International
ABC airs pro-life ad showing aborted babies during The View, comparing hosts to Nazis
From LifeSiteNews
‘These are dead human beings, murdered by abortion that you promote,’ said presidential candidate Randall Terry in a pro-life ad with images of aborted babies that ABC was forced by law to air during The View.
A pro-life ad that aired during ABC’s popular daytime talk show The View highlighting that aborted “fetuses” are actually murdered children has infuriated the broadcast world, including the show’s co-hosts, whom the ad compared to Nazis because of their pro-abortion views.
The 30-second commercial spot from the Randall Terry presidential campaign took aim at “stupid celebrities” and “lying journalists” who use their platforms to promote abortion.
“I am so sick of stupid celebrities and lying journalists,” begins a voiceover by Terry, as photos of all six regular The View hosts are shown.
The faces of other pro-abortion Hollywood celebrities and news media personalities are then flashed across the screen, including Oprah Winfrey and Robert De Niro.
“Why don’t you fools follow the science?” asks Terry, as images of a newborn baby, a child in the womb, and then a series of gruesome photos of violently aborted children are shown in quick succession.
“These are dead human beings, murdered by abortion that you promote. If history even remembers you, you’ll be remembered like Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels,” predicts Terry, as portraits of the two prominent World War II-era Nazis are shown.
According to Entertainment Weekly, before showing the ad ABC posted a message saying, “The following is a paid political advertisement, and the ABC Television Network is required to carry it by federal law. The advertisement contains scenes that may be disturbing to children. Viewer discretion is advised.”
After the ad concluded, ABC posted a second message, to apologize for what their audience had just seen: “The preceding was a paid political advertisement that the ABC Television Network was required to carry under federal law. The advertisement contained scenes that may be disturbing to viewers.”
“Broadcast stations are prohibited from censoring or rejecting political ads that are paid for and sponsored by legally qualified candidates,” according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Randall Terry is on the ballot in 12 states, legally qualifying him as a national candidate.
CNN took offense at some of its virulently pro-abortion personalities being targeted in the commercial.
“The ad in which presidential candidate Randall Terry — without merit or explanation — compares multiple respected CNN journalists and commentators to Nazis is outrageous, antisemitic, and dangerous,” the network claimed in a statement to Entertainment Weekly.
LifeSiteNews reported previously that Terry’s campaign has developed more than two dozen TV ads custom-tailored to each state where Democrats are seeking to have abortion declared a legal “right” through November ballot initiatives.
Having judged past pro-life efforts since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade to be “anemic,” allowing catastrophic pro-life losses in Ohio, Michigan, Kansas, and Kentucky, the Terry campaign has incorporated images of aborted babies into its messaging in order to help religious voters understand that abortion is exactly what Pope St. John Paul II called it: “Murder.”
“You cannot end a holocaust of this magnitude without showing the victims and calling it ‘Murder,’” Terry told LifeSiteNews, explaining his rationale for including images of aborted children.
“There are rules and tools in social warfare, and if those five rules and tools are not used, you lose: incendiary images, radical rhetoric, aggressive action, serious sacrifice, and verifiable victory,” Terry said as he explained the need to change the tactics employed in defeating pro-abortion policies and politicians.
“With those tactics you win, without them, you lose,” he reiterated.
“The pro-life movement establishment does not want to be controversial,” Terry said. “Can you imagine saying, ‘We’re going to fight against antisemitism but not show pictures of the Jews in the holocaust?’ — or —‘We’re going to fight racism, but we’re not going to show the black men hanged by the Ku Klux Klan, or Emmett Till’s body, or ‘the water cannons and the dogs’ because they’re just too harsh?”
“That would be absurd,” Terry said. “So, we have to show the babies, and we have to call it what God calls it, which is what St. Pope John Paul II called it: ‘Murder.’ He called abortion ‘murder’ eight times in the The Gospel of Life.”
From LifeSiteNews
Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China
Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.
An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.
Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.
The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”
In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”
The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”
The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.
Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.
“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.
“I want to make sure national security considerations are taken into account.”
The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.
Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”
The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.
Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”
China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Tech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
Carney’s Toronto cabinet meetings cost $530,000
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
Health Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame Announces Class of 2026 Inductees
Power Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
Alberta will use provincial laws to stop Canadian gov’t from trying to confiscate legal firearms
-
Business1 day agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow
-
Media1 day agoThey know they are lying, we know they are lying and they know we know but the lies continue
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Focal Points1 day agoThe West Needs Bogeymen (Especially Russia)
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoUS Condemns EU Censorship Pressure, Defends X
-
Dan McTeague1 day agoWill this deal actually build a pipeline in Canada?
-
Banks1 day agoTo increase competition in Canadian banking, mandate and mindset of bank regulators must change