Blog

Australian Prime Minister Albanese Proposes Tougher National Gun Laws After Mass Shooting in Sydney

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday proposed tougher national gun laws after a mass shooting targeted a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach, leaving at least 15 people dead.

Albanese said he would propose new restrictions, including limiting the number of guns a licensed owner can obtain. His proposals were announced after the authorities revealed that the older of the two gunmen—who were a father and son—had held a gun license for a decade and amassed his six guns legally.

“The government is prepared to take whatever action is necessary. Included in that is the need for tougher gun laws,” Albanese told reporters.

“People’s circumstances can change. People can be radicalized over a period of time. Licenses should not be in perpetuity,” he added.

At least 38 people were being treated in hospitals after the massacre on Sunday, when the two shooters fired indiscriminately on the beachfront festivities. Those killed included a 10-year-old girl, a rabbi and a Holocaust survivor.

The horror at Australia’s most popular beach was the deadliest shooting in almost three decades in a country with strict gun control laws primarily aimed at removing rapid-fire rifles from circulation. Albanese called the massacre an act of anti-Semitic terrorism that struck at the heart of the nation.

He pledged swift change, planning on Monday afternoon to present his gun law proposals to a national cabinet meeting that includes state leaders. Some of the measures would also require state legislation.

“Some laws are commonwealth and some laws are implemented by the states,” the Australian leader said. “What we want to do is to make sure that we’re all completely on the same page.”

Christopher Minns, premier of New South Wales where Sydney is the state capital, agreed with Albanese that gun licenses should not be granted in perpetuity.

Minns said his state’s gun laws would change, but he could not yet detail how.

“It means introducing a bill to Parliament to—I mean to be really blunt—make it more difficult to get these horrifying weapons that have no practical use in our community,” Minns told repoters.

Keep reading

Iran’s Response to Australia’s Bondi Beach Terror Attack Raises Questions

The mass-casualty terror attack targeting a Hanukkah gathering at Sydney’s Bondi Beach was the predictable outcome of a global environment in which antisemitic incitement is normalized, rationalized, and, in some cases, actively encouraged by state actors.

In the hours following the attack, attention has turned to Iran—not because Tehran immediately claimed responsibility, but because of how Iranian officials, state media, and regime-aligned commentators have responded.

Iran’s reaction follows a familiar pattern. There has been no direct praise for the murders.

Instead, Iranian outlets have worked to reframe the attack as an understandable—or even defensible—reaction to the Israel-Hamas war, while redirecting outrage toward Israel and the West.

This strategy allows the regime to distance itself from operational responsibility while sustaining the ideological climate that fuels antisemitic violence worldwide.

Iranian state media coverage was notably clinical on the surface. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Tehran’s official media, reported the basic facts: a shooting at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration, multiple fatalities, and ongoing investigations by Australian authorities.

Missing, however, was any moral condemnation of the attack or recognition of antisemitism as a motivating factor. Instead, IRNA quickly pivoted, characterizing Israeli reactions as “harsh” and “unprecedented” and situating the massacre within the broader narrative of Gaza.

Iranian coverage repeatedly emphasized claims about civilian deaths in Gaza, citing figures from Hamas-run authorities and presenting them as uncontested fact.

The implication was clear: violence against Jews abroad should be understood through the lens of Israel’s military actions, rather than as terrorism targeting a religious minority.

By embedding the Bondi Beach attack within a Gaza-focused narrative, Iranian media effectively shifted blame from the perpetrators to Jewish collective identity itself.

That narrative was taken further by regime-aligned commentators. Lebanese journalist Hadi Hoteit, who identifies himself as a correspondent for Iran’s state-run Press TV, posted on social media questioning whether the attacker should even be labeled a terrorist.

Keep reading

The Death of Ukraine’s Dream of NATO Membership

Ukraine’s dream of NATO membership is dead. It died, surprisingly, not on the battlefields of Ukraine nor at the negotiating table with Russia. It died in a document written in the White House to be sent to Congress to explain America’s national security vision.

The 2025 National Security Strategy of the United States of America, dated November 2025, was released on December 4. Embedded unimposingly, without fanfare, in a section on The Regions called Promoting European Greatness, and not even in the section that discusses the war in Ukraine, the Security Strategy quietly states the priority policy of “Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.” Those fourteen words seem to have pulled the plug on a dream that was already on life support.

That policy priority found expression in point 7 of Trump’s 28 point peace plan that states that “Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.”

Since it was first promised at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO,” the dream has been an unrealistic one. It did not take into account the real wishes of Ukraine, NATO or Russia, and it did not take into account previous promises already made by NATO and Ukraine. At the time of the Bucharest summit, the U.S. may have wanted NATO membership for Ukraine, but only 20% of Ukrainians did.

In 1990 and 1991, at the end of the Cold War, NATO promised Gorbachev and the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand any further east. But it was not just NATO that promised to stay out of Ukraine, it was also Ukraine that promised to stay out of NATO. Article IX  of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO. Moscow has recently reminded that Russia “recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine back in 1991, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence” and added that one of the main points for [Russia] in the declaration was that Ukraine would be a non-bloc, non-alliance country; it would not join any military alliances.”

Ukraine’s constitution was only amended to include a mandate for all future governments to seek NATO membership in 2019, five years after the U.S. supported coup. The amendment was made with neither vote nor referendum. At the time, public support in Ukraine for NATO membership hovered around a tepid 40%.

That that amendment could be reversed, and that Ukraine could be willing to do so, was signaled by Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, in the early days of the war. At the start of the war, Zelensky said he has “understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine.” In March 2022, he said “For years we have been hearing about how the door is supposedly open [to NATO membership] but now we hear that we cannot enter. And it is true, and it must be acknowledged.”

In April 2022, after the war had begun, polling indicates that only 24%-39% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership. At that time, the tentative agreement arrived at in Istanbul included that “Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership…” The draft reportedly stipulated that “permanent neutrality” be enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution.

Ukraine was pushed off that path by the U.S. for their own policy reasons, including the “core principle” that Ukraine has the right to choose their alliances and that NATO has the right to expand.

Keep reading

President Trump Drops a Bomb: “The Election Was Rigged in 2020. We Have All the Ammunition… It’s Coming Out in Truckloads”

President Donald Trump made a shocking admission this past weekend. His statements were making waves in political circles.

Trump says his administration is about to release “truckloads” of evidence PROVING the 2020 election was “RIGGED” by Democrats.

He added that he has evidence Gavin Newsom is rigging California elections with mail-in ballots.

“They’re professionals at cheating because we won in 2016 by a lot. The election was rigged in 2020. We have all the ammunition, all the stuff, and you’ll see it come out. It’s coming out in truckloads”

“California more than any other place is so rigged. It’s such a rigged election — If the vote in California was legitimate, which it’s not, they have 38 million ballots. Everything is mail-in voting. They mail out 38 million ballots, and they come in. Where the hell did they go, and where did they come from?

Keep reading

Biden Goes Viral for All the Wrong Reasons at Eagles Game

Joe Biden had another embarrassing public appearance Sunday when he showed up to the Philadelphia Eagles-Las Vegas Raiders game at Lincoln Financial Field, bundled against the cold and looking about as lost as you’d expect.

Biden arrived on the sidelines before the 1 p.m. kickoff, standing in the snow with his wife, former First Lady Dr. Jill Biden, as they greeted Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie. “Go Birds, man, all the way,” Biden said in a clip posted to NBC10’s John Clark’s X account “Gotta win the Super Bowl again.”

From there, it all pretty much went downhill. But, hey, at least he knew he was at a football game…. maybe.

FOX’s NFL account on X posted video of Biden watching the game from the sidelines, and social media quickly erupted in mockery as clips of him staring blankly spread across the platform.

Social media users quickly flooded comment sections with posts targeting Biden’s age and cognitive fitness.

Keep reading

Rob Reiner and His Wife Michele Were Killed by Their Son

Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, were killed by their son, Nick, according to multiple sources who have spoken with family members. Police have not yet confirmed the account.

On Sunday, Dec. 14, at about 3:30 p.m., the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) was called to a home to provide medical aid, the LAFD told PEOPLE. Upon arrival, they found a man, 78, and a woman, 68, dead. Sources confirm the victims were Rob and Michele.

Police say Nick, 32, is alive and being questioned. No arrests have been made.

Rob is a director, producer and actor whose career includes some of Hollywood’s most beloved films — from his 1984 directorial debut, This Is Spinal Tap, to Stand by Me (1986), The Princess Bride (1987), When Harry Met Sally… (1989), Misery (1990) and A Few Good Men (1992).

He first became famous for his role as Mike on the Norman Lear TV sitcom All in the Family.

Rob was born in the Bronx, N.Y., in 1947. His father was legendary comedian Carl Reiner and his mother was actress and singer Estelle Lebost. 

Rob and Michele met when Rob directed When Harry Met Sally, and the couple married in 1989 before having three children.

Keep reading

Trump Is Using the ‘Misinformation’ Censorship Playbook Republicans Attacked Biden For

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson recently complained about alleged “lies, smears and AI deepfakes that are designed to deceive Americans” about President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Pressed on whether the government was talking with social media platforms to stem this purported misinformation, the spokesperson said, “Yes and we are also putting resources forward to ensure DHS combats this.”

It wasn’t so long ago that candidate Trump and his Republican allies were decrying the Joe Biden administration for pressuring platforms to police misinformation. The Trump administration seems to have warmed to the idea. 

Many on the left, who previously supported giving the government greater power to combat so-called misinformation, are and should rightly be fearful of a Trump administration empowered to censor speech it disagrees with.

The DHS announcement signals a deeper shift toward government-driven moderation of online speech—a shift that threatens to turn every administration into a speech arbiter. The power to dictate what can be said on the internet is inherently prone to abuse, no matter who holds it. The stakes are high.

Jawboning for Me but Not for Thee

Under the First Amendment, federal and state governments cannot censor speech they dislike, so instead of blatantly shutting down a news organization or online platform, government actors often try to force a company to do their bidding through more subtle means. These demands often happen behind closed doors, backed by an implicit—or sometimes explicit—threat that refusal will bring government retaliation. Because the government wields so much power over businesses, these companies understand they are in a weak position to resist. This practice is called “jawboning.”

When the Biden administration made public and private demands that social media companies remove “misinformation” and “disinformation” related to the COVID-19 pandemic, it ended up at the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. The Court ultimately punted by ruling that individual social media users who claimed their speech was suppressed lacked standing to sue. 

This was disappointing. Internal emails from various social media companies showed that senior leaders felt they had no choice but to comply with the administration. Meta’s leaders internally said that they needed to change policy because they had “bigger fish to fry with the Administration.” YouTube claimed it needed to keep Biden officials happy since they wanted to “work closely with the administration on multiple policy fronts.” Amazon moved to “accelerate” its policy changes ahead of a call with Biden officials. Thankfully, the Supreme Court did at least uphold the principle that jawboning is wrong and unconstitutional in another case, NRA v. Vullo. 

Today, the Trump administration appears to be invoking Murthy as cover for its own pressure campaigns against online platforms. Apple removed an app that allowed users to report sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in real time. After complaints from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Meta removed a Facebook group that shared information about ICE agents. Now, the DHS says it is communicating with social media companies about supposed immigration misinformation. It would be naive to suppose it hasn’t applied any pressure during those talks.

It is entirely possible that the government can point to specific acts of illegality. It’s also possible that some of this content violates platform policies. For example, Meta claimed it removed the Facebook page with information on ICE agents for violating its “policies against coordinated harm.” It is possible this group was persistently violating this policy. But as long as these companies remain vulnerable to government pressure, we cannot simply trust officials who insist their demands are legitimate.

Keep reading

Father and son terrorists were armed to the teeth with SIX guns when they launched their deadly Bondi Beach rampage, killing 15 and injuring dozens more – as police reveal they were ALL legally-owned

The father and son terrorists who opened fire onto a crowd of innocent people, killing 15 at Bondi Beach had six guns with them at the scene, police have said.

The older gunman Sajid Akram, 50, was shot dead by police while his son Naveed Akram, 24, suffered critical injuries and remains in hospital under police guard following the horrific shooting at a Jewish Hannukkah celebration on Sunday night.

NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed the 50-year-old, who is yet to be formally identified, held a gun licence and all firearms registered to him were legally owned. 

Police have since seized all six firearms linked to him which are understood to have been at the scene of the terrifying shooting.

‘He has six firearms licensed to him. We are satisfied that we have six firearms from the scene yesterday, but also as a result of the search warrant at the Campsie address,’ Mr Lanyon said.

‘Ballistics and forensic investigation will determine those six firearms are the six that were licensed to that man, but also they were used in the offence yesterday at Bondi.

‘We will continue to investigate this matter thoroughly.’ 

ASIO has also admitted that one of the shooters was on their radar.

Keep reading

The Siren Song of War

In October of 2002, I shocked many in my Congressional District and beyond by voting against giving President George W. Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq.

The night before that vote, my older sister told me a Knoxville television station had conducted a poll which found that in its viewing area 74 percent were for the war, 9 percent were against, and 17 percent were undecided.

When I pushed the button at about 3:00 the next day to cast that vote, I wondered if I might be ending my political career. My vote was so highly publicized that it was clearly the most unpopular thing I had ever done.

However, after three or four years and much to my amazement, that vote became the most popular of the more than 16,000 I cast during my 30 years in the U.S. House.

Unfortunately, the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that the Congress passed then is once again relevant because President Trump and his advisers seem to think it gives them authority to go to war in Venezuela without the declaration by Congress called for in our Constitution.

When we went to war in Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein’s total military budget was about 2/10 of one percent of ours. Venezuela’s is even less. Neither of those two countries were or are capable of attacking us in any serious way. Neither has even threatened to do so.

Two polls in late November by CBS News/YouGov and Reuters/Ipsos both showed that about 70 percent of the American people were opposed to going to war in Venezuela, and probably most of the other 30 percent did not really want such a war but just did not want to oppose President Trump.

While the overwhelming majority of the American people do not want more dangerous illegal drugs coming into this Country, far more drugs are coming from China and Mexico and various other places. If we take action against Venezuela, which country is next?

Just before we went to war against Iraq, U.S. News & World Report had a story headlined “Why The Rush To War?” We should be asking the same thing today.

Keep reading

French Public Broadcaster Claims Christmas Markets Are a Tradition Tied to the Nazis

A French public broadcaster has been accused of spreading anti-Christian messaging by saying that the tradition of Christmas markets is tied to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

This week, taxpayer-funded Franceinfo published a video titled “Christmas markets, a tradition rehabilitated by the Nazis” on social media, which, according to Le Figaro, opened with the question: “Did you know there’s a link between the Nazis and our beloved Christmas markets?”

The broadcaster went on to claim that the tradition was “largely revived” by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolph Hitler in the 1930s as a means of promoting economic growth by encouraging the purchase of goods made in Germany at Christmas markets.

While Franceinfo journalist Antoine Milan Depeuille acknowledged that Christmas markets predate the formation of the Nazi party by hundreds of years during the Holy Roman Empire and spread widely across the continent during the Industrial Revolution, he claimed that they made a “strong comeback” in Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s after being pushed to the periphery of cities by “elites”.

“With the Nazi dictatorship, Christmas became a nationalist holiday. Christmas markets helped promote German heritage,” and “stimulate the economy with products made in Germany,” he said, claiming that the Nazis “decided to reinstate Christmas markets in city centres”.

Amid steep backlash on social media, with the broadcaster facing accusations of anti-Christian bias, Franceinfo removed the video from its accounts.

The public broadcaster’s move to tie Christmas markets to the Nazis was hailed by the French Communist Party-aligned L’Humanité newspaper, which declared: “Franceinfo is right: our Christmas markets do indeed have a link with the Nazis! Much to the dismay of the far right, which seeks to rewrite history while also attacking public service in the process.”

Keep reading