Category: blaze media

“Two Americas” may be the most exhausted phrase in American political discourse. We have had two Americas divided by race, class, geography, religion, education, television network, and presidential preference.

Now we have two Americas divided by Anthony Fauci.

Six years after the pandemic began, America still cannot agree on what happened, who failed, or what accountability would require.

In one, Fauci is a criminal who helped finance dangerous research, concealed what he knew about the origins of COVID-19, misled Congress, and used the authority of science to protect himself and the institutions he led from public scrutiny. That’s my America. I suspect it’s yours, too.

In the other, Fauci is a secular saint: a brave physician who guided the nation through catastrophe while enduring abuse from Donald Trump, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), vaccine skeptics, and assorted right-wing maniacs like us.

Fauci’s appearance before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday did nothing to bridge the divide. Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment over 100 times rather than answer questions about the pandemic and its origins. Paul responded by announcing plans to seek a contempt resolution.

One America heard a confession. The other witnessed a show trial.

Nobody changed his mind. I doubt anyone could.

Six years after the pandemic began, America still cannot agree on what happened, who failed, or what accountability would require. Some people would rather forget about the whole thing and move on. A proper reckoning would demand some agreement about which questions may be asked, what evidence would count, and what findings might alter anyone’s judgment.

We don’t even have that much.

Was the pandemic a natural disaster, a laboratory accident, a bioweapon test, or the product of scientific ambition compounded by bureaucratic negligence and ineptitude? Were school closures ever justified? How much did masks help? Which restrictions saved lives? Which merely demonstrated official power? When did caution become coercion? When did uncertainty become dogma?

RELATED: Saint Anthony Fauci’s index of forbidden questions

Nyia Sissac/Washington Post/Getty Images

Even asking some of those questions still sounds incriminating to one America and deranged to the other.

I know something about the private cost of that division.

An old friend from college — my first real editor, in fact — essentially ended our friendship during the first year of the pandemic. The dispute was not over anything I had written. It was over work I had published at another publication.

One of our senior contributors was among the first writers I knew to challenge the official COVID narrative in a smart, sustained way. She questioned social distancing, masking, and the categorical dismissal of treatments such as ivermectin. My friend believed I was terribly irresponsible for continuing to publish her.

I have no regrets about doing so.

Publishing an argument is not the same as certifying every claim in it, much less demanding that readers accept it. Editors are supposed to permit serious challenges to official consensus, especially during an emergency when government claims carry extraordinary consequences.

I have spent most of my adult life in the commentary business. I make an argument. The reader judges it. If it persuades, fine. If it doesn’t, so it goes. I do not lose sleep because somebody disagrees with me. A great many people do.

That arrangement collapsed during COVID. Disagreement became evidence of moral defect. Publishing skepticism was treated not as an editorial judgment but as complicity in harm.

My friend also insisted that Trump was “100% responsible” for the disease spreading to the United States because he had failed to quarantine airline passengers arriving from China in early 2020.

His certainty struck me more than the accusation itself. One hundred percent left no room for the Chinese government, international travel, public health agencies, state officials, ordinary human behavior, or plain bad luck, let alone malice aforethought.

I tried to extend an olive branch. I suggested that we discuss it over a meal, as we had talked politics, books, ideas, and life many times during a friendship spanning more than 30 years.

He said that wouldn’t be possible because of the prevailing restrictions on social gatherings.

The policy dispute had cracked the friendship. The rule supplied the reason we could not repair the rift.

Several months later, I wrote in an email:

I have been thinking a lot about the stressors of this year and of the past few years and of the past several months especially. What I wanted to tell you is how much I value our friendship of more than 30 years. My hope is that when everything settles down, whenever that may be, you and I can sit down and have a proper conversation. I hope that history matters and I hope that goodwill prevails. And I hope you know how grateful I am to you.

He never replied.

We’ve exchanged perfunctory birthday wishes since then. That’s about all. I don’t dwell on it. But I thought of him this week now that Fauci is once again a hot topic.

I miss my friend as I miss my father, who died in 2017.

The losses are not identical, obviously. Dad can’t return. My friend could. But both men belonged to the architecture of my life. My friend knew earlier versions of me that few living people remember. He helped form the writer and editor I became.

RELATED: Reactions pour in after Fauci pleads the 5th over 100 times

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

COVID reportedly killed more than a million Americans (though I’m well aware that number is disputed). It also damaged and destroyed things nobody considered at the time: friendships, marriages, churches, businesses, childhoods, trust in physicians, trust in institutions, and what was left of the habit of regarding political opponents as fellow citizens capable of error rather than enemies guilty of unspeakable crimes.

No Senate committee could possibly tally those losses.

A couple of weeks ago, I had dinner with a prominent historian at the University of California. I lamented how difficult it will be for anyone to write a proper history of COVID.

“We won’t write it,” he told me. “Our kids will.”

Thirty years from now, the central figures won’t be around to defend themselves, polish their reputations, withhold documents, or dominate television. The pandemic may finally cease to function as a referendum on Trump, Biden, Fauci, vaccines, masks, and the moral worth of one’s neighbors.

The historians of 2056 may possess evidence we do not have and distance we cannot manufacture. They may uncover crimes. They may vindicate some officials now despised and condemn others now celebrated.

More likely, I suspect, they will describe institutions operating under fear and uncertainty, staffed by fallible people who confused authority with knowledge, consensus with truth, and self-protection with the public good.

A proper history will resist the comforting simplicity of saints and criminals. It will distinguish honest mistakes from deception, emergency measures from deliberate bureaucratic overreach, useful medicine from extravagant promises, and legitimate skepticism from opportunistic horse hockey.

It will also have to account for us.

Why did so many Americans become so certain? Why did we turn temporary policies into permanent judgments of character? Why did we allow disagreements over a virus to decide whom we would trust, whom we would shun, and which friendships we were willing to sacrifice?

Our children may answer those questions better than we can.

By then, maybe the two Americas will have become one country again — or at least two Americas capable of sitting down together for a meal. I’m not optimistic, but I’m hopeful.

​Anthony fauci, Congressional testimony, Two americas, Official covid narrative, Covid, Trump, Vaccines, Pandemic, Wuhan lab, Opinion & analysis 

I enjoy ironing. Before you summon men in white coats carrying large butterfly nets, let me explain.

My mother taught all of us to iron. My father was a military man who expected his children never to leave the house wrinkled or rumpled. He certainly never did.

Caregivers live among things we cannot control, repair, or explain. Ironing allows me to direct some of that tension toward something useful and within reach.

For years, ironing was simply practical. Dry-cleaning bills add up, and we now live more than 50 miles from the nearest cleaner.

Over time, however, the chore became something more.

For four decades, I have watched my wife endure extreme chronic pain, scores of operations, and more months in hospital rooms than I care to count. During those stays, I noticed something small but measurable: Gracie rested better when the bed had fresh linens.

Clean, tightly drawn sheets and a fresh pillowcase did not relieve her pain or repair her body. They settled her. They softened the edges of a brutal experience.

Hospitals necessarily focus on medications, procedures, vital signs, and lab results. Fresh linens can slide down the list.

After hospital stays dating to the Reagan administration, I learned where the clean linens were kept and helped myself. If a sheet touched the floor or a pillowcase looked tired, I replaced it and dropped the used linens into the nylon laundry bag found in every room.

The improvement was never dramatic. Fresh sheets did not erase Gracie’s pain. But her body relaxed, and her breathing settled.

In a room governed by suffering, even modest comfort deserved attention.

One day at home, I saw the sheets in a basket beside the ironing board and thought, “Why not?”

By the way, caregiving involves a great deal of laundry. Just saying.

I began ironing Gracie’s pillowcases and praying over them. Then I tackled the sheets, including the fitted ones, which should qualify as an advanced degree. I pressed her nightgowns and hung them where she could reach them from her wheelchair. I ironed her blouses so they would be smooth and ready to wear.

With a Bluetooth earpiece, I return listeners’ calls, conduct media interviews, take audio courses, and talk theology with pastors who tutor me — all while ironing.

Laundry does not steal time from my work. It helps me focus.

RELATED: The new kid in the waiting room

Tuned_In/Getty Images

None of this solves the larger problem. I cannot take away Gracie’s pain, reverse the damage to her body, or make her legs grow back.

But I can make the bed.

Caregivers live among things we cannot control, repair, or explain. Ironing allows me to direct some of that tension toward something useful and within reach.

When I cannot bring order to the crisis, I can bring order to the linen closet.

A pressed pillowcase will not cure chronic pain, but it may help someone rest while enduring it.

Scripture presses the matter further.

At the Transfiguration, Christ’s clothes became “shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them” (Mark 9:3). Paul writes that Christ will present the church to Himself as “a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Ephesians 5:27).

Evidently, God likes clean laundry.

But the spotless bride will not stand before Christ because she finally scrubbed away every stain and pressed out every wrinkle herself. She will stand there because Christ loved her and gave Himself for her.

He does what no launderer on earth can do. He cleanses His people and clothes them in a righteousness they did not produce.

For those of us facing stains we cannot remove and damage we cannot undo, that is no small promise.

Every piece of laundry I press reminds me of that greater work.

Heat and pressure smooth the fabric beneath my hands. Yet even the crispest sheet will wrinkle again. The pillowcase will be soiled. The hamper will fill. By next week, I will repeat the work.

Christ’s cleansing does not fail. His atoning work does not need repeating.

RELATED: How a psychic, New Age hippie led me to Catholicism

Roger Hutchings/In Pictures Ltd./Corbis/Getty Images

One day, there will be no nylon bags filled with dirty hospital linens carrying the evidence of another person’s suffering.

There will be no hospitals.

The redeemed will stand clothed in white, in the brilliant righteousness of Christ. Nothing will stain it. Nothing will wrinkle it.

Until then, suffering remains, and so does laundry.

Each time I unfold the ironing board, I am reminded that the small relief I can offer points beyond itself to the complete redemption Christ has promised.

One day, the ironing board will be put away forever.

Until then, with a nod to the apostle Paul, I press on.

And before you ask, I iron only for Gracie.

​Chronic pain, Clean laundry, Hospital stays, Ironing, Caregiving, Caregivers, Christ, Opinion & analysis 

Florida deputies had their hands full after getting a call about a suspicious person in a grocery store parking lot Tuesday evening.

The Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office said deputies responded after 6:30 p.m. to a Publix in Lutz after receiving reports about a male looking into vehicles throughout the parking lot.

‘I mean, who doesn’t keep a crowbar in their buttocks?’

When deputies attempted to investigate, 22-year-old Gonzalo Cabrera refused to identify himself, resisted deputies’ attempts to detain him, and struck a deputy while attempting to flee, officials said.

The sheriff’s office said the suspect was found armed with suspected burglary tools.

Even after being taken to the ground — and while in handcuffs — officials said Cabrera continued resisting and even reached for a crowbar concealed in his waistband.

Bodycam video shows deputies grabbing the crowbar, pulling it away from the suspect’s hands, and throwing it to the parking lot surface.

Cabrera was arrested and faces multiple charges, including battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting officer with violence, loitering or prowling, possession of burglary tools, trespass on property other than structure or conveyance, and disorderly conduct, officials said.

RELATED: Video: Crooks plow car through jewelry store entrance in broad daylight smash-and-grab. But the suspects got sloppy.

More than 500 comments have hit the sheriff’s office Facebook post about the incident; the following are a few gems:

“I mean, who doesn’t keep a crowbar in their buttocks?” one commenter quipped.”Guy had tools, looking into cars? Maybe he’s a mechanic??!!” another user offered.”I was at the Publix when he was walking around,” another commenter said. “It was very odd. He was walking in between cars, looking around, very sketchy. I have no clue how long he was there — but 2 employees were watching him. One of the employees walked me to my car — the guy was right by it until we walked over …””Dems will set up a GoFundMe for his release. LOL,” another user predicted.”Just another loser lowlife drain on society,” another commenter noted.

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

​Crowbar, Florida, Shopping center, Parking lot, Arrest, Bodycam video, Crime 

The idea that Donald Trump is the Antichrist warned about in the Bible continues to circulate in some fringe Christian circles. Last month, William Upham — a former Marine and Florida Republican write-in congressional candidate — was arrested and charged for threatening the president after he posted videos calling Trump the Antichrist and saying he “must be killed.”

While Upham is the only one to take his Antichrist claim to criminal levels, he’s certainly not the only professing Christian to accuse Trump of being the Antichrist.

On a recent episode of “Strange Encounters,” Rick Burgess tested this theory by holding it up to Scripture.

“Let me go ahead and just tell you right now: Donald Trump does not meet the criteria, OK?” Rick says bluntly.

The first indicator that Trump doesn’t match the description of Revelation’s beast, he says, is that his communication skills do not hold up to the Antichrist standard.

“I don’t think [Trump] is all that great a communicator, and Antichrist will be the most polished politician the world has ever seen. He will be an incredible orator. You will be drawn to the way he speaks, the way he looks. … That right there, it’s already over,” says Rick.

But the list of reasons goes far deeper than just rhetorical gifts.

Rick explains that there are three primary theories for the Antichrist’s origin: Gentile/European from a revived Roman Empire, Jewish, or Middle Eastern.

“I don’t think that our friend and President Donald Trump is going to meet that very well,” he says.

Further, according 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the Antichrist “will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.”

In 1 John 2:22, an antichrist is anyone who “denies the Father and the Son.”

“I’m not the judge of Donald Trump, and under no circumstance am I given authority by God to judge anyone’s eternity, OK?” Rick caveats. “However … the way that I’ve seen Trump approach his faith … I don’t believe he is of the church, but I have seen that he’s proven he’s not an enemy of the church. Antichrist would be an enemy of the church.”

“Antichrist would be someone who tries to get in theology. See, Trump just doesn’t know good theology. He isn’t trying to change anyone’s mind on what Jesus claimed. He’s just not doing what Antichrist would be doing,” he adds.

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.

​Rick burgess, Donald trump, Antichrist, Christianity, Spiritual warfare, Blazetv show 

Birthdays should mark milestones, offer hope for another year, and remind us to cherish the people we love.

But on the first anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to restrict access to Elevidys, a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, there will be no cake or candles in our home.

The only birthdays Duchenne families want to celebrate are the ones our children are still here to have. The FDA should help us light those candles.

My 14-year-old son, Ryu, is still fighting to reach another birthday.

A year ago, I was exploring Elevidys as a treatment that might help him live a longer, fuller life. Then, almost overnight, that hope disappeared. The FDA first halted use of the therapy entirely before restoring access only for boys who could still walk. Ryu, who already uses a wheelchair, was left behind.

By age 14, more than 82% of Duchenne patients use a wheelchair. After age 15, the share exceeds 90%.

I have spent my life living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a rare, progressive genetic disease that causes muscles to waste away and almost always leads to premature death. It has shaped every chapter of my family’s story. I watched my brothers, Angelo and Antonio, die from Duchenne in their early 20s.

I began considering Elevidys because I trusted the science and the physician who brought it to my attention. I believed my son deserved the same opportunity other eligible patients were receiving.

Instead, the past year has been heartbreaking.

Ryu’s disease has progressed. His breathing is weaker, and he relies on his BiPAP machine more than he did a year ago. Duchenne families measure time differently. Every lost ability is marked by a clock that never turns back.

RELATED: The FDA seems to care more about celebrities than sick Americans

MarioGuti/iStock/Getty Images

The FDA said it restricted Elevidys after reports of three patient deaths. Those boys died from liver complications, not complications caused by wheelchair use. Families like mine struggle to understand why patients with advanced disease lost access to a treatment because of risks that were not unique to them.

Safety must remain paramount. We are not asking regulators to approve every experimental therapy or ignore serious adverse events. Elevidys had already passed through years of research and clinical trials and had been administered to Duchenne patients before access was narrowed.

We are asking for something more modest and more humane: When a disease is progressive and fatal, families should be allowed to work with their doctors to decide whether the potential benefit justifies the risk for their own children.

The anniversary of the Elevidys restriction also marks the moment I turned 40 years of helplessness into action. I learned what an op-ed was and wrote my first one. I entered the intimidating world of social media.

On my first trip to Washington, D.C., I learned how to call an Uber and met with senators, staff members, other rare-disease mothers, and patients. I did not go because I wanted to become an activist. I went because I am a mother. I had to speak for my son and honor the memory of my brothers, who never lived to see the possibilities available to patients today.

My brother Angelo volunteered for experimental research in the 1990s, when almost no treatment options existed. He wanted future children with Duchenne to benefit from his courage. Years later, one of those children would be his nephew — my son.

RELATED: Medicare red tape turned insurers into villains

stevegraham/iStock/Getty Images

The FDA is entering a period of new leadership. The next commissioner should put patients first, recognize that rare diseases demand urgency, and trust families and physicians to make informed decisions together. Returning to the old approach would cost families the one thing no regulator can restore: time.

Hope has a birthday too. We celebrate it whenever a scientist makes a breakthrough, a doctor refuses to give up, a parent fights for one more chance, or the FDA chooses urgency over bureaucracy.

I pray this dark anniversary is the last time FDA policy leaves Duchenne families behind — and the beginning of a new era in which boys like Ryu have the chance to live as fully and as long as possible.

The only birthdays Duchenne families want to celebrate are the ones our children are still here to have. The FDA should help us light those candles.

​Bureaucracy, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Fda, Opinion & analysis, Red tape, Science, Therapy, Regulation, Treatment, Children, Healthcare 

Hollywood’s budget addiction is catching up with even its biggest franchises.

Two major projects have hit financial speed bumps, proving that even recognizable brands aren’t automatic green lights anymore.

‘This is the match that we needed to, quite frankly, burn it all down and finally build a country for mothers.’

First, there’s the last “Fast & Furious” film. The previous installment earned a tepid $146 million stateside in 2023, but more than $500 million from international sales. The film’s massive budget still made getting into the black a chore.

Now, the studio is dragging its feet on the last “Fast” feature, hoping to somehow whittle down the big bucks needed to make it happen. Let’s hope the studio doesn’t send our heroes into space again.

Meanwhile, after a lot of jawboning, “Heat 2” appears ready to go before the cameras. Director Michael Mann wanted a massive shooting budget for his sequel to the beloved 1995 crime caper, and multiple studios flirted with the film but ultimately said no.

Now, the deep pockets at Amazon will help make this movie happen, with Leonardo DiCaprio playing the role originally performed by Val Kilmer and Christian Bale standing in for Al Pacino.

Pass the hat, folks. If you want to see these bloated IP extensions, someone’s got to pick up the tab.

‘Man’-handled

It’s a wonder it lasted this long.

Disney+’s “Wonder Man” series, based on the obscure MCU character of the same name, supposedly earned a second-season renewal earlier this year. Not so fast. The Mouse House just slammed the door shut on new episodes.

The series race-swapped the main character, played on screen by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, but the show didn’t build on that sweet, sweet MCU synergy.

The character could reportedly pop up in future Marvel films, proof that Disney still believes more superheroes — not fewer — are the answer to audience fatigue.

RELATED: SUPER FLOP: Sneering ‘Supergirl’ flees multiplex for home streaming

David Jon/Getty Images

Harvey’s ‘heartbreak’

Gossip monger Harvey Levin built a career asking uncomfortable questions. Apparently, Anthony Fauci is the exception.

The TMZ boss called it “one of the most heartbreaking things I have seen in government” after Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times before a Senate committee investigating the government’s COVID response.

Levin acknowledged he has “problems with the way CDC handled COVID,” saying the agency “did damage to children and adults.” Even so, he insisted Fauci had been “an amazing public servant” and dismissed the hearing as a Republican “witch hunt.”

That’s an odd conclusion. If the CDC’s pandemic response caused real harm — as Levin now concedes — why shouldn’t one of its most influential public faces be asked tough questions under oath?

Mother of all leftists

Is Reshma Saujani a filmmaker or arsonist?

Saujani, an executive producer of the new documentary “No Country for Mothers,” used a PBS interview to promote more than just the film.

The documentary explores the challenges facing modern motherhood, offering familiar progressive prescriptions — more government intervention, expanded social programs, and a renewed push for the Equal Rights Amendment.

But Saujani saved her most provocative remarks for the end, describing the film as the spark for something far bigger than policy reform.

And they are staying until midnight, talking, crying, holding each other, hugging each other, talking about the laws are going to change, the policies are going to pass, the neighbor that they’re going to help. Like, this is the — this is the match that we needed to, quite frankly, burn it all down and finally build a country for mothers.

She also claimed, without offering a lick of evidence, that unseen forces are “suppressing women’s content.” One suspects those mysterious gatekeepers have an orange complexion.

More telling, though, is the revolutionary flourish. A documentary about helping mothers somehow ends with a call to “burn it all down.” That’s an odd way to pitch a movement built on caring for families.

Sleazy does it

Your newest OnlyFans creator got her start when Jimmy Carter was president.

Donna Mills, 85, is embracing the most 2026 career pivot imaginable. The “Knots Landing” star announced she’ll be joining the adult-centered platform, saying it “offers the opportunity for a more personal and direct connection.”

Good luck with that. A sizable share of the actress’ longtime audience may need a grandchild just to download the app.

​Leonardo dicaprio, Lifestyle, Entertainment, Movies, Tv, Harvey levin, Tmz, Fast and the furious, Hollywood, Anthony fauci, Disney, Toto recall 

What began as two teenage girls holding a sign at a WNBA game has exploded into a much larger controversy over Caitlin Clark, Sophie Cunningham, and the future of the league itself.

After Seattle Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton confronted and berated the young fans for thanking Cunningham “for speaking up for girls,” the incident quickly became a national story. But BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock argues the real target isn’t the teenagers — and it isn’t even Cunningham, who has spoken up against allowing men in women’s sports.

“Two teenage girls sit courtside holding a sign at the Fever-Storm game. ‘Thank you, Sophie, for speaking up for the girls.’ That’s the provocation. That’s the whole crime. And Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton walks up to those children and unloads,” Whitlock explains.

“‘I hope Jesus can forgive you for what sin you’ve done. God can save you,’” he mimics. “Points at her own head. Calls them ‘effing insane,’” he says.

Whitlock is disturbed, pointing out that “a grown millionaire owner used the name of Jesus as a weapon against those two girls.”

And Cunningham spoke out again following the incident, writing in a post on X: “I truly believe there is a safe space and love for EVERYBODY. Biological girls, biological boys, trans women, and trans men. Everyone is welcome at my table! You can disagree and still be kind. Bravo to those girls for standing up for what they believe. You’ll be hearing from me soon. Yay for gifts.”

“Truly embarrassing of the co-owner. Unfortunately shows the type of leader she is,” she added.

And while Cunningham is taking heat for not denouncing the young girls and their beliefs, so is Indiana Fever star Caitlin Clark.

“This was never about a sign. It’s about who that sign represents. Caitlin Clark, Sophie Cunningham, and the millions of normal, heterosexual sports fans they dragged into these arenas. This league resents the audience that legitimized it,” Whitlock explains, before playing a clip of Elle Duncan of Netflix demanding Clark denounce her fans.

Duncan called on Clark to say, “Stop that s**t. I don’t want it. I’m tired of it.”

“She’s demanding that Caitlin Clark denounce her fans for what other adults did,” Whitlock says.

“She’s an idiot,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

​Caitlin clark, Celeste keaton, Jason whitlock, Sophie cunningham, Wnba, Womens sports, Seattle storm, Indiana fever, Blazetv show 

Swipe right for eternal love, or swipe left to ensure your primary relationship in old age is with a potted plant. Many choose right, but very few find someone to build a life with.

Silicon Valley pitched the online romantic bazaar as the ultimate solution to human isolation. Instead, it engineered a high-tech hellscape that leaves millions broken, bitter, and eating alone over the kitchen sink at two in the morning.

The year 2012 marked the release of Tinder, a dating app that effectively converted human pair-bonding into a high-speed slot machine. Instead of buying a drink for someone at a dimly lit tavern, adults began flicking their thumbs across screens, evaluating potential mothers and fathers of their future children with the exact same depth of consideration given to choosing a cheap lunch order. Ten seconds. Three photos. A witty line stolen from an old internet forum. Next.

The photogenic narcissist with a rented Lamborghini gets 80 matches before lunch.

The financial reality of these companies makes permanent romance a direct threat to corporate profits. A customer who meets a compatible partner, deletes the app, and goes on to celebrate a golden wedding anniversary represents lost revenue. The ideal subscriber isn’t a happily married suburbanite with three kids. Rather, it’s a chronically anxious 30-something who gets dumped every four months, panics, buys a premium tier to see who liked them, and spirals into a weekend of intense self-doubt. The product was never commitment, but continuous, profitable frustration.

Researchers at the Institute for Family Studies recently examined male and female users from Keeper, a service built specifically for individuals seeking long-term commitment and children. The findings exposed a hilarious truth about the entire industry: Men and women actually want the exact same things. When you remove the gamified tricks, both sexes rank shared values, clear communication, humor, intelligence, and physical health at the top of their partner wish lists. Men show a slightly higher preference for youth and appearance; women lean harder into ambition and status. These differences are rounding errors, minor details compared with the larger human desire for a trusted co-pilot on life’s unpredictable journey.

Swiped away

Humans spent centuries relying on tight-knit networks to filter out total weirdos and freeloaders. In 1950, your grandmother met your grandfather because he lived three blocks over, they went to the same neighborhood gathering, and her brother knew he wasn’t a complete lunatic. Reputation acted as a natural safety net against terrible partners.

Swiping erased that protective social structure, dumping millions of unvetted strangers into a giant digital meat market. Devoid of meaningful context, users naturally optimize for short-term visual signals. The guy with a solid work ethic, no criminal record, and a modest savings account gets buried under an avalanche of algorithmic garbage. The photogenic narcissist posing with a rented Lamborghini secures 80 matches before lunch.

RELATED: Can this super-humanoid robot ‘solve’ loneliness?

imaginima/Getty Images

This environment turns dating into an absurd exercise in artificial scarcity and total overload. A tiny percentage of hyper-exaggerated profiles swallow the vast majority of human attention, generating an unmanageable barrage of lazy messages for a small minority of users. Meanwhile, the average guy spends his evenings shouting into a vast, empty canyon, receiving zero matches over weeks of desperate effort. One group gets drowned in a sea of shallow options; the other starves in a desert of complete invisibility.

The options we need

The tragic comedy of the whole arrangement lies in our collective willingness to blame our physical flaws instead of correcting our mental ones. Single people embrace profile coaches, professional photoshoots, and premium upgrades, convinced that a slightly improved posture in a photo will finally break the spell. They treat a rigged carnival game like a personal failure of character.

Imagine applying this logic to any other crucial human need. Picture an app that promises to help you buy a home, but instead of showing you mortgages or inspection reports, it forces you to look at picture frames for three seconds and charges you five dollars a minute to talk to a real estate agent who has no intention of ever handing over the keys. You would call it a scam. In romance, we call it “having options.”

Fixing family formation requires abandoning the destructive delusion that these platforms are helping us settle down. A system actually tuned toward marriage would hide photos behind deep character metrics. It would charge users based on long-term relationship outcomes and aggressively ban anyone looking for a quick distraction on a Friday night. Until the market finds a way to profit off 50-year anniversaries, single adults will remain trapped inside an infinite first-date loop, paying inordinate sums for the privilege of staying entirely alone.

​Tech, Dating world 

If COVID-19 nearly broke civilization with a 1% fatality rate, can you imagine the pandemonium a more lethal pathogen would cause? According to national security journalist Annie Jacobsen — author of “Biological War: A Scenario” — society should be reckoning with that very question because genetically modified pathogens with a 100% kill rate are sitting in laboratories right now.

In an interview with Glenn Beck, Jacobsen explained that these pathogens aren’t theoretical — and that a real-world release would move far faster and more destructively than most people grasp.

The prospect of a pandemic that makes COVID-19 look like child’s play terrifies Glenn — not just because of the lethal implications of such an event but also because society has never been so skeptical of the government and institutionalized science.

If something truly deadly escaped, how many would even believe it?

“The trust is gone. It’s just gone,” Glenn says. “If an outbreak happened today, half of the country would not believe Donald Trump. If it was … Kamala Harris, half of the country would not believe her.”

And then there’s the people who are so jaded, it doesn’t matter who’s in office — “they don’t trust the science,” Glenn says, because COVID-19 mistakes still have never been owned by the scientific authorities.

These skeptics, justified as their mistrust may be, would be in peril, however, if an invariably fatal pathogen were to escape.

“There are genetically modified pathogens out there that have a 100% case fatality rate. Everybody dies. And [in the book] I show readers what the government has planned for that kind of event,” Jacobsen says.

“I take the readers from outbreak to anarchy in six days … and then you learn what happens after anarchy,” she adds.

“How convinced are you that we are near … an accident in one of these labs?” Glenn asks.

“[Biological] accidents are listed in Defense Department nomenclature as having the same plan go into effect as an attack. … So, a lab leak 100% is as deadly as an attack because the pathogen, if it’s airborne, the weapon system is the human lung set,” Jacobsen explains.

Glenn then pivots to gain-of-function research.

“I understand if we’re looking for, you know, cures for these weapons, but I just don’t know — it feels as though we have crossed a point to where we’re almost insane and will appear to be suicidal at some point down the road,” he says.

“You can’t use any of these biological weapons. It’s all against the law since Nixon, but how many countries are still doing this stuff?” he asks.

To understand just how prevalent gain-of-function research is, all you have to do, Jacobsen says, is “look at the labs.”

“There are 110 BSL-4 labs around the world. That’s the maximum containment lab. And BSL-3, by the way, is just right below that. You can work with plague, hantavirus, anthrax, rabies in a BSL-3 lab, and there are 3,500 of those labs around the world,” she explains.

“And so, the idea of an accident is, you know, we’re just right at that precipice.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Anthrax, Covid-19, Glenn beck, Hantavirus, National security, Pandemic, Pathogen, Rabies, Nixon, Gain of function research, Blazetv show 

When President Trump reposted a video featuring President John F. Kennedy warning about subversion in America, he renewed focus on a threat we have long ignored at our peril.

Spotlighting JFK’s admonition is part of the administration’s all-out attack on foreign subversion — an effort that has no presidential precedent. Its designation of Antifa and certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters as terrorist organizations was a first. The revocation of visas for foreign subversives, if carried out on a larger scale, will be unmatched in scope.

Kennedy understood that peace through strength was broader than deploying military power or international diplomacy. But he never had the chance to deliver that warning.

During the July 16 Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and other officials made clear that the Trump administration would use every tool of statecraft to dismantle the decades-old subversive networks operating in the United States.

This effort has also refocused attention on an older — but no less potent — enemy: communist subversion.

The State Department published a 100-page report “Cuba: The Capital of 21st-Century Communism,” detailing how Cuban communists have worked for decades to overthrow the United States. It names names, past and present.

Cuba, of course, brings us back to President Kennedy. Despite his failed effort to remove Fidel Castro’s communist regime, Kennedy frequently pointed out how communists abused constitutional protections and infiltrated U.S. institutions — the news media, labor unions, academia, and the government itself.

JFK’s words still apply today to surviving Soviet spin-offs like the Cuban regime, critical theory and critical race theory, cultural Marxism, and democratic socialism.

As a new senator, at the height of Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s investigative hearings, Kennedy warned in successive speeches that the greatest foreign threat would rely on “the weapons of subversion, economic disintegration, and guerrilla warfare to accomplish our destruction, rather than the direct assault of an all-out war.”

Kennedy warned every possible audience — schoolteachers, university professors, community leaders, newspaper editors, women’s clubs, union leaders, military personnel, veterans, business groups, political fundraisers, civil liberties leaders, church groups, and the general public — about the communist threat right up to the last day of his life.

Kennedy recognized the danger posed by American traitors who sought, through subterfuge and collaboration with the foreign enemy, to corrode Americans’ belief in their country and the principles of their nation’s founding. He praised some American labor unions for ridding themselves of communist subversion.

Defending President Eisenhower’s counter-subversion approach in 1957, Kennedy nonetheless chided his fractured and squabbling Republican opponents. Republicans, he said, “found that their chief concern was with questions of disloyalty and subversion — not within the Federal Government but within the Republican Party.”

That was just three weeks to the day after Joe McCarthy’s death. JFK never publicly criticized McCarthy, who had been a welcome guest of his father at the Kennedy Compound on Cape Cod. “Half my people in Massachusetts look on McCarthy as a hero,” he once said.

RELATED: The socialists are coming for the Senate

Kid-a/Getty Images

Infiltration and subversion

Kennedy repeatedly warned of what he called “nonmilitary avenues of Soviet advance”: “I fear our emphasis on the dangers of missile attacks may cause us to forget. For their thrust is more subtle,” and “the task of opposing them more formidable.”

Among those threats were “economic and political penetration, intimidation, and subversion,” he said in 1958. “There is little value in rushing new billions in defense expenditures to fight total wars … if we are unprepared to prevent continued Soviet advances through … subversion and intimidation.”

As he was preparing his presidential run, Kennedy mused during a speech at a civil liberties conference that the public had been so subjected to subversive attacks that they no longer shared the civic principles that once united them.

On the campaign trail in 1960, Kennedy raised the topic of subversion even before audiences asked about it. As the Democratic nominee for president, Kennedy became more critical of the Eisenhower administration for focusing on massive military buildups at the expense of a predictable pattern of communist ideological conquest made easier by America’s weakness in counter-subversion:

In other words, there is every chance that the pattern of conquest of the communists will not be military action, but will be by subversion, by fear, by persuading the people of those countries and their leaders that the communist system represents the way of the future. I don’t believe the administration has recognized that danger. … I don’t believe that our influence has increased as fast in recent years abroad as that of the communists.

In his last weeks of campaigning, Kennedy even called the communist threat more challenging than dealing with the Nazis. “I must say that the problems we will face in the next 10 years are far more complex than any that Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman faced, particularly in the field of foreign policy,” he said to supporters in Ohio. “What has happened in the last two years in the field of foreign policy indicates a whole technique of subversion and infiltration, which will be extremely hard to counter.”

That subversion, he continued, “will require a far great[er] subtlety, far more constant vigilance, far greater personnel, far greater foresight than we have ever shown before.”

Unaware of President Eisenhower’s plan for toppling the new Fidel Castro regime that he would inherit, Kennedy tore into U.S. unpreparedness that led to Cuba becoming “a base from which to carry communist infiltration and subversion throughout the Americas.”

Kennedy was alone in bringing up subversion during his fourth debate with Vice President Richard M. Nixon, which was striking since Nixon had become a national political figure while serving on the House Un-American Activities Committee.

What you can do

Kennedy hammered away at the threat of communist subversion in the first minutes of his presidency. In his inaugural address, he vowed “to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas” — the same speech in which he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

He warned in a 1961 emergency address to Congress that “nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion.”

He and his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, had no love for FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, but they worked closely with him to investigate and disrupt communist infiltration of the civil rights movement. JFK, like Eisenhower before him and Lyndon Johnson and Nixon afterward, treated it properly as a counterintelligence problem.

On the day of his assassination in Dallas, President Kennedy was ready once again to warn about subversion. The president’s remarks as prepared read:

I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our society because this question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this nation’s strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion.

Kennedy understood that peace through strength was broader than deploying military power or international diplomacy.

But he never had the chance to deliver that warning. More than six decades later, President Trump and his team have fortunately picked up where he left off, reviving a neglected part of Kennedy’s legacy. It’s time to follow President Kennedy’s lead and uproot domestic subversion in America once and for all.

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

​Antifa, Critical race theory, Cuba, Democratic socialism, Fidel castro, John f kennedy, Joseph mccarthy, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Marco rubio 

Surveillance video from a Georgia gas station captured a scary scene late last month — a male chasing a child around a car while the child’s mother was pumping gas.

It all played out after midnight at a Shell station on Delk Road in Marietta, WSB-TV reported.

‘The million-dollar question everyone watching is going to ask: Why did this happen? Why did this occur? And we don’t know those answers.’

Video shows a shoeless, shirtless male approaching the car, the station said. While he eventually walks away, the male returns to the car, WSB said.

The male this time walks closer to the mother but notices a child jumping to the driver’s seat and exiting the car, the station said.

The video then shows the male chasing the child.

At one point, the male is seen opening the car’s back door where the mother’s other child was seated, WSB said.

The mother then holds up the gas pump nozzle and gestures toward the male as he backs away, which gives her child time to get back into the car, the station said, adding that two witnesses appear in the frame and help.

RELATED: Heroic gas station clerk saves girl from sex offender amid alleged kidnapping after she mouths desperate plea to him

“The actions of the mother and everyone on the scene, their ability to remain calm under pressure and … get him away from the children, get a hold of us so that we can get to the area allowed us to hold this individual accountable,” Public Information Officer Charles McPhilamy of the Marietta Police Department told WSB.

The suspect, Jerahn Tucker, was arrested on three charges, including attempted kidnapping, the station said.

Police told the station they found a THC vape in Tucker’s car when they caught up to him.

The gas station manager added to WSB that he’s kicked Tucker off the property multiple times.

“The million-dollar question everyone watching is going to ask: Why did this happen? Why did this occur? And we don’t know those answers,” McPhilamy added to the station.

Jail records Blaze News reviewed Friday indicate Tucker was still behind bars.

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

​Georgia, Attempted kidnapping, Arrest, Gas station, Mother and child, Fighting back, Crime 

America’s debate over poverty has undergone a remarkable and troubling transformation. Two centuries ago, the central challenge was persuading needy people to accept public assistance. Today, the challenge is preventing people from fraudulently claiming benefits to which they were never entitled.

That trajectory tells us something profound about the nation’s changing moral culture.

What had once been viewed as a last resort gradually came to be seen as an entitlement detached from personal responsibility.

Alexis de Tocqueville noticed something remarkable when he traveled through America in the early 1830s. Unlike Europe, where poverty often produced permanent dependence upon the state or aristocratic patrons, Americans possessed an almost universal determination to remain independent. They formed voluntary associations to care for neighbors in distress, but they regarded prolonged dependence as inconsistent with the character of a free citizen.

That observation reflected a broader understanding shared by the American founders and the generation that followed them.

Every state maintained some provision for public relief, but it was deliberately limited and administered locally. It existed for those genuinely incapable of caring for themselves — the disabled, widows, orphans, and others facing extraordinary hardship. Families, churches, fraternal organizations, and private charities bore the primary responsibility for helping the poor.

Public charity carried a social stigma — not because Americans lacked compassion, but because they believed that independence was itself a form of human dignity.

Justice Joseph Story explained that republican government depended upon a virtuous and independent citizenry. The ideal citizen governed himself before participating in governing others. Economic independence fostered political independence; citizens who could support themselves were less susceptible to manipulation by those dispensing favors or public largesse.

One of the striking features of early America is not that assistance was unavailable, but that many people who qualified for relief were reluctant to seek it.

Contemporary accounts from several states — including New Jersey — describe respectable men and women enduring extraordinary hardship before accepting public charity. To modern ears, such reluctance may seem irrational. To them, it was a matter of preserving self-respect.

That moral instinct — that accepting public assistance should be exceptional rather than ordinary — formed an essential part of the American understanding of citizenship until the 20th century.

The first cracks in that understanding appeared during the Progressive Era and deepened during the New Deal. Faced with industrialization, urban poverty, and the Great Depression, Americans increasingly looked to government to perform functions that earlier generations had entrusted to institutions outside the government.

Much of that expansion responded to genuine crises, and programs such as Social Security reflected the extraordinary circumstances of their time.

Even so, the nation’s underlying philosophy was beginning to change. Government was no longer viewed simply as a safety net for those unable to care for themselves; it increasingly became expected to solve all social and economic problems.

The shift was gradual and often justified by necessity. But it subtly weakened the older assumption that public assistance should remain exceptional, temporary, and closely tied to preserving personal independence.

RELATED: 1776, not 1608: What the Supreme Court got wrong on birthright citizenship

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

Then came the Great Society, which transformed that gradual evolution into a new governing philosophy.

It was no longer enough for government to provide a backstop against destitution. Washington now assumed responsibility for eliminating poverty itself, dramatically expanding both the scope of public assistance and the expectation that government would provide it.

Lyndon Johnson’s anti-poverty initiatives promised not merely to relieve poverty, but to eradicate it. The federal government assumed responsibilities that had traditionally rested with families, churches, private charities, and local communities. Welfare increasingly became not an emergency measure but a permanent feature of American life.

Though the Great Society’s architects believed they were expanding compassion, they failed to appreciate that they were also reshaping character. As benefits expanded and eligibility became more complex, government increasingly rewarded dependency rather than independence. Bureaucracies grew. Incentives shifted. Entire industries arose to help people maximize government benefits rather than minimize their reliance upon them.

Most importantly, the moral understanding surrounding public assistance changed.

What had once been viewed as a last resort gradually came to be seen as an entitlement detached from personal responsibility. The question shifted from “Do I truly need help?” to “What benefits can I qualify for?”

Today, we appear to have entered yet another stage.

The headlines are filled not merely with dependency, but with outright theft. Fraudulent unemployment claims. Identity theft used to obtain government benefits. Organized criminal enterprises exploiting Medicare and Medicaid. Billions of dollars in pandemic relief stolen through fake applications and fictitious businesses. International criminal organizations siphoning taxpayer dollars from programs intended to help struggling Americans.

In state after state, investigators have uncovered elaborate schemes involving food assistance, housing subsidies, disability payments, and health care reimbursements.

That is not to say that every welfare recipient is dishonest or even dependent. The overwhelming majority of Americans who receive public assistance are law-abiding citizens, many facing genuine hardship. But a system that steadily weakens the connection between work and reward inevitably creates opportunities — and temptations — for abuse.

RELATED: Will America need a Caesar?

Chudakov2/iStock/Getty Images

Once government benefits come to be viewed less as charity for the truly needy than as a pot of money available for the taking, the moral barrier separating dependence from outright fraud begins to erode.

No society can long endure when the distinction between earning and taking begins to disappear. The welfare state ultimately depends upon trust: trust that recipients are honest, that taxpayers will continue to support programs for those in genuine need, and that government will faithfully safeguard the public treasury. Rampant fraud destroys each of those assumptions.

The greatest victims are often the truly needy. Every dollar stolen by fraudsters is a dollar unavailable to a disabled veteran, a struggling single mother, or an elderly widow living on a fixed income. Every scandal further erodes public confidence in programs that exist for legitimate purposes.

Reforming welfare therefore requires more than better auditing, modernized computer systems, or tougher prosecutors, although all of those are necessary. It requires recovering an older understanding of citizenship.

The founders recognized something that modern policymakers have too often forgotten: Independence is a political virtue. Citizens capable of supporting themselves are more capable of governing themselves. A republic cannot flourish if large portions of the population come to regard government not as the protector of liberty, but as the primary provider of livelihood.

America’s success has historically rested primarily on the character of its people, not on government programs.

Our national journey — from dignity to welfare dependence to thievery — was not inevitable, and it is not irreversible. The same nation that once prized independence above comfort can recover that ethic.

But doing so will require us to remember what earlier generations instinctively understood: There is a profound difference between helping a neighbor in genuine need and constructing a system that slowly erodes the very virtues upon which a free people depend.

Compassion remains indispensable. But so do dignity, self-reliance, and personal responsibility. Lose those, and we will discover that the greatest poverty afflicting America is no longer material. It is moral.

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

​Great society, Social security, Personal responsibility, Welfare state, American founding, Charity, Benefits, Public assistance, Government programs, Opinion & analysis, Fraud, Alexis de tocqueville, Joseph story 

Journee McGrew says the man she brutally murdered with a metal hammer had groomed and molested her since the time she was in elementary school.

The 22-year-old woman is awaiting sentencing for beating 41-year-old Waduta Londrell Woodley to death on July 2, 2025, in Jacksonville, Florida.

‘I really wasn’t in my right mind when this happened. I’m not violent, and I’m sorry for this situation.’

McGrew said Woodley had sexually molested her for many years before she left him in a pool of blood in the breezeway of an apartment complex. Police said he had blunt force trauma to his head and face.

They also found a paper on his chest with a message that read, “PEDO Touches Children.”

McGrew said in court that her plan was to lure him into her apartment by falsely claiming to want sex in order to gather evidence against him. She said she did not plan to kill him.

“This was not supposed to happen. I really wasn’t in my right mind when this happened. I’m not violent, and I’m sorry for this situation,” she testified.

Police said they knocked on her door and she answered. They found bloody footprints as well as the bloody hammer.

Woodley’s mother testified at trial on his behalf.

“Everything changed in a second when your only son has been murdered,” she said in court. “Yes, this has affected my family, my daughter, my granddaughter. … We don’t know how to cope.”

McGrew also testified that she had been diagnosed with psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorder before the murder.

She initially pleaded not guilty to the two charges but changed her plea to guilty in Dec. 2025. She will be sentenced in August. The state has recommended life in prison.

“McGrew decided last year to be judge, jury, and executioner,” the state said. “She decided she was going to take the law into her own hands. She decided to be a vigilante, to be retaliatory and to impose a sentence.”

WJXT-TV reported that Woodley had no criminal history related to sexual assault or the abuse of children.

McGrew’s mugshot shows her smiling happily after she was arrested.

RELATED: Family of 10-year-old girl allegedly tortured to death says child protective services ignored dozens of warnings

McGrew was asked if she had any comments for her victim’s family.

“I am sorry about what I did,” she said. “I know how much I impacted your family and mine. I’m really sorry for what happened.”

No one appears to have submitted anything for Woodley’s obituary. The staff of the funeral home planted a tree in his memory.

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

​Brutal beating, Child molestation, Florida, Revenge, Child grooming, Crime 

You probably think the EV mandate is over. That’s exactly what Washington wants you to believe.

Congress celebrated. The White House touted what it called one of the largest deregulatory efforts in modern history, highlighting the repeal of federal vehicle emissions rules as the centerpiece of more than $1 trillion in projected savings. Automakers began telling investors they were pivoting back toward the vehicles customers actually want. Dealers finally saw hope after years of trying to move electric vehicles that many buyers simply didn’t want.

Gas-powered vehicles continued dominating large parts of the country because they remain practical, affordable, and easy to refuel.

‘Not yet’

Then I started talking to people who follow automotive policy for a living.

I kept hearing the same answer: “Not yet.”

The reason is California.

While Washington rolled back federal emissions rules, California’s authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards largely survived. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia now follow California’s rules, representing roughly 40% of the nation’s new-vehicle market. That means one state’s policies can effectively shape what automakers build for the entire country.

The fight now centers on four California Clean Air Act waivers that allow the state to enforce stricter emissions standards, including requirements that automakers sell increasing numbers of electric vehicles and meet tougher tailpipe-emissions limits. The EPA sent those waivers to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act. California immediately sued, arguing the waivers aren’t subject to congressional repeal.

Congressional Republicans disagree.

California king

They’re racing to overturn the waivers before the Congressional Review Act deadline expires. If they succeed, future administrations would face a much steeper legal hurdle before restoring California’s authority. If they fail, the legal framework that has allowed California to shape the national auto market could remain in place for years.

To be fair, the Trump administration fundamentally changed federal auto policy. Repealing the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding removed the legal foundation for nationwide greenhouse-gas regulations, marking one of the biggest deregulatory shifts in decades.

But Washington only dismantled part of the system.

Once enough states adopt California’s standards, automakers face a simple business decision. They can engineer different vehicles for different parts of the country — or build to the toughest standard and sell it everywhere. Guess which option usually wins.

RELATED: California wants to decide what tires you can buy — what could possibly go wrong?

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sunk costs

Now follow the money.

Over the last decade, automakers invested hundreds of billions of dollars preparing for an electric future regulators insisted was inevitable. Battery manufacturers expanded production. Charging companies attracted billions in public and private investment. Utilities planned for rising electricity demand. Entire business models were built around the assumption that government would continue pushing rapid electrification.

When that much money depends on one regulatory direction, nobody quietly accepts a change in course.

Businesses fight to protect their investments. Lobbyists fight to preserve the policies that created them. Investors fight to protect their returns. That’s not a conspiracy. It’s economics.

Consumers, however, had other ideas.

Real life over regulations

Electric vehicle sales in America never matched many of the industry’s most ambitious forecasts. Hybrids surged because they offered better fuel economy without requiring people to change how they live. Gas-powered vehicles continued dominating large parts of the country because they remain practical, affordable, and easy to refuel. Dealers struggled with inventory that reflected regulatory priorities more than consumer demand, and manufacturers wrote off billions after investing ahead of the market.

None of this means electric vehicles are a bad option. Buy one if it fits your lifestyle. Buy a hybrid if that’s the better option. Buy a gasoline-powered pickup if that’s what your family or business needs.

That’s what consumer choice looks like.

Looking back over the last decade, I don’t see consumers driving this transition. I see regulations shaping investment, investment shaping production, and production shaping what buyers were offered in the showroom.

That’s a very different sequence.

Washington may have dismantled the federal EV mandate. But unless Congress also closes California’s regulatory back door, the pressure that reshaped the auto industry could return under a future administration.

The question isn’t whether electric vehicles have a future. They do.

The question is whether consumers or regulators get to decide how quickly that future arrives.

​Auto industry, California, Clean air act, Electric vehicles, Epa, Ev mandate, Congressional review act, Gavin newsom, Automotive 

New York has long styled itself as a national champion of tolerance and individual freedom. Yet when it comes to one of the oldest civil liberties in American life — the freedom to live according to one’s conscience — the Empire State is moving in the opposite direction.

The 2026 Religious Liberty in the States index, a data-driven investigation published by the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy, measures how hard state governments work to protect the basic right of conscience. New York, it seems, works overtime to achieve the exact opposite.

A genuinely civilized society accommodates honest differences rather than requiring total ideological agreement.

Dead last

The index measures the everyday points where state power clashes with religious conviction. Can a nurse refuse to assist in genetic counseling that conflicts with her faith? Can a Seventh-day Adventist opt out of mandatory union dues that finance causes he considers morally objectionable? Are citizens safe from religious bias at their local bank, state university, or public school board?

On those fundamental questions, New York performs worse than every other state in the nation. The latest edition places New York dead last — 50th out of 50.

The ranking reflects a governing philosophy that rejects religious liberty whenever it conflicts with progressive policy goals. Rather than treating conscience protections as a cornerstone of a pluralistic society, state leaders regard them as obstacles to be managed or even eliminated. With Zohran Mamdani and his political allies continuing to push an aggressive far-left agenda, protections for religious beliefs are increasingly treated as hazardous waste requiring active containment.

RELATED: Euthanasia and the lie of the ‘good death’

Mininyx Doodle/Getty Images

Death drive

The ranking isn’t merely academic. On the very day the report was released, four orders of Catholic nuns and several Catholic health care ministries were back in federal court challenging New York’s assisted-suicide law, arguing that it would force them to violate their religious convictions by participating in the process of ending patients’ lives.

Backed by the religious liberty legal group Becket, the plaintiffs in Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm v. James had asked the court to block the law before it takes effect on Aug. 5. On Friday, they won an important early victory when New York agreed not to enforce the law against the ministries while the case proceeds. Without that protection, the plaintiffs argued, religious health care providers who refused to facilitate assisted suicide could face steep financial penalties, the loss of professional licenses, and even criminal prosecution.

At the same time the RLS rankings were published, four orders of Catholic nuns and several Catholic health care ministries filed a federal lawsuit challenging New York’s newest assisted-suicide law. Their complaint centers on being forced to participate in ending human life in violation of their faith.

The most vulnerable

For generations, Catholic ministries throughout New York have cared for the most vulnerable. The Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm, the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, the Missionary Sisters of St. Benedict, and the Little Sisters of the Poor have devoted decades to serving the sick, the elderly, and the dying. They believe that every human life has inherent dignity and requires loving care until the very end.

The state’s legal arm operates with total disregard for that history. When the New York Court of Appeals decided Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio in 2006, forcing religious employers to pay for prescription contraceptive coverage in their health plans, the court established a precedent that statutory mandates routinely override religious objections. The current assisted-suicide mandate pushes that line of warped logic into literal life-and-death territory.

The First Amendment exists precisely because early Americans recognized that government inevitably abuses power when it forces citizens to violate their deepest beliefs as the price of participating in public life. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, declaring that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” That principle laid the foundation for the American constitutional order.

Existential fight

That standard served the country remarkably well for over two centuries. Religious hospitals, schools, charities, adoption agencies, and social service organizations routinely fill massive gaps that state agencies lack the administrative capacity to manage. These groups strengthen their communities precisely because they stay true to their values. Forcing them to compromise those values undermines their work and ultimately leaves the most vulnerable with nowhere else to turn.

Supporters of New York’s policies claim that eliminating religious exemptions promotes equality. But that is utter nonsense. Equality achieved through state coercion inevitably creates an oppressive, standardized public square. A genuinely civilized society accommodates honest differences rather than requiring total ideological agreement.

The assisted-suicide litigation now before the federal courts represents the latest collision in this existential fight. Government forces operating with zero regulatory pushback tend to expand their reach until an independent judiciary steps in to draw a hard line.

The expansion of state power at the expense of individual conscience should alarm every reader. Today’s regulatory target is a collection of Catholic nuns running eldercare facilities. Tomorrow, the same administrative apparatus could target another faith community, another profession, or another belief system that conflicts with the prevailing political orthodoxy.

Religious liberty serves an essential purpose in the United States. It prevents state power from controlling what you think and how you live. Let’s hope these sisters win their legal challenge. Because a win for them is a win for the everyday, decent American.

​Catholic ministries, Catholic nuns, Civil liberties, First amendment, Individual freedom, New york, Public life, Religious freedom, Religious liberty, Assisted suicide law, Euthanasia, Lifestyle, Faith 

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is passionate about protecting American culture — and that includes the roadside fever dream that is Buc-ee’s gas station.

“They have a HomeGoods store. They sell barbecue. They have beef jerky. They have everything you could ever want and the cleanest freaking restrooms you’ll ever see in your life. Like, Buc-ee’s is a national treasure,” she gushes.

But it seems not everyone shares Sara’s love for the Texas-sized travel center. British-American comedian John Oliver devoted a segment of his show “Last Week Tonight” to criticizing Buc-ee’s for suing smaller businesses over trademark issues involving beaver imagery and similar names. He even launched a parody “Buc-Off” merch line featuring a squirrel mascot and dared the chain to sue him.

“Buc-ee’s should be careful here because as one legal expert has said, ‘The more you do this, the more you might run into somebody who has the means or the will to fight with you about.’ That is where we come in because it turns out we very much have the will to get into a fight with Buc-ee’s,” Oliver said, before debuting his new “Buc-Off” brand and merch line.

“If any gas station chain out there has an issue with our new logo and products and wants to get lawyers involved, then you know what? Bring it the f**k on,” he taunted.

Calling Oliver a “British clown,” Sara retorts, “Imagine having so little material that you’re like, ‘You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to pick a fight with Buc-ee’s’ … Over what? Buc-ee’s protecting their own IP?”

“He’s saying indirectly he’s supporting small companies that are trying to profit off of Buc-ee’s image and likeness by imitating a successful brand,” she adds.

Sara sees Oliver’s stunt as yet another attempt by a foreigner to destroy American culture.

“I find it very offensive he’s going to come into my country and speak the way that he speaks and go after one of the biggest national treasures in this entire country,” she says.

But it’s not just offensive — it’s hypocritical too.

“Let me just show you, John Oliver, your own parent company — the company that owns HBO, where you can find his sh***y program. Warner Brothers Discovery sued an AI firm for Batman Superman copyright infringement,” Sara points out.

“So rules for thee, but not for me,” she quips.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Bucees, Comedian, Last week tonight, Sara gonzales, Blazetv show, John oliver 

At least one sheriff in New York state is pushing back against a new law forcing law enforcement agencies to stop cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Democratic New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James issued an order on July 24 requiring 12 local law enforcement agencies to terminate their agreements with ICE.

‘All I can say about immigration-related issues is that if there is a very dangerous person in this jail, and the expectation is that I’m going to release that person back out into the community, I’m not doing that.’

Broome County Sheriff Fred Akshar excoriated the order in a media briefing where he called politicians in the state capital hypocrites.

“It is becoming increasingly … frustrating, you know, to listen to the edicts and, you know, the white noise coming from, again, the political class in Albany,” Akshar said. “I would like to think that the vast majority of New Yorkers understand that the political class in Albany continues to destroy the great state of New York.”

Akshar said he would have to comply with the law ending 287(g) programs in the state by Aug. 25 but indicated that he would continue to cooperate with ICE in other ways.

“And you have policy after policy after policy as it pertains to public safety that continues to put criminals over law-abiding New Yorkers,” he added. “And that is frustrating. So the reality is this: Whether or not I agree or disagree with a law that has been authored by the legislature and signed by the governor, my responsibility is to enforce the law.”

RELATED: Dem. Gov. Hochul says NY college campuses will be offered as emergency shelters for NYC illegal immigrants

“All I can say about immigration-related issues is that if there is a very dangerous person in this jail, and the expectation is that I’m going to release that person back out into the community, I’m not doing that,” he added.

Broome County is located in the Southern Tier of the state and includes about 195,000 residents.

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

​Law enforcement, New york, Sheriffs, Illegal immigration, Immigration and customs enforcement, Politics 

Spanish authorities say at least 34 people have died during the sudden and startling invasion of the tiny Spanish territory of Ceuta in Morocco.

Reports initially said thousands of people were overrunning the small province in northern Africa, but authorities have since said that the invasion grew to tens of thousands of migrants.

‘Ceuta is a Spanish city, and what happened yesterday deserves our full reproach, our condemnation at the strongest possible level of rejection, condemnation and consideration as deplorable.’

Spain’s Ministry of the Interior said about 25,000 migrants had been expelled from Ceuta back to Morocco and 150 migrants were being removed per minute.

Ceuta’s president, Juan Jesús Vivas, said about 60,000 migrants had overrun the province and also reported the official number of those dead so far.

He went on to call the situation “absolutely unsustainable” and criticized the government’s response as action “taken too late and insufficiently.”

Despite the claims of the interior ministry, some videos on social media apparently show the migrants continuing to stream in while troops look on.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez referred to the invasion as an “attack” on his country and “a violation of Spain’s territorial integrity” at a news conference Friday.

“Ceuta is a Spanish city, and what happened yesterday deserves our full reproach, our condemnation at the strongest possible level of rejection, condemnation and consideration as deplorable.”

RELATED: Mamdani vows to protect migrants in apparent DEFIANCE of Supreme Court ruling on TPS

Adri Salido/Getty Images

Some suspect that the invasion was sparked by a Spanish Supreme Court decision which found that migrants crossing by land could be expelled without due process, but those who entered the country by sea required documentation before they were deported.

The U.S. State Dept. also issued a statement decrying the illegal crossings into Spain.

“The United States stands with the people of Spain, and all Europeans, against this egregious violation of their sovereignty and human rights,” the statement read.

“This unacceptable incident is the direct result of the Spanish Government’s deliberate efforts to enable and facilitate mass illegal migration into Europe,” the agency added. “We are considering actions to defend Americans at home and abroad from this threat and stand ready to assist other European allies considering similar options.”

RELATED: ‘Absolute chaos’: THOUSANDS of migrants OVERRUN border into Spain from Morocco — at least 9 people dead

France 24 reported that most of the migrants were Moroccan and were seeking jobs in Europe. Migrants told them it took up to four hours to swim into Ceuta from Morocco.

A local workers’ association leader told CBS News it had become a major humanitarian crisis with thousands of migrants, including unaccompanied children, sleeping in parks and on the sidewalks.

Sánchez accused “human trafficking mafias” of exploiting the ruling by the Supreme Court.

“This demands one of the strongest condemnations, particularly of the human trafficking mafias that deceive many young people, many of whom find death, whether in the ocean or at this border,” he added.

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

​Mass migration, Europe, Spain, Morocco, Invasion, Politics, Ceuta 

This week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discussed with Michelle Obama, of all people, the importance of justices appearing impartial — and so far, the reactions to their conversation have been just about what you’d expect.

She told the hosts on the Wednesday episode of “IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson” that “we all have to believe that there is a judicial system that is going to be fair, that is going to be neutral, that when you bring your dispute to the court, that judge doesn’t have any pre-existing stake in the particular issue.”

‘Can’t make this up.’

It’s a surprising take, considering Jackson’s background.

For one thing, former President Joe Biden explicitly chose Jackson for the Supreme Court on the basis of her race and sex, though she said during her confirmation hearing that she could not define “woman” because she’s “not a biologist.”

Jackson has also made a habit of penning bias-saturated jeremiads that have in some cases been extreme enough to raise the eyebrows of even other liberals on the bench. For instance, she:

insinuated in her lone dissenting opinion in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees that President Donald Trump was some sort of power-hungry menace and that those on the bench who failed to stop his “wrecking ball” were sycophantic enablers whose decision was both “hubristic and senseless”;claimed in her dissenting opinion for Trump v. CASA Inc. that the Trump administration’s request to address universal injunctions — which the high court found “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts” — amounted to a request “to engage in unlawful behavior”;accused her colleagues in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard of “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” for their colorblind approach and claimed that race-based college admissions address “the well-documented ‘intergenerational transmission of inequality’ that still plagues our citizenry” to the “benefit of us all”; andechoed LGBT ideologues in her lone dissenting opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, claiming that “a robust professional consensus now acknowledges that sexual orientations and gender identities range widely” and that reality-affirming therapy for trans-identifying kids was ineffective and harmful.

Despite these opinions, Jackson and Obama seem to believe that Jackson has been a relatively neutral jurist.

RELATED: Platner’s replacement in Maine is a family man — just not in the way voters might expect

Obama pressed Jackson about whether she has to closely monitor her exposure to news, media, and other content “so that there isn’t a bias.”

After noting that certain individuals employed at the court screen her invitations for various appearances and events “to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts,” Jackson replied that “there are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach.”

“And, so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid,” the Biden nominee continued. “So there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason. News sources, I think, you know, I don’t have a lot of time — unfortunately, you know — but I do, you know, the normal, general media sources are made available, and I think it’s harder when you’re talking about — there’s so much social media now.”

Jackson’s expression of concern about bias and perceptions of bias while in the company of a rank partisan like Michelle Obama struck some critics as insincere or at the very least tone-deaf.

House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) highlighted the cognitive dissonance, writing, “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says SCOTUS must avoid even the appearance of political bias … while appearing on Michelle Obama’s podcast.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wrote, “Ketanji Brown Jackson finds a way to inject political bias into just about everything she does. Whether it’s attending the Grammys, joining Michelle Obama’s podcast, or refusing to define the word woman, she couldn’t care less about remaining impartial.”

“DEI hire justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says she’s careful about which public engagements she accepts because she has to be impartial … As she appears on MICHELLE OBAMA’s podcast,” Libs of TikTok tweeted. “Can’t make this up.”

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

​Joe biden, Ketanji brown jackson, Marsha blackburn, Michelle obama, Us supreme court, Politics 

Virginia Democrats are welcoming criminals back to the ballot box.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) has restored voting rights to 66,085 felons in her first six months in office. That’s 56,000 more than former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) restored during his entire four-year tenure, according to the official annual reports filed by the secretary of the commonwealth.

‘A shameful relic of our Jim Crow past.’

“I’m proud that — after contending with my predecessor’s efforts to deny Virginians their fundamental rights — we have restored the rights of more than 66,000 Virginians who have served their time,” Spanberger said in a Friday press release. “These Virginians deserve the right to use their vote, make their voices heard, and be recognized as contributing citizens to our Commonwealth and country.”

Spanberger’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Under Youngkin, applicants were required to submit a formal Restoration of Rights form detailing whether they had completed all terms of incarceration, were on probation or parole, or had been convicted of a violent offense.

Felons were also asked if they had “paid all fines, fees, and restitution” or were currently paying them, according to court filings.

Spanberger’s administration axed those safeguards.

RELATED: Illegal immigrant allegedly attacks Virginia police — after dodging persecution for allegedly choking his wife

JASON REDMOND/AFP/Getty Images

The new team “re-established processes to both review applications and proactively identify — and restore the rights of — Virginians who have lost their right to vote” and is using “a streamlined, online system that removed unnecessary questions added during the Youngkin administration,” according to the press release.

The removed questions included the requirement to report probation status and fine repayment.

The governor also instructed Secretary of the Commonwealth Candi Mundon King to expand “proactive identification” of eligible ex-convicts.

Current eligibility is determined by whether a person has been convicted of a felony and is no longer incarcerated.

“By giving these Virginians back their ability to make an impact at the local, state, and national levels, we are empowering our neighbors to take hold of their second chance,” Spanberger said. “This fall, voters can cast their ballots for Virginia to no longer strip so many of our neighbors of their fundamental rights — a shameful relic of our Jim Crow past.”

Virginia voters will decide in November whether to pass a constitutional amendment automatic restoration of voting rights for released felon inmates.

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

​Virginia, Abigail spanberger, Democratic party, Voter rolls, Politics, Felons