Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

A 60-day truce for the release of hostages has been proposed by US special envoy Steve Witkoff

Israel and Hamas have agreed to accept the latest ceasefire proposal put forward by the US, several media outlets reported on Thursday

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled his readiness to accept a roadmap presented by US special envoy Steve Witkoff during a meeting with the relatives of hostages still in Hamas captivity in Gaza.

Arab media later reported that Hamas had also accepted the deal to release the remaining Israeli hostages held in the enclave in exchange for a temporary truce.

Haaretz newspaper quoted an anonymous Israeli official as saying that Washington’s proposal envisages the release of the remaining 10 living hostages and the return of 18 bodies held in Gaza by Hamas over the course of a week. In exchange, Netanyahu’s government would reportedly agree to a 60-day cease-fire.

The Jerusalem Post cited an unnamed source as saying that Hamas has reservations regarding Washington’s plan, and sees it as favoring Israel. The Islamist militant group is reportedly wary of the fact that the US would not provide a guarantee that the temporary 60-day ceasefire would be extended to become permanent.

The latest developments have come amid an intensified Israeli assault on Gaza in recent days, including a fresh wave of airstrikes and a major ground offensive codenamed ‘Operation Gideon’s Chariots.’

Netanyahu has repeatedly insisted that the military action will not cease until Hamas has been totally vanquished.

Mediated by Qatar, Egypt, and the US, negotiations between the two belligerents have been going on for some time in Doha, albeit producing little progress so far.

The current escalation began in October 2023, when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 250 more. According to Palestinian authorities, the ensuing IDF military campaign has claimed the lives of more than 50,000 residents of the densely populated enclave.

Judges have ruled the US president overstepped his authority in imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency powers law

The US Court of International Trade has ruled that President Donald Trump has no right to impose sweeping tariffs on imports under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). By invoking the legislation, the White House bypassed the need for congressional approval that would otherwise have been required to take such steps.

In early April, the US president slapped a baseline 10% tariff on all imported goods, with higher rates for China, Mexico, Canada and the EU member states, citing trade imbalances. Trump has since suspended some of those measures amid ongoing negotiations.

On Wednesday, the New York-based court sided with a number of small businesses that had filed lawsuits against Trump, arguing that he had overstepped his authority.

According to a statement issued by the court and quoted by US media, “the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.”

However, the ruling does not affect any tariffs that Trump has imposed under different legislation, namely, Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This means that his 25% tariff on imported autos and parts as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum will remain in place.

The court ruling has noted that the US president could still slap a 15% tariff on countries with which Washington has a substantial trade deficit for 150 days, with Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 granting Trump the right to do so.

The White House has filed an appeal, with US media suggesting that the US Supreme Court will likely be asked to settle the matter.

In a post on X on Thursday, Stephen Miller, who serves as the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and as homeland security advisor, described the court’s decision as a “judicial coup” that has gotten “out of control.”

The judicial coup is out of control. https://t.co/PRRZ1zU6lI

There is a total of at least seven lawsuits, which argue that the IEEPA legislation does not authorize the use of tariffs, and that the trade deficit cited by Trump does not constitute an emergency as the US has run it for 49 consecutive years.

Multiple states led by Oregon have filed similar lawsuits.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the global trade system in its current form has left the US “looted, pillaged, raped and plundered” by other nations. The Republican has also insisted that sweeping tariffs will help to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Today, American Principles Project (APP) released a report highlighting Planned Parenthood’s alarming shift into the nation’s leading provider of sex-change procedures for young adults, all while collecting more than $700 million in tax dollars a year. The report reveals Planned Parenthood’s reckless approach to push transgender treatments, often without medical oversight or mental health evaluations, as they simultaneously push radical gender ideology on our children through its extensive sex education programs.

Below are just a few of the highlights from the report:

• More Planned Parenthood clinics provide gender treatments than chemical or surgical abortions.
• We estimate that Planned Parenthood provides more than 120,000 transgender services per year.
• Some Planned Parenthood affiliates are using contraceptives as a loophole to begin gender transitions on kids without parental consent.
• They have created a plethora of “sex-ed” resources that include sexually explicit coloring books, a 24/7 “private,” “non-judgmental” chatbot designed for children as young as 13, called Roo and many video series for kids of all ages exposing them to gender ideology.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!

You can review the full “Exposing Planned Parenthood” report here.

APP President, Terry Schilling, released the following statement on the contents of this report:

“Planned Parenthood is no longer merely an abortion giant. They have lately also transformed into a dangerous purveyor of irreversible gender transition procedures, targeting vulnerable young people with minimal safeguards. They are not a healthcare provider; they are a political machine using taxpayer funds to advance a radical agenda that endangers our families.

We are proud of President Trump and Speaker Johnson for ensuring that language to defund Planned Parenthood was included in the House version of the One Big, Beautiful Bill. Now it’s time for the Senate to put the nail in the coffin and end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood once and for all.”

The post Planned Parenthood is Mutilating Thousands of Kids With Trans Hormones appeared first on LifeNews.com.

All attempts by the government to evaluate the content of speech and deter or punish what the government and its benefactors hate or fear is un-American, unconstitutional and unlawful; and if not stopped, will reduce the American people to serfdom.

During the past three months, the Trump administration has sought to withhold the delivery of governmental benefits in order to punish or reform its perceived political opponents. These opponents — in the understanding of the White House — are colleges and universities that permit speech the White House claims is hateful, law firms who represent clients or employ lawyers who have been vocally critical of the administration, and even one of the 50 states because of language used in a statute and words articulated by its governor.

Can the federal government condition the acceptance of benefits upon the non-assertion of a fundamental liberty? Asked differently, can the feds withhold privileges to those lawfully entitled to them because it disapproves of the speech of the recipients of the privileges? In a word: No.

Here is the backstory.

Under the natural law, embraced by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, our rights come from our humanity. These are the rights to live, worship or not, associate or not, say what one thinks and publish what one says, defend yourself using the same means as the government, to be left alone, to travel, and to fairness and due process. These natural rights are basically the rights protected from governmental interference by the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution doesn’t purport to grant fundamental rights. Rather, since the rights pre-existed the nation, the Constitution essentially prohibits the government from interfering with the rights.

The classic example is the First Amendment, which reads in part “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” James Madison, who drafted the amendment, insisted upon referring to “speech” as “the” freedom of speech, in order to emphasize the understanding of the Framers that free speech came before the government. When did it come? It came to all humans at the age of reason.

The rights that come from our humanity are claims against the whole world. Thus, to exercise them, one doesn’t need a government permission slip. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, if all the world but one were of like mind on an issue and only one person disagreed, because the freedom of speech is a natural right and thus a claim against the whole world — meaning it may be exercised with impunity — the world would have no more right to silence the one dissenter than would he, if he had the power, have the right to silence the world.

This Madisonian/Millian understanding of human rights is the modern articulation of the Natural Law, codified 775 years ago by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Jefferson and the revolutionary generation accepted Aquinas in the Declaration, which states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Those rights are inalienable because they are natural and, thus, they cannot be taken away by legislation or command; they can only be voluntarily given up. A bank robber waives his natural rights when he steals money from the bank. Because he denied others the natural right to their money, he has waived his own rights.

When the government gives out privileges, like a driver’s license, the right to vote, a security clearance or research funds, it does so with strings attached. Those conditions must be rationally related to the privilege granted. You will drive the speed limit, you will only vote once in an election, you won‘t disclose the secrets you learned, you will not interfere with the human rights of others on your campus.

Much of this is second nature to the recipients of governmental benefits, even though the government grants benefits when it lacks the authority to do so. Financial aid to education and foreign countries are nowhere authorized by the Constitution, but the feds give it away anyway.

Can the feds take these privileges back for the abuse of them? The short answer is: yes, but subject to natural rights. Thus, state governments can withdraw the driver’s license of a persistent speeder or drunk driver, but they cannot withdraw a driver’s license because the driver is driving to a political rally in support of a candidacy adverse to the government that gave him the driving privilege.

The strings attached to governmental benefits cannot infringe upon or chill the exercise of fundamental liberties by the recipients of the benefits.

The Supreme Court articulated this legal principle with respect to individuals in 1972 in Perry v. Sindermann (invalidating the firing of a public school teacher who criticized the board of education) and with respect to the states in 2012 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (invalidating a portion of the Affordable Care Act which punished the states for not re-writing statutes).

These cases articulated and reinforced the doctrine against unconstitutional conditions.

That doctrine is the basis for the recent spate of judicially imposed injunctions barring the White House from denying the benefits and privileges the government has given out because the recipients have exercised or declined to exercise their freedom of speech as the White House wishes.

If this doctrine were not the law, then our natural rights would not be inalienable. Imagine the government requiring public speech or enforcing public silence in return for the benefits it gives out. Well, you don’t need to imagine that, as it is happening under our noses today; and but for an independent judiciary, the feds would be able to use the withdrawal of privileges and benefits to silence speech they hate and fear.

Unbridled freedom of speech has been and remains utterly integral to our history, humanity and happiness. It is the principal protection of all other freedoms. Without it, we will become servants to whomever runs the government. Is that what’s coming?

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

How would people react if, on the third time their broken-down car was towed to the same repair shop for the same problem, the swaggering mechanic told them: “Sure — the engine doesn’t work today but — follow me on this — next year, you will drive from coast to coast, and get 90 miles to the gallon!”

Yet if a politician promises to fix the world, people applaud and follow him regardless of previous crashes.

Woodrow Wilson revolutionized the political exploitation of idealism. In his 1917 speech to Congress calling for war against Germany, Wilson proclaimed that “the world must be made safe for democracy.” He described the U.S. government as “one of the champions of the rights of mankind” and stated the goal of the war was to “bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.”

Wilson endlessly invoked the ideal of liberty as he seized nearly absolute power over Americans, including the power to conscript millions of Americans to fight wherever he chose (including Siberia) and to commandeer entire industries.

While Wilson is today hailed as a visionary, in his own time, he became loathed as a demagogue. The more people embraced the ideals he proclaimed, the easier it became to defraud them. Americans’ idealism was fanned by ruthless censorship of any criticism of the government’s war effort.

The 1919 Paris peace talks shredded Wilson’s pretensions and made a mockery of the cause for which he sent more than a hundred thousand Americans to their death. One of Wilson’s top aides, Henry White, later commented: “We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell’s dirtiest work.” Historian Thomas Fleming, the author of The Illusion of Victory, noted, “The British and French exploited the war to forcibly expand their empires and place millions more people under their thumbs.” Fleming concluded that one lesson of World War I is that “idealism is not synonymous with sainthood or virtue. It only sounds that way.”

The 1920 presidential election was a referendum on Wilson-style idealism. As H. L. Mencken wrote on the eve of the vote, Americans were tired “of a steady diet of white protestations and black acts; they are weary of hearing highfalutin and meaningless words; they sicken of an idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.” Mencken explained why a typical voter would support Warren Harding: “Tired to death of intellectual charlatanry, he turns despairingly to honesty imbecility.”

Herbert Hoover’s subjugation idealism

Herbert Hoover, who campaigned as the Mastermind of the Age when he was elected president in 1928, invoked idealism to perpetuate subjugating foreigners to U.S. rule. When Congress enacted a bill to provide for the independence of the Philippine Islands, Hoover vetoed it in early 1933 because “We have a responsibility to the world … to develop and perfect freedom for these people.” Hoover rejected Congress’s bill because “it does not fulfill the idealism with which this task in human liberation was undertaken.” As long as the United States had not given Filipinos “perfect freedom,” it was entitled
to keep them under its thumb. Hoover’s assertion that idealism spurred the U.S. policy is difficult to reconcile with the killings of scores of thousands of Filipinos who resisted the U.S. takeover of their islands in the early 1900s. Hoover’s veto ensured that the United States remained mired in the Philippines until the Bataan death march and beyond.

FDR’s practical idealism

President Franklin Roosevelt was hailed as an idealist because he urged people to have faith in government to solve the nation’s problems. FDR assured the Young Democratic Clubs of America in 1940 that “you need practical idealism to make the present machinery function better.” “Practical idealism” signified FDR’s boundless faith in his own economic manipulations, such as setting the price of gold on a whim, reversing policies at the flip of a coin, and whipsawing anyone who counted on his promises. During World War II, FDR idealized American allies, touting the Soviet Union as one of the “freedom-loving nations.” Roosevelt’s glorification of the Soviets helped beget the infamous Yalta agreement that effectively consigned 100 million plus Germans, Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians to serfdom under Stalin. By deluding Americans, FDR’s idealism set the stage for a backlash that propelled the Cold War.

JFK’s service idealism

John F. Kennedy exploited idealistic appeals to capture the presidency in 1960. JFK talked as if the U.S. government could practically solve all problems, from ending tyranny (intervening everywhere against Communism) to ending worldwide poverty (with Peace Corps volunteers magically lifting foreign nations simply by their mere presence). Kennedy’s glorification of public service was simply an updating of the 1920s cult of service. But since he appealed for people to join the government instead of the Kiwanis, he was considered a visionary.

LBJ’s Vietnam idealism

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “For 188 years, the strongest fiber of America has been that thread of idealism which weaves through all our effort and all our aspiration.” Three years later, amidst rising antiwar protests, LBJ warned, “Idealism without commitment is like a bright light burning in a vacuum. Commitment without idealism can easily become frenzied and destructive.” At a 1968 presidential prayer breakfast, Johnson combined God and idealism to try to redeem his biggest muddle: “Belief in a divine providence is … a compelling challenge to men to attain the ideals of liberty, justice, peace, and compassion. It is often — as it is today in Vietnam — a call for very great sacrifice.” Johnson’s comment came the day after the start of the Viet Cong’s Tet Offensive, which stunned Americans who had swallowed LBJ’s boasting about how the enemy was nearly vanquished.

Nixon’s corrupt idealism

The backlash from LBJ’s “credibility gap” helped elect Richard Nixon, a politician renowned for dirty pool since his first red-baiting congressional victory in 1946. After his defeat in the 1960 presidential race, Nixon rebuilt his political fortunes as a born-again idealist. Bromides permeated his first presidential term: “Idealism without pragmatism is impotent…. The key to effective leadership is pragmatic idealism.” Alternatively, “Idealism without realism is impotent. Realism without idealism is immoral.” Nixon declared in 1971 at the University of Nebraska: “I believe one of America’s most priceless assets is the idealism which motivates the young people of America.”

Nixon’s invocations on idealism did not dissuade him from lying and lawbreaking across the board. Nor did gushing over youthful idealism deter him from perpetuating the Vietnam War and sending 20,000 potential American idealists to their deaths.

Reagan’s hypocritical idealism

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan told the Conservative Political Action Committee: “There is, in America, a greatness and a tremendous heritage of idealism which is a reservoir of strength and goodness. It is ours if we will but tap it.”

Reagan was deified by conservatives for preaching that “government is the problem, not the solution.” The Reagan presidency illustrates how idealizing a politician allows him to do as he pleases. The trust and support Reagan garnered enabled him to dictate a national drinking age (18), rev up the drug war, create new handouts for business and farmers, and bankroll guerrilla conflicts and repression abroad. But because Reagan constantly praised liberty, his power grabs were asterisks instead of outrages.

Clinton’s bombing idealism

Bill Clinton captured the presidency in 1992 in part thanks to idealistic-sounding  appeals for reviving faith in government. In his first term, his idealism was personified by AmeriCorps — the paid “volunteer” program that provided cheering squads when Clinton arrived at airport tarmacs around the nation. Throughout his second term, Clinton continually assured audiences: “I’m more idealistic today than I was the day that I took the Oath of Office” — as if his idealism was proof of his virtue. Clinton portrayed the  U.S. bombing of Serbia in 1999 as American idealism at its best: “Because we believe every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … we are proud to stand with our Allies in defense of these ideals in Kosovo.” But the U.S. bombing merely reversed the roles, permitting the Kosovo Liberation Army to terrorize Serb civilians as the Serb Army had previously abused ethnic Albanians.

Bush’s military idealism

President George W. Bush portrayed his invasion of Iraq as American idealism at its best. In his May 1, 2003, “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush hailed “the character of our military through history” for showing “the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies.” Speaking three weeks later at a Republican fundraiser, he bragged, “The world has seen the strength and the idealism of the United States military.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius declared in late 2003 that “this may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times.” Bush’s ideals did nothing to resurrect the American soldiers or Iraqi civilians killed after his perpetual brazen false claims paved the way to the U.S. attack on Iraq.

Obama’s assassination idealism

Barack Obama probably did more damage to idealism than any president since Woodrow Wilson. In his first inaugural address, Obama declared that America’s “ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.” But one of Obama’s most shocking legacies was his claim of a prerogative to kill U.S. citizens labeled as terrorist suspects without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked individuals to legally object. Obama’s lawyers even refused to disclose the standards used for designating Americans for death. Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, and he personally chose who would be killed at weekly “Terror Tuesday” White House meetings that featured PowerPoint parades of potential targets.

In 2011, Obama draped his decision to bomb Libya by invoking “democratic values,” and the “ideals” that he asserted were, he said, “the true measure of American leadership.” Obama was so convinced of the righteousness of targeting dictator Muammar Qadaffi that his appointees signaled that federal law (such as the War Powers Act) could not constrain his salvation mission.  At that point, the terrorist groups fighting Qaddafi were already slaughtering civilians.  In the chaos that subsequently engulfed Libya, ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. When their corpses arrived back in the U.S., Obama hailed the victims for embodying “the courage, the hope, and yes, the idealism, that fundamental American belief that we can leave this world a little better than before.” Obama’s soothing rhetoric failed to deter the proliferation of slave markets where black migrants were openly sold in Libya.

Idealism and tyranny

Nowadays, idealism is often positive thinking about growing servitude. Idealism encourages citizens to view politics as a faith-based activity, transforming politicians from hucksters to saviors. The issue is not what government did in the past — the issue is how we must do better in the future. Politicians’ pious piffle is supposed to radically reduce the risk of subsequent perfidy.

Idealistic appeals permit politicians to stack the deck in listeners’ minds. To believe an idealistic speech is to “do good” — akin to displaying a “Support our Troops” decal on one’s automobile. Idealism is the most dangerous species of political lie. The idealistic draping confers an obligation to believe, or at least to defer. The moral bonus a politician receives for invoking ideals usually exceeds any demerits for lying. Thus, lying about ideals is a guaranteed win for politicians.

Self-government cannot survive people idealizing their rulers. Telling citizens to glorify contemporary politicians is like urging battered wives to idealize their husbands. Why should we expect political idealism to be more honest than politics? It is time to cease being idealistic about idealism.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The Deep State is not going away. It’s just being replaced.

As we stand on the brink of a new technological order, the machinery of power is quietly shifting into the hands of algorithms.

Under Donald Trump’s watch, that shift is being locked in for at least a generation.

Trump’s latest legislative initiative—a 10-year ban on AI regulation buried within the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—strips state and local governments of the ability to impose any guardrails on artificial intelligence (AI) until 2035.

Despite bipartisan warnings from 40 state attorneys general, the bill passed the House and awaits Senate approval. It is nothing less than a federal green light for AI to operate without oversight in every sphere of life, from law enforcement and employment to healthcare, education, and digital surveillance.

This is not innovation.

This is institutionalized automation of tyranny.

This is how, within a state of algorithmic governance, code quickly replaces constitutional law as the mechanism for control.

We are rapidly moving from a society ruled by laws and due process to one ruled by software.

Algorithmic governance refers to the use of machine learning and automated decision-making systems to carry out functions once reserved for human beings: policing, welfare eligibility, immigration vetting, job recruitment, credit scoring, and judicial risk assessments.

In this regime, the law is no longer interpreted. It is executed. Automatically. Mechanically. Without room for appeal, discretion, or human mercy.

These AI systems rely on historical data—data riddled with systemic bias and human error—to make predictions and trigger decisions. Predictive policing algorithms tell officers where to patrol and whom to stop. Facial recognition technology flags “suspects” based on photos scraped from social media. Risk assessment software assigns threat scores to citizens with no explanation, no oversight, and no redress.

These algorithms operate in black boxes, shielded by trade secrets and protected by national security exemptions. The public cannot inspect them. Courts cannot challenge them. Citizens cannot escape them.

The result? A population sorted, scored, and surveilled by machinery.

This is the practical result of the Trump administration’s deregulation agenda: AI systems given carte blanche to surveil, categorize, and criminalize the public without transparency or recourse.

And these aren’t theoretical dangers—they’re already happening.

Yet the Trump administration’s approach to AI regulation reveals a deeper plan to deregulate democracy itself.

Rather than curbing abuses, the Trump administration is accelerating them.

An executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” signed by President Trump in early 2025, revoked prior AI safeguards, eliminated bias audits, and instructed agencies to prioritize “innovation” over ethics. The order encourages every federal agency to adopt AI quickly, especially in areas like policing and surveillance.

Under the guise of “efficiency,” constitutional protections are being erased.

Trump’s 10-year moratorium on AI regulation is the logical next step. It dismantles the last line of defense—state-level resistance—and ensures a uniform national policy of algorithmic dominance.

The result is a system in which government no longer governs. It processes.

The federal government’s AI expansion is building a surveillance state that no human authority can restrain.

Welcome to Surveillance State 2.0, the Immortal Machine.

Over 1700 uses of AI have already been reported across federal agencies, with hundreds directly impacting safety and rights. Many agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, are deploying AI for decision-making without public input or oversight.

This is what the technocrats call an “algocracy”—rule by algorithm.

In an algocracy, unelected developers and corporate contractors hold more power over your life than elected officials.

Your health, freedom, mobility, and privacy are subject to automated scoring systems you can’t see and can’t appeal.

And unlike even the most entrenched human dictators, these systems do not die. They do not forget. They are not swayed by mercy or reason. They do not stand for re-election.

They persist.

When AI governs by prediction, due process disappears in a haze of machine logic.

The most chilling effect of this digital regime is the death of due process.

What court can you appeal to when an algorithm has labeled you a danger? What lawyer can cross-examine a predictive model? What jury can weigh the reasoning of a neural net trained on flawed data?

You are guilty because the machine says so. And the machine is never wrong.

When due process dissolves into data processing, the burden of proof flips. The presumption of innocence evaporates. Citizens are forced to prove they are not threats, not risks, not enemies.

And most of the time, they don’t even know they’ve been flagged.

This erosion of due process is not just a legal failure—it is a philosophical one, reducing individuals to data points in systems that no longer recognize their humanity.

Writer and visionary Rod Serling warned of this very outcome more than half a century ago: a world where technology, masquerading as progress under the guise of order and logic, becomes the instrument of tyranny.

That future is no longer fiction. What Serling imagined is now reality.

The time to resist is now, before freedom becomes obsolete and we become Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”

“The Obsolete Man,” a story arc about the erasure of individual worth by a mechanized state, underscores the danger of rendering humans irrelevant in a system of cold automation and speaks to the dangers of a government that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State. Yet—and here’s the kicker—this is where the government through its monstrous inhumanity also becomes obsolete.

As Serling noted in his original script for “The Obsolete Man,” “Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man…that state is obsolete.”

We now face a fork in the road: resist the rise of the immortal dictator or submit to the reign of the machine.

This is not a battle against technology, but a battle against the unchecked, unregulated, and undemocratic use of technology to control people.

We must demand algorithmic transparency, data ownership rights, and legal recourse against automated decisions. Otherwise, AI becomes the ultimate enforcer of a surveillance state from which there is no escape.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the time to fight back is now—before the code becomes law, and freedom becomes a memory.

Reprinted with permission from The Rutherford Institute.

While the Presbyterian Church (USA) faced declines in membership, congregations, and funding in 2024 — according to statistics the Presbyterian Church (USA) released this week — the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) experienced growth during the same period.

Juicy Ecumenism reported that the PC(USA) lost 48,885 members — roughly a 4.5% decline — last year, continuing the mostly consistent annual loss rate the church has seen for the past decade. If its decline continues, the PC(USA) is reportedly on track to dip for the first time below 1 million members in 2025.

CatholicVote previously reported that several other Protestant denominations have experienced declines in finances and membership, which an AP News report suggested is linked to progressive theology.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

The PC(USA) reported it lost 140 churches and established only four. According to Juicy Ecumenism, the previous average for the establishment of new churches between 1995 and 2005 had been nearly 30 churches per year.

The congregations of the remaining 8,432 churches are becoming smaller and smaller, the data shows, as only 367 churches have more than 800 members. Almost 70% of the churches have fewer than 100 members, and nearly a quarter of the churches have no more than 25 members.

According to Juicy Ecumenism, however, the more conservative PCA reported 7,223 new members and 22 new churches in 2024, including a 16.56% increase in adult baptisms and a 2.4% increase in infant baptisms.

The outlet noted that while most members of the PC(USA) are above 50 years old, and over one-third are 71 or older, deaths in the church do not account for the decline in membership. The data report 20,420 members’ deaths, which is not even half of the total membership drop. The PC(USA) also reported that 181 members who identify as “nonbinary” or “genderqueer” joined in 2024.

The PC(USA) also has experienced funding issues due to its decline in members, according to the report. The Presbyterian Mission Agency was forced to drastically cut its annual giving to missionaries, and the agency was finally eliminated in early 2025, becoming part of a new entity. The funding shortage also resulted in layoffs of dozens of mission workers in February.

LifeNews Note: Hannah Hiester writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Presbyterian Church Losing Members and Churches After Years of Supporting Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

A coalition of nine prominent pro-life organizations is calling on interim US Attorney Jeanine Pirro to investigate the suspected infanticide of five late-term aborted babies discovered at a Washington, D.C., abortion facility.

In a letter sent Tuesday, the coalition — led by Advancing American Freedom and co-signed by CatholicVote — said that “the Biden Administration worked to sweep the allegations under the rug and silence the individuals involved by prosecuting them.”

The deceased babies, known as the “D.C. Five,” were recovered in 2022 by members of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU) from a D.C. facility operated by late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo. The pro-life groups allege that the babies’ deaths violated both the Partial-Birth Abortion Act and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.

Instead of launching a federal investigation, the Biden administration targeted the pro-life activists, sentencing some to up to 11 years in prison under the controversial Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

PAAU Director of Activism Lauren Handy, a Catholic, was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison last May, while nine other pro-life advocates faced similar sentences.

The letter also adds that “President Biden’s Department of Justice allegedly ordered the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to incinerate the evidence,” citing a Daily Signal exclusive.

“Thankfully, Members of Congress took shrewd steps to protect the evidence through preservation of evidence requests,” the coalition continued.

At the start of his second term, President Donald Trump pardoned Handy and 22 other pro-life activists, framing the move as a correction of the Biden administration’s unfair prosecution of pro-lifers.

“They should not have been prosecuted,” Trump said several times during the signing. “Many of them are elderly… This is a great honor to sign.”

CatholicVote Director of Government Affairs Tom McClusky praised the decision Wednesday, saying, “Of all the great things President Trump has done since being re-elected, freeing the pro-lifers who were wrongfully persecuted and challenged is at the top.”

As one of the cosigners of the May 27 letter, McClusky added, “What happened in DC was atrocious; a group of pro-lifers exposed the illegal activities of a DC abortion facility, and the DC government instead protected the criminals and attacked the pro-lifers. It is well past time that the abortion facility is investigated for its crimes and that they are brought to justice.”

The letter builds upon a request made by Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., last month, pressing the FBI to investigate.

“[W]e remain concerned about the Biden-Harris Administration’s refusal to investigate the circumstances of the case of five aborted children, also known as the D.C. Five, whose remains were allegedly discovered at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in March 2022 by a pro-life advocacy group,” the legislators’ said in a letter to the FBI.

Concluding their letter, the pro-life groups called on Pirro to act decisively: “As the Interim United States Attorney for Washington, D.C., it is your responsibility to follow the facts where they may lead and enforce federal law to protect those most vulnerable in our nation’s capital: the unborn.”

The letter was also co-signed by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life of America, Family Research Council, Live Action, Concerned Women for America, Human Coalition, and the American Family Association.

LifeNews Note: Elise DeGeeter writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Pro-Life Group Wants Abortionist Investigated Who Killed 5 Full-Term Babies in Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Caitlin Reminds Us How Protests Against Genocide Came to Be Considered Worse than Genocide Itself

“According to the official narrative, university protests against a transparent ethnic cleansing operation are a greater concern than the transparent ethnic cleansing operation.

“According to the official narrative, western Zionist Jews feeling emotionally upset about opposition to a modern-day holocaust is a more urgent problem than a modern-day holocaust.”

https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/05/28/sorry-if-this-is-antisemitic-but-i-think-its-wrong-to-burn-children-alive/ 

The Ever-widening War

“If They Strike With Taurus – Russia’s Next Target Will Be German Military Facility”

https://sputnikglobe.com/20250528/if-they-strike-with-taurus—russias-next-target-will-be-german-military-facility-1122146019.html