In a historic broadcast to the Russian people, Putin just issued a warning…. and the target is you. Putin says Germany and “Nazi Israel” signed a secret pact, and the final plan is to slaughter [...]
The post Putin Exposes ‘Nazi’ Israel’s Secret Pact With Germany to Slaughter 340 Million Americans appeared first on The People's Voice.
They smeared pro-lifers as extremists. Now a bombshell national poll reveals millions of Australians want stronger protections for unborn babies, leaving the abortion establishment spectacularly out of touch.
There is something perverse about a political establishment that condemns the views of fellow Australians as an extremist, fringe minority when their views are actually extremist, fringe, and in the minority.
I talk about the topic of abortion, which I define plainly and clearly as killing babies in the womb.
That’s the harsh and unvarnished reality of the topic that’s often buried beneath slogans, euphemisms, and sanctimonious speeches about a woman’s “right” to choose. Whenever anyone proposes limits to this unholy sacrament of the Left, the familiar accusations arrive.
If you’re even mildly pro-life, you must be an extremist, misogynist, religious fanatic. Apparently, thinking of human life inside the womb as… well, life, makes you unfit for polite society. A deplorable.
Well, Australians have now been asked what they really think about abortion, and a lot of us are in that deplorable bracket. Jokes aside, the results should embarrass every politician and commentator who has treated opposition to unrestricted abortion as the preserve of a lunatic fringe.
A national poll conducted by McCrindle and commissioned by CitizenGO, where I serve as Australian campaigns director, found that 58.6 percent supported banning abortion after 24 weeks or earlier, when the question’s named exceptional circumstances, such as serious health risks, fetal disability, or sexual assault, did not apply.
That figure includes respondents who chose earlier limits. In fact, an absolute majority of 50.4 percent supported a ban after 20 weeks or earlier.
So much for the supposedly settled consensus around abortion.
Just 18.6 percent of respondents said it should never be banned. That’s what you call a real fringe minority. Yet the champions of killing babies in the womb have behaved as though they possess an unquestionable mandate to silence everyone else. Their certainty deserves to be shattered.
The survey involved 1,513 Australians aged 18 to 80, questioned online between 25 August and 2 September 2026. It used quotas for gender, generation, and state or territory. The poll is substantial evidence that Australians want extreme abortion laws rolled back, with time limits and protections for babies and vulnerable pregnant women put in place.
Across Australia’s various states and territories, abortion laws permit killing babies in the womb right up until birth. Bizarrely, I have heard the very politicians who support such laws trying to deny how permissive they are. They point to conditions requiring two doctors to sign off on late-term abortions and insist that this provides a real safeguard.
But what protection does that offer when the two doctors can be from the same clinic or hospital performing the procedure? What reassurance does it give when both doctors support the very abortion regime whose limits they are supposed to enforce? And what safeguards are there when the breadth of the conditions doctors take into consideration practically makes the system function as abortion on demand?
The grounds considered in jurisdictions such as Queensland include current and future physical, psychological, and social circumstances. That means any impact on finances, education, employment, or a social life is a legitimate reason to kill a baby in the womb.
The politicians and bureaucrats who designed such laws and presented them as safeguards have blood on their hands, no matter how hard they’ve tried to wash it off. And their extremist views are absolutely rejected by the Australian public.
In the CitizenGO poll, 54.5 percent said abortion after 24 weeks should be illegal when the reason was interference with education, career, or life stage. For personal preference without specified hardship or medical risk, 51.8 percent said it should be illegal. So Australians are willing to draw lines that too many politicians refuse to draw.
Now consider One Nation. The party’s published pro-life policy seeks lower gestational limits, a ban on sex-selective abortion, counselling and safeguards, equal care for babies born alive, fetal anaesthesia, conscientious objection, restrictions on the use of aborted babies’ organs, and abortion data reporting.
That agenda has been treated as a political horror story by the left-wing legacy media.
The Guardian told us that One Nation’s rise was encouraging to activists pursuing American-style abortion restrictions. The ABC declared that One Nation’s pro-life stance was somehow a negative political gamble, and Nine’s Sydney Morning Herald talked of One Nation’s policies as a threat to “abortion rights,” whatever they may be.
It goes beyond One Nation, as well. In June, the Guardian presented NSW Libertarian MP John Ruddick’s proposed ban on sex-selection abortion as part of a wider dastardly campaign to restrict “abortion access”.
But the polling shows Australians want that agenda well and truly inaccessible. On sex-selective abortion up to 24 weeks, 67.0 percent wanted it to be illegal. After 24 weeks, the figure jumped to 69.2 percent. In an election, such a result would be an unprecedented landslide. No wonder. Killing an unborn child because the child is the “wrong” sex is a hideous form of discrimination.
On babies born alive after an unsuccessful abortion, an even greater majority of 74.8 percent supported requiring the same care as for any other infant at the same stage and in the same medical condition. Only 4.5 percent, another extremist fringe minority that most politicians seem to be in, opposed that requirement. Why would anyone oppose equal care for babies born alive? A child’s medical treatment should not depend on whether someone wanted that child dead.
On safeguards for women, the findings were overwhelming: 83.4 percent supported checks against pressure from another person, 77.5 percent backed counselling from an independent organisation with no financial interest in the abortion procedure, and 73.6 percent supported a required waiting period of a few days.
Fully 80.8 percent agreed that nobody should feel forced into abortion through financial or social hardship. More than four in five supported information about available pregnancy support. This is where the rhetoric of “choice” meets its most uncomfortable test. What freedom does a frightened pregnant woman have if she is being bullied into abortion by a partner? What meaningful choice exists if she believes she cannot afford to keep her baby and cannot find support?
A majority of 52.6 percent also agreed that Australia should try to reduce abortion numbers even where abortion remains legal. Only 18.4 percent disagreed.
Support for One Nation’s pro-life policy agenda continued to shine through the poll results. A 59.2 percent majority supported fetal anaesthesia or pain relief during third-trimester abortions. A 55.5 percent majority backed public reporting of anonymous abortion totals, with majorities also supporting reporting across every other category tested.
On conscientious objection, 40.5 percent supported allowing healthcare workers to decline to perform or assist in abortions that conflicted with their conscience, against 36.4 per cent opposed. On banning fetal tissue or organs obtained through abortion from use in medical research, support was 42.6 percent, against 22.9 percent opposed.
Across every question in the poll that aligned with One Nation’s policies, support exceeded opposition. Most attracted clear majorities.
There is another finding that the political class should confront. Some 43.6 percent of respondents agreed that the human right to life begins at conception, compared with 28.9 percent who disagreed. Read that again. The question asked of people was not whether or not life begins at conception but whether the right to life begins at conception.
That’s perhaps why support for banning abortion at or before 24 weeks, excepting in extreme circumstances, was near unanimous across the political divide. It reached 59.1 percent for Labor voters, 58.8 percent for Liberal voters, and 65.0 percent for One Nation voters. The combined Liberal, LNP and Nationals cohort recorded 60.7 percent support for that limit.
Among the combined Independent/Teal group, it was 62.5 percent. Although with only 88 respondents, a welcome sign of the dwindling support, treating those number as reliable warrants caution. Nonetheless, it still challenges the notion that support for restrictions stops at a party boundary.
Even among Greens voters, 49 percent, just shy of a majority, wanted a ban on abortion at or before 24 weeks, and absolute majorities supported a sex-selection ban up to 24 weeks, equal care for babies born alive, independent counselling, coercion checks, and a waiting period.
Women, incidentally, recorded 59.9 percent support for a ban after 24 weeks or earlier, compared with 57.1 percent among men. The women whose opinions matter in this debate include the women who want stronger protection for unborn children.
These results make me angry.
They make me angry because this debate concerns children who cannot speak for themselves and women whose vulnerability deserves more than a slogan. They make me angry because humane pro-life reforms have been treated as extremist, fringe, while this poll exposes their most extremist and fringe position has been presented as unquestionable.
And they make me angry because too many politicians appear more frightened of a hostile headline than willing to defend an unborn child. The evidence gives them reason to act.
Ultimately, the polling shows that the Australian public want our parliaments to lower gestational limits and end late-term abortion for non-medical reasons. They want our parliaments to prohibit sex-selective abortion and guarantee equal medical care for every baby born alive. They want them to protect women from coercion by requiring safeguards, independent counselling and practical support to choose life. They want them to respect the consciences of healthcare workers and require anonymous abortion data to be collected and published so Australians can hold the system accountable.
These findings make a powerful case for rolling back Australia’s extreme abortion laws. You can read the research yourself at AbortionViews.au, and then sign CitizenGO’s petition here, or, better still, put the findings in front of your MPs and demand a written response.
Pro-abortion politicians have spent years claiming that killing babies in the womb is solid ground upon which the majority of Australians stand. Now that the lie has been exposed, they need to explain to us why they’re the ones standing outside the real mainstream.
British imams are openly preaching that husbands can beat wives who refuse sex – and the police are doing almost nothing about it.
The post The British Imams Telling Men to Beat Their Wives for Refusing Sex appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
President Trump said he struck a deal with Russia to supply up to 4.8 million tons of diesel "to the American and Global Marketplace" and has also called for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to be replaced.
Diesel Deal: Putin and Trump had a 90-minute phone conversation on Friday where they discussed a range of topics, including the conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, First Lady Melania Trump's humanitarian efforts, and Russian hockey great Alexander Ovechkin. Amid record-high diesel prices globally, the two emerged with a deal in which the US will lift its sanctions, and Russia will immediately supply 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 more in November and another million after that. Trump suggested that, depending on the condition of Russia's refineries – which Ukraine has been bombing recently – Russia could release another 3 million tons. Axios (Lean Left) reported on Friday that a "US official" said Trump agreed to the deal after Zelenskyy ignored six requests to stop bombing Russian refineries. On Sunday, Ukraine said it would stop hitting Russian refineries if Russia stopped hitting Ukraine's energy infrastructure.
Deal Reactions: Trump touted the deal on Truth Social and said that, in conjunction with the US military's "total control" of the Strait of Hormuz, the deal will cause diesel prices to drop "in record numbers, and fast." Zelenskyy told Axios the deal looks "absolutely terrible" and "like a happy birthday present for Putin." The Hill (Center) highlighted pushback from several Republican lawmakers. Associated Press (Lean Left) called the move a "stunning reversal" of US foreign policy. Kremlin-funded RT (Lean Right) said the deal could "potentially [help] alleviate an international fuel shortage."
For Context: According to the US Energy Information Administration, the US uses about 2.94 million barrels, close to 395,000 tons, of diesel per day. Trump announced the deal while his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met with Ukrainian, German, French, British, EU, and NATO diplomats in Florida to discuss ending the conflict. The US shares intelligence with Ukraine, and according to The Wall Street Journal (Center), "two people present" at the meeting said no explicit threat was made to stop sharing intel. Last month, Witkoff and Kushner met with officials in both Moscow and Kyiv.
Zelenskyy: Trump told reporters on Saturday that he thinks "it's time for Ukraine to get a new president." Zelenskyy has faced calls for elections several times over the past few years, though Ukraine's constitution prohibits them when martial law is declared. Most recently and most prominently, in August, a defense minister he fired called for them. Zelenskyy has rejected the idea as dangerous for his country right now.
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
The Trump administration has suspended access to a green card sponsorship program for multiple technology companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, accusing them of using the system to hire lower-paid foreign workers at the expense of Americans.
The Details: Vice President JD Vance announced the action, saying companies that use the program to undercut American workers would lose access to it. Vance pointed to Microsoft, which laid off thousands of workers in the past year while continuing to apply for H-1B visas and green cards. Per a Newsweek (Center) report, Microsoft responded that it believes in the "strength and talent of the American workforce" and that most of its US employees are Americans.
For Context: The suspension involves the Permanent Labor Certification, or PERM, program. It allows US employers to sponsor foreign workers for green cards, or permanent residency. Employers generally must show that there are not enough qualified U.S. workers for a position and that hiring a foreign worker will not harm wages or working conditions.
Who Could Be Affected: The move could affect foreign workers who rely on employer sponsorship to obtain permanent residency, including people who have spent years waiting for their applications to be processed. Many skilled foreign workers first enter the U.S. on temporary H-1B visas before pursuing green cards through the PERM process.
How The Media Covered It: Media coverage across the political spectrum was similar. Al Jazeera (Lean left bias) provided broader context, examining how the suspensions could affect foreign workers seeking permanent residency. Fox Business (Lean Right) focused on the Trump administration's accusations that tech companies were using visa programs to replace American workers, highlighting Vance's criticism of Microsoft and the company's response.
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission.
A 62-grain, 5.56-mm round leaves the barrel of a standard-issue M4 rifle at approximately 2,900 feet per second. When it strikes a human being, the results are violent, traumatic, and unpredictable. If Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has his way, such images will soon be broadcast to the American people. The Pentagon has announced that the execution of Nidal Hasan, the Army officer convicted of killing 13 fellow service members in a 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, in Texas, will be livestreamed.
According to Amnesty International, 17 people were publicly executed in 2025. Eleven of these were in Iran and six in Afghanistan. Is this what we have become? Iran? Afghanistan? Are we so weak, so insecure, that we must convince the world that we are still powerful by making a public spectacle of an execution? Or maybe Secretary Hegseth and President Trump intend this as a spectacle for the American people: a show of just how much testosterone the two men have surging through their veins.
No one should shed a tear for Hasan. I certainly won’t. But if Hegseth thinks that this public display will somehow deter others from horrible acts of violence, he is mistaken. Terrorists seek attention above all. Publicizing Hasan’s death therefore could incite other extremists to do equally egregious acts. And it adds to the narrative, advanced by our enemies and ever more worrying to our allies, that the United States has lost its way.
When Osama bin Laden was killed, President Obama made a point of not releasing photographs of his body. “It’s not who we are,” he said. All of us who were involved in the operation agreed. Not sharing the pictures was a recognition that we are better than the inhuman beings who do unconscionable things, that there was a difference between a legitimate exercise of government authority and a public display of coercive power. Now, with this announcement, we are lowering ourselves to the ranks of brutal and failing regimes.
I teach a graduate class on national-security decision making. I give my students a framework for thinking about how to make difficult decisions. The first question they have to answer before they can get to the right decision is: Who are we as a nation? It is an acknowledgment that all correct decisions, those that will benefit us in the long run, will flow from an understanding of our American values.
Our values as a nation matter. It’s not naive to think that we should have a sense of propriety when carrying out the harsh business of justice; to believe in our national sense of honor; and to expect our leaders to behave with dignity, integrity, civility, and humility. These values build stronger, smarter, more humane societies. They engender good alliances. They drive trust in businesses and higher education and they inspire our men and women in uniform.
In almost 40 years of service, I came to realize that Americans share a common longing to be seen as the good guys. We were proud that our parents or grandparents fought against Nazism and fascism. As a nation, we stood tall against totalitarianism and communism. A younger generation sacrificed to keep America safe after 9/11. We made mistakes along the way; we always do. But despite these stumbles, inevitable in a complicated and violent world, I never once doubted that within our DNA was a sense of nobility that shaped the American character.
There is nothing noble about a public display of a government-sanctioned execution. With this decision, the Trump administration continues to undermine our national values. Our current leaders are shameless and ignoble. They have no sense of dignity or honor. They seem to believe that the performance of cruel power is what makes a nation great: the spectacle, the show, the crude theatrics of a tough guy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask the oppressed people of Iran and Afghanistan.
© Illustration by The Atlantic
Even if you don’t know much country music, you likely know how much the genre loves the trope of the weepy father at his daughter’s wedding. In the best sketch of last night’s Saturday Night Live, the father of the bride was played by the host, Shane Gillis, but he wasn’t reflecting on life’s heavy milestones. Instead, he was thinking about “all the cool shit I can put in her room.”
As narrated by a Rascal Flatts–esque band (composed of Andrew Dismukes, James Austin Johnson, and Tommy Brennan), the dad imagined everything he was going to put in his new man cave: a Ms. Pac-Man machine and a pinball machine; a drum set that he swore he would finally learn to play; a life-size cutout of Shaquille O’Neal; a bottle of lotion and box of tissues (a bit stolen from the Paul Rudd film I Love You, Man); a House box set; a cotton-candy machine.
A child’s wedding is a joyous occasion, a new chapter for the family. But any beginning also reminds us that time’s arrow stubbornly points in only one direction. The sketch smartly underscored how many American men use consumer goods to distract themselves from anxieties about aging and the creeping sense that life may pass them by. Why deal with your uneasy feelings when you can finally afford the replica of a Star Wars stormtrooper you’ve wanted—nay, deserved—since you were a teenager? The hit of dopamine from a shopping spree is certainly more fun than wrestling with where your life currently stands.
The best SNL song sketches expand on a central idea as the parody progresses, commenting on the characters’ comedic dilemmas. They also need to nail the musical references (Tim McGraw, Alan Jackson, Zac Brown, and, yes, Rascal Flatts have all released songs on this theme, something that the southerners Dismukes and Johnson are likely aware of). In last night’s sketch, we learned that Gillis’s presumably long-suffering wife (Ashley Padilla) “hates my room / we’re drifting apart,” and that she’s becoming a bit too close with her Zumba instructor, Tad (Marcello Hernández), “who’s actually pretty cool”—an off-hand remark from a man too clueless to see what’s coming next. Whatever you think about him, last night’s host was well equipped for this exploration of male obliviousness.
[Read: What Shane Gillis proved on SNL]
In 2019, Gillis was set to join SNL before some of his old offensive jokes resurfaced and NBC rescinded the offer. Gillis apologized for the material, and SNL’s creator, Lorne Michaels, indicated that the casting decision was out of his hands. Michaels seems to have some lingering regrets about how it all went down; last night was Gillis’s third time hosting. But this overcorrection is arguably not doing Gillis many favors, as the episode often demonstrated his limitations as a comedian. He flubbed most of his lines—and cursed—in a sketch parodying Green Eggs and Ham, then apologized “about earlier” during the episode’s closing goodbyes.
Gillis tends to embody characters who aren’t actively hateful or toxic but just a little confused about society’s changing social mores and unsure about what they’re allowed to say. But Gillis, who lacks the dexterity of clear influences such as Louis C.K. and Dave Chappelle, can’t consistently pull off that tricky balance of thoughtfulness and provocation. During his opening monologue, in a bit about struggling to seem nonthreatening when he encounters a woman on an otherwise solitary hike, he lost the audience after saying, “I haven’t been to the gym in so long I didn’t know women just dress like whores now?” (I’ll spare you his description of women’s modern athleisure wear.) By that point, the crowd was so cold he couldn’t win it back with a clever closing riff about society’s polarization and the dangers of ambiguous haircuts: “You’re either gay or you’re Hitler, and isn’t that where we’re at as a country?”
Still, Gillis has become a successful touring comedian, mostly because he is very good at expressing the immaturity, simmering hostility, and general dunderheadedness of a certain strain of American manhood. His best sketches from last night made use of that meathead persona, as when he played a jerky police officer hosting the discussion show Cop Talk and the manager of an HVAC company that prided itself on having the most off-putting employees you would ever encounter.
But the wedding-song sketch stood out because it zeroed in on the stunted emotional life of Gillis’s character and then mocked it relentlessly. After his wife left him for Tad, he decided to build an even bigger room of one’s own (“Super Room Rocks!”), but when the impromptu construction project exposed him to black mold, he began “tripping balls.” The story eventually took an unexpectedly frisky turn before the episode’s kicker revealed this entire misadventure was a dream sequence that began after he forgot to help his daughter and wife pack up the moving van—a sly commentary on the character’s misplaced priorities.
It’s hard to say whether Gillis found success because he’s secretly very perceptive about the state of modern masculinity or because he’s unafraid to admit just how unperceptive he is about the modern world. Either way, last night’s song fulfilled the country-music imperative of “three chords and the truth”: a catchy ballad about how many men are emotionally stunted and unable to deal with aging and change, and will instead retreat into materialism and adolescent interests rather than reconcile with life’s relentless momentum.
© Will Heath / NBC
Water service was restored to residents of a southeast Colorado Springs neighborhood on Saturday.
Colorado Springs Utilities said they were able to restore service around 2 p.m. This is after a water main break on Friday near Airport Road and Murray Boulevard that resulted in services being stopped and some areas being flooded.
As far as a cause, Utilities said it was likely an aging pipe, but it is still being looked into.
But detours will remain in place until Thursday, they said. Murray Boulevard will remain closed between Airport Road and Dewey Drive as crews work to repair the road in the area, according to Utilities.
Utilities asks drivers in that area to proceed with caution as those crews work.
This same area saw another water main break earlier this year, but Utilities said they arent able to say yet whether it was the same main that broke this time, nor how that incident ties into this most recent break, if at all.
___
____
Watch KOAA News5 on your time, anytime with our free streaming app available for your Roku, FireTV, AppleTV and Android TV. Just search KOAA News5, download and start watching.
Login