A woman from Moldova has been stripped of her citizenship after she was discovered to have been involved a business that sexually exploited children.

Tatiana Power gained her U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process but was later convicted of crimes related to a child modeling business.

Power was one of six people who were charged with crimes related to the case, but two of those have died.

Power had been the bookkeeper for Newstar Websites, which recruited children under the guise of modeling, but instead the children were made to engage in sexual conduct for images and videos.

The organization had targeted Moldovan, Ukrainian, and other Eastern European children and then sold the child sex images and videos to customers in more than a hundred countries.

Prosecutors said they produced about 4.6 million videos and images, including children as young as 6 years old.

Some of the children were made to wear transparent underwear, pantyhose and miniskirts, or dress up in cheerleader or police costumes.

Power pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering conspiracy and was sentenced in 2022 to more than 12 years in prison.

On Tuesday, the DOJ said it had also stripped Power of her citizenship.

Power was one of six people who were charged with crimes related to the case, but two of those have died, two others were imprisoned, and one has eluded U.S. custody.

RELATED: Illegal alien allegedly bites 3-year-old’s face in horrifying random attack — DHS blames Biden

The Justice Department said it has filed 123 civil denaturalization complaints, which is the most in U.S. history.

Others who were denaturalized were Narinder Singh of India for identity fraud, Emigdio Sanchez of Mexico for lying about being arrested for domestic abuse, and Yetunde Folake Olaniyi of Nigeria for entering into s sham marriage.

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

​Immigration and customs enforcement, Child sex abuse material, Denaturalization, Immigration, Politics 

Age verification legislation has been a hot topic lately, with many states and even federal lawmakers eyeing restrictions that would force users to turn over their IDs to access their smart devices. In an attempt to beat big government to the punch, Google just announced new age limits coming to Android.

Despite the hype, the measure doesn’t have the protective powers its advocates claim.

On the other hand, Google’s approach could be worse.

The worst news is, it won’t satisfy big government, which will likely push for tighter restrictions still.

This isn’t a complete solution for people hoping their digital rights won’t be arbitrarily locked.

Age verification is coming to Android

In late July, Google announced that it is rolling out a way to provide “age-appropriate experiences” for Android users through the Google Play Age Signals API. The feature empowers app developers to add age-based restrictions to their applications. Then parents can go into their child’s phone and mark their child’s age in the device. If the child is a minor, apps that support the API will enable content restrictions accordingly.

The best part is that this solution doesn’t require an identification or biometric authorization from users. Instead, it relies on parental judgement, putting the power in parents’ hands to decide when to restrict their children’s devices instead of relying on government mandates and overreach. It’s exactly what we asked for back in May when we ripped apart the ironically named Parents Decide Act.

But is it enough to appease lawmakers?

Google’s saving grace won’t be enough for big government

Of course it isn’t, but there are some valid reasons why this isn’t a complete solution for people hoping their digital rights won’t be arbitrarily locked behind their state ID.

Fragmented support: The Google Play Age Signals API is optional for developers to add to their apps. As a result, there will be inevitable fragmentation, where some apps support the API while others do not. Without a consistent age-restricted experience across the entire Android platform, lawmakers will declare it to be insufficient and move forward with legislation.Legal proof: Lawmakers have already expressed that self-declared age verification isn’t enough, as parents would effectively do with Google’s API. They need users to legally show proof of age, and right now, that is only possible through IDs.Too little, too late: Age verification bills are already set in motion, with many of them being debated, refined, and set up for votes. Some have already gone into effect, leaving less wiggle room to pull the plug.

Google’s efforts to stop age verification legislation by giving power back to the people is a noble one, and it is worth commending. Unfortunately, the entire bill process is a bullet train barreling down the tracks with no way to stop.

RELATED: Automated cyberattacks are here — careless techies and well-funded foreigners are getting the blame

Moor Studio/Getty Images

It is already in motion, and only lawmakers can stand in the way. That’s why it is important to know which bills are on the table in your area and contact your representatives to let them know what you think. If you value online freedom, privacy, and security, the choice is clear. Contrary to what you have been told, age verification bills do not make users safer.

When will the API be available?

The Google Play Age Signals API is currently being tested in Brazil. Next, it will come to Australia and Canada in mid-August. After that, it will roll out globally by the end of the year. Once available, it will appear in the Google Family Link app for Android, where parents can set it once and let the API control the apps that support it.

The Google Family Link app is compatible with devices running Android 7.0 and up, so older Android phones will inevitably be left out. However, since we’re currently on Android 17, all flagship phones, mid-tier handsets, and even low-end models released within the last decade will have access, making Android an easier platform for parents to control what their kids can see online without the need for heavy-handed legislation from the government up top.

​Tech, Technology 

Kansas police met with a gruesome scene after a man called them to confess killing his four children and their mother before killing himself.

The man called 911 at about 8:50 a.m. on Tuesday, according to Winfield Police Chief Robbie DeLong.

Video from a neighbor’s Ring camera showed the man screaming profanities and pacing back and forth just a few days before he killed his family.

About two hours later, police breached the door of the residence in Winfield and found the remains of the five victims and 53-year-old Ronald Williams Sr.

The victims were identified as 44-year-old Kelly George and her four children, 9-year-old Carol Williams, 7-year-old Ronald Williams Jr., 5-year-old Sarah Williams, and 3-year-old Kelly Magee-Williams.

“There was no other indication of any other loss of life, and so standard protocol was to set up a perimeter and start working the incident as a barricade situation,” DeLong said.

Kansas Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Jason Diaz said that Williams Sr. appeared to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

No other people lived at the home and the public was under no threat, according to police.

Investigators are trying to determine the motive for the murder-suicide by interviewing neighbors.

Some indicated that Williams Sr. had been acting erratically in the months before the incident, and police said they had been at the residence to respond to numerous calls.

RELATED: Hawaii father kills his wife and 3 children then kills himself in state’s 2nd-worst mass killing

“I can’t say that anything would have indicated that we would be where we are today,” said DeLong.

KAKE-TV obtained video from a neighbor’s Ring camera showing the man screaming profanities and pacing back and forth just a few days before he killed his family.

He also had an extensive criminal past and was a registered sex offender.

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

​Murder suicide, Family killed, Kansas, Crime 

It wasn’t Washington that made me think about it. It was a quiet drive through Florida.

I had spent several days helping my son unpack after his move to Fishhawk Ranch. Like every mother, I was doing what mothers do: organizing closets, opening boxes, trying to make an unfamiliar place feel like home. From there, I drove north to Brooksville to interview someone for an article.

The most dangerous surveillance system isn’t the one we reject. It’s the one we eventually stop noticing.

Somewhere along that drive, I began noticing them.

Cameras.

One after another. Traffic cameras. Speed-enforcement cameras. License-plate readers mounted on poles. They weren’t hidden. They weren’t pretending not to be there. They stood over the road as casually as streetlights, silently recording the movements of every passing driver.

I caught myself wondering something that should concern every American: When did we decide this was normal?

Not when did governments decide. When did we?

Because I don’t remember anyone asking. I don’t recall a statewide debate. I don’t remember voting to create a society where our daily movements are cataloged, stored, shared, analyzed, and, in many cases, retained long after we’ve gone home.

Somewhere between “it’s just for traffic” and “it’s just for public safety,” America quietly became one of the most surveilled free societies in the world.

And hardly anyone noticed.

The Fourth Amendment wasn’t written because America’s founders feared technology. They feared government.

British authorities used “general warrants” and “writs of assistance,” legal instruments that allowed officials to search broadly without individualized suspicion. Those practices became one of the sparks of the American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment was a direct rejection of that kind of generalized intrusion. It was not merely about protecting homes. It was about preventing government from searching and tracking people without particularized cause.

Today’s surveillance technology raises a modern version of the same question.

No police department could assign an officer to follow every American every day. A computer can.

RELATED: Flock around and lose your rights

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Across the country, automated license-plate reader systems capture billions of vehicle scans every year. A single observation tells almost nothing. But millions of observations stitched together over months or years can reveal where we worship, whom we visit, what doctors we see, what political meetings we attend, and what causes we support.

One camera watches traffic. A network watches lives.

That distinction matters.

The Supreme Court has already begun recognizing it.

In United States v. Jones (2012), the court ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle’s movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Then, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), the court held that police generally need a warrant to obtain historical cell-site location information because prolonged tracking can reveal what Chief Justice John Roberts called the “privacies of life.”

The principle emerging from those cases is straightforward: Technology can change the constitutional analysis. What once would have required hundreds of officers working around the clock can now be accomplished automatically, cheaply, and at enormous scale.

That is why large license plate databases deserve serious scrutiny. Civil liberties groups have challenged warrantless access to them, arguing that mass collection can enable exactly the sort of suspicionless tracking the Fourth Amendment was designed to restrain.

The ACLU has likewise warned that these systems sweep up information about millions of innocent people whose only “crime” is driving to work, church, school, or the grocery store.

Those aren’t fringe lefty concerns.

The issue isn’t the existence of cameras. It is the absence of meaningful limits.

How long is the data kept? Who can search it? Can federal agencies access local databases? Can private companies? Can information collected for one purpose quietly be used for another?

Those questions deserve public answers.

Because history teaches an uncomfortable lesson: Governments rarely surrender surveillance powers voluntarily. They expand them.

RELATED: College student accused of destroying Flock cameras — and the community comes out in droves to defend him

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

That brings me back to Florida.

I recently read proposals to place cameras on municipal garbage trucks to identify possible zoning or code-enforcement violations while they move through neighborhoods.

Supporters see efficiency. Perhaps they are right.

But constitutional government is not built on efficiency alone. It is built on restraint.

Every surveillance tool arrives with a reasonable explanation: traffic safety, crime reduction, code enforcement, public health, national security. Individually, each sounds sensible. Collectively, they can create something the founders would instantly recognize and deeply distrust: a government capable of watching everyone.

Rather than abandon technology, the better answer is to insist that constitutional limits evolve alongside it.

If governments want to deploy large-scale surveillance systems, they should do so through open public debate and legislative approval. They should adopt strict retention limits, require warrants before searching historical movement data except in genuine emergencies, publish regular transparency reports, and impose meaningful penalties for misuse.

Citizens have tools too. Public records laws can reveal contracts with surveillance vendors, data-sharing agreements, retention policies, and audit logs. City council meetings and county commission hearings are often where these systems are approved. State legislatures can require judicial oversight, transparency, and meaningful limits on how surveillance data is collected and used.

Technology should serve a free people. Free people should never quietly become subjects of technology.

The most dangerous surveillance system isn’t the one we reject. It’s the one we eventually stop noticing.

​Opinion & analysis, Flock cameras, Surveillance, Fourth amendment, Civil liberties, Constitution, Supreme court, Transparency, Consent 

The Senate finally voted Saturday to confirm Todd Blanche as President Donald Trump’s new attorney general. Anyone who wants a Justice Department that enforces the law instead of bending it to politics can breathe a little easier.

Blanche is unusually well-suited for the job. He has seen the justice system from both sides — first as a federal prosecutor and assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, then as a defense attorney, including as one of Trump’s lead lawyers during the prosecutions he faced before returning to the White House. Few incoming attorneys general have had a more personal view of what prosecutorial power can become when politics infects the justice system.

Trump’s effort to reform the Justice Department is not complete, but the direction is a stark improvement over what came before.

A new era at the Justice Department has now officially begun, but the turnaround started before Blanche’s confirmation. Speed bumps aside, the direction under Trump’s team is unmistakable: order restored at the southern border, an end to lawfare, and a saner approach to antitrust enforcement. Blanche’s job is not to start that work. It is to finish it.

A timely reminder arrived last week, when the Department of Justice reached a settlement with Paul Vaughn days before Blanche was confirmed.

The Biden Justice Department charged Vaughn, a pro-life father of 11, under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act after he participated in a sit-in at a Tennessee abortion clinic in 2021.

FBI agents staged a predawn raid at his home and arrested him in front of his wife and children. Vaughn ultimately received three years of supervised release and no prison time, but other pro-life defendants were not so lucky.

Lauren Handy was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Jonathan Darnel received 34 months. Seventy-six-year-old Joan Andrews Bell got 27 months, and 75-year-old Paula Harlow received 24 months.

When Harlow’s husband pleaded for leniency because of her age and declining health, the judge replied that she should “make every effort to remain alive” in keeping with “the tenets of your religion.” All four were later pardoned by Trump.

The FACE Act protects access to abortion clinics, but it also protects pregnancy centers and houses of worship. Yet the Biden administration’s aggressive prosecution of pro-life demonstrators contrasted sharply with the much thinner record of prosecutions after extremists firebombed and vandalized pregnancy centers following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland once explained the difficulty by noting that many of the attacks happened at night. Apparently darkness is now a federal jurisdictional problem. Good to know. Garland was almost on the Supreme Court.

RELATED: The Biden tapes blow open the autopen scandal

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

The pro-life cases were among the most visible abuses of the Garland years, but hardly the only ones. His department drew justified outrage over its treatment of parents protesting school policies; House Republicans later accused the DOJ of having labeled parents as terrorist threats. The FBI also came under fire after an internal memo contemplated cultivating sources in traditionalist Catholic communities — what critics described as a plan to send spies into parishes. And special counsel Jack Smith pursued Trump through the heat of the 2024 campaign.

Even antitrust enforcement became an exercise in questionable priorities. The Justice Department blocked JetBlue from acquiring Spirit Airlines in 2024. Spirit later collapsed, removing a low-fare competitor from an already concentrated airline market. Regulators claimed to be protecting consumers; consumers ended up with one fewer discount carrier.

The Biden administration also moved to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s acquisition of Juniper Networks, a deal the intelligence community reportedly deemed vital to national security. The Trump team ultimately allowed the transaction to proceed, strengthening an American competitor in a market where China’s Huawei remains formidable.

RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-business, and heedless of national-security concerns: We have seen what happens when partisan priorities seep into the Justice Department. Trump’s effort to reform the Justice Department is not complete, but the direction is a stark improvement over what came before.

And the danger of backsliding is obvious. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, expect pressure for an attorney general even more aggressive than Garland. Biden himself reportedly regretted choosing Garland and wished he had listened to advisers who preferred the more partisan Doug Jones. That should tell you something.

Todd Blanche is infinitely preferable. He knows prosecutorial power from both sides of the courtroom, and he has every reason to understand how quickly discretion can become abuse.

The Justice Department does not need revenge. It needs restraint, consistency, and equal treatment under the law. Blanche has the experience — and now the authority — to deliver it.

​Justice department, Opinion & analysis, Todd blanche, Merrick garland, Weaponization, Corruption, Abuse of power, Joe biden, Donald trump, Face act, China 

After Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White preached love, grace, and integrity at a press conference following DiJonai Carrington’s flagrant foul on Sophie Cunningham — she quickly reflected the opposite.

“Love will win. Grace will win. Humility will win. Kindness will win. Then the mask drops,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock comments, before playing a video of the press conference where White addressed the “online community that’s trying to create narratives that simply don’t exist.”

She accused this “community” of “trying to create a fabrication” and “distortion” of who she is and what she’s “about.”

“For those who have anything to say about the play in the last game, I didn’t see the play in real time. I went straight to a press conference,” she explained.

“I thought the play got called right. Thankfully Sophie’s okay. Was it egregious? Absolutely,” she added.

White went on to explain that she takes any suggestions that she doesn’t always have her players’ backs “personally” and “ride[s] with them 10 toes down all the time.”

“The hate, the fearmongering, the divisiveness, the stuff that’s trying to hijack our league will not win,” she said, before reciting an old Michelle Obama quote, “When they go low, we go high.”

“Love will win. Grace will win. Humility will win. And kindness will win. I stand by them. I will always stand by them. Everybody else can go to hell,” she added.

“That was the love and grace she was talking about. That was the whole production,” Whitlock comments.

“Not a game plan, not accountability. A staged crucifixion where the coach nails herself to the wood and demands you applaud the craftsmanship,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Dijonai carrington, Jason whitlock, Michelle obama, Press conference, Sophie cunningham, Stephanie white, Wnba coach, Indiana fever, Blazetv show