Blog

Texas Is Sued Over Digital ID Age Verification Bill

A major technology association is suing the State of Texas over a new law that threatens both privacy and free expression.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2420, which is set to take effect on January 1, 2026.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The group argues that the law forces both app stores and developers to impose invasive ID age checks, obtain parental consent, and label content in state-approved ways that violate the First Amendment.

Under SB 2420, anyone with an app store account would need to complete an age-verification process before downloading or updating applications.

If an app store determines that a user is under 18, that user would be blocked from downloading most apps or making in-app purchases unless a parent gives consent and assumes control of the account.

Minors who cannot link their profiles to a parent or guardian would lose access to app store content entirely.

App developers would also face new rules.

They must classify their apps into multiple age categories and provide written explanations for each rating. Every update, feature addition, or design change would require written notice to the app store.

CCIA says these mandates compel developers to describe their products in ways dictated by the state and pressure companies to collect personal data that users should not have to disclose.

Keep reading

Senate Candidate Returns AIPAC Money As Pro-Israel Group Becomes Political Poison

In the latest indication that the war in Gaza is significantly threatening Israel’s dominance over American politics, a sitting US congressman and Senate hopeful has announced he’s returning donations received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and refusing to accept any more.   

“In recent years, AIPAC has aligned itself too closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton on Thursday, one day after announcing he was launching a primary challenge against incumbent Dem Senator Edward Markey.

“I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission today is to back that government…I don’t support that direction. That’s why I’ve decided to return the donations I’ve received and will not be accepting their support.” 

Moulton will refund $35,000 that he’s received from AIPAC. 

AIPAC quickly lashed out at its estranged beneficiary.

 “Moulton is abandoning his friends to grab a headline, capitulating to the extremes rather than standing on conviction,” the group wrote on X.

“His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them.”

AIPAC has long been regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in US politics. Historically, politicians from both parties have been eager to accept AIPAC money – and quick to accept AIPAC’s voting instructions.  Similarly, they’ve been fearful of incurring the group’s wrath, which could quickly turn into a potent primary challenge. In 2024, AIPAC and allied pro-Israel groups spent enormous sums in successful efforts to oust New York Dem. Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Missouri Dem. Rep. Cori Bush. AIPAC’s $15 million spent against Bowman helped make that race the most expensive House primary in US history.  

However, in a political earthquake emanating from Israel’s staggering destruction of Gaza with US-supplied weapons, AIPAC now finds its position in American politics wobbling like never before, as citizens across the political spectrum demonstrate growing unease with Israel’s influence over politicians and policy. Increasingly, both Republicans and Democrats find themselves under fire for accepting AIPAC money.

Keep reading

Bipartisan senators to force vote blocking ‘unauthorized war’ in Venezuela

A group of bipartisan senators will force a vote on a War Powers Resolution to block the use of force by American troops within or against Venezuela after President Trump raised the possibility of attacks against Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

The measure is being led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are co-sponsors. 

Trump said Wednesday he had authorized the CIA to carry out covert operations inside Venezuela, saying he was focused on “land” operations and raising the specter the president is looking to remove Maduro from power.  

“The American people do not want to be dragged into endless war with Venezuela without public debate or a vote. We ought to defend what the Constitution demands: deliberation before war,” Paul said in a statement. 

The effort marks the second time senators have sought to block Trump’s buildup of force in the Caribbean Sea. A vote on a War Powers Resolution last week failed 48-51, although it garnered support from Paul and one other Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

“Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” Kaine said in a statement. 

“If my colleagues disagree and think a war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to meet their constitutional obligations by making their case to the American people and passing an Authorization for Use of Military Force. I urge every senator to join us in stopping this Administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict.”

Keep reading

Despite Headlines, There Is No Reduction in Voting Rights

Liberals and Democrats are claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make a ruling that will restrict voting rights because race will no longer be considered in districting.

This is false.

Under the U.S. Constitution, all adults aged 18 and over have the right to vote, and they will continue to have that right. No ruling or policy under consideration eliminates or limits that constitutional guarantee.

What critics are truly upset about is that race will no longer be used to determine electoral districting. The Trump administration argued that race had been overemphasized in the process, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The move aims to ensure that district boundaries are drawn based on population and geography, not racial calculations.

This debate, and the exaggerated claims that someone is losing their rights, reveal a deeper divide between the two parties. Republicans argue that equality means the same rules for everyone, regardless of race. Democrats, on the other hand, insist that equality requires different rules for different groups based on race

The Supreme Court appeared inclined to further restrict the use of race in redistricting. During recent arguments, conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether race-based remedies should continue indefinitely, suggesting that the Court may soon impose new limits on when race can factor into drawing congressional maps.

The Court’s three liberal justices, however, warned that weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would effectively dismantle the law and reduce minority representation in Congress.

Democrats argue that Section 2 is essential for protecting minority voting rights and warn that a conservative victory in the current Louisiana case could trigger widespread redistricting. They claim this would reduce the number of minority-held seats, particularly across the South.

However, the United States does not have a quota system, and no congressional seats are specifically designated as “minority seats.” Fair, race-neutral voting would simply result in all seats being awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of race.

The Court’s decision, expected by mid-2026, could mark another major rollback of federal race-based policies, following the 2013 elimination of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Democrats claim that minority “voting power” or “electoral influence,” will be diluted. The Act prohibits voting practices that “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race.” Over time, courts have interpreted “abridge” to include not only preventing people from voting but also drawing district lines that intentionally dilute minority voting strength. Democrats argue that the Act ensures the right for every vote to carry equal weight and influence.

Keep reading

FDR’s “Four Policemen”: The Globalist Blueprint for Endless War and American Subjugation

It is time to expose the truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s so-called Four Policemen plan — a sinister scheme concocted by the globalist cabal surrounding the 32nd president to permanently shackle the United States to a role of international enforcer in a world government order. Far from being a noble vision for peace, FDR’s “Four Policemen” was the original blueprint for what would become the United Nations — an unelected, unaccountable body of internationalists dedicated not to liberty, but to global control.

In the midst of the Second World War, even before the guns fell silent, Roosevelt and his cadre of globalist advisors — including Soviet sympathizers such as Alger Hiss — were laying the foundation for a postwar “New World Order.” The heart of this plan was what FDR euphemistically called the “Four Policemen”: the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China. These four powers, according to Roosevelt, would act as the guardians of peace, responsible for policing the globe and suppressing any acts of aggression through military might.

Let that sink in: Roosevelt — hailed by modern progressives as a champion of democracy — openly proposed that a small clique of global superpowers should wield exclusive authority to intervene in the affairs of nations, impose sanctions, deploy military force, and determine which conflicts were worthy of attention. Sovereignty? An outdated relic. Consent of the governed? Irrelevant. In FDR’s globalist gospel, only the self-anointed “policemen” mattered.

Keep reading

Letitia James’ criminal kin have been charged 11 times in 5 years — but keep getting off easy

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ troubled grandnieces have been charged with a combined eight felonies and three misdemeanors in the past five years — but had their charges downgraded or dropped every time.

The women live in James’ Norfolk, Va., homes, which have been the subject of intense federal scrutiny in recent months over mortgage documents James signed — including a federal criminal indictment that has New York’s top law enforcer facing 60 years in federal prison.

Cayla Thompson-Hairston, 21, an OnlyFans model with an X-rated social media presence, was hit with felony charges in April 2024 for allegedly lying about having a felony criminal record when she tried to buy a gun in Suffolk, Va., according to court documents.

Cops said she was barred from owning a handgun due to a juvenile felony charge of malicious wounding in August 2020.

However, the weapons charges were later dropped entirely.

Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney Ramin Fatehi, a Democrat, said prosecutors later learned the juvenile charges were pleaded down to a misdemeanor.

Suffolk Commonwealth’s Attorney Narendra Pleas, also a Democrat, did not respond to The Post’s request for clarification on why she dropped the charges.

One legal observer said it was concerning that the charges were dropped entirely — particularly in light of Thompson-Hairston’s violent criminal history.

Keep reading

Secret military files of NATO state dumped at landfill – media

Hundreds of pages of sensitive Polish military documents, including secret papers pertaining to weapons, evacuations, and warehouse blueprints, were found dumped at a landfill, according to an investigation published by the news outlet Onet on Thursday.

The scandal surfaced just over a month after Warsaw pledged to outspend all other NATO states, allocating 4.8% of GDP to its army next year. EU governments have increasingly pushed for military buildups, citing an alleged threat from Russia – claims that Moscow has dismissed.

The Polish military denied the report, instead accusing the outlet of holding unauthorized copies of the documents, and insisting the originals were properly archived or destroyed, Onet wrote.

According to the outlet, an individual handed over the documents after finding them in torn plastic bags at a landfill. While some of the documents were shredded, many were intact and marked “restricted,” it wrote.

Keep reading

You Are the Carbon They Want to Reduce: Sandwiches in the UK Now Come With a Daily Carbon Allowance Score

It took only about 80 years for the UK to go from “Keep Calm and Carry On” to full-blown Orwellian Big Brother. The nation plans to institute a digital ID to “help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies.”

What it is, really, is a backdoor way to have control over every aspect of the lives of everyday Britons, including what they eat.

Case in point, food in the UK is now labeled with how much of someone’s “daily dietary carbon allowance” is used up by eating that item.

A sandwich is 8.1% of our “daily allowance.”

The score will be attached to digital IDs. The Left has made it very clear they want to limit what, and how much, we eat in order to “save the planet.”

This is a great way to do that.

Those same Leftists will, of course, be exempt from such rules.

Keep reading

Newsom Vetoes Digital Censorship Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom managed to get something right. He just vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to sue social-media companies on the subjective and dubious basis of “hate speech.”

Newsom vetoed SB 771 on Monday, the last day he had to act. The legislature sent him the bill on September 22. If Newsom wouldn’t have rejected it, it would have become law anyway.

The governor called the bill “premature” in a short statement attempting to explain his decision. He said:

“I likewise share the author’s concern about the growth of discriminatory threats, violence, and coercive harassment online. I am concerned, however, that this bill is premature. Our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetrated through algorithms.”

The Bill

The bill would have allowed people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant was a minor, the fine could’ve doubled.

However, critics suspected the proposal’s main goal was to coerce social-media companies into implementing censorious algorithms like the ones they did during the height of the Covid era. It was designed to pre-censor, to create an digital environment where certain views were forbidden.

The proposal included subjective and vague justifications for litigation. As we pointed out in a previous report, it included the feeling of “intimidation” as grounds for suing. In the United Kingdom, officers have justified arresting people for over social-media posts that caused others “anxiety.” It’s not hard to see that’s what SB 771 could’ve opened up.

Opposition and Support

The bill had strong opposition, including from NetChoice, the tech trade group made up of Google, Meta, and Snap. Elon Musk’s X and Parler also opposed it. Among the arguments they made was that SB 771 would have violated First Amendment protections.

Right-leaning pundits also bashed the proposal for its totalitarian potential. Tucker Carlson framed it as an attempt by California’s ruling class to quash online criticism of the policies that have destroyed the most populous and beautiful state in the Union. The proposal designated a protected class that would have censored those who spoke out against illegal immigration, the deviancy of the LGBTQ mob, and critics of Islam or Israel.  

On the other hand, George Soros’ Center for Countering Digital Hate was sold on the bill, the propagandists in the mainstream media did their best to frame it as nothing more than digital companion to already existing civil-rights protection law, and more than a dozen Jewish organizations supported it as well, according to reports.

Newsom’s Motivation

Newsom made a rare and good decision here. But it’s unlikely his intentions were well-motivated. After all, he did just sign a bill to create a reparations-administration agency.  

A common suspicion is that Newsom was hardly concerned about free speech and likely more worried about having to embark on future political campaigns without financial support from the tech gurus who’ve dumped millions into his previous campaigns, including executives from Google and Meta.

Whatever his motivation, the bottom line is that this is good news for Californians and anyone who believes that the digital world should be open to all ideas, not just those approved by the elites. As we pointed out in a previous report on this bill, social media, despite its many faults and foibles, has “democratized” the flow of information and loosened the elites’ long-held grip on the narrative. This is a major reason there have been so many efforts to restrict online speech. If you want to see what the goal for the United States is, just look at various parts of Europe. The European Union is bullying member states to muzzle their citizens and creating laws to target American tech companies that provide the platforms to exchange ideas that threaten the international oligarch class.

Keep reading

California Court Blocks Trump Admin’s Access to SNAP Recipients’ Data

A San Francisco district court temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Oct. 15 from accessing information about food stamp recipients in several states.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit jointly with 20 other states against the USDA in July, alleging the agency violated several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution by asking for detailed information about Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients.

“The Trump Administration can try all it wants to strong arm states into illegally handing over data, but we know the rule of law is on our side,” Bonta said in a statement.

“We will continue to vigorously litigate this lawsuit and defend our communities, protect privacy, and ensure that remains a tool for fighting hunger—not a weapon for political targeting.”

The USDA has threatened to cut off some federal funding to states that don’t hand over SNAP data.

California receives more than $1 billion a year to administer the program.

Keep reading