Georgia’s “Historic” Youngest Mayor Ousted After Just 10 Months Following Alleged Taxpayer-Funded Spending Spree and Sexually Suggestive Messages With 18-Year-Old Student

Ten months. That is how long it took for Georgia’s youngest elected mayor, a media-anointed “historic” figure who once called himself “the Obama of my family,” to be thrown out of office.

Jayden Williams, 23, was removed Saturday by the Stockbridge City Council after a roughly 10-hour investigative hearing into allegations that he treated the city purchasing card like a personal wallet and traded sexually suggestive messages and explicit images with an 18-year-old male high school student.

The city confirmed the result on Sunday.

“The City of Stockbridge confirms that the City Council has taken formal action concerning the Office of Mayor following proceedings conducted pursuant to applicable City processes,” officials said. “As a result of that action, the Mayor has been removed from office.”

Mayor Pro Tem Elton Alexander is now acting mayor while the city prepares a special election. Williams can appeal to Henry County Superior Court. No criminal charges have been filed.

City workers flagged unusual charges and alerted management and the city attorney. An independent law-firm investigation followed. Local outlets including Atlanta News First and Fox News have reported the alleged personal burn on the municipal purchasing card at more than $4,000, restaurants, clothing, a haircut, a movie, plus about $2,600 in fuel and personal use of a city vehicle.

Keep reading

Bipartisan House Bill Would Ban Social Media Accounts For Under 16s

Two US House of Representatives members, one from each of the dominant parties, have introduced a bill to ban under-16s from having accounts on “addictive” social media.

And if an account is discovered to belong to an under-16, the proposal, dubbed the 16 & Up Social Media Act, seeks to cut them off from their online speech, by having the account terminated.

The bill was introduced by Erin Houchin, a Republican from Indiana, and Jake Auchincloss, a Democrat from Massachusetts, on September 11, 2026, and has the support of psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who said that the goal is “to stop addictive design entirely.”

The bill covers services that are available to the general public, have searchable and followable usernames, and where user generated content is the primary purpose. These platforms must also allow users to share content, have features that promote engagement, and use personal information for advertising, marketing, or recommendations.

Specific features that are targeted include infinite scroll, autoplay, push alerts, usage-based badges, and personalized recommendations.

As for the way the bill seeks to achieve its goal, it would require companies to “know” a user is under 16, and delete that account. But on page 11, the text states that “knows” means “to know or should have known.”

That opens the door to pressuring companies to investigate the age of their users, or shut them out if there’s doubt. Adults who are flagged would then have to challenge the decision. The bill does not explicitly require government ID uploads for every user, nor does it prescribe a specific age-checking technology.

The bill would have to be passed and then have its provisions come into force in order to start affecting users and companies, but if that happens, existing accounts would have to be identified within 60 days of enactment, users notified within 180 days of enactment, and accounts removed within 30 days of that notification.

Keep reading

Rep. Thomas Massie Introduces Resolution To Impeach Pete Hegseth Over Iran War, Civilian Casualties

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Tuesday introduced a resolution to impeach Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, referred to by the Trump administration as the Secretary of War, for “high crimes and misdemeanors” over the war with Iran and other unauthorized conflicts, military operations, and large numbers of civilian casualties that he has overseen.

Massie unveiled eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth, which he read on the House floor, and a vote is expected Thursday. Among the charges, Massie said that Hegseth is in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act by continuing the war with Iran without congressional authorization, which is outlined in the first three articles of impeachment.

“By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable,” Massie said in a press release on the impeachment effort.

“Secretary Hegseth’s constitutional violations extend beyond the illegal war in Iran. He is abusing the power of his office to ignore congressional war powers resolutions, to kidnap foreign leaders, and to intimidate critics of the Trump administration by retaliating against them for exercising free speech. If we are to remain true to our oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ Congress must not turn a blind eye to Secretary Hegseth’s unconstitutional and illegal actions,” Massie added.

Keep reading

Trump calls AI risks a ‘hoax,’ says there is a ‘SICK conspiracy’ against AI and data centers

President Donald Trump said Monday that he would be a sufficient guardrail against rogue artificial intelligence, claiming that any efforts to limit the technology is part of a “SICK conspiracy.”

Trump was pushing back against calls by tech leaders such as Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Elon Musk to have greater government oversight of AI. Many tech leaders generally say their goal is to develop the technology in ways that promote safety, address legal liability, feed economic growth, advance science and preserve national security.

The president maintained that his presence in the Oval Office should assuage any fears about AI, which has become a source of controversy after a series of hacks in recent months that showed AI agents could be working to deceive humans.

“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” Trump posted on social media.

Trump specifically said that the administration has already stopped the AI company Anthropic “from doing bad, or potentially bad” things. Anthropic has endured an uncomfortable relationship with the Trump administration, with the Pentagon trying to label the company a security risk and the government issuing a temporary ban of one of its more advanced models.

The president went even further in a Monday afternoon post that asked “when, in the History of Business, did anyone see the Leaders of an Industry call for Regulation that, if strongly implemented, will drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy?”

The president then added that the potential threat that AI could pose to humanity was a hoax, despite clear warnings by many of the experts closest to the most advanced models.

“AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX,” posted Trump.

Trump’s refusal to regulate comes as AI execs warn of threats

Amodei, the Anthropic CEO, published a 3,800-word essay on Saturday that called for slower development of AI. Microsoft on Monday published its own code of conduct to ensure that humans control AI. The actions come after a series of warnings by AI experts about the technologies’ capabilities and the July 2026 cyberattack by OpenAI models on the AI company Hugging Face.

Amodei cited “AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI” and the cyberattack by the swarm of OpenAI agents as reasons to slow the pace of development.

“Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet,” Amodei wrote, adding that the damages could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars or more “without the necessary guardrails.”

Altman of OpenAI seconded that perspective in a weekend post on social media.

“Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring,” Altman said. “Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination.”

Trump sees AI regulation as helping China

The president has opposed such efforts to constrain AI and claims that doing so could cause China to eclipse America on AI.

“There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China,” Trump said.

The president has long resisted efforts for greater government oversight of AI, embracing his philosophy going back to 2016 of “I alone can fix it.” He returned to the White House last year by revoking a Biden administration executive order on AI oversight and only providing a fuller order of his own more than 16 months later this past June.

The prospect of slower AI buildout led stocks to slip in Monday morning trading, as demand for advanced computer chips and construction materials for data centers could fall. But Trump’s frustration comes as AI has also emerged as a political liability ahead of November’s midterm elections, with many voters opposing the construction of additional data centers and expressing worries that AI could lead to job losses and undermine the education of children.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters on Monday that he expects Trump will have the AI companies potentially meet at the White House this week or next week, saying that the sit-down has yet to be scheduled.

“There will be a deliberate discussion about the responsibility of the companies to maintain safety, and what role, if any, the government has to play in that,” said Johnson, adding that legislatures can tend to respond problematically with “red tape and hyper regulation” and that the loss of competitive edge on AI would be a national security concern.

Keep reading

“I Wouldn’t Do That to People” – Gavin Newsom Says He Won’t Run for President if Kamala Harris Runs During Fly Fishing Outing with Jake Tapper

California Governor Gavin Newsom dismissed speculation of a 2028 bid for the White House in a CNN interview on Monday. 

Holding fly rods, knee-deep in the Bitterroot River in Montana, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Newsom discussed the 2028 election, with Newsom saying he “would never” have usurped Biden in the 2024 election and he wouldn’t challenge Kamala if she tries to run again.

Newsom was calmly dismissing his White House ambitions while fly fishing in Montana with Jake Tapper, in an obvious appeal to voters.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” he said, adding that he “wouldn’t do that to her” or “waste everyone’s time.”

“Electorally, it’s a gift from God for everybody else. They’d enjoy the hell out of it, mutually assured destruction. It services no greater good,” he said of a primary race with the ex-VP and himself.

Tapper noted that “she had a shot, and you’ve never run, and she’s run twice,” which Newsom agreed with, calling it a “good” case to make.

However, Newsom said, “I wouldn’t do that to people,” noting the “pure crossover” between his and her base of supporters, friends, and donors.

Keep reading

Pete Buttigieg Says Democrats Have to Pack the Supreme Court Because it’s too Partisan

Former Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and explained that Democrats have to pack the U.S. Supreme Court, because it’s just too partisan.

This is one of those complaints that Democrats only make now. When the court had a liberal majority for years, there were no concerns about partisanship, only now is this suddenly an issue.

The Daily Wire has more details:

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg argued Sunday that the Supreme Court has become dangerously partisan — then proposed a fix that would require Congress to add six justices widely expected to lean in his own party’s favor, during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Buttigieg told host Kristen Welker that the court has come to look like a “nakedly partisan institution” and calling for six additional justices to be added to the current nine-member bench — a bigger expansion than he has previously floated.

“It has become a nakedly partisan institution,” he said. “And I want to be clear. The idea is not to just add justices for its own sake. The idea is to reform the institution, to make it less partisan.”

The comments extend a message Buttigieg has delivered repeatedly since at least July, when he told Fox News that public confidence in the court had fallen to what he called the lowest point in its history, and proposed a package of changes including term limits for justices and a “balanced bench” selection process meant to reduce political influence over appointments. At that time, Buttigieg said he favored expanding the court from nine seats to 13, a number he said should match what he called “the number of districts” in the federal system. In fact, the federal judiciary has 94 judicial districts; the number 13 refers to the appellate circuits, not districts — an error critics flagged after his July remarks.

Keep reading

Fatal Alliance: The Reality of the US-Israel Axis

To examine the unyielding multi-billionaire dollar shield that the United States provides Israel is to confront the coarse mechanics of modern empire.

Washington has, for decades, maintained a posture of absolute defense, supplying advanced weaponry, providing diplomatic immunity, and rationalizing actions that human rights organizations and international courts characterize as war crimes, apartheid and genocide.

The mainstream narrative has relentlessly framed the U.S.-Israel alliance through the comforting lens of shared democratic values and mutual defense. This rendering, however, crumbles under the weight of reality.  Nothing has dissuaded Washington from its entente with and acquiescence to Israel – not the regime’s racist policies; not even genocide.

Every U.S. administration has backed its brutal regimes, because they have buttressed American power and interests in the Middle East. This fatal alignment evokes the question: what exactly is Israel’s role, and whose interests are being served?

Israel has long functioned as an imperial agent for Western powers seeking  regional dominance. Initially, the British Empire was crucial in helping its Zionist proxies secure a foothold in Palestine during and after World War I. In the mid-20th century, the United States seized the geopolitical mantle from Britain, taking control of the resource-rich region and becoming Israel’s primary benefactor.

Since the 1950s, Washington has viewed the Middle East – a vital nexus of global energy routes, trade corridors and geopolitical leverage – through the lens of dominance and resource control.

Lacking permanent colonial possessions in the heart of the Islamic world, Washington engineered an alternative: a heavily subsidized, fortified and technologically advanced military outpost. For the Pentagon and State Department, Israel has functioned as an unsinkable aircraft carrier; a military stronghold to project force, suppress independent anti-colonial movements, and to act as a counterweight to Iranian regional influence.

The Washington-Tel Aviv partnership is reinforced by the military-industrial economy of the United States that thrives on perpetual conflict to drive demand.

Defense spending fuels the domestic economy. The billions in military aid funneled to Israel are, in practice, massive subsidies paid directly to U.S defense conglomerates like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. U.S.-Israeli wars have contributed substantially to the financial survival of these industries.

Occupied Gaza and the West Bank have long served as testing laboratories for advanced weaponry, surveillance technology and crowd-control systems.

Surveillance and weapons systems that have been battle-tested on captive civilian populations are subsequently marketed globally as “combat proven.”

This multi-billion-dollar defense network closely connects the interests of the U.S. military sector with the continuation of Israel’s military operations.  It also ensures fierce bipartisan resistance in Washington to any meaningful arms embargo or policy shifts, since almost every congressional district in the country is tied in some way to the defense industry.

American politicians aggressively safeguard Israeli “exceptionalism” and fiercely buffer it from accountability.  Robust networks of well-financed lobbying groups, political action committees and institutional gatekeepers ensure that unwavering support for Israel is a requisite for political survival in Washington.

When elected officials dissent from established foreign policy positions or condemn the slaughter of civilians, they become the targets of well-funded, organized efforts to end their political careers.  As a result, domestic priorities are sidelined as Congress aligns itself with a powerful military lobby rather than the American public; a growing majority of whom oppose unconditional foreign military aid.

At its core, the relationship between Israel and the United States is rooted in a shared historical consciousness and legacy.  Both countries developed as settler-colonial states built upon the systemic erasure, confinement and dispossession of native populations.

Allegations of apartheid, genocidal violence, and systemic racism leveled against Israel deeply resonate within the American political landscape, mirroring its own foundational legacy.

U.S. policymakers connect Israel’s regional supremacy directly to the preservation of Western influence and global dominance. Racism is not a mistake in the alliance; it is a core function.  It ensures that non-Western, non-white casualties are viewed as dispensable; essentially acceptable “collateral damage” in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives.

America’s alignment with Israel is a product of strategic utility, not moral blindness.  Washington’s defense of Tel Aviv’s brutal policies exposes the vacuity of Western rhetoric around human rights, international law and democracy. When imperial power, corporate profit and geopolitical dominance are threatened, universal human rights are treated as entirely disposable.

The “indispensable ally” narrative is foundering, as is the U.S. imperium.  Israel’s U.S.-subsidized genocide and devastating wars on Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran have sparked intense global outrage and blowback, signaling the beginning of the end of American global dominance.

History will record that when major powers rely on the blunt instrument of war to “manage” a complex world – rather than to live in it as one among equals – they ultimately subvert the stability they claim to protect.

Keep reading

NYC and 21 states file federal suit over proposed changes to green card eligibility

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a pair of federal lawsuits attempting to block the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce self-sufficiency requirements for immigrants seeking permanent residency.

_________________________________________________________________________

Those applying for a Green Card or Visa – Primary Target

The public charge rule directly affects non-citizens who are currently in the U.S. legally on temporary visas (work visas, student visas, temporary statuses) or applying for green cards/visa adjustments from abroad.

If federal officers determine they are likely to rely on government benefits, their green card or visa application can be denied.

Current Green Card Holders – Secondary Target

Once a person already has a green card, utilizing public benefits generally does not jeopardize their status or lead to deportation. However, the rule can impact them if they leave the U.S. for more than 180 consecutive days and try to re-enter, as they are treated like new applicants subject to admissibility checks upon return.

_________________________________________________________________________

The legal challenges target the GOP administration’s updated “public charge” rule — a policy taking effect September 18th that directs immigration officials to evaluate whether non-citizen visa and green card applicants are likely to become dependent on taxpayer-funded government aid, including Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.

Joined by local officials from liberal jurisdictions including Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle, alongside a coalition of 21 Democrat state attorneys general (AGs), the lawsuits argue that the administration “exceeded its authority” by broadening the criteria used to evaluate financial independence.

The left-wing plaintiffs allege that assessing non-cash benefit usage creates unnecessary confusion. During a press conference, Mayor Mamdani criticized the Trump administration’s policy, arguing it would deter immigrant families from utilizing city-provided services and lead to higher long-term healthcare costs for municipal governments.

However, the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) firmly defended the measure as a lawful, common-sense enforcement of longstanding immigration principles designed to safeguard federal resources.

Federal officials dismissed the local and state lawsuits as politically motivated attempts by sanctuary city leaders to preserve non-citizen access to costly public entitlement programs.

Defending the policy, a DHS spokesperson stressed that the GOP administration is committed to safeguarding taxpayer dollars, asserting that U.S. immigration laws must prioritize self-reliant applicants rather than foreign nationals seeking to live off government assistance.

Ensuring that immigrants remain self-reliant has been a fundamental tenet of U.S. immigration law for generations, they added, expressing confidence that federal courts will uphold the rule against the state and municipal challenges.

Keep reading

Democrat Nominee for GA Governor Keisha Lance Bottoms: Black Women Conditioned into ‘Post-Traumatic Slave Mentality’

Black women are conditioned into a “post-traumatic slave mentality,” Democratic nominee for Georgia governor Keisha Lance Bottoms claims.

Speaking during the women’s event Radiant Conversations, Bottoms said, “As black women, we are conditioned. Girl, you can’t depend on anybody else. If you don’t do it for yourself, ain’t nobody else gonna do it for you.”

“And in many ways, that is a post-traumatic slave mentality,” Bottoms claimed. “That it is – it is not just on our backs. That this is a burden that we can all carry. It’s a win for all of us. And so it is just remembering that this is a sisterhood, that this is about community. It’s not about going fast.”

Bottoms continued: “It’s about taking others with you, and I’m just – I’m so grateful to have learned those lessons and to be able to apply them in this season.”

Bottoms, the former mayor of Atlanta and former senior advisor to former President Joe Biden, is hoping to become the Peach State’s next governor and has stated she will put President Donald Trump up to Biden’s record, asserting the former president “delivered” for Georgia.

“I will put Biden up against Trump’s record any day of the week, especially in the way he delivered for Georgia,” she said during an appearance on CNN’s OutFront.

She continued, adding, “The people of Georgia are talking about the cost of living. They’re talking about grocery costs. They’re talking about healthcare costs, 500,000 people in this state opted not to get healthcare after the big, ugly bill. Those are the things that people care about.”

Notably, Bottoms made her anti-Trump position abundantly clear when she announced her intention to run for governor in Georgia, deeming the commander-in-chief a “disaster for our economy and our country — from his failure to address rising prices to giving an unelected billionaire the power to cut Medicare and Social Security.”

“Donald Trump is no laughing matter,” she said. “Well, My grandmama taught me, no matter how hard they swing you never stay down. You fight back. That’s why I’m running for governor, because Georgia families deserve far better than what Donald Trump and Republicans are giving us.”

Keep reading

PA Dem Candidate Condemns Voter ID, Then Demands It at His Own Campaign Event

Pennsylvania Democrat congressional nominee Bob Brooks opposes voter identification requirements for elections, but his campaign apparently has a different standard when controlling admission to its own events.

Brooks required attendees to present identification, and campaign staff reportedly denied entry to at least one person seeking to attend.

The episode offers voters another striking example of Democrat hypocrisy surrounding basic election security.

Identification is portrayed as sinister when citizens cast ballots, yet it suddenly becomes reasonable when Democrat campaigns want to know exactly who is entering the room.

Brooks is running in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District, where he hopes to unseat Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie.

The district is expected to host one of the most closely watched and competitive House contests of the 2026 election cycle.

The Democrat nominee has collected endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Those endorsements place Brooks firmly inside the national progressive operation, even as he attempts to appeal to Pennsylvania voters concerned about costs, public safety, and election integrity.

Keep reading