Trump Admin Launches Probe Into H-1B Visa Fraudsters Stealing Jobs From Americans
The invesitgation aims to further President Trump's goal to end foreign violence on American soil and return jobs to the American people.The invesitgation aims to further President Trump's goal to end foreign violence on American soil and return jobs to the American people.Anti-aging mogul who used son as 'blood boy' reveals his incurable diagnosis
Bryan Johnson, the transhumanist founder of the neurotechnology company Kernel, sold his digital payments company Braintree to eBay Inc. for $800 million in 2013, then pursued his bio-hacking obsession headlong, tinkering with his body in the hope of pausing the aging process and potentially even evading death.
In a 2023 interview with Bloomberg, Johnson revealed that in addition to staying out of the sun, he was preparing to invest at least $2 million on his body with the aim of having the body and organs — penis and rectum included — of an 18-year-old. To this end, he hired a team of over 30 doctors and health experts to monitor his every bodily function.
'My stomach is eating itself.'
"What I do may sound extreme, but I'm trying to prove that self-harm and decay are not inevitable," Johnson said just months before supplementing his usual supply of rejuvenating plasma from so-called blood boys with blood from his son.
Johnson, who calls himself "the healthiest person alive" and founded the "Don't Die" health cult, revealed last week that he has been diagnosed with an incurable disease.
"Bad news #1: I have an autoimmune disease. My stomach is eating itself," the middle-aged transhumanist wrote in an X post.
"Good news: I'm going to try and solve it," he added.
Johnson suggested that he developed autoimmune gastritis during a period in his life when he was juggling "stress and grind" and let his health slip.
Autoimmune gastritis is an inherited chronic inflammatory disease that occurs when an individual's immune system attacks their stomach lining cells. According to the Cleveland Clinic, this condition can lead to an increased risk of developing small neuroendocrine tumors in the stomach and an increased risk of gastric cancer.
RELATED: Transhumanism is coming to destroy the human soul
"I just discovered it in May. I'm unsure how long I've had it," the transhumanist said. "AIG causes irreversible damage: nutritional deficiency, anemia, and over a long horizon, elevated cancer risk. When AIG is discovered today, standard medical care concedes defeat, stating that nothing can be done except managing the condition, no matter how awful or lethal the effects."
Johnson indicated further that his supposedly healthy living regimen failed to address his low iron levels.
'Bro so busy trying to not die he forgot how to live.'
Autoimmune gastritis destroys the stomach's parietal cells, which reduces secretion of the gastric acid required for absorption of inorganic iron.
Only after the supposed "healthiest person alive" overhauled his medical team and underwent further testing was his incurable condition revealed.
While there is presently no cure for autoimmune gastritis, Johnson said that he and his team are "going to try and solve my AIG."
Johnson's non-terminal diagnosis appears to have only worsened his health obsession.
"We fill our days mostly on things that are trivial next to what we ultimately care about. We know, deep down, however, that in the noise of it all, health is easily forgotten until it’s the only thing that matters," the transhumanist wrote.
Bryan did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
Following his disease reveal, Johnson lashed out at those whose who, according to his paraphrase, suggested that "bro so busy trying to not die he forgot how to live."
In response, the transhumanist offered a pessimistic and reductive interpretation of the world, suggesting that people ultimately construct personas to shield themselves "from the terror of their inevitable death," then "to make this irreconcilable pain invisible to themselves, they dissolve themselves into the group and enact its rituals."
He proceeded to characterize himself as a heroic figure — the "abstainer" from "societal death rituals" who "reveals to the room that they are drunk."
According to the transhumanist — who takes hundreds of pills a day, follows a strict plant-based diet, has injected some of his son's blood, and has spent a fortune in a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable — Johnson's critics aren't troubled by his decisions but by "their reflection in the mirror."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Let Your Kids Grow Up Without A Homing Signal
By constant monitoring, we’re not just giving up freedom for temporary safety, we’re raising kids to think the surveillance state is normal.
The latest 'solution' to reckless driving could limit freedom for all of us
If a driver is so dangerous that the government needs to electronically control his car, why is he still allowed to drive?
That's the question New York lawmakers don't seem interested in answering.
Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) recently signed legislation requiring certain repeat speeding offenders to install GPS-based speed-limiting technology in their vehicles. Under the new law, drivers who rack up 16 or more speed-camera violations within a year can be ordered to install an Intelligent Speed Limiter that prevents their vehicle from exceeding posted speed limits. Drivers who refuse can ultimately lose their vehicle registration.
Reckless legislation
At first glance, the proposal sounds reasonable. Most Americans agree that chronic reckless drivers should face serious consequences. But the real question is not whether dangerous drivers deserve punishment. The real question is why someone with 16 speeding violations still has driving privileges in the first place.
New York already has speeding laws. It already has fines, insurance penalties, license points, court appearances, and suspension mechanisms. If a driver has accumulated enough violations to be considered such a serious threat that the state now wants to electronically control their vehicle, then why weren't existing laws sufficient to remove that driver from the road?
That question goes directly to the heart of the issue. Rather than addressing the apparent failure of existing enforcement systems, lawmakers have chosen to create an entirely new layer of technology, surveillance, and government oversight. Instead of asking why repeat offenders remain licensed, they're asking the public to accept the idea that government should have a greater role in controlling privately owned vehicles.
That's a significant shift, and it deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.
Pre-crime preview
The legislation relies on Intelligent Speed Assistance technology, commonly referred to as ISA. The system uses GPS data and digital mapping to determine the posted speed limit on a roadway and can prevent a vehicle from exceeding that speed. Unlike traditional enforcement, where a driver is punished after breaking the law, this technology is designed to intervene before the driver can make the decision.
The automotive industry is already moving toward an unprecedented level of connectivity. Modern vehicles collect enormous amounts of information. They receive over-the-air software updates, communicate with manufacturers, monitor driving behavior, and increasingly operate as rolling computers. Consumers have already watched vehicle ownership evolve into something that looks increasingly like a subscription service, with features activated remotely and software determining how products function.
Now government is entering the equation with technology designed to control how a vehicle operates.
That should concern anyone who values personal privacy and consumer rights.
Starting small
Supporters insist the law applies only to a small group of repeat offenders. That's true today. The problem is that government programs rarely remain confined to their original scope. Nearly every major regulatory program begins with a narrowly defined target. Politicians identify a group that few people are willing to defend, implement a new policy, and assure the public that the measure will be limited. Once the infrastructure exists, however, expanding it becomes significantly easier than creating it.
Today the threshold is 16 violations. Tomorrow it could be 10. Later it could be expanded to fleet vehicles, commercial operators, or other categories of drivers. Once the principle is accepted, the debate shifts from whether government should have this authority to how broadly it should be applied.
Imperfect technology
The practical questions surrounding this law are equally troubling. GPS technology is useful, but it is not infallible. Speed-limit databases are not always current. Construction zones change. Temporary restrictions appear. Road conditions evolve faster than mapping systems can update.
What happens when the speed-limit database is wrong? What happens when a roadway has recently changed and the system hasn't been updated? What happens when a driver needs rapid acceleration to avoid an accident?
These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the types of real-world situations automotive engineers consider every day. Yet lawmakers frequently discuss speed-limiting technology as though vehicles operate in a controlled environment where every situation can be anticipated by software. The reality is far more complicated.
RELATED: Gone in 60 seconds: How high-tech thieves can steal your car
Punishing cars, not drivers
Then there is the issue of fairness.
One of the most overlooked aspects of this legislation is its reliance on camera enforcement. Traditional traffic stops identify the driver. Automated camera systems identify the vehicle. Those are not the same thing. Families share cars. Businesses operate fleets. Vehicles are borrowed, rented, and loaned every day. Yet policymakers continue to build enforcement systems around the vehicle itself rather than the individual behind the wheel.
That distinction matters because accountability should be directed at the person responsible for the behavior, not simply the machine involved.
There is also a financial component that deserves attention. Installation costs for these systems can run into the thousands of dollars, with additional fees for monitoring, maintenance, administration, and compliance. Government officials often frame these costs as penalties for offenders, but every new regulatory program creates opportunities for vendors, contractors, software providers, installers, and administrators.
Whenever government mandates a new technology, there is almost always an industry waiting to benefit from it.
New York is hardly alone in pursuing this approach. Washington State has adopted its own Intelligent Speed Assistance requirements for certain offenders. Virginia and Washington, D.C., have moved in a similar direction, while Illinois lawmakers have advanced proposals involving mandatory speed-limiting technology. What once appeared to be an isolated experiment is rapidly becoming a national trend.
As more states adopt similar programs, lawmakers should answer a basic question: Why create a technological workaround instead of enforcing the penalties already available under existing law?
Accountability ... or control?
The answer may be uncomfortable. Suspending licenses removes the driver from the system. Technological monitoring keeps the driver in the system while creating new layers of oversight and control. One approach focuses on accountability. The other focuses on management.
Those are fundamentally different philosophies.
New York's "super speeder" law is being sold as a narrowly targeted safety measure. Maybe that's how it begins. The larger concern is where it ends. Once government gains the authority to electronically regulate how privately owned vehicles operate, future expansions become much easier to justify.
The most important question isn't whether a driver with 16 violations deserves punishment. It's whether Americans are comfortable creating the technological infrastructure that allows government to control how a privately owned vehicle operates.
Today, lawmakers call it a solution for super speeders. Tomorrow, it could become something much broader.
The backlash against AI reveals it’s a terrible scapegoat
One day, not long ago — no one can recall exactly when — AI dropped from the sky, a deus ex machina springing fully formed from the head of, well, maybe its own head.
Or so it seems.
The context around the technology matters even more than the content.
In reality, AI’s origin story runs much deeper. So does the backlash against it. Both look stranger than they are because our shared memory of the recent past keeps shrinking.
AI has been a long time coming. In the mid-20th century, when human imagination still outran human and machine memory, artists produced vivid narratives about supercomputers and superintelligence. Scientists and engineers did the same, especially after World War II. Go back and read atomic-age Vannevar Bush, who mentored the namesake of Anthropic’s Claude, and the surprise is not that AI arrived. The surprise is that it took so long.
So why has AI produced such powerful future shock?
Not long ago, Americans rushed to embrace new technology. Yes, we were naïve about social media. We underestimated how people and governments would peep into our personal cyberspace. But when social media exposed our own questionable collective character, the reaction was not fury. Troubled? Yes. Shocked? No.
Even now, despite evidence that smartphones have entrenched bad habits and unhealthy temptations, we broadly regard the phone-and-app ecosystem as manageable. The trade-offs seem worth the bother if we clean up our act and make responsible choices.
AI is different. For millions participating in the backlash, AI differs from smartphones and social media not merely in power and scope, but in perceived injustice. Smartphones may rot our brains slowly. According to the backlash, even moderate AI use will swiftly destroy society.
The history we long to forget
Left-wing critics describe this destruction in terms of justice and the human nature Marx called our “species being.” Right-wing critics reach for the language of spiritual illness and stolen souls. The claim remains roughly the same: AI uniquely threatens our humanity, so the conversation about how to respond need not account for anything else.
Introduce any complicating factor outside AI and its creators, and critics may accuse you of distraction, dissembling, excuse-making, or apologizing for a permanent underclass — perhaps even human extinction.
I understand why so many people are so freaked out and so unwilling to pull focus away from AI. But the biggest reason lies outside AI and the AI debate.
Look at the arc Americans traveled with smartphones and social media. These transformative technologies became ubiquitous around the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Thanks to “innovative” monetary policy and frantic institutional improvisation, the world avoided penury, and technological development kept moving along its established trajectory.
Many Americans surely spent more time online as economic slack and stagnation spread after the crisis. Yet that shock was nothing like the blow that came during the COVID lockdowns.
Over those two decades, America’s fundamentals became dangerously unsound. Governance embraced can-kicking, corruption, patronage, fraud, and self-dealing legerdemain that cooked the country as much as it cooked the books. But the populist backlash — as veterans of Occupy Wall Street, the Ron Paul “rEVOLution,” or the Bernie Bro movement will remember — remained contained and controlled.
RELATED: There's a surprising fix for our AI oversight anarchy
At least until Trump came along.
Even during Trump’s first term, few Americans felt like sitting ducks in the shadow of cataclysm. Times were tough, the middle class felt squeezed, and the dollar didn’t go as far. But those pressures had become baseline dynamics — the same problem set Ross Perot once explained with his chicken-foot pointer in populist third-party infomercials.
The lockdown era obliterated that holding pattern. It also wiped out many people’s ability to process the new normal. The socioeconomic malaise accelerated into territory so unsustainable that people simply stopped trying to understand it.
They blocked it out like an event too awful to remain in our memory.
Runaway inflation. Church closures. Rising living costs. Soaring entry costs for upward mobility. Devalued savings. Exhausted savings. The mathematical impossibility of building a middle-class life across family, education, and wealth formation within the given number of workweeks in a year.
That was the comprehensive catastrophe.
And it unfolded before robust AI asserted itself on the social scene.
Rebirth and return
That means we cannot understand the AI backlash unless we recognize that the context around the technology matters even more than the content.
For many millions across the political spectrum, the American dream was already destroyed before they could form real judgments about AI. In a national atmosphere of spiritual sickness, financial insolvency, economic weakness, and social disintegration, AI appeared as the final blow — especially as AI leaders themselves forecast the end of paychecks, jobs, careers, and perhaps humanity itself.
Deep down, many Americans feel that the habits, institutions, and confidence that might have allowed them to participate fruitfully in the AI era were stripped away years ago. AI seems big, alien, and wrong. Worse, it seems forced on them at a moment of unprecedented weakness, after any hope of recovery has already vanished.
Because they now feel they can fight the “clankers” and their makers in a way they cannot fight their own downward mobility and immiseration, AI has become the perfect scapegoat.
And that is the danger.
Killing AI will not regrow our spiritual and social roots. In fact, our structural situation has deteriorated so badly that leaning harder on the machines than we otherwise would may now be necessary.
We need a financial reboot. We need to dismantle the governance system that sucked us dry. We need to shift from overextended sole superpower to sustainable civilization-state fast enough to avoid the geopolitical spike pit between those two conditions.
Without those urgent needs, we would have more time and room to maneuver on AI. But we do need those things, and we do not have much choice or time — at least not if we want to hold the country together long enough to give Americans back the freedom to regrow their spiritual and social shoots.
The real way. The slow way. The human way.
Treating AI as the ultimate scapegoat for all our ills will distort and delay that process. Treating AI as the ultimate savior will derail and damage us in the opposite direction.
Nor will the fantasy of curing our national trauma by using AI to solve all human problems restore American life as a challenge worth living. Our new technology can be much more, and much less, than a replacement plan for people reduced to polyp status.
That is the opening for a constructive approach to AI that most of us can ultimately live with.
$965 billion AI giant warns we need to hit the brakes — but will China?
Anthropic helped build the AI race. Now, it's warning the finish line may be coming faster than anyone expected.
The company, recently valued at a staggering $965 billion, says its latest AI systems are approaching dangerous capabilities that could fundamentally change the future of technology, prompting calls for a worldwide slowdown in frontier AI development.
“They did this because it’s getting close to improving itself without human help,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray explains on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”
“In April, Claude ran a full AI research project completely on its own. Humans picked the topic and then it just did it. Claude came up with every experiment, ran every test, and delivered the results. Two human researchers spent a full week on the same problem,” he continues.
While the researchers only made it 23% of the way there, Claude made it 97% of the way there.
“Claude Mythos preview is now 52 times faster than a skilled human at improving AI training code. So it can fix its own training code. The same task takes a human four to eight hours. Claude does it better. Claude already writes 80% of Anthropic's own code,” Gray says.
While in March 2024, Claude could reportedly handle a four-minute task on its own; now it handles 12-hour tasks.
“That number doubles every four months,” Gray explains, adding that “week-long tasks are expected by 2027.”
“So when they call for a development pause, I mean we’re caught between a rock and a hard place, right, on this technology. No one wants to pause or slow down on this because there’s so much at stake,” he continues.
“There’s money, there’s advancement, there’s so much going on here ... and they can’t risk falling behind others. Worse than companies not being willing to do this, China certainly isn’t going to pause,” he adds.
Want more from Pat Gray?
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
The one word that can help you use technology — without letting it use you
Technology. I’m not a “technology writer” by any stretch of the imagination, but I find myself writing about it a lot.
I don’t opine about the next breakthroughs in AI or the newest generation of iPads that are set to be released at the end of Q3. Are there new iPads coming out in Q3? I don’t know. I’m not a technology writer.
But it is the most viable and scalable path forward in a world oversaturated with digital technology.
But I do think a lot about the role of technology in our lives. About the way we live differently alongside it and how we are shaped in strange ways by it.
Same but different
In some ways, it’s a very 21st-century concern. Technology — digital technology in particular — has been advancing at an unparalleled rate in our century, and it doesn’t seem to show any signs of slowing.
But, of course, technology didn't begin with the digital. Cars are technology. The washing machine was once cutting-edge technology. Same for the printing press, the mechanical clock, and the wheel. Technology has been around, advancing, and disrupting for a long time.
We live in a post-assembly-line world. That term — the assembly line — isn’t even particularly interesting to us. Same with the Industrial Revolution. That’s just something boring we learned about (and then promptly forgot) in middle school.
But the Industrial Revolution and the assembly line were quite radical at one point. They changed the way people work, and they disrupted society. A fair share of the carnage of the 20th century is due, in part, to the disruptions of the Industrial Revolution.
The train changed the way we move, the printing press changed how we learn, the telephone made us closer even when we were farther, the radio made mass society possible, the television made books less relevant, and the invention of the washing machine — yes, the mundane washing machine — played some role in the social revolutions of the 1960s.
All-consuming
In this sense, the age of AI is no different from the steam age. In another sense, however, it is unlike any technological revolution we have ever experienced: far more immersive and all-consuming than anything that came before.
Because it is more possible than ever to always be connected to everyone on earth in a perpetual state of latent distraction and worry, our time presents unique challenges for all thinking people who want to live a decent life that might be be hard to recognize to those who came before us.
For a few, the answer is blowing it all up. For many more, the answer is embracing every single aspect of every new form of digital technology imaginable like a dog lapping up fresh water. Both are wrong. The extreme answers are often the most alluring because they only require addressing one decision point. This way or that way? Once you settle on which, you just scale it out the whole way and set the cruise control.
RELATED: Want to be a man of action? Start a family
Split the difference
Yes, as with most things, the middle path is the way forward. I know, it’s not sexy, and it’s not at all alluring. Moderation never is. But it is the most viable and scalable path forward in a world oversaturated with digital technology.
Intentional technology use — that’s what it is, and that’s what we will call it. That first word is the key word: intentional. Most of the drift into toxic technology consumption and brain rot is due to being less than intentional in terms of how one uses technology.
Defaulting to “just using the phone” or “just asking Grok” or “just scrolling” because you have some time to waste. Concluding that watching more, streaming more, scrolling more, and outsourcing more of your decision-making to technology because there isn’t anything inherently wrong or immoral about it.
That kind of unintentional approach to technology can quickly lead to surrendering all of your agency to the bots. As the gamers would put it, you go from being a player to one of those automatons the player meets along the way: a non-player character.
Best intentions
To use technology intentionally is to ask if we can do it ourselves before enlisting digital help. Intentional technology use is asking ourselves if we like ourselves when we use some product, app, or digital service — and, if the answer is no, changing course.
Intentional technology use is setting aside time apart from technology so we can remember what it means to be purely human. Intentional technology use is about balancing convenience and thoughtfulness. It’s about managing the speed of the modern world without losing the pace of organic human society.
Intentional technology use isn’t about making everyone’s choices regarding technology the exact same. People will decide differently. Everyone’s lives won’t be alike. That’s a feature, not a bug.
The key is that first word — intention. Without that, we're just floating down the stream, pushed wherever the currents of technological progress take us. The 21s century is unlikely to become less complicated. To thrive as humans in this most disruptive of times, we must keep asking ourselves the fundamental question: Who are we, and who do we want to be?
Teen takeover planned for Florida beach thwarted; cops say they used social media against organizers
Police said a teen takeover intended to take place at a Florida beach was thwarted after cops turned the tables on the organizers — and used social media against them.
Authorities in St. Johns County told Fox News they squashed the planned event after finding social media posts encouraging youths to gather at St. Augustine Beach for what officials said was shaping up to be a chaotic and violent gathering.
'You don't know if it's going to be 10 people, 100 people, or 1,000 people ... showing up, so it's extremely taxing on our resources, especially being a small police department like we are.'
"This wasn't an invite for a teen party or a beach gathering. This was an invitation to come take over our beach and create chaos and possibly leading to violence," St. Augustine Beach Police Chief Daniel Carswell told Fox News on Monday.
Authorities pre-emptively canceled the planned takeover in the interest of public safety — and to send a signal to those planning to participate, the news network noted.
"[We did this] to put everybody on alert that if they come, if they're going to respond to this invitation, there's going to be zero tolerance here in St. Augustine Beach," Carswell added to Fox News.
St. Johns County Sheriff Robert Hardwick said targeting suspicious social media chatter began with analyzing community reports and monitoring organizers' attempts to act behind the scenes, the news network said: "The organizers started moving it around, basically on posters, trying to be strategically behind the scenes, trying to get people to bite into the actual event itself. And again, we just don't tolerate this garbage in St. Johns County."
Carswell added to Fox News that he couldn't recall any prior attempts to stage such an event in St. Johns County but highlighted other instances across the country, including some in Florida.
"These things are spread ... via TikTok and social media," he noted to the news network.
"You don't know if it's going to be 10 people, 100 people, or 1,000 people ... showing up, so it's extremely taxing on our resources, especially being a small police department like we are," he continued.
Police posted on Facebook their response to one teen takeover announcement, noting the following "PSA":
The planned event is not permitted and has been canceled by the St. Augustine Beach Police Department. While we welcome and encourage everyone to enjoy our community and beaches, any unlawful gathering, criminal activity, or disturbance of the peace will be met with immediate enforcement action. To ensure the safety of our residents and visitors, there will be a substantial law enforcement presence at and around the St. Augustine Beach Pier tomorrow afternoon. We appreciate the public's cooperation in helping maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for all.
A violent teen takeover in Florida last month led to the arrests of suspects as young as 12, officials said, adding that Tampa Police officers arrested 22 people in connection with the incident in the area of Curtis Hixon Park, which police said resulted in "significant disruptions, fights, and other issues."
In April, fights erupted and sheriff's deputies were hurt after more than 1,000 teenagers descended upon ICON Park in Orlando as part of a planned takeover.
Tampa Police added that with summer approaching, the growing "takeover" trend has become a concern for communities across the country — not just in Tampa.
Indeed, a massive brawl broke out in a Washington, D.C., Chipotle restaurant last month — with chairs being thrown and used as weapons — just one day after U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced she would prosecute parents of youths taking part in teen takeovers, WJLA-TV reported.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
You Should Control Your Child’s Phone — Not Silicon Valley
Big Tech has lawyers, lobbyists, and limitless resources. Parents have the law, the Constitution, and the truth. That should be enough.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com