Meet The Georgia Pastor Suing His School District For ‘Discrimination’ Against Christian After-School Program

'If we don't stand up for our freedoms at home, then when does it stop? If we just let it go, we'll never stay free.'

How the H-1B visa replaces American workers



Mary, a veteran Silicon Valley marketer who can’t find a job, considers herself a victim of an H-1B visa program run amok.

Her story, a U.S. native replaced by a foreign-born employee who is willing to work at a significantly lower wage, has become commonplace, particularly in the tech industry. Adding insult to injury, she says, her CEO, who hails from India, told her to train the man he selected to replace her before laying her off.

Despite stints at Google and Cisco and two years of job-hunting, Mary can no longer compete in a job market saturated with foreign-born H-1B visa holders. “I had experience. I should have walked right into these corporate jobs, but I didn't. Why? Because Silicon Valley is flooded with people who work for two-thirds of the price, or even half price,” said Mary, who asked to be identified only by her first name.

Companies, on average, save nearly $100,000 per worker over six years by hiring an H-1B worker rather than an American.

U.S. tech workers like Mary are at the center of a battle brewing in Washington, D.C., over reforming the troubled H-1B visa program, which is designed to fill highly skilled positions when qualified American workers can’t be found. The controversy pits tough-on-immigration Republicans and some Democrats against the most formidable of opponents — Big Tech, the primary beneficiary of a program considered by critics to be little more than a pipeline of cheap labor.

In the last few decades, the California dream has gone global, as U.S. tech firms have filled their ranks and C-suites with employees born abroad. Intel is no longer the company of its founders, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, but of Malaysian-born Lip-Bu Tan, its CEO since March 2025. Microsoft is led by Satya Nadella; Alphabet Inc. by Sundar Pichai; Adobe by Shantanu Narayen; IBM by Arvind Krishna; and T-Mobile US by Srinivas Gopalan — all of whom were born in India.

All told, a remarkable two-thirds of the Valley’s nearly 400,000 tech jobs are now held by those born abroad, according to a 2025 report from the think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley. Today, more tech workers were born in India (23%) and China (18%) combined than in the U.S. (34%).

Low-cost talent

The influx of low-cost Asian talent has clearly helped fuel profits in one of America’s most influential sectors. But there is a downside to this tech boom — the sidelining of U.S. workers thanks to the H-1B visa program. Created in 1990, the federal program has morphed into a vehicle for employers, particularly in the nation’s tech centers, to recruit much cheaper foreign labor at the expense of U.S. tech workers, according to Harvard economist George J. Borjas.

While the H-1B program spans multiple industries, it is overwhelmingly concentrated in tech. Last year, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Tata Consultancy, and Google were the biggest visa users, with Amazon alone recording more than 13,000 applications. These companies find the savings from hiring foreign workers hard to resist. The job of software developer, for instance, accounts for 38% of all H-1B visa workers, according to a 2026 paper by Borjas. And these foreign software developers earn about 30% less than their U.S. counterparts, the economist estimates.

Since many of these tech jobs pay six figures, the savings quickly add up. Borjas estimates that companies, on average, save nearly $100,000 per worker over six years by hiring an H-1B worker rather than an American. The arrangement “redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants,” Borjas wrote in 2016. That, in turn, helps account for the soaring stock prices of Big Tech since the 2008 financial crash.

RELATED: America should eliminate the H-1B and replace it with THIS

El Nuevo Herald/Getty Images

False rationale

The vaguely written H-1B law has been easy for companies to exploit. Hassan Abdullah, an immigration attorney and H-1B advocate, said the supposed congressional basis of the law — to fill highly skilled jobs with foreigners if Americans aren’t available — has always been a fiction. “The actual regulations don’t necessarily say that's required,” said Abdullah, who helps companies get the visas. “Throughout all my years, I’ve never had to even consider that as a factor.”

One of the most glaring weaknesses of the law, critics say, is that most companies applying for these visas are not required to demonstrate that they were unable to find qualified American workers. Only companies with more than 15% of their workforce on H-1Bs must make small efforts to recruit U.S. citizens.

Companies are required to pay foreign workers at least the “prevailing wage” for the occupation and region, a provision that should theoretically reduce the incentive to hire employees from Asia. But the process relies on self-reporting and has been easy to manipulate because salaries are calculated using broad regional averages that often fail to reflect real market wages in the technology sector.

As a result, the number of H-1B visa workers has skyrocketed. 2025 was a banner year, with 406,348 approved visas, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Seventy percent of those visas were issued to Indians. That compares with a total of 275,317 visa approvals in 2015.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, who is part of the MAGA wing of the GOP, reacted to these numbers on X, calling the program “a national security nightmare. Enough. No more flooding the market with 400k+ H-1B visas while our people and our sovereignty gets screwed."

After foreign-born employees take on leadership roles, including CEO, they attract and hire more foreigners by tapping their own professional and social networks.

With criticism of the visas dovetailing with broader anti-immigration sentiments, the Trump administration has made the most serious move yet to restrict the program. Six months ago, USCIS announced a new $100,000 fee that companies must pay per new H-1B worker living outside the U.S. While official figures have not yet been released, some immigration experts estimate that the fee may lead to a 30% to 50% decline in new visa applications.

“This is the first year we have not filed any H-1B visas for people outside the U.S. because tech companies don’t want to pay the $100,000 fee,” said immigration attorney Navdeep Meamber, who is based in Silicon Valley.

But companies have found a work-around. Meamber said she has seen an increase in the number of clients filing for the visas for workers already in the U.S., particularly those such as students who transferred from other visa types to H-1Bs.

“The $100,000 fee is discouraging some employers from bringing in brand-new H-1B workers, but it is not reducing the numbers, because foreign students, especially those who get on the Optional Practical Training program, can move into the H-1B pipeline without paying that fee,” said attorney Rosemary Jenks, a campaigner for immigration reform with the Immigration Accountability Project. “So there are still plenty of H-1B visas being issued every year.”

American ingenuity

Silicon Valley wasn’t always dominated by foreigners. Some claim the true birthplace of Silicon Valley can be found in a garage at 367 Addison Avenue in Palo Alto. It was there that David Packard, a native of Colorado, and Bill Hewlett of Michigan founded Hewlett-Packard in 1939. Robert Noyce, a native son of Iowa and co-inventor of the integrated circuit, critically made from silicon, gave name to the valley after the substance. With his colleague, Gordon Moore of San Francisco, they founded Intel in 1968.

Throughout the postwar years, America’s booming tech industry was largely pioneered by natives. By the 1980s, however, concerns were raised about the dwindling number of young people available to fill STEM jobs in the future. Erich Bloch, director of the National Science Foundation, told the American Council on Education in 1985: “The pool of potential students from U.S. schools will become smaller. Demographic projections, of which you are all aware, show the number of 18- to 24-year-olds declining by about 20% over the next decade.”

The 1990 Immigration Act created the H-1B visa, a temporary work visa lasting a few years aimed at filling the labor shortages Bloch had warned about. Since then, tech firms have sometimes struggled to find employees, particularly specialized engineers, during times of rapid growth. But whether the industry faces a persistent shortage of American workers is a matter of debate among economists and labor analysts.

Major technology companies reject the criticism that the H-1B system is primarily a source of cheap labor. Executives stress that the program allows American firms to recruit engineers and researchers with advanced technical expertise in areas where qualified talent can be scarce.

They also contend that many H-1B workers are paid high salaries and that access to global talent helps keep American companies competitive against rivals.

Critics of the visas point to waves of layoffs accompanied by the growth in H-1Bs as evidence that a labor shortage is nothing more than a fig leaf. Michael Capuano of the Federation for American Immigration Reform wrote in a blog post last year,

Google laid off 951 U.S. employees in 2024, but found room for 1,058 new H-1B workers. Apple laid off 735 people in 2024, but signed on 864 new H-1B employees. Microsoft laid off 3,426 workers from 2022 to 2024 and hired 3,259 new H-1Bs during that same period.

A 2023 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute similarly found that the top 30 H-1B employers hired more than 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 while laying off at least 85,000 employees during the same period.

In addition to cheaper talent, critics say H-1B visas also provide a captive workforce. Because employers can sponsor visa holders for permanent residency, many workers become heavily reliant on keeping their jobs in order to remain in the United States. Critics argue that this dynamic discourages employees from changing companies or demanding higher wages, with some likening the system to a form of indentured servitude.

Tribalism at play

Critics say favoritism has also contributed to foreign dominance of the tech sector. After foreign-born employees take on leadership roles, including CEO, they attract and hire more foreigners by tapping their own professional and social networks.

Kevin Lynn, executive director of the Institute for Sound Public Policy, argues that “professionalism doesn’t exist in these IT departments any more,” adding that “when you look at the hiring, it gets very tribal. It’s really India versus the rest of the world.”

Microsoft saw the number of decisions on H-1B applications rise from 2,983 in 2014, when Nadella became CEO, to 6,258 in 2025. Google’s numbers jumped from 2,309 in 2015, when Pichai took the top job, to 7,868 in 2025. During these years, these companies also grew, making it hard to know if the percentage of foreign workers increased. At IBM, H-1B decisions have remained consistent since Arvind Krishna was named the leader.

Meamber, the immigration lawyer, disputes the idea that companies run by foreign-born leaders are more likely to rely on labor from their home countries. “The CEO doesn’t even know who is being hired. ... These decisions are being taken at a lower level by the HR team and by the recruiters,” she said.

Stephen Vivien, an engineer, said he witnessed Indian employees helping each other get hired by sharing interview questions when he worked at Google. “There were a lot of H-1B workers ... there's a network.” he said.

“When one Indian guy would be coming up for his interview; the other Indian guys who had [already] gotten hired would call and share the questions.”

RELATED: America didn’t lose its tech edge — globalist CEOs gave it away

Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In April, a New York jury found New Jersey-based Cognizant Technology Solutions liable for $8.4 million after a former executive sued the company, which was founded in India, for discrimination against non-Indian and non-South Asian workers. The executive argued he was passed over for a promotion and was later fired for raising concerns about bias against non-Indian employees.

The decision follows a separate successful lawsuit brought by three other employees against Cognizant in 2017, all similarly claiming discrimination against non-Indian workers, though the company is appealing and denies all allegations. In both lawsuits, juries found in favor of claims that Cognizant had used the H-1B program as a tool to discriminate against American workers. Since 2009, the company has received tens of thousands of H-1B visa approvals.

Reformers vs. Big Tech

While restrictions to the program have yet to meaningfully slow its growth, some Republicans have called to abolish it. In February, Florida Rep. Greg Steube (R) introduced the EXILE Act, which would end the H-1B visa program entirely.

A proposed reform that might gain more bipartisan support targets the ineffective prevailing wage requirement that allows firms to underpay foreign workers. One idea floated by Republicans would create a minimum salary requirement for H-1B workers that is much higher than the current pay scale, thus removing the financial incentive to replace U.S.-born workers.

Ro Khanna, the Democrat congressman representing much of Silicon Valley, said on the "All-In" podcast last year that “there’s definitely abuse. ... It needs to be corrected” in the H-1B program. Khanna said a new prevailing wage standard would be a reform he could support.

But legislation that would raise labor costs would be opposed by Big Tech, armed with its war chest of money and influence in Washington. Jenks, the lawyer, said H-1B reformers face a tough fight. “The donors on this issue include all of the high-tech companies, whether it’s Microsoft, Facebook, all of them,” she said. “They put millions and millions of dollars every year into lobbying.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire. The article was reported in conjunction with a GB News documentary, which can be viewed here.

Florida female, 29, and her children's 15-year-old male babysitter accused of shooting at woman's car after Facebook dispute



A 29-year-old Florida female and her children's 15-year-old male babysitter are accused of shooting at a woman's car after a Facebook dispute earlier this week.

The Volusia County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday night's shooting outside a Deltona home stemmed from a dispute between the female suspect — Ines Jonjic — and the victim, WESH-TV reported.

'Are you guys sure he’s a babysitter?'

The station, citing the arrest report, said the victim became "highly upset" after Jonjic "took an image of [the victim's] infant from her Facebook page, added malicious comments, and sent it to [the victim]."

Deputies said the victim then decided "she wanted to have a face-to-face conversation with Jonjic" and drove to Jonjic's home on Hemingway Drive, WESH reported.

However, deputies said Jonjic and a 15-year-old boy — whom they later discovered was the babysitter for Jonjic's children — pointed guns at the victim and fired several shots at her vehicle, the station said.

More from WESH:

The victim drove away and noticed she had a flat tire. However, according to the arrest report, "instead of immediately notifying law enforcement, she called roadside assistance, had her tire repaired, and drove home." Deputies eventually met with the victim and discovered bullet holes in several of her car windows.

Investigators said it took about five hours for Jonjic and the teen to exit the home after deputies arrived. Once inside, deputies said they found marijuana and cocaine throughout the residence.

Detectives located .380-caliber and 9-millimeter shell casings in the garage. Jonjic admitted to shooting at the victim's vehicle, according to the arrest report.

Jonjic was charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a specified area, possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, two counts of possession of a new legend drug without a prescription, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia, the station said.

Jail records indicate that Jonjic was still behind bars as of Friday afternoon.

RELATED: Florida mom accused of kicking youth football player on field; during arrest she actually screams, 'I'm the one who got hit!'

The 15-year-old babysitter denied firing a gun at the victim, WESH reported.

However, the station said he was charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of a firearm by a delinquent, trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a specified area, and violation of probation.

WESH added that he already was on probation for an unrelated drug possession charge.

The Facebook post from the sheriff's office about the incident has attracted more than 1,000 comments, and the commenters haven't held back — particularly in regard to the teenage male's stated job.

  • "Babysitter sure lol," one commenter said.
  • "That ain't a 'babysitter'..." another user declared.
  • "Are you guys sure he’s a babysitter?" another commenter wondered.
  • "Who has a 15-year-old male with priors babysitting at their house at 5:30 a.m.?" another user asked. "Sounds like she's missing a few charges."
  • "A 15-year-old babysitter @ 5 a.m. while she is home?" another commenter queried.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech



A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.

'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'

Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.

The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.

However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.

"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.

The court must first approve this settlement agreement.

RELATED: BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' exposes how the censorship industrial complex silenced Americans during COVID

Eric Schmitt. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."

Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."

He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."

"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.

RELATED: 'Karma is a b***h': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH

Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.

"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."

"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California’s next dumb tech idea: Show your papers to scroll



California has a habit of importing some of the worst tech-regulation ideas from overseas. After lawmakers enacted a censorial statute cribbed from the U.K. in 2022 — and watched it run headlong into an injunction — the Golden State now appears eager to borrow from Australia, which in December barred children from major social media platforms.

Earlier this month, California lawmakers introduced a bill to impose “a minimum age requirement to open or maintain a social media account.” Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who usually avoids weighing in on pending bills, publicly endorsed the idea.

Will America keep light-touch rules that protect consumers without strangling innovation — or import Europe’s heavy-handed, fear-driven approach?

However well intentioned, the Australian model collapses on prudential grounds. In the United States, it also invites a swift constitutional challenge — and likely a swift defeat in court.

Most proposals that force platforms to distinguish between adults and minors require age verification. That means users must hand over sensitive personal information — usually government ID documents or biometric data — as the price of entry to the platforms where everyday digital life happens. Once companies collect, process, and store that data, it becomes a tempting target. Hackers do not need ideology, only opportunity.

The roster of victims reads like Don Giovanni’s catalogue. The list includes corporations such as Target, Equifax, Marriott, Capital One, MGM Resorts, and T-Mobile. Platforms from Facebook to X.com to the “Tea” app were also hit. So were third-party verification services. Even in France, where regulators tried to build a privacy-protective system, a third-party age verifier exposed sensitive user data. In the digital age, breaches and leaks are simply a fact of life.

Legislation promoted as “child protection” thus runs into a basic contradiction: it can expose children to new forms of harm. As the R Street Institute and Experian have reported, 25% of minors will become victims of identity fraud or theft before they turn 18. Age-verification mandates would widen the attack surface and increase the odds that minors’ information gets stolen, misused, or sold — and that families spend years cleaning up the wreckage.

Some advocates now treat constitutional objections to “child-safety” bills as impolite. Courts don’t share that squeamishness. In recent years, judges have enjoined multiple constitutionally defective state laws, leaving behind little more than wasted taxpayer dollars and public frustration, while state attorneys general mount doomed defenses.

Newsom’s favored approach also clashes with a Supreme Court precedent California already lost: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. In that 2011 case, the court struck down a California law that restricted minors’ access to violent video games. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion applied strict scrutiny — a demanding standard — and rejected the state’s argument that the law simply “helped” parents.

Scalia’s point applies with even greater force here. A sweeping ban on minors’ access to social media would function less as parental support and more as state substitution. The state would not merely empower parents; it would decide what parents should want, then impose that judgment across the board.

RELATED: Kids have already found a way around Australia's new social media ban: Making faces

David GRAY/AFP/Getty Images

In American law, parents generally hold the duty — and the right — to decide what media their children consume. That principle does not stop at the edge of the internet.

The broader fight over technology policy often turns on a single question: Will America stick with light-touch, sensible regulation that protects consumers without strangling innovation — or will it import the heavy-handed, fear-driven regulatory posture popular abroad, especially in Europe?

The American technology sector grew and thrived in the internet era. Many foreign regimes, more focused on expansive “safety” mandates than innovation, privacy, or consumer benefit, have not.

Lawmakers should borrow good ideas wherever they find them. But California keeps shopping in the wrong aisle. If Sacramento wants to protect kids, it should start with tools that don’t require building a mass ID-check system for the entire public — and that don’t hand criminals a richer trove of data to steal.

It’s wise to learn from other countries. It’s foolish to copy their worst mistakes.

'Large human smuggling operation' uncovered in Texas? ICE makes alarming claim about 'alien from India.'



While immigration enforcement has faced some hurdles, including a partial government shutdown, law enforcement has continued to take down criminals. In a major score for Houston Immigration and Customs Enforcement, authorities announced the arrest of two people who allegedly ran a major illegal operation.

On Wednesday morning, the official United States Customs and Immigration Services X, Facebook, and Instagram accounts announced the arrest of an "alien from India" and his "spouse" in Texas, where they were allegedly running a "large human smuggling operation."

'He and his spouse were apprehended ... on charges of human smuggling, document fraud, and overstaying their visa.'

"He and his spouse were apprehended at our Houston office by @ICEgov on charges of human smuggling, document fraud, and overstaying their visa," USCIS wrote.

"Human traffickers will be caught and held accountable," the account added.

RELATED: No more 'safe harbor for illegals': Colony Ridge settles with DOJ, Texas

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

A USCIS spokesperson referred Blaze News to ICE for comment since ICE made the arrests.

Blaze News reached out to the DHS, ICE, and its Houston field office for comment but did not receive a response.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'I am going to kill Donald Trump': Smug Democrat candidate threatens death penalty in latest campaign trick



While the Trump administration continues trying to put out real and proverbial fires started by Democrats, more are igniting across the country.

Now a Democratic candidate appears to be promising to kill the president as part of his campaign platform.

'That kind of vile comment makes it clear that Elliot Forhan is not qualified to be attorney general.'

On Tuesday, a video went viral of Ohio attorney general candidate Elliot Forhan (D) promising to "kill Donald Trump" if elected.

"I want to tell you what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump," Forhan, a former Ohio state representative, said in a video posted to Facebook.

RELATED: 'Convicted and f**king dangles': NeverTrumper Rick Wilson calls for execution of top White House adviser

Current Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R); Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

"I mean I'm going to obtain a conviction rendered by a jury of his peers at a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence, presented at a trial, conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process, resulting in a sentence, duly executed, of capital punishment," Forhan said in the video.

In the clip, he did not indicate which crimes worthy of the death penalty he thought President Donald Trump has committed.

The Republican attorney general candidate for Ohio, Keith Faber, promptly posted a response to Forhan's unhinged rant.

"That kind of vile comment makes it clear that Elliot Forhan is not qualified to be attorney general," Faber said. "Look, it is important that [gubernatorial candidate] Amy Acton and the other Democrats on the ticket call him out for such conduct."

This isn't the first time Forhan has faced public scrutiny for his rhetoric. Just days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Forhan made a Facebook post that said, "Violence is wrong. F**k Charlie Kirk."

Faber didn't miss his chance to remind people of that vile comment from Forhan: "Add to that his recent celebration of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and you see just what kind of individuals the Democrats are running for attorney general."

Forhan has also faced backlash and professional consequences for what some have alleged to be "erratic and abusive" behavior involving a female constituent and others, according to a 2023 article by Fox News.

Forhan was never charged with a crime, though he was stripped of his legislative privileges and committee assignments as an Ohio legislator in the last General Assembly amid allegations and an investigation into his conduct, according to Statehouse News Bureau last February.

The primary election in Ohio will be held on May 5.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AI in education: Innovation or a predator’s playground?



For years, parents have been warned to monitor their children’s online activity, limit social media, and guard against predatory digital spaces. That guidance is now colliding with a very different message from policymakers and technology leaders: Artificial intelligence must be introduced earlier and more broadly in schools.

When risky platforms enter through schools, they inherit an unearned legitimacy, conditioning parents to trust tools they would never allow at home.

On its face, this goal sounds reasonable. But what began as a policy push has quickly turned into something far more concerning — a rush by major tech companies to brand themselves as “AI Education Partners,” gaining access to public education under the banner of innovation, often without parents being fully informed or given the ability to opt out. When risky platforms enter through schools, they inherit an unearned legitimacy, conditioning parents to trust tools they would never allow at home.

AI in education is being sold as inevitable and benevolent. Behind the buzzwords lies a harder truth: AI is becoming a back door for Big Tech to access children and sidestep parental authority.

Platforms already under fire for child safety

At the center of this debate are three companies — Meta, Snap, and Roblox — all now positioning themselves as AI education partners while facing active litigation and investigations tied to child exploitation, predatory behavior, and failures to protect minors.

Meta is facing lawsuits and regulatory actions related to child exploitation, unsafe platform design, and illegal data practices. Internal company documents revealed that Meta’s AI chatbots were permitted to engage minors in flirtatious, intimate, and even health-related conversations — policies the company only revised after media exposure.

European consumer watchdogs have also accused Meta of sweeping data collection practices that go far beyond what users reasonably expect, using behavioral data to profile emotional state, sexual identity, and vulnerability to addiction. Regulators argue that meaningful consent is impossible at such a scale. Meta has also claimed in U.S. courts that publicly available content can be used to train AI under “fair use,” raising serious questions about how student classroom work could be treated once ingested by AI systems.

Snapchat is facing lawsuits from multiple states, including Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and others, alleging that its platform exposes minors to drug and weapons dealing, sexual exploitation, and severe mental health harm. In January 2025, federal regulators escalated concerns by referring a complaint involving Snapchat’s AI chatbot to the Department of Justice.

Despite this record, Snap signed on as an AI education partner, promising “in-app educational programming directed toward teens to raise awareness on safe and responsible use of AI technologies.”

Roblox, long flagged by parents for safety concerns, is being sued by multiple states, including Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, over allegations that it enabled predators to groom and exploit children. Yet Roblox now seeks classroom access as an “AI learning” platform.

If these platforms are too dangerous for children at home, they are too dangerous to normalize at school. Allowing companies with a history of child-safety failures to integrate themselves into classrooms is negligent and dangerous.

The contradiction no one wants to address

The danger becomes clearer when you step outside the classroom.

Across the country, states including Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Connecticut are restricting minors’ access to social media through age verification, parental consent, and limits on addictive features. At the federal level, the bipartisan Kids Off Social Media Act seeks to bar social media access for children under 13 and restrict algorithmic targeting of teens.

For more than a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that parents — not the state and not corporations — hold the fundamental right to direct their children’s education.

When Big Tech gains access to classrooms without transparency or consent, that authority is eroded. Parents are told to restrict social media at home while schools integrate the same platforms through AI. The result is families being sidelined while Big Tech reduces their children to data sources.

RELATED: Why every conservative parent should be watching California right now

Photo by AaronP/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images/Getty Images

This dangerous escalation must meet a clear boundary. Some platforms endanger children, others monetize them, and some expose their data. None of them belong in classrooms without strict, enforceable guardrails.

Parents do not need more promises. They need enforceable limits, transparency, and the unquestioned right to say no. The Constitution has long recognized that the right to direct a child’s education belongs to parents, not Silicon Valley. That authority does not stop at the classroom door.

If artificial intelligence is going to enter our classrooms, it must do so on the terms of families,not tech companies.

'Advocate for the Democratic Party': Democrat judge loses free-speech appeal over partisan social media posts



Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion on the free-speech parameters for sitting judges in the commonwealth in a major decision related to a 2024 case.

The case concerned former Judge Mark B. Cohen, a Democrat who was suspended from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by the Court of Judicial Discipline in October 2024 over his outspoken political posts on Facebook.

'When, as here, a sitting judge adopts the persona of a political party spokesperson and abuses the prestige of his office to advance that party’s interests, he detracts from the reputation of the entire judiciary.'

These posts, the Philly Voice reported, involved, for example, Cohen's views about former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the hammer attack on California Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi's husband, and the election of Democrat Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, among other national and state political issues.

RELATED: Activist Democrat judge sabotages National Guard surge in Memphis after 100 children rescued

Photo by MARTIN BUREAU/AFP via Getty Images

The opinion outlined some of the other issues that Cohen advocated for on Facebook, demonstrating his apparent partisanship.

"Judge Cohen advocated for legislation, such as the Build Back Better Bill that was then being promoted by the Democratic Party, cheered on Democratic politicians, impliedly endorsed a candidate for congressional office, touted his own legislative achievements as a Democrat, and criticized the policies of predominately Republican legislatures."

Cohen previously served as a Democrat Pennsylvania state representative from 1974 to 2016 prior to his election to the Court of Common Pleas in 2018, according to his biography on the Pennsylvania House of Representatives website.

Six of the seven justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the opinion. However, Justice Wecht filed a concurring opinion in which he expressed his refusal to endorse "any suggestion that a jurist" who formerly served in a political branch of government "may not in some appropriate fashion refer to ... his or her record of actions taken or accomplishments achieved while serving."

The seventh, Justice McCaffery, did not participate in the decision or deliberation of the case.

While the court affirmed that judges are in fact uniquely qualified to share their professional opinions on some matters, the issue with Cohen's posts was consistently the "volume and tone" of the content he was sharing.

Justice Dougherty, who wrote the opinion of the court, said, "Thus, Judge Cohen did not put just his own reputation at risk. When, as here, a sitting judge adopts the persona of a political party spokesperson and abuses the prestige of his office to advance that party’s interests, he detracts from the reputation of the entire judiciary."

The opinion of the court upheld the CJD's concerns "not just that Judge Cohen publicly posted his personal, political views, but that he posted so regularly and one-sidedly that he appeared to be 'an advocate for the Democratic Party.'"

The Court concluded that "the Commonwealth's interest in protecting the efficiency of the administration of justice outweighed Judge Cohen's interest in posting partisan political content on Facebook where the volume and tone of his posts cast him as little more than a spokesperson for the Democratic Party."

Cohen's lawyer, Samuel Stretton, suggested that Cohen is considering an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's very important for a judge to have the right to be involved in issues that don't come before them or their colleagues," Stretton said.

According to prior court documents, Cohen, 77, was suspended without pay in October 2024 through December 31, 2024, at which point he was mandated to retire due to age. Based on available court documents, it is not clear whether his benefits would continue, though his legal counsel appealed the decision to suspend his medical benefits.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!