International
BIDEN OUT: President exits race, endorses VP Harris as his successor

From The Center Square
President Joe Biden ended his bid for reelection Sunday, opening the door for Vice President Kamala Harris or another top Democrat to replace him atop the ticket.
In a statement posted to X, Biden said he is stepping aside “in the “best interest of my party and the country.”
“It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President,” Biden said. “And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as president for the remainder of my term.”
The historic withdrawal comes just weeks before the Democratic National Convention is set to take place Aug. 19 in Chicago, where Biden’s pledged delegates will face tough decisions on who to replace him with.
Concerns over Biden’s age, declining cognitive abilities and physical health led more and more elected Democrats in Congress to call for his exit, seemingly on a daily basis.
Biden’s support among Democrats began to freefall after his performance in the June 27 debate with former President Donald Trump, when Biden stumbled over his own words and often lost his train of thought.
At a NATO news conference a couple of weeks later, Biden referred to Kamala Harris as “Vice President Trump” when asked if he thought Harris was ready to be president if he were to step aside, one of many gaffes during the summit.
During the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last week, where Trump officially accepted the GOP nomination for president just days after a failed assassination attempt on his life at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Biden was hunkered down at his Delaware home, recovering from his third bout with COVID-19.
Biden has not fared well in 12 major polls tracking the 2024 general election in recent weeks, leading down-ballot Democratic candidates for Congress to raise concerns that his declining support could help Republicans to retake the White House and the U.S. Senate and solidify their majority in the U.S. House.
Trump led by an overall average of 3 points in the 12 polls. Biden only led in one poll, where he had a 2-point edge in the NPR/PBS/Marist poll. Trump and Biden were tied in the ABC News/Washington Post poll. Trump led in the 10 other polls as of Thursday.
In The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll of nearly 2,300 likely voters, conducted after the June 27 debate but before the attempted assassination on Trump, Biden’s deficit grew to three full percentage points nationally. The poll has a margin of error of 2.1%.
Until Sunday, Biden defiantly opposed calls to step aside.
While his June debate performance seemed to seal Biden’s fate, his deteriorating cognitive abilities made news months earlier.
In February, the Report of the Special Counsel investigating Biden’s taking classified documents to his home revealed the president had issues with his memory.
“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the report stated.
The report also stated, “Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations – both at the time he spoke to [Biden ghost writer Mark] Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office. Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries. In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died.”
2025 Federal Election
Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over “Bounty” Remark Supporting CCP Repression

Sam Cooper
Thirteen Hong Kong-Canadian organizations are calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party to immediately revoke the candidacy of MP Paul Chiang, alleging he “may have violated Canadian laws” after making explosive remarks that appeared to endorse a Chinese Communist Party bounty targeting a Toronto-area Conservative candidate.
The controversy centers on Chiang’s comments during a January meeting with Chinese-language media in Toronto, where the Markham–Unionville Liberal incumbent said, “If you can take him to the Chinese Consulate General in Toronto, you can get the million-dollar reward,” referring to Joe Tay, the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North who is wanted by Hong Kong authorities for running a pro-democracy YouTube channel in Canada.
The response from Mark Carney’s Liberals appears increasingly conflicted, especially in light of remarks made last year by the party’s top foreign affairs official concerning Chinese transnational repression targeting Hong Kong immigrants in Canada.
Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly issued a warning in December, stating: “This attempt by Hong Kong authorities to conduct transnational repression abroad, including by issuing threats, intimidation or coercion against Canadians or those in Canada, will not be tolerated.”
Tay had remained silent since the revelations broke Friday. But on Sunday evening, he made his first public statement in a post on X.
“This is the most challenging time in our lifetime, and we must give it everything we’ve got to protect this place we call home. A fourth term for the Liberals is not an option,” Tay wrote.
About the same time, Paul Chiang posted his own statement on social media, offering a direct apology to Tay.
“Today, I spoke with Joseph Tay, the Conservative candidate for Don Valley North, to personally apologize for the comments that I made this past January. It was a terrible lapse of judgement. I recognize the severity of the statement and I am deeply disappointed in myself. As a 28-year police veteran, I have always strived to treat people with respect and dignity. In this case, I failed to meet that standard. I know better and it will never happen again.”
Despite the apology, a Carney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday that the party would not remove Chiang from the ballot.
Now, leading Hong Kong Canadian advocacy groups are intensifying pressure, saying Chiang’s comments amount to a tacit endorsement of Beijing’s foreign repression network — a growing concern for Canadian authorities, especially after Ottawa’s diplomatic expulsion of a Chinese official last year over threats to MP Michael Chong’s family.
“The integrity of Canada’s democratic elections has been damaged,” the groups wrote in a joint statement. “Paul Chiang’s actions may have violated Canadian laws, including the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act and the Canada Elections Act.”
Meanwhile, as the chorus of political condemnation grew beyond criticism from Conservative Party leaders, NDP MP Jenny Kwan — herself a victim of targeted Chinese interference, according to testimony at the Hogue Commission — stood with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and several candidates in Vancouver and addressed the Chiang scandal directly.
“He is a police officer, and he ought to know that when the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] went out and put a bounty on anybody, including Canadians, that cannot be acceptable. That is intimidation at its worst,” Kwan said.
“And yet, he played right into it. He advocated for people to bring [Tay] to the Chinese consulate to collect the bounty. In what universe is this normal?”
Kwan added the remarks are especially damaging while Canada is facing “active, sophisticated foreign interference activities targeting Canada’s democratic institutions.”
The Hong Kong Canadian groups described Chiang’s apology as “insincere” and “a tactic to downplay the seriousness of his outrageous comments.” They argue that any politician “truly sympathetic to oppressed Hongkongers” would never suggest delivering a Canadian citizen to a hostile foreign government’s diplomatic outpost.
“Chiang’s remarks legitimize foreign interference and potentially threaten Tay’s safety,” the statement reads. “This is not just about an offhand comment — it’s about whether our elected officials are willing to stand up to transnational repression or not.”
The joint release also cites findings from a national survey showing that 85.4% of Hongkonger-Canadian respondents are deeply concerned about transnational repression and infiltration in Canada, while 40.9% reported reducing public political engagement due to safety fears.
“Chiang’s remarks exemplify how foreign interference continues to cast a shadow over Hong Kong immigrants’ lives in Canada,” the groups said, emphasizing that more than 60% of respondents are alarmed by Canada’s handling of relations with China, particularly the influence of Chinese diplomatic institutions operating within Canadian borders.
“The Liberal Party must send a clear message that intimidation or threats against political candidates will not be tolerated,” the statement continues. “Canadians — particularly those who fled authoritarian regimes — deserve a democracy free from foreign interference.”
The Bureau has contacted the Liberal Party for further comment. This is a developing story. More to follow.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Support a public interest startup.
We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

By
“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”
“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
|
![]() |
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages. |
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.
|
|
Reclaim The Net values your free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.
Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance. Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out. Thank you.
|
-
Business1 day ago
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
The High Cost Of Continued Western Canadian Alienation
-
COVID-191 day ago
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
-
Economy2 days ago
Solar and Wind Power Are Expensive
-
Business2 days ago
Why a domestic economy upgrade trumps diversification
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy
-
Economy2 days ago
Clearing the Path: Why Canada Needs Energy Corridors to Compete
-
Business2 days ago
Tariff-driven increase of U.S. manufacturing investment would face dearth of workers