Blog

Texas Orders Discord to Run UK-Style Age Checks for State Users

A Texas court has ordered Discord to turn on the age-verification system it built for the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act for every user in the state. Britain’s age-check regime has reached America by court order, and opening or keeping a Discord account in Texas can now mean a face scan or a government ID.

The agreed temporary injunction, signed by a Collin County judge, gives Discord 90 days to extend its age-assurance and default settings to Texas.

We obtained a copy of the temporary injunction for you here.

The company can still ask the court for more time if it shows the deadline is not feasible. Discord must serve the Texas Attorney General’s Office a confidential progress report every 30 days until it complies, and the order binds the company until final judgment, enforceable by contempt. The order lets Discord identify Texas users from data it already holds rather than gather new categories of personal information.

Today a Texan opens an account with an email address and a self-reported birthday, nothing more. The injunction imports that system instead. By Discord’s own published account, more than 90 percent of users are never asked to confirm their age, facial age estimation runs on the user’s own phone, and identity documents go to a third-party vendor rather than to Discord. The reassurance holds only for the users the system never questions. For everyone else, the account now comes with a face scan or a government ID handed to an outside company.

Under the order, Discord must route messages from strangers into a separate request inbox and block sensitive content for Texas teens unless it confirms the user is an adult. It must also close adult-only spaces to anyone it has not age-assured, according to the attorney general’s office. The state says these are the protections Discord already gives British children under the Online Safety Act and withheld from Texas.

Texas’s expert told the court that extending Discord’s existing safety features to the state was “just a matter of turning it on for Texas.” Discord runs the age-assurance system in the UK, Australia, and Brazil, its witnesses testified. In Texas the company still relies on a self-reported birthday at signup, a fact it did not dispute for the order.

Discord announced in February 2026 that it would roll its protections out worldwide, with the US launch only weeks away. Then it pulled back, telling the public the rollout would wait until the second half of 2026.

Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling a historic victory. “Discord built a platform where adult predators could hunt Texas children, then looked parents in the eye and told them it was safe,” he said in a statement. His office says Discord submitted 489,782 reports of suspected child sexual exploitation to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in 2025, more than 1,300 a day. Under cross-examination, Discord’s lawyers drew out that those reports largely amount to the company flagging crimes it finds on its own platform and passing them to the center.

New Jersey sued before Texas did, and Nevada, Indiana, and Arkansas have taken their own legal action. Texas filed on May 22, 2026, and won a restraining order within weeks. The case heads to a trial on the merits set for June 2027, where the state will seek civil penalties under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which can reach $10,000 per violation.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Lawmakers Create DEI Hiring Program to Give Muslims Priority for State Jobs

Liberal lawmakers in true-blue Massachusetts are creating a new commission which is essentially a DEI hiring program that will benefit Muslims looking for state jobs.

When did it even become the job of lawmakers to do anything like this? And why do it specifically for Muslims? It doesn’t even sound legal.

It’s just another reminder of what comes with one-party rule.

FOX News reports:

DEI hiring boost for one blue state’s Muslim commission initiative flies in face of Trump’s anti-woke push

Massachusetts lawmakers are taking steps toward prioritizing the hiring of American Muslims for state government positions under a permanent so-called Muslim commission.

The group would help recommend Americans who practice Islam to appointed government positions in the New England state at the same time the Trump administration is moving to dismantle such diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide — teeing-up a standoff between local leaders and the president.

A proposed bill would create a panel of 11 Muslims appointed by Democratic Gov. Maura Healey and other state officials to represent the Islamic faith on issues such as business, economy, healthcare and other concerns.

The Muslim commission would influence government recruiting and, “Identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions, as the commission considers necessary and appropriate,” according to language in the bill.

“Massachusetts has always prided itself on being a leader in equality and civil rights, a legacy this bill builds upon,” said Democratic state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, the bill’s primary sponsor.


Keep reading

Fauci’s most heinous crime: advancing fake science in pursuit of societal ruin

Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) has released 1,141 pages of Anthony Fauci’s private covid era diaries, and on Wednesday he will haul the man before the Senate Homeland Security Committee under subpoena. Sen Paul should be applauded for his heroic persistence in holding Fauci accountable, and he has spent the past few days discussing the distinction between what the longtime government bureaucrat wrote privately and what he told the public. That is indeed a true scandal.

Yet it’s not the lab-leak question and the real, widespread confusion surrounding those early days of hysteria that is the scandal here. What we lived through was a seasonal respiratory outbreak converted by an unaccountable bureaucracy and a compliant press into the largest episode of mass hysteria in modern American history. The pathogen was not a significant part of the covid story. The panic and hysteria that resulted in civilizational disruption is.

Agree with my premise or not, but on top of that, Fauci’s “mitigation” record is still indefensible, and Fauci has already admitted it under oath.

In January 2024, in a closed-door transcribed interview with the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Fauci was asked where the six-foot rule came from. His answer, released in full that May: “I don’t recall. It sort of just appeared. I don’t recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever.” Asked whether he had seen any studies supporting six feet, he said he was not aware of any, and that such a study would be very difficult to do. He called it an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data, or even on data that could be gathered. Asked whether he recalled reviewing any studies on masking young children, he could not.

Now remember what six feet actually did.

Keep reading

Brampton PC MPP Hardeep Grewal billed taxpayers nearly $20,000 for Toronto hotels

Ontario PC MPP Hardeep Grewal charged taxpayers nearly $20,000 for hotel stays in downtown Toronto despite representing a Brampton riding less than 50 kilometres from Queen’s Park.

Grewal, the MPP for Brampton East and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transportation, submitted $19,827.73 in hotel expense claims between 2023 and 2026 under the legislature’s “special circumstances” accommodation policy.

The policy is intended for exceptional situations, such as severe weather or other emergencies that prevent an MPP from returning home. However, a review of expense records by Global News found most of the claims occurred during the spring and fall legislative sessions, suggesting the hotel stays had become routine rather than exceptional.

Grewal’s constituency office is approximately 43 kilometres from Queen’s Park.

Premier Doug Ford’s office has since said that any hotel expenses that did not meet the intent of the rules will be repaid to taxpayers.

Keep reading

Data from a large autism clinic shows 40% of sudden regression autism happened within 2 days after vaccination

Even though this is a crisis, we do not really want to know the true cause of autism.

Why? Because if we used a time proximity analysis, it would reveal that the parental decision to follow their pediatrician’s advice and vaccinate their kids is the cause.

Congress will not investigate because they will lean on large studies which use methods designed specifically not to find a signal to claim vaccines don’t cause autism. But those studies only prove that bad studies can fail to find a signal if they use the wrong methods.

The most sensitive method is simply to make a histogram of the time between a child’s most recent vaccine and the onset of rapid regressive autism. The methodology was described in my earlier Substack article.

You can do this in any autism practice anywhere in the world retrospectively. It is simple. NOBODY HAS DONE THIS. I wonder why?

It took a long time, but I finally located a large autism treatment clinic who was willing to share the statistical information that they had gathered from the parents of autistic kids in the clinic that I wrote about in an earlier Substack article.

This is new. This has never been revealed to the world before. Nobody would dare do that.

The clinic examined 182 patient records.

84 were “rapid onset autism” cases (46%).

Of those cases, a “routine vaccination” was mentioned as happening before the event in 98% of those cases.

In 40% of the cases, the regression happened within 2 days after routine vaccination.

In 76% of the cases, the regression happened within 2 weeks after routine vaccination.

These numbers cannot happen by chance.

The only explanation is vaccines cause autism. Adding acetaminophen post-vaccine makes the autism outcome more likely.

However, if you believe otherwise, please explain in the comments what you think is causing these cases.

I predict there will be no follow ups on this from any country in the world because they don’t want to know the truth that they are causing the autism epidemic.

This data is stunning. I’m arranging funding of a larger version of this study and hopefully, we can get it on a preprint server. It will likely never be published in any mainstream journal.

Keep reading

HHS Unveils Policy To End Funding For ‘Dangerous Gain-Of-Function Research’

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 28 unveiled a new policy that would end federal support for “dangerous gain-of-function research,” an experiment in which scientists genetically modify an organism to enhance its characteristics.

In a statement, HHS said the policy would prohibit federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research conducted in the United States and abroad.

It would establish stricter oversight of certain life sciences research that the government deems could pose “significant risks” to public health, biosecurity, or national security. The policy would also restrict federal funding for research conducted in countries or institutions that lack sufficient biosafety and oversight standards, according to the department.

“The federal government has a duty to protect the American people – not fund research that could put them at risk,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the statement. “Today, we are ending federal support for dangerous gain-of-function research and replacing weak oversight with clear, enforceable safeguards.”

The policy followed President Donald Trump’s May 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to stop funding gain-of-function research in countries of concern, such as China and Iran, that lack research oversight.

According to a White House fact sheet, the order seeks to prevent federal funding from being used for foreign research that will likely cause another pandemic.

Trump’s order will halt U.S. research involving infectious pathogens and toxins until a safer and more enforceable policy can be implemented, the White House stated.

“Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens,” Trump said in his order. “If left unrestricted, its effects can include widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.”

In December 2024, the Republican-led House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a 520-page report detailing findings from a two-year investigation indicating that the COVID-19 virus likely originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

The report found that the U.S. National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and that EcoHealth Alliance Inc. used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate this research at the lab.

The committee said COVID-19 possesses biological characteristics not found in nature and that data indicates that all COVID-19 cases stemmed from a single introduction into humans. This differs from previous pandemics, where there were more spillover events.

The report said that in January 2021, the U.S. State Department published an unclassified fact sheet that says: “The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illness.”

Keep reading

Huh? Trump Responds to Fauci’s Refusal to Answer Questions, Says He “Respects” Biden’s Autopen Pardon

President Trump on Wednesday responded to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s refusal to answer questions before the Senate Homeland Security Committee earlier, invoking his Fifth Amendment right more than 100 times as Senate Republicans grilled him over the COVID pandemic and his many lies. 

Senator Rand Paul announced that the committee will vote next week to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt for refusing to answer questions and suggested that his invocation of the Fifth Amendment was unlawful.

Trump was asked whether he thinks Fauci should be held in contempt during a press conference at the White House. Trump did not comment on whether Fauci should face repercussions for his refusal to testify.

“Well, I watched the whole thing today, but more importantly, I was a part of the whole Fauci. I inherited Fauci. He was here from the 1980s, so I had him for a period of time, and I disagreed with him on a lot,” Trump said, noting that “I would have had to close down the whole country if I listened to him.”

“I went the Federalist way, which is basically let the governors decide, and generally speaking, the Republican governors did very well. The Democrat governors did not very well,” Trump continued.

“But Fauci wanted to have nobody wearing masks, if you remember, and then everybody had to wear five masks, as many masks as you could get. I mean, made a lot of mistakes, and he wasn’t a big factor for me. He was a very big factor for Biden, and if you remember, even though we were sort of prime time in terms of that whole disaster of COVID, far people died fewer in the Trump administration than in the Biden administration.”

Keep reading

The Dark Side of Washington – Money Before Country

I cannot express how dirty things have gotten in DC over the years. The Biden/Hunter Ukraine scam was blocked from investigation when Ukraine is known as the MOST corrupt nation-state in the world.

Ukraine remains the most corrupt government in the world, and they are selling the Ukrainian people for personal wealth and greed with ZERO remorse for their nation or their people. Ukrainian politicians topped all other countries for corruption. Even in the Pandora Papers, 38 Ukrainian politicians have to hide cash offshore – the largest number of corrupt politicians in any other country. Zelenskyy’s office tried to justify his use of offshore companies for himself as protecting him against pro-Russian forces, following leaked revelations in the Pandora Papers.

Keep reading

Nine in Ten ‘Wildfires’ Started by Human Hands, French Government Admits

The French government has revealed that an estimated ninety per cent of so-called wildfires are the result of human activity, undermining the persistent media narrative that climate change is driving spontaneous fires ravaging the countryside.

On Tuesday, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said that 184 people have been arrested in connection with wildfires since the beginning of the summer. Those arrested are a combination of arsonists, criminals, and careless individuals, he said.

According to the French Forest Observatory, around one in three (30 per cent) of wildfires are believed to have been set maliciously, Le Figaro reported.

In total, the Ministry of the Interior estimated that nine in ten wildfires in France were started by humans. The Place Beauvau said that since June, five people have been imprisoned and a further 15 have been placed in detention pending a trial.

A conviction for starting a fire can come with serious consequences, particularly if the fire resulted in deaths. Following a strengthening of the laws surrounding the issue in 2004 in the wake of a deadly heatwave.

People found to have been negligent can face up to two years in prison, while those who deliberately set fires face up to ten years in prison, though a life sentence is possible if the fires kill.

The wildfires in France have forced hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate their homes, with over 115,000 hectares of forest destroyed by the flames.

Yet, rather than addressing the persistent issue of arson and negligent accidents, the Western legacy media has heavily focussed on climate change driving blazes, with direct human action downplayed.

This is despite European governments having long recognised that so-called wildfires across the continent are typically the result of human activity.

Indeed, during the summer of 2023, when Greece faced hundreds of fires, Athens’ Climate Change Minister Vassilis Kikilias acknowledged that the majority of the fires “were caused by human hand” and that the people behind them were guilty of “arson either by criminal negligence or by intention”.

That same summer, the regional president of the Spanish Canary Islands, Fernando Clavijo, admitted that wildfires that forced over thousands of tourists to evacuate had been a result of arson.

In response to the prevalence of pyromaniacs, some governments have been forced to get creative with their attempts to stop arson, including the use of police drones in Italy to patrol the countryside for prospective arsonists.

Keep reading

Clinical Trial Results Were Clear: Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Delivered More Risk Than Benefit

U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent decision to terminate the COVID-19 emergency use authorization (EUA) declarations invites reconsideration of the evidence that launched this extraordinary regulatory chapter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) first EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine rested on its determination that the known and potential benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine outweighed its known and potential risks. Yet the pivotal trial report did not bring those benefits and risks together within a common quantitative framework.

Better late than never: more than five years later, I did — and what I found was startling.

At first glance, the famous 95% efficacy against protocol-defined, laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 — based on eight versus 162 cases in a trial that randomized 43,548 participants — seems highly promising.

But when this finding is considered alongside the broader set of participant-relevant outcomes (dispersed across the trial publication, its Supplementary Appendix, and the contemporaneous FDA review materials), the overall clinical picture looks markedly different.

Depending on the counting period used, the vaccine group had 2-8 fewer cases of severe COVID-19, whereas the safety data showed numerical excesses of 4-101 participants across clinically consequential adverse-event categories. These categories are not directly comparable, and some may overlap.

Even so, the evidence did not establish that the vaccine’s clinically consequential benefits outweighed its potential harms. Nor did the trial establish that vaccination reduced the overall burden of COVID-19-like symptoms, let alone that it reduced person-to-person transmission.

Crucially, this conclusion does not rest on hindsight: the relevant evidence was already before the FDA when it issued the EUA.

The full basis for this conclusion is presented in my comprehensive reassessment of the evidence, currently available as a preprint. That reassessment is necessarily detailed because the relevant data are complex, scattered across multiple documents and subject to important methodological and interpretive qualifications.

The present column is not intended to replace that analysis, but to distill several of its central findings and implications for a broader readership.

Keep reading