🚨 BREAKING: Egypt has released the 6 young Christians arrested over a TikTok video deemed “offensive” to Islam. They still face criminal charges of “exploiting” and “insulting” religion. We urge Egypt to drop these charges and honor its commitment to protecting religious freedom. Posting a humorous video is not "blasphemy", and most certainly should not be treated as a crime.

ANOTHER WOKE UNION: The Surrey Teachers’ Association, told its members not to vote Conservative or OneBC, partly because those parties wanted parents to have more say in what their kids learn. Parents stay involved👇🏾

“Everyone who wants to be a woman is a woman.” How do you argue with this level of delusion?

The Canadian government just introduced a bill that would expand MAiD to people who have "lost the capacity to consent" provided that they made an advance request. Notably, this bill was introduced after the Liberals voted against a bill that would have stopped MAiD for mental illness. Why did they vote that down? Because of supposed "technical issues." Right. The "technical issues" in the conservative-backed legislation were apparently resolved by introducing an entirely new provision that would have the effect of expanding Canada's euthanasia system even further. The death lobby must be happy.

The craziest story you’ll read today: Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner says that federal breastfeeding protections written for women extend to biological males who identify as women and chemically induce lactation. This was not a hypothetical. Section 7AA of the Sex Discrimination Act was enacted to protect actual mothers—women who breastfeed after pregnancy and birth. The explanatory materials said so and the statute refers to “a woman.” Yet Dr. Anna Cody told a Senate panel that a biological male who medically induces lactation has the same legal protections as a woman who is breastfeeding. In order for them to “lactate,” the men are put on a regimen of high-dose estrogen, progesterone, testosterone blockers, and drugs such as domperidone (an off-label medication carrying heart-risk warnings), all designed to boost prolactin, plus the need for relentless pumping. The Human Rights Commission reached this position without even seeking medical advice. Now the part nobody is addressing. This is not mother’s milk. It is a pharmacologically manufactured discharge produced by forcing a male body into a state it was never designed to sustain. Mothers who breastfeed are told not to smoke, drink, or take substances that could pass into their milk and affect their infants. Here, infants are to be fed a fluid whose long-term composition, hormone residues, and developmental effects are essentially untested. The medical literature on induced lactation in men is a handful of individual case reports. A 2024 paper described only the seventh documented case. No controlled studies. No long-term follow-up of the babies. The babies are the experiment. We have already watched men identifying as women move into women’s sports, prisons, shelters, and changing rooms on the claim that feelings override biology. Now the same logic is applied to the most intimate biological function tied to female reproduction and infant nourishment. Women’s sex-based protections are being rewritten, one bureaucratic “yes” at a time, while the risks to children are treated as an afterthought. This is radical gender ideology overriding biology, basic safeguards, and common sense.

A college student who calls himself a “future scientist” tells Joshua Haymes a baby in the womb is “not a human being yet.” So Haymes asks him to Google one question: “When does life begin?” He reads the answer out loud, and the debate is over. JOSHUA HAYMES: “My proposition is very simple. It is always evil to intentionally kill an innocent human being.” STUDENT: “It’s not a human being yet.” JOSHUA HAYMES: “When does human life begin?” STUDENT: “I think that’s more of a philosophical question… As a future scientist, even.” JOSHUA HAYMES: “You would say trust the science. You would agree with trust the science?” STUDENT: “Yeah, I would.” JOSHUA HAYMES: “Would you agree that it is always evil to intentionally kill an innocent human being?” STUDENT: “Innocent, yes.” JOSHUA HAYMES: “Now, you said you trust the science. Will you do me a favor and just look up on your phone right now: according to all of the available scientific data, when does life begin?” STUDENT: “It says at fertilization or conception.” That’s the moment his whole argument collapsed. JOSHUA HAYMES: “This is the consensus of all of the scientific community that life begins at conception. It’s not a future life. It’s a current life… If you trust the science, you have to say we must abolish abortion.” STUDENT: [laughing] “Aww man…” He laughs because he knows he just lost. Credit to him for admitting it. CONTEXT: The science the student looked up is not just a pro-life talking point. In 2018, a University of Chicago researcher asked 5,577 biologists from 1,058 institutions when a human life begins. 96% said fertilization. Most of them identified as pro-choice. In 1952, Planned Parenthood’s own pamphlet told women abortion “kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” The biology hasn’t changed since then. The marketing has.