Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ripped what he called the ‘bad decisions’ coming out of the White House under President Biden, but stopped short of saying whether he thinks the president is fit to serve as commander in chief.

The discussion happened during an exclusive Fox News Town Hall on Tuesday after host Sean Hannity played a video montage of Biden’s frequent gaffes, and asked Kennedy if the president was ‘physically, mentally, cognitively strong enough to lead our country.’

‘Well, he’s never been very good with words,’ Kennedy responded as the audience laughed.

Hannity pressed Kennedy, noting the Democratic Party’s ‘reluctance’ to point out Biden’s gaffes, and asked again if he really thought Biden is ‘up to the job.’

‘I’m not reluctant to say that for partisan reasons. What I’ve tried to do during this campaign is avoid personal attacks on people,’ Kennedy said. ‘I will say, whether he’s up to it or not, whether he’s making his own decisions – the decisions that are coming out of the White House are bad decisions.’

Kennedy later repeated a claim he made earlier this month that he was ‘the first person censored by the Biden White House,’ referencing what he said was the White House entreating Twitter and Facebook to censor him within two days of Biden’s inauguration in January 2021.

He first made the claim in an interview with Fox News following federal judge Terry Doughty’s ruling that the FBI under the Biden administration ‘engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech and blatantly ignored the First Amendment right to free speech.’

‘It seems that they’re also doing that [selective targeting] to any group now… to groups that are simply political enemies of the current administration or at least of the Biden administration. I was the first person censored by the Biden administration, according to Judge Doughty’s decision,’ Kennedy said at the time.

‘I’m still being censored. We know the FBI is involved in that censorship as well as a whole plethora of other federal agencies,’ he said.

Despite the allegations of censorship against the White House and other government institutions, Kennedy has remained reluctant to criticize the administration when it comes to the congressional investigations surrounding the Biden family finances.

On Sunday he told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo that there needed to be ‘a real investigation,’ but avoided commenting in depth on the details of the investigation already revealed by House Republicans.

Fox News’ Charles Creitz contributed to this report.

The CEO of an artificial intelligence ‘safety and research company’ warned the Senate Tuesday that AI could be just a few years away from giving bad actors around the globe the capacity to carry out biological weapons attacks.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that the prospect of AI helping people develop and deliver these weapons is a medium-term risk that his company is grappling with today.

‘Over the last six months, Anthropic, in collaboration with world-class biosecurity experts, has conducted an intensive study on the potential for AI to contribute to the misuse of biology,’ he said.

‘Today, certain steps in bioweapons production involve knowledge that can’t be found on Google or in textbooks and requires a high level of specialized expertise — this being one of the things that currently keeps us safe from attacks,’ he added.

He said today’s AI tools can help fill in ‘some of these steps,’ though they can do this ‘incompletely and unreliably.’ But he said today’s AI is already showing these ‘nascent signs of danger,’ and said his company believes it will be much closer just a few years from now.

‘A straightforward extrapolation of today’s systems to those we expect to see in two to three years suggests a substantial risk that AI systems will be able to fill in all the missing pieces, enabling many more actors to carry out large-scale biological attacks,’ he said. ‘We believe this represents a grave threat to U.S. national security.’

Amodei added that Anthropic has briefed government officials on this assessment, ‘all of whom found the results disquieting.’

While his company supports the safe developing of AI, he said this dangerous risk posed by AI won’t go away because of corporate actions alone.

‘Private action is not enough,’ he said. ‘This risk and many others like it requires a systemic policy response.’

Amodei suggested three steps for the government to take, and outlined those steps in the Senate hearing that was aimed at sorting out the ‘principles’ of AI regulation. First, he said the government should take steps to put limits on the export of equipment that can help people develop AI systems.

‘The U.S. must secure the AI supply chain in order to maintain its lead while keeping these technologies out of the hands of bad actors,’ he said.

He also recommended a tough testing and auditing regime for all powerful, new AI models, and said those models shouldn’t be released to the public until they pass those tests. And third, he said more work needs to be done testing the systems used to audit AI tools.

‘It is not currently easy to detect all the bad behaviors an AI system is capable of without first broadly deploying it to users, which is what creates the risk,’ he said.

Amodei’s company is one of seven that agreed last week to a set of guidelines promoted by the White House that are aimed at developing safe, secure and trustworthy AI tools.

Amodei was at the White House last week as Biden announced the initiative, along with representatives from Amazon, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI.

California, already struggling with an exodus of residents fleeing the state, will have about the same population in 2060 as it does now and fewer people than it had just three years ago, according to new government projections.

The forecasts released by the California Department of Finance show the Golden State’s population in 2060 is estimated to be 39.51 million people, which is lower than the 39.52 residents who lived there in 2020. Just under 39 million people live today in California, the country’s most populated state.

Just three years ago, forecasters estimated California’s population in 2060 would be 45 million. A few years earlier, the projection was over 50 million, indicating an expected population boom. 

Meanwhile, the latest projections show the Golden State having 40 million residents in 2050, a shocking drop from the 59.5 million residents predicted in the Department of Finance’s forecasts in 2007. The difference between the two figures — 19.5 million people — is equivalent to the total population of New York state.

California saw its first-ever population decline in 2020, when the state imposed rigid lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, Californians continue to leave in droves, moving their homes and businesses to other parts of the country and creating problems for their former state.

From January 2020 to July 2022, the state lost well over half a million people, with the number of residents leaving surpassing those moving in by almost 700,000. The U-Haul Growth Index, which measured more than 2 million one-way trips last year, found that California ranked last on the index as demand for trucks out of the Golden State spiked.

Demographers note such an exodus can have compounding effects into the future as people who move take not only themselves but their children.

California’s population decline is having real consequences. In 2021, the state lost a House seat for the first time since achieving statehood in 1850. If the population continues to decline, another House seat could be at risk.

Another effect of fewer people could be an erosion of California’s tax base, already one of the country’s most taxed populations with the nation’s highest top income tax rate at 13.3% among other onerous taxes.

In May, Newsom announced the state’s budget deficit had grown to nearly $32 billion, which is about $10 billion more than he anticipated in January when he offered his first budget proposal. One reason for the higher figure was lower than expected tax revenue.

The 10 states with the highest taxes lost nearly 1 in 100 residents in net domestic migration between July 2021 and July 2022, while the 10 states with the lowest taxes gained almost 1 in 100, according to a recent analysis by James Doti, president emeritus and economics professor at Chapman University. 

‘The latest census has shown that the highest tax states — California, New York and Illinois — have all seen massive population exodus,’ Nicholas Robinson, director of accountancy at Illinois University, recently told WalletHub. ‘The states that have grown the most, Florida and Texas, do not have an income tax. The benefits or detriments of being in a high-tax state versus a low-tax state could be assessed by the population voting with its feet.’

Still, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, defended his state and expressed optimism about the future despite a declining population.

‘I love this state,’ Newsom said recently during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. ‘Don’t count us out.’

Newsom added that, per capita, ‘more Floridians move to California than California is moving to Florida.’

Last year, however, Florida saw the biggest rush of new residents migrating from predominantly blue states with steep taxes, with about 319,000 Americans making the move there, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. That amounts to a population increase of nearly 2%, well above the 0.4% national growth rate in the U.S. from July 2021 to July 2022.

Texas, the second most populated state and another popular destination beyond Florida for moving Californians, is projected to expand from 30 million people to 36.7 million by 2060, according to its latest forecast from last year.

According to Census data, Florida and Texas easily had the highest net migration of people moving there in 2021, while California by far had the lowest as twice as many people left as moved in.

As for California, the state is expected to return to its 2020 population level in the 2030s, regaining its population decline from the pandemic, and hit its peak in 2044 before declining. The forecasts are based on both net migration and a natural increase in population, which means births minus deaths. The number of deaths in California will exceed births by 2035, according to the data.

California’s total fertility rate, which has been below replacement level of 2.1 births per woman since 2009, is projected to decline to 1.5. This will be supplemented by an expected surge in the number of deaths over the next three decades as so-called baby boomers grow older.

Experts warn to be wary of long-term projections, noting many factors can change, and the calculations can’t be full-proof. However, in the near term, at least, many signs indicate California’s exodus will continue.

More than 40% of Californians are considering leaving the Golden State, according to a new poll from a consortium of California nonprofits. Almost a third of residents said their urge to leave was fueled by California’s liberal politics.

A high cost of living is another major factor for many. Some have also cited other social and cultural factors, such as the homeless crisis that is devastating major cities such as Los Angeles. 

LA has seen a growing number of homeless encampments popping up along the streets of the city, coinciding with rising crime rates and creating scenes of trash, needles and even human feces and urine in public areas. Many business owners have complained, expressing outrage about such encampments being close to their establishments and potentially driving away customers.

According to Department of Finance data, the County of Los Angeles is expected to shrink by 1.7 million people from 2020 to 2060. 

Hunter Biden is set to make his first court appearance in Delaware where he is expected to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges Wednesday morning stemming from the years-long federal investigation into his tax affairs. 

President Biden’s son is expected to appear in front of Judge Maryellen Noreika at 10:00 a.m. 

Hunter Biden, 53, has agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax. 

‘Despite owing in excess of $100,000 in federal income taxes each year, he did not pay the income tax due for either year,’ the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware David C. Weiss’ office said upon announcing the charges last month. ‘According to the firearm Information, from on or about October 12, 2018 through October 23, 2018, Hunter Biden possessed a firearm despite knowing he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance.’ 

Weiss’ office said if convicted, Hunter Biden faces a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison on each of the tax charges – a total of two years. There is a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the firearm charge for which he agreed to a pretrial diversion program. 

Such programs according to the DOJ website, ‘divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into alternative systems of supervision and service’ such as mental health or substance abuse treatment. Those who successfully complete diversion programs, the DOJ says, can see ‘declination of charges, dismissal or reduction of charges, or a more favorable recommendation at sentencing.’

‘A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors,’ Weiss’ office said. 

‘The investigation is ongoing,’ the office said in a statement last month. 

Hunter Biden will also enter into a pretrial diversion agreement regarding a separate felony charge of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.

The plea deal, which has faced ire from Republicans and opponents of the president, is likely to keep Hunter Biden out of jail. 

Hunter Biden’s first court appearance comes after highly-anticipated public testimony from two IRS whistleblowers – Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler – who were part of the IRS’ investigative team on the Hunter investigation. They alleged the investigation and prosecutorial decisions were influenced by politics. The Justice Department has denied the allegations. 

The appearance also comes a day after Judge Noreika has threatened Hunter Biden’s legal team with sanctions over allegations about lying to the clerk’s office. His counsel is accused of avoiding proper court procedure to allegedly get information about IRS whistleblowers removed from the docket. 

Specifically, a lawyer from Hunter’s legal team is accused of misrepresenting who she was when asking to remove amicus materials from the docket. She allegedly called to ask the clerk to seal the information instead of making a formal request to the court.

Noreika gave Biden’s legal team until 9 p.m. on Tuesday to explain their side.

Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation since 2018. That investigation into his ‘tax affairs’ began amid the discovery of suspicious activity reports (SARs) regarding funds from ‘China and other foreign nations.’ IRS whistleblowers said the investigation began as an ‘offshoot’ from an existing probe into a foreign pornography platform. 

Fox News first reported in 2020 that the FBI had subpoenaed a laptop and hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden in connection with a money-laundering investigation in late 2019. 

In December 2020, weeks after the 2020 presidential election, Biden publicly acknowledged he was under investigation related to his taxes. At the time, Biden said he took the matter ‘very seriously’ and was ‘confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.’ 

The firearms charge stemmed from allegations that Hunter Biden lied during a gun purchase in 2018. 

Fox News first reported in 2021 that police had responded to an incident in 2018, when a gun owned by Hunter Biden was thrown into a trash can outside a market in Delaware.

A firearm transaction report reviewed by Fox News indicated that Hunter Biden purchased a gun earlier that month.

On the firearm transaction report, Hunter Biden answered in the negative when asked if he was ‘an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?’

Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy in 2014 after testing positive for cocaine. 

When asked for comment after the charges were announced, the White House released a statement saying: ‘The President and First Lady love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life. We will have no further comment.’

Maine is poised to launch an offshore wind program that would meet clean energy goals and produce enough power for about 900,000 homes from floating wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine.

The legislation, which was endorsed by lawmakers Tuesday, calls for requests for proposals to be issued for 3,000 megawatts of electricity from offshore wind turbines by 2040. That’s enough electricity to power about half of Maine’s electricity load.

‘This bill means jobs. It means lower, more stable energy prices, while at the same time addressing climate change. We need to pass this bill now,’ said Democratic Sen. Mark Lawrence, the bill’s sponsor.

Legislation was revised, combined with another bill and reintroduced to address Democratic Gov. Janet Mills’ concerns about labor agreements, causing her to veto an earlier bill. The offshore wind bill passed both chambers of the Legislature in initial votes Tuesday.

Approval puts Maine on a path to catch up with other states that already have offshore wind projects. The catch, however, is that the wind turbines would be farther offshore than those projects, and would involve floating turbines. It also includes incentives aimed at ensuring wind power developers steer clear of lucrative lobster fishing grounds.

Lawrence, of York, said previously that he believes the compromise proposal has necessary ‘guardrails in place to make sure this is done right and truly benefits Mainers.’

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management already approved projects that are now under construction off Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island, and it gave the green light earlier this month for New Jersey’s first offshore wind farm to begin construction. Next month, it will hold an auction for leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

In Maine, the timeline calls for the federal lease sales to be completed next year and for the state to release request for proposals to operate the offshore wind turbines in early 2026.

The Gulf of Maine is considered a prize when it comes to consistent, powerful winds, but the water is too deep for traditional wind turbines that are anchored to the ocean floor. Maine officials hope companies will license technology from the University of Maine, which has been pioneering precast floating turbines that can be built on land and towed to sea.

‘This is the bill that will jumpstart the offshore wind industry in Maine,’ said Jack Shapiro, climate and clean energy director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

A decade ago, the state was poised to host a $120 million wind project led by Norwegian company Statoil, but Statoil backed out after the state reopened bidding to provide an opportunity to the University of Maine.

The U.S. could need roughly 2,000 of the most powerful turbines to meet its goals to ramp up offshore wind. Doing so would dramatically cut its use of fossil fuels, protect the atmosphere and reduce climate change.

<!–>

–>

The Supreme Court this fall will decide whether to take up a case that challenges a New York law that says ‘sidewalk counselors’ outside abortion clinics can be arrested if they approach women to discuss alternatives to abortion. 

Should at least four justices agree to take up the case, the court could potentially undo decades of precedent that some justices have already said ‘distort[s] First Amendment Doctrines.’ 

The case, Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, stems from a challenge to a law put in place by Westchester County, New York, last year in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson – which overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the question of abortion accessibility back to the states to decide. 

The county’s law made it illegal to approach within eight feet of another person in public near abortion clinics for the purpose of engaging in oral protest, education or counseling, unless the other person gives explicit consent. 

Debra Vitagliano, a Catholic sidewalk counselor who says she feels ‘called to be a compassionate voice to abortion-vulnerable women, letting them know that they are loved, supported, and can choose life for their babies,’ sued the county last year. 

Vitagliano is as an occupational therapist with special-needs children, a profession she says has led her ‘to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of all people, no matter their level of functioning.’ Consistent with her Catholic faith, she opposes abortion, believing it is the deliberate taking of innocent human life, her petition to the Supreme Court says.

She also volunteers as ‘life consultant’ at a local pregnancy resource center, meeting with women experiencing unplanned pregnancies and discussing options and available resources. 

So far, Vitagliano has lost in lower courts because judges have cited a 1973 Supreme Court case, Hill v. Colorado, that essentially upheld the same type of law with the reasoning that citizens should be protected from ‘unwanted speech.’ 

But Vitagliano’s lawyers are arguing that case should be overturned, and have presented the high court with an opportunity to do just that. 

‘On the day it was decided, members of this Court recognized that Hill stands ‘in stark contradiction of the constitutional principles [the Court] appl[ies] in all other contexts’ outside abortion,’ the court document states, quoting a dissent from the late Justice Antonin Scaila. 

The document also notes now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissent that said Hill ‘contradicts more than a half century of well-established First Amendment principles.’

‘Three Justices have since recognized that intervening precedents have ‘all but interred’ Hill’s analysis, leaving it ‘an aberration in [the Court’s] case law,’’ the document continues. 

The document also cites most recently in the Dobbs majority opinion, which stated that ‘Hill was a ‘distort[ion]’ of ‘First Amendment doctrines.’’ 

Mark Rienzi, president and CEO at Becket, the firm representing Vitagliano, says the high court ‘should fix the mistake of Hill and make clear that the First Amendment protects these offers of help and information to women in need.’

Rienzi says critics who support the law because it’s aimed at stopping obstruction or violence are in error, because laws that protect against such actions are already on the books.

‘These laws are only about stopping peaceful speech. In fact, if I approached someone with a baseball bat instead of a leaflet, I wouldn’t violate this law. I only violate this law by approaching to speak. 

The law targets the exchange of information on public sidewalks and government shouldn’t do that. The only reason it ever happened was we had a court that was twisting things to protect abortion. We should be out of that business, and we should let people speak freely. It’s bad for the law to have this situation where these women don’t get offered to help because the government is micromanaging who can engage peacefully on public sidewalks.’

The petition cites a number of legal scholars who have also criticized the Hill decision, including liberal Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who said, ‘I don’t think [Hill] was a difficult case. I think it was slam-dunk simple and slam-dunk wrong.’ 

The earliest the Supreme Court could decide to take up the Vitagliano case is Monday, Oct. 2, when the tribunal begins its 2023-24 term.

Three witnesses who are set to appear Wednesday morning before the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs are expected to testify that the United States government should share information and intelligence it has with the American people concerning unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), previously known as unidentified flying objects (UFO).

The witnesses include David Grusch, an intelligence officer for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Ryan ‘FOBS’ Graves, a former F-18 pilot with over a decade of service in the U.S. Navy; and David Fravor, a retired commander in the U.S. Navy who was also the commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 41, the world-famous Black Aces.

Grusch and Graves are expected to testify about how the government keeps its knowledge of UAPs secret, even to lawmakers, while Fravor is expected to talk about the advanced technologies — which are potentially extraterrestrial — that intelligence services have witnessed in recent years.

The committee hearing titled ‘Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency’ is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday, July 26.  

Grusch is expected to testify before Chairman Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc., Ranking Member Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and the Republican-majority members that the U.S. government is ‘operating with secrecy’ and ‘above Congressional oversight’ in its handling of UAPs.

‘I became a Whistleblower, through a PPD-19 Urgent Concern filing with the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), following concerning reports from multiple esteemed and credentialed current and former military and Intelligence Community individuals that the US Government is operating with secrecy — above Congressional oversight — with regards to UAPs,’ Grusch will say according to an opening statement provided to Fox News Digital. ‘My testimony is based on information I have been given by individuals with a longstanding track record of legitimacy and service to this country – many of whom also shared compelling evidence in the form of photography, official documentation, and classified oral testimony.’  

Graves is expected to express to the committee that ‘advanced UAP are a national security and an aviation safety problem’ that demands ‘immediate attention and concerted action.’

‘As we convene here, UAP are in our airspace, but they are grossly underreported,’ Graves will say Wednesday morning. ‘These sightings are not rare or isolated; they are routine. Military aircrews and commercial pilots, trained observers whose lives depend on accurate identification, are frequently witnessing these phenomena.’

‘The stigma attached to UAP is real and powerful and challenges national security,’ his statement continues, arguing that those who speak out about the dangers of UAPs fear repercussions. ‘It silences commercial pilots who fear professional repercussions, discourages witnesses, and is only compounded by recent government claims questioning the credibility of eyewitness testimony.’

He adds,’The government knows more about UAP than shared publicly, and excessive classification practices keep crucial information hidden. There’s a lack of transparency around UAP that’s unsettling. Since 2021, all UAP videos are classified as secret or above. This level of secrecy not only impedes our understanding but fuels speculation and mistrust.’

Fravor’s opening statement strikes a different tone pushing for more oversight from elected officials and ensuring ‘our system of checks and balances works across all work done in our government using taxpayer funds.’

‘What concerns me is that there is no ‘oversight’ from our elected officials on anything associated with our government possessing or working on craft that we believe are not from this world,’ he will say. ‘This issue is not about full public disclosure that could undermine national security, but it is about ensuring that our system of checks and balances works across all work done in our government using taxpayer funds.’

His statement also highlights the ‘Tic Tac Object’ that the U.S. Navy engaged with in Nov 2004. The object was ‘far superior to anything that we had at the time, have today, or are looking to develop in the next 10+ years,’ his statement reads.

It adds, ‘If we in fact have programs that possess this technology, it needs to have oversight from those people that the citizens of this great country elected to office to represent what is best for the United States and in the best interest of its citizens.’

Other GOP members of the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs include Reps. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; Virginia Foxx, R-NC.; Clay Higgins, R-Louisiana; Pete Sessions, R-Texas; Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.; Nancy Mace, R-SC; Jake Laturner, R-KS; Pat Fallon, R-Texas; Kelly Armstrong, R-ND; and, Scott Perry, R-Penn.

Its Democratic members are Reps. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.; Dan Goldman, D-NY; Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.; Katie Porter, D-Calif.; Cori Bush, D-Missouri; and Maxwell Frost, D-Fla.

Fox News’ Kelly Phares contributed to this report.

–>