The Federal Communications Commission is set to ban foreign products in two specific categories that affect national security.

On Monday, the FCC released its determination that also revealed a glimpse into what the United States military has up its sleeves in terms of autonomous warfare.

‘The US military is already pursuing advanced robotics for autonomous breaching.’

The United States has decided to ban “Foreign-Produced Advanced Robotic Devices,” citing that they are often equipped with sensors, light detectors, and other technology that “collect and maintain sensitive data on their surroundings.”

The national security brief noted that such data must be protected and maintained in the United States, and with that, foreign-made robots cannot be trusted.

At the same time, the summary determination stated that the government believes “advanced robotic devices such as Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) and quadrupeds will be essential to the modern battlefield.”

The document continued, describing just what type of missions robots will be involved in through the armed forces.

“The U.S. military is already pursuing advanced robotics for autonomous breaching, resupply missions, force protection, and offensive strike.”

It was also noted that unmanned ground vehicles being used in “current conflicts” have been able to “inflict casualties while offsetting the effects of exquisite conventional capabilities.”

RELATED: The FCC just banned foreign-made routers — here’s which ones might be stealing your data

CFOTO/Future Publishing/Getty Images

The FCC summarized its ban with supplemental claims that “advanced robotic systems create extensive vulnerabilities and vectors for attacks that can manipulate the data and physical operation of the advanced robotic system.”

It is for that reason, they said, that relying on foreign-produced advanced robotics presents “unacceptable supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.”

Second on the FCC’s list was a ban on “Foreign-Produced Power Inverters.”

The government agency explained that power inverters convert direct current electricity into alternating current electricity and facilitate the connection of certain DC energy sources — like solar panel — into the predominantly AC-based U.S. energy grid.

Therefore, it was the FCC’s determination that foreign-made products of this type could threaten “sectors critical to national security,” “cybersecurity,” and overall, the safety of Americans.

RELATED: ‘Anti-clanker’: Why millions of people are cheering this android’s humiliation

Zeng Hui/Xinhua/Getty Images

The FCC explained that introducing foreign-made power inverters could render the equivalent of 46 nuclear power plants useless if they were to be used in an attack. Approximately 46 gigawatts of electric power on the U.S. grid relies on inverters and will reportedly account for a larger part of new power generation moving forward.

These statements were among many related to the introduction of massive power-sucking sources like data centers, which the FCC said are putting further strain on an already weak grid. It was the U.S. government’s determination that the grid needed to be protected from foreign intervention before it is too late.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Federal communications commission, Power grid, Power inverters, Robots, Tech 

The Democrat mayor of St. Paul who once confessed on the floor of the Minnesota House that she is “an illegal in this country” now finds herself at the center of an entirely new controversy.

In June 2025, then-state Rep. Kaohly Her (DFL) told her colleagues that her father got her family into America from Laos by falsifying immigration paperwork. A few months later, Her — now a U.S. citizen and a vociferous critic of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — was elected mayor of St. Paul.

‘The mayor has deep respect for city employees.’

Like her father, Her also apparently has a strained relationship with the law — or at least with law enforcement.

The City of Saint Paul has hired Resolute Law, an outside law firm, to investigate Mayor Her over allegations of sexual harassment against St. Paul Police Chief Axel Henry and other city employees, reported the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Chris Madel, the attorney who is representing Chief Henry, noted in an April 1 letter to City Attorney Irene Kao that the police chief had decided to designate himself as a formal complainant against the Democrat mayor “for illegal employment practices against City employees, including himself.”

The letter accuses Her of using “one or more mobile phones to communicate inappropriate, and, indeed, unlawful text messages” to city employees, including an alleged message — accompanying an image of a police officer’s face superimposed on a baby’s body — about giving someone “a good weinering.”

Her’s office did not immediately respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

RELATED: Tim Walz gets TORCHED over dolls with ‘swappable genitals’ meant for kids as young as 4: Report

Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Madel demanded that the city take “all steps necessary to perform a full filesystem extraction” of each of Her’s mobile phones, which would provide investigators with access to her text messages, photos, videos, and emails.

Madel said that Henry had made the decision “after becoming aware that the Mayor’s conduct has extended beyond isolated incidents and has included sexual harassment of subordinate City employees, including members of the Saint Paul Police Department. Recognizing both the seriousness of that misconduct and the vulnerability of those directly affected, he is concerned that, absent a formal complaint, the behavior will continue unchecked and may expose others to retaliation for speaking out.”

Henry’s attorney told Alpha News that the chief is attempting to hold the leftist mayor accountable “because it’s the right thing to do. And he just helped crack a triple homicide in under four hours — that’s the work he’s focused on right now: keeping citizens safe.”

A spokeswoman for the foreign-born mayor’s office told KSTP-TV, “To protect confidentiality and the integrity of the process, the City will not comment on an active investigation. The mayor has deep respect for city employees and regrets any unintended impact her actions may have had.”

While Her is now supposedly remorseful, this may not be her first rodeo.

Shirly Yang, who apparently served with Her for years on the board of the National Kidney Foundation in the Gopher State, recently sought a restraining order against Her for alleged intimidation and harassment. According to Yang, whose petition was ultimately denied by a Ramsey County court referee in January, the mayor allegedly inundated her with inappropriate messages, frequently of a sexually explicit and intrusive nature.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​St paul, Minnesota, Democrat, Kaohly her, Politics 

Over the past 15 years, America has abandoned just about every social rule, every kind of etiquette, and every normative behavior that used to make public interaction bearable. I’ve decided it’s time to open Uncle Josh’s Finishing School. Unlike the establishments of yore that taught society girls the finer and fussier points of manners, my school will concentrate on remedial education.

Today, we will be reviewing the rules of the road. Matriculants, open your desks and take out your copy of the Uniform Vehicle Code and your state Department of Motor Vehicles’ manual for new drivers. We will be referring to these texts.

I call this a ‘box-in,’ and drivers do it every time I’m on I-89. It’s not just annoying and inconsiderate to camp in the passing lane, it’s illegal in half the country.

Learn to ‘Code’

The Uniform Vehicle Code is a model law. It’s not an actual state or federal law. It’s a universal template on which every state bases its rules of the road.

Your state has a driver’s handbook through its Department of Motor Vehicles. These are nearly identical from state to state. The only exceptions will be local idiosyncrasies, such as New York City’s ban on turning right on red.

For this article, we’ll use the Vermont manual. Your state’s manual will have nearly identical laws and rules.

This lesson is for all of you. Whether you’re my Boomer grandmother, my Gen X peer, a Millennial, or Gen Z, many of you have forgotten the basic rules of the road.

Road rules are not just about being nice. They’re the difference between life and death. While it’s true that millions of foreigners and illegal aliens have flooded our roads with dangerous, unskilled driving, we Americans are barely better.

Automotive anarchy

Here’s how it looks from a big picture perspective. Over the past 10 years, but much more rapidly since “COVID,” I’ve noticed that American drivers are acting as though all the road rules they knew their whole life just disappeared.

All of a sudden, no one knows who has the right-of-way at a four-way stop with a sign. All of a sudden, no one understands that a red light means “stop” — they sail through a solid red light not looking in either direction. All of a sudden, no one remembers that the left lane on an interstate is not a travel lane but a lane for passing.

I don’t think Americans have actually forgotten these things. Instead, I suspect our culture’s lurch toward selfish narcissism, accelerated by the psychosis of our response to “COVID,” has led to people just not caring about anyone but themselves.

Trouble is, that selfish attitude won’t protect the selfish driver. It’s not just the other guy in the other car who could get hurt — the selfish driver could die too.

Let’s review the most neglected rules of the road.

RELATED: Crash course: How cars work

Matt Himes

Right-of-way at 4-way stops

Imagine an intersection with cars at all four corners. They’re all stopped at a stop sign. Who goes first? Let me tell you what this is like in Vermont. This is a blue/progressive state, and that mindset infects everything, including how people walk in stores or drive on streets. It’s a baffling mixture of people trying to be “nice” to other drivers in a way that seems more about showing off “being nice” than it is about making driving safer and more predictable.

At that four-way stop in Vermont, you will see all four cars inching/stopping/inching for up to 10 seconds. Then, someone at one of the four forks will start waving another driver through. That’s the “being nice” part. But it’s a trap. No one else at the intersection remembers that right-of-way passes to the right, so you can’t predict if you’ll get T-boned.

This isn’t “nice.” It’s dangerous. The reason for having road laws is to give universal predictability. Ignoring road laws means that no driver can predict what another driver will do. This is begging for a wreck.

Here’s how you know who goes first. This is taken from the Vermont DMV manual. It is the same right-of-way in every state in America:

The first driver to arrive at the four-way stop has the right-of-way. If there is confusion, then:The driver on the right has the right-of-way when there are two drivers at the intersection.If there are more than two drivers, you will have to make eye contact with someone and “negotiate” who is the first to go.After the first person goes, the right-of-way goes clockwise, to the right.

Right-of-way at T-intersections

The driver on the “through road,” the road that does not terminate at a stop, has the right-of-way.That means if you’re on a road that ends at a T, the traffic on the other road, the “through” road, has the right-of-way. You must stop, even if there is no stop sign.

Right-of-way at unmarked intersections

When two roads merge, either with a T, or by curving together and becoming one road, the “through” traffic on the main road has the right-of-way. If you are on the access road approaching the main road, you do not have the right-of-way. You must yield to traffic on the through road.

Left-lane ‘camping’ on the interstate

This is a particular annoyance to me as a Vermont driver. We have only one major interstate, Eisenhower Interstate, I-89. This means I-89 gets, for us, “a lot” of traffic. It’s the only efficient way to get through much of the state. I have to drive 40 miles to get to a home improvement store, for example, and I must take I-89 if I don’t want to have to go 30 miles an hour through villages if I take Route 2.

But I-89 only has two lanes in each direction. That means that if driver Gloria is “camping” in the left/passing lane, driver Gloria has arrogated the entire interstate to herself. She forces every driver behind her to be unable to pass her as she does five miles below the speed limit, matching her speed to the truck in the right-hand travel lane.

I call this a “box-in,” and drivers do it every time I’m on I-89. It’s not just annoying and inconsiderate to camp in the passing lane, it’s illegal in half the country.

That’s right. It is illegal to use the left lane as a travel lane in at least half of U.S. states. Do you know the law in your state?

Even if it’s legal in your state to use the left lane as a travel lane, it’s a poor choice. It’s rude and inconsiderate to other drivers. Put yourself in their shoes. Remember how it’s frustrating to you to be prevented from passing because driver Gloria feels like camping in front of you and a line of cars. Don’t do that to other drivers.

Inconsiderate behavior like this is a major cause of the breakdown in civility, and it also provokes dangerous road-rage incidents.

A plea to the police

The good will of people willing to be responsible for themselves only goes so far. We need active law enforcement too.

To my eye as a driver, local and state police are doing a poor job. Despite the fact that cellphone use (not just calls, but texting and reading on the phone) has skyrocketed, most police I notice spend most or all of their traffic enforcement time doing the old-school “pull over and hide on the highway and nab speeders.”

I don’t see any evidence that police are taking the other, growing dangers more seriously. Have you seen cops enforcing traffic infractions like left-lane camping, stealing right-of-way at intersections, or pulling over Jayden who’s piloting a Nissan Armada while looking down at his iPhone?

Sure, it’s harder to detect and enforce against distracted driving than it is to nab someone on the radar. But there has to be a way to do it better.

​Rules of the road, Driver’s ed, Driving, America, Etiquette, Safety, Intervention 

On Wednesday morning, a much anticipated hearing featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci began as he appeared before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It is Fauci’s first appearance before a legislative body since Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released the diary Fauci kept using his government email account. The session quickly erupted into fireworks, as Chairman Paul had Anthony Fauci’s attorney removed for not following the directions of the chair.

Fauci used his own opening statement to defend his decades in government, noting that he had testified before or briefed Congress “well over 200 times” during his almost 40 years running the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases and framing that record as proof he “believe[s] in and respect[s] the value of legitimate congressional oversight.”

‘The COVID lockdown … could never have been inflicted without you aiding and abetting the crime.’

He wasted no time going after Paul, accusing him of an “unhinged obsession” with trying to see him “behind bars.” Fauci framed the whole hearing as bad faith, saying it was designed to get him to “say something — anything — that could vindicate” Paul’s public pledges.

He also went after the publication of his email diary directly, calling it a move “aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me.”

In his opening statement, Paul reminded the room that Fauci only showed up “under duress” and later baited him on the record: “Let the record record that the witness has refused to answer whether there’s a folder in front of him.”

“The COVID lockdown … could never have been inflicted without you aiding and abetting the crime,” Paul said.

Invoking his Fifth Amendment right, Fauci said, after Paul began direct questioning, “under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”

RELATED: Puppy love: Diary exposes Fauci’s crush on Julia Roberts

Things then boiled over when one of Fauci’s attorneys tried to jump in mid-hearing. Paul cut him off cold — “Sit quietly and don’t say another word. … You are not recognized” — before warning him a second time that he would be removed if he spoke again.

The lawyer kept talking anyway. “Security, please remove him from the room,” Paul ordered. The standoff dragged on for over a minute before security pulled him out and the room broke into applause.

Democrat Gary Peters, the committee’s ranking member, tried to intervene on the attorney’s behalf. Paul overruled him on the spot.

The Fifth Amendment plea helps Fauci stay out of legal jeopardy. Former President Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon for Fauci covers offenses from 2014 through the pardon’s issue date, tied to his government service — but legal experts and lawmakers agree it does not protect against future perjury or obstructive conduct in compelled testimony.

Paul made clear days earlier that there was an easy way out: “There’s no risk to perjury if you tell the truth.” Fauci could admit to past falsehoods, destroyed records, or a one-sided presentation of the science, Paul said — “the only thing he can’t do is lie again.” Paul had also predicted the outcome, telling reporters ahead of time that Americans “would be very disappointed” if Fauci pleaded the Fifth — which he just did.

For more on Fauci’s COVID cover-up, check out BlazeTV’s six-episode docuseries “The Coverup.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Congressional hearing, Covid, Fifth amendment, Oversight, Pardon, Rand paul, Politics 

On Saturday, a 10-foot shore-break wave slammed into Seabright State Beach in Santa Cruz, California, and pulled a young boy under the water. A 16-year-old lifeguard went in anyway — a decision that, within days, would land him an invitation to the White House.

The footage runs about two minutes: the young boy disappearing under whitewater, the lifeguard disappearing with him, both surfacing again — still together — before going under once more.

‘Truly the best of America.’

Beachgoer Scott Vander Dussen caught it on his phone from start to finish.

Other swimmers tried to help and got thrown back for their trouble before a second lifeguard finally reached the pair.

NBC Bay Area identified the lifeguard as a high school student; his name is Ryder Williams.

Vander Dussen said there was no warning. One minute the water was ordinary; the next, conditions “caught a lot of people off-guard,” and the boy was gone. He said he doesn’t think the boy would have come home that night without the lifeguards who were there.

RELATED: Hero grandpa ferociously attacked by bison in viral video reveals the split-second decision that ‘saved grandson’s life’

– YouTube

The child was checked by paramedics and released to his parents.

According to Fox News, a woman claiming to be Ryder’s mother has spent the days since fielding an outpouring she didn’t ask for. She turned down a GoFundMe, saying, “He was just doing the job that he absolutely loves.” She suggested instead that people give to Santa Cruz County’s Junior Guards program, where Ryder trained.

The Guardian spoke to Ryder’s father, Shane, after the incident. “I almost started crying because how determined he was to save that boy’s life makes me so proud,” Shane Williams said during an interview.

It didn’t stay a local story for long. Eric Trump reposted the footage, calling it “truly the best of America” and saying the teen deserved the country’s highest civilian honor.

Then came the president himself. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he plans to bring Ryder and his family to the White House — and perhaps the boy he saved — to receive a “High Civilian Honor.”

“Very brave, he deserves it,” Trump added.

“I got the chills watching this,” Trump Administrator for the U.S. Agency for Global Media Kari Lake said on social media. “So many heroic, incredible men putting themselves in danger to save a life. God bless them all — especially the 16-year-old lifeguard.”

“PROOF the world still needs strong, courageous men!” Chad Prather chimed in, adding that the lifeguard is a “true American hero.”

The rescue has also revived a running argument in Santa Cruz over how lifeguards get classified. Ryder’s mother is among those who think lifeguards working coastlines like this one should be recognized as first responders.

Ryder, a first-season lifeguard, was already back at his post the next day — back to business as usual, according to KION Central Coast.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Lifeguard, White house, Donald trump, Politics, Rescue 

Evangelist Cliffe Knechtle has spent decades facilitating open-air dialogues about Christianity on college campuses, and what he’s noticed is a massive change over the years.

“People are more emotionally fragile today than they were when we began back in the ’80s and ’90s,” he tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

While his father grew up in Switzerland, “sat up in the Alps with a gun,” and watched Hitler’s army march toward his country — his grandfather was defending on the frontlines.

It was anything but fragile.

“Today, when Donald Trump wins the election, university students go to a crying room to get counseling. Give me a break. What emotional fragility. What an incredible emotional weakness today compared to the young 18-year-olds who fought against Adolf Hitler,” Knechtle explains.

But that’s not all that’s changed.

“Sexual immorality is embraced in a way that it’s not sexual immorality. It’s normal. So moral relativism and sexual immorality has become so commonplace, that if you stand against that, you are really, really, weird.”

Lastly, he says, “What has become too firmly entrenched is unless you can prove it scientifically, it’s not true.”

“I don’t care if you’re a liberal, you know very well that your critique of the conservatives is a moral, ethical critique. You’re not letting enough immigrants in. You’re elitist. And the conservatives are the same way. And you live a sexually twisted life, a perverted life,” he explains.

“So both are appealing to the moral argument, which I think is exciting because it really shows that we do have consciences, which means there really is a God,” he continues.

His son, Stuart Knechtle, recalls a moment when he was cornered by group of progressives who were distraught that he believed a suicidal 16-year-old girl should be saved.

“That’s devaluing her freedom and autonomy. If anything, you should aid in her decision to kill herself,” he says, mimicking their argument.

“I was shell-shocked, completely shocked,” he says.

“Sure enough, we kind of got around to the point of, ‘Do you guys really mean this?’ … I think they go to the point of starting to realize just what they were saying. And they were relativizing morality, objective value,” he explains.

“That’s the one that I see where personal autonomy and freedom is considered really the top idea and thing to pursue even more so than the value of human life,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Autonomy, Christianity, God, Human life, Immigrants, Moral relativism, Progressives, Cliffe knechtle, Blazetv show 

Pope Leo XIV has overseen a shakeup at the Vatican sure to vex progressives: assigning an American conservative who has fought against the LGBT agenda and abortion activism to the Catholic Church’s highest court.

Weeks after excommunicating all members of the Society of St. Pius X and declaring it a schismatic sect, the Vatican announced a number of resignations and appointments.

‘It is a position of great prestige and trust within the Catholic Church.’

While declining to renew the term of Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark — a progressive cleric who has tipped his biretta to the LGBT community and championed migrant causes — Pope Leo XIV appointed on July 25 seven new members to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

Among the new members are a pair of American bishops — San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and Bishop Edward Lohse of Kalamazoo — and two Spanish canon lawyers who belong to Opus Dei, a conservative Catholic institution.

These appointments do not require a relocation to Rome.

Maggie Gallagher, executive director of the Cordileone-founded Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music and Divine Worship, told Blaze News that “the Apostolic Signatura is essentially the Supreme Court of the Catholic Church (except that the Pope may intervene and overturn a court ruling).”

“It doesn’t issue rulings on Catholic teachings, but on cases against individuals including for example judgements of nullity for marriages, and charges against other judges, etc,” continued Gallagher. “It is a position of great prestige and trust within the Catholic Church and the appointment of Archbishop Cordileone is clear indication that Pope Leo appreciates his competence and his leadership.”

Gallagher added that Archbishop Cordileone’s appointment “does not mean of course that the Pope agrees with all the positions he has taken, but he is clearly signaling that these views do not put you on the outs with Rome, and that is a great relief to many Catholics in the United States, especially for Catholics attached to the traditional Latin Mass.”

Cordileone, the San Diego native whom President Donald Trump appointed last year to serve on the advisory board of the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission, is the archbishop who was harassed by California radicals for denying communion to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a professed Catholic within the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

RELATED: ‘It’s insanity’: Massachusetts Democrats pass bill that would make it open season on viable babies

Franco Origlia/Getty Images

In May 2022, Archbishop Cordileone — who has referred to abortion in America as a “genocide on life in the womb” — provided Pelosi with a refresher on the Church’s moral teaching that abortion is a “grave moral evil,” and stressed that there can be no more extreme example of “throwaway culture” than “when direct attacks on human life are enshrined in a nation’s law, celebrated by society, and even paid for by the government.”

Citing canon law — which states that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” — as well as the instruction of Pope Benedict XVI, the American archbishop said it was his responsibility to bar the Democrat from what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the “source and summit of the Christian life”:

After numerous attempts to speak with her to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion ”rights” and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of Penance.

Pelosi remained unrepentant and attacked Archbishop Cordileone on the network then known as MSNBC, complaining, “Our archbishop has been vehemently against LGBTQ rights too.”

Archbishop Cordileone is on the radar of GLAAD and other non-straight activist organizations, not only for his defense of the Catholic teaching that “all sexual acts outside of a marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong and do not serve the good of the person or society,” but for his rejection of gender ideology, long-standing defense of the institution of marriage, and advocacy for protecting the First Amendment freedoms of those opposed to the LGBT agenda.

In addition to holding fast to the teachings of the Church, Archbishop Cordileone has called — especially in the wake of the SSPX schism — for greater Catholic access to the traditional Latin Mass.

Archbishop Cordileone said in a statement on Saturday, “I am deeply grateful to the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, for this appointment as a member of the Supreme Apostolic Signatura. I receive this responsibility with a profound sense of stewardship, recognizing that every office in the Church is entrusted for the service of Christ, His people, and the mission of the Gospel.”

“The Supreme Apostolic Signatura assists the Holy Father in safeguarding the proper administration of justice within the life of the Church,” continued the archbishop. “Justice in the Church is never merely legal; it is ordered toward the salvation of souls, the protection of the rights of the faithful, and the strengthening of ecclesial communion. I am honored to contribute to that important mission.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Catholic church, Nancy pelosi, Pope leo xiv, Salvatore cordileone, San francisco, Faith, Politics 

The pivotal battle over one of two Texas seats in the U.S. Senate may be decided by new accusations of election fraud against the Democratic candidate.

State Rep. James Talarico is being accused of falsely using his mother’s address in Austin in 2021 to elude residency requirements and run in the Democrat-leaning district.

‘He is a lying politician who has been deceiving voters throughout his time in office, so it should come as no shock that he continues his flip-flop tour across the state of Texas.’

Talarico announced on Oct. 13, 2021, that he would move back to state House District 50, just one month ahead of the Nov. 8, 2021, deadline for him to meet the one-year residency requirement for the 2022 election.

At the time, he blamed Republicans for redrawing state House District 52, which he then represented, into one that was more red-leaning.

“Republicans have gerrymandered me out of my district. If they think they can keep me off the House floor, they better think again,” he wrote on social media.

The Federalist report, citing Texas voter registration files, claimed that Talarico registered to vote at his mother’s Austin address in December 2021, well after the deadline, and used her address “on election forms,” then purchased a home in state House District 50 after the primary in March 2022.

“There’s no evidence, sources say, that Talarico lived at his mother’s home during the period. Even if he did, the candidate would have to have resided there for at least a year before launching his House campaign,” the Federalist reported.

Voter registration for Talarico dated December 2021 listed an Austin address, according to images shared by the Dallas Express. He was previously registered in Round Rock, Texas, according to the images.

Current records with the Texas Secretary of State list a P.O. box in Austin as Talarico’s address for the March 2022 Democratic primary.

The unmarried candidate also reportedly shares an individual checking account with his mother. His campaign reported receiving an in-kind donation from Talarico’s parents of $1,437.84 for moving expenses in December 2021, according to the Dallas Express.

Five years later, he’s facing difficult questions about whether he actually met that residency requirement.

“James Talarico has proven he has zero regard for Texans and the rule of law. He’s been lying to voters and shamelessly committing election fraud to hold onto power,” Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote on social media.

His campaign did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Madison Cercy, a spokeswoman for the Paxton campaign, did not hold back in a statement to the Federalist.

RELATED: James Talarico’s WOKE CHURCH raises money to fund abortions and transgender summer camp for children

“It is absolutely disgusting that James Talarico used his mother’s address to not only commit voter fraud, but also to defraud his entire constituency, all so he could run in a safe Democrat seat,” she said. “He is a lying politician who has been deceiving voters throughout his time in office, so it should come as no shock that he continues his flip-flop tour across the state of Texas.”

A recent Democrat-aligned poll said Talarico had a five-point advantage over Paxton, but the Decision Desk voter probability has Paxton as a slight favorite over the Democrat.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Election fraud, James talarico, Ken paxton, Us senate election, Politics 

It was 1903, and Theodore Roosevelt had a problem. The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, was effectively dead. It had been used rarely, and when it had been, cases moved sluggishly through the courts. Roosevelt wished to move forward on a multitude of what he believed to be monopolies, including in railroads and energy.

Roosevelt was not wrong to be concerned with monopoly. Coming out of the Civil War, America’s Gilded Age had moved the country lurchingly from a regional power to a global power, one that would soon dominate the world.

America’s antitrust laws simply are not built for these technologies and economic sectors.

But with that explosion of commerce came its domination by a few select companies. And while Roosevelt’s predecessor, William McKinley, had repeatedly urged Congress to crack down on them, it was mostly to no avail. By the time Roosevelt took the reins of power in 1901, several companies effectively ran entire industries.

His problem was solved by Congress, which quickly passed what became known as the Expediting Act. The bill, passed unanimously, allowed for the attorney general to declare a given antitrust case to be of national importance. This in turn mandated the creation of a special three-judge panel on what would today be the level of district courts. After that hearing, which was to be “given precedence over others and in every way expedited,” an appeal could only be levied at the Supreme Court.

Roosevelt and his successor, William Howard Taft, launched a bevy of antitrust cases, breaking apart railroad, cigarette, and energy companies. Americans alive in the 21st century may find it difficult to imagine just how powerful these Gilded Age companies were.

Standard Oil controlled roughly 90% of all oil production in America. American Tobacco produced and sold 86% of all cigarettes in the entire country. And the Northern Securities Company governed effectively all freight railroads from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. By the end of Taft’s term, none of those companies would exist.

RELATED: America needs heroes who do not apologize for being heroes

Heritage Art/Heritage Images/Getty Images

Eventually, the Expediting Act became a victim of its own success: The large trusts were broken apart, with few — such as the Bell telephone system — existing into the latter half of the 20th century. Eventually, the lack of large antitrust cases gave way to smaller cases filled with minutiae. This, plus complaints from the Supreme Court about its supposedly immense workload, led to the bill’s repeal in the 1980s, with antitrust cases ultimately being treated like other civil suits.

Today, the oil industry remains broken up, and no one is concerned about a single cigarette company dominating that industry. But like the turn of the 20th century, there are entirely new industries and economic sectors that have sprung up — and along with them have come entirely new monopolies.

Thirty years ago, the notion that a single company could dominate an online search index would be unfathomable. That the same company could dominate browsers and other aspects of the internet would likewise be difficult to imagine. Amazon, meanwhile, controls America’s book market and facilitates the sale of a majority of all books sold in the United States.

And there are other even more dangerous monopolies that could develop, like in artificial intelligence. OpenAI was founded just over 10 years ago. Its main rival, Anthropic, was only founded in 2021, meaning that it has existed for less time than the United States government has been suing Google. Google, for what it’s worth, owns 14% of Anthropic.

With the speed at which AI is developing, it is not outside the realm of possibility that an AI company controlling an AGI-level large-language model, or beyond, would be able to monopolize the artificial intelligence sector — an extremely concerning prospect, made all the more concerning by the fact that America’s antitrust laws simply are not built for these technologies and economic sectors.

RELATED: The path to America-first AI

Yunping Iiang/Getty Images

While antitrust laws clearly need to be revamped — the foundational law, upon which many antitrust cases are still brought, was passed in 1890 — a quick and relatively easy solution would be a return to the Expediting Act, with small updates to match our current judicial structures.

Forcing judges to put antitrust cases first and move quickly on them — as opposed to taking months to mull over decisions — along with speedy hearings by the Supreme Court would help preemptively prepare America for the possibility of 21st-century monopolization.

The Supreme Court’s original concern over its workload should be discarded. When the American republic was new, government was not year-round. Congress was out of session for months on end. The president, far from barnstorming the country as they do today, stayed in Washington or simply went home when Congress was out of session. The Supreme Court had a similarly light schedule. This was all in keeping with the times, when things simply moved slowly.

But as speeds have increased, so too have government workloads. Today, Congress — though lawmakers take Fridays off — is in Washington far more often, and the presidency is now a 24/7 job.

But the Supreme Court’s calendar still sits empty for multiple months of the year, with bursts of work coming throughout. If the court will have to hear a handful of cases the attorney general deems to be of critical importance, the justices may have to suffer the indignity of having only two months of uninterrupted vacation as opposed to three.

There is something for everyone in bringing back the Expediting Act. Investors and employees will no longer be left in limbo for years as merger trials drag on and on. Antitrust advocates will not need to wait endlessly for results. And America will be better equipped to deal with sudden monopolies that, in our increasingly fast-paced world, can come about in a flash.

No one benefits from slow antitrust hearings. Congress should pass a new version of the Expediting Act and make antitrust fast again.

​American republic, Anthropic, Antitrust laws, Artificial intelligence, Energy companies, Google, Openai, Supreme court, Theodore roosevelt, Amazon, Monopolies, Opinion & analysis 

Radical Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener may have sworn off campaign support from law enforcement unions in California — yet these same unions are still financing Wiener’s anti-cop and pro-LGBTQ agenda.

Wiener, 56, has sparked disgust and outrage across America since he joined the California Senate a decade ago. Since then, he has advocated for:

lessening the criminal penalties associated with HIV-positive prostitutes;exempting some adults who had oral or anal sex with minors from automatically registering as sex offenders;making California a “refuge” for parents who want to subject their kids to gender-related medical interventions banned in other states;eliminating mandatory minimums for opioid trafficking and other drug crimes; andS.B. 627, aka the No Secret Police Act, prohibiting most law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks that many believe protect them from doxxing.

‘Scott Wiener has shown throughout the years that he is no friend of law enforcement.’

Wiener has not even tried to hide his animus against cops. In June 2020, at the height of George Floyd hysteria, he pledged not to “accept contributions from law enforcement unions going forward.”

“Our policing/criminal justice system is broken & needs drastic change,” he claimed at the time.

“This system kills/harms countless people, esp people of color. We need to do more & I’m committed to this fight,” he added.

And yet police union dollars are still flowing his way.

How? The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Caucus Leadership Fund, a political committee for the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. Wiener currently sits on the caucus and previously served as chair.

Since January 2020, the respective political action committees of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen have donated a whopping $210,000 total to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Caucus Leadership Fund, state records show.

During that same period, state filings show that the LGBT caucus fund donated $11,000 directly to Wiener’s campaign committees and spent an additional $27,000 in independent expenditures supporting his 2020 re-election bid.

The leaders of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus; the chair of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Caucus Leadership Fund; and representatives from PORAC, CCPOA, and CAHP did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

In addition to his seat on the LGBT caucus, Wiener also currently serves as chair of the state Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee and just a month ago killed a bill that would have barred anyone who “has ever been required to register as a sex offender” from running for elective office in California.

The bill passed 60-0 in the California Assembly, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 60 to 19.

Wiener voted against the bill because he thought it ought to apply only to Tier 3 registrants, the worst sex offenders.

Of note, Tier 1 offenses can include misdemeanor child pornography. Just this year, Rene Campos, a registered sex offender who pled no contest to possessing obscene matter depicting a minor in sexual conduct, nearly qualified to run for Fresno City Council but failed to gather the necessary 20 signatures.

Campos confirmed to Blaze News that he fully intends to “run again.”

“Does equal protection still mean equal protection when the person invoking it is unpopular? Under the same sun, no one is above the law — and no one should stand outside its protection,” Campos wrote in an email. “I believe every person stands equal before the law.”

RELATED: Fresno candidate’s registered child sex offender status sparks outrage after city council campaign launch

Rene Campos. California Sex Offender Registry screenshot

Many rank-and-file members of law enforcement have been frustrated that so much union largesse has been dedicated to Democrats like Wiener who seemingly make cops look like the bad guys and sex offenders look like victims.

Sgt. Tony Romo, who has spent nearly 40 years as a deputy and a detective in Los Angeles, told Blaze News that he resigned from the board of the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association in 2023, partially because the group was “selling out the members” with some of its “relationships with politicians.”

Romo claimed that lawmakers in Sacramento are passing bills that “handcuff” police officers and that police unions are helping facilitate this anti-cop legislation through financial support.

“These bills are being passed, and the unions are basically getting rolled over on [them]. And they’re not fighting the leadership. They just kind of want to go to status quo,” Romo explained.

Sgt. Tony Romo. LA County Sheriff’s Department

Romo also claimed that while he was still on the board, the L.A. County PPOA discussed donating to Wiener even after Wiener renounced all police union support in June 2020. Each time Wiener’s name came up, Romo and another board member would immediately reject it because of Wiener’s anti-cop activism, Romo said.

“Scott Wiener has shown throughout the years that he is no friend of law enforcement. Absolutely, he’s more of a nemesis to law enforcement. And if he had it his way, there would be probably no law enforcement. So it’s our duty to support our membership, and it’s not to support any senator, assemblyman, congressman that is doing the exact opposite of that,” Romo said.

State filings show PPOA donated $21,000 directly to Wiener’s re-election campaigns between June 2016 and July 2018 but has not made a direct donation to Wiener’s campaigns since.

Sen. Wiener is now running for the congressional seat former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) has held since 1987, representing most of San Francisco.

Wiener’s campaign and PPOA did not respond to a request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​California, California senate, Nancy pelosi, Scott wiener, Politics