Author name: LifeZette

James Talarico Crumbles When Confronted Over Vote Against Permanent Texas Income Tax Ban [WATCH]
News

James Talarico Crumbles When Confronted Over Vote Against Permanent Texas Income Tax Ban [WATCH]

/

Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico found himself cornered during a CBS Texas interview when confronted about his 2019 vote against permanently banning a state income tax.

What followed was a strained attempt to explain away a legislative record that Republicans are now putting under a bright spotlight.

CBS Texas reporter Jack Fink raised the issue directly, noting that Republicans have attacked Talarico for opposing the proposed ban while serving in the Texas Legislature.

Fink asked the obvious question voters deserve to have answered, “Why did you do that?”

Talarico initially claimed he voted against the measure because a Texas income tax was “already banned,” suggesting the proposal was unnecessary.

That explanation did not survive even the first follow up question.

Fink quickly reminded him, “This would have banned it permanently.”

The distinction matters because the proposal was designed to make any future effort to impose a state income tax considerably more difficult.

The measure raised the legislative threshold by requiring approval from two thirds of both chambers before an income tax could be imposed.

It passed the Texas House and Senate before Texas voters approved it on the November 2019 ballot.

Faced with that record, Talarico shifted from claiming the tax was already banned to attacking the proposal itself.

He labeled the Republican effort “duplicative government overreach at its worst,” an extraordinary description for a measure intended to protect Texans from another layer of taxation.

Talarico also accused Republicans of “trying to grandstand on an issue.”

Apparently, giving voters the final say on permanently blocking a state income tax qualifies as political theater when Democrats are forced to defend voting against it.

His answer soon became the kind of word salad politicians serve when a clean explanation is unavailable.

Talarico insisted the legislation “did nothing,” even though it strengthened the constitutional barrier against creating an income tax and was approved by the voters.

He also claimed he has “always” opposed a Texas income tax.

That assertion sits awkwardly beside his vote against the very proposal that made such a tax harder for future politicians to impose.

“I’m against an income tax in Texas, always have been. But I’m going to be against any lawmaker in any party who’s just trying to do a stunt on the floor instead of solving problems.”

WATCH:

That defense asks Texans to ignore the practical result of his vote and focus instead on his preferred explanation of Republican motives.

Voters, however, tend to care less about Capitol rhetoric and more about whether lawmakers protected their paychecks when given the opportunity.

The interview also revived questions about Talarico’s broader tax agenda.

During a previous sit down panel with liberal billionaire Mark Cuban and Fox News personality Jessica Tarlov, Talarico openly discussed increasing taxes on the “wealthy” and limiting their political influence.

“I’ve told every wealthy person I’ve come across in this race: If you are ok with getting taxed more, if you’re ok with me limiting your influence in politics, you are welcome to join this movement that we are building,” Talarico said while thanking Cuban for his support.

WATCH:

That comment makes his latest insistence that he has always opposed an income tax sound even less reassuring.

Texans have heard Democratic politicians promise that new taxes will only touch someone richer, right up until the government discovers that ordinary families are easier targets.

Republicans now have a straightforward contrast to present during the Senate campaign.

Talarico voted against strengthening the income tax ban, dismissed the effort as “government overreach,” and later boasted about telling wealthy supporters that he intended to tax them more.

Texas voters approved the permanent safeguard because they understand how quickly temporary political promises can evaporate.

Talarico may call that protection a stunt, but working families are unlikely to view keeping more of their own money as government overreach.

Armed Intruder Charges Dem Gov. Candidate at Ohio Fair, Leaving Multiple People Injured [WATCH]
News

Armed Intruder Charges Dem Gov. Candidate at Ohio Fair, Leaving Multiple People Injured [WATCH]

/

An armed man lunged toward Ohio Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dr. Amy Acton during a Sunday appearance at the Canfield Fair, triggering a chaotic confrontation that left two people injured.

Authorities quickly arrested the suspect before the incident could become even more dangerous.

The confrontation unfolded inside the Mahoning County Democratic Party tent as Acton met with people attending the annual fair.

Her campaign communications director, Addie Bullock, said the intruder “lunged” toward the candidate during the disturbance.

Local news outlets identified the suspect as Patrick Havas, 38.

Witnesses and party officials said Havas barged into the tent, pushed toward the front, and knocked several volunteers to the ground as he attempted to reach Acton.

“Dr. Acton and Eric are grateful for the swift and decisive action of law enforcement and are praying for the recovery of those injured.

This kind of violence has no place in Ohio. Dr. Acton will always stand up to the chaos, hate, and vitriol that pits us against one another,” Bullock said in a statement.

Mahoning County Democratic Party Chair Chris Anderson said Havas forced his way through the gathering with little concern for those standing between him and the candidate.

The sudden rush sent people scrambling and turned what had been a routine political appearance into a security emergency.

Mahoning County Sheriff Jerry Greene told 21 News that Havas was holding a phone camera during the incident.

Greene said the suspect was also carrying two concealed firearms and brass knuckles when he pushed down two older adults amid the commotion.

Members of Acton’s security detail, which included Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers, immediately moved to stop Havas.

The troopers apprehended him before Canfield Fair Police assisted and took custody of the suspect, according to the local report.

Authorities said Havas never displayed either of the concealed firearms during the altercation.

WATCH:

That fact prevented additional weapons charges at the time, but the presence of guns and brass knuckles added a disturbing dimension to an already reckless intrusion.

Inmate records show Havas was charged with two counts of assault and one count of disorderly conduct.

He was not facing any firearms related charges, although investigators continued examining the confrontation and the circumstances surrounding his conduct.

Anderson condemned the disruption and said political violence should be rejected regardless of party affiliation.

“The Mahoning County Democratic Party abhors political violence in all forms. What happened at our tent today during today’s visit from Dr. Acton is reprehensible and should be condemned by leaders on all sides of the aisle,” he said.

Anderson also credited officers for preventing the confrontation from escalating further.

“MCDP is grateful for the quick response by our local law enforcement officials as well as the Ohio State Highway Patrol providing Dr. Acton security,” the Chair added.

Acton, a physician and former Ohio health director, was not injured.

NBC News reported that she remained at the fair after the arrest and helped attend to one of the people injured during the chaos.

The Democratic nominee is running for governor against Republican Vivek Ramaswamy.

His campaign responded by condemning threats and violence at political events, making clear that candidates must be able to appear before the public without fearing physical attacks.

“Candidates should be able to meet with voters without having to worry about threats or violence. What happened today is completely unacceptable and has no place in politics, and we hope that no one was hurt,” Connie Luck, the Communications Director for Vivek for Ohio, said in a statement to 21 News.

The incident is another reminder that campaign security cannot be treated as an afterthought, even at community events such as county fairs.

Political disagreements belong at the ballot box, not in a tent where armed agitators shove older adults and charge toward candidates.

Investigators have not publicly announced a motive for Havas or explained why he allegedly tried to approach Acton.

The investigation remains active as authorities review evidence, witness statements, security procedures, and the weapons found in the suspect’s possession.

Bernie Sanders Pushes Corporate Death Penalty That Could Gift AI Advantage to China [WATCH]
News

Bernie Sanders Pushes Corporate Death Penalty That Could Gift AI Advantage to China [WATCH]

/

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Greg Casar of Texas have introduced a sweeping proposal that would freeze development of advanced artificial intelligence in the United States.

Their bill threatens companies with what it openly calls a “corporate death penalty” while exposing engineers, researchers, and executives to lengthy federal prison terms.

The Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act would temporarily halt work on systems capable of matching or surpassing human cognitive abilities.

It would also create a Cabinet-level agency with extraordinary power to monitor laboratories, remove code, and supervise the physical destruction of prohibited hardware and infrastructure.

Sanders and Casar portray the proposal as a necessary defense against “AI oligarchs” and machines that could escape human control.

Critics see something far more reckless, a unilateral American surrender in a technology contest that China and Russia have no intention of abandoning.

Bridget Bean, a former executive director at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has warned that China is rapidly narrowing the artificial intelligence gap.

She has also raised alarms about dystopian models, biological cyber weapons, and the urgent need to protect advanced American chip technology.

Those warnings highlight the central flaw in the progressive proposal.

Washington can threaten American innovators, dismantle domestic systems, and imprison American researchers, but Beijing will not politely shut down its laboratories because Sanders passed another government ban.

“If the United States stops developing advanced AI, China is unlikely to follow. Surrendering the lead in a potentially transformative technology would carry serious economic and national security costs,” said Daniel Castro, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Castro leads a prominent policy organization focused on technology and innovation.

His warning gets directly to the national security stakes, since artificial intelligence will influence military planning, intelligence collection, cyber defense, economic productivity, and the global balance of power.

Gary Marcus, an artificial intelligence expert who has testified before the Senate, also rejected the proposal’s sweeping reach.

“A permanent, unilateral ban on all research into superhuman AI is too broad,” he said.

Marcus described the legislation as “a guarantee” that America would fall behind in artificial intelligence development.

He called it “not the right approach,” although he acknowledged that portions of the measure were “defensible.”

The bill borrows its criminal framework from federal laws governing the unlawful development of nuclear weapons.

Companies accused of evading the prohibition could lose their legal authority to conduct business in the United States, while individual violators could receive sentences of up to 20 years in federal prison.

The proposed agency would receive broad authority to intervene directly in private technology operations.

Federal officials could oversee the removal of allegedly dangerous code and order the destruction of systems deemed noncompliant, giving Washington a powerful new bureaucracy with control over a crucial American industry.

The legislation defines prohibited technology to include systems capable of planning or carrying out the “disempowerment of humanity.”

It specifically targets software that could overthrow the United States government, launch unauthorized cyberattacks, resist shutdown instructions, or otherwise operate beyond human control.

Those risks deserve serious attention, but criminalizing an entire frontier of research is not the same thing as creating thoughtful safeguards.

WATCH:

America can protect critical infrastructure, control access to advanced chips, test dangerous systems, and punish actual misconduct without giving foreign adversaries a wide open lane.

Aden Hizkias, associate policy director at the Chamber of Progress, said technology companies must help earn public confidence.

“AI is an incredible tool that can improve millions of lives, but as AI skepticism grows, it’s on companies to earn trust and prove they are good neighbors. That means transparent construction agreements, bringing their own power generation, and making sure they’re meeting environmental standards.”

That is a far more practical direction than treating American software developers like rogue nuclear weapons traffickers.

The country needs responsible innovation, reliable energy, secure data centers, firm export controls, and clear accountability, not a regulatory firing squad aimed at its own technological advantage.

Fox News Digital sought comment from Sanders regarding concerns that his bill could deliver an artificial intelligence advantage to China and Russia.

His office did not respond before publication, leaving unanswered why American innovators should face destruction and prison while hostile governments continue racing forward.

Canadian Economic Minister Admits Plot to Target United States Midterm Elections [WATCH]
News

Canadian Economic Minister Admits Plot to Target United States Midterm Elections [WATCH]

/

Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly is facing scrutiny after openly discussing a tariff strategy designed to inflict economic and political pain on targeted American states.

The stated objective, according to critics, is to influence the political climate heading into the United States midterm elections.

The dispute comes as President Donald Trump pushes back against trade arrangements that have long favored Canada at the expense of American workers and producers.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney walked away from a potential agreement last week, apparently betting that prolonged economic disruption could weaken Trump politically.

Joly also tried to reassure nervous Canadian workers by promoting a contract for Alstom to manufacture 313 rail cars for VIA Rail Canada.

The project includes technical support and replacement parts, but it will take years to complete and offers little immediate relief to workers worried about a growing trade fight.

Joly nevertheless boasted that Canada could prevail against Trump.

That is quite a declaration from a country whose entire economy is smaller than that of Texas, but swagger has never required sound arithmetic.

Susan Kokinda of Promethean Action highlighted the political dimension of the dispute in a recent video.

She argued that Americans should view the situation as something far more serious than an ordinary election year disagreement.

“We are in a war. Please do not think about the midterms from the standpoint of political preferences,” Kokinda said.

“We are in a war. We know it. This administration knows it.”

Kokinda pointed specifically to Canada under Prime Minister Mark Carney, along with European and British interests, as participants in what she characterized as a coordinated economic and political challenge to the United States. She cited Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly while making her argument about the motivation behind Canadian tariffs.

“And the enemy, whether it’s Mark Carney using Canada north of here, or the Europeans, the British, and so on, they know it as well,” Kokinda said.

“And Mark Carney’s industry minister, who, not surprisingly, trained in Oxford, Melanie Joly , she made very clear what they are doing.”

Kokinda characterized the Canadian strategy this way: “We are politically targeting these tariffs to economically damage particular states for political reasons.”

She then focused on Michigan, where she said decades of integrated supply chains with Canada under NAFTA and later the USMCA have made economic separation particularly disruptive.

“Now, I’m in ground zero here in Michigan because of the way that supply chains have been entangled with Canada over the previous period under NAFTA, and even under the USMCA, which this administration is in the process of pulling out, there is a lot of dislocation in Michigan,” Kokinda said.

Reshoring those supply chains cannot happen immediately, she argued, and the transition could produce economic and political consequences as businesses adjust.

“It takes time to reshore your supply lines, to get your entire supply chains over on this side of the border,” Kokinda said.

“There is going to be a huge disruption, and there is going to be political pain. That’s precisely why they are doing what they are doing.”

Kokinda connected the trade dispute to President Donald Trump’s Aug. 26 executive order declaring a national emergency involving foreign threats to the U.S. bulk-power system.

The order focuses on potential security and supply-chain vulnerabilities associated with foreign-produced bulk-power equipment.

“But again, I come back to the fact that this administration understands the nature of this war,” Kokinda said.

“And yesterday, the president announced a new emergency declaration to secure America’s bulk power system from foreign sources.”

Kokinda argued that the action takes on additional significance because portions of the United States receive electricity from Canada.

She singled out New England, Minnesota, North Dakota and Maine while making the connection between energy dependence and the wider dispute.

“It’s not a huge amount overall, but when you look at particular sections of the country, like New England, like Minnesota, like North Dakota, Maine, they are extremely reliant on bulk power from Canada,” Kokinda said.

She described the president’s action as part of the administration’s response to the broader economic confrontation she had outlined.

“So this is one of the president’s actions, I think, very much in response to that,” Kokinda said.

WATCH:

Michigan is especially vulnerable because decades of continental trade policy left important supply chains tangled across the Canadian border.

Moving production and sourcing back into the United States will take time, and Canada appears ready to exploit that transition for maximum political damage.

Trump’s emergency action concerning the bulk power system also carries new significance in this environment.

Several northern states and parts of New England remain dependent on Canadian electricity, giving Ottawa potential leverage over communities already exposed to trade disruption.

Canada is free to defend its interests, but deliberately aiming economic pressure at American voters crosses a bright line.

If Joly and Carney believe election interference becomes respectable when wrapped in tariffs and diplomatic jargon, the Trump administration has every reason to answer firmly.

Follow the Money: House Chairman Links China-Tied Billionaire to Riots From California to Minnesota [WATCH]
News

Follow the Money: House Chairman Links China-Tied Billionaire to Riots From California to Minnesota [WATCH]

/

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith says a congressional investigation lasting more than two years into alleged abuse of tax-exempt organizations is beginning to produce results as the Trump administration increases scrutiny of nonprofits linked to foreign influence, fraud, and political activity.

“We’ve been seeing progress over the two-plus years that we’ve been investigating nonprofits and the foreign interference of money and how they’ve been using nonprofits to help terrorist organizations,” Smith recently told the Just the News, No Noise TV show.

“We have named names, and I’m glad to see that the Treasury Department has been responding to that as well.”

Smith, a Missouri Republican, said the ability of foreign interests to operate through tax-exempt organizations should concern Americans.

“It should alarm every single American that these tax-exempt entities have been able to be abused to allow foreign intervention,” Smith said.

The Ways and Means Committee has focused on several areas, including charities allegedly linked to terrorist organizations, a network of nonprofits connected to U.S. citizen Neville Roy Singham and groups tied to anti-ICE demonstrations around the country.

The committee began its investigation of the tax-exempt sector in September 2024, when it sent letters to the Biden-era IRS requesting that seven organizations with alleged connections to foreign terrorist organizations lose their tax-exempt status.

One organization referred to the IRS was the Alliance for Global Justice, which the committee examined over financial support for Samidoun.

The Treasury Department designated Samidoun over its affiliation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist organization.

The committee also questioned the IRS about Islamic Relief USA and its financial relationship with overseas affiliate Islamic Relief Worldwide, which the committee says has ties to Hamas.

Islamic Relief USA subsequently sued its overseas counterpart to sever the relationship, citing the committee’s IRS referrals.

Smith expanded the investigation in January by writing to the IRS about the Feeding Our Future scandal in Minnesota.

The nonprofit fraud scheme involved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars intended for pandemic-era food assistance in the United States. The committee has raised the possibility that some funds could have reached the al-Shabaab terrorist network in Somalia.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent opened an investigation into that possibility, although no charges related to that allegation have been filed.

Bessent has also publicly described a broader Treasury effort targeting organizations accused of exploiting nonprofit and charitable structures for illicit financing.

During July remarks at a ministerial on political terrorism, Bessent said the department was expanding those efforts at President Donald Trump’s direction.

He described the initiative as an extension of financial counterterrorism tools used by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and IRS Criminal Investigation.

Another major part of Smith’s investigation involves Singham, whom Smith has referred to as “Shanghai Singham.”

Singham, the founder of software consultancy ThoughtWorks, now lives in Shanghai and is married to CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans.

He is the primary sponsor of a network that includes The People’s Forum, BreakThrough News and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

WATCH:

House and Senate investigators have examined financial and leadership ties between those organizations and Singham, along with Singham’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party.

Public 990 filings cited by the committee show The People’s Forum received more than $20 million from Singham and Evans between 2017 and 2022.

Smith has specifically focused on The People’s Forum for hosting courses promoting communist ideology and supporting disruptive occupations on college campuses.

He has argued that tax-exempt status should not be available to organizations using that privilege to “sow chaos” and interfere in American politics.

A wider group of activist organizations, including The People’s Forum, Code Pink, the ANSWER Coalition and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has retained tax-exempt status while avoiding prosecution under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The Justice Department has also opened an inquiry involving Singham’s network.

A federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York, authorized by then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, began issuing subpoenas for bank records connected to the network as part of a wire fraud, bank fraud and money-laundering investigation.

Smith has more recently alleged that organizations connected to the network are participating in efforts to disrupt data-center development in the United States in a way that could help China “win the AI war.”

He has been making the allegation publicly since at least June, when he said Chinese money was moving into nonprofits organizing opposition to data centers because Beijing was seeking computational dominance.

The Singham network has also been tied to the anti-Israel protest movement that spread across college campuses following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, as well as anti-ICE protests during Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts.

More recently, the network has been connected to organizing and campaign activity opposing data centers and artificial intelligence development in the United States.

Smith said the committee intends to keep following the financial relationships behind the organizations it has been investigating.

“We’ve been tracking the money,” Smith said, “and we’re going to continue to do so.”

Britons Reach Boiling Point as Kayak Grandmas Challenge Migrant Landing [WATCH]
News

Britons Reach Boiling Point as Kayak Grandmas Challenge Migrant Landing [WATCH]

/

Britain’s long simmering anger over mass migration boiled onto the beaches of Portsmouth on Sunday, where hundreds of protesters confronted authorities bringing roughly 140 migrants ashore. Some demonstrators blocked roads and coaches, while others headed straight toward the water.

The confrontation began after a migrant vessel was intercepted in the Solent off England’s southern coast.

The boat had reportedly traveled from Normandy before Border Force, the Coastguard, lifeboats, and police converged near Portsmouth for a major operation.

Authorities brought approximately 140 people ashore at Eastney and planned to transport them to the Manston migrant processing center in Kent.

Word of the arrival quickly spread online, drawing residents and activists to the beach and surrounding roads.

Video from the area showed protesters attempting to obstruct the transfer while police struggled to establish control.

Officers formed lines, moved demonstrators away from key locations, and eventually issued a dispersal order as tensions continued rising.

Then came the image that captured the sheer Britishness of the uprising.

Older women appeared in kayaks, paddling toward the shoreline as protesters sought to interfere with the landing operation from both land and water.

It takes considerable frustration to push polite British grandmothers from their kitchens into kayaks for a confrontation with the government.

Yet that is apparently where years of ignored public concern, soaring migration, and official excuses have brought the country.

WATCH:

The Portsmouth protest followed another major disruption in Dover just one day earlier.

Hundreds of masked demonstrators, many dressed in black, blocked roads leading to Britain’s busiest ferry port while linking arms and chanting “stop the boats.”

Traffic backed up for miles, the A20 was affected, and ferry passengers faced significant delays.

Access to the port was completely blocked at one point, showing that the movement has advanced well beyond polite speeches and carefully managed demonstrations.

A local Conservative councilor described the Dover action as “coordinated,” and said several hundred people appeared to have arrived overnight.

Kent Police reported no arrests, and regular port operations resumed around midday after the disruption.

Two ports were targeted in two days, marking a striking escalation in Britain’s increasingly bitter immigration fight.

Previous demonstrations focused heavily on hotels being used to house asylum seekers, including prominent protests in Epping and other communities during 2025.

Britain has struggled for years with record or near record immigration, an asylum backlog, and highly visible Channel crossings.

Government figures cited by the Associated Press showed crossings running about forty percent below the previous year, although more than 40,000 people reportedly crossed during 2025.

Those reduced numbers have not calmed voters who believe their government has ignored the larger consequences of mass migration.

Hotel protests were already politically explosive, but blocking Dover and confronting a migrant landing in Portsmouth represent a sharper and more direct strategy.

The unrest is not limited to Britain.

Hundreds marched through Dublin on June 10 demanding a referendum on the European Union’s Migration and Asylum Pact, while another demonstration later that month featured chants of “help Ireland, not the world” and “get them out.”

Northern Ireland has seen far more dangerous unrest following a brutal knife attack in Belfast that was allegedly committed by a Sudanese man.

Homes and vehicles were burned, police were attacked, and authorities deployed water cannon during three nights of disorder involving masked groups.

That violence should not be confused with peaceful opposition to immigration or the largely nonviolent disruption witnessed in Dover.

Still, these episodes reveal that immigration politics across Britain and Ireland are moving out of legislative chambers and directly into public streets.

Portsmouth offered the clearest symbol yet of a public that believes its concerns have been dismissed for too long.

Police lines, blocked coaches, crowded beaches, and grandmothers in kayaks are not signs of a population satisfied with another government lecture.

WATCH:

Many Britons now suspect the political class has motives beyond simply ‘being kind to refugees.’

They fear they are watching their country change without meaningful consent, while Americans across the Atlantic may recognize the same political arrogance and wonder how long their own patience will last.

US Forces Hammer Three Iranian Oil Tankers After IRGC Missile Barrage [WATCH]
News

US Forces Hammer Three Iranian Oil Tankers After IRGC Missile Barrage [WATCH]

/

American forces struck three Iranian crude oil tankers Saturday after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles toward two U.S. Navy warships in regional waters.

U.S. Central Command said the operation hit vessels near Kharg Island, Jask, and the Gulf of Oman, delivering direct economic punishment after Tehran’s attack failed.

According to CENTCOM, an American aircraft carrier and a guided missile destroyer evaded multiple unprovoked attacks, and no U.S. personnel were injured.

The regime fired first, missed its targets, and then watched three pieces of its oil lifeline become expensive wreckage.

CENTCOM identified the vessels as M/T Downy, M/T Stark 1, and M/T Kylo.

It said, “Following Iran’s failed attacks, CENTCOM permanently disabled the IRGC crude oil carriers M/T Downy off the coast of Kharg Island and M/T Stark 1 near Jask.”

“American forces also completely destroyed the unladen crude oil carrier M/T Kylo (also known as the “Noxen”) in the Gulf of Oman, striking the vessel in multiple critical locations to render it inoperable after the crew was directed to abandon ship,” CENTCOM said.

The military released video showing explosions ripping through each vessel.

WATCH:

Command officials described the ships as “part of a multibillion dollar shadow network that funds the IRGC and its regional proxies.”

In other words, these were not ordinary commercial assets minding their own business, but floating cash machines for Iran’s military and terror apparatus.

Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM’s commander, made clear that attacks on American sailors would carry a steeper price for Tehran.

Cooper said, “We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet.”

A U.S. official told Fox News that the IRGC cannot build more tankers, assets sitting at the center of Iran’s battered economy.

By targeting those ships, Washington tightened pressure on a regime already struggling to preserve export revenue and access to foreign currency.

Pressure is also coming from Treasury, which launched Operation Economic Outcast to choke off revenue funding the IRGC and Iranian regime.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the campaign aims to “tighten the noose and block every potential source of revenue that funds the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Iranian regime.”

A senior Iranian source told Reuters that the country has about two months of gasoline supplies remaining as military pressure and sanctions bite harder.

Iran must import gasoline because its refining capacity is limited, while the American blockade of Iranian ports has throttled the oil exports that bankroll the regime.

WATCH:

Regional governments are openly worried about the consequences of Tehran’s escalation.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty urged Washington and Tehran to return to negotiations, while Egypt and Oman stressed safe maritime navigation and the steady movement of trade and energy supplies.

President Donald Trump described the fight as a “military conflict” and brushed aside any suggestion that Iran had America cornered.

“I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us. It’s not a big thing,” the president said at the White House Friday.

Trump also said American operations had taken out Iranian radar, aircraft, and other systems tied to control of the Strait of Hormuz.

He characterized the strikes as intermittent and said the United States now controls the vital waterway very strongly, another warning that Tehran should not confuse restraint with weakness.

The Israel Defense Forces separately reported striking Hezbollah terrorists and weapons storage facilities in Lebanon after the Iran backed group launched a drone toward Israeli soldiers near the border.

Israeli troops shot down the drone, and the military said no soldiers were injured as the strikes removed what it called an immediate threat.

Trump argued new pipelines and overland transportation routes could reduce the world’s dependence on Hormuz, making Iran’s leverage less formidable over time.

“The Hormuz Strait is not what it used to be,” he said, pointing to regional projects capable of moving crude without relying on the narrow waterway.

Domestic energy concerns remain part of the picture, with the White House promising action after diesel reached a record $5.85 per gallon.

Meanwhile, more than 120 people were reportedly killed in Yemen as Iran backed Houthi forces pushed toward the strategic Bab al Mandab Strait, widening the cost of Tehran’s proxy warfare.

Illinois Mother Who Closely Tracked Lindsay Clancy Trial Being Called a Copycat [WATCH]
News

Illinois Mother Who Closely Tracked Lindsay Clancy Trial Being Called a Copycat [WATCH]

/

The horrifying death of an Illinois toddler now carries a deeply disturbing connection to the Lindsay Clancy murder case.

Prosecutors say Corie Walsh killed her two-year-old son, Barrett, after showing an intense interest in the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children.

Walsh allegedly killed Barrett by hanging him with a ligature, a method chillingly similar to the exercise bands Clancy used on her children.

The resemblance is difficult to dismiss, especially given what witnesses revealed about Walsh’s behavior before the boy died.

Investigators say Walsh called Barrett a “devil” and described him as the Antichrist.

She allegedly told authorities that she believed she had to kill her little boy, while her three other children survived the horror inside the home.

A seventeen-year-old called 911 and was performing CPR when officers arrived at the Frankfort residence.

Police then discovered Walsh attempting to harm herself, according to reports about the investigation.

WATCH:

The court proffer stated that Walsh was found fully dressed inside a bathtub in the master bedroom, surrounded by bloody water.

A neighbor was pressing a towel against Walsh’s inner thigh after reportedly taking a knife from her hand and throwing it into a sink.

Walsh’s husband was outside Illinois when the killing occurred and returned home Tuesday evening.

Prosecutors subsequently charged Walsh with three counts of first degree murder in connection with Barrett’s death.

Witnesses told prosecutors that Walsh had become intensely interested in the Clancy proceedings.

That detail turns an already monstrous case into a broader warning about the dangerous glorification surrounding mothers accused of killing their own children.

On the day Barrett died, the Clancy jury was deliberating.

Walsh reportedly sent repeated messages about Clancy in a group text conversation only hours before a neighbor discovered the murdered toddler.

Clancy confessed to strangling her three children, all of whom were five years old or younger.

Her lawyer nevertheless called her “wonderful,” a description that captures the bizarre public relations campaign to transform an admitted child killer into a sympathetic cultural figure.

Clancy said she killed three year old Dawson first because she disliked him more than her other children.

“Go to God,” she told the child while choking him, according to the account of her confession.

Earlier that morning, Patrick Clancy proudly sent Lindsay a photograph showing that Dawson had dressed himself for the first time.

Lindsay answered with a photograph of their oldest child, Cora, at a doctor’s appointment, appearing engaged with the ordinary routines of family life.

Patrick later left to pick up food at Lindsay’s request after holding Callan, kissing Cora, and saying goodbye to Dawson.

When he returned, he found that Lindsay had jumped from a window and then discovered his children dead while speaking with a 911 dispatcher.

“My little boy, my buddy!” the devastated father cried when he identified Dawson.

He then shouted, “Oh my God, she killed the kids!” as the full nightmare inside his home became clear.

Yet Clancy’s ideological defenders have worked relentlessly to redirect blame toward Patrick while portraying Lindsay as both victim and heroine.

Some activists appear more interested in protecting a preferred feminist narrative than confronting the deliberate killing of three defenseless children.

Walsh’s alleged fixation does not by itself prove that Clancy directly inspired Barrett’s killing.

Still, the timing, the repeated messages, the similar method, and the reported obsession give substantial weight to concerns about copycat violence fueled by reckless public glorification.

The deeper cultural problem rests on several poisonous ideas: that mental illness erases personal responsibility, that women must always be treated as innocent when a man is available to blame, and that inconvenient children can be discarded.

Barrett deserved protection, not excuses shaped by a movement determined to rationalize the unthinkable.

Newsom Admits Obama Gave Him Permission for Wild Democrat Map Grab [WATCH]
News

Newsom Admits Obama Gave Him Permission for Wild Democrat Map Grab [WATCH]

/

For years, Democrats scoffed at the suggestion that Barack Obama remained deeply involved in party politics after leaving the White House.

Gavin Newsom has now made that denial even harder to sell, admitting that Obama provided the political blessing for California’s aggressive redistricting push.

The California governor shared the story Friday while courting Democrats in Lexington, South Carolina.

Newsom explained that he sought Obama’s advice before moving forward with Proposition 50, a measure designed to tilt several Republican congressional districts toward Democrats.

According to Newsom, ordinary consultation was not enough.

He needed what he described as “real permission,” and that permission apparently had to come from the former president who officially left office nearly a decade ago.

Newsom told the audience that he contacted Obama because of the former president’s reputation for supporting independent redistricting.

Yet when Democrats saw an opportunity to grab congressional seats, those lofty principles suddenly became much more flexible.

The governor described himself as uneasy about approaching Obama, particularly because Obama had spent years presenting himself as a defender of cleaner political maps.

Newsom’s retelling made clear that Obama’s approval removed those concerns and opened the door for the plan.

Proposition 50 was California Democrats’ response to a Republican supported redistricting effort in Texas.

California voters approved the measure with nearly 65 percent of the vote in November 2025, giving Newsom and his allies the result they wanted.

Under the measure, California’s independent commission is expected to resume congressional mapmaking after the 2030 census.

Until then, the altered boundaries shift five districts held by Republicans toward Democrats, potentially handing the party additional House seats.

Newsom has never been especially subtle about the partisan purpose.

Still, his admission that he sought Obama’s blessing reveals who continues to carry enormous influence inside a party supposedly searching for its next generation of leadership.

The governor previously offered Axios a more detailed account of the conversation.

“I remember calling him very nervous when I was seeking his advice. It wasn’t even approval or support, it was just advice,” Newsom recalled.

That carefully worded distinction did not survive Newsom’s own description of Obama’s response.

“I didn’t even get into the conversation and he says, ‘I just want to let you know I like what you’re saying and I hope you do this,’” Newsom said.

WATCH:

That was apparently all the encouragement Newsom needed.

He later said Obama “gave us the cover and the moral authority despite all of his work that he did around independent redistricting,” because Democrats were supposedly “fighting fire with fire.”

There is the Democratic playbook in plain English.

Principles are treated as sacred when they restrain Republicans, but they become optional the moment those same principles interfere with Democratic power.

Obama then helped market the measure with familiar warnings about democracy itself being under siege.

“Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4,” he declared, while accusing Republicans of attempting to “steal enough seats in Congress to rig the election.”

The irony is almost too rich.

Democrats pushed a proposal crafted to improve their chances of taking congressional seats, then accused Republicans of trying to rig elections when they pursued their own redistricting strategy.

Obama’s role went far beyond appearing in an occasional campaign advertisement.

By Newsom’s telling, the former president served as an adviser, source of political cover, and dispenser of moral authority for one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent governors.

The episode also gives new meaning to Obama’s old joke about an ideal “third term.”

During a 2020 appearance with Stephen Colbert, Obama imagined directing a replacement from “in my basement in my sweats” while someone else handled the public duties.

Then Joe Biden entered the White House, Democrats repeatedly turned to Obama for guidance, and that joke became considerably less amusing.

Obama remained a campaigner, adviser, and power broker throughout the Biden years, while party leaders continued seeking his counsel.

Newsom’s confession strips away the remaining pretense.

The real question is no longer whether Obama still influences Democratic politics, but why Democrats spent so much time pretending their former president had quietly left the stage.

Abdul El Sayed Could Detonate Democrats’ Entire Midterm Strategy [WATCH]
News

Abdul El Sayed Could Detonate Democrats’ Entire Midterm Strategy [WATCH]

/

Democrats entered the 2026 midterm cycle with conventional wisdom leaning in their favor.

Then Michigan voters handed the party a political grenade by nominating Abdul El Sayed for a Senate seat that could help determine control of the chamber.

El Sayed is not merely another progressive emerging from a safely liberal congressional district.

His victory places a Democratic Socialists of America aligned candidate at the top of a statewide ticket in one of the most competitive states in the nation.

Previous socialist candidates generally succeeded on deep blue territory where the Democratic nominee was almost guaranteed victory.

Party leaders could dismiss those results as local spectacles confined to districts Republicans had little realistic chance of capturing.

Michigan offers no such protective bubble.

President Donald Trump carried the state, and its voters have repeatedly demonstrated that they are willing to move between parties when economic concerns, cultural issues, and national leadership are on the ballot.

That helps explain why Democratic insiders are reportedly alarmed by El Sayed’s nomination.

Republicans now have an opportunity to portray him as the face of a party increasingly controlled by radical activists rather than working families across the industrial Midwest.

Critics have hammered El Sayed over socialist policies and accusations of antisemitism, making him a potent national issue far beyond Michigan.

Democrats in competitive races will now be asked whether they support him, reject him, or plan to hide behind carefully polished consultant language.

Dana Perino addressed the political danger on The Five. “The DSA is hurting the Democrats, there’s just no doubt about it,” she said.

“If you look at some of these surveys that came out recently about who’s the most enthusiastic to vote, Republicans or Democrats? I learned today that if you look at August 5, all of a sudden Republican enthusiasm for voting went up. Guess what happened August 5? Let me take you to the Wayback Machine. El Sayed won the nomination in Michigan. And he wants to be out there, he’s going to be out there, he’s going to be an issue.”

WATCH:

That shift in enthusiasm could prove decisive in a midterm election where turnout often matters more than persuasion.

A socialist nominee in a battleground state gives Republican voters a clear reason to show up, particularly those worried about taxes, public safety, energy policy, and government control.

Recent polling also suggests the national environment may be moving in a more favorable direction for Republicans.

A Harvard Harris survey showed the GOP leading Democrats by two points on the generic congressional ballot among likely voters.

Democrats maintained a two point advantage among registered voters, but that margin is hardly reassuring.

Election analysts have argued that Democrats may need a national lead of three or four points to overcome district boundaries and capture a House majority.

If the poll reflects even part of an El Sayed effect, Democrats have a problem stretching well beyond Michigan.

Republican candidates can connect local Democratic opponents to the socialist wing and force them to explain who truly controls the party’s agenda.

Campaign advertisements practically write themselves.

Republicans can place El Sayed’s positions beside those of vulnerable Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and other battlegrounds, then ask voters whether this is the direction they want for Congress.

Democrats will try to insist that one Michigan nominee does not define the national party.

That argument becomes harder to sell when socialist activists keep winning influence, setting policy demands, and pushing establishment Democrats further left.

Losing Michigan’s Senate seat would already be a major setback for Democrats.

Allowing El Sayed’s nomination to energize Republicans across the entire map could transform that setback into a political disaster with consequences for both chambers.

The stakes extend directly to Trump’s America First agenda.

Republicans must maintain control of the House and Senate if they hope to keep that agenda moving and prevent Democrats from replacing governing with investigations, obstruction, and another festival of Washington dysfunction.

El Sayed may believe his primary victory represents momentum for the socialist movement.

Republicans may come to view it as the moment Democrats accidentally reminded ordinary voters what the modern left really wants to do with power.


Scroll to Top