The U.S. birth rate hit a record low in 2025, according to a new report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

The post CDC: U.S. Birth Rate Hit Record Low in 2025 appeared first on Breitbart.

Australian authorities have arrested and charged the country's most decorated living soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, 47, with five war crime murders allegedly committed during the war in Afghanistan.

Roberts-Smith, a former member of the Australian Defence Force, was arrested at Sydney Airport on Tuesday. His arrest has sparked outcry from a former Australian prime minister, who argued its unfair to judge the actions of "men in mortal combat by the standards of ordinary civilian life." X owner Elon Musk also weighed in on the arrest, calling it "insane."

The Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Special Investigator said Roberts-Smith is being charged in connection with the killings of five unarmed Afghans in three separate incidents between 2009 and 2012. AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett alleged that Roberts-Smith either killed the unarmed Afghans himself or instructed a subordinate to kill them. If convicted, Roberts-Smith faces life imprisonment on each charge.

"It will be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan," Barrett said during a press conference. "It will be alleged the victims were detained, unarmed and were under the control of ADF members when they were killed."

NEW CHARGES AGAINST DC NATIONAL GUARD SHOOTING SUSPECT OPEN DEATH PENALTY DOOR

The investigation into Roberts-Smith began in 2021, according to Ross Barnett, director of investigations at the Office of the Special Investigator. Roberts-Smith received the Victoria Cross after storming two enemy machine guns during his fifth tour in Afghanistan.

Barnett said at the press conference that the investigation was "under challenging circumstances," given that some of the murders occurred well over a decade ago and investigators were unable to visit Afghanistan.

"We don’t have access to the crime scenes, we don’t have photographs, site plans, measurements, the recovery of projectiles, blood spatter analysis, all of those things we would normally get at a crime scene," Barnett said at the press conference.

TRUMP’S DC GUARD DEPLOYMENT DIDN’T FUEL VIOLENCE — BIDEN'S AFGHAN VETTING BREAKDOWN DID

While Australia's current prime minister has yet to weigh in on the arrest, former Australian Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party Tony Abbott expressed his support for Roberts-Smith on X in a lengthy post.

"If Ben Roberts-Smith transgressed, why wasn’t this picked up prior to his gallantry awards and why wasn’t any culture of brutality towards prisoners detected by his more senior officers, and dealt with quickly, rather than being allowed to fester, as has been alleged, for over a decade?" Abbott wrote.

Allegations that Roberts-Smith engaged in war crimes began circulating publicly in 2017 and 2018 in articles published by The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times.

Roberts-Smith filed a defamation suit against the papers, which became Australia's most expensive defamation trial, but in 2023, a Federal Court judge ruled that four of the six murder allegations brought by the papers against Roberts-Smith were legitimate.

In one of the allegations ruled to have merit by Justice Anthony Besanko, Roberts-Smith allegedly marched a handcuffed Afghan man named Ali Jan off the edge of a 10-meter cliff. He survived the fall, but Roberts-Smith and his fellow soldiers walked down a footpath to meet him. Roberts-Smith then ordered a subordinate, known as Person 11 in court, to shoot him.

The High Court dismissed Roberts-Smith's appeal of the ruling in September 2025.

The criminal charges against Roberts-Smith stem from a joint effort by OSI and AFP. The two Australian agencies have conducted 53 investigations into ADF members tied to war crime allegations in Afghanistan. Ten of the investigations remain ongoing.

For Mehdi Ghadimi, the ideology behind Iran’s ruling system is not theoretical. It was something he was taught from childhood.

"You were told you are a part a small group chosen by God… to revive God’s religion and fight to defend it," the Iranian journalist told Fox News Digital, describing the message repeated in schools, mosques and state media.

That early indoctrination, he said, framed the world in stark terms: a divine struggle between good and evil, with Iran’s leadership positioned at the center of a religious mission.

Iran’s ruling system is often described in political terms, but critics and former insiders say its core is far more radical — a belief structure rooted in religious absolutism, messianic expectation and a worldview that leaves little room for compromise.

IRAN'S SUPREME LEADER MOJTABA KHAMENEI 'MISFUNCTIONING,' NOT CONTROLLING REGIME: SOURCES

As a new generation of commanders rises within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps following recent military blows under Operation Epic Fury, analysts warn that this ideology may become even more entrenched.

Figures such as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Ahmad Vahidi are often cited as part of a cohort shaped by years of conflict in Iraq and across the region — one that sees religion, security and survival as inseparable.

At the center of that worldview is the belief in the Mahdi — a messianic figure in Shiite Islam whose return is expected to usher in a final era of justice after chaos.

Twelver Shiism is the dominant belief for Shias, the Mahdi, identified as the 12th Imam, is alive but hidden and will one day return. Iran’s political system positions the supreme leader as his caretaker. 

Critics say that framework gives political authority a religious dimension that can make it difficult to challenge.

"For the mullahs in Iran, the Mahdi idea is less about personal faith and more about power," said Lisa Daftari, foreign policy analyst and editor-in-chief at The Foreign Desk. "They use it to suggest that the supreme leader’s views are not just political opinions, but carry a kind of divine weight."

"The system is set up so that disagreeing with the leader can be portrayed as questioning the Hidden Imam himself," she said.

"That turns ordinary policy debates into something almost untouchable… you’re no longer arguing with a politician, you’re seen as pushing back against a sacred figure."

IRAN'S CEASEFIRE PUSH MAY BE A 'CYCLE OF DECEPTION,' ANALYSTS WARN AS SHADOWY FIGURE GAINS POWER

Ghadimi argues that this structure leaves little room for genuine political diversity.

"Groups labeled as ‘moderate,’ ‘reformist,’ or ‘pro-Western’ are created so that the West can negotiate with them," he said.

"No one within the structure of the Islamic Republic thinks about anything other than defeating the Western world and establishing Islamic dominance globally."

For Iran expert Daftari, the Mahdi doctrine also provides a flexible justification for policy.

"A lot of insiders know perfectly well that this language is being used strategically," she said. "The Mahdi story gives the leadership a way to claim moral and religious cover for decisions that are often about preserving the regime or expanding its reach."

"When they talk about ‘preparing the ground’ for the Mahdi, that phrase can be stretched to cover almost anything — crushing protests, backing militias abroad or asking people to accept more economic pain."

"This religious framing makes compromise much harder," she added. "If you convince your base that you are carrying out a holy mission… backing down can be painted as a betrayal of God’s plan."

MEET IRAN'S HARDLINE SPEAKER WHO THREATENED TO BURN US FORCES — REPORTEDLY TEHRAN'S POINT MAN FOR TALKS

Ghadimi said that message is reinforced from childhood, shaping how generations understand their role in society.

In schools, media and mosques, he said, ideology was embedded into everyday life, leaving little space for alternative narratives.

That framing, analysts say, helps explain how the system sustains itself even under pressure.

It also contributes to a worldview in which conflict is not temporary, but part of a larger, ongoing struggle.

"The Islamic government, based on its own interpretation of the Quran, considers itself obligated to enforce Islamic law across the entire world," Ghadimi told Fox News Digital, adding that the regime "sees itself as the leader of this belief globally."

"They harbor hatred toward Iranians and Jews, whom they regard as enemies of Islam since its very beginning, and they consider killing them—such as on Oct. 7 and in the recent killings in Iran — to be divinely rewarded acts, much like the beliefs once held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi," he said.

"No one within the structure of the Islamic Republic thinks about anything other than defeating the Western world and establishing Islamic dominance globally," Ghadimi said.

In that framework, critics say, Iran is not simply pursuing national interests but acting within what it sees as a broader religious mandate.

INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL

Some critics argue that within this framework, violence can take on religious meaning.

"They consider killing them… to be divinely rewarded acts," Ghadimi said.

Still, analysts say the combination of messianic belief and absolutist ideology creates a system in which confrontation is not only expected, but justified.

An Iranian official rejected those characterizations and warned that economic collapse and destruction caused by war could drive long-term resentment.

"If a country is turned into ruins, poverty spreads. Out of such poverty comes hatred, resentment and a desire for revenge, and this cycle of hostility can continue for years. It is not correct to think that everything will simply end the day after a ceasefire. Even if there were no hostile government left in place, people within society who have lost everything may still be driven to seek retribution."

For Ghadimi, the issue is not just how Iran behaves, but how it understands itself.

If the system is rooted in a belief that blends religion, power and mission, critics say, then policies like repression at home and confrontation abroad may not be temporary tactics but structural features.

And if moderation within that system is limited, as some argue, then the challenge for policymakers is not simply negotiation, but understanding the ideology that drives it.

In einem wegweisenden gerichtlichen Vergleich hat die neue US-Regierung unter Donald Trump den weitreichenden Zensur- und Unterdrückungsapparat der Biden-Ära formell beerdigt. Zehn Jahre lang ist es dem US-Außenministerium nun strengstens untersagt, kritische Medien mundtot zu machen oder sogenannte “Faktenchecker” zu finanzieren. Blickt man auf diese epochale Wende, muss man es in aller Deutlichkeit sagen: Es sind heute einzig und allein Donald Trump und die Republikaner, die die westliche Welt vor einem Abgleiten in den totalitären Zensurwahn retten.

Was sich unter der Regierung von Joe Biden im US-Außenministerium abspielte, glich den dunkelsten Visionen George Orwells. Mit Steuermillionen wurde ein regelrechtes Wahrheitsministerium aufgebaut, um unliebsame Stimmen, Konservative und kritische Journalisten gnadenlos aus dem Netz zu tilgen. Gegen diesen extremen Angriff auf den Ersten Verfassungszusatz hatten der Staat Texas sowie die konservativen Magazine Daily Wire und The Federalist geklagt. Sie warfen dem Ministerium staatlich geförderte Zensur vor.

Die neue Trump-Administration hat nun im Sinne der Freiheit gehandelt und einem historischen Vergleich zugestimmt. Die Bedingungen sind ein Erdbeben für die globalistische Zensur-Industrie: Für ein ganzes Jahrzehnt – bis Ende Januar 2036 – ist es dem Außenministerium strengstens verboten, digitale Technologien einzusetzen, zu fördern oder auch nur zu empfehlen, wenn diese dazu dienen, von der Meinungsfreiheit geschützte Äußerungen zu unterdrücken oder durch sogenannte “Faktenchecks” zu brandmarken. Jährlich muss die Regierung den Klägern nun Bericht erstatten, dass diese Vereinbarung penibel eingehalten wird.

Im Zentrum des Skandals stand das mittlerweile berüchtigte Global Engagement Center (GEC), das direkt beim Außenministerium angesiedelt war. Die Trump-Regierung machte in dem Vergleich unmissverständlich klar, wie skrupellos ihre Demokraten-Vorgänger agierten: Das GEC wurde als Waffe missbraucht, um Publikationen wie Daily Wire und The Federalist – sowie zahllose weitere alternative Medien – gezielt bei Anzeigenkunden zu diffamieren. Das perfide Ziel war es, den kritischen Medien die finanzielle Lebensgrundlage zu entziehen.

Hierzu pumpte das Biden-Regime Unsummen in dubiose Organisationen wie den Global Disinformation Index (GDI) und NewsGuard. Diese entwickelten Zensur-Technologien und schwarze Listen, um regierungskritische Medien als “unzuverlässig” abzustempeln. Werbetreibende wurden massiv eingeschüchtert, dort keine Anzeigen mehr zu schalten. Doch der Spuk ist nun vorbei: Die Trump-Regierung hat das GEC kurz nach Amtsantritt aufgelöst. Der GDI, dem nun die US-amerikanischen und britischen Fördergelder gestrichen wurden, musste seine schwarze Liste einstellen und bettelt nun vornehmlich in Brüssel für mehr Zensur-Gesetze. Lediglich NewsGuard treibt noch sein Unwesen.

Das Ausmaß der Überwachungs- und Maßregelungsarchitektur war gigantisch. Laut dem Vergleich hatte das Außenministerium stolze 300 digitale Werkzeuge mit zensorischem Charakter gefördert. Damit wurden NGOs, Behörden und Privatunternehmen regelrecht dazu angestachelt, regierungsamtlich definierte “Desinformation” zu unterdrücken. Dabei ging es insbesondere um abweichende Meinungen zur Covid-19-Plandemie und den hochumstrittenen mRNA-Impfstoffen. Wer warnte, wurde zensiert.

Dass die Trump-Regierung es ernst meint mit dem Kampf gegen den Zensur-Sumpf, zeigt auch ein weiterer Schlag, der nur wenige Tage zuvor stattfand: In einem anderen, ähnlich gelagerten Vergleich verpflichtete sich die Regierung, dass auch die mächtigen Gesundheits- und Sicherheitsbehörden – die CDC (Centers for Disease Control), die CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) und der Surgeon General – für volle zehn Jahre keinerlei Druck mehr auf Social-Media-Plattformen ausüben dürfen, um verfassungsrechtlich geschützte Meinungen zu löschen oder deren Reichweite einzuschränken. Der medizinisch-industrielle Zensurkomplex wurde damit in die Schranken gewiesen.

Wenn man sich ansieht, wie eifrig in der Europäischen Union (etwa mit dem “Digital Services Act”) und in Deutschland unermüdlich an immer neuen Hebeln zur Meinungskontrolle gebastelt wird, wird die Tragweite der Ereignisse in Washington erst richtig greifbar. Die linken und globalistischen Netzwerke haben den Krieg gegen die freie Rede ausgerufen, und nur die konservativen und rechten Kräfte versuchen, diesem Druck Einhalt zu gebieten.

Man muss es ohne falsche Scheu aussprechen: Es sind derzeit nur Donald Trump und die US-Republikaner, die die westliche Welt vor einem totalen Abgleiten in den Zensurwahn retten. Während in Europa regierungskritische Bürger zunehmend kriminalisiert werden, reißt Trump in den USA die illegitimen Zensur-Instrumente des Staates mit der Abrissbirne nieder. Bleibt zu hoffen, dass dieses leuchtende Vorbild einer kompromisslosen Verteidigung der Meinungsfreiheit auch bald auf den alten Kontinent überschwappt, bevor es dort für die Demokratie endgültig zu spät ist.