Blog

Democratic megadonor who gave to Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris linked to murky honeypot spy saga

A California family who has injected millions of dollars into Democratic campaigns are facing renewed scrutiny over their connections to people and organizations tied to suspected Chinese spy Fang Fang.

The Yin family, who made a fortune operating McDonald’s franchises in the state, has donated more than $4.4 million to state and federal political causes — including hundreds of thousands of dollars to Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats, according to campaign records, CBS News reported.

The family’s political connections have drawn attention following the release of FBI files concerning Fang, also known as Christine Fang, whose relationship with disgraced former California Rep. Eric Swalwell became the subject of a major national-security controversy.

The documents released by the White House in August describe a working relationship between Fang and CC Yin, the 89-year-old patriarch of the Yin family, through the Asian Pacific American Public Affairs (APAPA) organization, which he helped establish.

Keep reading

Sunny Hostin Lied About Being Holdout Juror Who Kept Cannibal Out of Prison

Sunny Hostin bragged on Tuesday’s episode of The View that she was the lone holdout who kept Daniel Rakowitz, the Butcher of Tompkins Square Park, out of prison, but it appears that she lied.

People who sat in that room and the papers that quoted them in 1991 describe an unemployed man who liked the $15 a day and the free meals as the lone holdout in the case.

The Post reports:

But 35 years ago, jurors told The Post, Newsday, the Daily News and the Associated Press that the actual holdout was an unemployed man who wanted to keep the trial going so he could continue getting paid by the court for his civic duty.

A law enforcement source from the time also told The Post this week that the holdout was a man.

“He was unemployed and liked the $15 a day and the three free meals,” juror Valerie Holmes told Newsday in the aftermath of the verdict.

“He liked that we were arguing on and on.”

Holmes reiterated the claim to The Post and The Daily News, describing the holdout as being “very determined” and “manipulative” man determined to get his way.

“From day one, this particular person was determined that the jury was going to find Rakowitz not guilty by reason of mental disease,” jury forewoman Lois Markle told the AP at the time.

Meanwhile, Hostin was quoted as a juror on the case in multiple news clips at the time — but she did not identify herself as the holdout, nor did any of the fellow jurors who talked to the press after the trial.

In a statement to Newsday at the time, under her legal name Asunción Cummings, Hostin also contradicted her current claim.

“We had to compromise. But it is obvious to me he butchered the body and he literally got away with murder. He attempted to commit the perfect crime,” Hostin told the paper.

Hostin claimed she was the holdout during a discussion on The View about the Lindsay Clancy mistrial in Massachusetts, where one juror refused an insanity verdict in the case of the mother who brutally strangled her three children to death.

Hostin said she wanted Clancy to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

“The reason I felt so strongly about this holdout juror is because I was a holdout juror in the Daniel Rakowitz case. I don’t know if people remember it, the Butcher of Tompkins Square Park,” Hostin said.

Joy Behar asked, “The guy who ate the victims?”

Alyssa Farah Griffin said, “You got this guy off?!”

“That’s how much I believe in the insanity defense. He fed her body parts to the unhoused,” Hostin explained.

“All that being said, it was so clear to me in the jury room. We were sequestered for nine days. One juror threw a chair at me, they were so angry with me. But, one by one, I picked them off. I said, ‘What about this? What about that?’ We ended up, all 12, unanimously voting that he was not criminally responsible on reason of insanity. He is still in a mental institution being treated. That’s a different type of prison, and he’s being treated because he’s sick.”

Keep reading

Report: U.S. Voters Turning to Chatbots for Election-Related Information

American voters are turning to artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and AI-generated search summaries for election-related information in growing numbers, according to research published in 2026 by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and the AI firms Orchestra and Anthropic.

According to a report by The Hill, the trend spans both dedicated chatbots and AI overviews embedded in search engines. U.S. adult chatbot usage rose from about one-third of adults in 2024 to about 50% in 2026, per a study commissioned by Orchestra [1]. About 650,000 chatbot prompts reviewed by the firm related to politics, the study found, with ChatGPT and Google AI tools the most frequently used sources, according to the research [1].

The shift is drawing scrutiny from election officials and researchers because AI systems can generate answers that are incomplete, outdated or inaccurate, the reports stated. The findings arrive as the 2026 midterm elections approach, with state and local offices preparing for voters who may arrive at the polls with information assembled by automated tools [2].

Use of AI for Political Questions Grows

An analysis by the Anthropic Economic Index found that politics ranked No. 66 out of 189 topics, a level the researchers described as “modest, but still meaningful,” according to the report. In states holding May primaries, political conversations on the platform rose about 20%, according to Anthropic’s Andy Hall and UCLA’s Dan Thompson, who authored the analysis.

“If primaries can lift political AI use this much, November’s midterm elections will likely bring the biggest wave of political AI use on record,” Hall and Thompson wrote. The projection suggests that general-election traffic will exceed the primary-season increase, according to the report.

Max Read of the ISD said AI outputs “are going to be playing an increasing role” as a primary information source and in subtler ways, according to The Hill [2]. The Associated Press reported in a May investigation that AI “can not only rapidly produce targeted campaign emails, texts or videos; it also could be used to mislead voters, impersonate candidates and undermine elections on a scale and at a speed not yet seen,” according to the report [2]. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report ranked misinformation and disinformation as the foremost threat to humanity in its 19th edition, ahead of climate change, the report stated.

Accuracy and Completeness Concerns Persist

An ISD report found that 29% of election-related chatbot replies were incomplete, inaccurate or outdated, according to the report. Errors included misidentifying Election Day dates and citing outdated requirements, the report stated. Another 16% of responses answered correctly but omitted useful details such as deadlines or ID requirements, according to the findings.

Accuracy dropped 16 percentage points when prompts were submitted in Spanish, the report stated. The language gap raises questions about whether AI tools serve voters with limited English proficiency as reliably as English-speaking users, according to the researchers.

Ben Worthen of Orchestra said the growth in people turning to these tools for information questions has been “staggering,” and that Google AI overviews now answer much of what users type into Google. Independent researchers have documented similar patterns across other domains, including public health, where chatbots have generated flawed medical advice according to independent research [3]. A study by the Digital Media Research Center found that AI chatbots often fail to debunk conspiracy theories, instead presenting them as plausible alternatives and engaging in “bothsidesing” by offering false narratives alongside facts without clear refutation [3].

Keep reading

Trump EPA rolls back PFAS protections as 176 million Americans face contaminated tap water

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew Biden-era guidance in August 2026 that had encouraged states to use existing Clean Water Act authority to prevent toxic PFAS chemicals from entering drinking water supplies. The move comes as new EPA data reveals 176 million Americans—4 million more than previously known—drink tap water contaminated by these “forever chemicals.” The rollback affects guidance that directed regulators to require industrial facilities like chemical manufacturers to test wastewater for PFAS and implement cleanup technology. This reversal has alarmed public health advocates, who argue that without federal pressure, many facilities will simply halt voluntary testing and discharge reduction efforts. The guidance withdrawal also removes a critical tool for states trying to curb pollution at its source, before it reaches rivers and reservoirs used for drinking water. Experts warn that this decision effectively shifts the burden of proof and cleanup costs onto local water utilities and taxpayers, rather than the industries that produce and release these persistent toxins.

The scale of contamination

Independent research from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) estimated in 2020 that more than 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their drinking water at concentrations of 1 part per trillion (ppt) or higher—a level that independent scientists and EWG consider the maximum safe threshold. The new EPA data confirms contamination is worsening, with 2,230 locations across 49 states now known to have PFAS contamination. The chemicals have been detected in major metropolitan areas including Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans. Furthermore, a peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters analyzed data from the EPA, U.S. Geological Survey and multiple states, concluding that PFAS are likely detectable in all major U.S. water supplies, especially those using surface water. The study’s lead author emphasized that drinking water remains a significant source of exposure, and that the new findings show PFAS pollution affects even more Americans than previously estimated.

A pattern of regulatory reversal

The August memo represents the third major PFAS rollback under the current administration. In May 2026, the EPA proposed rescinding federal limits for four PFAS chemicals—GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS—that the Biden administration had set in 2024. The agency also abandoned a risk assessment of PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge used as fertilizer, despite its own 2026 analysis finding that even low levels of PFOA and PFOS in sludge could elevate cancer risk. Critics note a troubling disconnect: While the EPA’s own interim safety levels previously acknowledged that “new science” indicates negative health effects may occur with PFOA or PFOS concentrations “near zero,” the agency’s current regulations propose limits considerably higher than what its own scientists deemed safe. This shift, according to advocacy groups like EWG, reflects undue influence from the chemical industry, which continues to fight stringent regulation of the 12,000 PFAS chemicals in commercial use.

Health costs of inaction

PFAS, used since the 1940s in nonstick cookware, food packaging, firefighting foam and countless industrial applications, never break down in the environment—earning them the name “forever chemicals.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found these chemicals in the blood of virtually every American, including newborns. Peer-reviewed studies link very low doses—even below 1 ppt—to suppressed immune systems, elevated cancer risk, reproductive and developmental harm, and reduced effectiveness of medications in children. A 2018 CDC review challenged the EPA’s earlier safety determinations, finding health threats at levels far below what the agency had considered safe. Despite this growing body of evidence, the EPA has only issued an inadequate lifetime health advisory of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, a level many scientists consider dangerously high. With no national drinking water standard currently enforceable, communities remain exposed to a cocktail of toxic chemicals that accumulate in their bodies over a lifetime.

Keep reading

Humanoid Robot Floors Influencer in History-Making MMA Fight

A humanoid robot sent an influencer sprawling in a history-making MMA bout, offering a striking demonstration of how rapidly machines are acquiring the strength, balance, and agility once thought to provide a measure of job security for human workers.

Content creator Frankie LaPenna, 29, faced the 6-foot-tall “Rekbot” in a Sept. 18 bout staged by robotics startup REK and billed as the first human-versus-robot MMA fight.

The widely seen video showed the two trading blows before the Terminator-like machine landed a powerful kick that knocked LaPenna across the ring.

The robot was remotely controlled by a human rather than acting autonomously.

Perhaps more remarkable than the punches and kicks was Rekbot’s ability to recover.

When knocked down or struck off balance, the humanoid could rapidly spring back to its feet, displaying the kind of dynamic balance, coordination, and physical resilience that until recently remained one of robotics’ biggest obstacles.

“We just made history with the first Human VS Terminator robot fight,” REK wrote after the event, saying LaPenna “gave it his all.” The company later teased that Rekbot “wasn’t even the final boss.”

According to a post on X by Rek, Lapenna “kept going and defeated” Rekbot.

The spectacle comes as the debate over automation is expanding beyond artificial intelligence’s potential impact on programmers, writers, accountants, and other white-collar professions.

Generative artificial intelligence itself still has major limitations when physical execution is required, but increasingly sophisticated robotics could give AI something it previously lacked: a capable body.

That transition is already moving from the laboratory to the factory floor. Boston Dynamics says its production-ready Atlas humanoid is designed specifically for industrial work and is being deployed in 2026.

This week, the company opened a facility at Hyundai’s Georgia auto plant where Atlas robots are being trained on real manufacturing tasks, including handling and sequencing automotive parts for assembly.

The implications could eventually extend to jobs once considered comparatively resistant to automation because they demand strength, mobility, endurance, and dexterity.

The World Economic Forum said in its 2025 jobs report that robots and autonomous systems were expected to be the largest net technological job displacer through 2030, with an estimated net reduction of 5 million jobs.

Employers surveyed also expected the importance of “manual dexterity, endurance and precision” to decline as robotics and other technologies automate more physical tasks.

That does not mean humanoids are presently capable of replacing tradespeople broadly, as current systems remain expensive and limited compared with humans operating in unpredictable environments.

But the Rekbot demonstration illustrates how quickly one long-standing technical barrier is eroding.

Machines are no longer merely lifting objects in repetitive motions from fixed positions on assembly lines.

They are increasingly capable of balancing, recovering from falls, and executing complicated whole-body movements as well as making instant decisions in new environments.

The fight was staged as entertainment to promote REK’s virtual-reality robot game.

But the impressive visuals of a machine taking a hit, hitting the floor, and immediately springing back up may prove more consequential than who won the bout, as it shows AI is advancing into cognitive work at the same time that increasingly agile robots are advancing into the physical world.

Keep reading

Ex-Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s Former Bodyguard — the Married Man She Admitted Sleeping With While in Office — Now Faces Felony Charges After Alleged $200,000 Ransacking of Her Home

Former Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s ex-bodyguard and admitted lover is now facing a felony after deputies say he broke into her Cave Creek home, ransacked it, and destroyed more than $200,000 in property.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Sinema admitted in sworn court papers that her relationship with Matthew Ammel, 39, became “romantic and intimate” in May 2024, while she was still serving in the U.S. Senate and while he was still married. She detailed encounters in Sonoma/Napa, New York City, Washington, D.C., Aspen, and Phoenix.

In April, newly released texts showed Ammel’s then-wife, Heather Ammel, confronting Sinema directly: “Are you having an affair with my husband? You took a married man away from his family.”

Heather’s lawsuit accuses Sinema of destroying a 14-year marriage under North Carolina’s alienation-of-affection statute.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in North Carolina denied Sinema’s motion to dismiss, found her testimony “has not been credible” on several points, and allowed the homewrecker case to proceed.

Ammel is a retired Army veteran who joined Sinema’s security detail in 2022. Court records in the North Carolina case describe him as a troubled veteran with brain injuries who struggled after leaving the military.

Sinema’s campaign and related committees paid him more than $100,000 after she left office. His ex-wife has alleged Sinema showered him with gifts, concert tickets, and even encouraged psychedelic drug use.

Keep reading

Awful Democrat Karen Bass Declares California Governor Race is Already Over: ‘A Republican Cannot Win in This State’

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass recently claimed that there is really no need for an election for governor in California because a Republican ‘cannot win’ in the state.

So much for that sacred ‘democracy’ that Democrat are always talking about.

Bass also mocked Republican Steve Hilton’s accent. Isn’t that hateful? Don’t Democrats constantly lecture the rest of the country for not being inclusive enough? This woman is an utter fraud.

PJ Media Reports:

Democrats have spent years warning us that democracy hangs by a thread every time Americans head to the polls, and Democrats are the party that is protecting it.

Well, somebody forgot to tell Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, because she just declared California’s governor’s race over, and that an election isn’t necessary.

Bass sat down with former ESPN personalities Jemele Hill and Cari Champion on the Flagrant and Funny podcast to talk about her reelection campaign, her runoff, and the Palisades and Altadena fires. During that conversation, Bass revealed what Democrats really think about “our democracy.”

“That’s why the governor’s race is over. Our governor’s name is Xavier Becerra,” Bass said. “You don’t need an election on November 3. A Republican cannot win in this state.”

Then she took a shot at Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, the British-born former Fox News host. “And yet, a Republican with a British accent?!” she added.

Keep reading

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court’s October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons in out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins).

A recent column from Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again. The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases. Here is the portion that I wanted to address:

The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently. Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms” left undisturbed, part III said “we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns). I add emphasis on “at the time,” because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this “important limitation.”

As the solicitor general’s brief notes, “the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956,” and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the “most commonly owned rifle[] in America” today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use “at the time” the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Indeed, as the SG’s brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general’s Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s “are in common use” today (again, my emphasis). This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing “were” to “are”) – an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh’s 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011. Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say.

As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller.

Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way…Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court).

Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases.

I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as “earth-shattering.” I do not.

I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in “changing ‘were’ to ‘are.'”

This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word “were.”

Keep reading

OH GREAT: Los Angeles is Now Reporting an Outbreak of TYPHUS

The city of Los Angeles is now reporting an outbreak of the disease Typhus. It is connected to fleas on rats which are flourishing in the city’s numerous homeless encampments.

California has the highest tax rate in the country. Why? What do people get for paying such high taxes? They get preventable diseases because their leaders are worthless.

There’s really no excuse for this at all.

NBC News in Los Angeles reports:

Flea-borne typhus rising in LA County with latest case reported in Wilshire Center

Typhus, a flea-borne bacterial disease, is on the rise in Los Angeles County, with the latest localized case reported in the Wilshire Center neighborhood, public health officials said Tuesday.

The disease is spread to humans by infected fleas that commonly live on rats, opossums, stray cats and other animals. Common symptoms include headaches, chills, muscle aches and rash.

The Wilshire Center case is the second localized typhus outbreak this year, according to the LA County Department of Public Health.

There were at least seven symptomatic cases linked to the outbreak, health officials said. Six of the seven patients had to be hospitalized at one point. All have recovered, the department said.

So far this year, 109 flea-borne typhus cases have been reported in Los Angeles County.

Keep reading

Senate Panel Rejects Immunity For Ex-Fauci Aide

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected on Sept. 23 a bid to seek immunity for a longtime special assistant to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The vote on a resolution authorizing an application for a court order compelling testimony under immunity from the assistant, who was not identified, fell short of the required two-thirds of members.

All eight Republicans, but no Democrats, voted in favor. Two Democrats would have had to cross the aisle for the resolution to be approved.

Fauci, 85, headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022.

He refused to answer questions before the panel earlier in the year, citing the Fifth Amendment, prompting the committee to refer him for contempt of Congress to federal prosecutors.

The Department of Justice has not charged Fauci with any crimes.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the female assistant worked for Fauci from 2007 to 2022, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the committee’s chairman.

He said her position “placed her in the flow of communications directly relevant to our investigation” into Fauci.

She recently appeared behind closed doors before the committee and invoked the Fifth Amendment, or her right against self-incrimination.

The questions senators want answered primarily deal with the destruction of government records, Paul said. A doctor who was a longtime adviser to Fauci recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to delete government records. Fauci has directed subordinates to delete emails.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who voted against the resolution, said before the vote that senators should pursue a “good-faith bipartisan approach to obtain this information” rather than rush to approve the resolution.

Republicans expressed frustration and anger that only Hassan among Democratic panel members was present during the meeting.

“I come from the private sector. To not show up to a meeting, to say ‘I refuse to do my job,’ is something that only happens in politics,” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) said.

“That is outrageous.”

After the vote, Paul said:

“A majority of the committee voted to seek the truth. All Republicans voted to seek the truth. We voted to protect this witness and hear her story. All we needed was two Democrats who wanted to hear her story, but not a single one of them is interested in the investigation or the truth about destruction of federal records.”

Hassan said that was a mischaracterization of the Democrats’ position.

Paul said he would be sending a letter to the Department of Justice requesting pursuit of the matter, and said his committee’s investigation into government record destruction will continue.

Keep reading