting of the results in a calm and measured way," he declared. This led right into co-host and wife Mika Brzezinski declaring: "We will continue our best efforts to be fair and objective in reporting on the incoming administration."  We'll see about that. Scarborough noted that the show's sudden devotion to fairness would be put to the test in the case of the nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General. Brzezinski also claimed "it goes without saying" that members of the Trump administration are invited to appear on the show, and she expressed the desire to have a "face-to-face" conversation with Trump himself.     There's nothing "goes without saying" at all about the intention to have members of the Trump administration on the show. For years, Morning Joe has been the exclusive domain of liberal politicians and media members. The only Republicans permitted to breathe the show's rarefied liberal air have been of the tame, Never Trumper, variety. It will be fascinating to see if members of the Trump administration do appear on Morning Joe, and to observe the kind of treatment they receive. As for scoring an interview with Trump himself any time soon, don't bet the rent money at Polymarkets on it, Mika! Here's the transcript. MSNBC's Morning Joe 11/14/24 6:02 am Eastern JOE SCARBOROUGH: Many of you have reached out to us since the election, and though many were disappointed results, you let us know you appreciated our reporting, and the reporting of the results in a calm and measured way. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. We have been especially thankful for the kind words we received from those who voted for President Trump. And we're going to continue our best efforts to be fair and objective in reporting on the incoming administration. SCARBOROUGH: Now unfortunately, the next story does involve us personally a bit, but we still give you the facts while remaining objective. BRZEZINSKI: So here they are. President-Elect Donald Trump has selected Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida to serve as Attorney General and lead the Department of Justice.  (....) 6:05 a.m. Eastern BRZEZINSKI: And now, more on the character of Matt Gaetz and how it connects to this show. Donald Trump began tweeting about widely discredited conspiracy theories about Joe after receiving documents given to Trump by Congressman Gaetz. (....) 6:07 a.m. Eastern BRZEZINSKI: It goes without saying that we invite members of the incoming Trump administration to be on our show. And also, we look forward to discussing this issue, and others, face-to-face with President Trump himself.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk finds himself in a precarious yet exciting position as he gears up to co-lead the Department of Government Efficiency, commonly called DOGE, alongside Vivek Ramaswamy. Their plan? Slash government agencies by a huge percentage. Musk knows what this means, however: He’s about to put a giant target on his back. Dave Rubin plays the clip of Musk telling conservative pundit Tucker Carlson how he plans to tackle government inefficiency and what that means for his own personal safety. “We’ll just take a look at all the federal agencies and say, ‘Do we really need whatever it is – 428 federal agencies?’ Like, there's so many that people have never even heard of and that have overlapping areas of responsibility,” Musk told Carlson. “There are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States, which means that we've created more than one federal agency per year on average,” he added, noting that “that seems a lot.” Carlson agreed. “That’s a lot.” “I think we should be able to get away with 99 agencies,” Musk proposed. He then explained that the process of determining which agencies are on the chopping block will include “a review of regulations to say, ‘Which ones are sensible and which ones are not?’” “If you've got regulators every year, they're going to add more regulations,” meaning, “We can't get anything done,” he added. “We need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense.” “I think I’m saying very obvious things,” Musk tacked on when Tucker gave him a look of apprehension. “You are saying obvious things, which will be very unpopular things,” Tucker admitted. “Yeah. I'll probably need, if this happens, quite a significant security team because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office,” Musk laughed. Dave thinks Musk’s plan is excellent. “I think we can cut a huge amount of these agencies,” he says, adding that when you see Elizabeth Warren, MSNBC, and the like whining about how bad Musk’s plan is, just know that “they’re defending the bureaucracy.” The truth is, “If they can cut all of these jobs, make government more efficient, more transparent … the result of that is you're going to have more of your money,” he explains. To hear more, watch the clip above. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) is reviving the highly controversial congestion toll in New York City, reversing her decision to indefinitely "pause" the plan this past summer.In June, Hochul stopped the proposed $15 toll for those entering Manhattan below 60th Street following widespread opposition. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to pause the plan indefinitely.'You wonder why people are cynical of elected officials? This is exhibit A.'Hochul's stated reason at the time was to avoid adding "undue strain on already stressed New Yorkers." However, post-election, Hochul has decided to bring back the initiative, sources told the Gothamist and the New York Post. The sources indicate that Hochul plans to reduce the $15 base toll to $9. However, the governor reportedly is also considering increasing the base toll to as much as $23 within the next three years.At a press conference on Thursday afternoon, Hochul announced that New York City will proceed with a $9 base toll. She presented this reduction as a savings benefit for commuters, even though the original higher toll was never put into effect.“From day one, I have made affordability for New York families a top priority,” Hochul stated. “I’m proud to announce we have found a path to fund the MTA, reduce congestion, and keep millions of dollars in the pockets of our commuters. Under this plan, the MTA will implement a congestion pricing plan with a reduced daytime toll of $9 beginning in January.” “You heard that correctly. It was $15 before; now it is $9. That is a 40% reduction,” she continued. “This lower toll will save daily commuters nearly $1,500 annually, and that kind of money makes a big difference for our families. And there'll be further discounts for low-income New Yorkers. Car owners who make less than $50,000 a year will get a 50% discount on every toll after their 10th toll of the month. In addition, after 9 p.m., the toll is discounted even further.”The previously proposed congestion toll received substantial legal and public backlash.In April, New Jersey filed a complaint against New York, claiming that it "failed to adequately consider the environment impacts" and "ignored the significant financial burden being placed on New Jerseyans and New Jersey's transportation system."The Trucking Association of New York sued the state in May over the toll's pricing structure, arguing that it "disproportionately targets" truckers. Under the initial plan, truck and tour bus drivers would have been charged $36.The toll's revenue will cover $15 billion in repairs to the MTA's transit systems. Hochul's proposed plan to reinstate the toll has raised questions about the timing of this decision.Kyle Smith, a film critic with the Wall Street Journal, stated, "This is really unbelievably cynical politics. Kathy Hochul backed off a toll for midtown Manhattan because it polled disastrously and might have cost her party a House seat or 2. Now, the WEEK AFTER THE ELECTION, she says she's going ahead with it."Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella (R) said, "I can't believe Hochul put congestion pricing to bed and brought it back.""It stinks. You wonder why people are cynical of elected officials? This is exhibit A," Fossella added.Jim Brosi, president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, expressed concerns that first responders would also be charged."Congestion pricing will compromise staffing in the FDNY [New York City Fire Department]," he explained. "The disproportionate impact on members assigned to inside the congestion zone will cause a rapid drain of senior officers and firefighters, which could create a significant safety risk for all New Yorkers."Republican Hudson Valley Rep. Mike Lawler accused Hochul of "trying to pick the pockets of New Yorkers to bail out the corrupt MTA's waste, fraud, and abuse, and that's shameful."In a Wednesday statement, a spokesperson for the governor said, "Gov. Hochul paused congestion pricing because a daily $15 toll was too much for hardworking New Yorkers in this economic climate.""Tomorrow, the governor will announce the path forward to fund mass transit, unclog our streets, and improve public health by reducing air pollution," the spokesperson added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Numerous wealthy celebrities — including geriatric singers Barbra Streisand and Cher and 66-year-old script-reader Sharon Stone — threatened in recent months that if Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, then they would pull up their shallow roots and leave the United States. Time will tell whether these liberals will honor their pledges now that President-elect Trump is assembling his Cabinet, having secured over 3 million more votes nationwide and 86 more Electoral College votes than Harris. There is, however, at least one Democrat who has actually jumped ship. In a post-election interview with the French women's magazine Marie Claire, Texas native Eva Longoria indicated that she has moved her family out of the "dystopian" United States. The 49-year-old "Desperate Housewives" star, once touted by the Washington Post as a "political power broker," now appears devoid of the enthusiasm that she previously exuded in her speech at the Democratic National Convention. "The shocking part is not that he won," the multimillionaire told Marie Claire. "It's that a convicted criminal who spews so much hate could hold the highest office." It turns out that Longoria's personal efforts to turn out the Hispanic vote for Harris, as well as the efforts of the group she co-founded, the Latino Victory Fund, weren't enough this time around. CNN exit polls indicated that 46% of all Hispanics and 55% of Hispanic men voted for Trump. 'I'm privileged.' "I would like to think our fight continues," she continued, adding that she does not know what the future holds for the country. Longoria suggested that if Trump "keeps his promises, it's going to be a scary place." According to Marie Claire, Longoria, her husband, and her son now divide their time between Spain and Mexico when not jet-setting around Europe and South America. Despite supporting a California Democrat keen on raising taxes, the script-reader suggested that the fallout of leftist policies helped grease her way out of the United States. "I had my whole adult life here," she said, referring to Los Angeles. "But even before [the pandemic], it was changing. The vibe was different. And then COVID happened, and it pushed it over the edge. Whether it's the homelessness or the taxes, not that I want to s*** on California — it just feels like this chapter in my life is done now." Under Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, California's homeless population ballooned to over 181,000 people last year — nearly 0.5% of the population. CalMatters revealed in September that the number is now closer to 186,000 homeless people. "I'm privileged," continued Longoria. "I get to escape and go somewhere. Most Americans aren't so lucky. They're going to be stuck in this dystopian country, and my anxiety and sadness is for them." The incoming president of the "dystopian" country that Longoria has abandoned has indicated that he will secure the southern border, expel criminals who have stolen into the U.S., lower taxes, reduce crime, eliminate government waste, protect children from sex-change mutilations, lower energy costs, improve the health of American youth, end the corporate capture of federal agencies, and broker international peace. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

ABC News is reportedly in "panic mode" trying to find more conservative voices to balance "The View" after the show's entire panel threw their support behind Vice President Kamala Harris' failed presidential bid.Sources told the New York Post that the network is scrambling to rectify the voter disconnect on the talk show. According to the unidentified sources, ABC News has been hosting "intense," "high-level meetings" since last week.'The current panel is clearly resonating with audiences given that the series just had its highest rated episode in more than a decade.'Reportedly, the first order of business for the network's executives is to find a panelist to join the show who is a supporter of President-elect Donald Trump. Even the show's two current so-called Republican co-hosts, Ana Navarro and Alyssa Farah Griffin, have repeatedly bashed Trump and his policies.A source told the Post that the show is "facing pressure from higher-ups.""Viewers can expect some major changes including bringing in new panelists that can bring in a pro-Trump perspective," the source continued. "Everyone on 'The View' endorsed Kamala Harris. They lost. They are out of touch with America.""For a show about different perspectives, 'The View' doesn't seem to have any when it comes to Trump. ABC bosses don't want to alienate the pro-Trump demographic," the source added.The source speculated that bringing on a pro-Trump host could cause a stir with the other panelists."The question is what will happen to the Whoopis and the Joys if they bring on a Trumpster?" the source questioned, referring to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar.Whether the network plans to replace any current hosts or simply add another panelist is unclear.A second source told the Post, "We are trying to sort out how we cover the next 4 years when everyone inside ABC News is on one side."An ABC spokesperson denied the sources' claims, stating that it is an "opinion-based show featuring a diverse panel of women with different points of view."The spokesperson then remarked that the show had just seen its highest ratings, seemingly oblivious to the likely reason behind the surge in viewership. It is plausible that many Americans, especially those with conservative views who typically avoid the program, flocked to see the far-left panelists' dramatic reactions to Trump's landslide election win.The ABC News spokesperson told the Post, "The current panel is clearly resonating with audiences given that the series just had its highest rated episode in more than a decade and hit a 4-year high in total viewers."After Trump's win, Behar accused his supporters of being racist and misogynistic.Co-host Sunny Hostin questioned what was "wrong" with the Americans who voted for him, blaming "uneducated white women" and "Latino men" for Harris' loss. Meghan McCain, a former co-host on "The View," criticized her former colleagues for being out of touch with American voters."Respectfully, please stop sending me clips from The View," she told her followers on X. "It's a radical progressive insane asylum and that is why I left years ago."In an earlier post, McCain wrote, "It is actual malfeasance on the part of ABC news that there isn't one single conservative woman on The View this morning who voted for Trump or simply isn't repulsed by his supporters to explain to America why he is still so popular."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

There’s a subsection of strategy games that is almost tailor-made to generate intriguing narratives. Crusader Kings 3, Rimworld, and Dwarf Fortress are all brilliant games which that mix strategy mechanics with the ability to weave a story that’s entirely your own. Norland is the next title to take on this approach, and even in early access it's already making waves on Steam. Its largest update yet has just landed, and it’s a game-changer - literally. Continue reading Ambitious strategy game Norland gets huge world-changing update MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best medieval games, Best simulation games, Best farming games