Category: blaze media

A New Jersey woman tasked with prosecuting lawbreakers, including those driving under the influence, has received a slap on the wrist after her 30th birthday turned into a night she would probably like to forget.

On March 8, 2025, Bryashia Atchison-Henderson, an assistant prosecutor in Essex County, apparently celebrated turning the big 3-0 a little too hard. A driver contacted police after allegedly witnessing Atchison-Henderson make a sharp turn and then fall out of her vehicle.

‘She threw up in the car.’

Edgewater police found Atchison-Henderson lying in a parking lot near her car, which was parked on a curb and still running, bodycam footage revealed. She also told the cops, “I didn’t realize I was this drunk,” prompting a field sobriety test.

“You kinda just admitted to me that you were drunk,” one officer says on the video.

She had difficulty standing and could not correctly identify her location, video showed. She also began to cry and repeatedly begged to call her son’s father.

RELATED: Tiger Woods arrested for DUI after another rollover incident, police say

Atchison-Henderson was arrested around 8:30 p.m. and placed in the back of a police cruiser. One of the arresting officers later told a colleague, “She threw up in the car.”

While at the station, she allegedly refused a breathalyzer. She also vomited again, this time in the processing room, authorities said, according to NJ.com.

For over a year, Atchison-Henderson continued working at the prosecutor’s office with a DUI charge looming over her head. The office did not acknowledge her arrest until four months later, the New Jersey Globe reported.

On April 2, 2026, she pled guilty to reckless driving. She will reportedly have to pay a $340 fine plus court costs. The Globe noted that the reckless driving conviction will also likely result in points on her record.

A charge of refusing a breathalyzer had already been dropped.

The Essex County prosecutor’s office confirmed to NJ.com that Atchison-Henderson remains employed but declined to comment on any possible disciplinary action she may face.

“Administrative investigations are confidential,” the office said in a statement. “As such, we are unable to comment on the matter.”

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

​Bryashia atchison-henderson, Essex county, New jersey, Dui, Politics 

In 2018, I was a guest of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) at the State of the Union. The place was electric — political theater at its finest. Members of Congress, guests, and press were packed into a room that felt more like a pressure cooker than a chamber. And whoever designed those gallery seats clearly had smaller people in mind.

We had to be there early, which meant a lot of sitting. I struck up a conversation with the man seated just behind me to my left. It turned out to be Bill Nye. He was cordial. My kids had watched him on TV. We talked briefly, just two people passing time.

A serious person is obligated to be even-handed, even when he doesn’t like someone or disagrees with him.

After the speech by Donald Trump, as the room began to empty, I stuck my hand out to Bill, and his only response was, “He didn’t talk about space.”

It wasn’t a big comment. But it was revealing. We had just witnessed something few people ever experience in person. And that was his takeaway.

A lot has happened with America’s space program since then.

I looked and have yet to see where Bill Nye said, “I don’t agree with the man, but something good happened here.”

I did see he was at a No Kings rally last month.

Which raises a simple question: Are we willing to acknowledge what is true, even when we don’t like who it’s attached to?

We hear a lot about following the science. Fine. Then follow it.

Because if you start with the premise that a person is irredeemable, then everything he does must be dismissed. At that point, you’re not evaluating evidence. You’re protecting a conclusion you’ve already chosen.

We’ve seen this before. A man once stood face to face with truth and asked, “What is truth?” Not because the answer wasn’t there, but because he had already decided what he was willing to accept and what it might cost him.

Truth is not hard to find, but it’s hard to accept when it costs us something.

Sometimes you see people model a better way.

I encountered one of those moments when my wife, Gracie, sang at the inauguration of the governor of Tennessee.

At the time, Harold Ford Jr. was a young congressman who was present at the event. After Gracie performed, there were a lot of people on that platform. Important people. People far more connected than we were.

But Harold made a point to come straight to us.

Not a quick handshake and move on. He engaged. Asked questions. Took genuine interest.

A few days later, we found ourselves on the same flight to Washington. Gracie was headed to Walter Reed to sing for wounded warriors. Once again, Harold made a beeline for us.

Same posture. Same curiosity. Same kindness.

We’ve not crossed paths since, but I still watch him when he’s on “The Five.” Not because I agree with everything he says. I don’t. I watch because he is measured. He gives credit where it’s due. He asks questions. He looks for common ground. He treats people as individuals, not categories.

That stayed with me.

I saw something recently that would have been unthinkable not long ago.

Mark Levin had Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) on his show. If talk radio were music, I always considered Rush Limbaugh a virtuoso and Mark Levin heavy metal.

Levin and Fetterman engaged. Asked real questions. Gave thoughtful answers. No rush to score points.

Just two men doing something we used to call normal. And that’s when it hit me. Why does that feel unusual?

RELATED: You don’t have to engage with crazy

Mark Von Holden/WireImage

For 40 years, I’ve lived in a world where I don’t get to choose who walks into the room to care for my wife. Nurses. Surgeons. Specialists. People from every background and belief system.

I’ve seen medical professionals wearing pronouns on their badges. While I inwardly sighed and questioned the scientific judgment of someone who touts that, Gracie still needed care.

And in that moment, my irritation didn’t get a vote. So I did what caregivers learn to do.

I stuck out my hand and engaged. I listened, observed, and learned to separate what I felt about a person from what I could clearly see in front of me.

A serious person is obligated to be even-handed, even when he doesn’t like someone or disagrees with him.

The next time you hear something good about someone you can’t stand, ask yourself a simple question: Could this be objectively true, even though I don’t like this person?

You don’t have to change your vote or your convictions, but you do have to decide whether you’re going to follow the facts or protect a script.

In the real world, where people actually depend on you, clinging to a preferred script isn’t just lazy, it can be very costly.

If you’re willing to set that script aside, even for a moment, you might find something better than being right.

You might find clarity. And in a world this loud, that’s no small thing.

​State of the union, Political disagreement, Caregiving, Truth, Donald trump, Mark levin, John fetterman, Opinion & analysis 

There was a time when God revealed himself in astonishing, tangible ways.

In the Old Testament, he led the Israelites through the wilderness by appearing as a pillar of cloud and fire; he descended on Mount Sinai with thunder, lightning, thick smoke, and a loud trumpet blast to deliver the Ten Commandments; he took the prophet Elijah to heaven in a whirlwind with a chariot and horses of fire; and the list goes on.

But since the coming of Jesus, God has been much more subtle in how he reveals himself. Many Christian testimonies include encounters with God, but they are usually experienced in quiet, personal moments.

John Luke Robertson believes this is why so many people today refuse to believe in God. On this episode of “Unashamed,” he joins Al Robertson, Zach Dasher, and Christian Huff to unpack exactly that.

John Luke points out that Jesus’ own life and ministry were clearly marked by subtlety.

“He could have said at 12 years old, ‘I’m the Messiah,’ and started it from there, but He waited till He was 30,” he explains.

Even after his ministry began, Jesus often told people — including his disciples and those he healed — to keep his miracles secret. Multiple times in the Gospels, he is recorded saying “my time has not yet come” when people tried to force his hand or make him king too soon.

When he finally faced the cross, Jesus still remained subtle in admitting his divinity, responding to direct questions like “Are you the Son of God?” or “Are you the King of the Jews?” with humble affirmations such as, “You have said so” or “you say that I am.”

“All the way up till the very end, he didn’t have this big reveal of who he was. … And I think we see that same thing with God now,” says John Luke.

John Luke recalls hearing an atheist explain that he doesn’t believe in God because if he were real, “He would have revealed himself more openly.”

But if you look back through history, this isn’t a modern issue. For centuries people have been demanding more obvious or dramatic power.

“I was just reading this book talking about the same thing,” says Christian. “It was these two early historians … and they were saying they don’t believe the gospel and Jesus because they’re like, ‘After the resurrection, why would he appear to women and to peasants? … Why would he not appear to Caesar and Pilate and all these powerful people?”’

In the next segment of the show, the panel moves deeper into how this expectation of a more dramatic, public revelation of God has roots in ancient heresies that the early church had to confront — errors that still influence skeptical thinking today.

To hear it, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed, Unashamed with the robertsons, Blazetv, Blaze media, Early church, Heresy, Jesus, Christianity, Old testament 

One of the remarkable scientific discoveries of the past several decades is that the universe and Earth appear fine-tuned for life.

Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer explains that fine-tuning “refers to the discovery that many properties of the universe fall within extremely narrow and improbable ranges that turn out to be absolutely necessary for complex forms of life … to exist.”

Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the Goldilocks Zone, where it’s not too hot and not too cold.

It’s important to note that the term “fine-tuning” or “fine-tuned” is a neutral description that doesn’t imply the existence of God. It’s a designation routinely used by scientists and scholars of all stripes.

Although scientific findings are always provisional, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that an incredibly powerful and intelligent being designed our universe to support life.

In what follows, we’ll look at the scientific credibility of fine-tuning, specific examples, possible explanations for it, and some objections to it. Fine-tuning is not surprising if Christianity is true, since God intended to create human and animal life (Genesis 1), but it is surprising in the case of naturalism, where it appears to be an astounding coincidence.

Believe the science

One will occasionally meet skeptics who believe fine-tuning is an idea invented by Christians but not taken seriously by scientists. This is a misconception, to say the least. Consider the following testimony:

Agnostic physicist Sir Fred Hoyle: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”Atheist physicist Stephen Hawking: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”Agnostic physicist Paul Davies: “The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.” “On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings.”Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg: “Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

It’s notable that cosmic fine-tuning was one of the reasons the distinguished atheist thinker Antony Flew changed his mind about God’s existence, as recounted in his 2007 book “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”

Against all odds?

Philosopher Robin Collins points out, “If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060 [i.e., 1 followed by 60 zeros], the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.”

This is a mind-boggling number. Collins likens this improbability to “firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.”

He also observes that “if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.”

If gravity were slightly stronger, stars would burn out in millions, rather than billions, of years (our sun is about 4.6 billion years old). If gravity were slightly weaker, most stars would never form at all — or would be too small and cold.

Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox helps us understand this vast improbability as follows:

Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 1040 that she will.

A little closer to home, Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the Goldilocks Zone, where it’s not too hot and not too cold, allowing for liquid water to exist on its surface. The size of Earth also ensures that it has the right gravity to retain an atmosphere suitable for life without being too strong to inhibit the mobility of organisms.

Many other examples could be cited, but these illustrate the almost inconceivable odds against a life-permitting universe and Earth.

By design

These numbers are so surprising that they call out for an explanation, and there seem to be only three options: physical necessity, chance, or design.

Regarding physical necessity — that the universe had to have the properties that it does — there are no good reasons to believe this. As far as scientists can tell, the universe could have had a vast range of different laws, constants, and qualities.

To cite Davies again, “There is not a shred of evidence that the [parameters of our] universe [are] logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality.”

Regarding chance, we saw earlier how incredibly unlikely it is that any possible universe would support life. When you combine the improbabilities of all the fine-tuned parameters together, the odds against life become overwhelming. The one remaining option is design. All our experience tells us that only rational agents design things, and thus a cosmic designer is the best explanation for the universe’s fine-tuning.

Multiverse muddle

Space prohibits an extended discussion of objections to fine-tuning. I’ll briefly address two that are frequently mentioned.

The first is known as the weak anthropic principle, raised by physicist Martin Rees, among others: “Some would argue that this fine-tuning of the universe, which seems so providential, is nothing to be surprised about, since we could not exist otherwise.”

Thus, we should not be surprised that the universe is fine-tuned for life, since we are here observing that it is. But as philosopher Douglas Groothuis points out, this confuses two related but distinct ideas: 1) the truism that we couldn’t observe anything unless the universe was life-permitting and 2) an explanation of why the universe is so finely tuned. Acknowledging the first observation doesn’t negate the need to explain why, against all odds, our universe is life-permitting.

Second, some thinkers appeal to the idea of a multiverse to explain fine-tuning. If billions, or even an infinite number, of other universes exist, one of those universes will inevitably permit life. We happen to be in the lucky universe that does.

God is in the details

There is no experimental evidence, however, that a multiverse exists, and some see it as an ad hoc proposal to avoid the theistic implications of fine-tuning. As physicist John Polkinghorne writes, “Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes.”

While the multiverse hypothesis is complex, ad hoc, and lacks evidence, the design hypothesis is simple (one Creator) and, as noted earlier, draws on our universal experience that only minds design things.

Thus, fine-tuning provides compelling evidence that God exists and intended to create living beings. And this sounds very much like the kind of God we find described in Genesis — one who, from the beginning, “created the heavens and the earth” and declared his creation “very good” (Genesis 1:1, 31).

A version of this essay originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Newsletter.

​Intelligent design, Stephen hawking, Creationism, Big bang, Atheism, Fred hoyle, Science, Philosophy, God, Christianity, Apologetics, Faith 

Kemi Badenoch — Conservative Party leader, survivor of the 2024 electoral rout, and arguably the sharpest political mind left in British conservatism — is considering a ban on the burqa as part of a broader review of Islamist extremism.

She should stop considering and start legislating.

‘Freedom’ that produces permanent public anonymity for one group, in spaces where no one else enjoys it, is not freedom’s finest hour.

The case does not begin with Badenoch, and it does not end in Westminster. Across six European democracies — Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland — full or partial bans are already law.

Their constitutions survive. Their Muslim populations remain. The predicted social cataclysm never arrived.

What arrived instead was policy — enforced and producing measurable outcomes.

Facing facts

The deeper question is why the rest of the Western world has been so slow, so squeamish, to reckon with what the burqa actually does in public space.

Full facial concealment — not the hijab, not the headscarf, but the garment that renders a woman’s face entirely invisible — removes her from the basic grammar of human interaction. Faces carry trust, intention, fear, and consent. Humans have read them for a hundred thousand years, and no amount of progressive goodwill has updated the firmware.

When you cannot see someone’s face, you cannot treat the person as a fully present participant in civic life. You can only treat the person as a shape moving through it.

Free societies depend on legibility among their members. Not total transparency — nobody is proposing to ban sunglasses or launch inquiries into wide-brimmed hats — but the basic mutual visibility that public life requires.

Courts require faces. Banks require faces. Polling stations, airports, and schools all require faces. Nobody marches on these institutions screaming tyranny.

Anonymity in shared space has always carried costs, and open societies have never been shy about saying so.

The burqa asks for a permanent exemption from an obligation everyone else accepts without drama.

Enforced invisibility

That exemption makes a certain grim sense in Afghanistan, where the Taliban reinstated the burqa as compulsory law in 2022 — a country where female faces are treated as a political problem requiring a legislative solution. In that context, the garment is a uniform of erasure, imposed top-down by men who find women’s faces inconvenient.

Which makes its romantic defense in the West, as an expression of individual freedom, not just ironic but absurd. The symbol of enforced invisibility does not become an emblem of liberation simply by crossing a border.

The First Amendment crowd — loudest in America, with philosophical cousins across the Atlantic — will say that mandating what a woman removes from her face differs not at all from mandating what she puts on it.

The argument does not survive contact with consistency.

Masks off

Masks at protests are already banned in multiple jurisdictions. Religious exemptions from generally applicable laws have limits even under the most robust free-exercise jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has never held that faith confers a blanket right to opt out of civic norms that apply to everyone else.

Employment Division v. Smith settled that much in 1990, and the decades since have not reversed the principle that neutral, generally applicable laws can coexist with religious freedom without apology.

A ban on full facial concealment in public spaces would likely qualify.

“Freedom” that produces permanent public anonymity for one group, in spaces where no one else enjoys it, is not freedom’s finest hour.

Female agency is the argument’s most seductive register. She chooses this. She owns it. Perhaps. But agency exercised under doctrinal pressure, familial expectation, or community sanction has a habit of resembling choice from a distance.

RELATED: Syria’s Bloody Crescent

Mike Mercury

Feminist exception

Western feminism spent decades insisting that personal preference does not close the conversation when that preference is shaped by systems that constrain what preference can look like. That reasoning dismantled arguments about beauty standards and industries far less coercive than religious orthodoxy.

Applied here — to a garment entire governments have made compulsory — the same movement suddenly finds the question too delicate to pursue.

None of this requires hostility to Islam, to faith, or to religious expression broadly understood.

The headscarf is not the burqa. Private devotion is not public concealment.

People are entitled to their beliefs, entitled to wear almost anything behind their own doors, entitled to worship as conscience directs.

But public space is shared space, and shared space carries shared obligations.

Turning your face away from those obligations — permanently, behind fabric, as a matter of principle — is less religious liberty than a form of civic withdrawal.

There is a meaningful distance between religious expression and civic withdrawal. The burqa travels the full length of it.

Open society? Closed case

British polling puts support for a ban at 56%. For once, democratic instinct and reasoned argument are pulling in the same direction — not always a luxury policymakers enjoy.

In America, a federal ban would face genuine First Amendment scrutiny. The constitutional architecture differs, the judicial culture differs, the politics differ enormously.

But “legally complicated” and “morally unclear” are not synonyms.

Many Americans who correctly distrust government overreach have no difficulty concluding that facial concealment in courtrooms, classrooms, and government offices warrants regulation.

The legal pathway varies by country. The underlying social logic does not.

The burqa is not compatible with open societies. The only remaining question is how long open societies intend to pretend otherwise.

​Letter from the uk, Islam, Burqa ban, Burqa, Afghanistan, Taliban, First amendment, Lifestyle, Culture, Faith 

On the latest episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl,” Karl Brauer and I talked about something every driver notices before almost anything else: the number on the pump.

And lately, those numbers have been going the wrong direction.

Sitting in a drive-through line for coffee, food, or dry cleaning may not feel like a big deal, but zero miles per gallon is still zero miles per gallon.

I was reminded of that the hard way when I filled my diesel SUV and saw the price climb past $5 a gallon. Karl had it even worse in California, where he paid more than $6 a gallon and described a friend filling a heavy-duty Ram for $167.

That’s not a small nuisance. For many drivers, it’s a direct hit to the household budget.

Fleeting relief

The frustrating part is that gas prices had started to moderate. As domestic production improved, prices eased. Diesel came down. Regular gas came down. Drivers finally got a little breathing room.

Now that relief is fading.

The reason is simple: Fuel prices do not respond only to what is happening at your local gas station. They respond to what is happening around the world. Global instability, supply concerns, and broader energy-market pressure push prices up quickly. And when that happens, drivers feel it immediately.

That is especially true in places like California, where prices are already higher than the rest of the country. When fuel rises nationally, it rises even more there.

For consumers, that means the practical question is no longer why it’s happening. It’s what to do about it.

Shop around

There is no magic fix, and no one is suggesting drivers can “budget” their way out of a price spike. But there are a few ways to reduce the damage.

The first is obvious: Shop around.

Apps like GasBuddy, AAA, and other fuel price trackers can help drivers compare prices before they fill up. The information is not always perfect, but it’s often good enough to spot the worst stations and find better options nearby. Membership clubs like Costco or BJ’s can also make a meaningful difference if you already belong and can tolerate the wait.

And that is the catch. When gas prices spike, everyone has the same idea. Those discount stations get crowded fast.

Fuel for thought

That makes another point more important than people realize: Avoid wasting fuel when you do not need to.

That means thinking harder about the little convenience habits most drivers don’t notice when gas is cheap. Sitting in a drive-through line for coffee, food, or dry cleaning may not feel like a big deal, but zero miles per gallon is still zero miles per gallon. If you can park, go inside, and get out faster, that saves fuel and time.

The same goes for trip planning.

If prices stay high, it makes sense to consolidate errands, reduce unnecessary driving, and stop making multiple short trips when one will do. It sounds simple because it is simple. But simple matters when every fill-up costs more than it should.

RELATED: Start-stop was just hit by the EPA. Now comes the real test.

Heritage Images/Getty Images

No safe haven

Vehicle condition matters too.

Checking tire pressure once a month can make a real difference in fuel economy. Underinflated tires increase rolling resistance and cost you money over time. It’s not glamorous, but it’s one of the easiest ways to improve efficiency without changing vehicles or spending money.

The same logic applies across power trains.

If you drive a hybrid, you still use fuel. If you drive an EV, electricity has gotten more expensive too. There is no completely insulated category of driver anymore. Energy costs hit everyone one way or another.

That reality matters because it resets the conversation. This is not just about gas stations. It is about transportation costs broadly rising again.

Domino effect

And once that happens, everything else gets more expensive too.

Delivery fees go up. Services cost more. Operating a truck or SUV becomes harder to justify for some families, even if they need the capability. People start changing habits not because they want to, but because they have to.

That is why fuel prices always matter politically and economically. They are not just one more cost. They touch almost everything.

For now, the best drivers can do is limit waste, shop smart, and be realistic. Prices may come down again eventually, but they are not likely to stabilize until the broader global picture does.

Until then, drivers are back where they’ve been too many times before: staring at the pump and doing the math.

​The drive, Gas prices, Auto industry, Lifestyle, Consumer news, Evs, Align cars 

Last month, American rapper Afroman (real name Joseph Edgar Foreman) won a defamation lawsuit against Ohio sheriff’s deputies who raided his home in 2022. Acting on a tip about drugs and kidnapping, the deputies kicked down his door with guns drawn, ransacked the house, and seized some cash — all captured on his home security cameras.

No drugs or evidence was found, and no charges were filed. Afroman then turned the raid footage into viral parody videos, including the hit “Lemon Pound Cake,” which prompted the deputies to sue him for defamation. On March 18, an Ohio jury ruled in his favor on the grounds of free speech.

Now he joins Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of “Kibbe on Liberty” to discuss the raid, the lawsuit, and what the victory means for free speech in America.

Afroman, who’s currently on tour, says that the incident with the Ohio deputies has turned out to be “a blessing in disguise,” as people have been showing their support like never before.

“We got way more people than I usually have, and man, you can feel it. I’’s something new in the air. Man, I’m back like Tina Turner after ‘What’s Love Got to Do With It,’” he laughed.

But before the victory, life was feeling dark, he admits.

“You start questioning your manhood when people come to where your family live and they kick the place in. … It’s outrageous for people to come to your house and tear it up — especially when they got all their information wrong,” he tells Kibbe.

Even after the cops found nothing in Afroman’s home, the arrogance and ill will they carried into the raid lingered throughout the lawsuit, he recounted. “They were unapologetic and sarcastic and kind of delighting in the fact that they did vandalize my property.”

The trial, he says, was “set up in the police officers’ favor.”

“They dismissed my claims before I even went to court, so I was just in court to discuss how much money I was going to pay, you know, the vandals and thieves,” he recounts, adding that the warrant used to access his home had many “flaws,” but the court refused to address it.

However, Afroman nonetheless won the case. The jury ruled that his videos, which he says he made to help “pay for the damages” caused by the deputies, were protected under his free speech rights.

“Ultimately, in a nutshell, the police officers lost the case, and freedom of speech prevails in America,” he says triumphantly.

But freedom of speech wasn’t the end of Afroman’s victory. The lawsuit ended up drawing unprecedented attention to his album and music videos.

“[Those cops] did more for my social media in three days than I could do for myself in 15 years,” he says, noting that he gained “800,000 followers” in a matter of days because of the lawsuit.

But the biggest victory remains the protection of the First Amendment.

“Some countries, you can’t say nothing. You got to shut up. You can’t speak out against the government. … But one of the beautiful things about America is, you know, you can speak,” he says.

“So, thank God I have it, and it’s the one thing that brought me justice.”

To hear the full interview, watch the video above.

Want more from Matt Kibbe?

To enjoy more of Matt’s liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Kibbe on liberty, Matt kibbe, Afroman, Blazetv, Blaze media, Free speech, First amendment, Lemon pound cake 

Public distrust of AI platforms has reached an all-time high, especially when it comes to users’ private data. Not only are people leery of the AI platforms themselves, but they’re also concerned over how the government can access and use this information. Until recently, AI development felt like the Wild West, with little regulation to get in the way of supposed innovation. That’s all about to change, however, with a brand-new federal bill based on the big national framework Trump rolled out in advance.

The study

In late March, cybersecurity software company Malwarebytes conducted a survey among its newsletter readers, asking them to share their thoughts on AI and user privacy. After collecting 1,200 responses, the results were clear: A staggering 90% of readers simply don’t trust AI with their data.

There are a lot of good things in the bill, but it falls short in other key areas.

One of the main distrust drivers stems from fears of “personal data being used inappropriately” by both corporations and the government. Recent large data breaches that put user credentials directly on the dark web, along with commercial surveillance campaigns, have further contributed to the problem.

To combat the distrust, users have turned to privacy tools, such as VPNs, ad blockers, and identity theft protection services. However, these only go so far when AI platforms can circumvent the usual digital defense mechanisms to learn more about your online presence than it was ever meant to know.

The only firm solution to assuage public distrust is to give the AI companies some legal guardrails to ensure that they don’t overstep the rights and security of the people, with the majority of respondents agreeing that they “support national laws regulating how companies can collect, store, share, or use our personal data.”

The bill

A new federal bill proposed by Senator Marsha Blackburn aims to bridge the gap between AI’s fast-paced development and shielding the public from emerging dangers brought on by these rapidly evolving platforms. Dubbed the Trump America AI Act, the bill will codify President Trump’s previously touted National AI Legislative Framework by focusing on two major goals: protection and empowerment of the following:

1. Protections for children

AI developers are required to “prevent and mitigate foreseeable harm to users” with an emphasis on protecting the data, mental health, and safety of minors. AI developers can also be held legally accountable for any damage done by a failure to comply.

Pro: AI providers would be immediately responsible for their chatbots encouraging and even coaching young and vulnerable people on how to take their own lives.Con: AI developers will need a way to verify the age of their users, potentially leading to the mass collection of user IDs, resulting in a digital database. Also, while the bill protects minors’ user data, adults are exempt, failing to solve the concerns expressed in Malwarebytes’ survey.

2. Protections for communities

U.S. companies across all industries, as well as federal agencies, must send quarterly reports to the Department of Labor that detail AI-related impacts on the workforce, including job layoffs and displacements. Data centers are also barred from siphoning energy resources from communities and driving up prices.

Pro: As AI-driven layoffs have already begun, this is a good first step to highlight how AI realistically affects the unemployment rate.Con: Although companies must report AI-related job losses, the bill doesn’t prevent the displacement of employees outright. Companies can still fire employees en masse in a way that would cripple the workforce, impact the economy, and drive the U.S. toward forced universal basic income.

RELATED: Elon Musk’s Terafab is coming, and you’re not ready

onurdongel/Getty Images

3. Protections for intellectual property

AI companies are prohibited from feeding their LLMs with copyrighted materials, including books, movies, music, and more. Under the bill, AI is excluded from fair use under the Copyright Act.

Pro: Content creators no longer have to worry about their creative catalogs being stolen, uploaded, copied, and remixed into new bodies of work when prompted by users on any given platform. They retain full ownership of their content without threat of subjugation.Con: A lack of copyrighted information could lead to gaps in AI platforms’ knowledge graphs, potentially slowing or even stifling development.

4. Protections for conservatives

AI companies are banned from injecting woke ideologies into their large language models, and AI chatbots are no longer allowed to express biases against conservative ideas and values, all of which will be verified through third-party audits.

Pro: Despite efforts to attract support on the right, many Big Tech giants are still dominated by left-wing elites. These safeguards will ensure that their personal and factional beliefs don’t poison the datasets behind their platforms, instead aiming to support truth and facts.Con: The bill isn’t specific enough in defining the woke ideas, political biases, and discrimination it aims to prevent. Unless the bill intends to leave a loophole for the left to exploit, these exact parameters need to be spelled out, lest they be left open to interpretation.

5. Protections for innovation

One of President Trump’s biggest AI goals is to secure America’s place as the global leader in AI technology. As such, this bill encourages partnerships between the government, businesses, and education to accelerate research and development with limited barriers to the infrastructure needed for rapid growth.

Pro: This piece of the bill ultimately centralizes the resources underpinning the United States’ AI development, including computing power, datasets, and advanced infrastructure. By combining the knowledge and experience of multiple groups across various expertise with the best technology available, our AI program will theoretically evolve even faster than it already has over the last several years.Con: Centralized AI development that happens too quickly could potentially lead to developmental mistakes with big consequences, such as launching untested models that underperform, building agents that aren’t fully capable of completing the jobs they’re designed to do, and even causing economic instability should an AI bot or agent run rogue within critical infrastructure, such as businesses, medical facilities, and even military applications.

History in the making

This is a unique time in history. Society has never witnessed a more disruptive technology than generative artificial intelligence, and it takes a lot of watching, waiting, debating, and legislating to get the regulations right for a piece of tech that will touch nearly every facet of modern life.

The Trump America AI Act is merely a launch pad — a starting point — that will guide America’s future of AI research, development, and execution for decades to come. There are a lot of good things in the bill, but it falls short in other key areas:

It doesn’t protect adult users’ privacy, especially in terms of user data and surveillance.It doesn’t protect human workers from mass layoffs and unemployment.It indirectly encourages a digital ID database for age verification with no clear guidelines on how IDs should be gathered, stored, or deleted.

That said, AI regulation has to start somewhere, and the Trump America AI Act is still in its infancy. There will be opportunities to amend the bill as it moves through the legislative process. For now, this version offers a solid foundation for governing the AI tech of tomorrow.

​Tech 

Some people flippantly dismiss psychics and mediums, believing their powers to be fake or that they have scientific explanations.

But Rick Burgess, BlazeTV host of the spiritual warfare podcast “Strange Encounters,” argues otherwise. Not only are these kinds of supernatural powers real, they’re “extremely dangerous.”

While he acknowledges the “charlatans” who just scam people for profit, Rick argues that a lot of psychics and mediums are indeed tapping into genuine power — just not the good kind.

“There are people who do have power,” but “this power is not of God,” he says.

“Tarot cards, crystal balls, palm readings … leaves from tea … this stuff is dangerous. This is witchcraft.”

To engage with any of these occult items or practices has one of two results, Rick warns: You’re either going to be “scammed,” or you’re going to have “very dangerous strange encounters” with demons.

To illustrate the latter, Rick reads from Acts 16, which documents Paul and Silas’ encounter with a slave girl who had a “spirit of divination” that gave her real (and lucrative) fortune-telling powers.

When the girl sees Paul and Silas, she immediately cries out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” She continues doing this until Paul becomes “greatly annoyed” and finally forces the demon into submission, stating, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!”

The girl’s owners were furious because when the demon departed, so did her powers and thus their income.

Rick uses this passage as proof that the powers of divination are not only real, they are sourced exclusively from the demonic.

When “somebody claims they have some kind of power, your best case scenario is that they’re just a scam artist,” he says. “That’s the best case because then you just wasted your time and you wasted your money. The worst case is they actually have power.”

“If they do, it is not of God, and you shouldn’t have anything to do with it,” he warns.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Blazetv, Blaze media, Mediums, Psychics, Divination, Spiritual warfare, Acts 16, Rick burgess, Strange encounters with rick burgess 

For all the infighting over the current and future direction of the Trump coalition, one thing stands above all else as the biggest threat.

It’s not the podcasters and corporate media talking heads arguing over foreign policy. It’s not tax rates or farm policies. It’s not even the social issues that have been flash points on the right in recent decades. It is the issue of immigration, specifically deportation.

It’s shaping up to be a classic standoff between monied special interests and the liberal Republicans they sponsor versus everyday Americans.

Representatives Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) have started what hopefully will be a short but politically violent war by once again raising the specter of mass amnesty for illegal aliens via their Spanish-language-titled Dignidad Act.

There is nothing new under the sun, so much like every other failed Republican-led amnesty push, their chief sales pitch has been that the Dignidad Act is not amnesty, despite the plain language offering amnesty to more than ten million illegal aliens, by conservative estimates.

Salazar’s sales pitch, which you can see in full, occurred at the deep state’s consensus manufacturing plant, the Brookings Institute.

Rep. Salazar employed a rhetorical device of speaking to imaginary illegal alien friends and asking them if they would accept a new legal status of dignity that would allow them to remain in the United States and enjoy a litany of legal benefits.

To no one’s surprise, they would welcome this opportunity. Salazar also employed the classic trope of challenging the audience regarding who else would clean the toilets or pick the jalapenos, hopefully separate tasks.

While the bill enjoys 20 other Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Mike Lawler leads the pack in hawking this awful amnesty bill. In a heated interview with Laura Ingraham, Lawler attempted to make the case that the amnesty bill is not amnesty, because the status quo is.

While it is true that lack of enforcement of the current laws amounts to de facto amnesty, the solution is to actually enforce the law at scale with the money Congress gave President Trump to carry out his promise of mass deportation.

Lawler stepped on the logical rake with Ingraham when he tried to pump up his enforcement credentials by focusing on criminals and on the ludicrous suggestion that the Department of Homeland Security is able to vet the entirety of the illegal population for amnesty.

On the first point, he said that “if you have committed a crime, you should be removed from the country, period.” What that means in practical terms is that by his argument, only some 500,000 to 800,000, by estimates of the Trump administration, would be in that definitional category.

What he ignores is that illegal presence in the United States is itself a crime, along with the variety of other identity and immigration-related crimes that illegal aliens routinely commit.

As a legal matter, there is no such thing as his small category of “criminal illegal,” and even taking him at his intended policy point of focusing on successfully charged criminals, he is arguing that amnesty should be given to this category so long as an additional crime has not been committed.

This is what I like to call the “one-murder” policy, where liberals argue that illegal immigrants should be allowed to violate our immigration laws until the point at which they create an angel family by killing someone. That is a suicidal immigration policy.

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Lawler then goes on to argue that his amnesty wouldn’t apply to those who entered during the Biden administration. Ingraham challenges him on how the DHS would prove that, at a scale of over ten million, in addition to proving that illegal aliens have maintained continued presence in the United States during their period of being illegally present in the United States.

To put it mildly, he had no answer when pressed by Ingraham multiple times on how the DHS would go about that.

She pressed for a single consideration or qualification that an immigration official would use to determine continual presence. After a non-response, Lawler settled on “you have to be able to meet the qualifications.” Ingraham asked again, “What is the qualification?” Lawler said, “They are going to make the determination as they always have, based on the current structure and guidelines.”

If your head is spinning because of this, it’s okay because it didn’t make any sense. I’ll make it simple: Some Republicans, particularly those who see the big dollar signs of special interest donors who can fund a tight race, are willing to sell an unpopular policy through a left-coded emotional argument.

I would put Mike Lawler in that category. As for Maria Salazar, she is a true believer.

You don’t go on stage at Brookings, put a foreign-language name on a piece of legislation, and deploy emotional arguments centered around the well-being of illegal aliens unless you’re a true believer and, to an extent, acting as an ethnic lobbyist trying to advance the interests of a foreign group in the United States.

The good news is that the majority of the country still believes that people who are in the country illegally should be deported. Those numbers skyrocket for Trump voters and are a key plank of the playbook for the newly formed Mass Deportation Coalition, of which I am a part

The backlash on the Dignidad Act, Salazar, and Lawler has been swift and severe. It’s shaping up to be a classic standoff between monied special interests and the liberal Republicans they sponsor versus everyday Americans.

RELATED: This Supreme Court case could decide the future of American citizenship

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

Social media has been lit up with fury and ratios, and most elected Republicans have denounced the futile amnesty effort as a complete rejection of why Republicans are in power right now.

Rising star Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) perhaps put it best when he said that the bill was “mass amnesty” and “a terrible betrayal of our voters” and that he “wanted dignity for Americans — the people whose interests we represent.”

There remains one area of creeping concern: The White House hasn’t exactly made the administration’s position clear, aside from Vice President Vance, who has been continually vocal about opposing amnesty in any form.

Lawler and Salazar retain endorsements from President Trump, and recent confusion about the commitment to the mass deportation agenda can give rise to reasonable suspicion that this amnesty talk is allowed, if not tacitly approved.

Now is the time for continued clarity from those who decide Republican elections: Republican voters. They have made their voices heard with this recent flash point of mass amnesty. The path ahead means not just playing defense against amnesty demands but raising the bar for what is required on the mass deportation front.

These votes will need to see large increases in the deportation numbers, to at least 1 million in 2026, which would be an increase over last year of about three times. The numbers will ultimately tell the story above the politics.

Getting commas in the deportation numbers will maintain the coalition, and it may turn out that it is far more important for keeping power in Washington than it is to keep Lawler and Salazar inside the coalition, even as they seek to tear it apart.

​Dignity act, Dignidad act, Immigration, Illegal immigration, Trump, Ice, Dhs, Maria salazar, Republicans, Mike lawler, Opinion & analysis 

California’s deadly 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in and around Los Angeles together torched over 37,000 acres, destroyed over 16,000 structures, damaged nearly 2,000 additional structures, and displaced hundreds of thousands of residents.

State and local leaders have since pledged to help property owners rebuild. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), for instance, said, “We’re committed to seeing this through and ensuring this community comes back stronger than before.”

‘Significant barriers remain.’

City and county officials even made noise about cutting red tape and costs to expedite the process. Unfortunately, it appears that the purportedly expedited process isn’t as swift as advertised.

For instance, of the 242 rebuild applications received from property owners affected by the Palisades fire northeast of Malibu, only 80 building permits had been issued as of April 9, according to the permitting progress dashboard for Los Angeles County. Construction is under way on 39 homes, and only one rebuild has reportedly been completed.

Of the 3,125 rebuild applications submitted by individuals affected by the Eaton fire in and around the Altadena area, 2,142 permits have been issued. Construction on rebuilds is under way on 1,138 homes, and 31 have been completed.

The dashboard suggested that the average time spent in county review was 32 business days.

Thousands of people in Los Angeles County haven’t even bothered to apply to rebuild what they lost.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger said last week that while the county has received over 3,000 rebuild applications, that represents roughly only half of the total number of impacted households, reported the Pasadena Star-News.

RELATED: Ashes of Imagination

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

“The fact that only half of wildfire survivors have submitted applications makes clear that significant barriers remain, especially financial ones,” said Barger.

The Star-News noted that uncertainty over the future of litigation, high rebuild costs, and “underinsurance” are among the factors that have slowed recovery.

Barger credited the Trump administration, however, with helping out.

“I’ve appreciated the opportunity to meet with U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler over the course of these past few months to have solutions-oriented conversations focused on recovery,” said Barger. “Both administrators remain engaged and attentive to our local Eaton Fire recovery work. I remain thankful that President Trump has an interest in supporting wildfire recovery efforts, and I welcome opportunities to work collaboratively with his administration to deliver meaningful relief for our residents.”

While some Californians haven’t bothered applying to rebuild, many of those who have in nearby municipalities — like those in L.A. County — remain stuck waiting.

Mayor Karen Bass — the Democrat who slashed her city’s fire department budget months ahead of the fires in January 2025, then, breaking a pledge not to “travel internationally,” absconded to Africa, where she attended a cocktail party as her city burned — has issued multiple executive orders aimed at expediting the rebuilding process.

L.A. has received 4,276 rebuilding permit applications and issued 2,504 permits to date. Presently, 1,261 applications are in review.

The City of Pasadena has received 94 rebuild permit applications but issued 44 to date. Thirty are presently under review.

The City of Malibu’s rebuild dashboard says that 192 planning applications for single-family residence rebuilds have been approved and 57 are under review; 42 building permits have been issued and approved for construction; and zero certificates of occupancy have been issued.

Blaze News reached out for comment to the offices of Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo, Malibu Mayor Bruce Silverstein, and L.A. Mayor Bass but did not receive responses.

H/T Washington Examiner’s Sarah Bedford.

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

​Pallisade fire, Palisades fire, Los angeles, Fires, Rebuild, Restoration, California, Democrat, Karen bass, La county, Eaton fire, Politics 

It may sound hard to believe, but except for a very limited group of personnel, the military has treated its bases as gun-free zones. Until very recently, only designated security forces — such as military police — could carry firearms while on duty.

Commanders punished any other soldier caught carrying a weapon severely, with penalties ranging from rank reduction and forfeiture of pay to court-martial, dishonorable discharge, criminal conviction, and even imprisonment.

Penalties for carrying firearms do not deter attackers. Someone planning to murder fellow soldiers will not stop because of gun laws.

Consider the attacks at Holloman Air Force Base (2026), Fort Stewart (2025), Naval Air Station Pensacola (2019), the Chattanooga recruiting station (2015), both Fort Hood shootings (2014 and 2009), and Navy Yard (2013). Across these attacks, 24 people were murdered and 38 wounded. In each case, unarmed personnel — including JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers — had to hide while the attacker continued firing.

That changed with a statement from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Before today, it was virtually impossible — most people probably don’t know this — it was virtually impossible for War Department personnel to get permission to carry and store their own personal weapons aligned with the state laws where we operate our installations. I mean, effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones unless you’re training or unless you are a military policeman.

When the military deployed U.S. troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, it required them to carry their weapons at all times — even on base. Those soldiers needed to defend themselves against real threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other.

So why make it easier for attackers to target troops at home? Why force soldiers — like those at Fort Stewart — to confront armed attackers with their bare hands?

It wasn’t always this way. In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military. That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.

If civilians can be trusted to carry firearms, military personnel certainly can. As Hegseth noted, “Uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards.”

Penalties for carrying firearms do not deter attackers. Someone planning to murder fellow soldiers will not stop because of gun laws. Most mass attackers expect to die during the assault, so the threat of additional punishment carries no weight. Even if they survive, they already face multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But those same rules weigh heavily on law-abiding soldiers. A soldier who carries a firearm for self-defense risks becoming a felon and destroying his or her future. These policies disarm the innocent while signaling to a determined attacker that no one else will be armed.

Military police guard base entrances, but like civilian police, they cannot be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to mass shootings off base.

Uniformed officers are easy to identify, and that gives attackers a real tactical advantage. Attackers can wait for an officer to leave the area or move on to another target — either choice reduces the chance that an officer will be present to stop the attack. And if the attacker strikes anyway, whom do you think they target first?

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Research shows that civilians with concealed handgun permits are more likely to stop active shooting attacks. By contrast, although police stop fewer attacks, attackers kill them at much higher rates.

After the second Fort Hood terrorist attack, General Mark Milley — then commander of Thirds Corps at that base — testified to Congress: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond. … Those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.”

But those eight minutes proved far too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they will face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back.

It’s no coincidence that 93% of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.

Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers had been defenseless. Fortunately, that has now changed.

Allowing trained service members to carry on base restores a basic ability to defend themselves and others when seconds matter most. Policies that disarm the very people we trust in combat do not enhance safety — they leave our troops unnecessarily vulnerable where they should be most secure.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Pete hegseth, American soldiers, 2a, Military bases, Right to carry, Self defense, Mass shooting, Holloman air force base, Fort hood attack, Opinion & analysis 

An 18-year-old Indiana teenager was found with hundreds of illegal photos and videos on his devices, and prosecutors say he targeted children across the country.

The investigation into the child sex abuse allegations began after the Hamilton County Internet Crime Against Children Task Force was tipped off about Carson Springer of Fishers allegedly recording himself having sex with another juvenile.

Police found hundreds of videos and photos in Springer’s possession and identified victims as far away as Texas and Kansas.

Springer was 17 years old at the time the investigation began. Investigators obtained a search warrant and discovered more evidence of child abuse on Springer’s Snapchat account.

When they searched Springer’s phone, investigators found evidence that he was requesting child sex abuse material through the Telegram app.

Prosecutors say that Springer was creating child sex abuse material by recording himself having intercourse with other juveniles.

Police found hundreds of videos and photos in Springer’s possession and identified victims as far away as Texas and Kansas. Prosecutors said for three victims, Springer created AI-generated nude images.

While the crimes were allegedly committed when Springer was a juvenile, prosecutors released details of the case because he has been charged as an adult.

The suspect allegedly said he preferred children between 13 and 15 years old, but his devices also reportedly contained material with prepubescent children.

He was arrested on Jan. 16 on charges of possession of child pornography and child exploitation, according to Fishers police.

Emily Perry with Susie’s Place Child Advocacy Centers told WTHR-TV that parents need to closely monitor their children’s use of social media.

“More and more young people are becoming perpetrators of crimes against other children using online tools,” Perry said. “We really need to also be teaching parents about how to have those conversations with their youth about how to use those applications responsibly so that they’re not perpetrating those crimes on their peers.”

RELATED: ‘Got to find a 5th or 6th grader’: Son of Catholic school teacher arrested for alleged child porn had images of students

Fishers Police Lt. Doug Baker said what steps parents should take if they find child sex abuse material on their children’s devices.

“Don’t be afraid to report it,” he said. “Don’t delete stuff off the child’s phone. Block the suspect, block the other person who’s making the problem with your child, that’s fine, but keep everything on the device.”

Springer will face a jury trial in September.

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

​Indiana teen child sex abuse, Online predators, Child sex abuse material, Social media sex predators, Crime 

Brittni De La Mora spent seven years in the adult film industry before walking away for good in December 2012. A profound encounter with Jesus on an airplane — while flying to film what would become her final scene — gave her the strength and conviction to leave permanently and fully embrace her Christian faith.

Today, she and her husband, Pastor Richard De La Mora, co-lead Love Always Ministries and direct Jesus Loves Porn Stars, two outreach-focused ministries dedicated to helping people break free from pornography addiction and reaching those still working in the adult entertainment industry with the gospel.

On a recent episode of “Relatable,” Allie Beth Stuckey invited Brittni to share her amazing story — including the first time she realized that the porn industry was so much darker than just producing adult films.

Brittni was just 18 years old when she became an adult film star. Her success was immediate — but not necessarily because of talent. It was her age that made her so marketable.

“When I first started off in the industry, the reason why I was getting booked so much is because I was 18 years old, and I looked like a little girl,” she says.

“They would put me in pigtails and costume jewelry and schoolgirl outfits and have me say, ‘Oh, I’m barely 18.”’

It wasn’t long before “a light flickered” on in Brittni’s mind.

“I was like, ‘Do you guys realize this is encouraging pedophilia?”’ she recounts, noting that she immediately went to her agent and demanded that she not be booked for these kinds of shoots anymore.

Now that Brittni is on the other side of the industry and helping others escape, she sees the full sinister picture.

“Now that I’m out, I see that pornography really is a drug,” she says. “It releases so much dopamine in your brain, and eventually what you watch on porn does not fill you anymore, and so now you have to go re-enact those things in real life.”

But there comes a day when even re-enactment fails to satisfy. The addiction then begins to demand novelty.

“It starts off by hiring escorts, and then that’s not enough. And then people are doing things to children,” says Brittni.

“I truly blame pornography for [pedophilia] because what they’re watching, they’re feeding their soul — and then they start craving that because eventually it’s just not enough anymore.”

Brittni recounts watching a documentary of a man who was caught with “6,000 images of child pornography.”

“He started off watching the ‘morally acceptable’ scenes — the husband and wife — and then started watching the young teenage 18- year-old with the old man. And eventually that wasn’t enough,” she says.

To hear Brittni’s full story — from her tumultuous childhood and her entrance into the adult film industry to her Christian conversion and eventual exit from pornography — watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Pornography industry, Pornography addiction, Brittni de la mora, Adult film industry, Blaze media, Pedophilia 

The 2026 New York International Auto Show — which runs through this weekend — made one thing clear: There is a widening gap between what the auto industry is celebrating and what consumers are actually looking to buy.

Affordability has emerged as the dominant factor shaping purchasing decisions — far more than design awards, performance credentials, or cutting-edge features.

Some automakers are exploring ways to bring down costs without stripping vehicles down to bare-bones models.

What buyers really want

The show also serves as the stage for the World Car of the Year awards, where I serve as a juror.

This year, a survey of more than 100 jurors reinforced what we’re already seeing in the market: Consumers are prioritizing affordability above all else, along with flexibility in powertrain options — gasoline, hybrid, and electric.

That may not sound surprising. But it highlights a disconnect.

Many of the vehicles being recognized at the highest levels of the industry don’t necessarily align with what buyers are actively seeking in dealerships.

Award winners vs. market reality

This year’s top honors went to the BMW iX3, selected from 58 global contenders. It is expected to be built in South Carolina and made available to U.S. customers. The iX3 also took the electric category, featuring a redesigned cockpit with an integrated head-up display.

Other winners included the Mazda 6e for design, the Lucid Gravity for luxury, and the Hyundai Ioniq 6 N for performance. The urban category went to the Nio Firefly, a model not expected to be sold in the United States.

These vehicles represent innovation and engineering progress. But they also highlight the gap between industry recognition and everyday affordability.

Show and sell

Beyond the awards, NYIAS marked a return to traditional vehicle unveilings after several years of automakers favoring private events.

Brands used the show to showcase new concepts and production models aimed at capturing attention across multiple segments.

Hyundai revealed a rugged, Bronco-inspired concept that reflects a broader multi-powertrain strategy. Genesis introduced updated luxury trims and performance-oriented concepts. Volkswagen unveiled a redesigned 2027 Atlas, expected to be built in Chattanooga.

Other reveals included a higher-performance Z model from Nissan, a redesigned Seltos and entry-level EV from Kia, and a new dual-motor electric model from Subaru. Ford Motor Company also highlighted a special-edition Expedition marking the model’s 30th anniversary.

Across the show floor, automakers leaned heavily into design differentiation — illuminated logos, special editions, and expanded trim levels — all aimed at standing out in a crowded market.

The price isn’t right

The biggest issue hanging over the show wasn’t design or technology — it was price.

Average transaction prices for new vehicles are now above $50,000. That reality is reshaping how consumers shop and what they’re willing to consider.

Automakers are starting to respond. Some are exploring ways to bring down costs without stripping vehicles down to bare-bones models, focusing instead on value — delivering features that matter while cutting excess.

‘No’ to tech overload

Another noticeable trend is a growing pushback against excessive in-vehicle technology.

While advanced features remain available, some buyers are moving toward simpler interiors and relying more on smartphone integration rather than built-in systems.

Subscription-based features are also facing increased scrutiny. Consumers are becoming more aware of long-term ownership costs — and less willing to pay ongoing fees for features they feel should be included upfront.

RELATED: How government and Big Tech can wreck your new car’s resale value

Denver Post/Getty Images

EVs take a back seat

Electrification remains a major focus, but the tone is shifting.

Automakers are no longer presenting EVs as the only path forward. Instead, they’re balancing electric investments with hybrids and traditional gasoline options to better match real-world demand.

That flexibility is increasingly important to buyers who want options — not mandates.

Robo-stopped

Autonomous vehicle technology continues to develop, but widespread adoption remains limited.

While robotaxi services are expanding in select urban areas, challenges around safety, liability, and real-world performance continue to slow broader rollout.

For most consumers, fully autonomous driving is still a future concept — not a current buying factor.

For dealers and automakers alike, the message from this year’s show is clear: consumers are focused on affordability, flexibility, and simplicity.

Innovation still matters — but only when it aligns with what buyers can realistically afford and actually want to use.

Right now, the industry is still catching up to that reality.

​New york auto show, World car of the year awards, Lifestyle, Consumer news, Auto industry, Ev mandate, Volkswagen, Bmw, Made in america, Align cars 

The suspect in the fatal shooting of a California sheriff’s detective Thursday was himself killed amid a standoff — and a local sheriff unapologetically spelled out what went down for reporters and the public.

“We intentionally ran him over. … You shoot at cops, we’re going to run you over,” Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said Thursday, KSEE-TV reported. “He got run over; he got what he deserved.”

‘This situation went from a civil order of removal to where our officer was shot and killed. This is senseless.’

“The suspect was lying prone on the ground, in camouflage clothing, continuing to pose a threat,” Boudreaux said later during a news conference, according to Fox News. “The situation was resolved, and the suspect is now dead.”

Boudreaux said in a Thursday evening news conference that a BearCat armored vehicle operated by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office ran over the suspect — 59-year-old David Morales — following an hours-long standoff, KSEE said.

“He was not shot,” Boudreaux said of Morales, Fox News noted. “One of the BearCats ran over him and killed him.”

The incident began when an eviction notice served at a home in Porterville escalated into a shooting, KSEE said. Porterville is about an hour north of Bakersfield.

RELATED: Father whose son was killed in police shooting is accused of murdering recently retired sheriff’s deputy the very next day

The Tulare County Sheriff’s Office said the incident began when sheriff’s office officials arrived at a home in the 1700 block of West Brian Avenue around 10:20 a.m. to serve an eviction notice, the station said.

With that, an individual inside the residence began shooting at the officers who served the notice, KSEE noted.

Sheriff Boudreaux told the station that Porterville Police knew about Morales and that he had been renting the property.

However, KSEE noted that Morales had stopped paying rent, which prompted the eviction notice visit.

“This is not normal. This is not what reasonable people do,” Boudreaux said, according to the station.

“This situation went from a civil order of removal to where our officer was shot and killed. This is senseless,” Boudreaux said, according to Fox News.

A witness to the shooting showed the station a 10-second video during which 12 gunshots were heard and at least four officers were taking cover behind a parked car, KSEE noted.

Boudreaux said the detective who was fatally shot in the standoff was a father with a pregnant wife, the station said, adding that the detective was shot in the head.

The detective was pronounced dead at 11:57 a.m. at Sierra View Medical Center in Porterville, KSEE said.

Sheriff Boudreaux identified the fatally shot detective as 35-year-old Randy Hoppert, a six-year veteran of the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office.

Hoppert was a Navy corpsman who served from 2010 to 2015 and joined the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office in January 2020, Boudreaux said, according to Fox News.

“Sheriff Boudreaux, and all of us at the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office, are shocked and deeply saddened by today’s tragic events,” the sheriff’s office said. “We ask that you keep our deputy’s grieving family in your prayers.”

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

​California, Tulare county sheriff’s office, Detective fatally shot, Suspect killed, Deputy randy hoppert, Sheriff mike boudreaux, Standoff, Porterville, Crime 

The Swalwell for Governor campaign is quickly collapsing after a former staffer went public to accuse the Democrat of sexual harassment and assault.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) had jumped to the top spot in polling among Democrats to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), but now his campaign is facing calls for him to step down.

‘The allegations are incredibly disturbing and unacceptable against Rep. Swalwell. We are immediately suspending our support.’

“Today I learned shocking information about Eric Swalwell containing the ugliest and most serious accusations imaginable,” Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said in a statement Friday calling on Swalwell to abandon his campaign.

“My involvement in any campaign begins and ends with trust. I cannot in good conscience remain in any role with this campaign, and I am stepping down from it effective immediately,” he added.

The former staffer said that Swalwell sexually assaulted her twice when she was too drunk to consent, according to an account in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The woman also claimed that Swalwell sent an image of his penis to her via Snapchat.

Swalwell has denied the allegations.

“For nearly 20 years, I have served the public — as a prosecutor and a congressman and have always protected women,” he said in a statement. “I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action. My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies.”

A Swalwell attorney sent a cease and desist letter to one accuser.

Some top staffers left the campaign after the allegations dropped, and the California Teachers Association suspended its endorsement for Swalwell.

“The allegations are incredibly disturbing and unacceptable against Rep. Swalwell. We are immediately suspending our support,” CTA President David Goldberg said.

RELATED: Swalwell lashes out at Trump after FBI reportedly looks to release files on his alleged Chinese spy scandal

Republican Fox News contributor Steve Hilton leads in polling for the gubernatorial election after surpassing Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco.

The Swalwell campaign canceled a town hall event planned in Palm Desert, citing an illness.

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

​Eric swalwell sexual assault, Swalwell campaign collapse, Sexual assault, California governor election, Politics 

The Trump administration released renderings of a planned arch for the 250th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence.

The 166-foot-tall arch would be constructed at the Memorial Circle in Washington, D.C., according to images filed by the Interior Department to the Commission of Fine Arts on Friday.

‘President Trump will continue to honor our veterans and give the greatest Nation on earth — America — the glory it deserves.’

“The Triumphal Arch in Memorial Circle is going to be one of the most iconic landmarks not only in Washington, D.C., but throughout the world,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said to Politico.

“It will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike, serving as a visual reminder of the noble sacrifices borne by so many American heroes throughout our 250-year history so we can enjoy our freedoms today. President Trump will continue to honor our veterans and give the greatest Nation on earth — America — the glory it deserves.”

Many on social media responded positively to the renderings posted by the White House Rapid Response team.

“I want my taxes to pay for stuff like this instead of immigrants,” said Blaze Media digital strategist and commentator Logan Hall.

“The Independence Arch in Washington, DC, would become the largest traditional triumphal arch ever constructed in the world, surpassing all existing ones. Just name it the TrumpVictory Arch,” another user said.

RELATED: Trump announces ‘Patriot Games’ high school athletic competition for 250th anniversary of founding

In October, the president said Memorial Circle was perfect for a new memorial.

“For years and years it sat, and every time somebody rides over that beautiful bridge going right to the Lincoln Memorial, beautiful right?” the president said. “They literally say, ‘Something’s supposed to be there!”

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

​Trump’s independence arch, New arch in washington dc, America 250th anniversary, Trump on his arch, Politics 

A Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives says he’s filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for a post threatening Iran.

Rep. John Larson of Connecticut cited a social media post that threatened to end the civilization in Iran if it did not agree to his demands after weeks of U.S.-Israeli strikes.

‘They have an obligation to put patriotism over politics.’

“Donald Trump has blown past every requirement to be removed from office. And it’s getting worse. His illegal war in Iran is not only driving up prices for American families — it has cost American lives,” Larson said in the statement Tuesday.

“His profane and sacrilegious Easter Sunday and subsequent threats, including ‘a whole civilization will die’ and ‘open the Strait … or you’ll be living in hell’ not only foreshadow war crimes, but put our security at risk,” Larson added.

Larson said he filed for impeachment but that Trump’s Cabinet should seek the speedier remedy of removing the president from the Oval Office through the 25th Amendment.

“Members of the Cabinet and those closest to the President can act immediately,” Larson added. “They have an obligation to put patriotism over politics and invoke the 25th Amendment. Donald Trump is unable or unwilling to faithfully execute the responsibilities of the office and he is putting the nation’s security and economy in jeopardy.”

Many others have called for the president to be removed via the 25th Amendment, though that effort may have been tempered by the announcement of a ceasefire an hour before the deadline Trump set for Iran.

Among those calling for the president to be removed are former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.).

Trump was already impeached twice in his first term.

RELATED: Praise, prayers, and impeachment: Reactions pour in following US attack on Iran

Others, like Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, defended the president’s threat.

“We’re talking about taking decisive action against Iran’s energy and civilian infrastructure. That is what the president is talking about,” Lawler told CNN. “He’s not talking about obliterating innocent people.”

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

​Third trump impeachment, Trump threat against iran, Us-israeli strikes on iran, Rep john larson of connecticut, Politics 

Beloved actor Michael J. Fox was clearly confused to find out he was allegedly dead, according to CNN, a day after he was on stage at a television festival.

Fox, 64, known for “Back to the Future” and “Teen Wolf,” took to social media on Thursday to tell followers to relax, because people think he has died every single year.

‘I thought the world was ending, but apparently it’s just me.’

Fox had just appeared at PaleyFest on Wednesday, making a surprise cameo on stage in Los Angeles. His own surprise, however, would come the next day when CNN began circulating a web article and video package claiming that he had passed away.

“Remembering the life of actor Michael J. Fox,” CNN wrote in an apparent screenshot of the piece, accompanied by a three-and-a-half minute tribute video.

‘Doing great’

This prompted TMZ to reach out to Fox’s team, who replied to confirm that he was in fact alive.

“Michael is doing great. He was at PaleyFest yesterday. He was on stage and was giving interviews,” they reiterated.

The real truth-telling was left to Fox though; he took to his Threads page (Meta’s version of X) to ponder his options.

“How do you react when you turn on the TV and CNN is reporting your death?” he asked, before taking a shot at the network formerly known as MSNBC.

RELATED: CNN analyst delivers Democrats devastating news about base support

Vinnie Zuffante/Getty Images

“Do you … A) switch to MNSBC, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, (B) Pour [scalding] hot water on your lap, if it hurts [you’re] fine, (C) Call your wife, hopefully she’s concerned but reassuring, (D) Relax, they do this once every year, [or] (E) Ask yourself wtf?”

All of the above

Fox apparently did not get the 2025 memo that MSNBC changed its name to MSNOW, which the Guardian described as a somewhat forced acronym that stands for “My Source for News, Opinion and the World.”

The original name identified a now-defunct partnership between Microsoft and NBC, which launched in 1996 as a combination of the Microsoft Network and NBC. MSN was also the colloquial name of a popular online messenger service released in 1999.

Fox concluded his remarks by saying, “I thought the world was ending, but apparently it’s just me and I’m ok. Love, Mike.”

RELATED: CNN’s ‘death spiral’: ‘Cringe’ selfie strategy deployed as network scrambles to stay relevant

Dead reckoning

CNN later issued a statement through a spokesperson that said, “The package was published in error,” NBC News reported. “We have removed it from our platforms and send our apologies to Michael J. Fox and his family.”

Fox’s appearance in L.A. was to promote his TV show “Shrinking,” which just finished filming its third season.

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

​Align, Cnn, Fake news, Michael j. fox, Reporting, Msn, Msnbc, Entertainment