Former NFL coach Jon Gruden is not happy about how many international games the NFL is playing, and he isn’t afraid to let everyone know.

Gruden was seemingly calm and collected recently, holding it together without bursting into one of his trademark tirades. That was until a fan started pushing him to accept the overseas games.

‘I never saw Ray Nitschke play in London!’

The Super Bowl winner went off during “The Gruden Family Football Show” on Thursday when a fan brought up the NFL’s international schedule, which this season has teams traveling to London; Paris; Madrid; Mexico City; Melbourne, Australia; Munich, Germany; and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

“I want a piece of you, Gruden,” the fan began, immediately piquing the coach’s interest.

“I listen to you bitch and moan about international games. Oh, how it ‘disrupts routine.’ Gruden, the game was built on sacrifice,” the comments continued.

The fan dragged Gruden, telling him how he has benefited from the sacrifices of former players and coaches who traveled across the United States to play grueling games on minimal rest.

“You need to embrace growing the sport globally. You understand that?” the fan added.

Gruden wasn’t having any of the fan’s globalist approach, though.

“Get him off!” Gruden yelled, cutting the remarks short. “I understand that completely. I mean, we’re not going overseas to play home games.”

Unable to restrain himself any longer, Gruden started screaming that while some of the NFL’s most historic players traveled a lot, they didn’t play in different countries.

“I didn’t see Red Grange playing in Australia. And I never saw Ray Nitschke play in London! OK?! So take that and stick that in your pipe,” Gruden exclaimed.

“If you want to grow the game, grow it in the United States. We got a lot of kids that aren’t playing football. So let’s play games where we need to grow the game in our country. And let’s start and end with that,” he screamed comically.

RELATED: The truth about child concussions, straight from an NFL trainer: ‘It’s not worth it’

Further endorsing an America-only schedule, the former Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach said it wasn’t fair to have players traveling for 12+ hours before a game.

“I don’t want to be on a 16-hour flight, seven different time zones to play one of my home games. Sorry,” he told his co-hosts.

2026 will feature the most international regular-season games the NFL has ever seen, with nine total.

2025 had already seen an increase to seven after the league had previously maxed out at five, the number played the previous three years, as well as in 2017 and 2019.

While Australia, Brazil, and France will see their first official NFL games this season, countries like the U.K., Mexico, and Canada have all hosted multiple games dating back more than a decade.

RELATED: ‘Let the truth come out’: UFC legend Georges St-Pierre backs vaccine-injury inquiry

Robert Cianflone/Getty Images

The NFL used to promote itself internationally through the league NFL Europe, which consisted of American football teams based in European countries like the U.K. and Germany. The league existed in different forms from 1991 until 2007.

However, the first international regular-season game for NFL teams was in Mexico City in 2005, when the Arizona Cardinals hosted the San Francisco 49ers.

The league’s pursuit of global growth has seemingly been lucrative, though, as the NFL boasted $450 million in international revenue in 2023.

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

​Fearless, Jon gruden, Nfl, Globalism, Sports 

Bad advice has always been abundantly available throughout history. But our ancestors were somewhat limited in how many sources of advice they could tap.

No such limitation exists today.

When Jesus named lust as a real, heart-level violation, He wasn’t handing people a new, more permissive category of ‘biblical grounds for divorce.’

Bad advice gushes from a firehose called the internet every minute of every day. On social media platforms, we’re drowning in it.

I’ve been writing about Christian women’s groups online and the bad theology they’re facilitating. To be honest, these kinds of groups are highly problematic, because anyone who claims to be a Christian can join, and a lot of the participants seem to consider the group a reasonable substitute for a church.

But no sound doctrine + endless opinions with zero scriptural basis + no personal relationships = a pretty awful “church.”

Imagine that. An army of young women, some of them with virtually no knowledge of Scripture, posting anonymously. What could possibly go wrong?

It’s almost like God knew what He was doing when He left us a book and instructions on how to learn it alongside fellow believers.

But I digress.

The problem with ‘Christian’ social media groups

These groups are growing and becoming more dangerous because the sheer volume of bad teaching being bandied about is mushrooming. Recently, I wrote about people who say they don’t need church (they’re wrong; you can read why here). This, of course, is just one of many examples of bad teaching: Christians are commanded to love and care for one another, which is pretty much impossible to do from your sofa.

But perhaps the most common bad advice given in virtual so-called Christian groups is something along these lines:

You gotta run, girl.

This is a common response to someone complaining about almost anything a husband has done. Of course, due to the nature of anonymous storytelling, we have no way of knowing if any given anecdote is a creative writing exercise designed for attention and clicks (yeah, that’s definitely a thing), or a genuine account of abuse (in which case, anonymously sharing it with a bunch of strangers is a profoundly unhelpful waste of time).

So if a woman shares that her husband gave her an STD or a whack across the face, of course people are going to respond with “you gotta run, girl.” Although in a case like that, I wonder if a bunch of strangers has ever been successful in persuading someone to make a life-altering decision. Because a bunch of randos on the internet for sure shouldn’t be your counsel for that kind of decision.

Common ‘grounds’

But what I see more often — very often — is a woman reporting a husband who is emotionally unavailable. Or spends too much time at the office. Or has some bad habits (ranging from very serious, like porn usage, to just irresponsible and immature, like extended video game sessions).

Yet in almost every case, SOMEONE will spin it up into “you gotta run” because, she’ll argue, if he spends too much time working that means he’s abandoned you and the marriage — you have a biblical right to a divorce. He isn’t meeting all your emotional needs, he’s not fulfilling his marriage vows to care for you — you have a biblical right to divorce.

You can twist almost anything into a “biblical right to divorce” if you’re looking at it that way, so that’s maybe not the right way to look at it.

Yes, there are biblical grounds for divorce. They are pretty narrow. And there are situations (physical safety) where separation is the wisest course, whether a divorce is sought or not.

The problem with twisting everything into “grounds for divorce” should be self-evident. For one thing, those being invited to opine are only getting one side of the story, in most cases anonymously at that. It gets lots of clicks in the Facebook group, but it’s absolutely awful for the souls of the people involved.

Let’s be clear: God hates divorce. Because of people’s hard hearts (and to protect women), He allows divorce in certain very limited scenarios. But He still hates it, and note: Divorce is NEVER required.

There are so many better options, especially when children are involved. A few that can be used individually or in combination:

Fervent prayer (and asking other trusted folks to join in prayer);Counseling with a biblically minded pastor;Marriage strengthening ministries/books/programs;Some time apart;In cases involving danger/abuse, formal separation; andIn cases involving adultery or abandonment, divorce is allowed — but not required, especially if there is true repentance/confession, along with willingness to work toward reconciliation and rebuild trust.

What happens to the young woman who takes her complaint to a group like this, and gets countless admonitions that she needs to get out? That her feelings trump any other considerations? That his behavior is abusive (a definition I’ve seen stretched to include such “abuses” as leaving his socks on the floor, since it shows disrespect for her work caring for the home)?

If dozens or even hundreds of people tell you you’re being abused, you will start to believe it. You’re going to lean hard in that direction. The direction that God hates.

The cancer of pornography

One of the most common complaints, sadly, is that the husband is using porn. This is 100% a cancer to the marriage, and it defiles the holy union. Many claim that porn itself is grounds for divorce because Jesus said if you even look at a woman with lust, you’re committing adultery.

I asked a pastor friend to comment on this passage, and he was gracious enough to provide full context around this portion of Scripture, so that we can bring the whole counsel of God to the topic. Anyone contemplating divorce due to this issue would do well to consider his points:

First, in Matthew 5, Jesus is declaring Himself the pivotal point of history; the One to whom all the law and the prophets point — and He then shows how the Old Testament is validated and finds perfect continuity in His teaching (5:17-18).

But there’s a problem: Jesus knows that much of what the crowd on the mountain has heard about the Old Testament is not actually Scripture, because the Pharisees treated certain oral traditions as carrying equal authority with Scripture itself.

That’s why Jesus begins each of His next five teachings with the same formula: “You have heard it said (whatever the Pharisees claimed) … but I say to you (Jesus’ perfect teaching).”

In each teaching, His concern is to correct people’s distorted understanding of the Old Testament and point to the true direction the law was always aiming.

In 5:27-28, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Apparently, some believed that as long as they didn’t actually sleep with someone, they were in the clear.

But Jesus wasn’t satisfied with mere formal obedience to the letter of the law. He wanted to expose the heart of purity the law was always meant to protect. He deepens the seventh commandment by connecting it to coveting another person’s spouse; in fact, the Greek word translated “lust” in most Bibles (epithymeō) is the very same word used for “covet.”

It’s worth noting this doesn’t mean noticing someone’s beauty or feeling attraction.This coveting another person is the deep-seated greed to take and possess someone who doesn’t belong to you.

RELATED: Dolly Parton never had to leave her husband to find herself

Michael Putland/Getty Images

‘Adultery in the heart’

Some today do use this passage to argue that porn is grounds for divorce, which is understandable given the real sin of lust and the real pain of betrayal and the devastating consequences they carry. But the distinction Jesus makes is important: The offender has committed adultery “in his heart.” Sinning in your heart is not the same as committing the act itself.

In the teaching just before this one, Jesus addresses murder and anger the same way: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court” (5:22). Obviously, being angry with someone in your heart is different from actually killing them, and the consequences are not identical. If we use the same logic that some use, claiming that lust is automatic grounds for divorce, then everyone who has been angry with someone should be in prison.

None of this excuses porn usage or lust. But it is not the same thing as having sex with someone else.

Consider this: If Jesus truly meant that “adultery in the heart” constituted biblical grounds for divorce, then just about every marriage would have legitimate grounds for divorce — unless a husband and wife made it through their entire life together without ever once lusting after someone else.

Even more importantly, that reading would also make marriage trivial, which is the very opposite of what Jesus intended. He wanted to raise the bar for marriage, not lower it. He wanted to protect its sanctity, because mainstream Judaism at the time had taken an extremely lax position that allowed a man to divorce his wife for practically any reason, like burning food, or if the man just found another woman better looking.

So when Jesus named lust as a real, heart-level violation, he wasn’t handing people a new, more permissive category of “biblical grounds for divorce” that simply met the culture where it already was. He was doing the opposite: confronting the culture’s careless view of marriage with the values and standards of the Kingdom of Heaven.

That said, the waters get murkier in cases of unrepentant, habitual lust, which Jesus addresses in Matthew 19:9. But if we want to stay faithful to the text, here is the distinction: a repentant heart; one that is doing everything it can to slay the dragon of lust (see the call to gouge out an eye in Matthew 5:29-30) presents no biblical grounds for divorce.

Jesus never asked married couples for perfection. He asked for a fight: a relentless, ongoing pursuit of purity that guards the marriage — not an excuse to escape it.

So what’s a girl to do?

What do we tell a woman whose husband is entangled with porn?

It is critical to not go this issue alone. Your church must be involved. Counsel from your elders and pastors, for both husband and wife, will help everyone understand and apply biblical teaching.

If you don’t go to church, this is a good time to seek out a strong Bible-teaching congregation. There are a number of resources, programs, and books to help (here’s one).

Unrepentant, habitual lust — where the husband continues making excuses for porn use, or lying about it — is blatant sexual immorality, and that is grounds for divorce. It doesn’t mean the wife has to divorce, but she has biblical grounds.

If, however, the husband is repentant, taking steps to fight, waging a relentless ongoing battle for his own purity and the purity of the marriage union — it’s not right to walk away from a man who is willing to fight that battle and honor his vows.

That is a biblical response, but that doesn’t mean it will be easy, because trust has been betrayed, and rebuilding can be arduous and painful. That’s where those elders and pastors can meaningfully support a couple in crisis.

But remember that God is a reconciling God, a healing God, a God who not only hates divorce, but wants every marriage to reflect His love for us, His church — which He will never divorce.

Of course, no couple will meet that perfect standard. But it’s what we’re all to strive for.

So no, girl, you don’t gotta run. Don’t let anyone make you feel like you have to, but know what the Bible demands from marriage, and hold your husband accountable to move toward that standard — even as you hold yourself accountable to the same.

​Christianity, Christian living, Marriage, Divorce, Jesus, Adultery, Pornography, Prayer, Lifestyle, Faith 

The private life of a Democrat running for Congress has made national news after old photos reveal he used to model leather sexual attire and other “bondage gear,” according to a report from the New York Post.

The Post confirmed that Chris Gallant, a 37-year-old Democrat who is running to represent Long Island in Congress, modeled for Mr. S Leather, a sexual fetish company based in San Francisco. According to the Post, Gallant donned “collars, leather straps, neoprene, bondage gear, and more” in the product photos.

‘As Chris began considering a future in public service, he asked that the photographs no longer be used.’

While the photos have since been removed from the Mr. S Leather website, they were posted there between 2011 and 2020 and can still be accessed via internet archives, the Post reported.

Attorney Sara Azari, who represents Gallant, confirmed the authenticity of the photos in a statement to the Post: “The photographs are authentic and were taken during a private, consensual photo session involving Chris and his then-partner, with whom he was in a committed four-year relationship.”

She added: “As Chris began considering a future in public service, he asked that the photographs no longer be used and that they be removed from the company’s website. Mr. S honored his request.”

RELATED: ‘People need God’: Marty O’Donnell vows to save your grandchildren from Democrats

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

According to the Post, some of those photos apparently “depicted him in hardcore pornographic poses, including fully naked and having sex with another man” and even made their way to “hardcore” gay porn sites.

Azari indicated that Gallant “never intended to authorize unrestricted publication” of the photos by third parties.

Gallant has served in the Army National Guard for the past 20 years, his campaign website says, indicating the photos were taken and posted during his time with the Guard.

LGBTQ+ outlet Pink News is celebrating the news of Gallant’s apparently pornographic past. “Congressional candidate modelled BDSM gear before turning to politics — and honestly, good for him,” read the Pink News headline.

Gallant already has his work cut out for him running in the 1st Congressional District of New York against incumbent Republican Rep. Nick LaLota. LaLota has held the seat since 2022, and the Cook Political Report considers the district “solid R.”

The Gallant and LaLota campaigns did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Congress, Democrat, Lgbtq, New york, Politics 

I’ve recently come up with the term “take-ism” to describe what I consider to be one of the most pernicious and destructive social phenomena of our era.

We all know the term “hot take.” Basically, it’s an idea that’s provocative, strident, and also — and this is key — a bit new. It’s the opposite of a cold take, which is essentially common knowledge.

Is it the overexposure to infinite faces and places that our phones enable that creates this desperate need for novelty, even at the expense of our sanity?

A hot take is often offensive to someone out there, but that’s just a byproduct. What it really needs to offer is novelty.

Race to novelty

Take-ism is essentially a race to novelty above all and at all costs. While there are hot takes that are true and novel takes that do illuminate an unexplored and previously unobserved fact of reality, the pursuit of truth plays little role in the real thrust of take-ism.

The logic of take-ism is essentially the logic of the internet: novelty = interest = attention = likes = follows = good. Truth doesn’t matter, earnest belief doesn’t matter, all that matters is novelty and attention.

Take-ism takes many forms, ranging from the very benign to the extremely corrosive and actually evil. A couple of benign examples of take-ism would be things like:

“Actually, summer is the worst season of the year.”

“Actually, Italian food is terrible.”

Maybe someone really believes those things. Who knows? The point is that everyone knows summer is supposed to be great and Italian food is supposed to be delicious, so saying the opposite gets attention. The take wins.

Take it till you fake it

More corrosive and evil examples of take-ism would be things like:

“Actually, the good guys lost World War II.”

“Actually, the United States of America is a force for evil in the world, and China is force for good.”

You’ll notice the word “actually” appears at the beginning of all four of those examples. Even when it doesn’t, it’s always implied. Take-ism loves to correct.

“Actually, everything you know is wrong.”

Take-ism also plays a role in conspiracy-theory culture. A big part of what propels the conspiracy-theory influencer world is a logic of take-ism and insatiable need for new secrets and new “truths.”

You can see this logic in transgenderism. “Actually, I am not who I am, I am someone else. I am not a girl despite having XX chromosomes, I am a man. Actually, biology doesn’t matter. Actually, your eyes cannot tell you reality. Actually, everything you know is wrong.”

The fact that transgenderism has spread primarily by way of the internet is a further confirmation of the fact that it is ultimately just a form of take-ism. Obviously, social contagion plays a huge role in this case, but the subterranean logic underneath it is take-ism.

RELATED: Are antidepressants zombifying American culture?

Oscar del Pozo/Getty Images

Belief optional

Of course, we can never know for certain why people believe what they believe — or if they really believe it. But we can make some inferences based on our own observations of the world and what we know about human nature.

We can also see the financial incentives at play in the era of posts, memes, and short-form video. And lastly, we can easily see how simple it is to manipulate people who posses shallow morals and a mind permanently addled by nihilistic brain rot.

How much do influencers, writers, posters, and speakers believe when they claim to believe an idea based on take-ism? How much do the doom-scrollers believe when they hear it? What difference does it make if one believes based on earnest thought or one believes based on a secret desire for something novel?

Slop culture

The question underneath all of this is why do people seek out the novel above the true?

Why exactly is take-ism the latent logic of the internet? Is it inherent to the medium? Does the internet — and its democratic communication — lend itself to unifying with take-ism?

Is it the overexposure to infinite faces and places that our phones enable that creates this desperate need for novelty, even at the expense of our sanity? Are we being entertained to death by endless scrolling and thusly all we want is more entertainment and nothing else? Does the internet click-economy clandestinely aim to make us all into cynical nihilists who no longer care about earnest belief, goodness, or truth?

Whatever it is — and it’s a lot of things — take-ism is responsible for the boiling of people’s brains in vats of conspiracy sludge, transgenderism, and countless other forms of intellectual damage and dysfunction, which are currently coursing through the culture.

​Conspiracy culture, Transgenderism, Lifestyle, Slop, Internet, Influencers, Culture, The root of the matter, Brain rot 

A Republican running for a statewide race in Texas has lit a firestorm on the right after noting the racial demographics of the student section at the University of Texas football game over the weekend.

On Saturday night, the Texas Longhorns hosted the Ohio State Buckeyes for an early-season marquee showdown between two top-five teams. While the Buckeyes led most of the game, the Longhorns stormed back in the fourth quarter and won, 24-23.

‘Texans didn’t ask for their state to become a playground for the third world.’

As might be expected, the hometown Texas crowd was ecstatic, and one photo in particular seemed to capture the exuberance of the UT student section.

Only not everyone is celebrating it.

On Sunday morning, Bo French, a Republican running for Texas railroad commissioner, shared the photo of non-white UT students on X and remarked, “Like body-cams exposed criminals, social media is exposing how many Americans have been displaced by foreigners. It’s everywhere and far worse than any of us could imagine.”

French was swiftly inundated with condemnation by many other X users, including prominent voices on the right.

Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) replied, “This is the Republican nominee for statewide office. Are other Republican elected officials going to condemn the intolerance and racism, or look the other way while it becomes normalized. This is how great political parties self-destruct. Sad.”

Texas state Rep. Lacey Hull said, “Please delete this. This post breaks my heart. I see college kids cheering on their football team. I see Texans.”

Former Trump Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin commented, “This is gross. Touch grass.”

Democrat U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico joined in, calling French’s post “blatant racism” and adding, “Racism has no place in Texas.”

RELATED: Wake-up call for Redskins ownership: Family of canceled native hero wants team name, icon to return

Alex Slitz/Getty Images

While accusations of racism abounded, French also has plenty of supporters who argue that native-born Americans have been unfairly edged out of public universities like UT-Austin by foreign-born students.

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre quipped, “The Texas GOP is furious that Bo noticed these cowards are selling the state to foreign interests and replacing the population with Indians.”

BlazeTV host John Doyle called French a “patriot,” slammed Republicans for echoing Democrat talking points about “racism,” and suggested that the GOP cannot survive without directly appealing to white voters:

As a matter of simple arithmetic, the Party will be destroyed when it ceases to win elections because it cannot get the votes to win. 85% of all votes cast for the Republican Party come from white Americans. Since the historic American electorate has been overwhelmingly white, it squares that the people most interested in the conservation of America would be white.

“Texans didn’t ask for their state to become a playground for the third world,” he added.

According to Kalshi, on Sunday, Democrat candidate Jon Rosenthal briefly overtook French in the betting odds for the Texas railroad commissioner race, but within a couple of hours, French had retaken the lead.

French does not appear to be backing down from his comments.

By Sunday afternoon, he tweeted: “Generations of Texans have invested billions of dollars into UT. Today it is filled with foreign nationals and Leftists who boo Ted Cruz. John Cornyn says we should accept decline. The voters I talk to want to return our institutions to serving the interests of citizens.”

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

​John cornyn, Republican party, Texas, Politics 

President Trump made a promise of a $5,000 payment to every adult American if Republicans win both chambers of Congress, framing it as a dividend made possible by what he described as unparalleled financial success.

“What we’re doing is because we’ve done so well and because our country is making so much money, that only I can make this promise to you,” Trump said.

“And here is my promise. If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them, because of our tremendous economic success, like in history, we’ve never had anything like what’s happening,” he continued.

“But because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,” he added.

The men of “Pat Gray Unleashed” are not impressed.

“$1.3 trillion dollars in new spending,” executive producer Keith Malinak comments. “Yay, inflation.”

“I mean, socialism is cool when our side does it. When our guy wants it, then it’s cool,” he adds.

“It’s a weird promise, too, because it’s like a bribe, you know?” Gray says.

“So if we lose the House or the Senate, then we don’t get the $5,000. How about you keep the $5,000 per person and apply it to the debt to save America?” he asks.

Though he notes sarcastically, it’s “silly of [him] to mention the $40 trillion.”

“Soon to be 41.3 trillion apparently if you vote Republican,” Malinak 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.

​Donald trump, Socialism, Inflation, Debt, 5000 dollars, Pat gray, Keith malinak, Blazetv show 

Misty Roberts, the former Louisiana mayor convicted of child sex crimes, has completed her jail sentence that some have described as a “slap on the wrist.” The judge admitted to making a miscalculation at the bench when sentencing the former disgraced mayor.

Prosecutors said Roberts hosted a boozy pool party at her home that included juveniles in July 2024 while serving her second term as the mayor of DeRidder.

‘A slap on the wrist for a child predator, because at the end of the day, that is exactly what it is.’

Prosecutors said Roberts provided alcohol and sexually abused her teen son’s 16-year-old friend during the pool party.

Roberts — who was the first female mayor of DeRidder and was serving her second term — resigned on July 27, 2024.

As Blaze News previously reported, Roberts was arrested in August 2024 and charged with third-degree rape and contributing to the delinquency of juveniles.

In March 2026, Roberts was found guilty of carnal knowledge of a juvenile and indecent behavior with a juvenile — both felonies.

Roberts faced a maximum prison sentence of 17 years.

The victim’s mother described Roberts before sentencing as: “This danger came from a predator with hair extensions, high heels, Botox, and other modifications.”

Blaze News reported in June that Roberts was sentenced to 90 days in jail.

Roberts, 44, also received two concurrent five-year suspended sentences, which she will avoid serving provided she complies with the terms of her probation.

The terms of her probation require her to undergo regular drug screenings and psychological therapy.

Judge Kent Savoie ordered Roberts to register as a sex offender for 15 years and pay a $5,000 fine.

Neighbors were disappointed in Roberts’ sentence.

“A slap on the wrist for a child predator, because at the end of the day, that is exactly what it is,” DeRidder native Kari McGee told KALB-TV in June.

McGee continued, “When it comes to children, we should use the fullest extent of the law. There are no excuses when it comes to our children.”

Neighbor Ryan Clark added, “That’s an insult to the actual victim and the family.”

Another DeRidder resident, who asked to remain anonymous, said, “She was an authority figure in a high position, and she got slapped on the hand. What if I did that? I’d be getting maxed out, no matter what, without a shadow of a doubt.”

On Sept. 7, Roberts was released from jail after serving her 90-day sentence.

RELATED: Former first-grade teacher pleads guilty to sex crimes against teen student after she allegedly admitted affair to husband

Last month, prosecutors with the Beauregard Parish District Attorney’s Office filed a motion to request that the judge reconsider his 90-day jail sentence for a harsher punishment, but he refused.

When asked how he arrived at a 90-day sentence, Savoie informed KPLC-TV that he examined 34 past sex abuse cases in Beauregard Parish.

However, all of those cases ended in plea deals whereas Roberts had gone to trial and been convicted by a jury.

KPLC noted, “Every single case was resolved before trial, unlike Roberts’. Not one case on the list Savoie reviewed involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury.”

Judge Savoie admitted that he had made an error when sentencing Roberts by comparing her case to the 34 plea-deal cases.

KPLC reported on Aug. 31 that Savoie “previously told the court in open session that the case list was a mix of plea deals and trial convictions. It was not.”

Savoie stated, “I asked someone to get me a list of cases similar. I made an assumption, and that assumption was wrong.”

“I made an assumption, and when you do that, you make an ass out of you and me,” Savoie said.

“I was wrong in that respect,” the judge admitted.

Assistant District Attorney Charles Robinson said comparing Roberts’ case to the plea deals felt like “comparing apples to oranges.”

“I feel that this list reflects what the district attorney and judges believe is for people who take accountability,” Robinson continued. “If you go to trial, you are going to face a much harsher punishment. Miss Roberts did roll the dice, which she is entitled to.”

Robinson pointed out, “We have a person in their 40s. That’s something I don’t see on this list.”

Savoie said that he was disappointed with the state’s request for a maximum sentence of 17 years.

“I was considerably turned off by your request for the maximum sentence,” Savoie explained. “I was disappointed. I thought it was overboard considering she was a first-time offender.”

Judge Savoie added, “I’ve always tried to be fair and honest. I use the list as guidance for me as for what has happened in Beauregard Parish.”

Beauregard District Attorney Jimmy Lestage told KPLC:

I appreciate Judge Savoie acknowledging that the list he put together was not an accurate representation of sentences for convictions of this nature. I also appreciate that he took the time to reconsider our position. I am disappointed that the sentence was not changed. I, like I have told you before, do not believe that the sentence reflects the values of Beauregard Parish.

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

​Child sex crimes, Mayor, Louisiana, Judge, Sentence, Crime 

Apple built its company around protecting users’ privacy and security. Outgoing CEO Tim Cook even called privacy a “fundamental human right.” Unfortunately, Apple’s secure walled garden has crumbled in recent months, all thanks to a rise in software bugs and security features that don’t work as advertised. Now, a new threat rears its ugly head as reports claim that Apple’s VPN-like service, iCloud Private Relay, doesn’t actually mask users’ IP addresses at all.

Apple was proud to show off a string of privacy-focused features for iCloud+ subscribers during WWDC in 2021. One of them was Hide My Email, a perk meant to hide your email from websites, marketers, and other groups online. Unfortunately, as one man found out when he threatened the girlfriend of FBI Director Kash Patel, Hide My Email isn’t foolproof. Apple actually has the keys to the original sender and can hand these over to a government agency upon request. Even worse, a bug uncovered several months later proved that Hide My Email doesn’t actually hide users’ email addresses from anybody, despite claims otherwise. So much for privacy.

Apple’s missteps keep piling up, and it’s clear that the company is in desperate need of a reboot.

Now another feature shown off that same day — iCloud Private Relay — doesn’t work as advertised either. The service was meant to function as a VPN lite for Safari. While it didn’t stop apps from seeing the IP address on your device, it blocked websites from viewing this information while browsing the web in Apple’s Safari web browser — or at least that’s how it was supposed to work.

Just as Hide My Email didn’t actually hide email addresses, a new report claims that iCloud Private Relay doesn’t hide IP addresses either in some cases.

The problem stems from a bug in Apple’s web browser engine called WebKit that bypasses iCloud Private Relay and exposes the user’s real IP address when a website requests to verify a passkey saved on the device when logging in. Even worse, other browsers that use Apple’s WebKit on iOS, iPadOS, and macOS are susceptible to the same flaw, turning this into a widespread problem in Apple’s ecosystem.

RELATED: Don’t be fooled: This Apple privacy feature won’t protect your identity

itsarasak thithuekthak/Getty Images

How to protect your IP address from an iCloud Private Relay leak

The good news is that there are two things you can do to protect yourself.

Since the problem is connected directly to passkeys, accounts that rely on a username and password to gain access should not trigger an IP address leak. That means if you have an account protected by a passkey and you wish to keep your IP address private, delete the passkey from your phone and use conventional login methods until the problem is fixed.Third-party VPN services are not affected by the bug. That means if you use Proton VPN, ExpressVPN, or a comparable alternative that is properly configured and enabled, you don’t have to worry about iCloud Private Relay giving away your IP address.

Is there any hope that Apple will pull itself together?

Apple is currently looking into the issue, but that hasn’t stopped a lawsuit from taking hold. A class action was recently filed, accusing Apple of false advertising and fraud, among other charges. The case is very similar to the recent feud over delayed Apple Intelligence features, where the company ultimately paid a $250 million settlement to make it go away.

At this point, Apple’s missteps keep piling up, and it’s clear that the company is in desperate need of a reboot. Luckily, new blood is on the way. This fall, CEO Tim Cook will step down from his role and turn the reins of leadership over to John Ternus, the current senior vice president of hardware engineering and an Apple veteran who started his career in 2001 under Steve Jobs. While there’s no way to know how Ternus will handle his new responsibilities, tech aficionados are excited to have a “product guy” back in control, whereas Tim Cook’s background was primarily in operations as the chief operating officer before his promotion by Jobs.

This is also a big year for Apple’s software teams. All major releases of iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and WatchOS later this fall are quality-of-life updates meant to squash bugs, improve performance, and refine the user experience for years to come. So far, beta testers agree that the new updates are a big improvement from current iterations, but time will tell if this experience carries over to the masses. Hopefully, there are also some privacy and security improvements under the hood to reverse course on Apple’s current downward spiral.

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

​Apple, Ios, Privacy, Security, Tech 

Whoever controls crime data can shape the political debate. The Trump administration has already reversed some of the changes the Biden administration made to federal crime and gun data, including information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But politicization of data at the FBI and Justice Department still deserves attention.

Gun-control activists have long tried to “debunk” what they call the “good guy with a gun myth” as they push for stricter gun control laws. The federal government and much of the media have reinforced that argument by downplaying evidence that armed, law-abiding citizens stop public attacks.

Armed civilians stopped 52.9% of active-shooter attacks over the past 12 years.

Even the most dramatic defensive gun uses rarely get national news coverage. One rare example of news coverage was in August of this year, when Jordan Salinas shot at a gunman who was shooting at vehicles outside a Twin Falls, Idaho, In-N-Out fast-food burger restaurant. As one news story noted, Twin Falls County Sheriff Jack Johnson said that “the death toll would have undoubtedly been higher without the quick-thinking actions of Salinas and the off-duty cop.”

Just since the beginning of 2025, there have been 15 such defensive gun uses where police have made similar statements about armed civilians acting to save many lives.

The CDC recently restored information on defensive gun use that it removed from its website in 2022 after gun-control advocates privately pressured agency officials to take it down.

Until May 2022, the CDC cited a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report that the agency had co-sponsored. The report reviewed studies that produced widely varying estimates of defensive gun use. It cited an estimate of 108,000 defensive gun uses annually, but warns that “108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

The report noted that estimates from national surveys ranged from about 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses per year.

Mark Bryant, the founder of the Gun Violence Archive, was among gun control advocates who complained that gun-rights advocates had cited the estimates so often to “stop [gun control] legislation.”

The CDC has now restored its link to the National Academies report, but it misleadingly says the report puts defensive gun use at only 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually, not what the report itself says, as the national survey estimates that specifically ask about defensive gun use range from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, though even that fails to note that the lower estimate involves just handguns.

The FBI has also demonstrated how badly federal data can understate defensive gun uses.

The FBI defines an active shooter as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” The category can include an attack in which a gunman fires at a single person and misses, but it generally excludes shootings connected to other criminal activity, such as robberies or fights over drug turf.

I have seen these problems with federal data firsthand. Until January 2021, I served in the U.S. Department of Justice as senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs. Part of my job involved evaluating the FBI’s active-shooter reports. During my time at DOJ, I discovered that the FBI had missed or misidentified numerous cases in which armed civilians stopped active shooters.

RELATED: The FBI’s new active-shooter report has a surprise

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu/Getty Images

Unfortunately, the problem has continued with the newest report that was released on July 30. The FBI reports that armed citizens stopped only 16 of the 408 active-shooter incidents it identified from 2014 through 2025 and only two of the 34 active shooting cases in 2025.

The Crime Prevention Research Center, which I run, has identified many additional cases that the FBI either missed or misclassified, and we maintain an updated list of these incidents.

Our numbers tell a dramatically different story. From 2014 through 2025, the CPRC identified 615 active-shooter incidents and found that armed citizens stopped 225 of them. We excluded another 35 cases in which a law-abiding armed citizen stopped the attacker before he could fire a shot.

That means armed citizens stopped 36.6% of the active-shooter incidents we identified over those 12 years. During the most recent five years, the figure rose to 42.5%. That rate is about 10 times the roughly 4% rate indicated by the FBI’s data.

The difference becomes even larger when we examine only places where law-abiding citizens can legally carry firearms. We shouldn’t expect armed civilians to stop many attacks in places where the law prohibits them from carrying guns. In locations where citizens could legally carry firearms, our data shows that armed civilians stopped 52.9% of active-shooter attacks over the past 12 years. And it is increasing, with 58.3% in 2025.

The FBI has missed so many defensive gun uses that I find it hard to believe these omissions are simply accidental — particularly because the agency has failed to correct mistakes I previously brought to its attention.

Fortunately, no one needs to take my word for it. The CPRC lists the individual cases and links to the underlying sources, so anyone can examine the cases and compare our list with the FBI’s data.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Cdc, Crime data control, Fbi, Guncontrol advocates, Doj, 2nd amendment, Active shooter, Armed citizens, Gun control, Gun violence, Opinion & analysis 

With tensions in Iran still boiling and our national debt hitting $40 trillion, it’s time to take a hard look at the military’s budget. We should preserve what the military needs to be capable and prepared — and cut the waste.

One little-known program has not only failed its mission but also driven excess government spending. The good news is that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has already announced a review. The bad news? This program is so fundamentally defective that it should be abolished outright.

Every actor in the system profits from the abuse.

In the summer of 2024, a “socially disadvantaged” small business won two Defense Logistics Agency contracts worth more than $34 million. The firm then handed 95% of one contract’s value to Lockheed Martin and 94% of the other to a subsidiary of Leonardo DRS, two of the world’s largest defense contractors. The disadvantaged firm did little more than sign the paperwork and collect a fee.

The arrangement broke no law. It followed the standard business model of the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program, the federal government’s oldest identity-based contracting scheme — and one of Washington’s most durable corporate welfare rackets.

In January, Secretary Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would take a “sledgehammer” to the program and ordered a line-by-line review of every small business sole-source and set-aside award above $20 million. As he put it: “In many, many instances, these ‘socially disadvantaged’ businesses, they don’t even do work. They take a 10%, 20%, sometimes 50% fee off the top and then pass the contract off to a giant consulting firm.”

Hegseth has diagnosed the disease, but a contract review will not cure it. Several administrations and Congresses have tried to fix the 8(a) program. But all of them have failed because its own incentives reward the abuse. Congress cannot regulate those incentives away; it wrote them into the program’s design. The only reform that will work is to abolish the 8(a) program entirely.

Congress created the modern program in 1978, when it amended Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act to steer noncompetitive and set-aside contracts to firms owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” The SBA promptly defined that term to cover nearly every racial and ethnic minority group while excluding white Americans. Lawmakers promised that nine years of preferential treatment would turn these firms into independent competitors. Nearly half a century later, the program has produced the opposite: a permanent class of pass-through firms selling access to the defense giants.

A Claremont Institute investigation found the same pattern under administrations of both parties. In 2011, under President Obama, EYAK Technology LLC subcontracted $2.6 million of a $2.9 million Army manufacturing contract — 91% of its value — to L3Harris Technologies.

Between 2009 and 2025, L3Harris received 47 subcontracts from 8(a) firms through the Department of Defense under prime contracts worth nearly $1 billion, and eight of those subcontracts exceeded 90% of the prime contract’s value. General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and other giants worked the same racket.

Reforms to the program keep failing because enforcement would require a small army of compliance officers. Even worse, every actor in the system profits from the abuse.

RELATED: Want to squeeze Iran? Trump has one clear move

EDUARDO SOTERAS/AFP/Getty Images

The 8(a) firms earn millions and face no pressure to build real capability. The defense giants pad their bottom line by accessing set-aside contracts they could never win directly. The contracting agency fills its procurement needs and hits the SBA’s small-business goals on paper. Nobody at the table has a reason to flip it over. The structure rewards dependency, not the development the program promises.

The program’s defenders blame a few bad actors, but the abuse flows from the design itself. Any program that confers preferential treatment on a favored class will produce the same result.

When government channels public money to a group in the name of solving its problems, the intended beneficiaries grow more dependent while middlemen and incumbents prosper at the taxpayer’s expense.

The Trump administration has made some encouraging early moves. The SBA demanded three years of financial records from participants and suspended roughly 1,000 firms that failed to produce them. Secretary Hegseth’s contract review shows the same willingness to act.

But audits and reviews leave the machine intact, and the next administration can switch it back on. As long as the program exists, the incentives will win.

Congress and the administration should stop trying to perfect the unreformable. After 48 years, the 8(a) program has failed its stated purpose and wasted taxpayer dollars while enriching prime contractors, pass-through firms, and the bureaucracy that certifies them. Secretary Hegseth should swing his sledgehammer through the program’s foundation and shut it down for good.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

​Peter hegseth, National defense, Pentagon, Welfare, Subcontractors, Sba, Lockheed martin, Congress, Trump administration, Defense logistics agency, Business development program, Incentives, Opinion & analysis