YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP: Literal “Pro-Algae” Protesters Storm Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to Oppose Trump Admin Cleanup

In the latest chapter of unhinged Trump Derangement Syndrome, a group of far-left activists has turned the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool into a bizarre battlefield, this time protesting the removal of algae from President Trump’s freshly renovated national landmark.

Independent journalist Emily Miller captured the circus on the ground and even interviewed the self-described “Team Algae” protesters who reportedly return every day to fight the cleanup.

“We have reached peak circus here,” Miller said as National Park Service crews vacuumed out the green slime using advanced nanobubble technology.

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Allows Ohio to Enforce Social Media Law Requiring Parental Consent for Minors

A federal appeals court has ruled that Ohio can enforce legislation requiring children under 16 to obtain parental consent before using social media platforms, marking a significant development in state-level efforts to regulate minors’ online activity.

TechSpot reports that the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision overturning a lower court ruling that had previously blocked Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act from taking effect. The law mandates that websites reasonably likely to be accessed by children under 16 must verify users’ ages and secure parental approval before allowing minors to create or use accounts.

The legislation was originally passed in 2023 and took effect in January 2024. However, it faced an immediate legal challenge from NetChoice, a technology industry advocacy group representing major platforms including Meta, TikTok, YouTube, Snap, and X. A federal judge initially found the law unconstitutional and blocked its implementation, but the appeals court has now reversed that decision and sent the case back with instructions to lift the block.

In the majority opinion, Judge Eric Clay acknowledged that the law does impose some burden on speech but argued it is narrowly tailored to address what Ohio identified as a compelling state interest. According to Clay, the legislation aims to protect children from online harms and prevent them from agreeing to platform terms of service without proper supervision.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Clay wrote. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

The decision represents a rare victory for state efforts to restrict minors’ access to social media platforms, as similar laws in other jurisdictions have been blocked on free speech grounds. Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson praised the ruling as a win for families, stating it provides parents with necessary tools to monitor and control what their children view online.

Keep reading

Disgraced Former Prince Andrew Demands British Taxpayer-Funded Security Detail After Confrontation With Balaclava-Clad Attacker

Do British taxpayers have to pay to protect Andrew from the consequences of his actions?

After the deluge of damaging information related to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his popularity (if we can even call it that) tanked, and he became one of the most hated men in Britain.

That, of course, leads to consequences.

In the violence-filled UK, it was not a surprise when Andrew was confronted by an armed man near his new home in Sandringham.

Now, the disgraced second son of the late Queen Elizabeth wants taxpayer-funded security to protect him.

GB News reported:

“The former prince is said to remain concerned that he is not provided enough protection and feels as though he is more at risk than other royals, who have round-the-clock security.

The concerns grew after he was allegedly confronted by a ‘balaclava-clad’ man near his Sandringham Estate home.”

Keep reading

Five things to know about pesticides, cancer and a pending Supreme Court ruling

After years of lawsuits against agrichemical companies and battles over environmental regulations, the nation’s highest court is expected to rule this summer on a case that could significantly alter the pesticide industry.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether lawsuits can be brought against pesticide and herbicide makers over claims their products have caused cancer. 

The court heard arguments in the case in April, and the justices appeared split.

With a ruling weeks away, here are five things to know about the topic of pesticide use and cancer.

1. Geographic correlation between heavy pesticide use and high cancer rates

Numerous studies and an analysis of federal data have shown a potential correlation between pesticide use and cancer. Out of the 500 U.S. counties with the highest pesticide use per square mile (largely concentrated in corn, soybean and fruit-producing states like Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, California and Florida), 60% have cancer rates higher than the national average of 460 cases per 100,000 people. A 2024 study in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society suggests the impact of pesticide use on cancer incidence may rival that of smoking.

2. Thousands of lawsuits have been won against agrichemical companies

State courts have also found that correlation credible, as Bayer, the maker of the herbicide Roundup, has lost thousands of cases and agreed to pay more than $12 billion in settlements, including individual jury verdicts such as an initial $2 billion award in California and a recent $1.25 million verdict in Missouri. According to the company, more than 65,000 lawsuits have been filed by farmers, gardeners and other users alleging the chemical caused their cancer.

3. Companies push for ‘liability shields

In response to these lawsuits, agrichemical companies have aggressively lobbied for state-level bans on this type of litigation. Often referred to as “liability shield” laws, they would essentially say that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not warned of a link to cancer, state-level claims would be void. Georgia and North Dakota are the only two states that have passed these liability shield laws. 

4. The Trump administration has largely sided with pesticide makers

The push for stricter pesticide regulation has created unusual alliances between left-leaning environmentalists and conservative health advocates under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) banner. 

After an initial Health and Human Services report linked pesticide overuse to childhood health issues, the agency’s final report last year walked back all regulatory calls and instead pivoted to promote public confidence in current EPA standards. President Trump also signed an executive order this year declaring glyphosate critical to national security, and his administration actively sided with Bayer during oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

In April, MAHA activists celebrated a win after the House voted to remove a pesticide industry-backed provision from its farm bill. The debate is expected to continue as the Senate drafts its own version of the farm bill. 

5. Supreme Court hears arguments on national ‘liability shield’ ban

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, in which Monsanto (owned by Bayer) argued that because the EPA has ruled glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic, federal law preempts states from requiring cancer warning labels or awarding damages through state juries. A decision is expected in July.

Keep reading

Swalwell Ordered By FEC To Return Campaign Contributions

Former California congressman Eric Swalwell was ordered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) June 15 to return all donations received during his bid for governor before dropping out of the race.

The agency charged with enforcing federal campaign finance laws threatened Swalwell with an audit or enforcement action if he fails to give back $30,075 in contributions that 16 donors made to his campaign committee, according to a letter sent to the former candidate.

Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act may also result in an enforcement action against the committee.

In the letter, FEC Senior Campaign Finance Analyst Mary Seiler also stated Swalwell would not be eligible to request a time extension to give the money back.

According to the letter, the FEC requires candidates to return contributions to the donors if they drop out of a race. Swalwell did return some of the donations, but not all of them, according to the agency.

General election contributions can’t be used to pay off primary debts or other obligations, the FEC noted.

All refunds were required to be made by July 20. If not, the commission may take further legal action in the case, the FEC said.

Swalwell and his attorney, Sara Azari, didn’t return requests for comment about the FEC’s demands.

Swalwell dropped out of the governor’s race in April after multiple women stepped forward with sexual assault allegations, which he has denied. He also faced a U.S. House of Representatives ethics investigation over the accusations and a call from his party to resign.

The former congressman and candidate continues to face criminal and ethical investigations over the allegations.

His official state campaign finance disclosure information shows Swalwell collected donations from individuals and organizations until the day he resigned April 13. The last-minute donors included the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC, California Dairies, real estate developer Jeff Worthe, and Greater Anesthesia Service and PAC – each of which gave him $39,200.

Keep reading

The Official Platform of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Includes Abolishing the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and More

The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA, is behind the campaigns of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, LA mayoral candidate Nithya Raman, Graham Platner of Maine, AOC, and many others.

These people are complete radicals, but they are winning elections across the country and must be taken seriously.

In addition to creating their own paramilitary group called the Red Rabbits, the DSA has adopted an official platform that must be seen to be believed. They want to remake the United States of America in their image, which means completely destroying it first.

From City Journal:

The Democratic Socialists of America Just Adopted a Radical New Platform

Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

As more and more members seek election to local and national positions, the platform represents a clear statement of the DSA’s views. Its radicalism, therefore, gives a glimpse into how the equivalent of the DSA’s board of directors—some of whom have appeared to moderate—actually think about politics.

“Workers Deserve More!” emerged from another DSA committee that spent two months grappling with and debating its language. When the NPC took up the document, its presenter urged the DSA to pass it unamended after it cleared the committee unanimously.

Instead, DSA leadership added four amendments: one on “real democracy”—calling for the replacement of “the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress”—another on police and prison abolition, a provision explicitly naming Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, and a ranked-choice voting section. The NPC passed two of these four amendments unanimously, while the “real democracy” provision prevailed by a razor-thin margin.

“Workers Deserve More!” has revolutionary aspirations. It aims to “win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.” The document makes clear that achieving this vision would require “building a new society from the ground up,” accompanied by sweeping structural changes…

It would also defund the Department of War, close overseas bases, and end all economic sanctions—which would include those in states like Iran, Cuba, and Russia. The platform further endorses universal amnesty for illegal immigrants, and ending “restrictions on . . . marriage,” which would presumably entail the legalization of polygamy.

Keep reading

Now We Know Why the Obama Center Is So Ugly

The Obama Presidential Center finally opened to the public on Friday (not that you care), and the verdict from the internet was swift and brutal. People are calling it a “monstrous insult to architecture,” a “concrete nightmare,” and simply a “monstrosity.” Social media has spent the week comparing the thing to a trash can and a dystopian movie set, which, having seen the photos, feels generous.

It’s hideous.

Naturally, the man who helped design the building’s most mocked feature has a different take. Chris Bird, the Washington structural engineer who designed the upper portion of the center’s towering centerpiece, sat down with Fox News Digital just before the doors opened and insisted the design is not a monstrosity at all. It’s a “grand gesture.” A “bold statement.” Something with “no architectural precedent.”

“The architects knew with the client that they wanted to do something bold at the top of the tower, and the vision of the speech came to life,” Bird told Fox News Digital.

I’d blame Obama, too.

I was in architecture for years before I started writing for PJ Media. At no point in the design process, based on the publicly available renderings, did this ever look great. I like bold architecture myself. I can be somewhat of a traditionalist, but I’m also a fan of Frank Gehry. You don’t get much bolder than that. The Obama Center doesn’t come across as bold; it comes across as dystopian and authoritarian. Which, actually, is appropriate for anything connected to Obama, but not really what they wanted to project, I’m sure.

The tower features 91 words pulled from Obama’s speeches, wrapped around a corner of the building in 433 individual letters, each about five feet tall. Curiously, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” is not on there. Bird described the process of working with the architects and graphic designers to “shape and move a speech, splice it and put it on a building” as “really unprecedented.”

Keep reading

NY Pride Group Disbands After Drag Queen Founder – A School Board Member – Arrested On Child Sexting Charges

A New York LGBTQ+ advocacy group has canceled a scheduled pride parade and disbanded after its founder was arrested on child-sexting charges

Travis J. Longo, 46, of Cazenovia – a drag queen and a member of the Cazenovia School District Board of Education (of course), was arrested on Thursday and charged with four counts of endangering the welfare of a child after allegedly sending sexually explicit communications to a child under the age of 12. 

In a now-deleted Facebook post, the group Longo founded, Cazenova Pride Inc., announced that it is “canceling this year’s Pride Festival and all associated events, and we are dissolving as an organization.” 

“This decision follows serious criminal charges against Travis Longo, the founder of Cazenovia Pride Fest and a longtime figure in our organization,” the post continues. “Travis Longo has no further affiliation with Cazenovia Pride Inc.”

Longo, who reportedly performed as a drag queen under the name “Anita Buffem,” was listed as a “hostess” at the first Pride festival in Cazenovia in 2021, which was organized by Pride Cazenovia, The Blaze reports.

Keep reading

FBI Captures Fugitive Who Scammed $1.2 Billion in Medicare Fraud Hiding in the Philippines

Earlier in June, the FBI announced the arrest of a 60-year-old fugitive found residing in the Philippines who fled the United States after failing to appear for his sentencing in connection with pleading guilty to numerous federal charges involving healthcare fraud back in 2019.

FBI Director Kash Patel announced the arrest of 60-year-old Herbert Leon Kimble via social media on June 19th, highlighting how the apprehended fugitive was among those listed on the agency’s “Most Wanted Fraudsters” list.

According to authorities, Kimble had run a Medicare fraud scheme between 2014 and 2019, reportedly amassing $1.2 billion in ill-gotten gains from the scheme which largely targeted elderly beneficiaries. The aforementioned operation reportedly consisted of call centers attempting to convince patients to acquire medically unnecessary orthopedic braces.

In April of 2019, Kimble reportedly pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and mail fraud among other similar charges, reportedly entering into an agreement with the federal government to help build cases “against other co-conspirators” which lasted for years. However, when Kimble was scheduled to appear in court on October 7th, 2024, for sentencing, he reportedly went on the run.

An international manhunt ensued, with authorities suspecting he was residing in Manila, Philippines. After nearly two years on the lam, authorities located the fugitive in the Philippines and he has since been returned to the United States, according to Director Patel.

In Director Patel’s statement regarding Kimble’s arrest, he emphasized, “President Trump set a mandate to end the abuse of hardworking taxpayer money and each and every day this team will be committed to delivering.”

Kimble’s arrest serves as the second high-profile apprehension carried out with respect to the FBI’s Most Wanted Fraudsters in recent weeks, with 47-year-old Said Abdullahi Ereg having been arrested earlier in June after self-surrendering to authorities in Minneapolis. Officials claim Ereg engaged in fraud totaling $4.2 million during the pandemic via submitting false claims of hot meals served to those in need under the Federal Child Nutrition Program.

Keep reading

News Outlet Caves to Democratic Senate Candidate, Kills Poll That Makes Her Look Bad

The already-dramatic Democratic primary contest in Michigan just got a new plot twist.

A poll run on behalf of a news outlet ended up getting killed from coverage after complaints from the third-place candidate’s campaign, according to Politico.

And one of the nation’s best-known pollsters has gone public with his contempt for the decision.

Washington Beltway-based Politico reported Wednesday that state Sen. Mallory McMorrow’s campaign raised serious questions about the poll’s results with Michigan Information & Research Service, a news outlet that covers the state’s lawmakers in Lansing.

It’s understandable that any campaign might object to a poll that shows its candidates with single-digit support — and the poll in question had McMorrow at only 6 percent.

The race’s two leaders, meanwhile, were “Dr.” Abdul El-Sayed — a far-left progressive endorsed by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and a candidate who has made potentially questionable claims to being a physician — and U.S. Rep. Haley Stephens, a more establishment pick who has been endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

El-Sayed had 42 percent support, according to the poll. Stevens had 33 percent.

With the Aug. 4 state primary date fast approaching, the McMorrow team hit back hard.

According to Politico, the campaign approached Michigan Information & Research Service with serious questions about the poll’s findings — beyond the dismal showing of the candidate herself — the only Caucasian among the three serious contenders.

For instance, Politico reported, the poll found zero percent of black voters saying they were undecided. Stevens, a black woman, dominated in that demographic with 69 percent, according to the poll, while El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrants, brought in 31 percent.

It also found Stevens with only 5 percent support in Oakland County, her home base, according to Politico.

Kyle Melinn, a news editor with Michigan Information & Research Service, told Politico the news outlet abandoned coverage of the poll after hearing from McMorrow’s campaign.

However, he said he first talked to other pollsters about concerns about the poll’s findings. He said they agreed there was a problem.

MIRS didn’t run with the poll, Melinn told Politico, “because I didn’t feel comfortable with it.”

The pollster behind the survey, Steve Mitchell of Mitchell Research & Communications, told Politico that McMorrow’s campaign put “intense pressure” on MIRS not to run with the poll.

“The poll, in the eyes of the McMorrow campaign, understated their support,” Mitchell, whose firm Mitchell Research & Communications conducted and paid for the poll, told Politico. “And they put intense pressure on MIRS, and therefore MIRS decided that they weren’t going to run the survey. That’s their decision, and I support their decision.”

One potential area of concern was the method used to solicit responses. According to Politico, the poll relied on the technique known as “text to web,” in which potential respondents are contacted by text. If they are participating in the survey, they go to a link included in the text to fill out their answers.

According to Politico, McMorrow’s campaign said that it opened the door to text recipients abusing the link, either by participating in the poll numerous times or passing the link on to others who aren’t part of the initial polling survey. That could have polluted the results.

However, Nate Silver, founder of the polling website FiveThirtyEight and a national voice when it comes to political polling, published a post on the social media platform X Wednesday, excoriating the MIRS decision.

Keep reading