The Orange County Prosecutor’s office said a 23-year-old woman who fled to Mexico after decapitating her boyfriend was arrested and returned to the U.S.

On August 25, 55-year-old Enrique Gonzalez-Carbajal was found decapitated in the home belonging to Alyssa Marie Lira in Anaheim, California, on La Palma Avenue.

She was working as a stripper when she met Gonzalez-Carbajal and had been in a dating relationship until his death.

Anaheim homicide detectives named Lira as a suspect in Gonzalez-Carbajal’s death and determined that she had fled to Mexico.

KTLA-TV reported that she was working as a stripper when she met Gonzalez-Carbajal and had been in a dating relationship until his death.

U.S. law enforcement worked with Mexican officials to arrest Lira in Mexico on Jan. 22. She will be extradited to Orange County to face a felony count of murder and one felony enhancement of personally using a weapon.

If convicted on all counts, Lira faces a maximum sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

“Nothing, not time, not distance, nor foreign borders, will thwart our pursuit of justice, and Orange County law enforcement will continue to go the very ends of the earth to carry out our mission and hold criminals accountable for the heinous acts they commit,” reads a statement from Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer.

RELATED: California man decapitated and mutilated his elderly parents and their dog inside mobile home, police say

“This investigation and prosecution are a testament to the tenacity and the dedication of the Anaheim Police Department, of the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, and of our federal and international partners to identify a cold-blooded killer,” he added, “track her down in a foreign country, and bring her back to the United States to face the full weight of the law.”

Lira is scheduled to appear in court for arraignment on February 13. She is being held at the Orange County Jail.

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

​Enrique gonzalez-carbajal beheaded, Stripper beheads boyfriend, Alyssa marie lira arrested, Stripper murderer, Crime 

Americans seeking mental health or addiction treatment often encounter a system that claims to coordinate care but rarely delivers it quickly. As demand for behavioral health services rises, a basic question deserves a clear answer: Who actually controls behavioral health care in the U.S., and is that control helping or hurting patients in crisis?

When someone finally reaches out for help, he encounters waiting lists, paperwork, and network gaps that push him toward emergency care or no care at all.

Nevada offers a revealing case study. The state’s Department of Health and Human Services certifies programs and distributes federal grants. County and regional commissions convene advisory meetings to reflect local priorities. Medicaid sets reimbursement rates and payment timelines. Managed-care organizations impose prior authorizations that can delay or deny treatment. Each layer is designed to promote accountability. Together, they often produce delays.

The result is not a coordinated system but a fragmented patchwork of public agencies, insurers, and contractors. Federal funding arrives with compliance requirements that consume clinicians’ time. States enact parity laws to ensure mental health and substance abuse treatment is covered like other medical care. Legislatures debate how to curb investor influence over clinical decisions, insisting that licensed professionals — not financial managers — direct care.

These tensions are unfolding as Washington rethinks the structure of federal health policy. The proposed Administration for a Healthy America would consolidate agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration into a single entity. Supporters promise efficiency; critics warn that consolidation could slow local responses.

At the state level, the policy picture is equally unsettled. In 2025, lawmakers across the country revised behavioral health statutes with competing priorities: workforce shortages, crisis response systems, parity enforcement, and the elimination of out-of-pocket costs. Some states strengthened insurance mandates. Others reconstructed governance and funding to regain control over fragmented delivery systems.

Federal policy choices loom over the whole picture. Potential Medicaid funding cuts and weaker enforcement of mental health parity threaten access as demand continues to rise. Proposed budget changes could reduce support for community mental health clinics, suicide prevention programs, and substance abuse treatment — services that are often the last line of defense before emergency rooms or jails.

RELATED: AI in education: Innovation or a predator’s playground? | Blaze Media

Shelby Tauber/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Technology adds another complication. States are beginning to regulate artificial intelligence in behavioral health, with some banning AI-driven psychotherapy outright and others exploring guardrails for diagnostic or treatment support tools. These debates reflect a larger concern: the potential for innovation to replace clinicians or create unregulated substitutes for human judgment.

What patients experience is the cumulative effect of misaligned authority. Financial power, regulatory oversight, and clinical delivery point in different directions. When someone finally reaches out for help, he encounters waiting lists, paperwork, and network gaps that push him toward emergency care or no care at all.

Reform should start with three principles. First, policymakers must reduce administrative burdens that trap providers in compliance while patients wait. Second, insurance reforms must deliver real parity in access — not just coverage on paper. Third, oversight should protect quality while allowing local systems to innovate and respond quickly to community needs.

Behavioral health care is not a niche service. It is a public safety imperative and a core function of a serious health system. Until policy shifts its focus from control to care, patients will continue to pay the price.

​Healthcare, Behavioral health, Bureaucracy, Addiction, Drug policy, Medical, Regulations, Opinion & analysis 

Bruce Springsteen recently released a stand-alone protest single titled “Streets of Minneapolis,” which strongly criticizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

In the song, the washed-up has-been condemns what he dubs “state terror” in Minneapolis, memorializes Renee Good and Alex Pretti (two anti-ICE agitators who were killed by law enforcement), and condemns “King Trump,” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

On a recent episode of “Pat Gray Unleashed,” Pat and co-hosts Keith Malinak and Jeffy unload on the Boss’ latest flop.

Pat and the panel can’t help but howl in laughter at the out-of-touch millionaire’s cheap agitprop lyrics:

[Verse 1]

Through the winter’s ice and cold

Down Nicollet Avenue

A city aflame fought fire and ice

‘Neath an occupier’s boots

King Trump’s private army from the DHS

Guns belted to their coats

Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law

Or so their story goes.

“He took a Daily Beast story, read it, and put some music underneath it,” laughs Pat.

Jeffy says that the faded celebrity clown has been algorithmically boosted on social media recently. “He’s been making the rounds on my algorithm lately for some of his performances as of late, and he looks terrible,” he giggles, noting that social media comments regularly compare him to “Biden walking around with his shirt unbuttoned.”

Keith quips that Springsteen’s song is so bad it makes “gold” of Bon Jovi’s COVID-era “Do What You Can” track, in which the hair metal sellout sang, “Although I’ll keep my social distance / What this world needs is a hug / Until we find the vaccination / There’s no substitute for love.”

When compared to Springsteen’s woke ditty, “that should be Rock and Roll Hall of Fame-worthy,” he mocks.

Catch the full panel’s savage, laugh-out-loud takedown of Springsteen’s embarrassing woke protest rant in the episode above.

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.

​Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, Patheads, Blazetv, Blaze media, Bruce springsteen, Bruce springsteen politics, Bon jovi, Springsteen, Classic rock, Music, Woke music 

American religious history is littered with cult leaders who promised a blessed life through deviant sexuality. From the earliest frontier movements to the modern era, the pattern is remarkably consistent: a charismatic figure announces that traditional Christian morality is oppressive, outdated, or unnatural — and that true freedom, enlightenment, or spiritual power is found through sexual transgression.

Today’s polygamy apologists are not offering anything new. Like cult leaders before them, they package sexual license as enlightenment and rebellion as honesty.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s can be understood as a much larger cultural wave of the same desire. “Any way you want it, that’s the way you need it,” became a slogan of liberation, echoing the older Luciferian maxim, “Do what thou wilt.” The point was not merely freedom from social constraints, but freedom from moral law itself.

The LGBTQ+ movement followed this trajectory and intensified it by questioning the very idea of nature altogether. Gender was no longer something discovered or received but something invented by the autonomous mind. Reality itself became plastic, malleable to inner desire. If the mind declares it, then it must be so.

That impulse represents the more openly “liberal” side of the sexual revolution. But today we are witnessing what some might call a more “conservative” version gaining traction: a renewed interest in polyamory and polygamy. This, too, bears all the classic marks of rejecting Christian marriage — only now it does so in a more crafty way, cloaking itself in appeals to nature, history, and even Scripture. This camouflage makes it especially dangerous.

The first move modern polygamy advocates is an appeal to what comes naturally. Men, we are told, are not designed to be with just one woman for life. What is the proof? Male desire. Men experience lust for multiple women; therefore, monogamy must be unnatural.

This argument collapses on closer inspection. It amounts to saying that because men experience disordered desire, they should not be expected to govern it. Lust becomes its own justification. By this logic, no appetite — sexual or otherwise — should ever be restrained. Gluttony, rage, greed, and violence would all be “natural” simply because they occur.

Others dress this same claim in evolutionary language. Men, we are told, are merely advanced apes whose biological purpose is to spread their seed as widely as possible. This argument is simply an abdication of moral reasoning. If evolutionary impulse defines moral obligation, then fidelity, sacrifice, and self-control become irrational. Civilization itself becomes a mistake.

Proponents of polygamy then pivot to the Bible. Didn’t Jacob have two wives? Didn’t David have many? And Solomon more than all of them?

Therefore — what, exactly?

These are not normative examples for the Christian. Scripture never presents polygamy as an ideal. At best, it records God’s tolerance of sinful arrangements within a fallen world, never His approval. In fact, the biblical record consistently highlights the misery, injustice, and disorder produced by polygamous households. The entire account of Jacob having children with four women is an account of their contest and jealousy.

Most strikingly, the very man most often invoked by modern apologists — Solomon — is the author of Scripture’s greatest celebration of monogamous love: the Song of Solomon. The man with many wives wrote the Bible’s most eloquent testimony to exclusive devotion between one man and one woman. That irony should give pause.

From the beginning, marriage was instituted as a one-flesh union. One man. One woman. One covenant. When adultery occurs,it is not the creation of a new marriage but the violation of an existing one. Bringing in a third, fourth, or fifth person breaks the union between one man and one woman as the man moves on to the next woman. This is why God uses adultery as His primary image for Israel’s sin. The prophets do not praise Israel’s “polyamory” with other gods; they condemn it as betrayal.

RELATED: Michael Knowles explains why he isn’t a Christian Zionist

Photo by Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

In the New Testament, Jesus explicitly reaffirms this creational order. Appealing not to cultural norms but to Genesis itself, He teaches that from the beginning God made them male and female and that the two — not three, not many — become one flesh. Jesus was perfectly aware that pagans often practiced polygamy.

Paul makes this even more explicit in 1 Timothy 3. As the gospel advances into pagan cultures where polygamy existed, Paul does not relax the standard for Christian leadership. An elder must be the husband of one wife. Polygamist marriages of people who converted to Christianity were not dissolved, but they were not held up as ideal in the place of Christian marriage, which points us to Christ’s monogamous love for his church. A man should have known better, even as a pagan, and thus Christian leadership was preserved for those who understood what marriage pointed toward from the beginning.

From beginning to end, the biblical story is monogamous. The Old Testament image of God and Israel gives way to the New Testament image of Christ and His bride, the church. History itself culminates not in a harem, but in a wedding: the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Christ has a bride — not brides.

Today’s polygamy apologists are not offering anything new. Like cult leaders before them, they package sexual license as enlightenment and rebellion as honesty. Like wolves in sheep’s clothing, they aim not at hardened skeptics but at the unguarded and naïve.

Christians must be better equipped. Know the Scriptures. Understand the arguments. Do not be deceived by appeals to desire dressed up as nature or sin disguised as tradition. The sexual revolution — whether “progressive” or “conservative” — always ends the same way: with broken people, broken families, and broken faith.

Truth, by contrast, calls us not to indulge our lusts, but to master them. The Christian marriage points us to Christ’s monogamous love for his church.

​Polygamy, Bible, Christianity, Lgbtq, Cult, Sexual revolution, Solomon, Monogamy, Biblical marriage, Opinion & analysis